Using one of jg's reference links, C3 Headlines, I used one of the articles to illustrate one of the techniques that they employ to cast doubt that AGW is real. They pull a quote from an article and point to the fact that the IPCC models are faulty and therefore AGW isn't happening.
Experts Now Concur: IPCC Climate Models Fail Miserably At Predicting Cloud Formation & CoverageQuote:
Read here and here. IPCC climate models and those of major countries are designed to fail with significant predictability. Why?
Besides all climate models being purposefully designed to focus on human CO2 emissions as the cause of global warming, none of the climate models are able to simulate cloud impact and cloud coverage correctly (or even with a modicum of accuracy). Clouds are beyond even the most powerful computers and virtual simulations, which means the climate models will always produce incorrect results moving forward. As a prominent scientist from the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research recently stated:
Quote:
"The scientific community is uncertain about how the effects of clouds will change in the future."
The article that C3 Headlines is referring to in theirs:
Clouds Play X-Factor in Global WarmingQuote:
It is a little-known but significant fact that about 70 percent of the Earth's surface is covered by clouds at any given time. But not all clouds are the same; different types of clouds affect the Earth's climate differently. While some types of clouds help to warm the Earth, others help to cool it.
Currently, all of the Earth's clouds together exert a net cooling effect on our planet. But the large and opposing influences of clouds on the Earth's climate begs the question: What will be the net effect of all of the Earth's clouds on climate as the Earth continues to warm in the future? Will clouds accelerate warming or help offset, or dull, warming? Right now,
Quote:
"The scientific community is uncertain about how the effects of clouds will change in the future," says Hugh Morrison, a scientist at NCAR in Boulder, Colo.
That's why, in 1997, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) described clouds as "the largest source of uncertainty" in predictions of climate change. To reduce this uncertainty and improve predictions of climate change/global warming, scientists are now working to better understand the relationships between clouds and climate......
Most scientists doubt that the net cooling effect of clouds will ever be large enough to completely offset ongoing warming. But
many scientists say that if warming were to increase the number or kind of cooling clouds or decrease the presence of warming clouds, the current net cooling effect of clouds on the Earth's climate would probably increase, and thereby moderate, or offset, ongoing warming.
If warming were to continue, the net cooling effect of clouds would increase and, in a negative feedback loop, perpetuate the moderating force on ongoing warming provided by clouds. The result: The Earth's end-of-the-century temperature may be pulled down toward the lower end of its predicted range.
But, if on the other hand, warming were to increase the number or kind of warming clouds or decrease the presence of cooling clouds, scientists say the current net cooling effect of clouds on the Earth's climate would probably decrease; and an important moderating force on ongoing warming would thereby diminish. The result: The Earth's end-of-the-century temperature may be pushed up towards the upper end of its predicted range.
This resulting rise in temperature would, in a positive feedback loop, tend to promote the formation of even more warming clouds or further reduce the presence of cooling clouds. Either way, temperatures would rise even higher. This temperature increase would tend to further increase the presence of warming clouds or decrease the presence of cooling clouds, and thereby perpetuate the warming cycle.
If you take the time and refer to the original article, you will find that C3 often takes things out of context or misquotes without referring to the conclusion of the article itself. I have done this in previous post of jg to refute his/her posts.
Like it or not, this is a science thread. If you want to refute AGW, then present scientific evidence to the contrary. Don't keep using the same old blogs that aren't based on any science at all. If you want to continue to post from blog links, you will find that people will stop reading anything you post here, and maybe its time to close this link.
