|
Clouds
Oct 22, 2010 15:56:17 GMT 1
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 22, 2010 15:56:17 GMT 1
What a fantastic image from NASA last winter. Does anyone study the many and various types of the cell-like formations of clouds as seen from space? Does anyone know what they signify?
|
|
|
Clouds
Oct 22, 2010 16:34:49 GMT 1
Post by speakertoanimals on Oct 22, 2010 16:34:49 GMT 1
Sorry, but for someone who claims to know so much about reasons for doubting climate change and AGW, this question seems to show an abysmal lack of knowledge as regards what she thinks meterologists, climate scientists, atmospheric scientists and the chaps that launch these satellites to take these pretty pictures DO all day...........................
Hey Mr weather man, rather than making daft statements about CO2, why don't you go and figure out what all those pretty cloud shapes mean.........
|
|
|
Clouds
Oct 22, 2010 20:28:16 GMT 1
Post by carnyx on Oct 22, 2010 20:28:16 GMT 1
STA#1
What an amazing post!
For someon who claims to know so much about science, the post seems to show an abysmal lack of knowledge with regard to basic manners.
You are of course a misanthropist. (oh, BTW, that is polite for 'an evil person')
|
|
|
Clouds
Oct 23, 2010 9:45:28 GMT 1
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 23, 2010 9:45:28 GMT 1
You will find, sim, that STA has a split personality - a resaonably courteous, helpful one and a gratuitously unpleasant one. Draw your own conclusions.
My question about clouds is genuine enough. This photograph shows the amazing variety of clouds. I have no doubt SOMEONE is studying them but are they the ones who are building so-called "climate models" and forecasting climate armageddon on the basis of them? These are the folk who need a little more insight into nature's many and various forms and variability of which clouds are revealing themselves as an ever more important part. The more we know about the nature of clouds the better.
Incidentally, STA, I don't think it is the "weathermen" who are making "daft statements about CO2". Weathermen on the whole are pretty sceptical about CO2 or so I understand.
|
|
|
Clouds
Oct 23, 2010 11:41:10 GMT 1
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 23, 2010 11:41:10 GMT 1
High level clouds (Cirrus) are found at heights greater than 20,000 feet and are composed of ice crystals that come from freezing water droplets. They usually occur during fair weather.
Altocumulus clouds can form rounded masses or parallel bands and usually form by convection from a higher unstable layer. If seen in the morning on a warm and humid day a thunderstorm often follows.
Low-level clouds (Nimbostratus) are dark and usually accompanied by light to medium precipitation. They are composed of mainly water droplets, as their basis are usually below below 6,500 feet. In cold temperatures, however, they may contain ice particles and snow.
Fair weather cumulus clouds look like floating cotton wool and only last for around 5 to 40 minutes. They can develop into towering cumulonimbus clouds linked with violent thunderstorms. They are sustained by bubbles of air from the surface of the earth. As these clouds rise the internal water vapour cools and condenses forming cloud droplets.
|
|
|
Clouds
Oct 23, 2010 12:43:35 GMT 1
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 23, 2010 12:43:35 GMT 1
What I found fascinating, abacus, was the immensely varied cell-like cloud structures revealed by the photograph. Understanding how these are formed and evolve and why would be worthy of study. I am sure it IS being studied by someone somewhere, but I doubt very much it is being done via the patronage of the IPCC. And I am pretty sure the IPCC's favourite climate modellers are not participating in the research despite STA's conviction that everything that can possibly be relevant to weather and climate is already well understood.
If only.
|
|
|
Clouds
Oct 23, 2010 13:31:47 GMT 1
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 23, 2010 13:31:47 GMT 1
What I found fascinating, abacus, was the immensely varied cell-like cloud structures revealed by the photograph. Understanding how these are formed and evolve and why would be worthy of study. I am sure it IS being studied by someone somewhere, but I doubt very much it is being done via the patronage of the IPCC. And I am pretty sure the IPCC's favourite climate modellers are not participating in the research despite STA's conviction that everything that can possibly be relevant to weather and climate is already well understood. If only. I did find this on the net: "Some climatologists predict that a warmer atmosphere will evaporate more water, forming denser and brighter clouds that will reflect more sunlight back into space and cooling things off. However, after three years of observations of low stratus, cumulus and stratocumulus clouds over land, Anthony Del Genio of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies discovered that when air temperatures were higher, clouds were thinner and thus less capable of reflecting sunlight. These thinner clouds occurred regardless of weather conditions, season or time of day." archives.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/10/09/clouds.warming.enn/You probably don't really want to hear this but there it is. It all depends how much store you put in the study done.
|
|
|
Clouds
Oct 23, 2010 14:23:39 GMT 1
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 23, 2010 14:23:39 GMT 1
Land is only 30% of the earth's surface, abacus. It is oceans and clouds which are the source of the greatest unknowns in climate variability.
I don't have confidence in NASA/GISS. The travesties which James Hansen is permitted to promote re the GISS world temperature dataset are not something any reputable institution should tolerate. So I cannot get enthused by this three year study of clouds over land - not that I have time to look at it just now. IF it is the case that warming causes LESS cloud we should be seeing ever less cloud as time goes by since the IPCC ideologues claim that the world is warming, don't they? Who has measured this diminution in clouds?
|
|
|
Clouds
Oct 23, 2010 16:40:18 GMT 1
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 23, 2010 16:40:18 GMT 1
Land is only 30% of the earth's surface, abacus. It is oceans and clouds which are the source of the greatest unknowns in climate variability. I don't have confidence in NASA/GISS. The travesties which James Hansen is permitted to promote re the GISS world temperature dataset are not something any reputable institution should tolerate. So I cannot get enthused by this three year study of clouds over land - not that I have time to look at it just now. IF it is the case that warming causes LESS cloud we should be seeing ever less cloud as time goes by since the IPCC ideologues claim that the world is warming, don't they? Who has measured this diminution in clouds? It's impossible to judge whether their methodology was sufficiently rigorous and I am no expert anyway, but I think you have to take things on face value when NASA are involved, don't you? How can we judge whether such a study was conducted to the highest standards?
|
|
|
Clouds
Oct 23, 2010 20:00:53 GMT 1
Post by carnyx on Oct 23, 2010 20:00:53 GMT 1
Marchesa, STA and her sockpuppet olmy remind me very much of Jean and Spir-an, and specialsamoan of yore. Anyway, kn the sky, I read that clouds are the next brightest thing to the sun, and so must reflect massive amounts of radiation back out into space. If you aren't a member, you should join; cloudappreciationsociety.org/
|
|
|
Clouds
Oct 23, 2010 20:03:23 GMT 1
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 23, 2010 20:03:23 GMT 1
Marchesa, STA and her sockpuppet olmy remind me very much of Jean and Spir-an, and specialsamoan of yore. Anyway, kn the sky, I read that clouds are the next brightest thing to the sun, and so must reflect massive amounts of radiation back out into space. If you aren't a member, you should join; cloudappreciationsociety.org/Did you not read my earlier post?
|
|
|
Clouds
Oct 24, 2010 10:14:33 GMT 1
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 24, 2010 10:14:33 GMT 1
"How can we judge whether such a study was conducted to the highest standards?"
By use of our own reason and experience, abacus. It is a poor kind of epistemology that states we should always believe self-proclaimed "experts".
|
|
|
Clouds
Oct 24, 2010 12:43:00 GMT 1
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 24, 2010 12:43:00 GMT 1
"How can we judge whether such a study was conducted to the highest standards?" By use of our own reason and experience, abacus. It is a poor kind of epistemology that states we should always believe self-proclaimed "experts". But just because some experts do not agree with someone seems a strange basis on which to judge them.
|
|
|
Clouds
Oct 25, 2010 19:53:02 GMT 1
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 25, 2010 19:53:02 GMT 1
Oh, I see! They must be the wrong kind of experts! Are the IPCC's favoured sons the only kosher ones, abacus?
Do YOU believe the author of the study you quoted is able to measure the supposed variation in the planet's cloud cover to the degree necessary to influence climate in the claimed direction, abacus? I don't. My common sense tells me such proclaimed precision is absolute pie in the sky. Just as the global mean temperature is also pie in the sky, measured, as it is, mainly in urban areas and at airpports. One would have thought the appropriate place to measure the world's temperature was where there were least artificial influences, not most. So much for GHCN/GISS expertise!
Your attitude seems to be the ideologist's "prove it's wrong" attitude, whereas mine is the tried and tested scientific "prove it's right" approach.
I really don't understand why you think it is impossible for lay people to have a grasp of the probablities of this sort of research being correct, especially given the track record of the main protagonists of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming - people like James Hansen, Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Rajendra Pachauri and John Holdren, Obama's "Climate Czar", described facetiously as being superbly qualified in "wrongology" and nothing else.
|
|
|
Clouds
Oct 25, 2010 19:59:28 GMT 1
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 25, 2010 19:59:28 GMT 1
Oh, I see! They must be the wrong kind of experts! Are the IPCC's favoured sons the only kosher ones, abacus? Do YOU believe the author of the study you quoted is able to measure the supposed variation in the planet's cloud cover to the degree necessary to influence climate in the claimed direction, abacus? I don't. My common sense tells me such proclaimed precision is absolute pie in the sky. Just as the global mean temperature is also pie in the sky, measured, as it is, mainly in urban areas and at airpports. One would have thought the appropriate place to measure the world's temperature was where there were least artificial influences, not most. So much for GHCN/GISS expertise! Your attitude seems to be the ideologist's "prove it's wrong" attitude, whereas mine is the tried and tested scientific "prove it's right" approach. I really don't understand why you think it is impossible for lay people to have a grasp of the probablities of this sort of research being correct, especially given the track record of the main protagonists of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming - people like James Hansen, Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Rajendra Pachauri and John Holdren, Obama's "Climate Czar", described facetiously as being superbly qualified in "wrongology" and nothing else. You see, the problem is for every 'expert' you cite I and others can cite another 'expert' who holds a contrary opinion. Where does all this lead to, it seems quite a pointless exercise.
|
|