Clouds are moving higher, subtropical dry zones expanding, according to satellite analysis

Clouds are moving higher, subtropical dry zones expanding, according to satellite analysis
Global cloud patterns are shown. Credit: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

A Scripps Institution of Oceanography at University of California San Diego-led research team analyzing satellite cloud records has found that the cloudy storm tracks on Earth are moving toward the poles and subtropical dry zones are expanding. Cloud tops are also moving higher in the atmosphere.

The record confirms computer climate models that have predicted these changes to have taken place during the past several decades as a consequence of the accumulation of societally generated greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

"What this paper brings to the table is the first credible demonstration that the cloud changes we expect from and theory are currently happening," said study lead author Joel Norris, a climate researcher at Scripps.

With the simultaneous roles play in cooling and heating the planet - reflecting back to space but also trapping solar energy in their structures - clouds are among the most important variables in climate.

Their complex behavior has been one of the biggest areas of uncertainty for scientists attempting to understand current climate and forecast future trends.

Inconsistent satellite imaging of clouds over the decades has been a hindrance to improving scientists' understanding. Records of cloudiness from satellites originally designed to monitor weather are prone to spurious trends related to changes in satellite orbit, instrument calibration, degradation of sensors over time, and other factors.

When the researchers removed such artifacts from the record, the data exhibited large-scale patterns of cloud change between the 1980s and 2000s that are consistent with climate model predictions for that time period, including poleward retreat of mid-latitude storm tracks, expansion of subtropical dry zones, and increasing height of the highest . These cloud changes enhance absorption of solar radiation by the earth and reduce emission of thermal radiation to space. This exacerbates global warming caused by increasing concentrations.

The researchers drew from several independent corrected satellite records in their analysis. They concluded that the behavior of clouds they observed is consistent with a human-caused increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and a planet-wide recovery from two major volcanic eruptions, the 1982 El Chichón eruption in Mexico and the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines. Aerosols ejected from those eruptions had a net cooling effect on the planet for several years after they took place.

Barring another volcanic event of this sort, the scientists expect the cloud trends to continue in the future as the planet continues to warm due to increasing .

The study, "Evidence for Climate Change in the Satellite Cloud Record," appears July 11 in the journal Nature.


Explore further

Atmospheric aerosols can significantly cool down climate

More information: Evidence for Climate Change in the Satellite Cloud Record, DOI: 10.1038/nature18273
Journal information: Nature

Citation: Clouds are moving higher, subtropical dry zones expanding, according to satellite analysis (2016, July 11) retrieved 23 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2016-07-clouds-higher-subtropical-zones-satellite.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
209 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Jul 11, 2016
If you think AGW is real, turn off your A/C, or risk being called a fraud.

Jul 11, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jul 11, 2016
Interesting...High clouds cause warming

Jul 12, 2016
If you think AGW is real, turn off your A/C, or risk being called a fraud.

Yep, stoops to troll bait. Pathetic.

Jul 12, 2016
If you think AGW is real, turn off your A/C, or risk being called a fraud.

Shooti antigoracle sock shoots the potty miss and right into his sock's face, sock monkey shooti's been a fraud on here for over 10 years.

Jul 12, 2016
As opposed to you, that are a fraud, just calling yourself a worthwhile human being.

A1 Anti, monkey goracle i r baboon dancing through the trees like there's no tomorrow (as always)

Jul 12, 2016
There's more thermal pressure in the central latitudes causing the atmosphere to bulge, forcing clouds/weather to slide further north due to the Coriolis force.

With the simultaneous roles clouds play in cooling and heating the planet - reflecting solar radiation back to space but also trapping solar energy in their structures - clouds are among the most important variables in climate.


My question is this, if the cloud cover starts to concentrate closer to the poles, wouldn't we eventually have a localized cooling effect (due to reflection) which would aid in ice growth?

Jul 12, 2016
"Shootist", I have no A/C, but do have an EV and solar electric panels to power my house and car.

How about you? Still driving that clattering stinking Diesel?

Jul 12, 2016
We will have to continue the solarization of the grid and support it with other alternative power sources. The trend of super-efficient and self-supporting buildings is also making an effect.

Nuclear power is shutting down in the United States, needing subsidies just to keep already paid-off nukes online:
http://www.utilit.../422429/

We have to replace those with clean power which makes no radioactive waste.

Jul 12, 2016
"Shootist", I have no A/C, but do have an EV and solar electric panels to power my house and car
Lie and lie. Come on george, provide some evidence you have these things besides photos of your neighbors roof, or quit claiming you own them.

Because evidence says you dont.

What, do you think the people (excuse me - goobers) here are stupid?

Of course you do.

Jul 12, 2016
What is the point of this comment section anymore? Is there ever actually scientific discussion or just a bunch of whine asses whine assing?

Jul 12, 2016
I have been trying to get the personal attacks off the forum.

Jul 12, 2016
I have been trying to get the personal attacks off the forum.
-And so many more have been trying to get liars and fact-forgers like yourself off this forum.

Jul 13, 2016
"Interesting...High clouds cause warming"

That depends... It isn't so much the high altitude clouds as the clouds going to the high latitudes; IE closer to the poles.

Clouds absorb energy and they reflect energy. The more energy they absorb, the further they can travel toward the poles before they dump the water as precipitation. As far as they travel, they carry the heat energy with them.

Jul 13, 2016
"My question is this, if the cloud cover starts to concentrate closer to the poles, wouldn't we eventually have a localized cooling effect (due to reflection) which would aid in ice growth?"

No. As the clouds cool they give up the latent heat through condensation and precipitation. This causes localized warming. Polar ice pack formation needs cloudless night sky that permits cooling through radiation.

Jul 13, 2016
Their complex behavior has been one of the biggest areas of uncertainty for scientists attempting to understand current climate and forecast future trends.

Obviously the author of the article didn't get the memo, the science is settled.
When the researchers removed such artifacts from the record, the data exhibited large-scale patterns of cloud change between the 1980s and 2000s that are consistent with climate model predictions for that time period

Basically after cherry picking the data they were able to match the predictions...

Jul 13, 2016
Basically after cherry picking the data they were able to match the predictions...

The heart of AGW Cult "science". If reality defies your prophesies then "fix" reality.

Jul 13, 2016
Are the clouds getting higher? Or bigger?

Jul 13, 2016
Basically after cherry picking the data they were able to match the predictions...

The heart of AGW Cult "science". If reality defies your prophesies then "fix" reality.


Yesterday monkey goracle cherrypicked statistics trying to lie about it's interpretations, but that's due to your inability to understand science, science change evidence is all over the science forums.

Jul 13, 2016
Their complex behavior has been one of the biggest areas of uncertainty for scientists attempting to understand current climate and forecast future trends.

Obviously the author of the article didn't get the memo, the science is settled.
When the researchers removed such artifacts from the record, the data exhibited large-scale patterns of cloud change between the 1980s and 2000s that are consistent with climate model predictions for that time period

Basically after cherry picking the data they were able to match the predictions...


Nope you and your ir baboon sock cherrypick data on a daily basis, Scientific Evidence for climate change is fact with unlimied proof to Back it up.

Jul 13, 2016
Polar ice pack formation needs cloudless night sky that permits cooling through radiation.

Isn't it already cold enough in the winter at higher latitudes? Also like you mentioned there will like be more precip therefore adding to any icepack.

Jul 13, 2016
Scientific Evidence for climate change is fact with unlimied proof to Back it up.

Scientific evidence shows the climate has always changed and will always do so, including in the present.

Jul 13, 2016
And people have always gotten diseases, so we should not do anything about them?

Jul 13, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jul 13, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jul 13, 2016
And people have always gotten diseases, so we should not do anything about them?

So your goal is to end climate change?

*shaking my head is disbelief of the stupidity on display...*

Jul 13, 2016
Be careful to not let it fall off.

I guess you propose we do nothing? Is it because god did it to us and we should "respect" that?

Jul 13, 2016
Scientific Evidence for climate change is fact with unlimited proof to Back it up.

Scientific evidence shows the climate has always changed and will always do so, including in the present.


gee no kidding monkey goracle sock, normal climate change is not what we are focusing on here , it's how man made climate change worsen the situation.
The problem is, you ie antigoracle monkey sock alone with your 30 odd puppets cannot intepret the science,
hence driving off course yet again, you need a license to drive, just as you need brain to read and understand science.

Jul 13, 2016
this goracle guy and his sock puppets has been showed out as such a fraud, thanks helo

Jul 13, 2016
Another prediction by teh evul simulations turns out to be correct.

And the deniers keep on denying.

Now they're denying satellite data, which they previously used to pretend it's getting cooler because they don't know the difference between the troposphere and the stratosphere.

Jul 13, 2016
Another prediction by teh evul simulations turns out to be correct.

And the deniers keep on denying.

Now they're denying satellite data, which they previously used to pretend it's getting cooler because they don't know the difference between the troposphere and the stratosphere.

Not to mention EU'ers and Ionosphere....

Jul 13, 2016
Alarmist Heads in the Clouds
https://rclutz.wo...-clouds/

Jul 13, 2016
I guess you propose we do nothing? Is it because god did it to us and we should "respect" that?

No, because you nor any of your "experts" are gods or have the ability to . I don't pretend you nor your "experts" have a fucking clue as to what will occur in the future other than continuous change. I don't pretend to believe that the current climate sciences have a complete understanding of what drives climate and weather. I don't pretend to think any "fixes" that are employed won't create more problems than the status quote. I don't pretend to believe that a trace gas has the profound effects in such a chaotic system that is otherwise clearly driven by h2o and the Sol. I don't pretend to believe politicians will "fix" this through taxation. I don't pretend humans are gods (nor do I believe in gods) nor do I pretend to believe humanity can control the climate. There may be an era when we can have limited control over local weather, but not the climate. That's the Sun's domain.

Jul 13, 2016
So many @CD86 statements that are wrong. Just picking a couple:

I don't pretend to believe that the current climate sciences have a complete understanding of what drives climate and weather.
They don't have to, nor does any geophysicist claim they do. Two lies for the price of one.

I don't pretend to believe that a trace gas has the profound effects in such a chaotic system that is otherwise clearly driven by h2o and the Sol.
If it's only driven by water and the Sun, how come it varies so much? This is duh.

I don't pretend humans are gods (nor do I believe in gods) nor do I pretend to believe humanity can control the climate.
26 billion tons a year. 'Nuff said.

I'll leave the rest for others if they care enough.

Meanwhile, @antigore is out of evidence and knows it.

Jul 14, 2016
If it's only driven by water and the Sun, how come it varies so much?

Define "so much". However you want to twist it, these are the main cyclical players in climate change, but also to be included are the Milankovitch cycles.

History shows us that yes, at the end of an ice age, CO2 rises and levels off for a period of ~15-20k years. Yet there is no proof that the CO2 was the driving factor of the warming. It seems more likely, especially considering what we know now about the levels of GHGs released from melting glaciers and permafrost, that the CO2 increase is just a byproduct of a heating world. Add in the fact that a warmer world will see more large forest fires, which without man would devastate huge swaths of forest.

Are we helping the situation with our polluting? Absolutely not, we need to be much better. Fossil fuels aren't the answer. But let's not pretend the science is settled. If it were, climate change wouldn't account for a $22B (and growing) industry.

Jul 14, 2016
We do not care what cantdrive believes, we care about science, facts and the truth. Your feelings are irrelevant in the face of the evidence.

Jul 14, 2016
What of my comment was non-factual? Please do tell.

Oh that's right, you just blab on here never adding anything of substance

Jul 14, 2016
Define "so much".
Ice ages.

Yet there is no proof that the CO2 was the driving factor of the warming.
Nobody ever said it was. What's been said is that as a glaciation ends, due to the Milankovic cycles, zooplankton bloom and make more CO2, and this raises the temperature more than the Milankovic cycle can account for.

You've heard of Milankovic cycles, right?

If you're going to criticize the theory, don't you think you ought to actually find out how it works first, instead of making up "just so" stories about it?

Jul 14, 2016
First sign that someone doesn't have a good rebuttal; you start attacking the other persons knowledge of a subject.

Second sign, you repeat what was already said: Ice age, Milankovitch, CO2 producers.

BTW, you know that the zooplankton blooms only happen once glaciers start to melt and release nitrates into the ocean.
http://plankt.oxf...027.full

What's been said is that as a glaciation ends, due to the Milankovic cycles

And how does this occur? Such a drastic change in climate in such a short time can't be described by simply the position of the planet in relation to the Sun. The only way for such a change is to include the ocean's current oscillations(as they are the main heat transports) such as the PDO and AMOC.

Then the question is what causes the oscillations to change? The only logical and repeatable thing is the sun and it's various cycles.

Jul 14, 2016
First sign that someone doesn't have a good rebuttal; you start attacking the other persons knowledge of a subject.
First sign of a crank: they start pretending that whoever they're criticizing has made claims they didn't. Like that CO2 is the only factor responsible for the end of a glaciation. Like you just did.

Second sign of a crank: they think everything is due to one and only one cause.

Such a drastic change in climate in such a short time can't be described by simply the position of the planet in relation to the Sun.
Errr, yes, that's why CO2 is required. Duh.

Jul 14, 2016
Alarmist Heads in the Clouds
https://rclutz.wo...-clouds/


all i see is i r baboon with his head up you know where ;)

Jul 14, 2016
First sign that someone doesn't have a good rebuttal; you start attacking the other persons knowledge of a subject.
First sign of a crank: they start pretending that whoever they're criticizing has made claims they didn't. Like that CO2 is the only factor responsible for the end of a glaciation. Like you just did.

Second sign of a crank: they think everything is due to one and only one cause.

Such a drastic change in climate in such a short time can't be described by simply the position of the planet in relation to the Sun.
Errr, yes, that's why CO2 is required. Duh.

Guess what i caught monkey goracle doing:

https://66.media...._400.gif

Jul 14, 2016
The only way for such a change is to include the ocean's current oscillations(as they are the main heat transports) such as the PDO and AMOC.

Supported by the 800 year lag of CO2 with temperature.

Jul 14, 2016
Supported by the 800 year lag of CO2 with temperature.
Ummmm, you forgot about the zooplankton again.

Duh.

Jul 14, 2016
Supported by the 800 year lag of CO2 with temperature.
Ummmm, you forgot about the zooplankton again.

Duh.

Please enlighten us retard, how zooplankton effect an 800 year lag in CO2. Better yet, find us a peer reviewed study that confirms this.

Jul 14, 2016
Like that CO2 is the only factor responsible for the end of a glaciation. Like you just did.

When did I say this?

they think everything is due to one and only one cause

Huh?

M cycles place Earth in proper location -> Sun's energy cycle forces oceanic current regime change -> warm equatorial waters flow to the polar regions (warming begins) -> ice caps/permafrost start to melt releasing CO2-> zooplankton blooms start due to feeding on "glacial milk" releasing more CO2 -> end of ice age

Again, how is that just one cause?

For a college boy you better work on them comprehension skills.

Jul 14, 2016
how zooplankton effect an 800 year lag in CO2.
Because they grow more when it's warmer, like you know after the Milankovic cycle brings warmer temperatures and starts melting the glaciation, and being ZOOplankton they exhale CO2 just like all animals. And it takes 800 years for enough of them to grow and exhale enough CO2 to affect the atmosphere.

All of this is totally duh and you'd already know it if you weren't an idiotic denier. There's nothing new here, this has been known for over a decade. Everybody else knows it; feel free to "use teh google." Good luck with that.

Jul 14, 2016
When did I say this?
Yet there is no proof that the CO2 was the driving factor of the warming.
Now stop lying about what you said, @Scrooball. And stop changing your story and pretending it was what you were saying all along.

I loves me some crank for breakfast.

Jul 14, 2016
Monkey Goracle's been caught up in the zoo for too long, you can see the expression on his face:

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/IjvFVNaGRJk/maxresdefault.jpg


Jul 14, 2016
Tells us retard what do zooplankton feed on in order to grow and exhale all that CO2?

Jul 14, 2016
No retards will answer that question, i know the answer however. Monkey goracle's teets ?

Jul 14, 2016
LOL Helo you are cracking me up, well said.

Jul 14, 2016
what do zooplankton feed on in order to grow and exhale all that CO2?
Debris released by the melting glaciers, duhhh ummm.

Jul 14, 2016
The migration abilities of the majority of zooplankton would further facilitate the transport of recycled carbon from the surface to the bottom of the photic zone or even deeper

Here you go retard, peer reviewed study that show zooplankton transports CO2 to the deep ocean.
http://plankt.oxf...543.full

Jul 14, 2016
peer reviewed study that show zooplankton transports CO2 to the deep ocean.
In 10,000 BCE?

Nope.

You're lying again, @boreacle.

Jul 14, 2016
I said
History shows us that yes, at the end of an ice age, CO2 rises and levels off for a period of ~15-20k years. Yet there is no proof that the CO2 was the driving factor of the warming

I made a statement, I didn't imply that you had said it. I really hope you aren't getting too deep in to student debt with the level of comprehension you are displaying. May I suggest a course in English?

Jul 14, 2016
The last resort of the consummate retard. The forum is littered with him accusing others of lying when they reveal his ignorance. Grow a brain and then get someone with intelligence to read and explain the following to you.
http://www.nature...igration

Jul 14, 2016
I didn't imply that you had said it.
You implied climate scientists had said it.

Perhaps it is *your* reading comprehension that requires work. Or maybe your writing comprehension.

And I work for a living. Not a student, not a geophysicist either, but I know plenty from having watched the nutjob libertardian climate deniers lie for over a decade. So bring it, @Scrooball.

Jul 14, 2016
@boreacle if you can't explain it you're lying again. The last one you claimed told about zooplankton behavior twelve thousand years ago, when it was from a modern study of modern zooplankton; I don't expect anything more from you than that given your track record of lies, misrepresentations, misunderstandings, and insults, and I'm not going to accept it as evidence of anything if you can't understand it yourself.

Jul 14, 2016
You implied climate scientists had said it.

Ya, I implied that climate scientists say that warming is due to CO2, not that it ended glaciation. As I described before there is a much larger process at hand.

Also, when did I deny climate change?

Jul 14, 2016
I implied that climate scientists say that warming is due to CO2
Now? Yes, they do. The fact that CO2 caused warming at the end of the ice age is good evidence that CO2 causes warming. It doesn't mean it's the only thing that can, but it's the only thing that's doing it now.

This is a typical denier argument.

Also, when did I deny climate change?
if the cloud cover starts to concentrate closer to the poles, wouldn't we eventually have a localized cooling effect (due to reflection) which would aid in ice growth?
You're implying that it will "fix itself if we just wait." Another typical denier argument.

You're transparent, @Scrooball.

Jul 14, 2016
The fact that CO2 caused warming at the end of the ice age

Now you're saying it's a fact? Nice contradiction from earlier:
whoever they're criticizing has made claims they didn't. Like that CO2 is the only factor responsible for the end of a glaciation


You're implying that it will "fix itself if we just wait."

Now you're making dumb assumptions. I in fact said the opposite earlier:
Are we helping the situation with our polluting? Absolutely not, we need to be much better. Fossil fuels aren't the answer.


Just because I don't think CO2 is the main cause, doesn't mean it doesn't need to stop. Grow up, err I guess you can't because then you wouldn't be getting paid.

Jul 14, 2016
Nice contradiction from earlier:
Guess you missed that ever-tricky "only" word. More reading comprehension trouble, unless you're trying to lie about what I said and failing miserably.

Just because I don't think CO2 is the main cause,
Actually, just because you think it isn't makes you a denier.

Simple as that.

Jul 14, 2016
Haha you're such an idiot. The first quote came after the second quote, so it makes it even worse. You first denied it then said it was fact.

Actually, just because you think it isn't makes you a denier.

Simple as that.


Ahh so now I get it, I don't conform to your beliefs so I'm a denier. No wonder you have started up such a crusade.

Jul 14, 2016
The last one you claimed told about zooplankton behavior twelve thousand years ago, when it was from a modern study of modern zooplankton

What an astonishing retard and blatant liar.

Jul 14, 2016
I don't conform to your beliefs
Now you're pretending it's a "religion" or some other article of faith. It has nothing to do with belief or faith; it's all about the evidence. And it always was, ever since Hansen brought it up in 1989.

Typical denier.

Here it is, plain and simple: The Earth is getting warmer. It's causing the climate to change. There is only one variable changing and that's CO2 concentration. There is ample evidence and a week hasn't gone by for years when there wasn't more evidence presented. You can deny it all you like, but it's not gonna go away. Get over it, @Scrooball.

Jul 14, 2016
@boreacle, it's not my problem if you're so dumb or such a liar that you present data about today when attempting to refute data about 12,000 years ago, and it's not lying; it's just showing you trying to lie, and like @Scrooball, failing miserably. Next time don't linkspam.

Jul 14, 2016
Because I don't see it your way I'm wrong, I'm not disagreeing that there is climate change. If that's not religious it's at least political, neither of which belong in science.

If you think CO2 is the only changing variable then you are dumber than I thought. The sun has multiple cycles, the oceans are always changing, cloud coverage is shifting(partly because an increase in GCRs), the jetstream is wavering, the magnetosphere is weakening...

But yea CO2 is the only changing variable

Jul 14, 2016
Because I don't see it your way I'm wrong
No. Because you don't agree with ten thousand geophysicists and all the evidence they've accumulated over twenty five years on the cause of the observed temperature increase you're wrong.

It's not about me, and it's a typical denier trick to try to make it about the people having the conversation, not about the evidence.

Meanwhile,
The sun has multiple cycles, the oceans are always changing, cloud coverage is shifting(partly because an increase in GCRs), the jetstream is wavering, the magnetosphere is weakening...
All of which are being continuously observed, and none of which account for the temperature increase, not to mention here you go on a Gish Gallop, another typical denier trick learned from the evolution deniers.

You are still transparent, @Scrooball.

Jul 14, 2016
Where does it state 12000 years ago?
Where is there any scientific publication that show zooplankton behaved differently 12000 years ago?

Jul 14, 2016
You see it the way they do genius, so by disagreeing with you I disagree with them. Hmmm, a loyal follower of people with knowledge, what does that sounds like? You stay in that box old man, wouldn't want you to get out and hurt yourself.


Jul 14, 2016
Where does it state 12000 years ago?
That's when the transition from the prior glaciation to the current interglacial, and that's what we were discussing.

You're lying again, @boreacle.

Jul 14, 2016
You see it the way they do genius, so by disagreeing with you I disagree with them.
That's not nearly as important as the fact you disagree with the evidence.

This is not about personal disagreements. It's about whether your statements are supported by the evidence.

They're not.

That means you're a denier. Simple as that.

You're just trying to keep it personal instead of talking about the evidence. Typical denier trick number 2,364. None of them are going to work; I've seen them all by now.

Jul 14, 2016
Where does it state 12000 years ago?
That's when the transition from the prior glaciation to the current interglacial, and that's what we were discussing.

You're lying again, @boreacle.

So, 12000 years ago the plankton behaved differently?
Care to provide a single scientific paper/theory that supports that.

Jul 14, 2016
I'm not the one who posted an article about present-day behavior in a completely different climate regime, not to mention a completely different ocean chemistry, as if it were evidence of how plankton behaved 12,000 years ago. You are.

It's up to you to provide evidence to support your views, @boracle. Shifting the burden of proof again. Lying again. It never works. Why do you keep doing it? Are you really as stupid as this makes you look?

Jul 14, 2016
Congratulations, you are the most ignorant retard on the forum. I can now put you on ignore.

Jul 14, 2016
It's good to know I'm right and that you acknowledge it. Thanks, @boreacle!

Jul 14, 2016
what do zooplankton feed on in order to grow and exhale all that CO2?
Debris released by the melting glaciers, duhhh ummm.

One last thing retard. Where is your scientific proof of this?

Jul 14, 2016
I don't disagree with the evidence, I'm skeptical about it. A logical mind is supposed to stay skeptical in lieu if other evidence, especially when there are unexplained aspects of a theory.

I know you don't care for new ideas, so any more effort on my part would just be wasted. Troll on Da

Jul 14, 2016
I don't pretend to believe that the current climate sciences have a complete understanding of what drives climate and weather.

They don't have to, nor does any geophysicist claim they do. Two lies for the price of one.

Hmmmmm, ok... And then you follow with a diametrically opposite claim.
All of which are being continuously observed, and none of which account for the temperature increase,

All of them? Every conceivable variable? But you said they don't know everything and in fact you believe they don't need to know. So which is it? Such irony you call people names and claim the high road of "science", yet you demand others should blindly believe (and that is what AGWism is, beliefs) your position regardless of the fact it is based upon ignorant viewpoints. You should be proud of yourself.

Jul 14, 2016
Debris released by the melting glaciers, duhhh ummm.
Where is your scientific proof of this?
Ocean bed cores.

Incidentally it turns out that recent data has shown that there was a lot more CO2 released by the ocean due to rising temperatures during the last glacial-interglacial transition than was previously thought (when I last checked into the matter- about 2009 or so), so the impact estimate from feeding zooplankton has needed to be reduced in order not to get too high a figure in terms of CO2 concentration for the observed amount of warming. I have to thank you for bringing that to my attention.

But to get back to the main point, it doesn't really matter what the source of the CO2 was; the beginning of the melt was the oscillation in the Milankovic cycle, and once the heat had time to percolate through the atmosphere and ocean, CO2 increased.

[contd]

Jul 14, 2016
[contd]
Current estimates are that about half of the temperature increase between the last glaciation and the current interglacial was due to this CO2 increase. And the point is, increasing CO2 makes both the atmosphere and the ocean hotter, and the ocean more acidic. Which is what, you know, that whole thing you've been arguing (and have now been pwnt on about 300 million times) was all about.

Jul 14, 2016
I don't disagree with the evidence
Yet there is no proof that the CO2 was the driving factor of the warming.
Yes, you do. Right there. Your own words.

Did you forget?

Skepticism is one thing; I'm fairly skeptical myself. Denying evidence is not skepticism, it's denial. Things they told us from climate models 25 years ago are coming true, and faster than we'd hoped. It's like when your leg starts to fester and you keep pretending it's not happening.

One thing can stop it: we have to stop pumping 23 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. There just isn't anywhere left to hide.

Luckily, most of the emissions are from only 3 countries; China, the US, and India. Everybody else is below 5%. China emits about twice as much as the US; India about half as much. So it's pretty much on the US and China to do most of the heavy lifting. Russia and Germany can make sizeable contributions; but nobody else is above 2%.

[contd]

Jul 14, 2016
[contd]
So that's where it stands.

I've been advocating nuclear power for China for over a decade, and they're planning it and cancelling coal plants. They're also now into solar in a big way, so that's even better.

The US is moving as fast; we're shutting down coal plants and driving electric vehicles, about as quickly as the markets can absorb either. We're installing solar quite quickly, and doing a lot of wind too.

Now, call me a pessimist again. I think your "skepticism" is a crock, and apparently so do enough US citizens that we're doing something about it. China has seen the light in the tunnel and realized it's a train too, and they also are acting. Even India is cancelling coal plants at a record rate, ones they were going to build. Germany has the Greens; I'm not worried about Germany. The one really hard nut is Russia, and I mean all the implications one cares to draw from that. It's going to come to hard economic sanctions with them, mark my words.

[contd]

Jul 14, 2016
[contd]
But it seems most rational people have decided this is going to be a huge problem, and we're doing something about it. I expect that we'll do more and more as time goes on, and I expect that we will, by the skin of our teeth, avoid utter disaster.

It's a good thing most people are smart enough to listen to the scientists.

Reference for CO2 emissions by country: http://www.statis...e-world/

Nice unbiased source, too. Nothing to do with climate, or even geophysics; it's a statistics site. As I generally say, you can prove global warming with nothing but an almanac and a basic atmospheric physics textbook. Svante Arrhenius figured it out in 1896.

Jul 14, 2016
I don't disagree with the evidence, I'm skeptical about it.


Which mostly just demonstrates you don't know what the word means. Skepticism is the desire for more evidence. If you have evidence and you claim to accept that evidence but still deny the conclusions that can be drawn from it then you're a denier. Because that's literally not what skepticism is.

Claiming to accept the evidence while calling yourself a skeptic just shows the irrational basis of your opinion.

Jul 15, 2016
I don't disagree with the evidence, I'm skeptical about it
@scroof
1- the evidence simply is
2- you are skeptical about the conclusions drawn about the evidence because you accept the media coverage of the deniers claims and assume it's equivalent to the science

you should just read the science
(*not* the articles, blogs and denier sites... the actual journal studies, etc, like Lacis et al, or Francis et al -both validated)
CO2 is the only changing variable
that whole rant is bull and you know it
not one paper (or DaS) has stated that CO2 is the only changing variable, nor that it is the only factor

however, there is plenty of evidence that it is a *major* factor and it's feedback with WV makes it a serious problem

as evidence you should read Lacis et al (i've linked it to you & here more than once)
It's been validated, BTW

feel free to offer a refute if you can

of course it should be equivalent to my evidence, righ

Jul 15, 2016
there was a lot more CO2 released by the ocean due to rising temperatures during the last glacial-interglacial transition than was previously thought

LOL.
So, now it's the ocean. Now fire up that lone neuron you got and let's see if you can recall how they explained the 800 year lag of CO2.

Jul 15, 2016
let's see if you can recall how they explained the 800 year lag of CO2.
Errr, because that's how long it took for the ocean to warm up. Duh.

Here's one of the papers: http://www.climat...1sci.pdf

I thought you had put me on ignore. Looks like you lied again.

Jul 15, 2016
Aaaa monkey goracle.... i see the new Corn grown in your head just popped into pocorn....again
The laugh of the century would behow you explain the evidence to back up your lies....

Do you feel kinda light in the head, it's the helium inside the hollow skull cavity wanting to make you rise.... ;)

Jul 15, 2016
So true LOL well said Da Schneib and Helo, this goracle clown hides in a closet all day anxiously posting hot air on hysorg all day

Jul 15, 2016
let's see if you can recall how they explained the 800 year lag of CO2.
Errr, because that's how long it took for the ocean to warm up. Duh.

Here's one of the papers: http://www.climat...1sci.pdf

I thought you had put me on ignore. Looks like you lied again.

Brays the ignorant jackass. First it was zooplankton feeding on glacial melt debris which took 800 years. Now he's agreeing with what we originally said, that it's the oceans.

the sudden CO2 increase could have been caused by changes in ther- mohaline circulation

Keep braying jackass.

Jul 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jul 15, 2016
let's see if you can recall how they explained the 800 year lag of CO2.
Errr, because that's how long it took for the ocean to warm up. Duh.

Here's one of the papers: http://www.climat...1sci.pdf

I thought you had put me on ignore. Looks like you lied again.

Brays the ignorant jackass. First it was zooplankton feeding on glacial melt debris which took 800 years. Now he's agreeing with what we originally said, that it's the oceans.

the sudden CO2 increase could have been caused by changes in ther- mohaline circulation

Keep braying jackass.

Monkey goracle falling face first off the first serve, i'll throw the first bannana, let's see how quick he bites... :D

Jul 15, 2016
lol helo... this is hilarious

Jul 15, 2016
First it was zooplankton feeding on glacial melt debris which took 800 years. Now he's agreeing with what we originally said, that it's the oceans.
Shrug. Either way, as I said above it's immaterial.

Apparently you don't know what "immaterial" means, or else you're misrepresenting aka lying again. Same ol' same ol' @boreacle.

Jul 15, 2016
LOL.
You just confirmed that you have ZERO credibility and yet you continue to bray...LIAR.
Do you know what "stupid" means...no..how could you...since being the very definition, precludes you from realizing it.
BTW. When I tell you to "keep braying like a jackass", it's not an invitation.

Jul 15, 2016
No evidence again, @boreacle.

You're lying again.

Jul 16, 2016
No evidence again

It is impossible to convince the mouth breather, like you, of it's state, as it's very condition precludes it from comprehending the fact. Thus, all the evidence in the world becomes no evidence. I must apologize for the insults, and offer you my pity.

Jul 16, 2016
It is impossible to convince the mouth breather, like you
Well, it's impossible to convince me of anything against the evidence. It's called skepticism. Most people think it's smart, not stupid, and you yourself claim it, though your constant bias against overwhelming evidence gives that the lie.

Jul 16, 2016
Well, it's impossible to convince me of anything against the evidence.

I know, it's impossible to convince the mouth breather of anything, against the evidence of what it is. You claimed zooplankton was responsible for the 800 year lag in CO2, without providing an iota of scientific evidence, and then brayed like a jackass when given evidence to the contrary. You continued braying until you found a paper, which you were obviously incapable of reading, far less comprehending, since it showed you were wrong. So, what was your response? Do what you mouth breathers do best, shrug it off and continue braying like a jackass.
You still have my pity.

Jul 16, 2016
#Doubling_down is boring, @boreacle. Especially when you're whining "sciensetis can't make up they're minds" because we got more data and made a better hypothesis. The entire point is to make a hypothesis, then test it; that's how we got computers and refrigerators, you know. It really does work. Takes a while, though.

Jul 16, 2016
@DS you are too logical with this Chucky character.
Naaaaawww, patient continued application of logic always wins out in the end. Maybe not with the troll, but with everybody else.

Jul 17, 2016
So the climate models have been predicting these climate changes in advance of those observations that would confirm those changes and now we are observing exactly those same climate changes those climate models had predicted.
I think that's an excellent vindication of those climate models and a strong indicator (amongst others) that the climate models are at least broadly on the right track.
I am impressed.
And bear in mind that climate models are becoming ever more sophisticated and evolving and improving all the time.

Jul 27, 2016
So the climate models have been predicting these climate changes in advance of those observations that would confirm those changes and now we are observing exactly those same climate changes those climate models had predicted.
I think that's an excellent vindication of those climate models and a strong indicator (amongst others) that the climate models are at least broadly on the right track.
I am impressed.
And bear in mind that climate models are becoming ever more sophisticated and evolving and improving all the time.

I like this comment so much, I want to quote it just to bring it forward. This is EXACTLY right!

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more