The Reference List:

[1] Carbonic Acid Formation in Clouds:
http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/slides/climate/weathering/cloud.html
[2] Volcanoes and Climate:
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php references:
[2a] Allard, P., 1992, Global emissions of helium-3 by subaerial volcanism: Geophysical Research Letters, v. 19, n. 14, p. 1479-1481.
[2b] Gerlach, T.M., 2010, Volcanic versus anthropogenic carbon dioxide: The missing science: EARTH, v. 55, n. 7, p. 87.
[2c] Gerlach, T.M., 1991, Present-day CO2 emissions from volcanoes: Transactions of the American Geophysical Union (EOS), v. 72, p. 249 and 254-255.
[2d] Gerlach, T.M., McGee, K.A., Elias, T., Sutton, A.J., and Doukas, M.P., 2002, Carbon dioxide emission rate of Kīlauea Volcano: Implications for primary magma and the summit reservoir: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 107, n. B9, p. ECV3-1 – ECV3-15, 2189, doi: 10.1029/2001JB000407.
[2e] Kerrick, D.M., 2001, Present and past non-anthropogenic CO2 degassing from the solid Earth: Reviews of Geophysics, v. 39, n. 4, p. 565-585.
[2f] Le Quéré, C., et al., 2009, Trends in the sources and sinks of carbon dioxide: Nature Geoscience, v. 297, n. 12, p. 831-836, doi:10.1038/ngeo689.
[2g] Marty, B., and I.N. Tolstikhin, 1998, CO2 fluxes from mid-ocean ridges, arcs and plumes: Chemical Geology, v. 145, p. 233-248.
[2h] Sano, Y. and Williams, S.N., 1996, Fluxes of mantle and subducted carbon along convergent plate boundaries: Geophysical Research Letters, v. 23, n. 20, p. 2749-2752.
[2i] Varekamp, J.C.R., Kreulen, R., Poorter, R.P.E., and Van Bergen, M.J., 1992, Carbon sources and arc volcanism, with implications for the carbon cycle: Terra Nova, v. 4, p. 363-373.
[3] Estimated Carbon Cycle Reservoirs and Fluxes:
http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/slides/climate/carbon_res_flux.gif
[4] Earth Population Estimates:
http://www.xist.org/earth/pop_region.aspx
[5] Vegetation Contribution to Carbon Cycle:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/k0050e/k0050e0d.htm
[6] Volcanoes and Carbon Emissions:
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php
[7] Estimated Carbon Cycle Reservoirs and Fluxes 2:
http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/ritter/geog101/textbook/
[8] Global Climate Model, Model Description:
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/1997Q4/220/model/
[9] Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere and Oceans:
http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Bi-Ca/Carbon-Dioxide-in-the-Ocean-and-Atmosphere.html
[10] Control of Oceanic CO2 by the Atmosphere:
http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/ocean_co2control.html
[11] The Oceanic Solubility Mechanism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solubility_pump
[12] AT622 Section 7 – Cloud Effects on the ERB (Earth’s Radiation Budget): http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/spring04/atmo451b/pdf/RadiationBudget.pdf
[13] The Greenhouse Effect Hypothesis, Notes Bob Foster, 18th September 2001.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/climate/decarb.htm
[14] Earth’s Mean Annual Global Radiation Budget:
http://www.geo.utexas.edu/courses/387h/PAPERS/kiehl.pdf
[15] Radiance: Integrating the Planck Equation:
http://www.spectralcalc.com/blackbody/integrate_planck.html
[16] Temperature of Ocean Water:
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Water/temp.html
[17] Role of Ocean in Climate:
http://www.oco.noaa.gov/index.jsp?show_page=page_roc.jsp&nav=universal references:
[17a] Dai, A., and K. E. Trenberth, Estimates of freshwater discharge from continents: Latitudinal and seasonal variations, Journal of Hydrometeorology, 3, 660–687, 2002.
[17b] Meier, M. F., and M. B. Byurgerov, How Alaska affects the world, Science, 297, 350-351, 2002. Munk, W., Ocean freshening, sea level rising, Science, 300, 2041-2043, 2003.
[17c] Cabanes, C., A. Cazenave, and C. Le Provost, Sea level rise during past 40 years determined from satellite and in situ observations, Science, 294, 840-842, 2001.
[17d] IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), Climate Change 2001. The scientific basis. Eds. J. T. Houghton, et al. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. 881, pp., 2001.
[17e] Cazenave A., F. Remy, K. Dominh and H. Douville, Global ocean mass variation, continental hydrology and the mass balance of the Antarctica ice sheet at the seasonal time scale, Geophysical Research Letters, 27, 3755-3758, 2000.
[17f] Dai, A., and K. E. Trenberth, Estimates of freshwater discharge from continents: Latitudinal and seasonal variations, Journal of Hydrometeorology, 3, 660–687, 2002.
[17g] Levitus, S., J. I. Antonov, T. P Boyer, and C. Stephens, Warming of the world ocean, Science, 287, 2225-2229, 2000.
[17h] Levitus, S., J. I. Antonov, J. Wang, T. L. Delworth, K. W. Dixon, and A. J. Broccoli, Anthropogenic warming of earth's climate system, Science, 292, 267-270, 2001.
[17i] Trenberth, K. E., What are the seasons?, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 64, 1276–1282, 1983.
[17j] Trenberth, K. E., Earth System Processes, Encyclopedia of Global Environmental Change, T. Munn (Ed. in Chief), Vol. 1. The Earth System: Physical and Chemical Dimensions of Global Environmental Change, M. C. MacCracken and J. S. Perry (Eds), John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 13–30, 2001.
[17k] Trenberth, K. E., T. R. Karl and T. W. Spence, The need for a systems approach to climate observations, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 83, 1593–1602 2002.
[17l] Trenberth, K. E., and D. P. Stepaniak, Seamless poleward atmospheric energy transports and implications for the Hadley circulation, Journal of Climate, 16, 3705-3721, 2003.
[18] Dai, A., Fung, I.Y., DelGenio, A.D., 1997. Surface observed global land precipitation variations during 1900–1988. J. Clim. 10, 2943–2962.
[19] Hulme, M., Osborn, T.J., Johns, T.C., 1998. Precipitation sensitivity to global warming: comparisons of observations with HadCM2 simulations. Geophys. Res. Lett. 25, 3379–3382.
[20] Folland, C.K., Karl, T.R., Christy, J.R., Clarke, R.A., Gruza, G.V., Jouzel, J., Mann, M.E., Oerlemans, J., Salinger, M.J., Wang, S.W., 2001. Observed climate variability and change, in: Houghton, J.T., Ding, Y., Griggs, D.J., Noguer, M., van der Linder, P.J., Dai, X., Maskell, K., Johnson, C.A. (Eds.), Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, pp. 99–181.
[21] Facts about Sea Ice: http://ipydis.org/data/SeaIceFAQ.pdf
[22] The Weather Cycle:
http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/slides/climate/weathering/index.html
[23] Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1994, Vol. 2:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/environment/appd_d.html
[24] Solar and Terrestrial Radiation:
http://www.udel.edu/Geography/DeLiberty/Geog474/
[25] The Water Cycle: http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycleatmosphere.html
[26] The Clausius-Clapeyron Relation:
http://www.chem.arizona.edu/~salzmanr/480a/480ants/clapeyro/clapeyro.html
[27] Dry and Saturated Adiabatic Lapse Rates:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate
[28] Particles and the Climate, Section 29a:
http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/37d9faea997754a8c414b7b7e98d841b,0/3__Clouds__particles_and_climate/-_Particles_and_climate_29a.html
[29] Specific Heats of Substances: http://physics.info/heat-sensible/
[30] Radiative Efficiency: http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/radiativeff2.htm
[31] Cold Facts on Global Warming: http://brneurosci.org/co2.html
[32] CO2 Absorption Spectra:
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/absorptionspectra.htm
[33] The Beer-Lambert Law for the Atmosphere:
http://www.chemistry.adelaide.edu.au/external/soc-rel/content/beerslaw.htm
[34] Solid Angle (Planck Function): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_angle
[35] Global Temperature, Vegetation, Ice Cover Maps:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/GlobalMaps/
[36] Planck’s Law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck's_law
[37] The Oceanic Solubility Mechanism (Diagram):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CO2_pump_hg.svg
[38] Integrating the Planck Function over a Finite Range:
http://www.spectralcalc.com/blackbody/inband_radiance.html
[39] U.S. Standard Atmosphere:
http://faculty.virginia.edu/ribando/modules/xls/USStandAtmos.xls
[40] Water Cycle Reservoirs and Fluxes:
http://www.env.leeds.ac.uk/envi2150/oldnotes/lecture1/lecture3.html
[41] The Greenhouse Effect:
http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap7.html
[42] The Roles of Water Vapour in Climate: http://www.oekologismus.org/wp-content/upload/20050412_effects_of_water_vapour.pdf

Wow, won't b a reply here for a month or so!

At a quick scan they are likely to be the official line pro-AGW stance on the matter mostly, maybe Cosmic?
Well. I like to look "outside the square" often as I find that is where the big main advances in science are found.
Almost all the main big helpful improvements in my weather-climate forecasting accuracy have come from
researching and thinking "outside the square" over my many years. I find the consensus main line is
very often slow, behind the times, stifled and slowed by bureacharatic processes and "toe the line" gear.
If it makes common sense and looks likely and logical, and if it works I investigate and use it.
And I find the pro-AGW stance just does not work in practice for me anyway. I could say so much more
but I will leave it to you scientific scholars to debate these issues. I will just continue on my own way
that I am happy with and what keeps my clients happy...after all if it is theory but it does not work in practice
to help forecast the weather and climate what is the point of it all! Well my weather and climate forecasting
need no AGW theories in them to make them work, nothing in AGW theory makes them better, so why do I need them at all!
As I said, I will leave it all up to you scientific scholars...Personally I believe all the current AGW theory will be
altered and changed and made quite different over the years as we discover more of solar atmosphere, space,ocean, etc,
and we will look back and laugh at some of the many things we thought were true and wonderful knowledge in 2010.
We have only skimmed the surface, and if we think that we know all about the weather and climate, etc ,we are kidding
ourselves, there is so much more to be discovered and researched. As for me I will stick with what works well
and makes common sense to me, I like it, it runs like a well oiled machine,it works well, so that proves it to me.
You can say all you like about CO2 and AGW science, but if it does not work well in practice what is the point!
Solar-Ionospheric-Atmpospheric and Ocean exchanges all work and give the right answers in my line of work, that is all I need,
why do I need any AGW theory, if the things I use already work well?!!!

Err…Perhaps I should clarify :), in hindsight probably not quite the beginning I was thinking:

Developing an Understanding of the Earth’s Climate System

Something I have found decidedly lacking in the debate over global warming in general is an emphasis on or demonstration of the fact that the science behind the debate is very complex, and that interpretation of evidence needs to be sound. Where there are said to be concrete answers or understandings of concepts relating to the science, it seems that the oversimplification and ambiguous expression of how it is supposed to work can be unhelpful. With more articulation, eloquence and discerning thought put forward in the information we present and each point addressed within an appropriate framework, rather than through broad, sweeping generalised statements or claims, this would probably not arise to become a topic for discussion. When we say the science is not settled, what it seems we would really be saying is the facts are only valid within a given range of certainty, no matter what our views. That said no one can really make the claim to understanding the climate and weather beyond that certainty, even the distant past.

This thread is about more than global warming. It is about beginning to establish a basic framework of facts, from published literature and its interpretation, for an understanding of what the Earth’s physical system does, what it has done, and what it might do. This thread may or may not get very far at all, so I guess I’ll give it a try.

In a document I recently completed, which probably still requires much change, I used the title “An Integrated Understanding of the Earth’s Climate System.” I thought that was appropriate. Hopefully I will be able to use some of that material as a guide or reference. From it I may find something concerning global warming, man-made or otherwise. For now it’s just a compilation of facts which seem to support one another. It’s the starting point anyway – including about 60 references.

OK Cosmic, you should have posted that first!
Good luck, but it is going to be a hard slog to get it up & mobile I think Cosmic!
Cheers

from http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap7.html

"An increase in albedo of 0.007 (or 2.6%) since preindustrial times would have caused a negative radiative forcing DF = -2.5 W m-2, canceling the forcing from the concurrent rise in greenhouse gases. Such a small increase in albedo would not have been observable. We might expect, as water vapor concentrations increase in the atmosphere, that cloud cover should increase. However, that is not obvious. Some scientists argue that an increase in water vapor would in fact make clouds more likely to precipitate and therefore decrease cloud cover."

and the ipcc call that 90% certainty, or is it more.. no they did say less, but then proceed to give the impression that 90% means for EVERYTHING. while the above staement may be a fact, the ipcc are not about facts, they are about obscuring facts to fit a political agenda. this is the ONLY problem with climate science. not what the public know, dont know or think they know, but how honestly the science is being presented.

people will eventually just see it for the political game it is, and most have already. climate science will be brushed aside as 'used' by the powers behind the agenda, they will just move onto something else endorsed by scientists of course.

the only way to improve the publics opinion of climate science is for the ipcc to come out and say, hey everyone these are the FACTS. we dont exactly know as much as we led you to believe we did.

this is why the models are wrong.

this is what was wrong with the last ipcc document.

this is what is wrong with our previous certainty levels.

etc

yet they still believe most people are too dumb to understand. one thing that people gain a vast experience in over time is smelling bs, and it is not based on direct knowledge of the subject matter, such as this subject for eg, but it is based on the actions and reactions of the presenter. we have had so much bs fed to us from ipcc and the media,that to trust either is the same as trusting your local politician to tell the truth to be re-elected.

this lack of faith travels fast in this day and age, so i would not like to be in the shoes of someone relying on cagw being present for their future work.

90% certain means 10% uncertain. If certain means 100%, then that would make it absolute, and no new scientific progress would be made. If we’re talking about degrees of certainty, then 90% is reasonable. If we’re talking about 100%, that’s a mathematical theorem, and empirical facts about empirical reality cannot be proven to a mathematical level of certainty (i.e. absolute).

"cloud cover should increase. However, that is not obvious. Some scientists argue" 90%certain to you? because it obviously isnt to the author(s). are you saying you disagree with the authors and it should be certain and they are wrong to give an alternate point of view that WILL introduce a high degree of uncertainty?

or are you say my interpretation of what they are saying is wrong and they dont actually mean there is any uncertainty (or more than 10%) in the function of clouds?

now this is the one i believe you to be saying-

or are you saying that the level of importance of cloud cover is a low percentage of the uncertainty involved in the whole theory, so can be ignored?

If you are asking me to commit to a figure when I believe I should be open to alternatives regardless, I will more than likely commit to a given range of certainty.

Scientists do science for a living. Given the complexities of climate and weather…I’m not sure that everyday people would want to know anything more than they ask for, i.e. if people are not interested in knowing the complexities of climate, they will not ask for it.

If they are, they will more than likely endeavour to find out about it. They may have their disagreements with others also looking, but if they really want to know, I would have thought they would want to collaborate with others.

People have different views, I accept that. If disagreement or argumentation is the focus, rather than the title of this thread…well that’s up to people’s judgment.

If this thread proceeds to be a discussion about the inadequacies of the functioning of science, political science or anything similar, I guess people were right about my thoughts on starting it.

The presence of moisture (in the form of clouds) in the lower atmosphere reduces the transparency in the region of the thermal atmospheric window. Although cloud cover can assist in retaining outgoing long-wave heat energy somewhat, overall it acts to reduce warming.

It can be clearly seen from difference between the ranges of the “atmospheric window” that of the most important absorption peaks (and bandwidths) for CO2, the latter lies beyond the thermal atmospheric window. This means that H2O does in fact influence the ability of the CO2 to absorb this outgoing heat energy (beyond the thermal atmospheric window), and that the presence of moisture in the lower atmosphere will reduce the absorption of thermal heat energy by CO2. However, the distribution of H2O throughout the lower atmosphere is not uniform (either vertically or horizontally), whereas the CO2 varies uniformly. This means, in regions of the lower atmosphere where humidity is low (in some high-pressure cells), the absence of moisture will allow CO2 to absorb and emit more outgoing heat, which will lead higher near-surface air temperatures than in other areas [13]. This, in part, may account for the much higher day-time air temperatures near the surface in arid or desert areas compared to those in areas of forest [13].

Although arid and desert areas tend to cover greater expanses (whereas forested areas are more concentrated) [35] this only accounts for a fraction of 30 percent of the global surface area (the remainder being oceans – water surfaces). This adds more complexity to the situation. Despite this, it does not seem unreasonable to assume low-humidity high-pressure cells situated over water (in the absence of cloud cover, which would inhibit warming) would lead to a higher moisture content in the lower atmosphere (due to evaporation) (*6) [25], and thus an enhanced moisture-driven warming. Hence a lack of humidity (over land) becomes of reduced significance, conditioned on the differences in emissions of heat energy between desert surfaces and those of the oceans are such that the emissions (of sensible heat) from desert are (on average) greater than the emission (of latent heat) from the oceans. This seems unlikely given deserts tend to emit less (sensible heat energy) and retain more. Additionally, we might consider the ability of desert sand to retain heat, dependent on the heat capacity of the sand and grain size. This is a situation in which the virial equation for non-ideal gases could be applied (with grain size and porosity) to gauge the temperature of desert sands.

(*6) [About 90 percent of water in the atmosphere is produced by evaporation from water bodies, while the other 10 percent comes from transpiration from plants.]

Regarding water vapour (not including clouds), it is associated with a positive atmospheric feedback. In the absence of clouds, convection of latent heat increases the moisture content of the lower atmosphere (the actual vapour pressure rises), which increases the fraction of black-body (long-wave) heat energy absorbed from the surface. The near-surface temperature then rises, resulting in the release of more latent heat from the surface. The term “black-body” is used above because, in principle, the Earth’s surface and atmosphere should eventually emit all the radiant energy they receive, otherwise 390 W/m2 would not be emitted from the surface (the total heat energy the near-surface emits at a temperature of 15oC (288oK)). The value of 390 W/m2 is given in the IPCC’s model of the Global Annual Radiation Budget [13].

When there is significant evaporative cooling (*7) (on a clear-sky day, which is aided by near-surface winds), more latent heat is released from the surface. The near-surface winds result in the advection of latent heat, thereby allowing more to be released (through convection and conduction). This advection reduces the surface temperature (as heat energy is lost), while increasing the temperature of the air just above the surface. This enhances the effects due to the convection and conduction of latent heat, as the atmosphere becomes warmer (during the day). During night-time, the loss of heat energy increases sharply in the absence of sufficient moisture in the atmosphere to significantly influence heat retention. In the absence of moisture, the effects of sensible heat (through conduction and turbulent mixing or eddies) play a more important role (over land).

(*7) [Evaporative cooling is the cooling of air just above the surface (the intermolecular transfer and advection of latent heat near the surface) under humid conditions.]

Under cloudy or overcast conditions, evaporative cooling occurs to a lesser extent as less sunlight reaches the surface. The release of heat energy into the atmosphere is then moderated. When there is a lack of convection or advection, reduced surface cooling due to less incident short-wave radiation means the surface temperature actually increases. When latent heat is released in the atmosphere (and clouds form with condensation nuclei, or aerosols), this increases the amount of long-wave heat energy absorbed from the surface, and the temperature then rises. When there is rain, this first reduces the air temperature and secondly causes turbulence or disturbances in the air (mixing and advection), which acts to reduce the temperature further, as more sensible heat is then transferred between air molecules rather than remaining stagnant, having a cooling effect.

Regarding clouds and the modelling of atmospheric conditions, these are substantially covered by the Clausius-Clapeyron equation for the atmosphere, which relates the ambient air temperature to the saturated vapour pressure. For the atmosphere the Clausius-Clapeyron relation takes the form des/dT = (Lv x es)/(Rv x T2) [26], which states that the rate of change in the saturation vapour pressure with change in atmospheric temperature is proportional to the latent heat of vaporisation (which is a function of the ambient air temperature) multiplied by the saturation vapour pressure, and inversely proportional to the specific gas constant for water vapour (461.495 J/Kg/K) multiplied by the ambient air temperature in degrees Kelvin. According to this equation, the rate of evaporation and the amount of water vapour that air can hold (the saturation vapour pressure) increase non-linearly with the ambient air temperature. In other words, increasing the air temperature will increase the saturation vapour pressure (somewhat exponentially in nature). Conversely, higher humidity (greater atmospheric water vapour content) will lead to a higher atmospheric emissivity (heat energy emitted back towards to surface) and thus a higher ambient air (and surface) temperatures, leading to more heating, and thus more evaporation. This whole process represents a positive feedback.

At high atmospheric temperatures, with the Clausius-Clapeyron relation in effect, the atmosphere becomes optically saturated with respect to water vapour, meaning virtually all radiant heat energy in the bandwidths water vapour absorbs is absorbed (within a given distance from the surface). As the water vapour content of the lower atmosphere must increase first before the greenhouse effect of water vapour – temperature – can increase, the long-term trend in actual vapour pressure will approach the saturation vapour pressure at a greater rate than the increase in ambient air temperature, meaning there will generally be more rainfall, globally; high concentrations of water vapour cause cloud (liquid water droplets) to form and coalesce (with the aid of condensation nuclei).

In contrast to water vapour, the fraction of the globe covered by ice, snow or clouds decreases the heat energy absorbed by the planet. However, again, the amount of ice (or snow) cover and cloud cover depends on the surface (and air) temperatures, with lower temperatures leading to higher snow and ice cover, and higher temperatures leading to higher cloud cover (due to enhanced evaporation) [8]. It can therefore be said that the surface albedo is also a function of the surface and ambient air temperature, with the highest albedo values corresponding to surface and air temperatures that are significantly warmer or colder than the mean [8].

Hence, surface ice or snow cover will increase if the surface or ambient air temperature gets lower or higher than its mean [8]. It may also be reasonable to assume the albedo increases gradually at first, then get stronger as the surface temperature deviates further from the mean, until at considerably cold or warm temperatures, the planetary albedo reaches its maximum possible value (representing either an ice-covered or cloud-covered planet) [8]. This is the effect of a negative feedback.

The Clausius-Clapeyron relation therefore plays a very important role in our understanding of water vapour, clouds, surface albedo, ice cover, snow cover, surface and ambient air temperature.

yes of course i am asking for YOUR degree of certainty. i quoted what i believe to be the accepted level of certainty from a link you provide as a fact. you seem to then go on to say that all clouds lead to a positive feedback. am i clear on this?

This communication is addressed at anyone who can think out the square and use a spreadsheet.

There is much to be learned about the climate system and I applaud anyone who wants to look at what has happened in the past and think about relationships. I find this website a great resource:http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries1.pl

At my own site (http://climatechange1.wordpress.com)I have advertised a challenge and a reward to anyone who can explain the physics responsible for cooling in the trade wind zone and warming in the west wind zone as the differential pressure driving these winds increases. The differential pressure plainly varies in a cyclic fashion as you can see for yourself if you examine the data for sea level pressure by latitude. What I require is an explanation for the warming sea surface in the west wind zone as the tropical sea cools and an explanation of the physics behind the change in the distribution of atmospheric mass that gives rise to changing sea surface pressure and the pressure differentials driving the surface winds.

What I am describing is the essence of climate change over time. It is the wind that brings us the weather. Look at the data and you will see that a description of the climate of a particular place that relies upon just thirty years of data can never be adequate.

I reckon I know the answer and can document it, but an important part of the exercise is to satisfy Leif Svalgaard (who is a very demanding fellow)as well as myself.

In response to queries I have already done a fair bit of the groundwork for you and will do more. All contributions welcome. I promise an interesting quest.

Well done there fellows, what a huge amount of interesting gear, it will take me months to read it all, but at a brief read it fits well with many things that I have looked at and researched. Thanks again for all the info on that link you have above!

You are asking for my opinion right? As opposed to a published scientific fact.


To clarify, I provided a list of references, nothing more. They are the references I used as a beginning to forming my own view on climate science, which is not published. My understanding may be formed from their content, but it does not reflect on what I think of them, which I have not conveyed.

I do not work in figures – i.e. numbers – of certainty and uncertainty because the literature does that for me. All I can really say is I am moderately certain I understand the contents of the references. I think it would be inappropriate to put a value on anyone’s understanding.


Clouds could potentially involve multiple feedbacks including components such as:

• Increased absorption of IR due to higher H2O concentrations (clouds).
• Absorption in the thermal atmospheric window (by clouds).
• Increased reflection and scattering by cloud droplets/condensation nuclei/aerosols that make up clouds back to space.
• Decreased reflection and scattering by cloud droplets/condensation nuclei/aerosols that make up clouds back to space.
• Changes in the thermal atmospheric window due to pressure, temperature or humidity differences.
• The difference between window radiation and window-wavelength radiation.
• Etc., etc.

Anything below about 85 to 90 percent statistical significance I tend to be sceptical of in terms of physical mechanisms and physical meaning.

I am also cautious about interpreting coincidence correlations.

And...from a long time ago, this comment by JontyH (a severe weather meteorologist) I believe adequately describes at least some of situation regarding the greenhouse effect, and the decoupling of the surface environment from space:

"Regarding the nature of the greenhouse effect, it is the top of the atmosphere that is in thermal equilibrium with the incoming solar radiation. The additional energy maintaining this equilibrium, or back radiation, is downward directed long-wave radiation from the atmosphere. This energy is stored in the atmosphere (as internal molecular energy – temperature). The atmosphere does not absorb energy from short-wave radiation from the Sun. If it did not absorb the long-wave radiation emitted from the surface, it would be much colder that it is, from radiative transfer alone. This is how the greenhouse effect works in its purely radiative form, that is, ignoring convective and latent heat transfer in the atmosphere. The laws of black-body heat transfer are not violated; the balance occurs at the top of the atmosphere (or to be precise, the level at which the atmosphere becomes transparent to space), not at the surface. The surface of the Earth is effectively decoupled from space (i.e. the exterior of the system) by the almost total absorption of the emitted long-wave radiation from the surface by the atmosphere."

This also relates to atmospheric plasma physics, in which the electrical potential difference between the ionosphere (outer plate of a capacitor) and surface (inner plate of the same capacitor) is involved.

Underline Added.

No way Cosmic, I can see the effects all the time, mate...I have absolutely no doubt at all, I can see it all the time, about the fact that solar-ionospheric-atmospheric-ocean links are very real...you will never convince me otherwise, if I see the effects happening I do not need any other evidence, it is no co-incidence it is real and happens all the time, no matter what your BOM friend says, or what your theory suggests!

That was the one thing about JontyH’s comments I remember well in relation to explaining aspects of climate. The clarity in what he put forward :), whether or not you agree or disagreed with it.


I also have and am aware of statistical significant evidence of a teleconnections in the southern ocean relating strongly to sea-surface temperatures and rainfall, and even strongly to specific locations,…in fact I have no doubt about it, which is why I attempted to get a paper published about it, but that didn’t mean I simply thought it explains away everything I knew before that about the southern ocean.

Anyway, I'm not here to get into arguments, simply improve my understanding. And to be honest, I could improve my understanding without using a forum, so you could call this more getting an idea of whether it's going to work on here or not.

I am talking about solar-ionospheric-atmospheric-ocean relationships here, but as I am a bit hamstrung by the fact that I run a business I cannot say much at ball really. If I were not hamstrung by that I could provide tons of evidence, but anyway leave it to you to muck around with it all Cosmic, at least you are trying and looking at both sides.
Cheers

The thing that I don't get is that if you are so sure of your findings and methods, in such fields that could potentially completely bust open the AGW theory and instantly propel you to a certain amount of international celebrity and a solid job, why on earth would you hide the knowledge away just to "keep the wolves from the door" as you have said? All these people and organisations that you post about in the interesting AGW articles thread could very quickly be put back in their boxes, quite an incredible feat, with the publishing of just a few articles. How much would one need to pay you to reveal this information? I'm sure you would find some high bidders if you were willing to look for venture capitalists against AGW.