At 10:29 "the albedo feedback" S.B. "the surface albedo feedback". Edit: I need to modify that comment. If by "cloud feedback" Jennifer will be addressing only the cloud long-wave feedback then at 10:29 "the albedo feedback" is correct because it would include cloud (and all else in atmosphere) short-wave feedback, but If by "cloud feedback" Jennifer will be addressing the net of cloud short-wave & long-wave feedback (with also each assessed before summing them) then at 10:29 it S.B. "the surface albedo feedback"
At 8:09 Jennifer states "clouds absorb and re-emit long-wave radiation and that actually causes the surface and the atmosphere to be warm". Jennifer should explain why it is that the water in the top 1 mm of the ocean/sea/lake/pond manufactures and emits ~78% of the LWR that's headed to space but the water droplets in clouds, which is the professional expertise of Jennifer, manufacture and emit no LWR whatsoever, as she states at that time above. I for one would be fascinated to learn from Jennifer why she knows the correct "greenhouse effect" (re-emission of long-wave radiation totally overwhelming, she clearly states, any photon manufacture by liquid H2O in cloud droplets) and yet Andrew Dessler and I (and another bloke) both are sure that the Stefan-Boltzmann radiative equation does indeed apply equally to the water droplets in clouds and the water in the top 1 mm of the ocean/sea/lake/pond in total contradiction to Jennifer's bold assertion here. I'd be interested to learn what it is that Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, Stefan Rahmstorf & the entire underlings of the RealClimate Web Log site, and Jennifer Kay, know about that radiative physics that Andrew Dessler and I have never learned. After all, it's only THE ENTIRE TOPIC (RAISON D'ETRE) of all of the millions of videos, documents, comments, political investigations and babbling everywhere. So it's pretty unimportant then. Right ?
1) When is it "climate change" and when is it "global warming?" 2) When did climates not change? 3) Why aren't the measured climates of the USA changing as confirmed by the NOAA's attempt to measure it by their own USCRN? 4) Why don't climate alarmists inform people that there is no way to measure the climate of the Earth; climate has no metric. 5) Why are models of "average climate" not referred to as such instead of mislabeling them as "records?" i.e. there is NO record of the Earth's average surface temperature, not now and certainly not in 1850. In order to measure something it has to be instrumented for the purpose. 6) If droughts, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, forest fires, blizzards, etc are now caused by people what caused them in the past? 7) Why have historic rates of sea level changes (both sea rise - [Manhattan etc] and sea level fall [Sweden, Alaska, etc] remained unchanged to this day? 8) Why are plate tectonics, land erosion, sedimentation, and continental rebound the only current causes of seas level changes 9) Why is thermal expansion of sea water meaningless to all, even if it were occurring? 10) Who actually pays for all of these "studies" designed to benefit the power elite by punishing their subjects? How about some honest answers and please be prepared to defend your thesis.
It's "climate change" on Tuesdays, Thursdays & Sundays, "global warming?" other days except Leap Years & Festive Holidays such as Festivus. The climates not change last Tuesday at Tea & Crumpets time, it was noted as an event of much interest, along with the Polo match. Thermal expansion of sea water is meaningless to all, even if it were occurring, because all are English and if they say "Thermal expansion" their false teeth fall out. These "studies" are paid for by the sale of Brownie cookies, if you read the fine print below where it says the money goes to Girl Guides camps and Brownies Brown Owl toffee baking supplies, it mentions the money really goes to Jennifer Kay (it's in microscopic print). Climate alarmists warn people that there is no way to measure the climate of the Earth; climate has no metric because some of the Brownie cookies include delicious "special ingredients" and they ate those. Ask them later when they've returned to Earth. The answer to your other question is "Yes (successfully !)". For your physics questions, the remaining ones, you'll need to ask a top professional physicist just like yourself because I'm a professional female impersonator and part-time umbrella stand. Hope his helps.
Absolutely. And therefore I demand cooling ! Cooling ! Cooling ! Cooling ! Cooling ! Cooling ! There, that demand should do the job because of my erudite yet authoritative voice.
WG1 climate scientist Dr. Guy McPherson is way ahead of this lady because she's only managed 4 feedbacks at 10:34 and Guy's up to 123 self-reinforcing +ve feedbacks at latest count. I think he's about to declare and give you a chance at an innings to catch up. You need to up your game considerably (I've just finished my wake-up sugar+coffee jolt so these will proceed in a torrent).
The reality is clouds have a minimum effect on climate. I can say this with absolute certainty because clouds remove most particulates from the atmosphere, causing a small warming effect (particulates cause cooling). Then clouds drop rain providing a high cooling effect. The real affect is by increased water vapour which is a strong greenhouse gas, causing a strong warming affect. The atmosphere can hold 7% more water vapour per 1'c of warming (well established science). Consider this, high clouds are predominantly well above the atmospheric CO2 layer, the stratophere is cooling, therefore high clouds will be cooled considerably making them form dense heavy clouds. So any potential warming would be negated by the previouse cooling. I strongly suspect your cloud charts actually show water vapour. They definately do not show clouds. And of course there is more rain in the Arctic nowadays because of the disrupted Jet Streams.
At 10:29 "the albedo feedback" S.B. "the surface albedo feedback". Edit: I need to modify that comment. If by "cloud feedback" Jennifer will be addressing only the cloud long-wave feedback then at 10:29 "the albedo feedback" is correct because it would include cloud (and all else in atmosphere) short-wave feedback, but If by "cloud feedback" Jennifer will be addressing the net of cloud short-wave & long-wave feedback (with also each assessed before summing them) then at 10:29 it S.B. "the surface albedo feedback"
"Less Subtropical Low Clouds" at 17:23 S.B. "Less Subtropical Low Cloud" (If it's digitized then it's "fewer", I'm anally-retentively English).
Very interesting, thank you!
Two first figures: Temperature vs CO2 and ice in Arctic shows something to me, not mentioned. Periodic change apart from CO2.
At 8:09 Jennifer states "clouds absorb and re-emit long-wave radiation and that actually causes the surface and the atmosphere to be warm". Jennifer should explain why it is that the water in the top 1 mm of the ocean/sea/lake/pond manufactures and emits ~78% of the LWR that's headed to space but the water droplets in clouds, which is the professional expertise of Jennifer, manufacture and emit no LWR whatsoever, as she states at that time above. I for one would be fascinated to learn from Jennifer why she knows the correct "greenhouse effect" (re-emission of long-wave radiation totally overwhelming, she clearly states, any photon manufacture by liquid H2O in cloud droplets) and yet Andrew Dessler and I (and another bloke) both are sure that the Stefan-Boltzmann radiative equation does indeed apply equally to the water droplets in clouds and the water in the top 1 mm of the ocean/sea/lake/pond in total contradiction to Jennifer's bold assertion here. I'd be interested to learn what it is that Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, Stefan Rahmstorf & the entire underlings of the RealClimate Web Log site, and Jennifer Kay, know about that radiative physics that Andrew Dessler and I have never learned. After all, it's only THE ENTIRE TOPIC (RAISON D'ETRE) of all of the millions of videos, documents, comments, political investigations and babbling everywhere. So it's pretty unimportant then. Right ?
1) When is it "climate change" and when is it "global warming?"
2) When did climates not change?
3) Why aren't the measured climates of the USA changing as confirmed by the NOAA's attempt to measure it by their own USCRN?
4) Why don't climate alarmists inform people that there is no way to measure the climate of the Earth; climate has no metric.
5) Why are models of "average climate" not referred to as such instead of mislabeling them as "records?" i.e. there is NO record of the Earth's average surface temperature, not now and certainly not in 1850. In order to measure something it has to be instrumented for the purpose.
6) If droughts, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, forest fires, blizzards, etc are now caused by people what caused them in the past?
7) Why have historic rates of sea level changes (both sea rise - [Manhattan etc] and sea level fall [Sweden, Alaska, etc] remained unchanged to this day?
8) Why are plate tectonics, land erosion, sedimentation, and continental rebound the only current causes of seas level changes
9) Why is thermal expansion of sea water meaningless to all, even if it were occurring?
10) Who actually pays for all of these "studies" designed to benefit the power elite by punishing their subjects?
How about some honest answers and please be prepared to defend your thesis.
It's "climate change" on Tuesdays, Thursdays & Sundays, "global warming?" other days except Leap Years & Festive Holidays such as Festivus. The climates not change last Tuesday at Tea & Crumpets time, it was noted as an event of much interest, along with the Polo match. Thermal expansion of sea water is meaningless to all, even if it were occurring, because all are English and if they say "Thermal expansion" their false teeth fall out. These "studies" are paid for by the sale of Brownie cookies, if you read the fine print below where it says the money goes to Girl Guides camps and Brownies Brown Owl toffee baking supplies, it mentions the money really goes to Jennifer Kay (it's in microscopic print). Climate alarmists warn people that there is no way to measure the climate of the Earth; climate has no metric because some of the Brownie cookies include delicious "special ingredients" and they ate those. Ask them later when they've returned to Earth. The answer to your other question is "Yes (successfully !)". For your physics questions, the remaining ones, you'll need to ask a top professional physicist just like yourself because I'm a professional female impersonator and part-time umbrella stand. Hope his helps.
@@grindupBaker Such clarity, you need to get a gig like Bill Nye "the science guy"
“The END is near!” Doom sleuthing in the 1950s. Very little has changed since then, except for the vast taxpayer money benefiting the doom sayers.
Clouds can do both warming and cooling, depending on the demand.
Absolutely. And therefore I demand cooling ! Cooling ! Cooling ! Cooling ! Cooling ! Cooling ! There, that demand should do the job because of my erudite yet authoritative voice.
WG1 climate scientist Dr. Guy McPherson is way ahead of this lady because she's only managed 4 feedbacks at 10:34 and Guy's up to 123 self-reinforcing +ve feedbacks at latest count. I think he's about to declare and give you a chance at an innings to catch up. You need to up your game considerably (I've just finished my wake-up sugar+coffee jolt so these will proceed in a torrent).
The reality is clouds have a minimum effect on climate. I can say this with absolute certainty because clouds remove most particulates from the atmosphere, causing a small warming effect (particulates cause cooling). Then clouds drop rain providing a high cooling effect. The real affect is by increased water vapour which is a strong greenhouse gas, causing a strong warming affect. The atmosphere can hold 7% more water vapour per 1'c of warming (well established science). Consider this, high clouds are predominantly well above the atmospheric CO2 layer, the stratophere is cooling, therefore high clouds will be cooled considerably making them form dense heavy clouds. So any potential warming would be negated by the previouse cooling. I strongly suspect your cloud charts actually show water vapour. They definately do not show clouds. And of course there is more rain in the Arctic nowadays because of the disrupted Jet Streams.
I' m not even sure that clouds even exist at all. I think they're all unicorns & effelumps. That's what I see. That and Meringue Pie In The Sky.