tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post2351399458590423492..comments2024-03-11T04:54:26.827-07:00Comments on THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Robert Bryce on why global warming alarmists are losing their crusadeUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-89952379144358732182011-10-06T00:50:45.210-07:002011-10-06T00:50:45.210-07:00The claim that particulates cool the earth is only...The claim that particulates cool the earth is only partially correct and the inner core of the climate science establishment knows this.<br /><br />The direct effect is correct. For all but thin clouds, the indirect effect [reducing cloud droplet size] is a warming process, the real AGW. The real level of CO2-AGW is low, possibly slightly negative. Ice ages end when aerosols cause clouds to transmit much more sunlight. The same mechanism causes the 60-70 year Arctic melt/freeze cycle.<br /><br />This mistake comes from Carl Sagan who assumed a single optical process when there are two. By 2004 NASA knew there was no evidence for this cooling. Apparently to keep it in AR4, the organisation published fake physics.<br /><br />In most climate science papers it's claimed that clouds with small droplets reflect more sunlight because of higher water surface area. There's no such physics. It's a form of mass hypnosis encouraged by people at the core of the discipline whose careers and influence are on the wane..Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com