Search results

I posted the link a while back. You must have missed it. It was research presented by NASA at the Fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union last year.

How long they persist depends on the atmospheric conditions...as I said I don't dispute that they have a radiative impact. And the numbers you posted show how minsicule the impact is in comparison to other factors influencing global climate.

They don't measure anything, because they are a review of the state of climate science. Plural is unnecessary given that clause. This has nothing to do with the physical basis for climate change. If you want to discuss mitigation, then I suggest the "What to do about global warming" thread...

I don't believe in science, I weigh the evidence. That's the evidence you posted...milliwatts. Which is consistent with the 0.03 and 0.06 °K. No. I accept some their findings, based on the references they cite. An instance where I don't accept their findings is sea level rise. They are...

The diurnal trends are from data from 2001. Your NASA study is from data from 1975-1994...that's 16 years old. And that doesn't change the fact that the radiative forcing is measured in milliwatts...

They aren't sitting on it. Try reading what they actually said. As I've told you multiple times now, they don't dismiss it. They even discussed the diurnal temperature in relation to night time flights like one of your last posts.

Milliwatts don't appear small, they are small. And more efficient is a good thing.

If you want to get excited about milliwatts, then have at er. I'm more concerned about the watts though...

Petros, I'm not denying any effect, quite the opposite. The impact however is small. You denigrate carbon dioxide, even though it has a radiative impact orders of magnitude higher than aviation induced cloud formation... But still detectable. I wonder what your pal CM has to say about these...

Yes, I'm aware. If you search the site you'll find that I've explained this to greenhouse effect deniers as well, most recently it was Darkbeaver. As for the paper you just cited, the IPCC discussed the same effects on the diurnal temperature trend, the IPCC that you said dismisses them: The...

No, the figures I quoted to you were from a link I posted here earlier, in a study that used satellite data. The figures quoted here in this NASA study you're pushing come from a model-derived calculation with an assumed optical depth that overestimates cloud impacts. As an example, the NCAR...

The stats again are 0.03°K at the surface, and 0.06°K in the upper troposphere. Unless you have a study which has quantified the effect and found something different.

No, that's NASA saying that...what they are saying is that their hypothesis that air traffic could have caused the same magnitude of warming across America from 1974-1995 has a huge problem, because areas with no change, or negative change still warmed. NASA said the clouds are capable of...

So, that was 2004, but you chastised me for posting something from less than 12 months ago? I thought you might like this part of the news release: "This result shows the increased cirrus coverage, attributable to air traffic, could account for nearly all of the warming observed over the...

I'm pretty sure he means me. Though in my experience, "everyone" means everyone, so I don't see the need for further clarification about what "everyone" means...

Yes, as I said it's a measure of the random sampling error, it's used when drawing samples from a large population. It's not used in my experience for experiments, because the population is not large. You raised this red herring when I mentioned signal to noise. Nothing in the portioning of...

See, you're so ignorant that you don't even know how ignorant you are. A margin of error is the estimate of the random sampling error. It consider the population size you are surveying and the sample population size. You sound like someone trying to bull $hit their way through a midterm. This...

That explains your lack of imagination then...

You didn't ask a question...and I don't dismiss a lack of knowledge. I've explained this to you before, but you remain completely ignorant about how the statistics capture all of the variability and what the difference is between signal and noise. Bringing an expert to bare on your arguments...

Is that the extent of your N management?