International Skeptics Forum - View Single Post

Trakar · 20th July 2010, 09:35 AM

Originally Posted by wogoga

By the way, clouds do reflect (or scatter back) thermal radiation. A quote from Longwave Multiple Scattering in Clouds: Climatic Implications:

"In most global climate models, the multiple scattering of longwave radiation by particles like clouds has been neglected. As the single scattering albedoes of both ice and water clouds are between 0.4 to 0.7, the mutipple scattering of longwave radiation by cloud droplets increases the effective absorption path length."

Exactly what is this paper, and why is the only source available for it some obscure and mostly disfunctional personal website? It isn't referenced or locatable through any of the normal published science websites, nor apparently referenced by any other scientific publication. Perhaps it is just the issue that this isn't the name of the paper, rather hard to take any proffered reference too seriously when those offering it as support for their position can't be bothered to get something as simple as the name of the referenced paper correctly.

20th July 2010, 09:35 AM	#80
Trakar Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 12,518	Originally Posted by wogoga By the way, clouds do reflect (or scatter back) thermal radiation. A quote from Longwave Multiple Scattering in Clouds: Climatic Implications: "In most global climate models, the multiple scattering of longwave radiation by particles like clouds has been neglected. As the single scattering albedoes of both ice and water clouds are between 0.4 to 0.7, the mutipple scattering of longwave radiation by cloud droplets increases the effective absorption path length." Exactly what is this paper, and why is the only source available for it some obscure and mostly disfunctional personal website? It isn't referenced or locatable through any of the normal published science websites, nor apparently referenced by any other scientific publication. Perhaps it is just the issue that this isn't the name of the paper, rather hard to take any proffered reference too seriously when those offering it as support for their position can't be bothered to get something as simple as the name of the referenced paper correctly.