JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks


Advertising


Australian Speakers Agency



GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Archives

Settled! Global Warming and the pause, caused by changes in cloud cover, not CO2

That’s it: It was 4% cloudier in 1985, then roughly the same after 2000 — that’s the Pause and the Cause

A new paper in Russian, by OM Pokrovsky, shows that global cloud cover decreased markedly from 1986 to 2000. This is a very large decline in terms of the planetary atmosphere. Pokrovsky uses ISCCP satellite data (the “International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project” — a US program). It’s the best cloud data there is. The effects of clouds are so strong that most of the differences between IPCC-favoured-models comes from the assumptions the models make about clouds. Cloud feedbacks are the “largest source of uncertainty”. [IPCC, 2007]

Clouds cover two-thirds of the Earths surface, reflecting around 30% of the total energy from the Sun back to space. A small change in cloud cover can easily warm or cool the planet, like a giant pop-up shade-sail.

This, on its own, explains all the warming that occurred from 1986 – 2000. It explains the pause. We don’t know why clouds decreased, but we know it wasn’t due to CO2, which kept rising relentlessly year after year, and even faster after the turn of the century.

Something else is driving cloud formation, or density or longevity, and the global climate modelers don’t know what that is.

 ”Thus, cloud cover changes over three decades during the period of global warming can explain not only the linear trend of global temperature, but also a certain interannual variability.”

Cloud Cover, Global, graph, 2019.

Cloud cover explains the warming, and the pause.

What drives the clouds?

Cloud cover changes could be caused by changes in the solar magnetic field, which may drive cloud seeding via its effect on the cosmic rays that bombard Earth (see Henrik Svensmark). But clouds could also be affected by the solar wind or by solar spectral changes, neither of which are included in GCMs. Clouds could also be driven by changes in aerosols due to volcanoes, bacteria, and plankton. Clouds could also form differently with changes in jetstreams or ocean currents. Meandering jet streams put huge “fingers” of cold air into warm air zones — surely a recipe for more cloud formation. (see Stephen Wilde’s work).

Global Climate Models have no chance of predicting cloud cover. They assume cloud changes are a feedback, not a forcing. So, right from the start, the models don’t even recognise that some outside force might be independently changing cloud cover. In 2012, Miller et al. reported that models got cloud feedbacks wrong by 70W/m2 — an error that’s nearly 20 times larger than the total effect of CO2. What a farce.

Calculating the warming effect

The effect of clouds is complicated. High clouds cause warming. Low clouds cause cooling. Clouds over the dark oceans change the albedo of Earth more than clouds over a bright desert. Clouds in the tropics will reflect more incoming light than clouds over the poles. But at its most brutally simple, the more clouds there are, the more the world cools.

Figure 9 below, describes the relationship between global temperatures and cloud cover. It appears Pokrovsky used it to calculate the effect of the reduction in clouds. A 0.07C warming effect for each 1% decrease in cloud cover, means a fall of 4% in cloud cover would lead to 0.3C of warming. This is just from 1986 – 2000AD and is roughly the same amount of warming as was seen in Hadley. In this situation, no matter how much the trend of Hadley temperatures is “adjusted up,” as long as an analyst uses Hadley temperatures to estimate the linear trend, the increase due to clouds will fit. (Expect Hadley 5.0 to start adjusting key turning points next to mess with this clear signal.)

 

Global temperature, Cloud cover. Graph

Fig. 9. The results of the regression analysis of the series of global clouds (ISCCP) and surface air temperature (CRUTEM3). 

The conclusions in the paper:

Figure 9 presents the corresponding regression analysis results. As global temperatures, we used the data of CRUTEM 3 (University of East Anglia, Great Britain, http://www.uea.ac.uk). The number of points for statistical analysis was 318. The regression equation has the form Y = – 0.0659 X + 19.637. The determination coefficient characterizing the accuracy of the regression is 0.277. The latter means this model accounts for about 28% of the observed dispersion of surface air temperature. High global cloud cover is associated with low global temperatures, demonstrating the cooling effect of clouds. The regression linear approximation model suggests that a 1% increase in global cloud cover corresponds to a global decrease in temperature of about 0.07oC and vice versa.

In the case of global cloudiness of the lower tier, the regression equation changes slightly: Y = – 0.062 X + 16.962. The determination coefficient characterizing the accuracy of the regression increases and in this case is 0.316. From a statistical point of view, this model accounts for about 31% of the observed dispersion of surface air temperature. High low clouds are associated with low global temperatures, demonstrating the cooling effect of low clouds. A simple linear regression model suggests that a 1% increase in global low cloud cover corresponds to a global temperature drop of around 0.06oC and vice versa.

Thus, cloud cover changes over three decades during the period of global warming can explain not only the linear trend of global temperature, but also a certain interannual variability. But the inclusion of a block describing the temporal evolution of cloud cover in climate models remains a problem due to the stochastic nature of cloud variability. However, climate models are deterministic and cannot be directly combined with stochastic cloud blocks. Nevertheless, the factor of cloud cover on climate change cannot be ignored due to the significant contribution of this climate-forming parameter and should be studied more carefully to improve climate forecasts.

REFERENCES

IPCC, Assessment Report 4, 2007, Working Group 1, The Physical Science Basis, Chapter 8. [PDF] Page 636  8.6.3.2 “Clouds”

Pokrovsky OM (2019)  Cloud Changes in the Period of Global Warming: the Results of the International Satellite Project      Russian Academy of Sciences, DOI: https://doi.org/10.31857/S0205-9614201913-13
https://journals.eco-vector.com/0205-9614/article/view/11444

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.7/10 (83 votes cast)
Settled! Global Warming and the pause, caused by changes in cloud cover, not CO2, 9.7 out of 10 based on 83 ratings

271 comments to Settled! Global Warming and the pause, caused by changes in cloud cover, not CO2

  • #
    Serp

    An excellent result. Who’s going to tell the ABC?

    310

    • #
      vince whirlwind (Aka screaming nutbag)

      What should we tell the ABC?
      “Cloud cover yarn resurfaces”?
      “Unkillable zombie Cloud nonsense staggers on”?
      “Decades of research, tens of thousands of papers, and the laws of physics can all be discarded because we have one Russian paper peddling exactly what we always wanted to hear”?

      414

      • #

        Which law of physics says that heat trapped by CO2 won’t be released by changes in cloud cover? Or are you just here to drop in mindless scientificy cliches as if they mean something?

        If NASA Langley has the laws of physics wrong, quick, rush, do tell them.

        PS: I’d like to ask the ABC why it is that a major US database on one of the most important factors in climate change hasn’t been discussed by a major US or Australian scientific research unit. Why is it that it takes a Russian to assess this critical database?

        210

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Do I not remember Vince Whirlwind from a few years back? Strange how what goes around comes around. He was about as honest and rigorous then as he is now.

          70

        • #
          Geoff

          Russian scientists who do not have “tell lies to get grants” as part of their struggle for money do far better work than western scientists. I use them as sources for the hard sciences (Maths, Physics, Chemistry) rather than western sources. If I need bull I use Monash or Melbourne Uni!

          150

        • #
          Brian

          Actually Jo the primary effect of increasing cloud cover is to increase the Earth’s albedo and reflect incoming solar radiation before it can add heat to the surface. That has a far greater effect that any change to the excitation state of CO2 molecules. But the effect can work both ways and if you have scattered cloud the extent of cloud cover, correlated to the elevation of the sun in relation to the albedo of a particular surface position has a significant effect on the outcome. Like all climate modelling the variables make anything other than generalisation suspect. But the significant effect of changes in the Earth’s albedo, particularly from clouds has been known for a long time and the Pokrovsky paper is simply another confirmation of the effect rather than a revelation.

          The regression plot simply confirms that there is a good relationship between cloud cover and the amount of solar radiation reaching and being absorbed to raise the temperature of the surface. But the extent of scattering reinforces the variability in specific results. Also remember that radiated heat has a fourth power relationship to temperature of the radiating body so a minor drop in surface temperature reduces radiated heat significantly.

          As an aside, I would not pay much attention to vince whirlwind. After all, the lion need not heed the twittering of the mice.

          50

          • #
            Kalm Keith

            Brian,

            Sounds good.

            Can you just confirm your intention here:

            “But the effect can work both ways and if you have scattered cloud ———

            The regression plot simply confirms that there is a good relationship between cloud cover and the amount of solar radiation reaching and being absorbed to raise the temperature of the surface.”

            I assume that we all agree that the amount of radiation reaching the surface is inversely proportional to the amount of cloud cover.

            KK

            40

            • #
              Brian

              A percentage of the suns energy reaching the Earth’s surface is reflected Keith, the extent of reflection depending on the albedo. Snow and ice reflect lots, a tarmac road not so much. But if that reflected radiation encounters a cloud it will be reflected back down to the surface. So on a day with scattered cloud, if you are in direct sunlight (not in a cloud shadow) you would get the maximum direct radiation from the sun plus the contribution from the cloud reflected energy. So in some areas the ground will be hotter than it would be if there were no cloud, despite the fact that in other areas in cloud shadow the energy is reduced.

              I am afraid afraid that your suggestion of an inverse relationship between cloud cover and energy reaching the ground is incorrect although I see why you made it. But as I indicated in my previous comment there are just too many variables involved to even make an approximation for the relationship. For example the effect of clouds depends on the extent of cloud cover certainly but also the thickness of the cloud cover (base to top) which can vary across the coverage, the cloud density or water content per unit of volume, the angle of incidence from sun to cloud and so on. This amongst a host of other variables is why there is so much scatter in the regression graph and while the trend line accuracy is low, indicating a good fit, the extent of scattering indicates that the trend cannot be used as a basis for prediction. As an example look at the possible spread of temperatures aroubnd 66% cloud cover in the graph.

              40

        • #
          William

          I would like to see a graph with global cloud cover, temperature and CO2 emissions since 1985. That might be useful in swaying some of the less dim alarmists.

          50

        • #
          Michael262

          Jo,
          What a load of brown thumbs, have you sent this to Alan Jones for peer review ?.
          One paper taken in isolation, unverified, that fits your World view, ‘settles’ the issue. A lead taken from the Creationists ?.
          The corks may be popping in armchair science land but the scientists on planet Earth beg to differ.

          [Oh really? planet Earth warmist scientists have resorted to begging? SWEET! I hope they can qualify for jobs that require more than model results.] ED

          111

          • #

            Michael262, denying NASA/NOAA/METEOSTAT/GOES/GMS satellites now? Still denying the hundreds of papers posted on evidence here for years.

            90

            • #
              Screaming Nutbag

              Well, we’re still waiting for the sun-spot-related global cooling you promised, for years.

              Turns out your enthusiasm for sun spots was misplaced.

              *I* personally am predicting your enthusiasm for cloud-cover Russians will have the same outcome.

              18

              • #
                AndyG55

                A nutcase that thinks the oceans are going to respond immediately.

                NO SCIENTIST, are you, nutcase. !!

                And certainly we know that no prediction of the AGW glitterati has ever come true.

                62

              • #

                I see you can’t find anything wrong with the cloud study or ISCCP data. Just faith based hope eh?

                70

              • #
                Screaming Nutbag

                ISCCP data is 22 years long.
                You can probably derive statistics from it to “prove” just about anything you want.
                Incidentally, am I the only one here to find all that yapping a bit annoying? Can somebody put it outside for a while?

                16

              • #
                AndyG55

                “to “prove” just about anything you want”

                Yet you cannot find any empirical evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2

                So sad.

                So pathetic.

                SO AGW. !!!

                72

              • #
                truth

                As I mentioned to Greg in NZ and John in NZ in one of the blogs here a few weeks ago…..the research by an eminent New Zealand-born Physicist working at University of Texas…Dr Brian Tinsley…some of it done in conjunction with Australian Dr Gary Burns ….sounds infinitely more plausible and compelling than the dodgy case the Cult demands we religiously believe and act on.

                The cult says the most monumental and existential global climate impacts imaginable are all the work of the ubiquitous and so-o politically-handy tool [ for them]..-the little old CO2 molecule…but Tinsley, who has been researching the sun and clouds for many years…believes the sun…not just insolation , but the many other effects….and their effects on clouds…are where the answers lie….as explained in his video…

                [ Climate Forcing: Our Future is Cold ]

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEWoPzaDmOA&feature=youtu.be

                and in this research paper…

                [ The Role of the Global Electric Circuit in Solar and Internal Forcing of Clouds and Climate ]

                Brian A. Tinsley a,*, G.B. Burns b , Limin Zhou a,c a University of Texas at Dallas
                https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AdSpR..40.1126T/abstract

                30

            • #
              Michael262

              So NASA has seen the light, or they’re part of the global scam too ?.
              Should make a good Dan Brown novel.

              I didn’t know you’ve been failing science 101 ‘for years’.

              15

          • #
            AndyG55

            “scientists on planet Earth beg to differ”

            You do realise that the most climate modeller ARE NOT SCIENTISTS, don’t you mickey.

            It is patently obvious that CO2 warming is at best insignificant and is certainly not measurable.

            If it was measurable you could produce the measurements, couldn’t you, little mickey !! ;-)

            But you can’t.

            Empirical data backing the burst thought bubble of CO2 warming is never forthcoming.

            Clouds and solar energy effects on temperatureare significant and have been measured.

            72

      • #
        R.B.

        There is a massive difference between the laws of physics and modelling climate change. Apart from the former are simpler with many independent experiments having consistent observations with that predicted by the law, and uncorrected, laws are derived from observation rather than derived from postulates of what is occurring.

        11

      • #
        AndyG55

        “the laws of physics can all be discarded because”

        “Climate Science™” discarded the laws of physics from the very start.

        Its the only way they can rationalise their farcical religion.

        32

  • #
    OriginalSteve

    Hmmm…there does seem to be an apparent correlation in terms of time period with respect to cloud cover and temp, when viewing the chart in the skeptics handbook on page 6.

    200

  • #
    TdeF

    Lord Monckton published a paper on the same subject perhaps 15 years ago. Same conclusion.
    Then again, what have facts and science to do with Man Made Climate Extinction Change? Or even Man Bear Pig?

    501

  • #
    Geoff

    Changes in the Earth’s magnetic field over the Pacific Ocean would be enough to cause more or less cloud.

    170

    • #
      John PAK

      Could you expand upon that for us?

      80

      • #
        Geoff

        See Feynmann lectures and Gerald Pollack. Clouds are just big masses of ions. A magnetic field affects the gathering of ions.

        120

        • #
          Geoff

          How to see this at work? Create a magnetic field at cloud height and watch the clouds move in response to the field, not the wind direction or temperature gradient. Where does this happen naturally? In a vortex of spinning, charged water molecules. Where can we see this? In a tornado, in any atmospheric pressure system. Moving charge creates a magnetic field. This field interacts with the Earth’s magnetic field.

          Water rules our atmosphere’s response to a magnetic field.

          One day we will learn how to move a cloud in our atmosphere to where we want it to rain. This will require lots of energy. Lots of coal fire base load energy. However, its cheaper than building and operating desalination plants in Melbourne, $30B retail.

          80

          • #
          • #
            Brian

            I think you confuse cause and effect. A vortex such as a tornado is caused by the physical interaction between warm and cool air masses in a strong wind. But the rapid rotation in the Earth’s magnetic field will induce a charge.

            20

            • #
              Geoff

              Back to the Russians

              JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 102, NO. D12, PAGES 13,571-13,580, JUNE 27, 1997
              Electromagnetohydrodynamic nature of tropical
              cyclones, hurricanes, and tornadoes
              Evgeny Y. Krasilnikov
              Moscow State Aviation Institute, Technological University, Moscow, Russia
              Abstract. The problem of genesis and imensification of tropical cyclones, hurricanes,
              and tornadoes is highly important in meteorology and to date has not been solved. At
              the same time, practically all researches made concerning these phenomena fail to take
              into accounthat the origin and intensification of tropical cyclones, hurricanes, and
              tornadoes take place under conditions of an abnormally strong electric field which
              together with electromagnetohydrodynamic interaction occupies a key position in the
              intensification process. The detailed description of the electromagnetohydrodynamic
              model explaining the processes of energy conversion in tropical cyclones, hurricanes,

              30

    • #
      Sceptical Sam

      As would burning an effigy of Timmy the Giant Wombat, the high priest of gaia.

      90

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Now that we know this can we stop blaming everyone’s carbon footprint for climate change? I never did understands why something with CO2′s logarithmic effect on temperature could do anything remotely like the alarm being broadcast night and day. And what I have an even harder time understanding is how so many well educated “scientists” could fail to see that their favorite bogyman couldn’t have been guilty. To make it as simple as I can, they work with numbers everyday but miss something equivalent to the fact that 1 is less than 2.

    431

  • #
    el gordo

    ‘Meandering jet streams put huge “fingers” of cold air into warm air zones — surely a recipe for more cloud formation.’

    H/T to Stephen Wilde for getting it right all those years ago.

    291

    • #
      John PAK

      Wilde might be a solicitor but his work reads well and my guess is that his met learning came before the topic was clouded with bogus political ideas. Met used to be taught from basic atmospheric physics principles. I had one Andrew Baker BSc Met (Oxford) teach me the basics and cloud cover was a fundamental temperature range limiter though back in the 70s we only had estimated octas of cloud cover from ground observations.

      211

    • #
      Dave in the States

      This has certainly been case in N America the past few weeks. The past few weeks in the interior west of the US has been the coldest in 50 years. 50 year old records have not only been broken but shattered. Fingers of bitterly cold Arctic air have been infiltrating from the North.

      This situation is not abnormal and contributes to the wild fire season in California. However, the seasonal cooling has been more intense this year.

      230

      • #
        Screaming Nutbag

        And yet, at this time of record-breaking cold weather in the USA, here are our stats for the last 365 days:
        Total High temperature records set : 175
        Total Low temperature records set : 170

        Pretty amazing, huh? It’s almost as if the record-breaking cold weather is an exact match for the amount of record-breaking hot weather, huh?

        https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datatools/records

        24

        • #
          AndyG55

          Hot records by tiny fractions of a degree at urban affected stations

          but 50 year old records have not only been broken but shattered.

          Your desperation is showing, nutters.

          32

          • #
            Screaming Nutbag

            Where’s your evidence for that assertion?
            Last time you yapped that particular one, I showed you that the hot records were being broken by whole degrees.
            Do you really want me to show you the facts again?

            22

    • #

      Exactly! Well spotted, h/t added. Thank you.

      230

    • #
      vince whirlwind (Aka screaming nutbag)

      Stephen Wilde said an inactive Sun means more cloud and global cooling.

      What we have is an inactive Sun, less cloud and global warming.

      I’m sure it is possible to be more wrong than Stephen Wilde, but you’d have to *really* put some effort in.

      213

      • #

        Ahh. So in Vince-physics the total atmosphere-and-ocean doesn’t contain any stored heat from one year to the next eh? Curious.

        I can see why you are too gutless to reveal your real name. That’s the smartest thing you’ve done all day.

        150

        • #
          Peter C

          Hmmm, Interesting

          Maybe Vince will join in the Blog battles. Perhaps he has a point.
          At this stage I think JoNova has it covered.

          Lets hope that Vince continues to use his alternative pseudonym (The Screaming Nutbag).

          100

        • #
          Screaming Nutbag

          If I understand you correctly, you are revising Stephen Wilde’s thesis, seeing as it has proven wrong.

          Is there anywhere where this revised thesis is written down so we can read and understand it?

          15

          • #
            AndyG55

            Nothing about AGW is provably true. And most is provably UNTRUE.

            No AGW prediction has ever been worth the ink it was written with.

            You can’t even produce any empirical evidence to support the brain-fart of warming by atmospheric CO2.

            52

            • #
              Screaming Nutbag

              No, I asked for a summary of the new and improved Stephen Wilde theory, not for a summary of Lewis Carroll’s most famous work.

              14

              • #
                AndyG55

                But la-la-land is where your mind is,

                A wonderland of fallacy and farce.. the AGW meme.

                Now where is that empirical evidence of warming by ATMOSPHERIC CO2 ???

                No, not from the bottom of your bottle

                Elusive isn’t it, little trollette. !

                33

  • #

    So you’ve got this fluffy stuff which, all on its own, can make a winter night warmer by ten degrees. And that after a really cold day, which the fluffy stuff made colder, maybe much colder, by blocking that s*n thingy we don’t talk about. And what do you think will happen to min and max at potential peak times?

    Nonetheless you’ve got sciency people making pronouncements and models without spending too much thinky time about the fluffy stuff. Because it’s just too head-hurtie and they need to publish and get those numbers out there because it’s all terribly urgent and people are dying and stealing childhoods and…

    Call it feedback, warmies. Call it forcing. Call it Fred. But stop being all sciency and start being a bit thinky.

    470

    • #
      ivan

      made me laugh ,thanks

      140

    • #
      RickWill

      I have some CERES data of an annual cycle that gives good correlations for cloud being twice as effective in reducing heat input as they are in reducing heat output.

      1% increase in cloud fraction reduces OLR by 1.5W/sq.m while the same increase in cloud increases solar reflection by 3W/sq.m.

      Orbital eccentricity and global water distribution both play a major role in climate. Maximum insolation during the austral summer evaporates astronomical amounts of water from oceans in the Southern Hemisphere that contributes to precipitation/deposition in the Northern Hemisphere during the boreal winter. The lower insolation during the boreal summer them melts snow (or doesn’t) in the Northern Hemisphere to provide runoff.

      A really interesting observation is that OLR increases with increasing precipitable water – more water vapour aligns with more OLR. That fact is the exact opposite of water vapour being a powerful “greenhouse” gas. It is only when the water vapour cools during the austral autumn that cloud formation increases, precipitation increases and OLR reduces. The water vapour does not reduce OLR until it condenses to form clouds.

      111

      • #
        Kalm Keith

        Interesting.

        61

      • #
        Another Delcon

        ” greenhouse ” gasses are also radiative gasses . The earth looses heat via EM radiation . I expect that condensed water is radiatively active at different wavelengths than water vapor ( something I hadn’t thought about ) . I don’t think there is a path from the surface of the earth to the upper troposphere for LWIR , some say that LWIR is absorbed in less than 100 meters of the earth surface . Rather heat travels up by a combination of circulation and latent heat of water vapor . There is no ” hot spot ” in the upper tropo so the whole glowbull warming idea is bust . Outgoing EM radiation has it’s origin high in the atmosphere , not the ground as the alarmists seem to suggest .

        70

    • #
      Salome

      The s*n thingy–you mean the dirty great fusion reactor in the sky? (. . . that has no affect on temperature, of course, because hydrogen and helium are not carbon dioxide.)

      120

  • #
    el gordo

    Friend came back from a month in London and said it didn’t stop raining.

    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/nao_index.html

    The NAO is in its negative phase and with a quiet sun I expect UK weather to become bitterly cold and snowy this winter. If this fails to happen I vow to become a lukewarmer.

    190

  • #
    Kim

    A note on the greenhouse effect wrt IR radiation: In simple terms almost all of the ElectroMagnetic radiation, Visible Light and Infra Red radiation goes straight through the atmosphere. Straight down and straight up. Almost all of it doesn’t strike any atoms or molecules as it goes through the atmosphere. This is why we can see out to space and why we can transmit radio waves up into space and receive them from space.

    When IR radiation strikes the ground it is at that point that it is converted to heat and it heats up the atmosphere. And as heat the atmosphere and particularly clouds keep it in the atmosphere. Nothing to do with a greenhouse effect.

    143

    • #
      el gordo

      H2O is the biggest greenhouse gas and the meandering jetstream creates more low clouds, reflecting IR, so the world cools. Its a natural function.

      132

      • #
        Kim

        If you squash atmosphere down into a liquid it occupies in the region of 1/1800 to 1/2000 th. of the volume (depending on temperature). That means that at room temperature 99.95% of atmospheric space is not occupied by any atoms or molecules. Of the percentage that is occupied by any atoms or molecules only 0.04% is occupied by CO2. That means that the chances of any incident IR hitting any CO2 is 0.05% x 0.04% ie 0.0005 x 0.0004 ie 0.00002%. That, of course, increases with the IR passing through a layer rather than a 2 dimensional plane.

        Clouds are an insulator. They both keep heat in and keep it out. When struck by IR they will convert the IR to heat (at the top). This insulating function of clouds is the primary function of H2O. The other functions of H2O are storage of and transfer heat in the oceans and in humidity.

        200

      • #
        Karabar

        No one can doubt that the miracle compound dihydrogen monoxide with its amazing properties and huge heat of vapourisation, including the unusual ability to expand while it solidifies, has enormous influence on the planet’s temperature stability and manifold natural processes.
        But why do they call it a “greenhouse gas”? How the H*ll does any of that bear any relation at all to a greenhouse?

        110

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      Good outline.

      “When IR radiation strikes the ground it ”

      Wouldn’t that be inbound UV and outbound IR?

      Solar energy is constantly being degraded at every interaction so that when it is finally “turned around” at ground and sea level it is in its weakest form, IR.

      Two false debil debils, CO2 and IR that are supposed to be bringing the world to the end.

      We’ll be safe as long as we can get out of blood sucking organisations like the UNIPCCC and its parent the UN

      KK

      110

    • #
      Crakar24

      Thats BS kim, the ground warms the warmth is coverted back into ir and leaves as fast as it came then “magic happens” and we get agw

      60

  • #
    Lewis P Buckingham

    We have very little rain cloud over inland Eastern Australia which could explain the relatively warm conditions during the day.

    90

  • #
    Peter C

    What drives the clouds?

    It would seem from the question that very little is known about cloud formation.

    I don’t think that is entirely true. I would say that quite a bit is known about cloud formation.

    Almost all the clouds are in the troposphere. The Clouds are created by upward movement of air which causes cooling and thus the condensation of water vapour. Water vapour is Not Well Mixed in the atmosphere, which creates variable cloudiness.
    Large scale upward movement is associated with stratus (layer) clouds, whereas local movement causes cumulus clouds.
    Tropical and sub tropical thunderstorms (Cumulo-nimbus) launch water vapour up to the tropopause. The clouds spread out as cirrus clouds which drift downwind for thousands of kilometres.

    There is talk about cosmic ray bombardment (Svensmark theory). That might contribute toward cirrus cloud formation.

    Is there a meteorologist who can give better advice?

    150

    • #
      Another Ian

      Somewhere back in BC Chiefio made mention that some early simulation of ONE cloud needed bodacious time on a Cray.

      I don’t have a link but a question on a “Wood” thread might jog his memory

      80

    • #
      RickWill

      Orbital eccentricity is a significant driver of clouds along with the global distribution of water. Insolation swings about 22W/sq.m over an annual cycle. The peak is during the austral summer where vast amounts of water are exposed to the sun’s rays. That results in vast amount of water being evaporated. During 2018 the atmospheric water column swung from 17mm averaged across the globe to 22mm. So a swing of 5mm over the entire globe or 2,500Gt change in that year and similar amount every year simply through orbital eccentricity and the distribution of water across the globe. That is just the swing; not the total precipitation.

      Just the swing in water vapour is 100 times more than annual global CO2 output.

      When the heat goes into the oceans the evaporation is high but the cloud formation is low. When the water vapour gets over land it cools and forms clouds or as the air moves to higher latitudes over oceans it forms clouds. Sea surface temperature peaks in August each year, months after the global heat input was positive. The lag is because it takes time for the clouds to form and reduce solar input by reflecting more. Cloud relfection of SWR is twice as effective as cloud’s reduction of OLR; clouds cool the planet.

      This glorious weather cycle is driven by orbital eccentricity and the distribution of surface water.

      Orbital eccentricity is like the cyclic shove on the climate swing. It ensures the weather is always changing.

      130

      • #
      • #
        vince whirlwind (Aka screaming nutbag)

        The paper says the 2%-6% changes to cloud cover didn’t occur over land, only ocean.

        So what you just typed only includes one thing relevant to the Russian Cloud Cover story:
        “Cloud relfection of SWR is twice as effective as cloud’s reduction of OLR”
        Notice the Russians don’t take that into account?

        Also notice how their “greatest area of cloud reduction” was in the tropics?
        Remember how temperature rise is *lowest* in the tropics?

        This Russian story just isn’t adding up, is it?

        08

        • #

          You are so dishonest. The paper says cloudiness over land decreased from 57% to 54.5%. Fig 2.

          And the tropic (doh) is where most of the heat exchange happens on the planet. That’s why it matters. Perhaps you’ve heard of convective cells that take heat from the tropics to the poles?

          120

          • #
            Michael262

            Jo, the fact that you need to argue with strangers here shows how on the outer rim of credible science you are.

            26

          • #
            Screaming Nutbag

            It says:
            “The greatest decrease is observed in the tropics and over the oceans.”
            In other words, according to his theory, the Tropics should have seen a major increase in insolation, and therefore the biggest increase in temperatures, right?
            Er…no…turns out he’s wrong.

            It also says:
            “Over land, the decrease is minimal.”
            So according to his theory, the oceans should have experienced the bulk of his cloud-related increase in solar radiation, therefore ocean temperatures should have increased the most, right?
            Er…no…turns out he’s wrong on that, too:

            http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/LandOcean2017.png

            As you can see, land temperatures have increased twice as much as the ocean.

            13

            • #
              AndyG55

              “In other words, according to his theory, the Tropics should have seen a major increase in insolation, and therefore the biggest increase in temperatures, right?”

              OMG, you are SO DUMB, nutcase.

              Tropical insolation heats up the oceans.

              Tropical land is highly regulated by water vapour.

              You really are starting to show you base-level IGNORANCE now.

              Please keep going ! :-)

              43

            • #
              AndyG55

              “As you can see, land temperatures have increased twice as much as the ocean”

              WOW. such ignorance even for a nutcase.

              Firstly using URBAN heated and fudged BEST data.. worst of !!!!

              Then not knowing that the oceans are a huge sink for solar energy.

              You are getting DUMBER and DUMDER, nutcase

              You do know that the ONLY atmospheric warming in the last 40 years has come form TROPICAL releases of ocean energy, don’t you , nutcase?

              Keep going, its fun watching you display your abject ignorance about basically anything to do with climate. :-)

              33

              • #
                Screaming Nutbag

                You do know that the ONLY atmospheric warming in the last 40 years has come form TROPICAL releases of ocean energy, don’t you , nutcase?

                What a bizarre question – of course I don’t “know” that. If I “knew” that, then I’d clearly be stark, raving bonkers.

                15

              • #
                AndyG55

                Seems that FACTS have eluded you, doesn’t it

                No warming from 1980 – 1997

                No warming from 2001 – 2015

                ONLY WARMING IS FROM EL NINOS.

                And now , with this tropical cloud decrease we know why.

                Try not to remain WOEFULLY and WILFULLY IGNORANT all your life, nutcase. !!

                32

    • #
      Serge Wright

      The cloud-temperature modulation has two components, one is cloud formation and the other is longivity. The second component might be the driver of the change, and whilst I doubt anyone yet knows this answer, most people only look at drivers of cloud formation. As a non-expert in this area I would make a guess on a cloud longivity cause and note that increased aerosols from Asia would be a good place to start as this aligns with the drop in cloudiness. Increased human aerosols might cause the clouds to rain out faster, thus reducing longivity and their negative albedo forcing. If the more recent pause is caused by reduced solar activity then it could be theorised that the aerosol forcing which rains out the clouds is larger than the solar forcing that creates more of them.

      What we do know is that the OHC has increased with the decreased cloudiness as expected and the predicted hotspot signature of GHG forcing theory is missing, which also alignes with the cloud theory. We also know from the weather balloon data analysed by the Connolly’s that the warming in the stratosphere over the poles, during winter and at night, cannot be explained by current GHG theory as they clearly demonstrate the molar density is reduced and not increased as GHG theory demands. Their resulting theory of oxygen molecules forming clumps via van der vaal bonds also needs validation and a theory as to why that occurs.

      Thus, any sensible person can understand that the GHG theory has no real legs and we need to look at other factors to understand what drives the climate. It’s a shame that our taxpayer funded universites have replaced the quest for knowledge by the quest for money and ideology.

      50

  • #
    OriginalSteve

    The screws are tightening in the greenist nightmare of Communist Victoriastan…..

    https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-01/victorian-plastic-bag-ban-explained/11658360

    “The Victorian Government has implemented a statewide ban on lightweight plastic shopping bags at almost all retailers across Victoria starting today.

    “The ban applies to all plastic bags handed out to customers with a thickness of 35 microns or less including degradable, bio-degradable and compostable bags.

    110

  • #
    thingadonta

    I like the idea, the problem is that I’m sure the Russian Academy of Sciences does as well, just like the Russian sports doping institute, the Russian democratic integrity institute, and the Russian institute for quality control of novichock.

    74

  • #
    OriginalSteve

    https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-31/hydrogen-strategy-fossil-fuels-versus-renewables/11653336

    “Home to 125 million people and one of the world’s worst nuclear meltdowns, the allure of hydrogen energy has driven Japan’s ambition to become a leading adopter of the energy source.

    “Next year’s Tokyo Olympics will serve as a demonstration of the country’s progress towards a so-called hydrogen society, based on carbon-free, next-generation technology.

    “It is keen for cars that produce exhaust — water — that technically could be drunk. The Olympics itself will be home to buses like this

    “And key to its strategy for this clean-energy future is something that may surprise — Australia’s brown coal.

    “Japan’s strategic hydrogen roadmap, released earlier this year, states plainly that 2020 targets are set “assuming the success of Japan-Australia brown coal-to-hydrogen project”.

    “That project, a trial using coal from Latrobe Valley in Victoria, will demonstrate how Australia’s hydrogen export industry — and Japan’s imports — might work.

    “But its prominence also hints at a tension threatening to tear the Australian hydrogen movement apart.

    “The recipe for hydrogen

    “Hydrogen is attractive as a fuel source because it carries more energy than natural gas and is carbon-free, so the burning of it does not contribute to climate change.

    “It can be produced by the process of electrolysis of water using large amounts of energy — think solar and wind-sourced — or chemical processes associated with combusting fossil fuels like coal and gas.

    “That sets up an ideological split between fossil fuels and renewables.

    “While the hydrogen itself emits no carbon when used, the cheapest way to produce it right now does.

    “Those preparing Australia’s hydrogen strategy recognise the need to reduce emissions to combat climate change, and are only considering options using fossil fuels if they come with carbon capture and storage (CCS).

    61

    • #
      Serp

      There’s an issue with the generation of nitrogen oxides when hydrogen is used as a fuel and its production, storage and transport is fraught with challenges to return on investment; it’s a technological blind alley which will soon be forgotten as its only proponents are the decarbonization gang of subsidy harvesting investors among which our dismal Chief Scientist is in the vanguard of boosters.

      100

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Original Steve:

      The ABC in LaLa Land (yet again). Even IF the pilot plant in Victoria can produce hydrogen (and why shouldn’t they do so with an idea decades old?) they have to come up with a “carbon” storage plan and prove it viable.
      Then they have to get the finance to build the manufacturing plant, AND the hydrogen liquification plant, AND the hydrogen storage facility, AND the cryogenic tankers to transport the liquid hydrogen to Japan. And all in less than a year????????

      Certain comments about mental capacity at the ABC have been deleted.

      150

      • #
        ivan

        And don’t forget that hydrogen tend to escape from most containers and has a very nasty tenancy to go bang when mixed with air and ignited – I assume that isn’t taught in schools any more.

        120

    • #
      Lance

      Per paper below, H2 is good for 2 things:
      Ammonia synthesis and liquid hydrocarbon synthesis if the energy to make the H2 is free.

      Otherwise, it is fairly useless as a fuel.
      The overhead energy to make, store, transport, the H2 is up to 288% of the energy contained in the H2.

      Energy and the Hydrogen Economy

      https://afdc.energy.gov/files/pdfs/hyd_economy_bossel_eliasson.pdf

      Maybe Japan hasn’t read the paper.

      90

      • #
        Serp

        Thanks Lance. Somebody, probably you (?), linked to that paper on Aug 20 and I downloaded it but couldn’t find it to cite in my post upthread.

        30

      • #

        Lance
        I worked in industrial gases for many years. Hydrogen is extraordinarily light and in order to get some efficiency in storage you have to compress it, but even then there is bugger all there. A G size cylinder has only 0.5kg of hydrogen in it. (CO2 by the way has over 30 kg in a G size cylinder)

        Even liquifying it has it as a very light liquid. It also has a very nasty ability to liquify oxygen out of the air into it, which makes an explosive mix!!! And its very energy intensive to liquify…

        All of which makes it uneconomic to transport and a hydrogen powered car must have very heavy cylinders or a special cryogenic tank (which suffers boil off losses)

        My prediction, and I have told my federal member all about these limitations, is that this is only good for niche applications and is useless for any large scale application. That does not stop scientific types rushing to get grant money to explore it. But they are wasting the money doing it…

        60

    • #
      Karabar

      Hydrogen is attractive as a fuel source because it carries more energy than natural gas

      How did they manage to dream that gem up?

      70

    • #
      Chad

      Wont it be interesting when its finally proven that CO2 has nothing to do with climate change……
      …..but that water vapour (clouds) are a significant factor.!
      …….iE hydrogen fueled vehicles adding water vapour to the atmosphere causing climate change !

      61

      • #
        The Depraved and MOST Deplorabale Vlad the Impaler

        Hi Chad,

        Do remember that when you burn either methane or ethane (or any of the other -thanes), along with petrol (‘gasoline’ to those of us on the wrong side of the Big Pond), or diesel, or kerosene (in the form of the commercially-available Jet A or Jet A-1), about half of what comes out on the other side is water vapor, and further, for all practical purposes, it can be considered ‘juvenile’ water at that, with the hydrogens inside of the fuel having been sequestered inside some older-than-Miocene rock somewhere, for a very long time.

        It is interesting that warmunists do not consider water (and its vaporous state) to be any significant influence on global climate or temperatures, considering its ubiquitousness. Ten-to-twenty times more abundant than carbon dioxide, yet they focus exclusively on CO2 as a global game-changer.

        I know I’ll never figure it out … … … …

        Vlad

        70

  • #
    Geoff Sherrington

    Google search about warming and cooling of high and low clouds and be rewarded with about the thighest density of bafflegab that you will ever find.
    Many of the discussions omit the balance, the balance of energy in minus energy out of a cloud system. Many assume a greenhouse effect on their way to proving it (by thair standards). It is a mess.
    I am unable to form a coherent framework against which to test various cloud stories. Sadly, I do not seem to be alone. Geoff S

    150

  • #
    AndyG55

    I wonder how much of that reduction in cloud cover was over the tropical Pacific Ocean.

    All that pent up solar energy. Note that the peak decrease in cloud cover is around the time of that El Nino

    72

  • #
    OriginalSteve

    Hmmm……reminds me of ‘The Truman Show’…

    https://www.allhomes.com.au/news/cbr-grant-set-to-transform-googong-into-a-high-tech-smart-city-900919/?utm_campaign=up-top&utm_source=the-canberratimes&utm_medium=link

    “The township of Googong is set to become a showcase for technology-based urban living thanks to a $1.1 million grant from the federal government’s Smart Cities and Suburbs Program.

    “Googong developers and the Queanbeyan-Palerang Regional Council won the grant that will establish Googong as a high-tech neighbourhood, helping reduce everyday community service costs, including waste management, utility consumption and the maintenance of amenities.

    “The first element of the “smart city” infrastructure is already in place with the installation of a wind turbine and solar-powered light pole.

    ……..

    “5G-ready “smart” light poles will soon be installed throughout the newest stages of Googong including its main commercial centre, which is currently being built, the second residential neighbourhood and key public areas like Googong Common.

    ““The smart poles have the capability to be seamlessly fitted with network infrastructure to provide services such as free public Wi-Fi, digital wayfinding and surveillance cameras. They will also enable the council to remotely manage key services like waste management, car park usage, irrigation, lighting, barbecues and security,” Mr Leslie said.

    ““This is the way of the future. Instead of sending trucks to Googong to check when bins need emptying or if a street light has a fault, the council will know immediately and assign resources accordingly.

    31

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      For the general information “Googong is just 16km from Parliament House Canberra and 4km south of Jerrabomberra”.
      Apparently the children there are practically free-range.

      40

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Sure they will…and have the entire place in an iron grip no one will ever get out of. They will talk benefits all the while intending iron fisted control.

      40

    • #
      ivan

      Agenda 21 sustainable slave camp city in the making.

      50

    • #
      Serge Wright

      The RE additions are an example of why the green zealots proposing these concepts are so incredibly smart. You will end up with people unable to sleep due to the wind turbine noise, walking around the streets in total darkness with no photons available to keep the street lights on after sunset. A dumb city filled with dumb people.

      70

  • #
    ExWarmist

    Oh my goodness! Error bars on a graph – how pre-post-normal science…

    A very interesting result, but how will it become more widely known?

    110

  • #
    Lionell Griffith

    Scientific news from 10 years into the future:

    Date line UNGA (United Nation Global Authority) Nov 1, 2029:

    It has been determined by 97.8% of the UNASS (United Nation Association of Supreme Scientists) that the failure of all their bold plans to save the earth by reducing carbon (sic) footprint is due to the Three Laws of Thermodynamics.

    The UNGA has repealed those laws and immediately commands the building of perpetual motion driven power generators sufficient to power the global power grid. Any NCG (National Central Authority) refusing to do so will be taxed 200% of their nation’s gross national product until they obey the new UNGA commandment. The revenue from said taxes will be used as designated by the UNGA.

    130

    • #
      Screaming Nutbag

      Real Estate Agents, property developers, irrigators, cotton farmers, bankers, insurance salesmen, politicians….the list of people using lies to sell us a rubbish future for their own personal gain goes on.
      One group of people not on that list, are scientists.
      Scientists are scientists because they are attracted to truth and to the way truth can be applied via the scientific method.

      You *are* being lied to, but the lies are coming from politicians and fossil fuel executives, who make millions by lying to you.
      Denigrating scientists shows that you are gullible enough to swallow the lies coming from those who are making money by denying the science.

      66

      • #
        gee aye

        Face it Mr Bag. This is one argument that you will never get a coherent response to.

        52

        • #
          el gordo

          ‘Scientists are scientists because they are attracted to truth and to the way truth can be applied via the scientific method.’

          Not all scientists are bad, only the klimatariat will front the Royal Commission.

          80

        • #
          AndyG55

          ” that you will never get a coherent response to.”

          Especially if GA answers. !

          62

        • #

          …personal gain…? One group of people not on that list, are scientists.

          Sure Vince. Scientists are angels, they never ever do anything for their own gain, they never get confirmation bias, they don’t care if they get grants, and most of all, they are delighted when someone shows they’ve been completely grossly and incompetently wrong for 30 years.

          Is that coherent enough for you, or is irony too hard?

          70

          • #
            Screaming Nutbag

            Unlike real estate agents, property developers and politicians, in science, telling lies isn’t the norm.
            For every Murry Salby there are thousands who do their job with integrity. Doing it any other way means you get caught out.

            If the truth is subject to getting grants – how do you explain why the current climate-change-denying governments in US, AUS, HU & PL have been unable to simply pay for research that proves they are correct?
            Why is it that grants only produce fake science when that science is science you disagree with?

            14

            • #
              AndyG55

              Produce the empirical science for warming by atmospheric CO2, nutcase.

              Your petty evasion and distraction tactics are coming short and sharp.

              ” Doing it any other way means you get caught out.”

              Climate scientists are caught out… CONSTANTLY.

              42

            • #
              AndyG55

              “Why is it that grants… blah, blah….”

              In “climate science™” grants only go to those who will support the consensus.

              REAL SCIENCE should not be done that way. !

              52

              • #
                Screaming Nutbag

                So why doesn’t Scott Morrison provide grants to those that don’t?
                Is ScoMo part of the conspiracy, too?

                13

              • #
                Screaming Nutbag

                So why doesn’t Scott Morrison provide grants to those that don’t?
                Is ScoMo part of the conspiracy, too?

                13

              • #
                AndyG55

                So you now show that you don’t know how grants are applied.

                OK, yet another case of you IGNORANCE..

                Keep displaying it for all to see, nutcase. Its funny :-)

                32

  • #

    The sad thing in Australia is that people who vote for the ALP Are either communists or the absolute lower percentile of intellegence. They are easily led by media personalities, or Hollywood types. They truely believe that Labor are for the working man. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    Queensland and Victoria are classic examples of how the ignorant are destroying our great nation because They can’t think. ALP/Greens supporters are the scum of the earth.

    Poor fella my country

    131

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Both sides have been bought out by the globalists…you cant get a cigareete paper between the main parties….this is I think best explains the irrational head-long suicide run down the green blind alley…….

      110

      • #
        vince whirlwind (Aka screaming nutbag)

        You mean like, for example, how wind power in the UK has brought the wholesale price of electricity down to 35 euros a MWh, whereas the blind alley that is nuclear power requires taxpayer subsidies to prop their price up to 105 euros/MWh so they can make a profit?

        Those globalists! Sooner we get rid of them the better!

        19

        • #

          And what’s the wholesale price of electricity when the wind isn’t working? Do people in the UK pay more now or less since they closed their coal power.

          You know the answer as well as we do. “Cheaper wholesale” on a part time basis is a cherry picking lie for something we need 24/7 eh?

          110

          • #
            Screaming Nutbag

            I’m not aware that the wind ever stops blowing.

            In any case, the fact is that the wholesale price of electricity in the UK is on average 35 euros whereas the power to be produced by the new nuke at Hinckley is currently price-guaranteed at 105 euros.

            According to Ofgem:
            “Wholesale energy prices decreased in Q2 2019 compared to both the previous quarters. While volatility in the electricity day-ahead price remained relatively stable this quarter, it increased for gas.”
            https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/data-portal/wholesale-market-indicators

            Ooh, I’m glad I checked – UK wholesale price is now below 28 euros!!!

            “Electricity wholesale prices fell in 2019, as the number of generators increased, reducing the
            opportunity for any generator to exert market power or make excessive profits. Electricity
            markets are moderately concentrated overall. “

            16

        • #
          AndyG55

          most of it from France and Scandinavia,

          You should call yourself Nutcase, not Nutbag.!

          92

          • #
            Screaming Nutbag

            I am sceptical, so I checked: it turns out that net imports in Q2 2019 totalled 5.62%.

            Can Andy explain on which planet they describe 5.62% as “most of it”?

            15

            • #
              AndyG55

              Nuclear, gas, what do they rely on when there is no wind and no Sun, nutcase. !!

              They CANNOT rely on wind and solar.

              52

              • #
                Screaming Nutbag

                Wind and solar provided them with 31% of their electricity needs in Q2, 2019, up from about 0% 30 years ago.

                Meanwhile, Andy, you dodged the question – I am assuming your home planet is where you learnt that 5.62% = “most of it”.
                Is it too much to ask that you identify which planet this is for us?
                I am genuinely interested in people’s travels. They are almost always a lot more interesting than their opinions. Especially when they appear to be a bit dim.

                14

              • #
                AndyG55

                What do they RELY on when there is no wind at night, nutcase. ?

                Answer the question…

                Thank goodness for those links and that gas fired power, hey ;-)

                42

              • #
                Screaming Nutbag

                Well, however they are doing it, it’s working, seeing as they now have record cheap electricity prices.

                15

              • #
                AndyG55

                What do they RELY on when there is no wind at night, nutcase. ?

                Answer the question…

                … or run around in blind evasion like a headless chook

                42

              • #
                Screaming Nutbag

                Ah, Andy comes from a planet where not only does 5.62% = “most of it”, but ALSO, it’s a planet where the wind doesn’t shine at night.

                No wonder he’s confused about how we earthlings go about things.

                13

              • #

                Ahh! Wind power!

                The only thing where supporters are happy overjoyed with something that only works for 30% of the time, and you never know when that will be.

                Tony.

                41

              • #
                AndyG55

                And the headless chook evasion routin from nutcase continues

                What does the UK RELY ON for electricity when there is no wind at night, nutcase. ?

                Answer the question…

                or continue to mock yourself.

                32

              • #
                Screaming Nutbag

                It’s cheaper than coal when it runs at an average of 25% of its capacity.
                Unlike coal, it doesn’t have to keep burning fuel and costing money when the electricity it is producing isn’t required and is sold at a loss.

                Andy, whatever it is they rely on, it’s working: wholesale prices are now down to 30% of the price guarantee they have to give a nuke plant to keep it in business, thanks to wind supplying 31% of their power needs.

                11

  • #
    tom0mason

    Professor Judy Collins (HERE) explains how the UN-IPCC preferred climate models assess, from both sides, the emotional energy balance, and what it means for future climatic scenarios.

    80

  • #
    DMA

    “We don’t know why clouds decreased, but we know it wasn’t due to CO2, which kept rising relentlessly year after year, and even faster after the turn of the century.”
    We also now know that CO2 does not act as a greenhouse gas in our atmosphere because the atmosphere is in thermodynamic equilibrium. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfRBr7PEawY
    Apparently it has never been a cause of atmospheric warming(heating, catastrophe,etc)

    112

    • #
      Screaming Nutbag

      Nonsense. As your host has reminded you before: the greenhouse effect is a fact based on the laws of physics and has been documented since about 200 years ago.

      25

      • #
        AndyG55

        “the greenhouse effect is a fact based on the laws of physics”

        Produce empirical evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.

        You are a brain-hosed ignorant gullible nutcase.

        53

        • #
          Screaming Nutbag

          Andy, no sensible adult denies the atmospheric greenhouse gas effect.
          Your host here herself has told you that it is undeniable.

          15

          • #
            AndyG55

            Still waiting , nutcase.

            Empirical evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.

            Where is it ???

            Your mindless blathering is not evidence.

            43

            • #
              Screaming Nutbag

              It’s all around you Andy.
              You could try to educate yourself instead of typing endless wrong things on the internet.
              For example, you could learn something by doing some actual science:
              https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/10.1119/1.2768699

              14

              • #
                AndyG55

                Can’t link to the actual experiment.

                Is it one of those glass bottle farces, that has NOTHING to do with the atmosphere.

                We know CO2 is a radiative active gas, so what.

                Empirical evidence of warming by ATMOSPHERIC CO2, nutcase.

                MASSIVE FAILURE from the nutcase.

                33

              • #
                Screaming Nutbag

                Ahh, the sound of a pram being emptied of all its toys….

                14

              • #
                AndyG55

                Someone might throw them back in for you later, nutcase.

                Still waiting for Empirical evidence of warming by ATMOSPHERIC CO2, nutcase.

                Unless you are SO DUMB that you think a glass jar represents the atmosphere.

                It seem you may really be THAT DUMB !!!

                43

              • #
                Screaming Nutbag

                The radiative properties of gases are well understood. No sensible adult denies them.

                14

              • #
                AndyG55

                Empirical evidence of warming by ATMOSPHERIC CO2, nutcase.

                Seems all you can do is cackle !!

                32

  • #

    Cheshire sunspots and cloudiness, they come and go, come and go, correlation high with low.
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/maunder-minimum

    50

  • #
    Ruairi

    The science of global cloud shade,
    On temperatures, will not persuade,
    Alarmists it’s true,
    As it’s not CO2,
    Unless that the clouds be man-made.

    120

  • #
    Martin

    Only a small variation in cloud cover CAN explain all variability observed since the industrial revolution. BUT its only one variable in the climate system.

    90

    • #
      The Depraved and MOST Deplorabale Vlad the Impaler

      Agreed, Martin.

      Any number of times I’ve tried to get both sides to consider that it cannot be a single isolated factor, whether we are talking the Sun, Milankovitch Cycles, CO2 concentration, continental positions on the Earth … … … etc etc etc. The climate is a “… coupled, non-linear dynamic system … ” and does not have a single, unvarying response to an isolated impulse (this factor was taught to us in our Geophysics classes as the principal of non-stationarity; the impulse response of a system, especially complex systems, can and will be different, even if the impulse is the exact same every time. A system as complex as global climate does not exhibit stationarity, in the Geophysical sense).

      Keep pounding that concept: when someone tries to tell you that CO2 has all this magical power to control global temperature (down to the second decimal place, no less!), ask them how there was an ice age at the Ordovician-Silurian boundary, when CO2 was more than ten times its present concentration.

      Or the Cryogenian Period, when CO2 was measured in percents (Gradstein, Ogg, Smith, 2004, 2012; Gradstein, Ogg, Ogg, 2016). Geochemistry is the best single argument we have against anything the alarmist side wants to assert in regards to all their ‘CO2-thermostat’ hype. Myriad factors have always been and always will be influencing global climate, so let us get “them” to stop pushing the mythical single-control-knob hypothesis.

      Regards to all,

      Vlad
      (a licensed Professional Geologist in the State of Wyoming;
      Certified Petroleum Geophysicist by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists)

      140

      • #
        Carbon500

        Vlad: And of course, the high percentage of atmospheric CO2 in the era you describe didn’t lead to runaway positive feedback heating of the atmosphere – so why should we expect the present minor increases in this trace gas to be the cause of runaway warming?

        80

      • #
        Screaming Nutbag

        “… it cannot be a single isolated factor…”

        The grown ups know that perfectly well, which is why we talk about “attribution”.

        The following illustrates what the grown-ups know on this subject:

        https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/Climate_Change_Attribution_fr.png

        Anybody can do further research on attribution and add their contribution to what we know.
        Inventing straw men about people thinking there is “a single factor” doesn’t contribute to increasing our knowledge on this subject.

        15

        • #
          AndyG55

          Great link, nutcase. Showcases both models and ignorance rolled into one.

          Attribution study are a statistical masturbation and a conformational bias exercise,

          all based on erroneous assumptions.

          62

        • #
          The Depraved and MOST Deplorabale Vlad the Impaler

          Greetings, S.N.:

          Any time I tune into a discussion about ‘global climate’ and ‘global climate change’, the only factor I see presented or discussed is the level of carbon dioxide (or, more appropriately, “carbon (sic) pollution”) in the atmosphere. I cannot think of a time or place that I have seen other factors brought into the discussion, so it is quite implicit that ‘carbon pollution’ is being blamed as the singular cause for changing global climate.

          As I pointed out, if carbon dioxide really has all this power to affect, change, or contribute to what happens with global climate, it would have overwhelmed any other natural factors before the Proterozoic even began. Note, again, since you missed it, the Cryogenian Period (which some refer to as ‘Snowball Earth’) took place when atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations were measured in percents, not ppm.

          The attribution of climate change (in either direction) to carbon dioxide is completely wrong. At best, carbon dioxide makes a minuscule contribution to climate change; anything carbon dioxide might do, water, and water vapor, do much more, overwhelming any ‘signal’ that carbon dioxide might generate.

          And, since you did not understand my previous statement, I’ll state it again: global climate systems are so complex that there cannot be a single “master” control factor that drives all changes (which is what the IPCC steadfastly asserts) on all time scales and in all areas. I accept only that clouds are one factor; solar irradiance is another; ocean currents are another; Milankovitch cycles are another; … … … but as any competent engineer will tell you, a, “… coupled, non-linear ” (and non-stationary) ” dynamic system … ” cannot be controlled by a single factor. In case you missed it, Ms. Greta stood in front of the UN and screamed at them that carbon dioxide is going to kill the planet; the cancelled COP in Chile was all about controlling carbon dioxide; Paris was supposed to limit how much carbon dioxide we humans put into the atmosphere … … …

          Straw man, eh?

          I think not.

          Do have a great day, my good gentlefellow or gentlelady, however you “identify” yourself,

          Vlad

          40

      • #

        Yep. The idea that there’s one major control knob, CO2, is improbable enough. Looking for other knobs like sunspots may decrease the futility, but climate modeling remains futile. Put it down to box-tick education, Publish-then-Perish careeerism and GameBoy statistics-love.

        Nonetheless, investigating climate apolitically would be good. When do they start? We have a seething asthenosphere and deep hydrosphere below, an atmosphere and all of space above. Should keep everyone busy.

        No links to Novichokipedia needed.

        31

  • #
  • #

    This cloud result also explains why the surface statistics show steady surface warming before 2000 which the satellites do not find in the atmosphere. Cloud changes warm the surface, not the troposphere. Explaining this puzzling difference is serious evidence for the cloud change idea. It also shows that CO2 has nothing to do with it, as I pointed out two years ago. https://www.cfact.org/2018/01/02/no-co2-warming-for-the-last-40-years/

    122

    • #
      screaming.nutbag@hotmail.com

      And yet, weirdly, all the modelling done since about 1972 based on the well-known and undeniable radiative properties of CO2 have shown a correlation between CO2 increases and the subsequent temperature rises that happened in the real world.

      It’s almost as if CO2 has a bit more than “nothing to do with it”.

      Still waiting for that sun spot cycle global cooling we were promised almost a decade ago on this blog. Will it happen soon?

      211

      • #

        And yet wierdly you can’t name one model that was right about most major trends since 1972.

        All those models and nothing to show for it. Not one model got the South pole, the north pole, and the tropical hot spot trends right. None of them get regional rainfall. None of the get droughts right. None of them “do clouds” well.

        120

        • #
          Screaming Nutbag

          Models since as far back as the early 1970s accurately projected the temperature increase that happened since then.

          “John Sawyer published the study Man-made Carbon Dioxide and the “Greenhouse” Effect in 1972.[50] He summarized the knowledge of the science at the time, the anthropogenic attribution of the carbon dioxide greenhouse gas, distribution and exponential rise, findings which still hold today. Additionally he accurately predicted the rate of global warming for the period between 1972 and 2000.[51][52][53]

          The increase of 25% CO2 expected by the end of the century therefore corresponds to an increase of 0.6°C in the world temperature – an amount somewhat greater than the climatic variation of recent centuries. – John Sawyer, 1972″

          What happened? Exactly that.

          You can read more here:
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science#Scientists_increasingly_predict_warming,_1970s

          Notice Richard Lindzen’s thoroughly debunked model that predicted global cooling that never happened isn’t mentioned?
          That was another one you embraced with enthusiasm, wasnt it?
          Shouldn’t you be a bit more scpetical?

          16

          • #
            AndyG55

            “Models since as far back as the early 1970s accurately projected the temperature increase that happened since then.”

            Only in FANTASY land , and ONLY after massive adjustments to surface temperature fabrications.

            Climate models are a total miss in any REAL world

            They forecast a HUGE range, and a HUGE variety of events, so which of them is correct

            Or do they wait for an event and then choose the whichever model that guessed right (even though the rest didn’t).??

            SCIENCE is NOT done that way, nutcase.

            42

            • #
              Screaming Nutbag

              I seriously doubt anybody will be relying on your opinions, Andy.
              All you have there is a collection of wild assertions without any kind of supporting evidence.
              And from phrases such as “Climate models… forecast a HUGE range, and a HUGE variety of events”, we would have to conclude that those assertions are based on perfect ignorance.

              Andy, climate models don’t model “events”. The purpose of the model is in fact the exact opposite. The fact you still don’t understand this would indicate there is little hope that you will ever be able to usefully contribute on this topic.

              16

              • #
                AndyG55

                “climate models don’t model “events”. “

                No, because THEY CAN’T.

                They cannot model EL Ninos, La Ninas or any other climate event.

                They can’t model the two main things that have driven climate over the last 40 years at least.

                You have just told us all that climate models are TOTALLY USELESS.

                ““Climate models… forecast a HUGE range, and a HUGE variety of events”, we would have to conclude that those assertions are based on perfect ignorance.”

                Have you looked that the CHIMP5 models.. My statement is totally accurate.

                Seems you have NOTHING to contribute to anything except regurgitated BS,

                42

              • #
                Screaming Nutbag

                Why would we need a CHIMP5 model, when we have a perfectly good live chimp posting gobbledigook right here for us?

                I would be fascinated if anybody could explain how our chimp can get from
                “Climate models… forecast a HUGE range, and a HUGE variety of events”
                to
                “THEY CAN’T”.

                Is this the typewriter theory gone mad?

                17

              • #
                AndyG55

                You poor mindless trollette.

                You really are suffering cognitive mal-function, aren’t you.

                Do you really DENY that the climate models predict over a HUGE range of outcomes?

                Come on nutcase… Which one is correct ???

                You have already told us they can’t predict climate “events”

                So a big miss on reality right from the start.

                Which of the 100+ climate models is correct, nutcase.

                Where is your empirical evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2, nutcase

                So far all we have from you is mindless regurgitation of brain-washed memes.

                43

              • #
                Screaming Nutbag

                You have already told us they can’t predict climate “events”

                So a big miss on reality right from the start.

                Seriously Andy – if you don’t understand how “events” are the complete opposite of what a climate model does, you *really* need to go away and do some study, because you’re just digging your hole deeper.

                15

              • #
                AndyG55

                Thanks for telling us all that climate models don’t deal with REALITY.

                You are doing so well. ;-)

                32

              • #
                Screaming Nutbag

                Andy, complaining about climate models not modelling events is a bit like taking your car to the mechanic and complaining that when you switch on your indicator, the car continues to go straight ahead.
                You are betraying a fundamental lack of understanding of what modelling (any kind of modelling) does.

                I recall going to a Skeptics meeting years ago when a guy jumped up and started ranting and raving about modelling being fake. It was bizarre. I had to stand up and tell him that modelling is at the core of many human activities and is a pre-requisite for much of what humanity produces. It was like he had no idea whsoever what modelling actually is. Just like you, Andy.

                14

              • #
                AndyG55

                Still the evasions hey nutcase. So funny.

                Which of the 100 or so climate models is CORRECT, nutcase.

                Still no evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2,
                (DUMB link to a bottle experiment, DOH !!!)

                “You are betraying a fundamental lack of understanding of what modelling “

                It seems to be YOU that has zero idea about what modelling does and doesn’t do.

                So sad that you think a group of 100 models with wildly different outcomes, and that can’t even model the basics of climate, actually means anything !!

                NO SCIENTIST are you !!!!

                32

            • #
              AndyG55

              So you are saying “climate models” have real no purpose at all.

              OK, I can agree on that.

              Climate is chock full of “events”

              So much so, that the ONLY warming in the last 40 years has come from El Nino EVENTS, which you tell us that climate models can’t model.

              JUST DUMB !!!

              Which climate model is “correct”, nutcase?

              Where is your empirical evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2, nutcase?

              Your quicksand is closing in around you, but you are too DUMB to see it. !!

              23

              • #
                Screaming Nutbag

                Modelling has the purpose of testing your understanding of a system.

                The modelling done starting in about 1972 predicted that there would be a 0.6 degree increase in temperature associated with a almost 50% increase in CO2.
                The close match between that model results and the real world tells us that the system was reasonably well understood at that time.
                Subsequent modelling has built on that understanding and refined it.

                *Your* understanding, however, Andy, appears to be completely and utterly AWOL. You appear to have not even graspoed the basics of physics, let alone how modelling works.

                13

              • #
                AndyG55

                “Modelling has the purpose of testing your understanding of a system.”

                But you just admitted that THEY DON’T understand the system

                Which model predicted that warming, nutcase?

                And please don’t say “the average of them” that would be hilarious. ;-)

                Hansen’s little model was based on a huge cut in CO2 emissions, that is the only scenario anywhere near correct,

                But CO2 emissions have not had a huge drop, have they.

                His business as usual “prediction”was totally FARCICAL

                Keep the manra regurgitation going nutcase, its proves you have NO BRAIN of your own.

                32

      • #
        AndyG55

        “shown a correlation between CO2 increases and the subsequent temperature rises “

        You mean like this , Nutcase?

        Or do you mean the great correlation between the SUN’S energy and temperatures.

        82

      • #
        el gordo

        ‘Will it happen soon?’

        It has already begun, a meandering jet stream and blocking highs are global cooling signals. Word around the traps is the first half of the 2020s will be cool and wet in Australia.

        40

        • #
          Screaming Nutbag

          I seem to be experiencing déjà vu.

          Seeing as you’ve spent 20 years being wrong, fatboy, I guess there’s no reason to change horses now, huh?

          16

          • #
            AndyG55

            Seems AGW prophets have spent 40 years being wrong, nutcase.

            There is actually no CO2 atmospheric warming signal anywhere.

            The only warming has come from El Nino events.

            CO2 cannot warm oceans, but the SUN most definitely can.

            Come on Nutcase, what warming has occurred in the last 40 years that can be SCIENTIFICALLY linked to the highly beneficial rise in atmospheric CO2?

            Models with inbuilt CO2 warming, are NOT EVIDENCE of anything.

            42

  • #

    Is this article peer reviewed publiched?

    20

  • #

    Thanks for the attribution, Jo.
    Even the ozone hole is obeying my hypothesis.

    131

  • #

    Whilst I have some attention please have a look at my latest work with Philip Mulholland which demonstrates how convection of atmospheric mass up and down causes the surface temperature enhancement beneath atmospheres and not radiative imbalances caused by so called greenhouse gases.

    https://www.researchgate.net/project/Dynamic-Atmosphere-Energy-Transport-Climate-Model

    141

  • #
    Bob Fernley-Jones

    Much the same conclusion was reached by Hermann et al (2013) but from a different direction by finding reducing cloud reflectance satellite data: https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/8505/2013/

    There’s also P.R. Goode and E. Palle (2007)

    Title: Shortwave forcing of the Earth’s climate: Modern and historical variations in the Sun’s irradiance and the Earth’s reflectance. http://www.bbso.njit.edu/~pgoode/txt/txt/Goode_Palle_2007_JASTP.pdf

    60

  • #
    Mike Jonas

    Hi Jo – Keep up the good work. On a sane planet, this one paper would be enough to destroy the notion that CO2 is causing dangerous global warming. But the planet is not sane, so it looks like you will need to keep going for a while yet.

    One important clarification is needed in your post: “In 2012, Miller et al. reported that models got cloud feedbacks wrong by 70W/m2 — an error that’s nearly 20 times larger than the total effect of CO2.“. It’s an error which is nearly 20 times larger than the total effect of doubled CO2 – not of the actual CO2 increase – and CO2 hasn’t doubled since industrialisation started. I don’t think it’s even halfway yet, but I’d have to check that.

    80

  • #
    Peter Fitzroy

    Well this certainly helps both the modelers and the sceptics.
    Interestingly the result also backs up Dr Spencer’s Australian analysis:
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/australia-surface-temperatures-compared-to-uah-satellite-data-over-the-last-40-years/?fbclid=IwAR0oFaaim-pDMKPevZYiyS8Ll8nbouGFxKEqQCzhJ4QEAikwFoi_-tuWNCk

    /I’ve posted this before, but since no one ever reads my posts, I can post it again

    39

  • #
    gee aye

    Like I always say correlation equals causation.

    And this means that David Evans need not bother buying his way to a publication.

    59

    • #
      gee aye

      and btw the relationship between cloud and temperature is well known. What is missing from that analysis is the residuals. Wouldn’t it be remarkable, nay astounding, if we were able to hover our cursor above each of those little dots to see what year they represented and found the overwhelming majority of those above the line were recent and those below not so.

      38

      • #
        AndyG55

        “relationship between cloud and temperature is well known”

        Yes it is, GA

        Less cloud during the day, more of the Sun’s energy reaches the surface

        Seems even you comprehend that basic fact.

        112

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘Like I always say correlation equals causation.’

      Yeah well, if you’re so smart tell me what diminished cloud cover during the last quarter of the 20th century? Could it have been caused by an over active sun?

      81

    • #
      AndyG55

      “buying his way to a publication”

      You mean getting passed the rabid AGW gate-keepers, who cannot allow any dissent to be published..

      Is that what you mean, GA?

      102

    • #
      Peter Fitzroy

      This is going to set the ABCD crowd off

      /ABCD = Anything But Carbon Dioxide

      48

      • #
        AndyG55

        Poor irrational, non-science PF.

        You have yet to provide any actual real evidence that it is CO2, PF

        And you have had ample time and opportunity.. but NADA, ZIP, NOTHING

        Is it that you don’t know what empirical evidence is.

        Or is it that you just cannot find any.

        All the real physics and science is very much against the conjecture/brain-fart that CO2 causes atmospheric warming.

        CO2 warming ONLY exists in models.

        92

    • #

      Like I always say correlation equals causation.

      With one turning point and two different trends that match that’s 3 times better than CO2 v temp — unless we count the thousands of times COs changed and temperatures didn’t or the scores when there was a correlation but CO2 didn’t lead temps. Fans of AGW barely even have a correlation.

      And this means that David Evans need not bother buying his way to a publication.

      Hmm. Another unusually petty drive-by shot in the dark? Not like you GA. Seriously, did your cat die?

      80

  • #
    vince whirlwind (Aka screaming nutbag)

    It’s weird how your scepticism instantly deserts you as soon as you read a tall story you happen to like.
    Notice how short his data series is? We’ve seen *that* pattern before in the Sun Spots tall story.
    Also, where is the actual data, I can’t seem to lay my hands on it to check it….

    Here’s my prediction:
    This will turn out to be nothing more than an exercise in curve-fitting.
    Warming will continue apace with CO2 increases (which makes sense, seeing as CO2 is a greenhouse gas, is niocreasing, and therefore causes warming).
    The “correlation” between this very short sequence of cloud cover data and the warming since 1980 will disappear as another few years go by.

    That’s my prediction. I am very confident my prediction will be about a million times closer to the truth than, say, John McLean’s prediction that 2013 would be the “coldest year since 1965″ based on the dopey sun spot correlation you guys were touting back in 2011.

    [Please make up your mind which name you're going to use then stick with it. Jo frowns on the same person using more than one name. You're either Vince Whirlwind or Screaming Nutbag but not both. Email support@joannenova.com.au and let us know your choice. Thanks.] AZ

    210

    • #

      Notice how you drop in to accuse us of not checking when you haven’t?

      Just a reflexive “fake news” commenter?

      The link to the data is right there in the paper. I checked it before I posted. It’s the new H series. The data series is the whole set in toto.

      You have nothing. Hypocrite.

      120

      • #
        Screaming Nutbag

        The article says,
        “Establishing quantitative relationships through climate models is quite difficult due to the appearance of certain errors in the parameterization of cloudiness properties and in the calculation of short-wave and long-wave radiation fluxes.”
        Then
        “However, it is possible to establish statistical relationships by means of a correlation analysis of the series of global cloud cover and surface air temperature.”

        Ergo, this is nothing more than curve-fitting. No mechanism is proposed, much less demonstrated. He’s just diddling with stats.

        15

        • #
          AndyG55

          “He’s just diddling with stats.”

          Ah, so its just like all “climate science™” then, hey nutters.

          LOTS of diddling in that little business.

          Its all they have.

          32

    • #
      AndyG55

      Poor Nutcase,

      I bet you can’t produce one single paper with empirical evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2

      It is a non-science nonsense that only exists in models.

      You have been CONNED , and have swallowed the whole farce hook, line and sinker…

      102

    • #
      AndyG55

      “This will turn out to be nothing more than an exercise in curve-fitting.”

      As opposed to climate models , which only fit an imaginary curve.

      Nothing like REALITY. !!

      72

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘Warming will continue apace with CO2 increases …’

      That can’t be right sir, what about the hiatus and massive model failure?

      41

  • #
    Peter Fitzroy

    in other news, the poster boy for the Coal is Good crowd have been requested to register as an agent of foreign influence
    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/nov/02/tony-abbott-says-he-was-asked-to-register-as-a-foreign-influencer-before-cpac

    Also in the Australian (behind paywall and claiming to be exclusive)

    310

    • #

      Hey, I‘m the poster boy for the Coal is Good crowd! Abbott goes through the motions. I seriously love the smell of a wetted down coal loader in the morning.

      120

      • #
        AndyG55

        So is PF, he is very much a poster boy…

        He CANNOT live without coal fired electricity,

        or any of the necessities of life that are conveyed by fossil fuel energy.

        For him to HATE coal, is for him to HATE everything about his life.

        92

    • #
      AndyG55

      Do Princess Greta, Al Gore, DiCaprio, and the rest of the AGW climatariat, etc etc etc etc have to register as foreign influencers when they peddle their anti-science AGW garbage in other countries??

      132

  • #
    el gordo

    Oldest ice core reveals CO2 is not a temperature control knob.

    This one goes back 2.7 million years, around the time our ancestors came down from the trees.

    https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/10/world-s-oldest-ice-core-could-solve-mystery-flipped-ice-age-cycles

    61

  • #
    WXcycles

    The world is ending … due to a trace gas … no, really

    Says it all.

    51

  • #
    Martin Cropp

    And then we have the effect of increased ocean uptake, then convection and then pole-ward atmospheric circulation.
    See link on Polar Ozone trends for September.

    https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/meteorology/figures/ozone/to3caps_09_toms+omi+omps.pdf

    00

  • #
    Kalm Keith

    The Screaming Scrote is really hard at work.

    The only good news is that there’s another contributor to help carry the financial responsibility of keeping the blog running.

    So welcome VW, I, SS, PF and V, your support is appreciated.

    KK

    41

  • #

    Interesting, it is not the first time I have heard, read or discussed that clouds have a substantial effect on global temperature. There must be other papers to support this.

    11

  • #
    The Lone Changer

    Try reading relevant papers by Fairbridge and Shirley, Jose (JPL), Charvatova,V.Zharkova,and H. Svensmark. Svensmark’s work solves the puzzle providing insight into the mechanism by which modulation of galactic cosmic ray flux determines cloud cover in the lower atmosphere. The others explain and predict GCR flux as a product of the heliomagnetic field which fluctuates with the suns motion about the Barycentre of the solar system. My take away is that it might be a bit early to be throwing out the winter woolies as the next thirty years could get a tad chillier than the last 70. The sunspots are down, the GCR flux is way up, the cloud cover is up, the insolation is dropping off and the the sun’s motion about the Barycentre is predicted to be chaotic for the next thirty years. Paleo climate studies covering local conditions during the little ice age would seem to be most relevant and if anyone can point to good work on that for Australia I would be most appreciative.

    10

  • #

    The article makes perfect sense in principle. The problem I have with article and graph is that they show the decrease in cloud cover from 1985, but no information about what happened prior. There is a convention that warming started in the mid-70s – after years of predicting the coming glaciation there was a change of tack, and David Rockefeller for example commissioned a report in 1977 to show that CO2 was causing global warming. Maybe that was localised, just US and Europe, but the point should be addressed.

    00

    • #

      Barbara, sadly the dataset only started in 1983, and observations of clouds from the ground are very inadequate. The only possible substitute might be some kind of isotope proxy. But Oxygen-18 is a rain-snow marker primarily and only clouds indirectly.

      20

  • #
    The Lone Changer

    Hi Barbara,
    There are better trees to bark up. Henrik Svensmark has taken 3 satellite global cloud datasets and strongly correlated decreased global cloud cover occurring shortly after decreased galactic cosmic ray flux (Forbush Decreases) caused by solar mass ejections during periods of otherwise low solar activity. He and his team have also shown cloud nucleation arising from charged particles at the lower end of the GCR energy spectrum in the laboratory at CERN using the CERN large hadron collider. Its there in the lab and its there in the cloud cover record and its there in the paleo-climate vs solar activity records. Keep warm……the sun’s going quiet for 30 years hence……

    10

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>