And then came the heat, with tempertaures into the 90s. On that hot morning after a 90 plus day high as I walked outside it w, but now it was quite different.
Same warm sun low in the cloudless sky; but now I could feel the heating effect of the hot air and ground, with no wind at all; yet the sun hadn’t had time to warm anything up. so we got 90s again and later in the day some high clouds appeared, so the sun set with high clouds, and it remained hot all night; no need for blankets.
And then after a few days it was back to the wintery cold with the wind chill and cloudless sky’s.

Well of course now I know why. With no high clouds on those cold days and nights, the earth cooled due to lack of man made CO2 in the sky, which is known to cause positive water vapor feedback when there are high clouds (R W Says so). Evidently natural CO2 doesn’t cause poitive feedback because even though that cold breeze from the north came straight over San Brancisco Bay waters; just ripe for positive feedback, the enhancement never started. It seems that CO2 by itself has a problem starting the positive feedback; but once you do get those high clouds, the ground warming effect is dramatic, even before the sun gets up very high.

Of course there is another way to explain all this; but of course it isn’t very fashionable to do so.

On that cold slightly breezy morning, with the cold air coming down from the north, the humidity was very low, and with the air so cold, it didn’t pick up any significant amount of water vapor, the other Green house gas as it crossed SF Bay to Sunnyvale.
So when I walked outside with the sun on my skin, and generating “heat” inside my torso, moisture evaporated from my skin, even under my dress shirt, so I shivered as my body tried to raise the humidity of this waterless air from the north. And by sunset, there simply wasn’t enough water vapor in the atmosphere to form any of those high altitude warming clouds, or to trap infra-red from the surface, so it stayed cold all night.

But then came the hot air (from somewhere) and plenty of humidity too, so even though the low sun hadn’t had time to heat anything, everything; the ground and the air seemed hot because with plenty of water vapor in the air, my body didn’t evaporate moisture, so that 545 calorie per gram refrigerator couldn’t operate.

As the temperatures climbed during the day, into the 90s, and now the Bay could give up additional moisture, all that hot air laden with moisture rose, as it is wont to do; but of course the upepr air was also plenty warm (where did that come from) so the air and moisture continued to rise, until evnetually, and later in the day, the moisture got to an altitude that was high enough that clouds finally could form; high clouds that is, so all through that night of hot air (from somewhere) those high clouds persisted. Well it still cooled down overnight anyhow; always seems to do that after sunset.

So there you have it; either CO2 heats the surface causing water vapor positive feedback, and high clouds do the same, keeping it warm at night; or just maybe, it is the warm moist air that comes from somewhere else; that eventually forms those high clouds that persist overnight; and don’t have anything to do with having made it warm in the first place.

So it’s like AlGore’s CO2 and Temperature graphs which he suggests are correlated. Well they are; but it is the temperature change that is causing the CO2 change (which for some reason doesn’t happen till after the temperature changed.

So high clouds are associated with warmer temperatures and nights, so there seems to be a correlation; but once again it seems difficult for some people to see which is the cause and which is the effect.

If the high clouds cause the warming; the temperature rise would only vary with the log of the forcing; which is either increase in GHG such as CO2 or water vapor; or increase in cloud cover fraction, which determines how much of the sky is still free to radiate to space. Well you get the point, even though I haven’t explained it very well; if the clouds cause the temperature rise, the temperature rise wouldn’t be linear with cloud coverage; but more logarithmic, and John Houghton, in The Global Climate says that the temperature rise for high clouds is linear with cloud coverage.

Doesn’t seem to matter that the hotter the surface temperatures go and by inference the normal atmospheric gradient; the higher the water vapor has to go in the atmosphere before it can finally condense into clouds.

Yes high clouds and warmer temperatures go hand in hand; but which is the cause; and which is the effect.

Seems that it all depends on how man made CO2 knows to trigger water vapor positive feedback, which apparnetly natural CO2 is reluctant to do; at least near San Francisco Bay anyway.

Thursday, 21 May 09 @ 8:06 PM
Bob Tisdale (15:04:11) :

Ron de Haan: seablogger linked this map to make his observations. It opened to a map dated 5/21/09:
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/climo.html

Most of his comments could be related to weather. SST anomaly patterns vary daily, weekly, monthly.

His statement, “There is also a La Nina developing (off season) in the equatorial Pacific,” is wrong. NINO3.4 SST anomalies have risen above zero over the last month and while they’re still ENSO neutral, they show no sign of heading toward a La Nina. Refer to my ENSO update:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/05/mid-may-2009-enso-and-amo-update.html

Also subsurface temperarture anomalies below the equatorial Pacific are positive, implying an El Nino in the future.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/wkxzteq.shtml

He wrote, “Nearly all this vast watery region is painted anomalous chilly blue now.”

Is he referring to the map he linked? The following link is the expanded map dated 5/21/09, the same date that appeared when I followed his link. Looks like a lot of positive anomalies in there too.
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.5.21.2009.gif

Bob,
I have posted your respons at http://www.seablogger.com (Alan Sullivan) and this is his response:

Some forecast models have been predicting mild El Nino conditions this summer and fall. I believe the emergent pattern is now visible in the anomaly maps, which I watch continually. I realize we have not reached the technical criteria yet, but I’ll wager we will. The trend is distinct. So is the southern ocean trend. Last year there was a vast diagonal slash of warmth. It is gone, and the remaining warm anomalies are spotty.

Afterthought: I overstated with “nearly all.” The dramatic diagonal is broken, but there are still extensive slight to moderate warm anomalies in some parts of the South Pacific.

Most of his comments could be related to weather. SST anomaly patterns vary daily, weekly, monthly.

His statement, “There is also a La Nina developing (off season) in the equatorial Pacific,” is wrong. NINO3.4 SST anomalies have risen above zero over the last month and while they’re still ENSO neutral, they show no sign of heading toward a La Nina. Refer to my ENSO update:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/05/mid-may-2009-enso-and-amo-update.html

Also subsurface temperarture anomalies below the equatorial Pacific are positive, implying an El Nino in the future.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/wkxzteq.shtml

He wrote, “Nearly all this vast watery region is painted anomalous chilly blue now.”

Is he referring to the map he linked? The following link is the expanded map dated 5/21/09, the same date that appeared when I followed his link. Looks like a lot of positive anomalies in there too.
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.5.21.2009.gif

George E. Smith: have a look at Figure 5.10 here. If your beliefs were correct, all six lines on the graph would point down to the right. I advise you to reconsider your beliefs, taking into account the observational evidence that contradicts your present ones. “”"

So I looked at your figure 5.10 as requested.

Very nice; a perfectly linear relationship between fractional cloud cover and surface temperatures,

One might reasonably predict a linear relationship between ground level insolation and fractional cloud cover; but a linear temperature relationship; wow that is totally radical.

Oh I see the problem; those are not measured data, but some sort of imputed values for an equilibrium condition.

I looked but couldn’t find any reference to when it was that the earth was last in this equilibrium condition to which these analyses refer.

But a linear relationship between surface temperatures, and fractional cloud cover; that’s revolutionary.

George

Pacific Shift
climate by seablogger

The surface temperature pattern of the Pacific Ocean has been remarkably stable for the last couple of years, since the flip to cold phase of the Pacific decadal oscillation. Now, for the first time, it is undergoing a major shift. The cold pool in the northeast Pacific is shrinking markedly, and the mid-ocean, mid-latitude warm pool has grown. There is also a La Nina developing (off season) in the equatorial Pacific. Meanwhile warm swatches have shrunk in the South Pacific (a larger expanse of water than the North Pacific). Nearly all this vast watery region is painted anomalous chilly blue now. What does this change portend? I have no idea, but I will be watching our downstream jet closely for pattern changes ensuing from the Pacific shift.

Our projection-impaired pal repeatedly labels you a “believer”, rather than as a thinker — then gives a questionable book review as a pathetic appeal to authority. That particular book review only shows that globaloney sells. The problem with the book is that Webster & Stephens hedge their bets so much that their analysis throughout is worthless. From only part of one page:

Thus, a definitive study of the cloud-climate problem has remained an elusive attainment… Observational studies have been hampered… investigations by …models [heh!] have been hampered… ‘tuned’ function of the surface temperature… problems facing the more sophisticated models… etc., etc.

Here’s a plain fact: None of the computer models predicted the severity of the past N.H. winter. Not one. The models failed. All of them.

As Prof. Freeman Dyson presciently observes, GCMs are next to worthless for predicting the climate. They’re always wrong. They can not correctly predict.

Here’s a clue: click. As CO2 continues its steady rise… global temperatures continue to fall. Only a True Believer in the repeatedly falsified CO2=AGW conjecture would fail to see the disconnect.

Here are some empirical facts based on real world observations [rather than on GCMs programmed by grant-seeking opportunists] :

Carbon dioxide is found everywhere. It is completely harmless in both current and projected concentrations. The insignificant tiny fraction of a degree that it may add to global warming is totally swamped by many other factors, and can be completely ignored as inconsequential. CO2 is beneficial to all life on Earth; more atmospheric carbon dioxide is better for life.

The only nail the self-serving warmist contingent has to hang their hat on is the always-inaccurate computer models. The real world has falsified their misguided and incorrect beliefs: as CO2 rises, the temperature falls. This central fact no doubt galls the alarmists, but the facts are the facts.

So who are we supposed to believe… the grant-seeking opportunists’ always-wrong computer models? Or what Mother Earth is plainly telling us?

What is the betting that the “warmer in situ data” is the Siberian data that the Russians have been busy fiddling, in order to ‘confirm’ global warming and force the US into the carbon trading scam, and thus destroy US industry.

A climate modelers reds?

.

George

George

“Clouds are ALWAYS (climatically) NEGATIVE feedback; and that is the crux of the whole global mean temperature question.”

Nope. Who licensed you to make up your own physical law like that? I have no idea where you live, but those of us who live at temperate latitudes know very well that cloudy winter days are much warmer than clear winter days. So, if winter cloudiness were to increase because of other climate changes, that would be…?

I’ll be interested to see just how you reconcile facts like that with your beliefs. “”"

>>> “but those of us who live at temperate latitudes know very well that cloudy winter days are much warmer than clear winter days. ” <>but those of us who live at temperate latitudes know very well that warmer winter days are much cloudier than cold winter days. <<<

There now RW; I didn't change the accuracy of your statement one iota.

I rest my case.

George

“Clouds are ALWAYS (climatically) NEGATIVE feedback; and that is the crux of the whole global mean temperature question.”

Nope. Who licensed you to make up your own physical law like that? I have no idea where you live,>>>” but those of us who live at temperate latitudes know very well that cloudy winter days are much warmer than clear winter days.”<<>>” but those of us who live at temperate latitudes know very well that warmer winter days are much cloudier than cold winter days.”<<<

I rest my case; but add in passing; "nobody ever observed it to warm up when a cloud passes in front of the sun; it always cools."

I don't know what your skills are with geometrical optics; but if you like, I could send you a formal proof of just exactly why that happens; but anybody with just an 8th grade high school knowledge of illumination optics, can easily figure it out for themselves.

If the clouds cause the warmth; does that mean more clouds cause more warmth ?

Just asking.

George

I especially liked your last line in the conclusions:

” The influence of “greenhouse gases” on the climate is irrelevant.”

http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/data/gridded/data.noaa.ersst.html

There is no date on the notice, and it has been my understanding for a few months that ERSST.v2 would no longer be updated.
–BUT–
The ERSST.v2 data available through the KNMI Climate Explorer is current through April 2009. Go figure.