This study is being listed as proof by some of the usual alarmist types that the issue of cloud feedback is settled. Before accepting that, read this from the summary in the June 24th issue of Science by Richard A. Kerr:
The first reliable analysis of cloud behavior over past decades suggests—but falls short of proving—that clouds are strongly amplifying global warming. If that’s true, then almost all climate models have got it wrong. On page 460, climate researchers consider the two best, long-term records of cloud behavior over a rectangle of ocean that nearly spans the subtropics between Hawaii and Mexico. In a warming episode that started around 1976, ship-based data showed that cloud cover—especially low-altitude cloud layers—decreased in the study area as ocean temperatures rose and atmospheric pressure fell. One interpretation, the researchers say, is that the warming ocean was transferring heat to the overlying atmosphere, thinning out the low-lying clouds to let in more sunlight that further warmed the ocean. That’s a positive or amplifying feedback. During a cooling event in the late 1990s, both data sets recorded just the opposite changes—exactly what would happen if the same amplifying process were operating in reverse.
Here’s the press release. I’ve looked at a few news writeups on it, and the caution listed in Science about it not being proven seems to be off the reporting radar. We’ll need further studies on a global scale, and not just one patch of ocean, before the question can be fully answered. – Anthony

From Physorg.com
The role of clouds in climate change has been a major question for decades. As the earth warms under increasing greenhouse gases, it is not known whether clouds will dissipate, letting in more of the sun’s heat energy and making the earth warm even faster, or whether cloud cover will increase, blocking the Sun’s rays and actually slowing down global warming.
In a study published in the July 24 issue of Science, researchers Amy Clement and Robert Burgman from the University of Miami’s Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science and Joel Norris from Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego begin to unravel this mystery. Using observational data collected over the last 50 years and complex climate models, the team has established that low-level stratiform clouds appear to dissipate as the ocean warms, indicating that changes in these clouds may enhance the warming of the planet.
Because of inconsistencies in historical observations, trends in cloudiness have been difficult to identify. The team broke through this cloud conundrum by removing errors from cloud records and using multiple data sources for the northeast Pacific Ocean, one of the most well-studied areas of low-level stratiform clouds in the world. The result of their analysis was a surprising degree of agreement between two multi-decade datasets that were not only independent of each other, but that employed fundamentally different measurement methods. One set consisted of collected visual observations from ships over the last 50 years, and the other was based on data collected from weather satellites.
“The agreement we found between the surface-based observations and the satellite data was almost shocking,” said Clement, a professor of meteorology and physical oceanography at the University of Miami, and winner of the American Geophysical Union’s 2007 Macelwane Award for her groundbreaking work on climate change. “These are subtle changes that take place over decades. It is extremely encouraging that a satellite passing miles above the earth would document the same thing as sailors looking up at a cloudy sky from the deck of a ship.”
What was not so encouraging, however, was the fact that most of the state-of-the-art climate models from modeling centers around the world do not reproduce this cloud behavior. Only one, the Hadley Centre model from the U.K. Met Office, was able to reproduce the observations. “We have a long way to go in getting the models right, but the Hadley Centre model results can help point us in the right direction,” said co-author Burgman, a research scientist at the University of Miami.
Together, the observations and the Hadley Centre model results provide evidence that low-level stratiform clouds, which currently shield the earth from the sun’s radiation, may dissipate in warming climates, allowing the oceans to further heat up, which would then cause more cloud dissipation.
“This is somewhat of a vicious cycle potentially exacerbating global warming,” said Clement. “But these findings provide a new way of looking at clouds changes. This can help to improve the simulation of clouds in climate models, which will lead to more accurate projections of future climate changes. ”
One key finding in the study is that it is not the warming of the ocean alone that reduces cloudiness — a weakening of the trade winds also appears to play a critical role. All models predict a warming ocean, but if they don’t have the correct relationship between clouds and atmospheric circulation, they won’t produce a realistic cloud response.
“I am optimistic that there will be major progress in understanding global cloud changes during the next several years,” said Norris. “The representation of clouds in models is improving, and observational records are being reprocessed to remove spurious variability associated with satellite changes and other problems.”
Source: University of Miami (news : web)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
They saved the best bit ’til last:
“…observational records are being reprocessed…”
In a warming episode that started around 1976, ship-based data showed that cloud cover—especially low-altitude cloud layers—decreased in the study area as ocean temperatures rose and atmospheric pressure fell.
What satellite data from 1976 were they coordinating the ship board data to? One wonders how tightly the time constraints on the data were controlled since a small variance in lags could just as easily indicate the cloud conditions were moving the SSTs. I think I’ll save the $15 for beer and wait for someone else to do the grunt work of reading this beauty.
So we don’t understand how the clouds work and we don’t understand how the sun works, yet there’s supposed to be a scientific consensus on the long term trajectory of Earth’s temperature? It’s laughable. When we don’t understand two of the primary variables in the climate equation there is no way we can have confidence, much less consensus.
Serious question about climate models – maybe subject for a new thread ?
What does the output of a model look like ?
What level of granularity do they try to predict ? Is it just one global average temperature per year ? One per month ? One per month per continent ? One per month per 100 mile square ?
And what about rainfall ? Winds ? Frosts ? Hours of sunshine ?
It’s got to be fine-grained enough to be verifiable and useful. In fact it’s starting to look a bit like a global weather forecast.
If it’s not verifiable in a short space of time it’s worthless. 5 years maximum. All this stuff about the year 2099 is useless this year – we want to know a bit sooner if today’s model is any good.
Would be interested to hear Svensmark’s assessment of this…
Also…why is it such a big deal and out of the realm of natural variability that in warm cycles in such situations, there are less clouds?
If there is a cap of warmer dryer air aloft, then of course the positive feedback would take place.
It happens (it has happened this summer in Texas).
The quote: “Together, the observations and the Hadley Centre model results provide evidence that low-level stratiform clouds, which currently shield the earth from the sun’s radiation, may dissipate in warming climates, allowing the oceans to further heat up, which would then cause more cloud dissipation”.
Hmm…I thought higher ocean temperatures meant more volatility and heat energy for hurricanes…
We’re not talking the Persian Gulf here….
Mother Earth will always find a way to balance herself out….
CHRIS
Norfolk, VA, USA
“Using observational data collected over the last 50 years and complex climate models …”
“…by removing errors from cloud records…”
Betcha this is going to be another data-torturing exercise with no statistical significance.
Before too many people get carried away it might be wise to remember that evidence of warming is not evidence of AGW. When the models have been improved to the point that they “have the correct relationship between clouds and atmospheric circulation,” and, I’ll add, ocean circulations and solar changes, —
Wake me when that happens. —
the role of humans will likely have been relegated to insignificance.
“One key finding in the study is that it is not the warming of the ocean alone that reduces cloudiness — a weakening of the trade winds also appears to play a critical role. All models predict a warming ocean, but if they don’t have the correct relationship between clouds and atmospheric circulation, they won’t produce a realistic cloud response.”
Could the weakening of the trade winds be the cause of reduced cloudiness, and hence the warmer oceans?
Have they heard of Roy Spencer ?
I’ll just let them believe what they want. I wouldn’t want to bother them down with due diligence or anything.
I’m no scientist, but it seems the AGW activists are trying to muddy the waters in an attempt to counter Bob Carter, De freitas, McLean, and their paper showing that the extra El Nino’s are responsible for the warming of the atmosphere from 1977 till 1998….
This recent paper would seem to show the cloud behaviour that causes that warming of the ocean which 7 months later, causes warming of the atmosphere….. Which is very interesting….
However, it does cool also… So there is no “run away” effect…. So this supposed “Positive feedback” is stable…
Secondly, how does CO2 enter into the equation of clouds again?… when the process described, is evaporation by radiative processes due to albedo changes?
Slowly but surely real science is being done. The AGW mob are being dragged kicking and screaming back into the Natural variation causes Climate Change, fold.
REPLY: I think it is only coincidence that these papers were published so close to one another. I don’t see this a “counter” to Bob Carter, De freitas, and McLean. – Anthony
The first reliable analysis of cloud behavior over past decades…
Reliable according to who ?
Were I a peer who was being asked to review this study I would probably have commented something along the lines of: “It’s just an ‘awfy wee bit’ of the planet that you are looking at here so it’s probably best not to jump to any conclusions about global climate change”
And, meanwhile, back on the sun, still no sunspots…
Plus, didn’t Prof Richard Lindzen describe this with his “Iris effect”?… But show it as a Negative feedback….?
So is that the other side of the coin in this scenario?
…. just musing.
Dave Wendt…its true there were no weather satellites in 1976, but it was the year of the great PDO climate shift.
Very convenient of Clement et al to ignore three years without satellite data, so let’s hope they adjusted the model.
REPLY: There were indeed weather satellites in 1976, but they did not carry the kinds of imagers used for UAH data we know today. – Anthony
Does the paper itself give any details about the timing of the events? That is to say, does it seem more likely that the warming ocean occurred before the dissipating cloud cover, or the other way around? Fewer low-level clouds would mean more warming at the surface, so did the clouds go away for a while and let the ocean warm, or not?
“This is somewhat of a vicious cycle potentially exacerbating global warming,” said Clement. “But these findings provide a new way of looking at clouds changes. This can help to improve the simulation of clouds in climate models, which will lead to more accurate projections of future climate changes. “
So, the very clouds that water the Earth and deposit the snows are now going to parboil the Earth and destroy all life as we know it.
That’s certainly a new way of looking at things through jaded sunglasses.
What is it that they are trying to do, hypnotize the world?
Micajah (22:24:25) :
It’s circular reasoning, and nothing more than that.
Nature abhors a vacuum, and when the clouds part the sun heats the tropical water and makes more. If they didn’t move away via circulation, the Earth would be more like permanent overcast.
All I know is, when it gets cloudy here it generally gets cooler. Why just today, while sitting at the Farmers Market, I’d be baking in the sun. But as soon as some clouds blocked the sun, it was comfortably cool. So explain again how clouds exacerbate “global warming” (which isn’t global)?
“The role of clouds in climate change has been a major question for decades. As the earth warms under increasing greenhouse gases, it is not known whether clouds will dissipate, letting in more of the sun’s heat energy and making the earth warm even faster, or whether cloud cover will increase, blocking the Sun’s rays and actually slowing down global warming.”
This is still making the assumption that the factor A in AGW is near 1. Therefore the conclusion: “no matter what the clouds do in real life or in our models,
weyou are still doomed if don’t stopouryour way of life as it.”This could just be another case of which came first, the warming sea surface or the reduced amount of low level clouds. The same problem occured in the initial ice core readings where CO2 was assumed to be the cause of warming, but that was later determined wrong (by 600 to 1200 years)
So, the Svensmark hypothesis would put the chain of events as:
1. more solar activity, causing
2. less galactic cosmic particles, causing
3. less low level clouds, causing
4. more heating of the sea surface.
Meanwhile, the AGW crowd put it this way:
1. more CO2, causes
2. heating in middle troposphere (no hotspot detected), causes
3. radiative heating of sea surface, causes
4. less low level clouds.
This time, there is so little time delay that determination of which is first, less clouds or warmer sea surface, the AGW crowd may be able to get away with this.
But wait, what is the mechanism that causes warmer sea surface to result in fewer low level clouds? How can that be tested and verified using that pesky old Scientific Method?
At least the Svensmark hypothesis is being quantitatively tested. This new paper by Clement and Bergman is only documenting a coincidence. Those who poo poo the Svensmark hypothesis claim that the sunspot-climate relationship is mearly coincidence (albeit, they had to say the LIA and MWP did not exist, or were only applicable to Europe, or …..).
Looking at that unusual stratus over the ocean one can see that it is less than active. Now let’s talk about a patch of late afternoon tropical cu-nims.
It too is ‘cloud’, it too reflects heat like this stratus cloud, but..
The tropical cu-nims happen every day, they suck enormous amounts of surface heat up into Hadley cells for more efficient cooling and they continue their cooling effects into the night.
It seems obtuse of the researchers to consider a relatively rare cloud type when there is a very obvious everyday cloud type, the tropical cu-nim, that plainly does an awful lot more to our daily heat account and badly needs understanding.
Tell ’em Willis!
[snip – policy]
“Together, the observations and the Hadley Centre model results provide evidence”. I wasn’t aware that model results can provide evidence.