John McLean writes of a new paper about the pattern in global average temperature anomalies since 1950 and how they are linked to changes in cloud cover and ENSO:
Key points of the paper:
- Indicates that the temperature pattern can be attributed to a
sequence of events, namely a shift in the prevailing ENSO conditions,
then a reduction in total cloud cover and then a shift on cloud
(decrease in low level cloud that was largely offset by an increase
in mid and upper level cloud)
- Uses the Trenberth, Fasulo & Kiehl energy balance diagram to show
that the loss in total cloud cover caused an increase in heat energy
being absorbed at the Earth’s surface that was greater than the
increase that IPCC 5AR claims was due to greenhouse gases
- Indicates that greenhouse gases played little if any part in the
warming, which not only refutes the IPCC’s belief or opinion but also
means that there is negligible, or even no, 16 or more years’ of
“missing heat” to be found.
- Shows the changes in cloud cover and temperature both as global
averages and then for the six latitude bands each of 30 degrees, the
latter indicating the changes in cloud cover applied to most latitude
bands except the Antarctic and to a less extent 30S-60S.
- Doesn’t attempt to identify the reason for the reduction in total
cloud cover or the shift from low level cloud.
McLean writes:
On the last point above, I think a reduction in micro-particle emissions probably contributed. The disappearance of London’s “pea soup” fogs after the ban on the burning of coal is probably a good precedent. It would be ironic if the reduction in micro-particle emissions was due to government legislation because that would mean that the warming was manmade. To be fair though, it was probably the first deliberate attempt to clean up the atmosphere even if it didn’t come with a warning about possible changes to weather patterns. We also shouldn’t forget that there may be other causes, such as changes to cooking fuel in the tropics.
The paper is available free of charge via
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=50837#.VE9LlFfivOU
Late Twentieth-Century Warming and Variations in Cloud Cover
ABSTRACT
From 1950 to 1987 a strong relationship existed between the El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and HadCRUT4 global average temperature anomaly, interrupted occasionally by volcanic eruptions. After 1987 the relationship diverged, with temperature anomaly increasing more than expected, but was re-established after 1997 at an offset of ~0.48°C higher. The period of increased warming from 1987 to 1997 loosely coincided with the divergence of the global average temperature anomalies over land, which are derived from observation station recordings, and the global average anomalies in sea surface temperatures. Land-based temperatures averaged 0.04°C below sea temperatures for the period 1950 to 1987 but after 1997 averaged 0.41°C above sea temperatures. The increase in the global average temperature anomaly and the divergence of land and sea surface temperatures also coincided with two significant changes in global average cloud cover. Total cloud cover decreased during the period from 1987 to 1997 and, for most of the remainder of the period from 1984 to 2009, decreases in low-level cloud were accompanied by increases in middle and upper level cloud. These changes can be found in both global average cloud cover and in each of the six 30°C-latitude bands. The impact of these changes in cloud cover can account for the variations in HadCRUT4 global average temperature anomalies and the divergence between land and sea temperatures.
Not to be pedantic, but the graph only goes back to 1984. Hard to claim 1950 with that.
Take a look at the graph in the actual paper, it goes back to 1950
Then why chop it off at 1984?
Space constraints?
The graph from the paper that goes back to 1950 is for a comparison of SOI and temp, not cloud cover and temp.
However, the paper also doesn’t claim that cloud cover drove warming since 1950, only for a brief period after 1987.
I’m not quite omniscient so I’m afraid I cannot answer that.
It’s simple. ISCCP cloud cover data only goes back to 1984.
Have you done an r2 between cloud and temp John. I haven’t read the paper yet but the graph looks interesting; it also appears consistent with what Pinker et al found: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/308/5723/850.abstract
The r2 of the raw data would be crap, and if you smooth it then it would rise, but it meaning would be crap.
DEEBEE, I agree with you. Noisy data often shows poor correlation even though a general relationship is clear from visual inspection.
From the paper:
“According to the energy balance described by Trenberth et al. (2009) [34], the reduction in total cloud cover accounts for the increase in temperature since 1987, leaving little, if any, of the temperature change to be attributed to other forcings.
With ISCCP cloud cover data available only for the period from 1984 to 2009 this hypothesis should be regarded as tentative.”
Finally a paper that has some actual science in it. The ocean is the climate/weather driver through convection. The atmosphere is just a transmission medium.
Now that is science. Being a skeptic does not afford anyone the right to replace consensus crap with their own
From the Journal Website’s FAQs:
“Peer-review process
Q1: How long will it take to peer review my paper?
A1: It usually takes about 2-4 weeks. Please contact the Editorial Assistant if you want to know the status of your paper.”
That’s pretty fast. Too fast to allow for serious peer review. McLean’s paper was in line with that.
That’ not to say the paper is flawed. I have no idea about that. But why not publish it in a less obscure Journal?
Most of the better known journals are too entrenched in the AGW scam to risk publishing anything that suggests that AGW actually IS a scam.
Most of the better known journals do not ask you to pay a fee to publish unlike the journal that published this paper.
Juan – that depends. If you want the published paper to be freely accessible, the author pays. That is common practice with all journals I recently have had contact with.
Why not evaluate the paper itself instead of bringing up unrelated journal FAQs? And yes, quite often peer review is that fast, for the first round, which what all journal base that selling point on; not the full length till publication.
Peer review takes 4 weeks per round. You submit…you get feedback from your reviewers in roughly a month…you have a month to make changes, you submit again, lather rinse repeat until you get a “good to go”
Took around 3 weeks to get reviews back on my latest paper in an impact >3 journal. Rule of thumbs are just the hump of the bell shaped curve, not an actual rule that has any meaning. If you get good reviewers, and editor, the process can be remarkably fast. And by good, I mean people who read their emails and promptly turn around a review request. The reason it can take so long per round is folks get busy or drag their feet.
As competition between journals heats up, most journals aim for shorter turnaround times. A while ago, I was usually asked to complete reviews in 3 to 4 weeks; now it’s mostly 1 to 2 weeks.
I submitted it to one well-known journal and in response the editor said that he wasn’t sending it for review because I needed to show why CO2 could NOT have caused the warming; he seemed to want to protect the IPCC orthodoxy. I submitted it to another also well-known journal whose focus is on clouds, but despite the paper discussing a possible significant relationship between clouds and temperatures its editor told me that my paper wasn’t suitable for that journal.
Quite honestly, if you don’t toe the line on belief it’s a struggle to get a papeer published. And let’s not forget that the publishing of a paper is no more than putting it on the table for discussion by a wider audience. The publishing of a paper is in no way a sign that the paper is “correct”.
John McLean,
I am happy for climate focused science that you did not bend your original findings to toe the line.
Congratulations on sustaining integrity.
John
John, thank you … I am well aware of the ideological problems related to publishing climate research, so your experience is not at all surprising. And of course, having gone through peer review does not make a paper more ‘true’. Peer review is foremost a filter for absolute nonsense, and the rest is editorial help. Could you tell us a bit about the reviewers’ response?
No offense Dr. McLean, but I take issue with the last two sentences of your comment:
“And let’s not forget that the publishing of a paper is no more than putting it on the table for discussion by a wider audience. The publishing of a paper is in no way a sign that the paper is “correct”.”
While it is true that papers contradict one another, and ever more experiments need to be done to get at the truth of a matter, I do think that we try to have a higher standard for publishing results.
And it is rather normal for an editor or reviewer to demand the authors to explain how/why their results contradict other’s findings.
For the record, I’m a biophysicist, so I cannot speak to the science in this paper. I’m just giving my opinion on what it means to publish a paper.
because it’s garbage?
Climate Sensitivity—->4.5 K—–>2.4 K—->1.2 K—->?
This is not the first study that has showed the reduced cloud albedo of circa 1980 to present.
As measured with an IR thermometer pointed straight up, 3W/m^2 Co2 warming might cause a 4C swing under really dry atm conditions (colder than -40F to -60F), Adding humidity will raise Tzenith 20-40F, cloud bottoms can be air/surface temps, 80F to over 100F warmer than clear sky alone.
Mi Cro,
I can verify your numbers, especially the cloud bottoms almost matching the air/surface temps.
In the Bahamas it is generally an 80˚F temperature difference between clear sky and substantial clouds.
With the ocean though, atmospheric radiation does not warm the ocean or slow its cooling whatsoever. Convection dominates.
Genghis commented on
The two would sum. Now I will accept that Convection could be much much larger, and atmospheric radiation effects are insignificant, maybe unmeasurable in comparison.
I know in the surface station I’ve worked with the only thing I can find is a slight change in how fast the seasons warm and cool, but it might have switched direction at the end of the data.
Mi Cro,
I think what is happening is that increased atmospheric radiation (cloudiness, LW radiation which doesn’t penetrate the surface) directly increases surface evaporation, cooling the surface.
The other interesting observation is that the surface temperature, depending on conditions (steady wind), can stay constant for weeks. Clouds or clear skies don’t seem to change it.
Volcanoes affect climate in both directions and were responsible for most of the late 20th c. warming.
Major stratospheric eruptions caused a drop in total column ozone and a lot of other aerosols and pollutants got washed out along with the volcanic aerosols.
The insuing changes in cloud cover and atmospheric albedo ( reflection and absorption of SW by ozone and high level aerosol particles ) caused about 1.8 W/m2 extra SW to make it into lower climate system. Hence stratosphere cools and troposphere warms.
The stratospheric cooling is clearest in TLS and is evidently a consequence of the eruptions.
http://climategrog.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/uah_tls_365d.png?w=842
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=902
[More than one link will cause the post to go into moderation . . mod]
Major stratospheric eruptions caused a drop in total column ozone and a lot of other aerosols and pollutants got washed out along with the volcanic aerosols. The insuing changes in cloud cover and atmospheric albedo ( reflection and absorption of SW by ozone and high level aerosol particles ) caused about 1.8 W/m2 extra SW to make it into lower climate system. Hence stratosphere cools and troposphere warms. The stratospheric cooling is clearest in TLS and is evidently a consequence of the eruptions.
http://climategrog.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/uah_tls_365d.png?w=842
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=902
Greg:
Most interesting comment. How did the volcanic aerosols (presumably) act on the ozone, pollutants, etc. to foster their “washout”? Can you say?
Aerosols and particulates form cloud condensation nuclei. It is well known that volcanic emissions only last a couple of year aloft. It appears that the processes that clear the volcanic emissions end up flushing out a lot of lower level pollutants too.
One of the main aerosols is sulphuric acid droplets and other sulphates. Acids are reducing agents and destroy ozone.
There are some links to papers at the end of my article above.
I’ve glanced at the paper, haven’t had the time to study it. My initial comments:
1, Nothing too surprising to us here at WUWT.
A, Instead of cloud cover, we’ve shown that downward shortwave radiation (sunlight) reaching Earth’s surface has likely increased since 1979:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/figure-32.png
The graph is from the April 2013 post The Sun Was in My Eyes – Was It More Likely Over the Past 3-Plus Decades?
B, We’ve been showing the long-term effects of (the naturally fueled warming associated with) ENSO for almost 6 years now. See the overview in the illustrated essay “The Manmade Global Warming Challenge” [42MB pdf].
2, What is surprising is that a paper was published that undermines the hypothesis of human-induced global warming.
Thanks, John McLean.
It was published in an open-access journal. These have earned a reputation for having less stringent review procedures. Their business model is to make scientists pay for publishing their articles, with the benefit of less per pressure. But maybe McLean has the time to tell us about how his review went.
Red herring much? Open access is not less stringent, PLOSone is open access, as are some Springer and a lot of Biomed Central journals; and these are all high class. Your argument is demonstratably flawed and irrelevant. Why not discuss the actual data?
Peer review doesn’t mean squat. It’s more important to get as many eyes on a paper as possible, and that’s what this journal helps accomplish. COok et. al 2013 was peer reviewed, case in point.
See my response to another comment above.
Mods, I’m not aware of any decision by Anthony to ban me but I have been having a lot of problems with posts just disappearing recently.
While not posting at WUWT does mean I get a lot other more important things done, there are times like this when my work is relevant and I can make a useful contribution.
Could you please fix whatever is causing my posts to hit the spam bin. Thanks.
Greg Goodman
[This one wound up in the spam bin too. The word “spam” causes that, as do the words: denier, scam, fraud, NAZI, Anthony( this assumes you wish for him to respond personally and he has a full day so it might take time), plus many others. The spam bin is an automated process which requires a moderator to come along and check it before posting. I am not aware of any of your posts going missing and I have checked the deep bin too. I know that it is easy to assume some malice or sinister plan is the cause of the delays but I can assure you that is not the case. Nothing is broken at this end so perhaps you could take a moment to consider whether any of the words I have mentioned are to blame. Thanks . . mod]
Many thanks. I’m aware of most of the trip words and try to avoid. I’m not assuming anything sinister but I’m pretty sure my IP ( or a block of IPs ) is getting blocked. I had to go through a proxy to this far.
Also I had to use a different email account because that seemed to get caught too.
I’ll post a second reply here directly without the proxy with my usual email, so please check to see whether it appears.
No, direct posting still just disappears. Please see if you can see why.
Greg, the problem may very well be upstream from WUWT. Depending on your ISP, your IP number may fall within a range that has recently been blacklisted by other ISPs because of excess instances of a substance popular in Hawaiian cuisine (that four letter trip word) or attempts at unlicensed “fishing.” Blacklisting can be fairly indiscriminant, and that lack of discrimination can be a deliberate attempt to force the manager of an ISP to clean up their act. That can also happen when someone carelessly rewrites a filter.
Thanks Duster, I know kind of thing happens but it often gets a lot of complaints from the collateral damage group, so eventually gets fixed. I suspect there is a problem here, though.
I’ll put the ” Anthony ” flag on this one again, otherwise no will see it now the threads moved on.
Hopefully it will get fixed.
BTW the “two links gets held for moderation”? I thought our host had extended that to three about a year ago. Are we back to one ?
Thx
Ah, the mysteries of WordPress filtering…
As near as I can tell, there are filters on a (changing) set of key words, source IP that has been used for bad things (and if you reboot your router and get a new IP on your cable that had been used by a ‘bad guy’ you get tagged with it…) and if some sites flag your postings as SPhAM it seems like WP counts these and ‘enough’ of them gets you tagged. Though it also seems to ‘wear off’ over time. Sometimes.
I’ve had folks (nice folks) who posted at my site suddenly hitting the SPhAM bin for no observable reason. After fishing enough of them back out, the binning stopped. While I can add to the WP “naughty words” list, I can’t remove anything from their list. So it goes.
Sigh. Cause? Effect? Effect? Cause?
Correlation?
Oh look, I happen to have this graph preloaded in my mouse (for replying to somebody else in another context). But it belongs here as well:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/PiratesVsTemp%28en%29.svg
One day maybe the human species will finally wake up to just what post hoc ergo propter hoc is all about. But given the correlation between its extensive utilization and the definitive statement of conclusions ultimately proved to be false in the past continues into the future, probably not (sorry, complex joke:-).
Yes, this isn’t completely fallacious, at least one can argue that a physical mechanism exists (albedo feedback) as the actual cause of the observed correlation, but from 1950 on? Seriously? What about from 1900 on — we have data on the PDO back to 1900. What about the actual, simple, physical, atmospheric radiative model that predicts at least/roughly 0.4C of warming due to CO_2 only, all things being equal, over that interval? Why is albedo variation considered important and CO_2 considered unimportant?
I’m all for not over-attributing warming to CO_2 by throwing in all sorts of positive feedbacks simply because we truly do not really know those feedbacks in the highly nonlinear and multivariate chaotic climate system, but at the same time this ignorance works both ways! We can’t say that they are all negative or neutral, either. The best we can do is accept our ignorance and compute warming as if we do not know and cannot attribute feedbacks at all and see how that works out. Then — maybe — we will have a quantitative basis for an idea of the magnitude and nature of the still-unexplained variability.
I have recently played with adding a presumed PDO-based forcing (which would include at least part of the ENSO related effect if not all of it, on average) with the CO_2-only no-feedback warming expected across all of HadCRUT4 (results to be displayed here soon, I hope and expect). It is “interesting”, but not compelling. The comparison above is even less compelling.
Here are just a few questions that come to mind:
* Cause or effect? There is no smoking gun here in the data to suggest temperature changes are caused by (decreasing) cloud cover or that the warming temperatures cause decreasing cloud cover.
* Explanation of either one. So fine, cloud cover decreased, and this caused warming. But why did cloud cover decrease? Perhaps because the atmosphere was warmer! And why was the atmosphere warmer? Perhaps because there was additional CO_2 driven warming, warming that we are pretty sure is taking place regardless of what the clouds are doing because the exact same laws that predict some of the direct effects of water vapor or cloud variation predict monotonic variation of surface temperature with CO_2 concentration! But even this is too simple/simplistic. Why, exactly, has cloud cover stopped decreasing as of the 1998 super-ENSO? Why did it decrease across the 1980s? Major ENSO events are rare and somewhat discrete, but the cloud cover varied even more smoothly than the temperature and if anything has an inflection point around ENSO events. Why? This makes little sense to me.
* We have little reason to think that ENSO and the PDO were not functioning during the LIA and MWP. This explanation is strained over only 64 years. I think it is utterly inadmissible in and of itself over 640 years, or 6,400 years. Unless/until variation on this sort of timescale (not to mention 6,400,000 and 64,000,000 and 640,000,000 year timescales) can be satisfactorily explained we have no way of separating truly long time scale behavior from to short term/immediate responses to atmospheric chemistry changes like increasing CO_2 or from quite possibly large or dominant variability due to natural phenomena like the PDO, ENSO, the AMO, the NAO, and all of the other attendant natural decadal oscillations in the coupled atmosphere-ocean system or from stuff we don’t understand yet due to the purely chaotic nature of the climate.
In other words, even if the assertions made above are really truly true during the time interval being examined, the Earth could chaotically change attractors and suddenly start to cool with constant cloud cover, or (more likely from a strictly physical point of view) it could warm more with constant cloud cover. Or it could warm or cool and that could change the cloud cover — cause and effect are not separable in a tightly coupled system.
The problem isn’t that this couldn’t be true. Of course it could. What it isn’t is this simple. Even if reduced cloud cover is somehow the proximate cause of the warming observed, what caused the reduced cloud cover that caused the warming? What caused the cause of that cause? This is a strongly coupled, highly nonlinear, highly multivariate system that cannot really be separated by projecting some short subset of the data on some axis, noting a correlation, and declaring “Eureka!”
I wish.
rgb
What caused the cause of that cause? This is a strongly coupled, highly nonlinear, highly multivariate system that cannot really be separated by projecting some short subset of the data on some axis, noting a correlation, and declaring “Eureka!”
——
One possibility is Svensmark
Exactly, since the 1970s were a relative minimum on the strength of the solar cycle and the current cycle is nothing to write home about. This prompts a testable hypothesis, will cloud cover begin to increase and the temperature decrease through the 2020s. My vote is that yes it will, but it is an experiment that will show an outcome despite whatever my vote is.
Of course, it would be most interesting to be able to extend the begin date back to 1908 or so and see what the cloud cover vs. solar magnetic field graph looks like. Obviously, the quality of data drops off severely prior to 1970, and is really, really lousy prior to 1940. Still, it might be suggestive of what the solar magnetic field influence really is.
Or government action to reduce particulate pollutants. Or … Or… Or…
The one thing you really can’t extract from a complex, “strongly coupled, highly nonlinear” very complex system is a neat causal chain. The ideal of science – linear relations between explanatory and explicated entities – is an idea that derives from the 16th century, when Bacon advanced the idea of strong experimental science programs. That approach was immensely successful in teasing out simple relationships, but in the Natural Sciences, it fails. While you can extract small bits of reality and react them in a lab to derive a very systematic idea of how those small bits react, when you turn back to the outdoors, all those little bits you understand are madly interacting with innumerable other bits you could find no room for in the lab.
The problem with applying laboratory results in the real world is that “all things” are never, ever equal. Geological data over the Phanerozoic indicates that the planet has a temperature plateau that is never exceeded, even when CO2 was 25 times its present level. There is no strong correlation between proxies for temperature (such as Aragonite-Calcite ratios) and proxies for green house gas concentrations (volumes of calcium carbonate laid down biologically regardless of crystalline form). In fact there is barely any correlation. So, lab results: Arrhenius and Svensmark; reality: weather. No matter how many successful lab results are piled up, they are isolated from real systems and are not acquired as they operate within the system of interest. Worse real-world measures are just that. They may – must really – correlate to some degree with or processes also measured, but correlation/causation?
Any claim made about the effect of a phenomenon in the real world based upon laboratory results is inferential. It is quite as reasonable to refer to so-called green house gases as climate moderating gases. They may very well have both warming and cooling effects simultaneously. Any material that can absorb energy can also transport it. Any material that can transport energy can cool one location by warming another. Refrigeration systems work in precisely that manner.
”What caused the cause of that cause?”
Yes, without nailing down root cause the question will remain open as to whether the cause of that cause could possibly be attributed to increasing CO2 through feats of mental gymnastics. Unfortunately, the answer to that is most likely yes considering to the team either more or less Antarctic sea ice equally prove CAGW to be true™.
if a system is oscillating, it is difficult to take a time slice, and declare cause and effect. There will be elements of cause, and elements of effect, in both the oceans and the atmosphere. They interact to create an “net effect”.
This is a long term project, and declaring the “Eureka”, moment prematurely, has been the only consistent pattern, in the process. The only thing we know, for sure, is there is much left to learn.
RGB,
“But why did cloud cover decrease? Perhaps because the atmosphere was warmer! And why was the atmosphere warmer? Perhaps because there was additional CO_2 driven warming, warming that we are pretty sure is taking place regardless of what the clouds are doing because the exact same laws that predict some of the direct effects of water vapor or cloud variation predict monotonic variation of surface temperature with CO_2 concentration!”
Those are precisely the questions that need to be answered. Especially the interaction between the ocean and the atmosphere (clouds especially), which is entirely different than the interaction between the land and the atmosphere.
The Ocean/Atmosphere coupling involves easily 90% of the energy in the system and it is the most neglected portion of the weather/climate question.
Less clouds (increased SW into the ocean) will warm the ocean and at the same time increase net LW radiation (surface cooling) while decreasing evaporation for a net warming of the ocean. I have observed and measured that effect.
Increased cloud coverage decreases SW radiation going into the ocean, resulting in a cooler ocean, while at the same time decreasing the net LW radiation from the ocean and dramatically increasing the evaporative cooling from the ocean.
Clouds breed more clouds and a cooler ocean. Less clouds warm the ocean and produce less clouds.
What we need to know and understand is what triggers or hinders cloud formation. It is as simple as that 🙂 Do I need to add a sarcasm tag for the last comment?
It is of some interest, but maybe not, a lot as to why the total cloud cover decreased. The important matter is that it seems plausible that the decrease in cloud cover was responsible for most, if not all, of the warming.
Proper Physicists will tell you that the only likely effect of more CO2 is an equivalent, and infinitesmal, decrease of water vapour. This seems to have occurred. The cloud effect, water droplets, is quite separate. Other systems, going their own way. Brett
From rgb’s comment:
“Sigh. Cause? Effect? Effect? Cause?
Correlation?
Oh look, I happen to have this graph preloaded in my mouse (for replying to somebody else in another context). But it belongs here as well”
It seems to be even worse than just a simple case of overstating the importance of correlation. From the conclusions of the paper:
“Since 1950, global average temperature anomalies have been driven firstly, from 1950 to 1987, by a sustained shift in ENSO conditions, by reductions in total cloud cover (1987 to late 1990s) and then a shift from low cloud to mid and high-level cloud, with both changes in cloud cover being very widespread.”
To translate:
We tried correlation of these different things and didn’t get a good overall correlation for any of them. But each does correlate for small periods. Therefore, we broke up the temperature record and got good correlation between ENSO and temp during the first period, but not during the final 25 years. If we split up that 25 years, we get correlation between temp and cloud cover during the first half, and between temp and cloud distribution during the second half. Our main conclusion is that if you ignore the data that does not correlate, you get good correlation.
Your “translation” seems contrived and tendentious. Obviously the purpose of the study was to show the relation of the temperature trend for the period 1950-2009 with the observations which would serve to explain the varying trend. In the case of reduced cloud albedo, it seems axiomatic that such conditions would lead to increased surface temperatures and it also seems that the issues of reliable “correlation” in this regard is a not really pertinent, IMO.
No all forcings can’t be negative, is is a combination of +\- forcing that allows a balanced climate between perimeters. I haven’t seen anyone hear claim differently
I’m getting a vibe that the climate system is complicated.
🙂
rgb:
I do not understand why conclusions about the effects of varying cloud cover on surface temperature must depend on antecedents.
You seem to imply that such conclusions are unreliable without knowing antecedents. But perhaps that is not what you meant.
In regard to a plausible antecedent for variations in cloud cover, I do not see how increasing atm CO2 could be put as one.
Correlation vs. Causation was my problem with the recent Chamois weight loss paper. As a lay person I’m rather surprised at how often I see such things as the strongest finding in peer reviewed papers. My understanding is that such correlations simply indicate that there may be something interesting to further investigate in this area so as to maybe figure out a cause. In a nutshell, that’s my whole problem with AGP. The causes do not seem to be well established at all. No surprise there. The system is extremely complex.
Jay Turberville:
There are correlations so obvious that there can be no doubt. For example, the Pinatubo eruption in 1991 and the subsequent cooling.
I should have said that I regard the reduced cloud albedo/rising temp. trend as just as obvious.
It should also be your problem with lots of claims by warmists. The absence of correlation does prove a lack of relationship, but a correalation between A and B doesn’t determine whether A drives B, B drives A or C drives both A and B. What’s needed are accepted plausible physical processes and even then the findings are tentative until properly tested.
mpainter: “There are correlations so obvious that there can be no doubt. For example, the Pinatubo eruption in 1991 and the subsequent cooling.”
That would be true if all or even most eruptions produced a subsequent cooling which they don’t. What you have is an anomaly that means nothing.
Same holds true for the albedo analogy. We need to forget this cause and effect fixation. There is no cause and effect law, certainly not for the climate.
Ghengis:
I am not sure what you mean. As for my self, I have been a student of natural processes since I was young and my abiding faith is that nature can be deciphered.
You may not be aware that only those eruptions that inject aerosols into the stratosphere have a cooling effect. The cause and effect is plain and indisputable.
Very un-RGB like comments
Sigh. Cause? Effect? Effect? Cause?
Correlation?
It is as you say a tiny piece of evidence with respect to a large system, and it is only measured for a short time. All your criticisms are pertinent.
OTOH, it made no strong claim, only that CO2 is not “necessary” to explain the post 1950 warming, a claim made by IPCC and often repeated.
RGB:
“But why did cloud cover decrease? Perhaps because the atmosphere was warmer! And why was the atmosphere warmer?”
It does imply that it is temperature driven, and the warmer atmosphere would reduce low level cloud and increase the mid level cloud, which should act as a negative feedback, as the mid level cloud will be less effective at warming the surface than low level cloud. I would suggest the rising trend in the solar wind temperature from 1987 to 1995 was driving the warming:
http://snag.gy/dXp1s.jpg
1987 to 1996 rather.
Thank you for that explanation, sir. As a layman with only a tad bit of scientific and math background, comparatively speaking, even I can follow it. It’s the one type of approach that makes the most sense to me – Earth’s climate is just too complex and chaotic to attribute to isolated causation. Skeptics are the only ones with the intellectual humility, it seems, to make that admission and frankly the only ones I trust for that very reason.
Apology. Reply was to rgb, 7:33am(“Sigh, Cause and Effect”). I got lost in a time warp.
With clouds explaining The Pause in this paper, and with the Atlantic Ocean explaining The Pause in the Chen and Tung paper, those who continue to deny that there is a plateau in temperatures look more and more foolish.
Satellite data reaches back at least this far, if not farther. Global weather has been tracked pretty much from WWII, where the various forces involved “suddenly” discovered that weather forecasting was a strategic asset. D-Day, for example, happened when it did because they were able to forecast at least a few days of flying weather, with a full moon, with the tide high near dawn:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normandy_landings#Weather
The invention of jet aircraft that can fly in the stratosphere, the cold war (maintaining the military incentive to be able to launch full-scale nuclear attacks in known weather), and TIROS-1 in 1960 launched the “modern era” in climate observation, although it took another 15 or 20 years before we developed the ability to measure temperature from space consistently and accurately. But there is lots of data on things like cloud cover as photographed from space, cloud cover as locally reported by weather services, atmospheric soundings at at least some locations, airport weather reports, and so on, from 1950 on. Weather was critical to commercial airplane traffic well into the jet era, and in some sense still is. To farmers, fishermen, commercial shipping companies, boaters in general, and people planning a wedding too, as well as the eternal military.
rgb
Widespread insolation data is available since 1952. link
This paper is good in that it is showing how some of the natural variability in the climate system of the earth can be correlated to global temperature changes.
The problem is it is not taking into account all of the natural factors such as atmospheric circulation patterns(which can effect snow cover/cloud cover–A more meridional atmospheric circulation pattern favoring more snow cover /clouds, solar variability(primary and secondary effects example cosmic rays versus cloud coverage, atmospheric circulation pattern which I just mentioned) volcanic activity although it mentions it to some degree, phase of the PDO/AMO.
Note this season N.H. snow coverage is near record levels.
I still maintain that the route cause for the climate to change on a large scale are the strengths of the solar/geo magnetic fields.
ENSO contribution is on a small scale, causing changes within a particular climatic regime but not capable to change the climate into another climate regime.
The weaker they are combined to cooler the climate and vice versa.
The paper notes a temp spike in the 90’s over land. Could this have anything to do with the urbanization of reporting stations?
This could be true, but another factor to remember is the dramatic reduction in the number of stations reporting which took place during the 1990s IIRC.
SteveT
Look for plots of number of surface stations over time. A large proportion of weather stations closed in the 1990s. Most of the dropped stations were located in “rural” locations. The remaining stations are located in “urban” locations. Urban temperatures represent the urban environment, which is known to be warmer than surrounding land.
See the important SurfaceStations dot org site for info on the “urban heat island” bias.
There are very few weather stations maintained over many years in “uncontaminated” locations. When you look at such surface temperatures you will see that there has been no significant warming at those stations.
History shows some anecdotal warming since the “little ice age” that ended in the 19th century, with some warming from the 1890s to around 1940. Most of that is likely not global but due to industrial soot falling on the far northern ice.
I think that any warming seen can quite likely be attributed to multiple causes, so it’s possible that everyone is right to some degree. A bit from cloud cover, some from CO2, UHI, etc. etc.
It is pretty pointless trying to pin it all on one cause in such a complex system.
Cloud cover decreased when the climate zones moved poleward and the jets became more zonal.
That allowed more solar energy into the oceans to warm the system.
The cause was solar induced changes in the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles.
I hate papers like this, where they do not identify their dataset with enough precision to be able to replicate their work. The paper says:
That sounds clear … but when you go to the ISCCP dataset, your choices are:
So … are they using the D2 data, the DX data, or the D1 data? Are they using the monthly-mean data, or the “complete” data? And since the ISSCP says that these datasets start in 1983 … why does the paper say they start in 1984?
In addition, their “references” in the paper are a pathetic joke. They start with these two winners:
Trying out this nonsense of “citing” a 1535 page document with no indication of chapter and verse would have earned me an “F” in my high school science class. How has it become acceptable to pass this garbage off as “science”?
I hate this kind of BS. This paper is crap, incapable of replication, with no data, no code, and a pathetic joke passing for references. As Mosher observed, without data and code a “study” is not science in any way, shape or form—it’s just an advertisement for science, and nothing more.
w.
Why don’t you email him and ask which data sets he used? That’s how it’s usually done.
i agree Catherine. All it would have taken is an email. The ISCCP data is the D2 dataset. As for the IPCC reports, I thought them well enough known to simply cite the basic reference. I have never seen anyone cite particular pages of IPCC reports in a scientific paper but, as I have done, specific pages will be cited when writing articles for a wider audience.
Willis: “this paper is crap”
#####
Willis, the usual procedure is to contact the author and ask for help. Replicability is important, absolutely, but the fact that you are having problems confirming the data does not constitute a valid condemnation of the study or “this paper is crap”. That seems dispeptic.
Agreed. I have contacted authors for confirmation and further information. They have been very agreeable, and I have made new contacts that way. It is certainly the more scientific thing to do, rather than running off to a blog.
mpainter October 30, 2014 at 2:10 pm
Can I take it that this means you won’t even be attempting to provide data as used or code as used for the paper, then?
w.
Willis:
“Its time to put up or shut up”
####
Willis, if you would ask me in a nice way, I would consider doing this for you.
But mind you, I will not be holding my breath.
There is some validity in remaining skeptical of all assertions without error bars. When Leif S positively asserted that there was no connection between CR & cloud cover, linking to a paper; my response, after looking at the paper, was to assert that …” if you do not have the resolution necessary to determine postulated relationship, then robust evidence is , well not possible.”
Within the paper Leif S linked was this…
““Furthermore, although not in direct relation
to the solar-cloud studies, Brest et al. (1997) state that the
ISCCP data are not sensitive enough to detect small changes in
cloud cover over long timescales. As the total relative uncertainties
in radiance calibrations of this dataset are approximately
5% for visible and 2% for IR cloud retrievals (where absolute
uncertainties are <10% and <3% respectively
and
"Assuming a CR-cloud connection exists, there are various
factors which could potentially account for a lack of detection
of this relationship over both long and short timescales studies,
including: uncertainties, artefacts and measurement limitations
of the datasets; high noise levels in the data relative to the
(likely low) amplitude of any solar-induced changes; the inability
of studies to effectively isolate solar parameters; or the
inability to isolate solar-induced changes from natural climate
oscillations and periodicities.
Even without such limitations it is still possible that we may
be unable to detect a clear CR-cloud relationship for several
reasons.
Put simply, the resolution capacity to measure and detect such changes may not allow us to determine the connection.. The paper also lists numerous studies the show some correlation evidence and postulate some mechanisms, but it effectively shows the limitations of our current technology.
Willis your recent post concerning the earth’s seasonal GAT, where despite an increase in insolation during the SH summer of immense proportions, (at least relative to any CO2 forcing) the atmosphere cools about 4C, the opposite of the quick glance intuitive assumption, was intriguing, but left me with many questions. Actually I consider the seasonal earth response to insolation changes an immense field to study, and have been asking these questions for some time, so I was pleased you did a post on this.
Here are some of those questions…
The questions are many…
“Does the earth (oceans, land and atmosphere combined) gain or lose energy during this period on most intense insolation?”
Does the increased albedo and potentially increased cloud cover more then make up for the increased energy striking the oceans?
How much of the atmospheric cooling is due to said increased insolation entering the oceans, and thus lost to the atmosphere for a time?
Is there a greatly increased cloud cover during this time of increased ocean insolation?
Does much of the energy simply go into an accelerated hydraulic cycle?
Does some relevant quantity of this increased insolation energy go into algae and diatomic life growth spurts?
Do the IPCC climate models accurately model the decrease in T associated with seasonal insolation changes?
I am not certain any of my questions were answered, alas.
David, thanks for the reminder. I try to answer all serious questions, but there’s a lot going on and some get by me.
I’ve replied to your questions on the other thread here.
w.
Regarding Willis says David, thanks for the reminder. I try to answer all serious questions, but there’s a lot going on and some get by me.
I’ve replied to your questions on the other thread here.
——————————————————————————-
Thank you Sir, and both good and honest replies. A follow up regarding this question in particular, if you find the time to extricate yourself from the fire on this thread that is. (-;
I asked…”How much of the atmospheric cooling is due to said increased insolation entering the oceans, and thus lost to the atmosphere for a time?”
Your answer was…”Unknown, we don’t have sufficient data to figure that one.”
———————————————————————
I am wandering if the TOA radiation imbalance at that time of year, which I guess takes into account all
below it, including albedo changes, leaves a net imbalance that gives an indication of the answer? If, we know the net positive into the system (land, atmosphere, and oceans) and we know the atmosphere and surface, despite the increased insolation, cools by several degrees C, then the extra energy must go into the oceans, or into the increase in ocean life, algae and diatoms mostly. Now if this is the annual season where the oceans are recharged, plus 90 W/M sq for a large part of the ocean, then perhaps the ocean flux (surface to 250 meters or so, ) can give us a better understanding of solar impacts on the ocean, and ocean residence time of disparate solar W/L. But alas, the research money is funneled into the CAGW political power game, instead of real research.
Oh, and a second question. Do the IPCC global climate models accurately model the seasonal changes? If they do, then the must model the energy entering the oceans, at least I would think so.
Crap, I forgot the other question, (which you have thought a lot about) which does greatly complicate the matter, how much energy is used up in an acceleration of the hydrological cycle? That may be a hard one.
Willis: This paper is crap, incapable of replication, with no data, no code, and a pathetic joke passing for references.
The shortcomings that you cite are valid, but also extremely common. Would you settle for “not very good”?
Have you asked the authors for the details that you would like? Some authors respond positively, some don’t, but I do think you ought to ask first before making the extreme judgment.
The citation of a long work without a page number is sort of a “common courtesy” of no practical importance, just to acknowledge the precedence of the cited paper and the community at large. You may recall that Dr D. Roy Spencer faulted you for not citing enough: I thought he over-reacted, but he was expressing what I have called here the “common courtesy” of citing a full history in the introduction of most scientific papers.
I wonder sometimes if you get offended when speakers wear mismated socks or have their shirts untucked under their jackets.
mpainter October 30, 2014 at 10:58 am
No, mpainter, that was the usual procedure back in the 20th century. But this is 2014, and the responsible scientific journals now require both data as used and code as used as a requirement for publication.
The main reason I don’t “contact the author and ask for help” is that the 20th century system doesn’t work for beans. I’ve been turned down far too many times, and I’m sick of that dance, with emails going back and forth. Everyone wants the glory of publication, but when it comes to sharing their data and code with an unknown like myself, suddenly it’s all a state secret.
So yes, I will call them out for not being transparent. There’s no other way to get drag these good folks into the 21st century.
(Let me add that if it looked like this was otherwise fantastic work and there were no other way, I might consider asking them. But when someone cites the entirety of the 1,535 page IPCC tome as one of their references, I can’t be bothered. That alone identifies the paper as crap, that nonsense wouldn’t pass muster in my high school.)
However, since Catherine and mpainter and Matthew Marler seem to be the experts on how it should be done, I’ll leave it to you three. When one of you comes back with the code as used and the data as used for their paper, I’ll believe your method actually works … me, I’ve tried it and it hasn’t worked for me, but maybe y’all know the secret passwords.
In any case, the ball’s in your court, it’s time to stop giving me pious good advice and to put up or shut up. Come back with the code as used and the data as used for this paper, and I’ll believe it can be done.
And until then, I’ll say it again—no code, no data, no science. This paper is just an advertisement for science, and not science in any form.
w.
Willis, you didn’t know whether I’d reply and you simply assumed. You shouldn’t assume. The ISCCP data was the D2 dataset, which is the only practical dataset to use for this kind of study. I thought the conclusions of the IPCC were well enough known that I did not have to cite chapter and verse. Note that when it comes to the IPCC’s estimates of increased energy I do give a precise reference to the section of the report.
I used to like your analyses in the Climate Skeptics Internet discussion group but your bombastic criticisms both of this paper and the hypothesis about solar influences presented by David Evens a few months ago have me wondering. Your over the top criticisms might have people wondering whether you are peeved that you didn’t write the papers yourself. I suggest that in future you tone your criticisms down – don’t abandon them altogether just make sure they are reasonable and not excessive.
Matthew R Marler October 30, 2014 at 12:10 pm
The fact that a paper is incapable of replication and that the shortcomings are common does not magically transmute “crap” into “not very good”. It is NOT REPLICABLE as it stands, and therefore it is NOT SCIENCE OF ANY KIND.
No. See my post above for my reasons.
No, it’s not a “common courtesy”. It is a bogus and meaningless attempt to make a paper look more “sciency”. As my high school science teacher knew very well, it is meaningless without a reference to a page and a paragraph. As to whether it is of “practical importance”, it’s important to me because it’s the certain sign of bogus science, a pathetic attempt to claim respectability.
In fact, they used the IPCC reference to cite certain very specific claims about what the IPCC may or may not have said somewhere or other … but then they didn’t identify where in the IPCC report we could find what they were referring to.
That’s not “common courtesy”. That’s terminal laziness.
Actually, Dr. Spencer faulted me for not citing an author who had written NOTHING about my hypothesis regarding emergent phenomena, an author who I had cited in another context where he actually had written about what I actually was discussing.
In other words, Dr. Roy was doubly wrong. All he revealed was that either he didn’t understand what I wrote, or he didn’t understand what Dr. Ramanathan wrote. Drawing any other conclusions from the unpleasant attack which he launched based on his incorrect assumptions makes no sense at all.
And me, I couldn’t care less about socks, but I do wonder why people are so willing to let others pass crap off as science, and go to such lengths to excuse their actions …
w.
Willis:
Have you considered consulting an internist?
The author did provide you with all the data you need.
Just download the Complete ISCCP D2 Data and find the Total Cloud Cover Anomaly (percent sky) set within it. Not that hard, but more difficult I guess than bitching because your hand isn’t being held.
sturgis, they did not identify whether they used the D2, D1, or DX dataset. All they said was:
Now, my guess (like yours) would be that they used D2 data … but we don’t know that. It is certainly possible that they used the D1 dataset, nothing stands in their way.
And even if we knew that they used the D2 version, the D2 files have two global datasets. One is a D2 dataset for each six-hour period (ISCCP.D2.V.GLOBAL.YYYY.MM.99.HH99.GPC), and the other is a monthly average over all GMTs (ISCCP.D2.V.GLOBAL.YYYY.MM.99.9999.GPC) … care to tell us which of these two datasets they used, and let us in on how you know that?
And even if we knew that, what kind of “cloudy” are they referring to? The D2 dataset distinguishes between the following kinds of “cloudy”, with “IR” being infrared, “VIS” being visible, and “NI” being near infrared:
Care to tell us which of these categories they are talking about … and how you know that?
More to the point, without having the code and data AS USED we can’t tell whether they are using the data set that they think they are using, or whether their code does what they think it does.
For example they say:
Did they carry the error in the climatology forwards when they calculated the error in their results? Who knows? Did they calculate the climatology correctly? Without the code there is no way to find out.
Next, did they adjust their results for autocorrelation? If they did so they didn’t mention it in the paper, but in this kind of an analysis it is crucial to adjust for autocorrelation. Standard random normal statistics are useless for this kind of analysis.
So no, sturgis, neither you nor I know what dataset they used, or how they used it, or how they calculated their statistics, and we most definitely don’t have their code so we can settle the questions.
That’s why the 21st century rules are, “No code, no data, no science”, and the better professional journals have taken that up as their requirements. Without code and data AS USED, there is simply no way to find bugs, glitches, incorrect assumptions, or improper calculations. Transparency is integral to science, it doesn’t work without it.
w.
PS—the personal attack you appended to your scientific claims merely reveals the paucity of your actual arguments.
Of course it was D2. When you go to the linked site, that’s what shows up. How did you miss that?
When you call a good paper “crap” without bothering to look at its data, what kind of personal comment do you expect? Far from paucity of science, all the data about which you complained are readily available. You have a paucity of interest in doing real science rather than making excuses to avoid learning how wrong you’ve been for so long.
It’s all there. Only laziness or unwillingness to discover what you might find out can explain your not accessing it. In the time you have spent spewing, you could already have downloaded and analyzed it.
sturgishooper October 30, 2014 at 3:40 pm
Say what? The link (which I also provided above) goes to the index page of the ISCCP, which contains links to all of the data, which in turn contain links to the DX, D1, and the two D2 datasets.
In other words, your claim that “when you go to the linked site, that’s what shows up” is simply not true. Click the link, folks, you’ll see that sturgis is just blowing smoke.
I can’t “look at its data” because neither you nor I know what dataset they are using
No, it’s not “all there”. Despite your energetic handwaving, we don’t even know what dataset they used, and if you think the code as used is available, please give us a link to it …
Oh, good heavens. Your personal attacks are more proof that you are fresh out of scientific attacks.
w.
The post and cooling forecast at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
has this to say about the sun and climate.
“NOTE!! The connection between solar “activity” and climate is poorly understood and highly controversial. Solar “activity” encompasses changes in solar magnetic field strength, IMF, CRF, TSI, EUV, solar wind density and velocity, CMEs, proton events etc. The idea of using the neutron count and the 10Be record as the most useful proxy for changing solar activity and temperature forecasting is agnostic as to the physical mechanisms involved.
Having said that, however, it is reasonable to suggest that the three main solar activity related climate drivers are:
a) the changing GCR flux – via the changes in cloud cover and natural aerosols (optical depth)
b) the changing EUV radiation – top down effects via the Ozone layer
c) the changing TSI – especially on millennial and centennial scales.
The effect on climate of the combination of these solar drivers will vary non-linearly depending on the particular phases of the eccentricity, obliquity and precession orbital cycles at any particular time.
Of particular interest is whether the perihelion of the precession falls in the northern or southern summer at times of higher or lower obliquity.”
I am gratified to note that the McLean paper provides strong support for a) above. Closer investigation into the exact processes involved in the solar magnetic field strength -GCR -cloud connection should prove fruitful.
It highly significant that the sharp decline in the 0-30 N and 0-30 S cloud cover (Fig 10) coincides with the late 20th century warming and ends at about the same time as global warming stops.
It is also of interest to note the almost coincident drop to what looks like a new baseline in the Magnetic Plage Strength Index.see p34 in Leif Svalgaard’s http://www.leif.org/research/
1610 Solar-Activity-Past-Present-and-Future.ppt (TIEMS Conference, Oslo, Norway, 2012) pdf pdf with notes
Dr. Page, you state…”Of particular interest is whether the perihelion of the precession falls in the northern or southern summer at times of higher or lower obliquity.”
=======================================
My understanding is that a full precession cycle is about 24,000 to 25,000 years. (I say 24,000 because apparently precession is accelerating.) So a 1/2 cycle would move perihelion from the SH to the NH.
In the last 2000 years perihelion should have moved almost twenty percent towards that shift. Is there any evidence that this has happened? Is there any evidence of a pereodic12,000 year major climate shift? Thanks in advance.
But isn’t that what the alarmists have been saying all along?
They agree with the low 1C sensitivity for the direct effect of CO2 doubling.
But they claim a positive multiplier for the secondary effect, mostly clouds.
I’m not so good with logarithmic radiation and filtering equations…….does the data here support the alarmist’s claims?
In a word No. The IPCC does not predicate positive cloud feedback based on less cloud cover. (even if they did the trend has started to reverse.)
Nowhere does the observational data support CAGW. Not in surface warming, ocean warming, troposphere warming, global sea ice, global humidity, extreme weather events of all kind, etc.
.David A:
Distinguishing between the two, neither does the data support AGW, except by tenuous and inconclusive argument, which argument is refuted by such studies as the one posted here.
agreed, the anthropogenic influence on the minor warming is not well supported, however the benefits of additional CO2 are very well supported.
No. The bogus positive feedback effect relied upon by IPCC is water vapor, not clouds. Not only is there no evidence to support the assumptions its models make about water vapor feedback, but real world observations show them false.
The UN can’t model clouds, so essentially ignores them. From the SAR:
“The single largest uncertainty in determining the climate sensitivity to either natural or anthropogenic changes are clouds and their effects on radiation and their role in the hydrological cycle� (Kattenberg et al., 1996, p.345). And yet, the single greatest source of uncertainty in the estimates of the climate sensitivity continues to be clouds (see also Chapter 7, Section 7.2).”
Willis, no page number was given when suggesting that IPCC2013 had models that ran hotter than temps which seems rather non-controversial (though a page # would have been better as would the exact ISCCP data)
I do notice later on when citing more specific things from that document, page number is in fact cited, for example:
“To put this into context, the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report [1], section 8.5.2, states that the total anthropogenic radiative forcing for 2011 relative to 1750 is 2.29 [1.13 to 3.33] Wm−2 for all greenhouse gases and for carbon dioxide alone is 1.68 [1.33 to 2.03] Wm−2.”
Maybe a little early to throw out baby and bath water.
Respectfully,
Someone correct me if I’m wrong but a couple minutes at ISCCP leads me to believe this is the D2 data set?
Dave in Canmore October 30, 2014 at 12:36 pm
I’m sorry, Dave, but your belief is immaterial. There is absolutely no reason that they could not have used the D1 dataset. In addition, even if your belief mattered, we don’t know which of the two D2 datasets were used, the 6-hour one, or the monthly average one.
Finally, I’ve played this game a lot, and I can’t tell you the number of hours I’ve wasted following my “belief” that the authors had used a certain dataset, only to find out that they had used a variant of that dataset, or an older version, or a gray version, or a different version entirely … so I’ve given up playing that guessing game entirely. If the authors don’t identify their data AS USED in a clear fashion, I figure they are not interested in science, and I give it a pass.
There’s too much bad science out there for me to waste my time with folks that don’t provide data and code, and then make claims and airily wave their hand at the 1,535 page IPCC document and say “the evidence is in there, it’s up to you to find it” …
Sorry, not interested. No code, no data, no science.
w.
Dave in Canmore October 30, 2014 at 12:27 pm Edit
Thanks for that, Dave. The issue is not whether the claim is controversial, although I assure you that the claim that the climate models run hot is still the source of great controversy. The questions are things like, what specific claim of running hot is he talking about, and how much hotter do they run, and what evidence does the IPCC present to back up the idea that the models are running hot? I certainly don’t recall the IPCC saying “the climate models run hotter than the temps”, in fact they’ve claimed the exact opposite many times.
There was also no page number given to support some vague claim about the
Which relative accuracy are they babbling about? How was the accuracy measured? What did the IPCC say about the accuracy?
My point exactly. Doing that for some claims and not for others is a red flag for me. It means that the lack of page numbers elsewhere is not accidental.
Neither the paper itself, nor anyone giving me heaps for things like “throwing the baby out with the bath water” and the like, have come up with the code as used, nor the data as used.
As a result, I don’t even have a baby to throw out …
w.
“I’m sorry, Dave, but your belief is immaterial.”
lol thats what ‘correct me if I’m wrong means ‘
Didn’t mean to get your prickles up 😉
Doh! The ISCCP data used in the paper goes back to 1984 and it’s global. Follow the reference (to ISCCP head William Rossow’s paper) that I provide in the paper if you doubt me.
“greenhouse gases played little if any part in the warming”
At last, evidence that climate sensitivity to CO2 = 0
Euan Mearns and myself tried to get a paper published on this subject at Climate Dynamics a year ago. The question mark is always the validity of the ISCCP data. Changes in global cloud cover alone cannot explain all the observed warming. We used a combined CO2/cloud forcing model using M-L CO2 data and ISCCP cloud cover data to fit the Hadcrut4 data. A spreadsheet of the model we used can be downloaded at http://clivebest.com/GCC
Clouds have a net average cooling effect on the earth’s climate. Climate models assume that changes in cloud cover are a feedback response to CO2 warming but is this assumption valid?
Based on satellite measurements of cloud cover (ISCCP), net cloud forcing (CERES) and CO2 levels (KEELING) we developed a model for predicting global temperatures. This results in a best-fit value for TCR = 1.4 ± 0.3°C. Summer cloud forcing has a larger effect in the northern hemisphere resulting in a lower TCR = 1.0 ± 0.3°C.
more detail can be found here
Unfortunately the HadCRU data are so shamelessly manipulated as to be worthless, at best, so to speak.
clivebest commented
Changes in cloud cover has an order of magnitude larger effect than 3W/m^2 from Co2 has.
Clive, I accept that questions have been asked about the accuracy of ISCCP data but then again questions have also been asked about CO2 data and temperature datasets. There was a problem with the ISCCP data near the limits of “vision” for one or maybe two satellites, particularly in the mid Indian Ocean, but I believe the ISCCP folk adjusted that data. I’ve also done what I can to compare ISCCP total cloud coverage data for Australia with data from Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology (see my webpage http://mclean.ch/climate/cloud_cover_main.htm, which dates from 2007, for more details). Cloud cover data is also available elsewhere but I’m not sure that the coverage is global. Having said that, these other sources might help to confirm the hypothesis at some scale (e.g. regional).
There are actually two independent satellite measurements that imply that clouds/H2O are not simple feedbacks reacting to CO2 forcing. Post 2000 the total water column (NVAP) has been falling while cloud cover has been stable or increasing. The first effect reduces the H2O GHE and the second increases albedo, both offsetting global warming.
http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/TPW-global.png
http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Fig2BW.jpg
Can it possibly be a coincidence that these coincides with a hiatus in warming ?
“The question mark is always the validity of the ISCCP data”
——————————————————————————–
Indeed. I do not know why this is not clearly talked about. Reposted from up-thread…
Within the paper Leif S linked was this…
““Furthermore, although not in direct relation
to the solar-cloud studies, Brest et al. (1997) state that the
ISCCP data are not sensitive enough to detect small changes in
cloud cover over long timescales. As the total relative uncertainties
in radiance calibrations of this dataset are approximately
5% for visible and 2% for IR cloud retrievals (where absolute
uncertainties are <10% and <3% respectively
and
"Assuming a CR-cloud connection exists, there are various
factors which could potentially account for a lack of detection
of this relationship over both long and short timescales studies,
including: uncertainties, artifacts and measurement limitations
of the datasets; high noise levels in the data relative to the
(likely low) amplitude of any solar-induced changes; the inability
of studies to effectively isolate solar parameters; or the
inability to isolate solar-induced changes from natural climate
oscillations and periodicities.
Even without such limitations it is still possible that we may
be unable to detect a clear CR-cloud relationship for several
reasons.
Put simply, the resolution capacity to measure and detect such changes may not allow us to determine the connection.. The paper also lists numerous studies the show some correlation evidence and postulate some mechanisms, but it effectively shows the limitations of our current technology.
BTW, your work looks interesting.
aren’t temps driving the cloud cover?…..seems that temps change first
Latitude,
“aren’t temps driving the cloud cover?…..seems that temps change first”
Yes, but it is circular logic. Clear skies > warmer temps > more wind > more evaporation > cloudy skies > cooler temps > less wind > less evaporation > clear skies, rinse and repeat. Pick whichever variable you prefer as the driver they are all equally valid.
LOL….yep
This sounds like Willis’ thermostatic hypothesis. This may be the true reality of it all.
Not necessarily. As noted in the intro way above, cloud formation isn’t just a matter of temperature. The reduction of micro-particles, which go on to form cloud nuclei, can also impact cloud formation, or in London’s case the forming of “pea soup” fog.
Its interesting that the sceptic community likes to list all the “excuses” for the pause. But there is also a growing sceptic list of theories to try to explain away the real warming that has taken place since the 1970s, avoiding the increasing concentrations of GHGs as the main driver.
Occam’s Razor applies.
You don’t have to have an alternate theory to decide that this one doesn’t work. Perhaps you noticed, the CO2 theory isn’t doing very well at explaining the available data. It is part of science to decide that we don’t know.
James Abbott:
Did you come here to sneer at skeptics in general or to make some contribution to the thread?
Because, if you intended to make some useful contribution, you failed.
a growing sceptic list of theories to try to explain away the real warming that has taken place since the 1970s
=======
james, there’s no explaining to do……..
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/1998changesannotated.gif?w=500&h=355
Show us a correlation between CO2 and global temperatures for the last 12,000 years. Oh…that’s right…you can’t because there is no correlation. Thus, as current CO2 continues to rise, we see no increase in global temperatures.
The list of other possible explanations has always been long. The assumption of CO2 as the driver of all things climate is simplicity reduced to absurdity. The potential for warming to increase due to less cloud cover, and or cloud location changes, thus greater surface insolation, is much simpler then the postulated CO2 plus positive feedback, which is falsified by observations.
The CO2 based theory does not seem to be working very well. Finding a new theory or two or three to replace it is going to take more than a bit of looking. This paper is an exploration towards that end. It is not reasonable toe expect a theory to immediately spring forth, fully developed all at once from one paper. Let the theorists and statisticians play around for a while, a little on this relationship, a little on that. Maybe something will turn up to be useable as part of the next theory of climate. Maybe this will be part of it, maybe it won’t but it’s a worthwhile exploration if for no other reason that someone can decide now that this piece is done that they don’t have to do it.
The authors establish at some level a correlation, which of course does not prove a causal link, but it does leave the possibility. If there is causation there will be correlation, even if the reverse is not true.
Sorry about the blockquotes.
Don’t apologize, Jimbo — that was COOL. Going to keep THAT one in mind!
#(:))
I was merely pointing out that as well as a long list of reasons drawn up by the sceptic community poking fun at the reasons for the pause, there is a similar long list of reasons being used by the same community to explain the post 1970s temperature rise, avoiding a GHG driver.
mpainter you ask for a “useful contribution”
How’s this:
The GHE is well understood. Without GHGs, surface temperatures would be many tens C colder than now – permanent ice age.
Humans are increasing the concentration of GHGs, particularly CO2.
Increasing the concentration of GHGs should produce warming.
The exact response to increasing GHG concentrations, and any amplification, cannot be known due to the complexity of the system, so forecasts cover ranges of response.
Temperatures will not rise year on year. Natural variation dictates there may be pauses or short term cooling, but the long term trend will be warming of the surface – both oceans and atmosphere.
Therefore, in the absence of a plausible mechanism that explains the extent of the warming, or its timing, the GHG driver is by far the most likely reason for the observed warming, which is essentially the approach contained in Occam’s Razor.
James, how does that explain the temperature fall from the 1930’s to the 1970″s?
It is the CO2 AGW proponents who are violating Occam’s Razor by proliferating (ad hoc) proposed causes for the lack of warming over recent decades; missing heat in the deep oceans, etc.
Occam’s Razor would conclude, CO2 does not produce significant warming relative to other causes.
@ James Abbott
October 30, 2014 at 2:35 pm: The razor has already removed your propositions, James, and that is all the troll-feeding I’ll be doing. Brett
I find reasonable the epistemic approach of the paper in the following regard.
In the datasets he referenced, McLean explicitly and openly says why he focuses on using data from the period he did. It was to evaluate a period in his paper which was the same period that the IPCC evaluates /claims is the period where “warming was largely due to human activity”. He is picking the same period as the IPCC focuses on to compare his finding with theirs in a critical manner.
He finds against the IPCC assessment of that period. It is reasonable.
John
Latitude
First off it was more of a plateau than a fall, in the context of long term changes.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif
Secondly, the GHG forcing in the mid 20th was smaller. CO2 concentration was 320ppm in 1965. Not only did it rise subsequently to the current 395ppm, it accelerated.
The timing and the extent of warming from the 1970s onwards was broadly consistent with what would be expected as a response.
The current pause started about 12 years ago (not 18).
Resumed warming should be expected and I do not see any reason why it should not do so unless there is some new significant driver (eg a major volcanic eruption).
2014 is very likely to be close to record warm despite no strong El Nino.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.png
Much better, James. You will find that people will accord you the right to present your scientific point of view here.
And if you are not the rigidly doctrinaire type (as is often the case), you will learn some things here. For example, you might learn that the bubonic plague is endemic to the western US. It’s true. The ground squirrels harbor the disease. Watch out for those cute little chip monks and especially the burrowing types like the golden ground squirrel.
Another interesting fact is that atmospheric CO2 has no effect_absolutely_none_ on sea surface temperatures. This by the immutable laws of radiative physics. To put it another way, water is opaque to IR, and the greenhouse effect has no effect on water. This is not just theoretical, but can be confirmed by an easy experiment.
So James, you must not think that you can cut and paste from SKS or Hot Whopper. People here know their stuff, and most know a lot more than I. So be prepared to learn, that is, if you are capable of learning.
That temp plot is pure fiction, the decade of the 1930s was the warmest.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/08/dear-noaa-and-seth-which-1930s-were-you-referring-to-when-you-say-july-is-the-record-warmest/
There has never been any methodically placed global surface temperature measurement network in human history. Satellites since 1980 don’t measure surface temps, only lower troposphere for 95 percent of the planet. The UAH/RSS data show a current anomaly of about +0.3 degrees with an error of about 0.2 degrees.
There are a very few scientifically reliable rural surface temperature records scattered around that show no significant warming in the industrial era. Antarctic science stations show zero warming since 1958
“the decade of the 1930s was the warmest.”
That link you gave was to do with U.S.Temps, not global temps. Duh!
Not bad James. As you rightly note, the CO2 was a lot lower in the early to mid 29th Century and in the late 20th Century the increase accelerated.
But that leaves you with a little problem. If you look at your graph you will see two warming periods, roughly 1910-1940 and 1970-2000. The rates of warming for these periods are statistically identical, at roughly .16 degrees per decade. with more CO2 and the amount increasing at an accelerating rate, the 1970-2000 period should show increased warming. But it doesn’t.
It may interest you to know that the 1850-1880 warming period had the same rate of warming as the other two but with little increase in CO2 at all.
Three warming periods which according to the IPCC, the 1850-1880 is natural, the 1910-1940 is part AGW and part natural and AGW and the 1970-2000 is almost totally AGW. And yet all three have exactly the same rate of warming. What an amazing coincidence, the natural factors reduced at exactly the right rate for the CO2 to take over without changing the rate of warming. Did God do it or was it just plain old magic?
Like most in the “sceptic” camp, I do believe the planet has warmed (and that CO2 had some part to play), but I don’t believe in coincidence or magic.
http://i1264.photobucket.com/albums/jj484/rlcina71/PDOcorellation_zpsb1b8cff2.gif
http://i1264.photobucket.com/albums/jj484/rlcina71/HadCRUT4GlobalMonthlyTempSince1958AndCO2_zps45eb2fc8.gif
http://i1264.photobucket.com/albums/jj484/rlcina71/hc_fig3_zpsfcbceaee.jpeg
Could it really be that we have multi decadal cycles in oceans, cloud cover, and atmospheric warming and cooling, and they all tent to line up? How synchronized is the AMO and PDO?
Funny, James. You use the finagled surface temp series to prove your point. You might as well have used the Mannomatic Hockey Shtick. That would be so 1990s.
The only reliable temp series are the satellite series.
The graph below shows how Global cloud cover % (ISCCP) has varied with global temperatures.(c)
https://imageshack.us/i/nqglobaltempvglobalcloudbp
The graph below shows how global temperatures change when adjusted for by global cloud levels. (ISCCP) Observed satellite data has been used for estimating global clouds affect on planets temperature.
https://imageshack.us/i/mvhad3vlowcloudvsolar2p
This does back up the article that when this is taken into account there is very little else left for other causes. Global temperatures show an adjustment similar to those of the 1970’s when global cloud cover is taken into account.
Numerous countries including those in the UK recording sunshine hours present similar findings. With previous sunshine levels generally increased over this period and support the trend in ISCCP global cloud cover.
The correct links are below.
The take-home from John McLean’s paper:
——————————————
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=50837#.VFLoKPnF-Sq
The reduction in total cloud cover of 6.8% [between 1984 – 2009] means that 5.4 Wm−2 (6.8% of 79) is no longer being reflected but acts instead as an extra forcing into the atmosphere… To put this [5.4 Wm-2 of solar radiative forcing via cloud cover reduction between 1984-2009] into context, the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report…states that the total anthropogenic radiative forcing for 2011 relative to 1750 is 2.29 Wm−2 for all greenhouse gases and for carbon dioxide alone is 1.68 Wm−2. The increase in radiative forcing caused by the reduction in total cloud cover over 10 years is therefore more than double the IPCC’s estimated radiative forcing for all greenhouse gases and more than three times greater than the forcing by carbon dioxide alone [from 1750 to present].
——————————————
We can further confirm this much-stronger solar radiative forcing (via albedo changes) pattern relative to the anthropogenic contribution since 1950 by not only looking at this IPCC commentary regarding the paltry 0.3 W/m2 of anthropogenic forcing from 1951 to 2011….
——————————————
“Over the period 1951–2011 the trend in anthropogenic forcing is almost 0.3 W m–2 per decade and thus anthropogenic forcing over this period is more than 1.5 W m–2.” IPCC AR5 Chapter 8, page 699
——————————————
….relative to several other peer-reviewed papers that show a similarly strong (5.4 W/m2 for 1984-2009) solar radiation forcing via albedo variations (brightening/dimming) as John McLean’s fine paper does:
——————————————
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00482.1?journalCode=clim
Data from this summation method suggest that surface incident solar radiation increased at a rate of 6.6 W m−2/decade−1 (3.6%/ decade) from 1992 to 2002 (brightening) at selected sites.
——————————————
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008JD011290/abstract
The decadal trend shown in the 5-year running mean indicates a period of rapid increase [solar radiation reaching the surface/brightening] starting in late 1930s and continuing to early 1950s with a change of 10 W m2. The dimming trend from the early 1950s to the late 1980s shows a decrease of 13 W m2. The subsequent increase starting in late 1980s is about 10 W m 2 by 2005. These changes are not confined to a small number of stations in western Europe, but shared by more than 400 other sites where global irradiance has been continuously observed for more than 40 years.
——————————————
ftp://bbso.njit.edu/pub/staff/pgoode/website/publications/Palle_etal_2005a_GRL.pdf
Traditionally the Earth’s reflectance has been assumed to be roughly constant, but large decadal variability, not reproduced by current climate models, has been reported lately from a variety of sources. There is a consistent picture among all data sets by which the Earth’s albedo has decreased over the 1985-2000 interval. The amplitude of this decrease ranges from 2-3 W/m2 to 6-7 W/m2 but any value inside these ranges is highly climatologically significant and implies major changes in the Earth’s radiation budget.
——————————————
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010JD015396/abstract
We find distinct patterns of dimming and brightening in the aerosol optical depth and thus clear-sky downward surface shortwave radiation (SSR) in all analyzed subregions.The strongest brightening between 1973 and 1998 under clear-sky conditions is found in mid-Europe (+3.4 W m−2 per decade [8.5 W m−2 total], in line with observations).
——————————————
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/308/5723/850.abstract
Long-term variations in solar radiation at Earth’s surface (S) can affect our climate, the hydrological cycle, plant photosynthesis, and solar power. We observed an overall increase in S [solar radiation] from 1983 to 2001 at a rate of 0.16 watts per square meter (0.10%) per year [3.04 W/m-2 total]
——————————————
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231014007456
Total global solar shortwave (G) irradiation and sunshine duration were recorded at nine Spanish stations located in the Iberian Peninsula. Averaged series (using the nine locations) showed a statistically significant decrease in annual G [global dimming] from 1950 to the mid 1980s (−1.7%dc−1) [-8.5 W/m2] together with a significant increase [global brightening] from the mid 1980s to 2011 (1.6%dc−1) [+8 W/m2].
——————————————
Graph showing global dimming/brightening trends in W/m2 per decade (taken from Martin Wild, 2012: Enlightening Global Dimming and Brightening. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 93, 27–37):
Nice work KennethRichards. Can I just add that while variations in solar irradiance are interesting the real question is how much of that radiation is reaching the Earth’s surface and how it might vary over time.
Please also be aware that I figure that at no time in human history until the 1980s was there a widespread effort to reduce emissions (and perhaps at the same time some less deliberate efforts). Given the disappearance of London’s “pea soup” fogs when coal burning was banned, I don’t think anyone should be surprised that the Earth warmed slightly when total cloud reduced.
Yes indeed. All I can say is it is observational data, and appears to be a hell of a lot more like science then the Global Climate Models. Thank you John, and I think your paper deserves a great deal of attention.
Thanks for your efforts Kenneth! I was impressed by the spanking you gave Publicola in a discussion a couple weeks back. Your doing the best job I’ve seen of getting appropriate facts out there. We need more like you out on the front lines.
The author appears not to be aware of the sensitivity of minimum temperatures to changes in low clouds. HadCRUT land is predominantly a min/max dataset.
Briefly, minimum temperatures occur at the point when solar insolation at the surface exceeds OLWR. Decreases in low level clouds increase solar insolation at the surface, and cause earlier and higher minimum temperatures. Particularly true in the mid to higher latitudes in winter when the angle of incidence
of solar radiation after dawn is low for an extended period.
Most warming in HadCRUT land over the last 60 years is in winter minimum temperatures, ex tropics.
Therefore, there is no need to invoke radiative balance causes. As at least half the warming is an artifact of using minimum temperatures.
I was aware of it but decided it was irrelevant. Yes, the HadCRUT data is derived from minimum and maximum temperatures and variations in cloud cover at the times of maximum temperature (typically early to mid afternoon) and minimum temperature (typically just after sunrise) can impact those min and max temps.
The real issue is net radiation (OLWR v. incoming) strength and direction. Cloudy nights are typically warmer than clear nights; cloudy days typically cooler than cloud-free days, and I say “typically” because we shouldn’t forget other influences on weather (e.g. winds). In northern Scandinavia cloud free days in October and November are frequently cooler than cloudy days at that time of year because the net radiation flow is outwards, to space, even when the sun is shining.
You miss my point.
I say, much of the warming in HadCRUT (probably more than half) is due to the sensitivity of minimum temperatures to solar insulation at the surface in the period after dawn Resulting from the interference to solar radiation effect of low level clouds in the period shortly after dawn. That is, small changes in solar insolation (radiative balance) at the surface at these times produces a disproportinately large change in minimum temperatures.
FYI, the only published paper comparing changes in minimum temperatures to overnight temperatures, for which minimum temperatures changes are supposedly a proxy, was done using Mauna Loa data. About the last place in the world where you would expect to find a low level cloud effect.
One would think that minimum temperature changes, which constitute the bulk of the warming in the surface temperature record, and which form most of the empirical basis for AGW, would merit rather more scrutiny than that.
Phillip, solar radiation just after dawn is very weak because of the angle of incidence. An Australian study has shown that many minimum temperatures occur under clear sky just on or a few minutes after sunrise. The warmest minimum temperatures will usually occur when the night has been cloudy and there’s been a warm wind. Mind you if the days and nights were cloudy but there’s a shift and the day is no longer as cloudy, I would expect extra heating during the day that can’t escape from under the cloudy night sky.
John McLean commented
I’ve been measuring Zenith temp for about 3/4 of a year now, and without exception any water increases it’s temp. With clear dry (surface humidity) skies, I’ve measured -60F at about 50F air temps. But for radiative cooling I think the surface of the ground temp is more important. You see this when the grass has frost on it, and the roads and sidewalks don’t, and the reason is the top of the grass is below freezing, and the sidewalk isn’t (easy to measure). But something happens during the night, cooling rates drop off throughout the night. Where the last few hours the temps don’t drop much. But it cools until the Sun comes up. I suggest anyone who actually cares enough to read these blogs, go buy a $100 weather station, watch the weather, and if you can, get a low temp IR thermometer.
But, my work with surface records (NCDC GSoD) shows the big swings in min temps are regional not global. And compared to Max temps, the change a lot. I suspect that what it’s showing is large swings in ocean surface temps up wind of the area the majority of that continents air mass comes from.
I posted my latest graphs here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/23/weather-channel-founder-john-coleman-there-is-no-significant-man-made-global-warming-at-this-time/#comment-1769579
I’ve written stuff here http://www.science20.com/virtual_worlds/blog/global_warming_really_recovery_regional_cooling-121820
The attribution is just my musing, but the numbers are good.
And if you follow the url in my name all of the output and code it there, data is available from the NCDC.
Philip Bradley commented
You might be interested
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/23/weather-channel-founder-john-coleman-there-is-no-significant-man-made-global-warming-at-this-time/#comment-1769579
and this
http://www.science20.com/virtual_worlds/blog/global_warming_really_recovery_regional_cooling-121820
H. L. Penman in his evaporation equation in 1948 used cloud cover data to estimate sunshine data. The equation he used is: s = 1 – m, where s is the sunshine as a fraction of day length (n/N) and m = cloudiness expressed as a decimal fraction [low + medium + high clouds/8, as sky is divided in to 8 octas]. I presented an equation s = 1 – f1 + f2 where f1 is a function of cloud factor and f2 is a function of latitude — Solar Energy [USA], 1974, 15: 281-285.
Dr. S. JeevanandaReddy
.
clivebest October 30, 2014 at 12:38 pm
Clive, that’s very interesting. Where did you download the ICSSP data in netCDF from?
Regards,
w.
Willis,
Yes I downloaded the monthly global cloud cover data in netCDF format. The file is called MnCldAmt.nc . It is a 3-D nc file CC(month,lat,lon).
I converted it to ASCII using ncdump and wrote a PERL script to perform the global and hemispheric area averages. The code is shown below.
#!/usr/bin/perl
# use strict;
# use warnings;
# changed to calculate the monthly averages first.
use Time::Local
my @CC=();
my @mvap=();
my @nhit=();
@mdays=(31,28,31,30,31,30,31,31,30,31,30,31);
# date set at half of december 1987 for the mid month normalization
$time = timegm(1,1,12,15,0,1988)-978307200;
$command = ‘ncdump -v MnCldAmt MnCldAmt.nc’;
$istart = 0;
my @docs = qx($command);
$icount=0
foreach my $line (@docs) {
chomp $line;
if ($istart eq 0) {
if ($line =~ /water_vapor =/)
{
$istart =1;
$lon=0;
$lat=0;
$imonth=0;
}
} else {
$icount++;
my @values = split(‘,’, $line);
foreach my $val (@values)
{
if ($val 144) {
$lon=0;
$lat++;
}
if ($lat > 72) {
# make mnthly average
#
for ($i=0; $i<360; $i++)
{
for ($j=0; $j 0.0) {
$wvap[$i][$j] = $mvap[$i][$j][$imonth]/$nhit[$i][$j];
$nhit[$i][$j] = 0;
$mvap[$i][$j][$imonth]=0.0;
# print $lon.’ ‘.$lat.’ ‘.$wvap[$lon][$lat],” \n”;
} else {
$wvap[$i][$j] = -9999;
}
}
}
#
# – calculate global average
#
my $W_tot_NH = 0;
my $A_tot_NH = 0;
my $W_tot_SH = 0;
my $A_tot_SH = 0;
for ( my $j = 0 ; $j 90 || $Lat < -90 ) { next; }
my $Weight = cos( $Lat * 3.141592 / 180 );
for ( my $i = 0 ; $i < 360 ; $i++ ) {
if ( $wvap[$i][$j] 0 ) {
$W_tot_NH += $Weight;
$A_tot_NH += $wvap[$i][$j] * $Weight;
# print $Weight,” \n”;
}
else {
$W_tot_SH += $Weight;
$A_tot_SH += $wvap[$i][$j] * $Weight;
}
}
}
if ( $W_tot_NH > 0 && $W_tot_SH > 0 ) {
$glavg = ( $A_tot_NH / $W_tot_NH + $A_tot_SH / $W_tot_SH ) / 2;
$navg = $A_tot_NH / $W_tot_NH;
$savg = $A_tot_SH / $W_tot_SH;
# print $iyear.’ ‘.$iday.’ ‘.$glavg.’ ‘.$navg.’ ‘.$savg,” \n”;
print $time.’ ‘.$glavg.’ ‘.$navg.’ ‘.$savg,” \n”;
$time = $time+$mdays[$imonth]*86400;
}
$imonth = $imonth + 1;
$dmonth= 0;
} else {
$dmonth++;
}
}
}
Sorry – lost the indentations !
Thanks, Clive. For those interested, I finally found the ISCCP data here in netCDF format. The main dataset (monthly mean cloud cover %) is here.
You see how easy it is to specify the exact dataset, instead of just waving your hands at the front page of the ISCCP website like the McLean paper did? That’s one of the reasons I said the paper was junk, and I stand by it.
w.
Willis: ” I said the paper was junk and I stand by it”
###
I, and several others, suggested that you contact John McLean for help in locating the data. You rejected that sensible advice in a distempered fashion:”Put up or shut up” you told us.Your abusive tirades don’t help you, Willis.
You have condemned McLean’s study because of your trouble in locating the data set. That is a very egocentric set of standards for evaluating science, Willis. You should work on improving your standards, that is , if you wish to gain recognition as a scientist.
I disagree with your characterization of this paper. Indeed, I consider it as a most important contribution to our understanding. I hope to see more studies of the cloud albedo factor in determining surface temperatures.
Thanks to John McLean for this study and his participation here.
Willis, I accept that it was probably an error on my behalf not to mention the specific ISCCP dataset I used but an email to me would have quickly resolved the question. If I hadn’t by chance seen your comment here you wouldn’t have received an answer.
I smile and ponder whether peer-review should have picked it up. (In a submission to a UK Parliamentary inquiry into peer review a few years ago I suggested that checklists be used. Some but far from all journals now seem to be using them. “Clear identification of data sources” should appear on those lists.)
Also, in future can you please spell my name correctly? Incorrect spelling is an obstacle to anyone trying to do a web search. Thanks.
‘Phillip, solar radiation just after dawn is very weak because of the angle of incidence.’
Which is my point. Small changes in solar radiation at the surface when the incidence is low, after dawn, cause relatively large changes in minimum temperature (Compared to solar radiation changes around maximum temperature). And low level clouds cause such changes in the early morning.
Using the average of a min/max dataset (HadCRUT) and ascribing changes to radiation at the surface.you are essentially equally attributing your radiation cause to both min and max temps changes. I’d suggest looking at the effect of surface radiation on min and max temps separately would be more productive.
regards
This is not really new. The correlation between global temperature and cloud cover was published by me in
Scafetta, N. 2013. Discussion on climate oscillations: CMIP5 general circulation models versus a semi-empirical harmonic model based on astronomical cycles. Earth-Science Reviews 126, 321-357.
http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/pdf/EARTH_1890.pdf
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012825213001402
See Figure 19.
Nicola, with a twinkle in my eye I’d say that your paper mentioned total cloud cover in passing while concentrating on other matters. I must admit that I don’t recall seeing your paper. Literature reviews aren’t easy given the huge volume of papers that are published now. Electronic searching helps but can still return lots of potentially relevant papers that need to be assessed. With no mention of clouds in your title or abstract I might well have seen it returned by a search engine but rejected it.
One difference is that I derive cloud cover anomalies in order to obtain a clearer picture, because cloud cover varies on a seasonal basis over small and large regions. I also looked at the three levels of cloud (low, mid and upper) and found the important shift. Another significant difference (general, not statistical) was that I first resolved a residual global average temperature anomaly to identify the patterns that ENSO and volcanic eruptions couldn’t account for. (FWIW my paper grew out of the fact that the ENSO provided a pretty good account of temperatures until 1987 but after that the relationship changed – why?.)
Note to John McLean – Nice to see ANY paper that does not assume increased atmospheric CO2 is the primary driver of global warming.
Note to James Abbott – the following was written one year ago, based my paper published in 2008, and is still valid imo.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/10/the-sun-does-it-now-go-figure-out-how/#comment-1445683
[excerpt]
The popular debate in climate science suggests that this science is in its infancy. I further suggest that the majority of climate science has taken a giant step backwards in recent decades due to egregious political interference and scientific misbehaviour.
Notwithstanding all the wonderful data available especially since ~1979, we have an “ECS mainstream debate” that ASSUMES THAT CO2 SIGNIFICANTLY DRIVES TEMPERATURE and centres on the question of “climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO2” (“ECS”) that questions whether ECS is greater or less than 1 (that is, are there positive or negative feedbacks to increasing atmospheric CO2).
Since CO2 clearly LAGS temperature at all measured time scales, this ECS mainstream debate requires that, in total, “the future is causing the past”, which I suggest is demonstrably false.
To be clear, I suggest that atmospheric CO2 does NOT significantly drive Earth temperatures, and Earth temperatures clearly drive atmospheric CO2.
This does not preclude the possibility that the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 is primarily caused by some factors (natural and/or humanmade) other than temperatures, but such increase in CO2 is insignificant to Earths’ temperatures.
In summary, in climate science we do not even agree on what drives what, and it is probable that the majority, who reside on BOTH sides of the ECS mainstream debate, are BOTH WRONG.
It is also possible that I am wrong on this point ( possible, but not probable :-} ).
Regards to all, Allan
“Since CO2 clearly LAGS temperature at all measured time scales”
– except the modern warm period where CO2 appears to be leading temperature.
Claiming “this time is different” because of that correlation is a central tenet for AGW theory. Disproving AGW theory requires measurements that show other forcing’s are the cause of the observed warming. This paper does a good job of pointing to what those other factors are.
The models have failed validation but the theory will stand until empirical proof of what actually drives climate has been established.
“– except the modern warm period where CO2 appears to be leading temperature”
THAT STATEMENT IS FALSE EXCEPT FOR ABOUT 30 YEARS FROM 1975 TO 2005 AND THEN ONLY COINCIDENTAL – IT MEANS NOTHING.
IN THE 30 YEARS PRIOR TO 1975, CO2 INCREASED WHILE TEMPERATURES DECREASED.
SINCE ABOUT 2005 (OR EARLIER) CO2 HAS INCREASED AND TEMPERATURES HAVE REMAINED FLAT.
CO2 LAGS TEMPERATURE IN THE MODERN DATA RECORD (SINCE 1958) BY ABOUT 9 MONTHS.
CO2 LAGS TEMPERATURE IN THE ICE CORE RECORD BY ABOUT 800 YEARS ON A LONGER CYCLE.
CO2 DOES NOT SIGNIFICANTLY DRIVE TEMPERATURE. TEMPERATURE (AMONG OTHER FACTORS) DRIVES CO2.
NOT SHOUTING ABOVE – CAPS LOCK WAS STUCK ON…
This what happens when you look at your fingers when you type. 🙂
“The models have failed validation but the theory will stand until empirical proof of what actually drives climate has been established.”
With respect, I suggest the theory has been effectively falsified as follows:
Based on observations, increased atmospheric CO2 does not significantly drive Earth’s temperature – that is, not enough to matter.
Other factors are much more significant drivers of Earth’s climate.
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
– W.S.
I should have qualified that with “the theory will stand in mainstream climate science until empirical proof of what actually drives climate has been established.” That was what I was referring to but didn’t state.
I agree with you but we have a long way to go before the majority wakes up. I think most here have moved on to trying to figure out what the primary drivers of climate are.
“I think most here have moved on to trying to figure out what the primary drivers of climate are.”
Good comment gyan1.
Although I no longer have time to research, I try to keep up with the conversation.
A few musings follow:
I suspect that the Sun and its small variations are a significant driver of the changes we see in climate over hundreds of years, such as the Dalton and Maunder minimums and their associated cold periods. However, I have not been able to detect a clear correlation of global temperatures with solar cycles such as the ~11-year the Schwabe or even the ~90-year Gleissberg. This may be my failure. However, I suspect that irregular oceanic cycles such as the “slosh” of the PDO/ENSO are sometimes in-phase and sometimes out-of-phase with solar cycles, such that global temperatures vary on an irregular basis, and so just appear to go up and down.
If this hypo is true, it suggests warmer trends during periods of an active Sun and cooler trends during periods of a less active Sun, but with considerable noise in the temperature signals – and that is consistent with observations. Based on this hypo, I suggest global temperatures will cool in the next few years, regardless of atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
That cooling prediction directly contradicts the popular (IPCC et al) CO2-driven hypo of humanmade global warming. We will see which hypo more accurately predicts the years to come.
Regards to all, Allan
Alan,
“However, I suspect that irregular oceanic cycles such as the “slosh” of the PDO/ENSO are sometimes in-phase and sometimes out-of-phase with solar cycles, such that global temperatures vary on an irregular basis, and so just appear to go up and down.”
You can see large differences in the average of minimum temps when done for the various continents.
MCro – Not objecting, but can you please provide some references?
Some supporting evidence for your statement may be provided this winter (2014-15).
This winter in the Northern Hemisphere is predicted to be quite cold in North America (Eastern and Central), Western Europe and very cold all across Russia.
I am concerned about a significant increase in excess winter mortality rates. Cold winters tend to kill off the elderly – I hope to not be one of them.
Allan MacRae commented
Just my own work.
You can start here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/23/weather-channel-founder-john-coleman-there-is-no-significant-man-made-global-warming-at-this-time/#comment-1769579
The reports I used to create those graphs are @ the URL in my name on this post, continents.zip
and then there’s more here.
http://www.science20.com/virtual_worlds
mpainter November 1, 2014 at 11:14 am Edit
Condemned it because of “trouble in locating the data set”? Actually, what I said was that it was:
I stand by that. As published, it is assuredly incapable of replication because of the lack of data and code. In addition, the citing of the entire IPCC opus with no page numbers is indeed a joke.
w.
John McLean October 30, 2014 at 2:05 pm Edit
John, thanks for your responses. What you had said was:
Really? I don’t think that the takeaway message from AR5 was that the climate models run too hot. In fact, I couldn’t point to where in the IPCC report they said that, and I doubt greatly that many readers could. In fact, this is so contrary to the general claims of the IPCC that it most definitely needs specification chapter and verse.
In any case, that kind of citation is a red flag to me. It’s like the bible-thumping tent revival preachers of my youth waving the Bible around and saying “the answer is in the good book” … perhaps it is, but where? As I remarked above, my high school science teacher, Mrs. Henniger, would red-pencil our papers into submission if we tried that nonsense on …
It’s funny how people like my analyses until I take apart their own work … then suddenly they are all on about how they have to re-evaluate their opinion of me.
As to the work of David Evans (whose name you mis-spelled), seriously? A notch filter with 19 separate tunable parameters? Seriously? My friend, the idea that I am “peeved” that I didn’t write that piece of work is hilarious. If I’d written it, I would be deeply ashamed.
John McLean November 1, 2014 at 3:54 pm Edit
John, again my thanks … but I still haven’t received an answer. As I pointed out above, there are no less than 19 “D2” datasets, so telling us you used the D2 dataset tells us nothing. What we need is a link to the dataset AS USED. For example, I’m using an ISCCP D2 dataset from NOAA … can you guarantee that it is identical to the dataset you used? Datasets change all of the time as new data is added, and some dataset you used may have been superceded. This is why you need to archive your data, so that we can be sure that we are starting from the same point. What is needed is a LINK to the data AS USED.
Actually, what is needed is not clear identification of data sources. It is a link to a frozen copy of the data AS USED. But that’s not the biggest problem with your paper. It is the lack of the code that you used. I know that you’ve described your methods in clear English, but there is a reason we don’t program in English—it’s far too vague and imprecise.
And even if you’ve managed to describe what you think you did and have done so in a clear and precise manner, we have no guarantee that you’ve done that. The problem, as any programmer will testify, is bugs. You may think you have done one thing, but you’ve actually done something else entirely … and without access to the code AS USED, there is no way for us to determine whether you’ve done something foolish.
Those were my objections to the paper, John, that there was no data as used, no code as used, and the references were a joke that wouldn’t be accepted in my high school class. I stand by that. I know that it is harsh, but there’s no way to sugar-coat it. Without data and code, it’s simply not science.
It’s a deal, but only if in future you please spell David Evans’ name correctly. As someone recently informed me, incorrect spelling is an obstacle to anyone trying to do a web search. Thanks …
You see how pissy that sounds? In any case, I’ve fixed the mis-spelling, my bad.
John, I’m sorry that I was so harsh on your paper, but I’ve had it up to here with this no data, no code hogwash. This is the 21st century, times have changed. Nobody trusts climate scientists any more, and with damn good reason. Not posting links to your data and code is asking us to take your word for it, to take things on trust … sorry, not gonna happen.
And to be fair, John, surely my position on this can’t come as a surprise to you. I’ve been fighting this fight for some time now. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve said “No code, no data, no science”, or how many people I’ve excoriated for not archiving data and code, or how many open letters I’ve written to the journals and funding agencies pushing this same agenda of no data, no code, no science. I never heard you complain any of the many times when I’ve done that in the past.
… But people like you and David Evans seem to think that because you are on the side of the angels, I shouldn’t mention that neither of you have archived your data or your code, and thus that your work is not science of any kind. You must see that it would be entirely hypocritical of me to expect less of you than I do of Michael Mann, for heavens sake.
In addition, the citing of the entire IPCC report is a sure-fire sign to me of someone just phoning it in. If you can’t be bothered to identify the facts that support your claims, I can’t be bothered reading your claims.
In any case, there’s a simple solution to this whole difficulty, one that cuts the Gordian Knot—archive your data as used and code as used, and provide us with links to both of them. I do that for almost every one of my blog posts, for heavens sake, surely you can do the same for a full-blown scientific paper.
I’m also curious as to where the IPCC said the models were running too hot, so if you wanted to identify that as well it would be great, but that’s a side issue … the main issue is no data, no code, no science.
Anyhow, the ball’s in your court.
Again, my thanks for responding to the issues that I raised, much appreciated.
w.
John McLean, meet Willis Eschenbach.