OR…. There are Increases in Trend with Each Update While The Causes of Downward Biases Are Deleted
Guest Essay by Bob Tisdale:
In the recent WUWT post Something hinky this way comes: NCDC data starts diverging from GISS, the differences between GISS and NCDC global temperature anomaly data was discussed. I commented that the GISS and NCDC global surface temperature anomaly data relied on two different SST datasets.
NCDC has their own SST anomaly dataset for their global surface temperature product, and they calculate anomalies against the base years of 1901 to 2000. GISS has used the NCDC OI.v2 SST anomaly data since December 1981, and before that they had used the Hadley Centre’s HADSST data. GISS then splices the two datasets together. This post does not discuss the HADSST data, but delves into the differences between the multiple NCDC SST anomaly datasets, one of which is used by GISS.
GRAPHS OF GLOBAL OI.v2 (USED BY GISS) and “NCDC Ocean” SST ANOMALY DATA
I have not been able to find GISS SST anomaly data as a separate dataset, so for a short-term comparison, I’ll use their source, the OI.v2 SST anomaly data available through the NOAA NOMADS system. Unfortunately, the OI.v2 SST data uses a third climatology for their anomalies (with base years of 1971-2000), but don’t let that concern you. It just makes for an unusual comparative graph.
Figure 1 is a short-term comparison (November 1981 to April 2009) of the OI.v2 Global SST anomaly data (used by GISS) and the NCDC’s “Global Ocean Temperature”. The NCDC data is available toward the bottom of the NCDC Global Surface Temperature Anomalies webpage here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/index.php
Specifically:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat
http://i41.tinypic.com/sec4kh.jpg
Figure 1
The two datasets appear to track one another, and the obvious difference, the shift in the data, is a result of the different base years. But if we subtract the OI.v2 SST data from the NCDC “Global Ocean” SST anomaly data, we can see that one dataset rose more than the other since November 1981. Refer to Figure 2. The NCDC “Global Ocean” SST anomaly dataset rose at a greater rate than the OI.v2 SST anomaly data that’s used by GISS. This would bias the NCDC global surface temperature upward over this time span, or bias the GISS data down, depending on your point of view.
http://i39.tinypic.com/qzlsvo.jpg
Figure 2
So to conclude this section of this post, part of the difference between the GISS and NCDC global surface temperatures discussed in WUWT post Something hinky this way comes: NCDC data starts diverging from GISS results from the use of different SST anomaly datasets.
WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO DATASETS?
The use of satellite data appears to have an impact.
NOAA describes the Optimum Interpolation (OI.v2) SST anomaly data (used by GISS) as, “The optimum interpolation (OI) sea surface temperature (SST) analysis is produced weekly on a one-degree grid. The analysis uses in situ and satellite SST’s plus SST’s simulated by sea-ice cover.” The in situ data is from buoy and ship measurements. The full description of the OI.v2 data is here:
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/data/gridded/data.noaa.oisst.v2.html
The NCDC identifies the “Global Ocean Temperature” dataset as SR05 in its Global Surface Temperature Anomalies webpage:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/index.php#sr05
Linked to the webpage is a paper by Smith et al (2005) “New surface temperature analyses for climate monitoring” GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 32, L14712, doi:10.1029/2005GL023402, 2005.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/Smith-comparison.pdf
On page 2, Smith et al describe the SR05 data as, “The SR05 SST is based on the International Comprehensive Ocean Atmosphere Data Set (ICOADS [Woodruff et al., 1998]). It uses different, though similar, historical bias adjustments to account for the change from bucket measurements to engine intake SSTs [Smith and Reynolds, 2002]. In addition, SR05 is based on in situ data.”
It appears, from that quote and the rest of the paper, the SR05 SST dataset does NOT use satellite data. This is consistent with NCDC’s other long-term SST datasets. They also abstain from satellite data.
COMPARISON OF SR05 TO THE NCDC’s OTHER TWO SST ANOMALY DATSETS
In addition to the SR05 SST data, the NCDC also has two other long-term SST datasets called Extended Reconstructed SST (ERSST) data. The ERSST.v2 (Version 2) data was introduced in 2004 with the Smith and Reynolds (2004) paper Improved Extended Reconstruction of SST (1854-1997), Journal of Climate, 17, 2466-2477. Many of my early Smith and Reynolds SST Posts used ERSST.v2 data through the NOAA NOMADS system. Unfortunately, ERSST.v2 data is no longer available through that NOAA system, so the latest ERSST.v2 global SST anomaly data from NOMADS I have on file runs through October 2008.
The ERSST.v2 data was updated with ERSST.v3 data. In my opinion, it provides the most detailed analysis of high latitude SST in the Southern Hemisphere (the Southern Ocean). The ERSST.v3 data was introduced last year with the Smith et al (2008) paper: Improvements to NOAA’s Historical Merged Land-Ocean Surface Temperature Analysis (1880-2006), Journal of Climate,21, 2283-2296. The NCDC updated it with their ERSST.v3b version later in 2008, but more on that later. A limited number of datasets (based on latitude) for the ERSST.v3b data are available from NCDC (though it is available on a user-selected coordinate basis through the KNMI Climate Explorer website, as is ERSST.v2 data).
I have found no source of SR05 SST anomaly data, other than the Global, Northern Hemisphere, and Southern Hemisphere “Ocean Temperature” datasets linked to the Global Surface Temperature webpage.
Figures 3 and 4 are long-term comparisons (1880 to “present”) of the “NCDC Global Ocean” (SR05) SST anomaly data to the ERSST.v2 and to the ERSST.v3b SST anomalies. Based on the linear trends, the “NCDC Global Ocean” (SR05) data resides between the older ERSST.v2 and the more recent ERSST.v3b data.
http://i40.tinypic.com/am84ma.jpg
Figure 3
########
http://i43.tinypic.com/2u9pwk6.jpg
Figure 4
But note that the trend increases with each SST dataset improvement.
THE ERSST.v3 DATASET ONCE USED SATELLITE DATA
In “Improvements to NOAA’s Historical Merged Land-Ocean Surface Temperature Analysis (1880-2006)”, Smith et al note the use of satellite data for ERSST.v3 data in their abstract, “Beginning in 1985, improvements are due to the inclusion of bias-adjusted satellite data.” That’s a positive description. They further proclaim, “Of the improvements, the two that have the greatest influence on global averages are better tuning of the reconstruction method and inclusion of bias adjusted satellite data since 1985.” In fact there is a whole subsection in the paper about the satellite adjustments.
WHY THEN DID THE NCDC DELETE THE SATELLITE DATA IN THE MOST RECENT VERSION, ERSST.v3b?
Reynolds, Smith, and Liu write in a November 14, 2008 attachment to their main ERSST.v3b webpage, “In the ERSST version 3 on this web page WE HAVE REMOVED SATELLITE DATA from ERSST and the merged product. The addition of satellite data caused problems for many of our users. Although, the satellite data were corrected with respect to the in situ data as described in reprint, there was a residual cold bias that remained as shown in Figure 4 there. The bias was strongest in the middle and high latitude Southern Hemisphere where in situ data are sparse. THE RESIDAL BIAS LED TO A MODEST DECREASE IN THE GLOBAL WARMING TREND AND MODIFIED GLOBAL ANNUAL TEMPERATURE RANKINGS.” [Emphasis added.]
The link for that quote is here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/sst/papers/merged-product-v3.pdf
Note that the “merged product” referenced above is their ERSST.v3b-based land plus sea surface temperature data.
Figure 5 illustrates the difference between the ERSST.v3b and ERSST.v3 global SST anomaly data (ERSST.v3 data MINUS ERSST.v3b data). The “dip” after 1985 would appear to be the satellite bias.
http://i43.tinypic.com/6yfx8h.jpg
Figure 5
Hmmm. It looks as though, if you’re a SST data producer, downward biases are bad, but increases in trend with each update are good.
SOURCES
The ERSST.v3b SST anomaly data is available through the NCDC’s ERSST.v3 webpage:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/sst/ersstv3.php
Link to the available datasets:
ftp://eclipse.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/ersstv3b/pdo
I used this dataset for this post:
ftp://eclipse.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/ersstv3b/pdo/aravg.mon.ocean.90S.90N.asc
The NCDC’s “Global Ocean Temperature” dataset is available through:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/index.php
Specifically:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat
ERSST.v2 data are no longer available through the NOAA NOMADS System. I relied on ERSST.v2 global SST anomaly data from my files for this post. I also used the ERSST.v3 I also had on file for the comparison to the ERSST.v3b data.
The OI.v2 data is available through the NOAA NOMADS system:
http://nomad3.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh?lite
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Nasif Nahle: You wrote in a comment directed at me, “BTW, saying that the fluctuations of the solar energy have nothing to do with Earth’s climate is misguided…”
When did I say that?
Depends on the clouds. Some are positive some are negative. In my experience here in the Pacific Northwest, heavily overcast days are cooler than sunny days.
Like the last couple days, been heavily overcast and temps stayed in the low 60s f. The two days before that it was clear and got into the 70s. This is not to say that either temps were “caused” by cloudiness or lack thereof, just anecdotal observations.
Mr Boy (12:23:30) kindly drew our attention to this:
“Climate Odds Much Worse Than Thought.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090519134843.htm ”
What enormous fun these computerised sausage machines are.
Back here in the real world of FatBigot Towers it is 2009. Yes, there’s a nine at the end not a zero. We’re almost a decade into the century of perpetually increasing heat. I have been sitting here in my little house like a plump potato in a saucepan of water, waiting to be cooked to perfection over the course of a century so that at the end I can be doused in butter and served to a passing cannibal. The water started out tepid, now it’s got colder.
It’s all very well telling me that the great forces of warming will mean that I will be overcooked whereas previously I would have been done to perfection. I might be able to believe it because there is a theory, hypothesis if you prefer, and I am just an ignorant potato.
But I can’t believe it unless it is explained why I have been getting colder for almost a decade when it was promised that I would be almost a tenth of the way to culinary readiness by now.
Now, in 2009, the same theory / hypothesis is used to justify a prediction that I will get hotter over the next 91 years (following 9 years of getting colder) than I was told I would get over 100 years when I was originally placed into the saucepan of luke warm water 9 years ago.
It’s a jolly good thing I am only a potato and wholly ignorant of matters scientific, were it otherwise I might think the theory / hypothesis is just patent twaddle.
Bob Tisdale (16:48:11) :
Nasif Nahle: You wrote in a comment directed at me, “BTW, saying that the fluctuations of the solar energy have nothing to do with Earth’s climate is misguided…”
When did I say that?
No, you didn’t; I said it in my comment, but not referring to something which you had said. That’s why I wrote By the way. Your comment is in italics. 🙂
This blog might be worth a look:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/mar/10/blogpost1
Strap line is “facts are sacred” so maybe they’d take this story on. I had a look back over 4 or 5 pages and didn’t find any temperature info.
By the way, any body notice Jeff Id has a new really good friend?
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/05/19/limitations-on-anthropogenic-global-warming/#more-3896
Steven Hill (12:56:23) :
“We are going to pay for it all……once oil usage drops, higher taxes will be needed to replace less fuel sold.”
What makes you think they’re going to wait for oil usage to drop?
In a post at Climate Audit…
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6038
…Steve McIntyre noted that NOAA has stated, regarding their ERSST data, that “V3b is now the official version. V2 will no longer be updated. It will still be available in our subdirtectory /Datasets/noaa.ersst/V2/'”
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/data/gridded/data.noaa.ersst.html
There is no date on the notice, and it has been my understanding for a few months that ERSST.v2 would no longer be updated.
–BUT–
The ERSST.v2 data available through the KNMI Climate Explorer is current through April 2009. Go figure.
Nasif, I read your paper, linked above.
I especially liked your last line in the conclusions:
” The influence of “greenhouse gases” on the climate is irrelevant.”
“”” RW (16:25:36) :
“Clouds are ALWAYS (climatically) NEGATIVE feedback; and that is the crux of the whole global mean temperature question.”
Nope. Who licensed you to make up your own physical law like that? I have no idea where you live,>>>” but those of us who live at temperate latitudes know very well that cloudy winter days are much warmer than clear winter days.”<<>>” but those of us who live at temperate latitudes know very well that warmer winter days are much cloudier than cold winter days.”<<<
I rest my case; but add in passing; "nobody ever observed it to warm up when a cloud passes in front of the sun; it always cools."
I don't know what your skills are with geometrical optics; but if you like, I could send you a formal proof of just exactly why that happens; but anybody with just an 8th grade high school knowledge of illumination optics, can easily figure it out for themselves.
If the clouds cause the warmth; does that mean more clouds cause more warmth ?
Just asking.
George
“”” RW (16:25:36) :
“Clouds are ALWAYS (climatically) NEGATIVE feedback; and that is the crux of the whole global mean temperature question.”
Nope. Who licensed you to make up your own physical law like that? I have no idea where you live, but those of us who live at temperate latitudes know very well that cloudy winter days are much warmer than clear winter days. So, if winter cloudiness were to increase because of other climate changes, that would be…?
I’ll be interested to see just how you reconcile facts like that with your beliefs. “””
>>> “but those of us who live at temperate latitudes know very well that cloudy winter days are much warmer than clear winter days. ” <>but those of us who live at temperate latitudes know very well that warmer winter days are much cloudier than cold winter days. <<<
There now RW; I didn't change the accuracy of your statement one iota.
I rest my case.
George
For some reason; any comments from me are being vaporised.
George
Don’t ask me what happened; but the aboves just vanished on pressing “Submit Comment”. some sort of poultrygeist I expect.
George
>>can they really consider the warmer in situ data to be more
>>accurate than the satellite data?
What is the betting that the “warmer in situ data” is the Siberian data that the Russians have been busy fiddling, in order to ‘confirm’ global warming and force the US into the carbon trading scam, and thus destroy US industry.
A climate modelers reds?
.
George E. Smith: have a look at Figure 5.10 here. If your beliefs were correct, all six lines on the graph would point down to the right. I advise you to reconsider your beliefs, taking into account the observational evidence that contradicts your present ones.
George E. Smith,
Our projection-impaired pal repeatedly labels you a “believer”, rather than as a thinker — then gives a questionable book review as a pathetic appeal to authority. That particular book review only shows that globaloney sells. The problem with the book is that Webster & Stephens hedge their bets so much that their analysis throughout is worthless. From only part of one page:
Here’s a plain fact: None of the computer models predicted the severity of the past N.H. winter. Not one. The models failed. All of them.
As Prof. Freeman Dyson presciently observes, GCMs are next to worthless for predicting the climate. They’re always wrong. They can not correctly predict.
Here’s a clue: click. As CO2 continues its steady rise… global temperatures continue to fall. Only a True Believer in the repeatedly falsified CO2=AGW conjecture would fail to see the disconnect.
Here are some empirical facts based on real world observations [rather than on GCMs programmed by grant-seeking opportunists] :
Carbon dioxide is found everywhere. It is completely harmless in both current and projected concentrations. The insignificant tiny fraction of a degree that it may add to global warming is totally swamped by many other factors, and can be completely ignored as inconsequential. CO2 is beneficial to all life on Earth; more atmospheric carbon dioxide is better for life.
The only nail the self-serving warmist contingent has to hang their hat on is the always-inaccurate computer models. The real world has falsified their misguided and incorrect beliefs: as CO2 rises, the temperature falls. This central fact no doubt galls the alarmists, but the facts are the facts.
So who are we supposed to believe… the grant-seeking opportunists’ always-wrong computer models? Or what Mother Earth is plainly telling us?
From http://www.seablogger.com/?p=14494
Pacific Shift
climate by seablogger
The surface temperature pattern of the Pacific Ocean has been remarkably stable for the last couple of years, since the flip to cold phase of the Pacific decadal oscillation. Now, for the first time, it is undergoing a major shift. The cold pool in the northeast Pacific is shrinking markedly, and the mid-ocean, mid-latitude warm pool has grown. There is also a La Nina developing (off season) in the equatorial Pacific. Meanwhile warm swatches have shrunk in the South Pacific (a larger expanse of water than the North Pacific). Nearly all this vast watery region is painted anomalous chilly blue now. What does this change portend? I have no idea, but I will be watching our downstream jet closely for pattern changes ensuing from the Pacific shift.
“”” RW (06:45:52) :
George E. Smith: have a look at Figure 5.10 here. If your beliefs were correct, all six lines on the graph would point down to the right. I advise you to reconsider your beliefs, taking into account the observational evidence that contradicts your present ones. “””
So I looked at your figure 5.10 as requested.
Very nice; a perfectly linear relationship between fractional cloud cover and surface temperatures,
One might reasonably predict a linear relationship between ground level insolation and fractional cloud cover; but a linear temperature relationship; wow that is totally radical.
Oh I see the problem; those are not measured data, but some sort of imputed values for an equilibrium condition.
I looked but couldn’t find any reference to when it was that the earth was last in this equilibrium condition to which these analyses refer.
But a linear relationship between surface temperatures, and fractional cloud cover; that’s revolutionary.
George
Ron de Haan: seablogger linked this map to make his observations. It opened to a map dated 5/21/09:
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/climo.html
Most of his comments could be related to weather. SST anomaly patterns vary daily, weekly, monthly.
His statement, “There is also a La Nina developing (off season) in the equatorial Pacific,” is wrong. NINO3.4 SST anomalies have risen above zero over the last month and while they’re still ENSO neutral, they show no sign of heading toward a La Nina. Refer to my ENSO update:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/05/mid-may-2009-enso-and-amo-update.html
Also subsurface temperarture anomalies below the equatorial Pacific are positive, implying an El Nino in the future.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/wkxzteq.shtml
He wrote, “Nearly all this vast watery region is painted anomalous chilly blue now.”
Is he referring to the map he linked? The following link is the expanded map dated 5/21/09, the same date that appeared when I followed his link. Looks like a lot of positive anomalies in there too.
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.5.21.2009.gif
Comment by seablogger
Thursday, 21 May 09 @ur momisugly 8:06 PM
Bob Tisdale (15:04:11) :
Ron de Haan: seablogger linked this map to make his observations. It opened to a map dated 5/21/09:
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/climo.html
Most of his comments could be related to weather. SST anomaly patterns vary daily, weekly, monthly.
His statement, “There is also a La Nina developing (off season) in the equatorial Pacific,” is wrong. NINO3.4 SST anomalies have risen above zero over the last month and while they’re still ENSO neutral, they show no sign of heading toward a La Nina. Refer to my ENSO update:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/05/mid-may-2009-enso-and-amo-update.html
Also subsurface temperarture anomalies below the equatorial Pacific are positive, implying an El Nino in the future.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/wkxzteq.shtml
He wrote, “Nearly all this vast watery region is painted anomalous chilly blue now.”
Is he referring to the map he linked? The following link is the expanded map dated 5/21/09, the same date that appeared when I followed his link. Looks like a lot of positive anomalies in there too.
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.5.21.2009.gif
Bob,
I have posted your respons at http://www.seablogger.com (Alan Sullivan) and this is his response:
Some forecast models have been predicting mild El Nino conditions this summer and fall. I believe the emergent pattern is now visible in the anomaly maps, which I watch continually. I realize we have not reached the technical criteria yet, but I’ll wager we will. The trend is distinct. So is the southern ocean trend. Last year there was a vast diagonal slash of warmth. It is gone, and the remaining warm anomalies are spotty.
Afterthought: I overstated with “nearly all.” The dramatic diagonal is broken, but there are still extensive slight to moderate warm anomalies in some parts of the South Pacific.
Just a few weeks ago, we had the Santa Barbara fire that was fanned by some high temperatures and winds; then suddenly we were back to wintry cold clear days, with a chill breeze (slight) from the North.
I went out to my car in the morning with just my office business shirt on, not long after sunrise; with the sun still low in a crystal clear sky. The north breeze was cold on my face, while the low sun was warm on my sunlit skin, but I shivered inside my shirt. It was cold liike that for several days, with chilly clear cloudless nights, and that slight but always noticeable north wind.
And then came the heat, with tempertaures into the 90s. On that hot morning after a 90 plus day high as I walked outside it w, but now it was quite different.
Same warm sun low in the cloudless sky; but now I could feel the heating effect of the hot air and ground, with no wind at all; yet the sun hadn’t had time to warm anything up. so we got 90s again and later in the day some high clouds appeared, so the sun set with high clouds, and it remained hot all night; no need for blankets.
And then after a few days it was back to the wintery cold with the wind chill and cloudless sky’s.
Well of course now I know why. With no high clouds on those cold days and nights, the earth cooled due to lack of man made CO2 in the sky, which is known to cause positive water vapor feedback when there are high clouds (R W Says so). Evidently natural CO2 doesn’t cause poitive feedback because even though that cold breeze from the north came straight over San Brancisco Bay waters; just ripe for positive feedback, the enhancement never started. It seems that CO2 by itself has a problem starting the positive feedback; but once you do get those high clouds, the ground warming effect is dramatic, even before the sun gets up very high.
Of course there is another way to explain all this; but of course it isn’t very fashionable to do so.
On that cold slightly breezy morning, with the cold air coming down from the north, the humidity was very low, and with the air so cold, it didn’t pick up any significant amount of water vapor, the other Green house gas as it crossed SF Bay to Sunnyvale.
So when I walked outside with the sun on my skin, and generating “heat” inside my torso, moisture evaporated from my skin, even under my dress shirt, so I shivered as my body tried to raise the humidity of this waterless air from the north. And by sunset, there simply wasn’t enough water vapor in the atmosphere to form any of those high altitude warming clouds, or to trap infra-red from the surface, so it stayed cold all night.
But then came the hot air (from somewhere) and plenty of humidity too, so even though the low sun hadn’t had time to heat anything, everything; the ground and the air seemed hot because with plenty of water vapor in the air, my body didn’t evaporate moisture, so that 545 calorie per gram refrigerator couldn’t operate.
As the temperatures climbed during the day, into the 90s, and now the Bay could give up additional moisture, all that hot air laden with moisture rose, as it is wont to do; but of course the upepr air was also plenty warm (where did that come from) so the air and moisture continued to rise, until evnetually, and later in the day, the moisture got to an altitude that was high enough that clouds finally could form; high clouds that is, so all through that night of hot air (from somewhere) those high clouds persisted. Well it still cooled down overnight anyhow; always seems to do that after sunset.
So there you have it; either CO2 heats the surface causing water vapor positive feedback, and high clouds do the same, keeping it warm at night; or just maybe, it is the warm moist air that comes from somewhere else; that eventually forms those high clouds that persist overnight; and don’t have anything to do with having made it warm in the first place.
So it’s like AlGore’s CO2 and Temperature graphs which he suggests are correlated. Well they are; but it is the temperature change that is causing the CO2 change (which for some reason doesn’t happen till after the temperature changed.
So high clouds are associated with warmer temperatures and nights, so there seems to be a correlation; but once again it seems difficult for some people to see which is the cause and which is the effect.
If the high clouds cause the warming; the temperature rise would only vary with the log of the forcing; which is either increase in GHG such as CO2 or water vapor; or increase in cloud cover fraction, which determines how much of the sky is still free to radiate to space. Well you get the point, even though I haven’t explained it very well; if the clouds cause the temperature rise, the temperature rise wouldn’t be linear with cloud coverage; but more logarithmic, and John Houghton, in The Global Climate says that the temperature rise for high clouds is linear with cloud coverage.
Doesn’t seem to matter that the hotter the surface temperatures go and by inference the normal atmospheric gradient; the higher the water vapor has to go in the atmosphere before it can finally condense into clouds.
Yes high clouds and warmer temperatures go hand in hand; but which is the cause; and which is the effect.
Seems that it all depends on how man made CO2 knows to trigger water vapor positive feedback, which apparnetly natural CO2 is reluctant to do; at least near San Francisco Bay anyway.
Global warming is true. It’s being used as weapon of mass destruction to take from all the idiots who believe we are to blame their money and their sanity. People, please…..one day your children will look back on you and wonder and laugh at your stupidity.