The 2007-2008 Global Cooling Event: Evidence for Clouds as the Cause

George E. Smith says:

Is that even sensible ? The higher you go in the atmosphere, the lower the atmospheric density becomes, the CO2 and water vapor densities also go down at the same time, so their absorption of LW infrared Radiation also goes down with increased altitude. For most of the important part of the atmosphere where clouds reside, the temperature also goes down with increasing altitude, and since thermal radiation goes as the 4th power of the Temperature (Kelvins), the long wave emission from the atmosphere and or clouds, goes down big time, as the altitude increases.

George: You have unwittingly put together all of the ingredients to explain how high clouds cause warming. Basically, there is an effective emitting layer in the troposphere at ~255 K from which, ***ON AVERAGE***, the emission of IR radiation to space occurs. (One can see how such a peak in emission to space would occur because radiation emitted from lower levels is too unlikely to escape into space without being absorbed, whereas at higher levels there is less emission simply because there is too little absorption for there to be significant re-emission.) High clouds are higher in the atmosphere than this level and hence are colder (because, as you noted, the temperature decreases with altitude). Hence, when these high clouds are there, they absorb some of the radiation that would otherwise be emitted to space…and although they also emit radiation, they do so at the colder temperature and hence, as you noted, less prodigiously by the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. In essence then, they raise the effective radiating level to a colder part of the atmosphere.
This is all very basic non-controversial science that can be found in an atmospheric science textbook. In fact, I just recently discovered this explanation myself in Richard Goody, “Principles of Atmospheric Physics and Chemistry” (1995), pp 146-147, which I was reading through in my attempt to bone up on some of the fundamentals of atmospheric science that I didn’t get in my physics education. I might suggest that you do the same!

Dr. Gerhard Loebert (07:42:28) :
“The Close Correlation between Earth’s Surface Temperature and its Rotational Velocity as well as the Close Correlation between the Planetary Orbital Periods and the Periods of the Solar Cycles Prove that Climate Changes are Driven by Galactic Gravitational Waves”
Your paper had no data on these “gravitational waves”. Could you please provide realistic data covering the occurrence periods, strength and how they are measured?

PS. Meant to give original data link
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps+001

“”” bill (20:06:21) :
George E. Smith (14:18:47) :
Oh dear! this is ridiculous!
Obviously clouds actions do not change night and day. In sunlight they affect albedo and also act as a GHG. In the dark There is nothing to albedo so they act as a GHG.
Take away the cloud moisture and the heat stored in the ground radiates away more quickly. No where has it been said that clouds will warm the night. They retain heat!
In UK a cloudy night can make a large difference to the night temperature (5 to 10C)
http://amsu.cira.colostate.edu/kidder/Oskar.pdf
http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/5dac76137ab0d6f4b731a6ecab3a7398,0/3__Sun_and_clouds/-_Clouds_and_climate_25x.html
There are huge differences in day and night time temperatures in deserts. Very few clouds form over deserts because the air is so dry. “””
Maybe ridiculous to you Bill; but then you are talking about last night’s weather; while I am talking about climate; you know the stuff that is typically related to things that happen over time scales of 30 years and longer.
You’ll get no arguments from me that clouds and water vapor and other minor GHGs like CO2 don’t absorb surface emitted long wave IR, which otherwise would escape faster to space; or that more clouds and water vapor won’t produce more IR absorption. I agree with all of that. And all of that happens day or night; but those same clouds that slow down the cooling at night will block far more solar energy from reaching the ground during the daytime; so more clouds over climate time scales always results in less ground level solar energy and so leads to cooling.
You mention the rapid cooling at night in dry deserts. Please explain why that devil of all green house gases, CO2, is unable to stop that rapid cooling. Does CO2 also only work during the daytime.
I have many times pointed out (if you have been reading here) that the most efficient cooling of the earth takes place not at night, nor at the cold polar regions; but during the midday bright sun of those very same dry arid deserts; which reach surface temperatures of +60 deg C or more 140 deg F), and as you point out can drop as much as 35 deg C overnight.
And the very same lack of water vapor or clouds in the atmosphere over those deserts leads to lower atmospheric absorption of incoming solar radiation (maybe as much as 20% of the solar total); which is why the surface can reach those high temperatures; which incidently they would never reach under the NOAA (Trenberth) official surface absorbtance of 168 W/m^2 or even the total solar incoming of 342 W/m^2; which is one reason the computer models don’t work; they aren’t modelling any real physical planet; let alone this one; but some mythical average planet that is always at about 288 K Temperature.
On the real earth the tropical desert surface emittance can be as much as twice what Trenberth and NOAA say the whole earth is emitting.
And it is that super highe emittance that is the reason that the deserts cool so rapidly and so much at night, when that 1366 W/m^2 solar blow torch goes to sleep.
Moreover, because of the high starting surface temperatures in those hot deserts; the Wien displacement moves the peak of the surface long wave emissions down to something more like 8.8 microns, instead of 10.1 microns, at the official NOAA global temperature of about 288K. So the much vaunted CO2 15 micron absorption band is even less effective in slowing doen the long wave emissions from the arid tropical deserts; in fact high altitude ozone with its 9-10 micron notch becomes a significant GHG contributor to the hot desert GHG effects.
As for the cloud effects changing at night why would they; the earth’s albedo doesn’t change at night; clouds continue to reflect sunlight that hits them, and also to absorb additional sunlight that otherwise would reach the ground; 24 hours per day; and as people like to point out those same clouds, and also the water vapor that eventuially leads to those clouds continues to absorb and then re-emit long wave IR; which incidently tends to be emitted from the atmospheric gases isotropically, so that only about half of it heads in the direction of the earth surface; to where ever denser hotter GHG molecules, will reabsorb it over an ever widening spectral range; whereas, the portion of that radiation that is emitted upwards, propagates through a less dense, and colder GHG path whose absorption spectrum continues to narrow; so it captures less and less of the outgoing long wave atmospheric emissions.
The easy direction for long wave IR propagation is upwards toward outer space; not downwards; which becomes increasingly hostile to transmission og long wave IR, because of pressure, and Doppler broadening of the GHG absorption bands.
You cannot invoke INCREASED cloudiness at night and claim increased warming as a result; and not allow for that same INCREASED cloudiness during daylight hours to remove even more incoming solar radiation that otherwise would reach the surface (73% of which is the oceans) which results in a net global cooling.
Increased cloudiness at any altitude that persists over climate time scales ALWAYS results in global surface cooling.
Don’t try to sidetrack the issue by talking about last night’s weather.
It’s weather that drowns polar bears, not climate. It is weather that causes local flooding; not climate.
As for the mean global surface temperature; that is maintained in a very comfortable feedback controlled range almost entirely by the unique physical and chemical properties of the H2O molecule.

George E. Smith (10:56:53) :
so we agree that low clouds act as GHGs and prevent some transmission of LW IR upwards, during day and night. The low level clouds only reflect, mainly visible, light to space during the day. Hence the albedo change is only effective for 50% of the time. The GHG effect is continuous for the life of the cloud.
Which Wins – Albedo of IR aborption?
I have posted documents here that show the effect of clouds is warming neutral – if they are to be believed then as far as climate goes their effect is neglegible.
I assume you can give me similar documents that prove your beliefs (hopefully not utilising gravity waves in their proof!)?
I would agree that the hydro cycle is a major player in the temperature of the earth. But also other GHGs have their input.

George E. Smith says:

So I don’t care what the climatology text books say about high clouds warming the surface.

Well, you are welcome to invent your own theory of climate. Just don’t expect that many of us in the scientific community will take it seriously. I am continual amazed on the site by how many people, who are clearly smart, believe that they are so much smarter than anyone else that they can just dismiss the accepted science without attempting to understand it because they know better. A little more humility could go a long way in the “skeptic” movement.

“”” Joel Shore (15:24:21) :
George E. Smith says:
So I don’t care what the climatology text books say about high clouds warming the surface.
Well, you are welcome to invent your own theory of climate. Just don’t expect that many of us in the scientific community will take it seriously. “””
Well Joel, you are just tilting at windmills if you assume that I make no attempt to understand what passes for “Science” among the climatology community; in fact I have spent countless thousands of hours studying and trying to understand what is being passed off as science.
They aren’t very successful in either explaining the past with their computer “models” and they certainly have failed miserably in attempting to predict the future.
Remember that we have already had a fairly respectable climate time scale delay since the great Dr James Hansen made his predictions before the Congress of the United States, and started this whole ball rolling; and so far, none of his dire predictions that should already have shown up, seem to have materialized.
And I have no interest in coming up with my own climate theory; it doesn’t interest me at all, since even the most ardent supporters of man made climate change agree that if the developed world all went back to the stone age, and stopped using stored chemical energy; that the result (climatically) would be unmeasurable over the next 50 years.
So clearly there is nothing I can do to change that situation. I’m only interested in things whose outcomes I can influence; when it comes to working for a better world.
And I am not a member of any “skeptic” movement; in fact I am not at all skeptical.
Produce some climate theories that jibe with actual observations Joel, and I am sure the world will sing your praises.
But don’t try and sell that “we are the only ones who understand this stuff. ” line with me. We get the same attitude from lawyers who comprise 75% of the members of every legislative body in the USA; and who therefore write all our laws; and most of them have at least a passing aquaintance with the English language; yet they claim that we ordinary folks can’t understand the tripe they write, and need to hire their services to decipher it for us.
It never dawns on them that they should have their A**** fired for writing laws that can’t be understood by those who must obey them.
For example; the new Boy Wonder’s medical prescription for the country will achieve economic viability by simply making it mandatory for EVERYONE ;except of course those illiterate lawyers themselves, to purchase the new socilaized medical insurance, and failure to comply will bring a $2,500 tax fee ; and failure to pay that tax will bring a $25,000 IRS tax penalty; and refusal to pay either the tax, or the penalty, will result in imprisonment. What a wonderful law to put on the books; so what does the Teleprompter Reader-in-Chief plan to do with all the Amish people whose religious beliefs are that they will not buy insurance of any kind, for anything, for any reason. They are already well served by modern medicine for which they pay with actual legal tender AKA “cash”; they don’t insure their houses or farms or their horse drawn carriages; their religious belief is that somehow they will weather any adversity; and they do so very well.
And every single one of those good citizens of this country will go to jail before they will bow to the insane wishes of that nitwit that the teenyboppers put in charge of this great country; who can find nothing more pressing to do, than to take his family on a vacation jaunt to Copenhagen to convince the people there to put the Olympic games in Chicago,;even though most Chicagoans don’t want the games anywhere near them. Yes we have our fill of “we know best” pretenders; who don’t seem to have demonstrated, any basic problem solving skills; and will simply statisticize, and regress till they get the result they think should be what Gaia is doing.
No I have no interest in trying to figure out what Mother Nature does; it is far too complex for mere mortals to unravel.
But go ahead and invest your life in it Joel; so you can be like Carl Sagan; who spent his life looking for intelligent life in the universe, and could only leave his grandchildren with the knowledge, that he never found so much as one binary digit of scientific information, about life outside a thin shell about +/- 20 km or less about mean sea level on planet earth. What a waste of a brilliant mind.

I hope Joel Shore is a pseudonym if you are in ‘the scientific community’. Most of the public have tumbled that CO2 forced warming is a hoax, and this NH winter will settle the rest.
This leaves us with the ‘scientists’ who have presumed on the public’s respect for Science to peddle garbage.
By garbage I mean the unlikely hypothesis of CO2 forced warming with the dubious rationales and diddled datasets that have been wheeled out to support it.
Unfortunately most people here are capable of evaluating what they are told and so ‘trust me, I’m a scientist’ won’t wash. Real scientists are delighted to share their knowledge with the public, whereas the ‘trust me’ crowd are failed politicians.
As the weather/climate shows over the next few years that it doesn’t do linear trends the public will want to know how our ‘Scientific Method’ failed, how grant-hunting charlatans managed to masquerade as scientists and how to trust ‘scientific data’ in future.
While alarmism may be the easy money now accepting the pork-barrel will permanently taint a future career in science.

Sandy says:

Unfortunately most people here are capable of evaluating what they are told and so ‘trust me, I’m a scientist’ won’t wash. Real scientists are delighted to share their knowledge with the public, whereas the ‘trust me’ crowd are failed politicians.

I try to share what knowledge I have, as do many of the scientists actually in the field, but it is a two-way street. If people have such a block against learning anything that might actually challenge their worldview then it becomes rather difficult. My last post (which I am not proud of) was expressing that frustration…After I had given George E. Smith an explanation of how he had actually presented all the ingredients to understand why high clouds can cause warming and explained how they come together, he simply dismissed it by saying, “So I don’t care what the climatology text books say about high clouds warming the surface.”
It’s not like the idea that high clouds, if they are not too thick, produce warming is even controversial. I’m pretty sure you could even find Roy Spencer saying as much.

beng: I think the day / night thing is the main point. In the day, the net effect of high clouds may well be modest cooling but at night it is warming…and the net effect for both day and night is warming.
For low clouds, the net effect is cooling because they reduce incoming solar radiation and they actually don’t reduce the outgoing terrestrial radiation that much (because they tend to lie below the effective radiating layer from which most of the infrared radiation escapes back into space).

George,
What you describe is essentially what happens in any field of science. If you start to dig into it, then there will be a lot of things that are just sort of taken for granted by the scientists in the field because they were settled decades ago. (And, indeed, most of these issues that you seem stuck on involving radiative physics and such were serious objections 40 or 50 years ago, but have since been settled. The very end result of the climate sensitivity is not settled, but that is because getting from the radiative forcing to the temperature response involves all the possible feedback effects in the atmosphere.)
And, so you have two choices: You can either accept that the scientists figured them out correctly. Or, you can dig up all the original work again and go through it and either decide that it is correct or come up with a good argument as to why it is not. However, I think just saying that it doesn’t seem right to you without investing the time to understand how the conclusion was reached is, in my opinion, not a very good option. It is extremely immodest to basically say that you know better than these scientists even though they have invested many years of study in the problem and you are just talking off the top of your head or on the basis of what you know by analogy from other fields.
As for the part about the developed world being led back to the dark ages: I think, in fact, this is the crux of the matter. — You don’t like the policies that are being proposed to deal with this problem and that pre-disposes you to believe that the science is wrong because that way you can argue that the policies are unnecessary.
And, just as a thought experiment, if I told you that we were running out of fossil fuels and would have to wean ourselves off of them over the next half century or so, would you still say that we were going to end up having to go back to the Dark Ages? And, if not, what exactly is the difference…except that, in the current situation, we have the additional flexibility of continuing to burn fossil fuels if we find an economical way to sequester the CO2?