I guess they really don’t have a full handle on the science and consensus after all.
NSF Releases Online, Multimedia Package Titled, “Clouds: The Wild Card of Climate Change”
Reader-friendly multimedia package covers the crucial but enigmatic role of clouds on climate change, and how scientists are defining that role
Clouds from an airplane over Michigan. |
November 4, 2010
View a webcast with David Randall, professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University.
As discussions about climate change continue, one critical factor about this phenomenon has remained largely unknown to the public: the important but enigmatic role of clouds in climate change. The role of clouds is important because at any given time about 70 percent of the Earth is covered by clouds. The role of clouds is enigmatic because clouds can exert opposing forces: Some types of clouds help cool the Earth and some types of clouds help warm it. Which effect will win out as our climate continues to change? So far, no one is certain.
In order to help clear the air on clouds, the National Science Foundation is releasing an online multimedia package on the role of clouds on climate change, entitled, “Clouds: The Wild Card of Climate Change.” It addresses such pressing questions as, will clouds help speed or slow climate change? Why is cloud behavior so difficult to predict? And how in the world are scientists learning to project the behavior of these ephemeral, ever-changing, high-altitude phenomena?
“Clouds: The Wild Card of Climate Change” features:
- a live webcast with cloud and climate expert: David Randall, director of the Center for Multiscale Modeling of Atmospheric Processes and a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University;
- informative, easy-to-understand texts;
- eye-catching photos;
- a narrated slide show;
- dynamic animations;
- enlightening interviews with cloud researchers; and
- downloadable documents.
This package–which provides a wealth of information to reporters, policymakers, scientists, educators, the public and students of all levels–is posted on NSF’s website.
-NSF-
Hey, wasn’t that J. Mitchell?
“I would not recommend Stephen Wilde as a source. He is not a scientist of any sort, he is a solicitor who dabbles in weather, and passes himself off as a Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, which he is not.”
I have a membership card referring to me as a Fellow and a letter from the Chief Executive confirming that I may use the title Fellow on an honourary basis because I have been a member of the Society since 1968. I am not entitled to use the designation FRMetS.
All that has been disclosed previously as has my personal backround.
I do not claim to be a ‘source’.
I do claim the status of an educated amateur with a lifelong interest in the subject. My purpose is to try and reconcile the conflicting sources with real world observations and basic physics.
In the process of refinement I make mistakes but they are being corrected as I go along so that my position is becoming increasingly robust and in accordance with new observations.
I have created the only hypothesis that anticipated and accounts for the new data reported by Joanna Haigh.
“Photons have practically no residence time anywhere. They travel with the speed of light, whether they are “short wave” (UV or optical) or “long wave”.”
The above is a standard diversionary tactic when inconvenient questions are raised. It limits the discussion to radiative physics which is not sufficient on its own to explain what goes on within the Earth system.
Those inconvenient questions may mention photons but in reality as in this case the question relates to the heat generated when those photons interact with elements of the Earth system.
Any honest responder to the question would understand that and respond appropriately. This responder did not so I invite others to make their own judgement.
David’s question was sensible and understandable despite the slight error of terminology. I have done my best to answer it properly in another thread.
mrpkw says:
November 5, 2010 at 6:00 am
“The role of clouds is enigmatic because clouds can exert opposing forces: Some types of clouds help cool the Earth and some types of clouds help warm it”
Well that certainly clears up the certain uncertainties!!!
What we don’t know is amazing !!
==========================
Indeed. I am endlessly amazed by the same thing. They don’t know if clouds warm or cool, but the models keep merrily chugging away.
It took decades of intense effort to program chess playing computers that can outplay humans – this for a game whose rules are few, unequivocal, and completely known.
Constructing climate models with current knowledge, and relying on them, is sort of like programming a computer to play chess, when the programmers don’t know how half the pieces move, or can’t even agree whether a rook is worth more or less than a pawn – and then using the program to predict the outcome of a game or evaluate the consequences of a particular move. CO2-based climate science seems to me like the legitimate heir of ancient astrology.
The two things I don’t get about clouds:
1) How can we have more water vapor and fewer clouds?
2) If clouds are such a big deal for the climate, why don’t we address them through irrigation and forest management policy rather than CO2 controls?
Mike Jonas says:
November 5, 2010 at 5:10 am
Oh dear. Didn’t they read the IPCC report? “the GCMs all predict
a positive cloud feedback” (AR4 8.6.2.3 page 633).
++++++++++++
Mike they predict positive feedbacks because they were programmed to give positive feedbacks. IPCC reports reflect prior thinking. Priore to 2007 it was thought that the net effect was positive. Prior to that, IPCC reports say nearly nothing about clouds, in fact about water at all, some of them. I recall one explanation offered for the absence of H2O in the modelling was, “We can’t do anything about it anyway. We can do something about CO2.” Huh.
It is important to separate models from the real world. GIGO. Of course a model that is programmed to give positive feedback for all clouds gives positive feedbacks for all clouds. There is little point citing such model outputs as evidence for all clouds having positive feedbacks. Such a citation is itself a positive feedback. As Dyson says, people have started believing their models. They literally believe that reality works the way their model works.
Shoghi Effendi described a chart is “an inaccurate representation of a partially understood truth”. A model is a chart on steroids.
The ocean of air we live at the bottom of is filled with moisture, and the interchange between clouds of water, clouds of ice, haze and humidity and has apparently been nearly ignored by our AGW promotion industry. How strange.
Just a bit off topic, but GCMs predict increase of tropospheric humidity as a side effect of intensified greenhouse warming. There is just one detail, that in reality, the humidity does not increase, but rather decrease or remains constant.
Relative humidity
http://climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20ESRL%20AtmospericRelativeHumidity%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1948%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
Absolute humidity
http://climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20ESRL%20AtmospericSpecificHumidity%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1948%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
All those 3-7 deg C@2100 projections are based on 1) attributing the “greenhouse effect” predominant role in warming, and 3) predicting those curves going up.
This type of amazing discovery has been discussed on WUWT for the several years that I’ve been coming here. I believe I know what is going oTn. The “concensus” is making these late discoveries, taking credit for them and gradually dovetailing into the arguments that sceptics of CAGW have been making since the beginning. And now a word about the cloud feedback issue to settle this nonsense:
The net effect of clouds – all kinds- is to reduce the warming effect of the sun through albedo. Check it out – on a hot day, when a cloud passes over, you can feel a significant cooling. Let us semi-quantify the effect instead of vaguely talking about IR going back up and being partly reflected back down. If the cloud reflects, say 50% of the sun’s rays coming in, then the sun’s IR reaching the earth’s surface is reduced. Now some of this reduced IR bounces back up to the base of the cloud where a fair percentage (I said semi-quant!) passes through and a fraction of the initial sun’s IR is reflected back which is partly re-reflected and part of it goes through the cloud again…. If you lost half of the incoming IR, these bits bouncing around are not going to make an increased IR heating under the cloud.
Now if I am wrong about this, I would like a semiquant explanation of the phenomenon instead of …sometimes up and sometimes down.
Dave Springer and paulhan make a lot of sense.
I think most people have observed that low clouds in daylight hours reduce the temperature and keep it warmer at night. Both by highly measurable amounts. Why, since clouds have such a greater effect on temperature then CO2, have not the wonderful supercomputers many Climate Scientists have at their disposal been put to work to try to determine whether the net effect is positive or negative. Lots of variables involved of course but what are supercomputers for? Maybe this has been studied closely and if so I’d appreciate being pointed in the right direction but all I’ve seen is generalizations without facts and figures.
“How can we have more water vapor and fewer clouds?”
When the jet streams shift poleward as they do when the troposphere warms the jet streams and their cloud bands extend around a reduced global circumference as they move towards the poles. Thus a shorter length for the air mass boundaries, less air mass mixing and less clouds generated.
So a warmer troposphere but less clouds and lower albedo exactly as per observations
http://bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/literature/Palle_etal_2006_EOS.pdf
Now in reverse as it happens 🙂
James Sexton says:
November 5, 2010 at 7:15 am
“Hey, wasn’t that J. Mitchell?”
You are correct sir about the lyrics! From wikipedia: “”Both Sides, Now” is a single by Joni Mitchell. … Judy Collins made the first commercially released recording of the song in 1968, shortly after Mitchell wrote it, which reached #8 on the U.S. pop singles charts and won a 1968 Grammy Award for Best Folk Performance.” Provenance remains important!
“Thanks for the memories”.
The uncertainty caused by clouds is already factored into the IPCC estimates of of probable range of temperature raise.
From http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/clouds/question.jsp
CLOUD CLOUT AND DOUBT
The IPCC reported in 2007 that it projects the Earth’s average temperature to be about 1.8 to 4 degrees Celsius higher by the end of the century than it was in 1900–a rapid rate of increase compared to observed rates of increase in the Earth’s recent history. Scientists could probably narrow down the Earth’s projected temperature range further if they better understood the relationships between clouds and climate as well as other factors, such as the amount of greenhouse gases that will be pumped into the atmosphere by 2100.
Most scientists doubt that the net cooling effect of clouds will ever be large enough to completely offset ongoing warming. But many scientists say that if warming were to increase the number or kind of cooling clouds or decrease the presence of warming clouds, the current net cooling effect of clouds on the Earth’s climate would probably increase, and thereby moderate, or offset, ongoing warming.
If warming were to continue, the net cooling effect of clouds would increase and, in a negative feedback loop, perpetuate the moderating force on ongoing warming provided by clouds. The result: The Earth’s end-of-the-century temperature may be pulled down toward the lower end of its predicted range.
But, if on the other hand, warming were to increase the number or kind of warming clouds or decrease the presence of cooling clouds, scientists say the current net cooling effect of clouds on the Earth’s climate would probably decrease; and an important moderating force on ongoing warming would thereby diminish. The result: The Earth’s end-of-the-century temperature may be pushed up towards the upper end of its predicted range.
This resulting rise in temperature would, in a positive feedback loop, tend to promote the formation of even more warming clouds or further reduce the presence of cooling clouds. Either way, temperatures would rise even higher. This temperature increase would tend to further increase the presence of warming clouds or decrease the presence of cooling clouds, and thereby perpetuate the warming cycle.
I’m still stuck on the question: Why are we relying on models for anything we can reasonably start actually measuring? Experiments trump theory.
A satellite can already gather nice information about where clouds are, and what types of clouds they are, and even what the water content of said cloud is. Pair this with a series of radiation detectors to cover the bulk of the spectrum and measure the darn energy balance. Separate things into near-identical gridcells (read: over ocean) andset up control groups etc.
This patch was at exactly 30.0C and had no clouds, this patch was also at 30.0C and had Cirrus clouds for 17% of the day, go.
DISGUSTING.
They roll out stuff that Atmospheric Physicists have know about for more than thirty years – and announce it like it was some kind of revelation.
I am DISGUSTED by what is clearly just “gravy train science”.
This is like Hollywood or the music industry re-issues of “25th Anniversary Editions” of classic albums of movies!
Academic Science is now purely a BUSINESS. A damned gravy train. If Colorado State were Hollywood or the music industry, legitimately out to make a profit, then this kind of thing woudl be acceptable.
Since when did it become acceptable for our Universities to simply regurgitate well know facts trumped up as something new. Did they “remaster” the orginial text books? Have they enhanced the image quality with new rendering of the details in high definition?
This is most definitely NOT science.
It reminds me of the outright plagarism in the recent tree ring textbook where there was no reference to the original text and graphics.
Of course, the climb down for certain “Climate Scientists” is going to be challenging – now that everyone knows of the completely false representation of “Climate Change” by the media, politicians and gravy train seeking academics! I guess they can hardly admit that the uncertainty about the impact of clouds is as old as the hills and as old as climate science itself!
Now if only all these gravy train seeking liars can divert the Billions in research funding and industry sponsorship of their various departments…..towards the CLOUDS!
CLOUDS is the new BLACK.
DISGUSTING
Surely volcanoes are the wild card? The role of clouds is not understood but that does not mean it is not consistent.
A bit OT, but will there be a series of “one year on” articles in the lead up to 17th November?
@vboring:
> The two things I don’t get about clouds:
> 1) How can we have more water vapor and fewer clouds?
> 2) If clouds are such a big deal for the climate, why don’t we
> address them through irrigation and forest management policy
> rather than CO2 controls?
1) Clouds are formed when air containing water vapor is cooled below a critical temperature called the “dew point”. In the troposphere, where most clouds form, the temperature decreases approx 6C/km as water-laden air rises from the ground (so-called “lapse rate”).
So, when you look up at the bottom of the cloud layer, you’re not looking a boundary which separates “wet air” from “dry” air. Instead, you’re looking at the temperature isocline where the dew point has been reached and, voila!, the cloud appears. The water vapor content of the air immediately below the cloud is the same as in the cloud. It’s just not cold enough to make the cloud visible.
2) We obviously need more legislation to control these pesky clouds!
:-]
Nuke says:
November 5, 2010 at 6:48 am
May I make just a few minor adjustments?
…but we know what the climate models are going to say in 20, 30, 50 or 100 years?
We should.
Alan S. Blue says:
November 5, 2010 at 8:04 am
True, but computers are just so stinkin’ addictive!
Jason says:
November 5, 2010 at 8:21 am
Surely volcanoes are the wild card?
======================
I sometimes wonder if the deck of cards used in the climate game contains anything other than Jokers.
This announcement seems more like the “beep-beep-beep” of the NSF slowly backing away from its AGW stance and likely shifting to another position. Biodiversity, anyone?
Clouds: Zillions of tons of WATER floating against the HOLY LAW OF GRAVITATION and we don’t even surprise ourselves!, why do they float over? why do they defy gravity and why do they, after loosing its charges fall down as RAIN, HAIL OR SNOW and we do not know why?. Have we been condemned to not knowing or rather to belief in the abstruse explanation rendered by the voodoo science’s Shamans?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/40514613/Unified-Field-Explained-8
@Springer:
> Cloud top albedo is on the order of 80%. That means it reflects 80% of the
> light from the sun straight back out into space. That’s closer to 500 watts
> per square meter than it is to 5 watts.
Excellent comments, Dave Springer! But a minor quibble: since the TSI averages around 1366w/m2 shouldn’t that be 1366 x .80 = 1092.8 watts. (Or perhaps you factored in 45% cloud cover into the equation to get the 500 watts?)
I’ve engaged the Real Climate folks about this in the past, & Gavin managed to scrub all of my posts! Coward. No tolerance for honest scientific discussion.
It appears that the impacts of cloud formation on climate are very much unknown (i.e. “there is no consensus”). Even measuring “cloud cover” is daunting with today’s instruments!
This presentation by Dr. Joel Norris of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography is excellent, it is highly detailed in terms of the physics & math (he presented this colloquium to a stadium full of Fermilab PhD physicists, including Nobel-laureate Leon Lederman).
Dr. Norris discusses height of clouds, albedo, positive vs. negative forcing etc.
Please watch, and download his powerpoint slides.
http://vmsstreamer1.fnal.gov/VMS_Site_03/Lectures/Colloquium/100512Norris/index.htm