While we are marveling at the recent revelation out of Serbia that shows a connection between cosmic rays, clouds and temperature, our own volunteer moderator, Roger (Tallbloke) noticed and collated some comments from Bill Illis which are well worth repeating here. Thanks Rog for catching this while I was otherwise engaged. I repeat his post here, which consists of a WUWT comment, but be sure to bookmark Tallbloke’s Talkshop
Over on the Spencer Good, Bad and Ugly response to Dessler 2011 thread on WUWT, Bill Illis quietly drops this little bombshell:
While we are having no luck finding a good correlation between clouds and temperatures in a feedback sense (the scatters are providing r^2 of 0.02) which indicates there is probably NO cloud feedback either way (and the IPCC calculates that positive cloud feedback might be half of the total feedbacks so that is very clearly in question now) …
There is a very interesting relationship between the Net Cloud Radiation levels and the Total Global Net Radiation as measured by the CERES satellite (which I don’t think anyone has looked yet being busy trying to find the temperature feedbacks).
I’m getting Cloud variability being a very large part of the variability in the total Global Net Radiation Budget – anywhere from 65% to 100% (with R^2 between 0.29 and 0.77).
First the (not really convincing but better) scatter using the CERES data (that Steve McIntyre and Roy Spencer made available).
And then the (much, much better) relationship over time.
And then the versions of the data that Dessler provided (where adjustments where made according to the ERA reanalysis dataset which some think is actually a little more accurate). 100% of Net Radiation governed by Clouds with R^2 at 0.77 .
And then over time, a really tight relationship.
So, do Cloud Variations affect the Earth’s Energy Budget? – the title of Dessler’s new paper – His own data says: holy moley!
Maybe a series of satellites in identical orbits, spaced 10 minutes apart, or an even more complex series?
Harry Dale Huffman says:
September 11, 2011 at 1:09 pm
For heaven’s sake, peope. The point is, does “radiative forcing” (assuming they are measuring it properly, which I doubt) determine global temperature change? If anything, you should be graphing the all-sky net radiation vs global temperature, not vs. cloud radiation (oh, that’s right, this week everyone is hung up on clouds). But, since there is no correlation between clouds and temperatures (that is what an R-square of 0.01 means, for those too blind to judge from the scattershot graphs being shown on the internet), and the third figure above implies clouds are a good proxy for all-sky net radiation (and I agree with others — what the sam hill is all-sky net radiation, really, that the graph should look so good, better than anything else in climate science, and unheralded by peer-reviewed papers from competent scientists long ago), then it looks like there must not be a correlation between net radiation and global temperature. Except isn’t the data supposedly from the last decade, when the temperature hasn’t changed a statistically significant lick? And oh, look, at figure 2 above, the radiation also hasn’t changed a lick, either. At some point, someone has to stand up, right in the middle of the church, and say, “Hey, who’s in charge here? This is all horse-hockey.” Just a bunch of bitchy little girls, as a wise man once said. You’re all fired.
Harry – energy being radiated is not the same as temperature. Latent heat radiated from as cloud droplets condense does not equate to atmospheric temperatures. Energy being reflected by albedo of clouds does not equate to atmospheric temperature. Only the AGW converts believe energy is the same as temperature and all radiated energy follows Stefan Boltzmann.
Fred H. Haynie,
Don’t understand your point. When clouds form, they do two things: they release the latent heat of vaporiztion and block incoming light in the day, and outgoing infra-red at night.
Ian H says:
September 11, 2011 at 2:29 pm
The net radiation budget MUST be RELATED to global temperature. Energy is conserved yes? That a DIRECT correlation is not observed simply means that the mechanism linking the two is indirect.
In the atmosphere Energy is NOT temperature
Yes energy is conserved but that is not related to ‘temperature’. The enthalpy of moist air means that far more energy is required to raise its temperature than that of dry air.
When water condenses it releases latent heat – this heat does not follow the Stefan Boltzmann radiation formula. It is not related to atmospheric temperature but to the saturation of the air volume.
I think it’s good to calculate the amount of heat reflected by clouds, both above and below the clouds. I have yet to see anyone attempt to calculate the amount of heat involved in the complete water cycle from the amount of heat absorbed during the evaporation of water from the oceans to the amount of heat released at altitude when this water vapor is condensed to water in the form of clouds to the additional amount of heat released when the water droplets freeze.
The way I understand it, what is shown here is that the variation of the radiation balance of Earth is determined to 90% by cloudiness; and only insignificantly by other factors. It has been SHOWN by Bill Illis; Dessler can pack it in right away.
I trust Bill Illis. What I’ve seen and understood of his science and attitudes impresses me. If Bill says holey moley I think something important is up. But it would be nice for duffers to have it spelled out in simple language. Think of Nigel Calder writing his book on Svensmark.
Is this about radiation to space from cloud tops linked directly to temperature loss below the clouds?? ie unequivocal proof of negative feedback?
This “Berlin Wall moment” seems to be serendipitously continuing. First Wagner’s amazing actions. Then Dessler accepts Spencer’s corrections. Now Bill Illis may have his finger on a key proof undoing AGW thanks to… Dessler. And it also seems possible that Bart (at Climate Audit and Tallbloke’s blog esp) has quantified feedback delay to 4.8 years (looks like the delay is due to oceans lag time in accumulating/losing solar heat before flipping state and precipitating different cloud patterns – did I get that right??)
Both Bill Illis’ notes and Bart’s stats work have been adopted at Talboke’s blog. Both need spelling out in simple language, IMHO. Anyone?
The ongoing Berlin Wall breakthrough moment:
I forgot to add the new Serbian paper that puts improved figures to another expected line of verification of Svensmark’s hypothesis, cloud responses to Forbush events – brilliantly flushed out by subtracting night temperatures from day temperatures.
Bart at Climate Audit says
(my emphasis)
Discussion with Bart at CA going great guns but with an amazing statement like this, I think Bart’s find really needs putting into common language. Tallbloke’s got a post on it but Paul Vaughan is complaining he cannot understand and I think he has a point insofar as he speaks for a lot of us.
Anyone?
This is exciting. We are watching citizen science, or blog science, or whatever you may call it, unfold before us. Even if it is a false lead, as science often taunts us, it is a remarkable process to observe. Lets hope that the ivory towers’ hold on science can be forever broken.
Remember “Clovis First” and how hard that was to break? Remember H. Pylori causing ulcers and how hard that was to become mainstream. Or how many years Lancet took to finally accept that immunizations were not causing autism. It *should* be hard to overturn a paradigm. On the other hand, it often seems to be so hard because of the financially vested interests that feed off the status quo.
Look at the UAH global temperature graph and what do you see?
Temperature changes on a month to month basis that are perhaps 2 orders of magnitude greater than allowed by the radiative forcing model (theory) of the Earth’s climate.
I find the claim that the data is ‘noisy’ wholly unconvincing. Where does this noise come from?
IMO this graph alone disproves the radiative forcing model.
The only possible cause of this variability (on monthly and shorter timescales) is water vapour/cloud changes being driven from some non-radiative source.
Ian W
I normally apply this logic to producing fossil groundwater that is not in equilibrium with the hydrological cycles i.e. new water added to the atmosphere, but it is the same for ocean water or any other surface water. Liquid water is in a state of potential energy. When water evaporates or evapotranspires it absorbs latent heat (1000 btu/lb) which changes the energy state from potential to kinetic – at constant temperature. The water vapor is lighter than air so rises until it is cooled enough to condense back to liquid water, undergoing a change in energy state from kinetic back to potential by releasing the latent heat as specific heat, which heats the surronding air ( one btu/lb/degree F).
JFD
@Pete Olson
Or they will deny they ever said otherwise, Gavin will have hissy fit at RC, and then they will claim they figured it out first by pointing to an obscure conditional statement in a paper written long ago.
Just wait.
Lucy, Bart doesn’t have anything.
The series in Bill’s plot can’t help but be strongly correlated as they are deterministically related (one is a function of the other!)
Now, after making time [that wasn’t well spent] to investigate, I’m left wondering what all the fuss was about.
I had been ignoring the whole Spencer-Dessler episode as it seemed so far off-track relative to my interest in natural climate variations. My initial instinct is reaffirmed.
One thing came out of this red herring chase though:
I followed Bill’s link to Dessler’s paper and learned that the untenable assumptions they use are even worse than I would have imagined. That approach is a hopeless avenue towards understanding of natural climate variations.
At Tallbloke’s request, I’ve provided some more worthwhile notes over here [ http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/09/09/discussion-on-length-of-day-the-changes-in-the-speed-the-earth-spins-at/ ].
Regards.
Will Wagner ask for his old job as Editor back?
If you dont understand his causality argument then you are hardly in a position to comment.
Mark
RE: “Clouds account for most of the variability in net radiation at the Top of the Atmosphere”
I think what is being claimed is that cosmic rays have an impact on cloud-coverage so that any estimation of the impact of clouds also includes the impact of cosmic rays and other ionizing particles that may be striking the atmosphere. This is like saying that the rate of gasoline flow into an engine has a more important effect on engine power than foot-pressure on the gas-pedal.
You know this is becoming the death knell of AGW. It is only a matter of time before real scientists start using heliospheric information and graph the same against good temperature information. And then using the deltas (the incredibly corrupted ‘anomalies’ ) against each other. Poof.
Spector says:
September 11, 2011 at 8:47 pm
RE: “Clouds account for most of the variability in net radiation at the Top of the Atmosphere”>>>
This is like saying that the rate of gasoline flow into an engine has a more important effect on engine power than foot-pressure on the gas-pedal.>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No. It is more like saying that the foot-pressure on the gas pedal, and hence the rate of gasoline flow into the engine, accounts for MOST of the variability on the speed of the car. Wind speed and direction, uphill or downhill grade (and steepness), air pressure and humidity are all factors in how fast the car is going too…but MOST of the variability…is the gas pedal.
“Bill Yarber says:
September 11, 2011 at 10:43 am
If this analysis holds up, coupled with the CERN data,we might see the final nail in the AGW coffin. It will be interesting to see how Dressler responds since his data gives such strong correlation.
Bill”
The CAGW theory will not die easily. Every time we think it’s dead it crawls back out of the coffin… like a vampire.
So energy may go into things other than an increase in temperature such as an increase in atmospheric moisture content. Granted. But you’ll have a very hard time convincing me that the atmosphere can be persuaded to increase its overall moisture content without ANY increase in average temperature. All your quibble does is complicate the response of temperature to heat. It doesn’t mean that temperature is not a function of heat. Arguing that increasing heat content in the troposphere is unrelated to temperature is a very silly position to take.
Paul Vaughan;
I had been ignoring the whole Spencer-Dessler episode as it seemed so far off-track relative to my interest in natural climate variations. My initial instinct is reaffirmed.>>>
Your instinct is wrong. Spencer-Dessler may not have anything to do with YOUR specific interest but it has EVERYTHING to do with the corruption of science for power and money. Is your specific interest of so much importance that you feel it is OK to ignore:
1. A properly peer reviewed paper (by his own admission) being slagged by the Editor-in-Chief of the journal it was published in.
2. The Editor-in-Chief, one Wolfgang Wagner, resigned when he failed to get the paper blocked or recalled on the excuse that it was actual data but should not have been published without first consulting…modelers.
3. The resignation letter was a virtual apology to modelers for allowing Spencer’s work to be published, and his resignation was followed by his personal apology to Kevin Trenberth, who promptly bragged about receiving the apology, and making it clear that it was he who prompted the resignation of Wagner.
4. Trenberth went on to brag that Spencer’s work, which heavily contradicts his own, was full of gaping scientific holes that would be exposed by Dessler’s paper. When Dessler’s paper was rushed through peer review and published with blinding speed, it turned out is was Dessler’s paper that was riddled holes and Spencer exposed those in a single day, prompting changes by Dessler to his own work.
5. Wolfgang Wagner is responsible for the program at Vienna University of Technology that seeks to integrate the disciplines of remote sensing, physical modeling, and environmental modeling. It takes very little digging to figure out that Wagner’s credibility and ability to do his job both as that coordinator, and as the head of the global soil moisture database, was directly and/or indirectly beholden to Kevin Trenberth, chair of the global science committee of the body over seeing multiple precipitation and drought indexes,including Wagner’s soil moisture index.
If you do not see the importance of one scientist using his personal position to destroy the career of another scientist, for failing to block the publication of science contrary to his own by yet a third scientist, let me spell it out for you:
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” ~ Edmund Burke
“The spread of evil is the symptom of a vacuum. whenever evil wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles.” Ayne Rand
“Don’t let us make imaginary evils, when you know we have so many real ones to encounter.” Oliver Goldsmith
” Evil when we are in its power is not felt as evil but as a necessity, or even a duty.” Simon Weil.
“No man is justified in doing evil on the ground of expediency.” Theodore Roosevelt
If you still believe that the fuss over Spencer-Dessler is not meaningfull to you, then ask yourself this question:
If Kevin Trenberth decides that your research, or you, should be discredited for daring to differ with him… will you ask others to come to your defence? How will you feel if they reply…sorry, not my area of interest?
“
“I’m getting Cloud variability being a very large part of the variability in the total Global Net Radiation Budget – anywhere from 65% to 100% (with R^2 between 0.29 and 0.77).”
++++++++++
I hope you read the comments I made on the previous story because this illustrates the problem very well: the GNRB is all frequencies, n’est pas? The cloud variability is only telling us about the visible portion of the frequencies. No wonder there are correlation imperfections. You should be looking at all clouds, visible and invisible to the eye. Otherwise only the visible portion of the global net radiation budget should be used. If you subtract visible clouds and visible light, you will still notice variations because other spectra are interfering with sub 0.1 micron particles – very effectively and you can’t see those clouds.
Apples and apples, please.
It *should* be hard to overturn a paradigm.
Max Planck said in his Scientific Autobiography: “a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it”.
Psychologists call this phenomena ‘investment’ and it is extremely powerful, causing people to persist with a belief despite all evidence to the contrary.
I studied this many years ago and IMO it is because evidence and phenomena are processed by the brain through a representation of the paradigm and if the evidence and phenomena don’t fit the paradigm they are rejected and a basis found for the rejection.
Note the rejection precedes the basis for the rejection.
In this case the paradigm is the Forcings Model of the climate.