The Hockey Schtick brings this to our attention. It seems Dr. Roy Spencer was prescient with his observation:
“The most obvious way for warming to be caused naturally is for small, natural fluctuations in the circulation patterns of the atmosphere and ocean to result in a 1% or 2% decrease in global cloud cover. Clouds are the Earth’s sunshade, and if cloud cover changes for any reason, you have global warming — or global cooling.”
Readers might also recall that evidence has been found for Spencer’s 1-2% cloud fluctuation. Even the National Science Foundation recognizes the role of clouds is uncertain: NSF Releases Online, Multimedia Package Titled, “Clouds: The Wild Card of Climate Change”
WUWT readers may recall the recent paper by Suckling and Smith covered at WUWT: New paper: climate models short on ‘physics required for realistic simulation of the Earth system’
In the Suckling and Smith paper it was concluded that the models they reviewed just don’t have the physical processes of the dynamic and complex Earth captured yet. This paper by de Szoeke et al. published in the Journal of Climate finds that climate models grossly underestimate cooling of the Earth’s surface due to clouds by approximately 50%
According to the authors, “Coupled model intercomparison project (CMIP3) simulations of the climate of the 20th century show 40±20 W m−2 too little net cloud radiative cooling at the surface. Simulated clouds have correct radiative forcing when present, but models have ~50% too few clouds.“
Let that 40 watts/ square meter sink in a moment.
The 40 watts/ square meter underestimate of cooling from clouds is more than 10 times the alleged warming from a doubling of CO2 concentrations, which is said to be 3.7 watts/square meter according to the IPCC (AR4 Section 2.3.1)
So the cloud error in models is an order of magnitude greater than the forcing effect of Co2 claimed by the IPCC. That’s no small potatoes. The de Szoeke et al. paper also speaks to what Willis Eschenbach has been saying about clouds in the tropics.
Here is the paper:
Abstract:
Widespread stratocumulus clouds were observed on 9 transects from 7 research cruises to the southeastern tropical Pacific Ocean along 20°S, 75°-85°W in October-November 2001-2008. The nine transects sample a unique combination of synoptic and interannual variability affecting the clouds; their ensemble diagnoses longitude-vertical sections of the atmosphere, diurnal cycles of cloud properties and drizzle statistics, and the effect of stratocumulus clouds on surface radiation. Mean cloud fraction was 0.88 and 67% of 10-minute overhead cloud fraction observations were overcast. Clouds cleared in the afternoon (15 h local) to a minimum of fraction of 0.7. Precipitation radar found strong drizzle with reflectivity above 40 dBZ.
Cloud base heights rise with longitude from 1.0 km at 75°W to 1.2 km at 85°W in the mean, but the slope varies from cruise to cruise. Cloud base-lifting condensation level (CB-LCL) displacement, a measure of decoupling, increases westward. At night CB-LCL is 0-200 m, and increases 400 m from dawn to 16 h local time, before collapsing in the evening.
Despite zonal gradients in boundary layer and cloud vertical structure, surface radiation and cloud radiative forcing are relatively uniform in longitude. When present, clouds reduce solar radiation by 160 W m−2 and radiate 70 W m−2 more downward longwave radiation than clear skies. Coupled model intercomparison project (CMIP3) simulations of the climate of the 20th century show 40±20 W m−2 too little net cloud radiative cooling at the surface. Simulated clouds have correct radiative forcing when present, but models have ~50% too few clouds.
===============================================================
Given this order of magnitude blunder on clouds, it seems like an opportune time to plug Dr. Spencer’s book where he pointed out the 1-2% cloud forcing issue. Click to review and/or buy at Amazon.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It’s my belief the main driver for climate change is the difference in temperature of the ELECTRON in the troposphere paticals float around in a sea of electrons Look into the fairweather and foul weather electric fields and how they work in oposite direction . This process drives high and low pressure systems.Now wrap this process around Coulomb’s Law
I still suspect that a lot of the believed water vapor feedback is based on the change during the Pinatubo cooling, which I think ignored the effect of decreased direct SW radiation on water and moist surfaces (e.g. soil).
@Nick Stokes: “They are basically trying to explain a known local SST discrepancy between models and measured SST. Models are known to overestimate in this particular region.”
Ah, good then. Since it’s a known bad value they can correct it like TOBS, right?
Simulated clouds have correct radiative forcing when present, but models have ~50% too few clouds. — Right there in the OP
So yeh, yet another empty sophistry on your part. Don’t get me wrong, I deeply appreciate that your statements are so consistently false in a backwards fashion. It’s a good signpost to where the truth lies.
I think we should also acknowledge Willis’ work at the “small scale” of individual thunderstorms and how in aggregate they regulate temperature over the ocean.
Jquip says: November 29, 2013 at 3:34 pm
“Since it’s a known bad value they can correct it like TOBS, right?”
That’s not what they are doing. You should read the paper. It begins:
“Accurate simulation of tropical southeastern Pacific Ocean sea surface temperature (SST) is challenging for coupled general circulation models (GCMs; Mechoso et al. 1995; Davey et al. 2002; de Szoeke and Xie 2008). Warm errors of 2°C in SST are found at 20°S, 75°W in most of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 3 (CMIP3) models assessed by de Szoeke et al. (2010).”
So they made observations to find out, and ascertained that in that transect, in November, models are underestimating observed cloud.
Isn’t this how science should proceed?
Teddi says: “Statements like this “When the models are improved they will complain that the models are being fixed.” are both arrogant and misleading. Based on what has transpired, people have an inherent right to be skeptical of the credibility of any who attached themselves to this magnificent failed theory called CAGW.”
Sort of like being skeptical of cars because model T’s were so lame. But, at the time, they were the best that we had.
I would like to thank Steven Mosher for reminding me how stupid I am while doing nothing to educate me. I would also like to thank Pippen, who makes me even more stupider just from reedng wut him dun sed.
Paul Vaughan
Thank you for the excellent link to Sidorenkov. It will take some time to read and understand it all, but it is a remarkable reference.
I can almost hear http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slartibartfast saying: “Climate models don’t do clouds|”.
Pippen Kool says:
“Sort of like being skeptical of cars because model T’s were so lame. But, at the time, they were the best that we had.”
Argument by analogy is almost always a waste of breath but that’s just cretinous.
CliSci—Good enough for government work.
Sort of like being skeptical of cars because model T’s were so lame. But, at the time, they were the best that we had.
Great analogy. My Grandmother was always complaining that the Model T took their family to the butcher’s, rather than the baker’s on the next block.
After reading here for some time, like from 2006 or so can not remember for sure. Do post some.
Got an EE degree back in the 1960’s and it was not easy at all then. Used it all the way to the research and development operation at GD Ft. Worth Tx. on the F-111 terrain following radar.
Any how lots of info here and there are lots of good facts now on the net for all to see. This information and the East Anglia University together I am sure have reached Pres. Obama and the decision makers in the White House Executive part of the U.S. Government. Therefore I am sure as you all should be that they will do the right thing and follow the facts known by all who truly want to know.
We can rest easy tonight and in the days ahead knowing they will not follow the mis-information
from the likes of Michael Mann eta that will only cause great harm to our country and most of humanity world wide.
Lets all just get along and let one another feel good and let our emotions rule us all.
Sweet dreams, nite nite
(sarc)
As Spencer says, a few percentage of cloud cover change can cause climate changes of the magnitude of the observation via an albedo change.
See Figure 19 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://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012825213001402
where it is observed a very good correction between the global surface temperature against variations in total global cloud cover since July 1983 (P(|r| ≥ |ro|) b 0.0005. The cloud data are from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP)).
Figure 20 of the same paper shows a comparison with the cosmic ray index.
Who knew shade was cooler?
We don’t understand clouds so the models are an order of magnitude off. The “best minds” of climate science have resolved the energy balance to 0.6 +/- 17 watts/m^2, and discuss it as a “budget”. In most disciplines and my years in chemical processes an order of magnitude uncertainty would negate the model I’m using. The uncertainty in the energy balance would be 0 in any process model/estimate I’ve ever been around. If I had ever proposed expensive changes based on schlock like that all I’d hear was the laughter as I started with my new employment with the State Employment Security Commission.
If I were a real scientist studying climate, I’d really be upset at by the charlatans who claim to be climate scientists and use stuff like this.
In IPCC’s AR reports, these scoundrels freely admit Climate models don’t model clouds well at all… (accidentally on purpose…)
Under any interpretation of the Scientific Method, CAGW already deserves to be thrown on the trash heap of failed hypotheses, with NO RSS warming trend since October 1996– despite 1/3rd of ALL manmade CO2 emissions since 1750 made over the last 17 years…
This, umm, cloud “misunderstanding” is the IPPC’s get-out-of-jail-free card, which “scientists” will play to the hilt when this CAGW scam crashes and burns within the next 5 years and they’re testifying in front of Parliamentary and Congressional CAGW hearings explaining how they could have been so wrong for so many years about this CAGW scam.
Joni Mitchell had our knowledge of clouds down pat.
http://songmeanings.com/songs/view/25181/
dalyplanet (November 29, 2013 at 4:12 pm) wrote:
“Thank you for the excellent link to Sidorenkov. It will take some time to read and understand it all, but it is a remarkable reference.”
You’re very welcome. It’s a very refreshing read.
It gives background for interpreting Dickey & Keppenne‘s (NASA JPL 1997) figure 3a&b, which has simple consequences.
Regards
Pippin really? That has to be the most disconnected analogy I ever….
So the warming anomaly, already carefully and egregiously overstated, is also swamped by major omissions and error sources in the models.
What could go wrong?
@ur momisugly Mosher.
Uh … the Models are “fixed”. 😃
r murphy says:
“Pippin really? That has to be the most disconnected analogy I ever…”
Agreed, that is a really bad analogy.
Why?
Because models are not a hundred years old like a Model T; they are current, and extremely expensive, and they are still completely wrong!
After wasting more than a $BILLION every year since 2001 on these worthless models, they should either perform, or be trashed.
GCMs are always wrong for one simple reason: they are programmed with the assumption that CO2 causes rising temperatures, when in reality, it is ∆T that causes ∆CO2.
Start with a wrong assumption, and the conclusion is bound to be wrong.
dbstealey says: November 29, 2013 at 8:28 pm
“GCMs are always wrong for one simple reason: they are programmed with the assumption that CO2 causes rising temperatures, when in reality, it is ΔT that causes ΔCO2.”
You have no idea how they are programmed. No such assumption is made.
“Isn’t this how science should proceed?”
[Nick Stokes says: November 29, 2013 at 3:56 pm]
Indeed. Scientists, especially those pushing CAGW, should admit the “challenging” nature of the subject and explain to all the activist policy makers that clarity has not yet been achieved. Please spare us this sort of statement:
““ There is now, he said, “much more clarity.” It “is a scientific finding” that climate change is humanity’s fault. ”” [Ban Ki-moon, 2013, Warsaw]
See post here:
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013/11/29/un-climate-fanatics/