John McLean writes of a new paper about the pattern in global average temperature anomalies since 1950 and how they are linked to changes in cloud cover and ENSO:
Key points of the paper:
- Indicates that the temperature pattern can be attributed to a
sequence of events, namely a shift in the prevailing ENSO conditions,
then a reduction in total cloud cover and then a shift on cloud
(decrease in low level cloud that was largely offset by an increase
in mid and upper level cloud)
- Uses the Trenberth, Fasulo & Kiehl energy balance diagram to show
that the loss in total cloud cover caused an increase in heat energy
being absorbed at the Earth’s surface that was greater than the
increase that IPCC 5AR claims was due to greenhouse gases
- Indicates that greenhouse gases played little if any part in the
warming, which not only refutes the IPCC’s belief or opinion but also
means that there is negligible, or even no, 16 or more years’ of
“missing heat” to be found.
- Shows the changes in cloud cover and temperature both as global
averages and then for the six latitude bands each of 30 degrees, the
latter indicating the changes in cloud cover applied to most latitude
bands except the Antarctic and to a less extent 30S-60S.
- Doesn’t attempt to identify the reason for the reduction in total
cloud cover or the shift from low level cloud.
McLean writes:
On the last point above, I think a reduction in micro-particle emissions probably contributed. The disappearance of London’s “pea soup” fogs after the ban on the burning of coal is probably a good precedent. It would be ironic if the reduction in micro-particle emissions was due to government legislation because that would mean that the warming was manmade. To be fair though, it was probably the first deliberate attempt to clean up the atmosphere even if it didn’t come with a warning about possible changes to weather patterns. We also shouldn’t forget that there may be other causes, such as changes to cooking fuel in the tropics.
The paper is available free of charge via
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=50837#.VE9LlFfivOU
Late Twentieth-Century Warming and Variations in Cloud Cover
ABSTRACT
From 1950 to 1987 a strong relationship existed between the El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and HadCRUT4 global average temperature anomaly, interrupted occasionally by volcanic eruptions. After 1987 the relationship diverged, with temperature anomaly increasing more than expected, but was re-established after 1997 at an offset of ~0.48°C higher. The period of increased warming from 1987 to 1997 loosely coincided with the divergence of the global average temperature anomalies over land, which are derived from observation station recordings, and the global average anomalies in sea surface temperatures. Land-based temperatures averaged 0.04°C below sea temperatures for the period 1950 to 1987 but after 1997 averaged 0.41°C above sea temperatures. The increase in the global average temperature anomaly and the divergence of land and sea surface temperatures also coincided with two significant changes in global average cloud cover. Total cloud cover decreased during the period from 1987 to 1997 and, for most of the remainder of the period from 1984 to 2009, decreases in low-level cloud were accompanied by increases in middle and upper level cloud. These changes can be found in both global average cloud cover and in each of the six 30°C-latitude bands. The impact of these changes in cloud cover can account for the variations in HadCRUT4 global average temperature anomalies and the divergence between land and sea temperatures.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Not to be pedantic, but the graph only goes back to 1984. Hard to claim 1950 with that.
Take a look at the graph in the actual paper, it goes back to 1950
Then why chop it off at 1984?
Space constraints?
The graph from the paper that goes back to 1950 is for a comparison of SOI and temp, not cloud cover and temp.
However, the paper also doesn’t claim that cloud cover drove warming since 1950, only for a brief period after 1987.
I’m not quite omniscient so I’m afraid I cannot answer that.
It’s simple. ISCCP cloud cover data only goes back to 1984.
Have you done an r2 between cloud and temp John. I haven’t read the paper yet but the graph looks interesting; it also appears consistent with what Pinker et al found: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/308/5723/850.abstract
The r2 of the raw data would be crap, and if you smooth it then it would rise, but it meaning would be crap.
DEEBEE, I agree with you. Noisy data often shows poor correlation even though a general relationship is clear from visual inspection.
From the paper:
“According to the energy balance described by Trenberth et al. (2009) [34], the reduction in total cloud cover accounts for the increase in temperature since 1987, leaving little, if any, of the temperature change to be attributed to other forcings.
With ISCCP cloud cover data available only for the period from 1984 to 2009 this hypothesis should be regarded as tentative.”
Finally a paper that has some actual science in it. The ocean is the climate/weather driver through convection. The atmosphere is just a transmission medium.
Now that is science. Being a skeptic does not afford anyone the right to replace consensus crap with their own
From the Journal Website’s FAQs:
“Peer-review process
Q1: How long will it take to peer review my paper?
A1: It usually takes about 2-4 weeks. Please contact the Editorial Assistant if you want to know the status of your paper.”
That’s pretty fast. Too fast to allow for serious peer review. McLean’s paper was in line with that.
That’ not to say the paper is flawed. I have no idea about that. But why not publish it in a less obscure Journal?
Most of the better known journals are too entrenched in the AGW scam to risk publishing anything that suggests that AGW actually IS a scam.
Most of the better known journals do not ask you to pay a fee to publish unlike the journal that published this paper.
Juan – that depends. If you want the published paper to be freely accessible, the author pays. That is common practice with all journals I recently have had contact with.
Why not evaluate the paper itself instead of bringing up unrelated journal FAQs? And yes, quite often peer review is that fast, for the first round, which what all journal base that selling point on; not the full length till publication.
Peer review takes 4 weeks per round. You submit…you get feedback from your reviewers in roughly a month…you have a month to make changes, you submit again, lather rinse repeat until you get a “good to go”
Took around 3 weeks to get reviews back on my latest paper in an impact >3 journal. Rule of thumbs are just the hump of the bell shaped curve, not an actual rule that has any meaning. If you get good reviewers, and editor, the process can be remarkably fast. And by good, I mean people who read their emails and promptly turn around a review request. The reason it can take so long per round is folks get busy or drag their feet.
As competition between journals heats up, most journals aim for shorter turnaround times. A while ago, I was usually asked to complete reviews in 3 to 4 weeks; now it’s mostly 1 to 2 weeks.
I submitted it to one well-known journal and in response the editor said that he wasn’t sending it for review because I needed to show why CO2 could NOT have caused the warming; he seemed to want to protect the IPCC orthodoxy. I submitted it to another also well-known journal whose focus is on clouds, but despite the paper discussing a possible significant relationship between clouds and temperatures its editor told me that my paper wasn’t suitable for that journal.
Quite honestly, if you don’t toe the line on belief it’s a struggle to get a papeer published. And let’s not forget that the publishing of a paper is no more than putting it on the table for discussion by a wider audience. The publishing of a paper is in no way a sign that the paper is “correct”.
John McLean,
I am happy for climate focused science that you did not bend your original findings to toe the line.
Congratulations on sustaining integrity.
John
John, thank you … I am well aware of the ideological problems related to publishing climate research, so your experience is not at all surprising. And of course, having gone through peer review does not make a paper more ‘true’. Peer review is foremost a filter for absolute nonsense, and the rest is editorial help. Could you tell us a bit about the reviewers’ response?
No offense Dr. McLean, but I take issue with the last two sentences of your comment:
“And let’s not forget that the publishing of a paper is no more than putting it on the table for discussion by a wider audience. The publishing of a paper is in no way a sign that the paper is “correct”.”
While it is true that papers contradict one another, and ever more experiments need to be done to get at the truth of a matter, I do think that we try to have a higher standard for publishing results.
And it is rather normal for an editor or reviewer to demand the authors to explain how/why their results contradict other’s findings.
For the record, I’m a biophysicist, so I cannot speak to the science in this paper. I’m just giving my opinion on what it means to publish a paper.
because it’s garbage?
Climate Sensitivity—->4.5 K—–>2.4 K—->1.2 K—->?
This is not the first study that has showed the reduced cloud albedo of circa 1980 to present.
As measured with an IR thermometer pointed straight up, 3W/m^2 Co2 warming might cause a 4C swing under really dry atm conditions (colder than -40F to -60F), Adding humidity will raise Tzenith 20-40F, cloud bottoms can be air/surface temps, 80F to over 100F warmer than clear sky alone.
Mi Cro,
I can verify your numbers, especially the cloud bottoms almost matching the air/surface temps.
In the Bahamas it is generally an 80˚F temperature difference between clear sky and substantial clouds.
With the ocean though, atmospheric radiation does not warm the ocean or slow its cooling whatsoever. Convection dominates.
Genghis commented on
The two would sum. Now I will accept that Convection could be much much larger, and atmospheric radiation effects are insignificant, maybe unmeasurable in comparison.
I know in the surface station I’ve worked with the only thing I can find is a slight change in how fast the seasons warm and cool, but it might have switched direction at the end of the data.
Mi Cro,
I think what is happening is that increased atmospheric radiation (cloudiness, LW radiation which doesn’t penetrate the surface) directly increases surface evaporation, cooling the surface.
The other interesting observation is that the surface temperature, depending on conditions (steady wind), can stay constant for weeks. Clouds or clear skies don’t seem to change it.
Volcanoes affect climate in both directions and were responsible for most of the late 20th c. warming.
Major stratospheric eruptions caused a drop in total column ozone and a lot of other aerosols and pollutants got washed out along with the volcanic aerosols.
The insuing changes in cloud cover and atmospheric albedo ( reflection and absorption of SW by ozone and high level aerosol particles ) caused about 1.8 W/m2 extra SW to make it into lower climate system. Hence stratosphere cools and troposphere warms.
The stratospheric cooling is clearest in TLS and is evidently a consequence of the eruptions.
http://climategrog.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/uah_tls_365d.png?w=842
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=902
[More than one link will cause the post to go into moderation . . mod]
Major stratospheric eruptions caused a drop in total column ozone and a lot of other aerosols and pollutants got washed out along with the volcanic aerosols. The insuing changes in cloud cover and atmospheric albedo ( reflection and absorption of SW by ozone and high level aerosol particles ) caused about 1.8 W/m2 extra SW to make it into lower climate system. Hence stratosphere cools and troposphere warms. The stratospheric cooling is clearest in TLS and is evidently a consequence of the eruptions.
http://climategrog.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/uah_tls_365d.png?w=842
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=902
Greg:
Most interesting comment. How did the volcanic aerosols (presumably) act on the ozone, pollutants, etc. to foster their “washout”? Can you say?
Aerosols and particulates form cloud condensation nuclei. It is well known that volcanic emissions only last a couple of year aloft. It appears that the processes that clear the volcanic emissions end up flushing out a lot of lower level pollutants too.
One of the main aerosols is sulphuric acid droplets and other sulphates. Acids are reducing agents and destroy ozone.
There are some links to papers at the end of my article above.
I’ve glanced at the paper, haven’t had the time to study it. My initial comments:
1, Nothing too surprising to us here at WUWT.
A, Instead of cloud cover, we’ve shown that downward shortwave radiation (sunlight) reaching Earth’s surface has likely increased since 1979:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/figure-32.png
The graph is from the April 2013 post The Sun Was in My Eyes – Was It More Likely Over the Past 3-Plus Decades?
B, We’ve been showing the long-term effects of (the naturally fueled warming associated with) ENSO for almost 6 years now. See the overview in the illustrated essay “The Manmade Global Warming Challenge” [42MB pdf].
2, What is surprising is that a paper was published that undermines the hypothesis of human-induced global warming.
Thanks, John McLean.
It was published in an open-access journal. These have earned a reputation for having less stringent review procedures. Their business model is to make scientists pay for publishing their articles, with the benefit of less per pressure. But maybe McLean has the time to tell us about how his review went.
Red herring much? Open access is not less stringent, PLOSone is open access, as are some Springer and a lot of Biomed Central journals; and these are all high class. Your argument is demonstratably flawed and irrelevant. Why not discuss the actual data?
Peer review doesn’t mean squat. It’s more important to get as many eyes on a paper as possible, and that’s what this journal helps accomplish. COok et. al 2013 was peer reviewed, case in point.
See my response to another comment above.
Mods, I’m not aware of any decision by Anthony to ban me but I have been having a lot of problems with posts just disappearing recently.
While not posting at WUWT does mean I get a lot other more important things done, there are times like this when my work is relevant and I can make a useful contribution.
Could you please fix whatever is causing my posts to hit the spam bin. Thanks.
Greg Goodman
[This one wound up in the spam bin too. The word “spam” causes that, as do the words: denier, scam, fraud, NAZI, Anthony( this assumes you wish for him to respond personally and he has a full day so it might take time), plus many others. The spam bin is an automated process which requires a moderator to come along and check it before posting. I am not aware of any of your posts going missing and I have checked the deep bin too. I know that it is easy to assume some malice or sinister plan is the cause of the delays but I can assure you that is not the case. Nothing is broken at this end so perhaps you could take a moment to consider whether any of the words I have mentioned are to blame. Thanks . . mod]
Many thanks. I’m aware of most of the trip words and try to avoid. I’m not assuming anything sinister but I’m pretty sure my IP ( or a block of IPs ) is getting blocked. I had to go through a proxy to this far.
Also I had to use a different email account because that seemed to get caught too.
I’ll post a second reply here directly without the proxy with my usual email, so please check to see whether it appears.
No, direct posting still just disappears. Please see if you can see why.
Greg, the problem may very well be upstream from WUWT. Depending on your ISP, your IP number may fall within a range that has recently been blacklisted by other ISPs because of excess instances of a substance popular in Hawaiian cuisine (that four letter trip word) or attempts at unlicensed “fishing.” Blacklisting can be fairly indiscriminant, and that lack of discrimination can be a deliberate attempt to force the manager of an ISP to clean up their act. That can also happen when someone carelessly rewrites a filter.
Thanks Duster, I know kind of thing happens but it often gets a lot of complaints from the collateral damage group, so eventually gets fixed. I suspect there is a problem here, though.
I’ll put the ” Anthony ” flag on this one again, otherwise no will see it now the threads moved on.
Hopefully it will get fixed.
BTW the “two links gets held for moderation”? I thought our host had extended that to three about a year ago. Are we back to one ?
Thx
Ah, the mysteries of WordPress filtering…
As near as I can tell, there are filters on a (changing) set of key words, source IP that has been used for bad things (and if you reboot your router and get a new IP on your cable that had been used by a ‘bad guy’ you get tagged with it…) and if some sites flag your postings as SPhAM it seems like WP counts these and ‘enough’ of them gets you tagged. Though it also seems to ‘wear off’ over time. Sometimes.
I’ve had folks (nice folks) who posted at my site suddenly hitting the SPhAM bin for no observable reason. After fishing enough of them back out, the binning stopped. While I can add to the WP “naughty words” list, I can’t remove anything from their list. So it goes.
Sigh. Cause? Effect? Effect? Cause?
Correlation?
Oh look, I happen to have this graph preloaded in my mouse (for replying to somebody else in another context). But it belongs here as well:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/PiratesVsTemp%28en%29.svg
One day maybe the human species will finally wake up to just what post hoc ergo propter hoc is all about. But given the correlation between its extensive utilization and the definitive statement of conclusions ultimately proved to be false in the past continues into the future, probably not (sorry, complex joke:-).
Yes, this isn’t completely fallacious, at least one can argue that a physical mechanism exists (albedo feedback) as the actual cause of the observed correlation, but from 1950 on? Seriously? What about from 1900 on — we have data on the PDO back to 1900. What about the actual, simple, physical, atmospheric radiative model that predicts at least/roughly 0.4C of warming due to CO_2 only, all things being equal, over that interval? Why is albedo variation considered important and CO_2 considered unimportant?
I’m all for not over-attributing warming to CO_2 by throwing in all sorts of positive feedbacks simply because we truly do not really know those feedbacks in the highly nonlinear and multivariate chaotic climate system, but at the same time this ignorance works both ways! We can’t say that they are all negative or neutral, either. The best we can do is accept our ignorance and compute warming as if we do not know and cannot attribute feedbacks at all and see how that works out. Then — maybe — we will have a quantitative basis for an idea of the magnitude and nature of the still-unexplained variability.
I have recently played with adding a presumed PDO-based forcing (which would include at least part of the ENSO related effect if not all of it, on average) with the CO_2-only no-feedback warming expected across all of HadCRUT4 (results to be displayed here soon, I hope and expect). It is “interesting”, but not compelling. The comparison above is even less compelling.
Here are just a few questions that come to mind:
* Cause or effect? There is no smoking gun here in the data to suggest temperature changes are caused by (decreasing) cloud cover or that the warming temperatures cause decreasing cloud cover.
* Explanation of either one. So fine, cloud cover decreased, and this caused warming. But why did cloud cover decrease? Perhaps because the atmosphere was warmer! And why was the atmosphere warmer? Perhaps because there was additional CO_2 driven warming, warming that we are pretty sure is taking place regardless of what the clouds are doing because the exact same laws that predict some of the direct effects of water vapor or cloud variation predict monotonic variation of surface temperature with CO_2 concentration! But even this is too simple/simplistic. Why, exactly, has cloud cover stopped decreasing as of the 1998 super-ENSO? Why did it decrease across the 1980s? Major ENSO events are rare and somewhat discrete, but the cloud cover varied even more smoothly than the temperature and if anything has an inflection point around ENSO events. Why? This makes little sense to me.
* We have little reason to think that ENSO and the PDO were not functioning during the LIA and MWP. This explanation is strained over only 64 years. I think it is utterly inadmissible in and of itself over 640 years, or 6,400 years. Unless/until variation on this sort of timescale (not to mention 6,400,000 and 64,000,000 and 640,000,000 year timescales) can be satisfactorily explained we have no way of separating truly long time scale behavior from to short term/immediate responses to atmospheric chemistry changes like increasing CO_2 or from quite possibly large or dominant variability due to natural phenomena like the PDO, ENSO, the AMO, the NAO, and all of the other attendant natural decadal oscillations in the coupled atmosphere-ocean system or from stuff we don’t understand yet due to the purely chaotic nature of the climate.
In other words, even if the assertions made above are really truly true during the time interval being examined, the Earth could chaotically change attractors and suddenly start to cool with constant cloud cover, or (more likely from a strictly physical point of view) it could warm more with constant cloud cover. Or it could warm or cool and that could change the cloud cover — cause and effect are not separable in a tightly coupled system.
The problem isn’t that this couldn’t be true. Of course it could. What it isn’t is this simple. Even if reduced cloud cover is somehow the proximate cause of the warming observed, what caused the reduced cloud cover that caused the warming? What caused the cause of that cause? This is a strongly coupled, highly nonlinear, highly multivariate system that cannot really be separated by projecting some short subset of the data on some axis, noting a correlation, and declaring “Eureka!”
I wish.
rgb
What caused the cause of that cause? This is a strongly coupled, highly nonlinear, highly multivariate system that cannot really be separated by projecting some short subset of the data on some axis, noting a correlation, and declaring “Eureka!”
——
One possibility is Svensmark
Exactly, since the 1970s were a relative minimum on the strength of the solar cycle and the current cycle is nothing to write home about. This prompts a testable hypothesis, will cloud cover begin to increase and the temperature decrease through the 2020s. My vote is that yes it will, but it is an experiment that will show an outcome despite whatever my vote is.
Of course, it would be most interesting to be able to extend the begin date back to 1908 or so and see what the cloud cover vs. solar magnetic field graph looks like. Obviously, the quality of data drops off severely prior to 1970, and is really, really lousy prior to 1940. Still, it might be suggestive of what the solar magnetic field influence really is.
Or government action to reduce particulate pollutants. Or … Or… Or…
The one thing you really can’t extract from a complex, “strongly coupled, highly nonlinear” very complex system is a neat causal chain. The ideal of science – linear relations between explanatory and explicated entities – is an idea that derives from the 16th century, when Bacon advanced the idea of strong experimental science programs. That approach was immensely successful in teasing out simple relationships, but in the Natural Sciences, it fails. While you can extract small bits of reality and react them in a lab to derive a very systematic idea of how those small bits react, when you turn back to the outdoors, all those little bits you understand are madly interacting with innumerable other bits you could find no room for in the lab.
The problem with applying laboratory results in the real world is that “all things” are never, ever equal. Geological data over the Phanerozoic indicates that the planet has a temperature plateau that is never exceeded, even when CO2 was 25 times its present level. There is no strong correlation between proxies for temperature (such as Aragonite-Calcite ratios) and proxies for green house gas concentrations (volumes of calcium carbonate laid down biologically regardless of crystalline form). In fact there is barely any correlation. So, lab results: Arrhenius and Svensmark; reality: weather. No matter how many successful lab results are piled up, they are isolated from real systems and are not acquired as they operate within the system of interest. Worse real-world measures are just that. They may – must really – correlate to some degree with or processes also measured, but correlation/causation?
Any claim made about the effect of a phenomenon in the real world based upon laboratory results is inferential. It is quite as reasonable to refer to so-called green house gases as climate moderating gases. They may very well have both warming and cooling effects simultaneously. Any material that can absorb energy can also transport it. Any material that can transport energy can cool one location by warming another. Refrigeration systems work in precisely that manner.
”What caused the cause of that cause?”
Yes, without nailing down root cause the question will remain open as to whether the cause of that cause could possibly be attributed to increasing CO2 through feats of mental gymnastics. Unfortunately, the answer to that is most likely yes considering to the team either more or less Antarctic sea ice equally prove CAGW to be true™.
if a system is oscillating, it is difficult to take a time slice, and declare cause and effect. There will be elements of cause, and elements of effect, in both the oceans and the atmosphere. They interact to create an “net effect”.
This is a long term project, and declaring the “Eureka”, moment prematurely, has been the only consistent pattern, in the process. The only thing we know, for sure, is there is much left to learn.
RGB,
“But why did cloud cover decrease? Perhaps because the atmosphere was warmer! And why was the atmosphere warmer? Perhaps because there was additional CO_2 driven warming, warming that we are pretty sure is taking place regardless of what the clouds are doing because the exact same laws that predict some of the direct effects of water vapor or cloud variation predict monotonic variation of surface temperature with CO_2 concentration!”
Those are precisely the questions that need to be answered. Especially the interaction between the ocean and the atmosphere (clouds especially), which is entirely different than the interaction between the land and the atmosphere.
The Ocean/Atmosphere coupling involves easily 90% of the energy in the system and it is the most neglected portion of the weather/climate question.
Less clouds (increased SW into the ocean) will warm the ocean and at the same time increase net LW radiation (surface cooling) while decreasing evaporation for a net warming of the ocean. I have observed and measured that effect.
Increased cloud coverage decreases SW radiation going into the ocean, resulting in a cooler ocean, while at the same time decreasing the net LW radiation from the ocean and dramatically increasing the evaporative cooling from the ocean.
Clouds breed more clouds and a cooler ocean. Less clouds warm the ocean and produce less clouds.
What we need to know and understand is what triggers or hinders cloud formation. It is as simple as that 🙂 Do I need to add a sarcasm tag for the last comment?
It is of some interest, but maybe not, a lot as to why the total cloud cover decreased. The important matter is that it seems plausible that the decrease in cloud cover was responsible for most, if not all, of the warming.
Proper Physicists will tell you that the only likely effect of more CO2 is an equivalent, and infinitesmal, decrease of water vapour. This seems to have occurred. The cloud effect, water droplets, is quite separate. Other systems, going their own way. Brett
From rgb’s comment:
“Sigh. Cause? Effect? Effect? Cause?
Correlation?
Oh look, I happen to have this graph preloaded in my mouse (for replying to somebody else in another context). But it belongs here as well”
It seems to be even worse than just a simple case of overstating the importance of correlation. From the conclusions of the paper:
“Since 1950, global average temperature anomalies have been driven firstly, from 1950 to 1987, by a sustained shift in ENSO conditions, by reductions in total cloud cover (1987 to late 1990s) and then a shift from low cloud to mid and high-level cloud, with both changes in cloud cover being very widespread.”
To translate:
We tried correlation of these different things and didn’t get a good overall correlation for any of them. But each does correlate for small periods. Therefore, we broke up the temperature record and got good correlation between ENSO and temp during the first period, but not during the final 25 years. If we split up that 25 years, we get correlation between temp and cloud cover during the first half, and between temp and cloud distribution during the second half. Our main conclusion is that if you ignore the data that does not correlate, you get good correlation.
Your “translation” seems contrived and tendentious. Obviously the purpose of the study was to show the relation of the temperature trend for the period 1950-2009 with the observations which would serve to explain the varying trend. In the case of reduced cloud albedo, it seems axiomatic that such conditions would lead to increased surface temperatures and it also seems that the issues of reliable “correlation” in this regard is a not really pertinent, IMO.
No all forcings can’t be negative, is is a combination of +\- forcing that allows a balanced climate between perimeters. I haven’t seen anyone hear claim differently
I’m getting a vibe that the climate system is complicated.
🙂
rgb:
I do not understand why conclusions about the effects of varying cloud cover on surface temperature must depend on antecedents.
You seem to imply that such conclusions are unreliable without knowing antecedents. But perhaps that is not what you meant.
In regard to a plausible antecedent for variations in cloud cover, I do not see how increasing atm CO2 could be put as one.
Correlation vs. Causation was my problem with the recent Chamois weight loss paper. As a lay person I’m rather surprised at how often I see such things as the strongest finding in peer reviewed papers. My understanding is that such correlations simply indicate that there may be something interesting to further investigate in this area so as to maybe figure out a cause. In a nutshell, that’s my whole problem with AGP. The causes do not seem to be well established at all. No surprise there. The system is extremely complex.
Jay Turberville:
There are correlations so obvious that there can be no doubt. For example, the Pinatubo eruption in 1991 and the subsequent cooling.
I should have said that I regard the reduced cloud albedo/rising temp. trend as just as obvious.
It should also be your problem with lots of claims by warmists. The absence of correlation does prove a lack of relationship, but a correalation between A and B doesn’t determine whether A drives B, B drives A or C drives both A and B. What’s needed are accepted plausible physical processes and even then the findings are tentative until properly tested.
mpainter: “There are correlations so obvious that there can be no doubt. For example, the Pinatubo eruption in 1991 and the subsequent cooling.”
That would be true if all or even most eruptions produced a subsequent cooling which they don’t. What you have is an anomaly that means nothing.
Same holds true for the albedo analogy. We need to forget this cause and effect fixation. There is no cause and effect law, certainly not for the climate.
Ghengis:
I am not sure what you mean. As for my self, I have been a student of natural processes since I was young and my abiding faith is that nature can be deciphered.
You may not be aware that only those eruptions that inject aerosols into the stratosphere have a cooling effect. The cause and effect is plain and indisputable.
Very un-RGB like comments
Sigh. Cause? Effect? Effect? Cause?
Correlation?
It is as you say a tiny piece of evidence with respect to a large system, and it is only measured for a short time. All your criticisms are pertinent.
OTOH, it made no strong claim, only that CO2 is not “necessary” to explain the post 1950 warming, a claim made by IPCC and often repeated.
RGB:
“But why did cloud cover decrease? Perhaps because the atmosphere was warmer! And why was the atmosphere warmer?”
It does imply that it is temperature driven, and the warmer atmosphere would reduce low level cloud and increase the mid level cloud, which should act as a negative feedback, as the mid level cloud will be less effective at warming the surface than low level cloud. I would suggest the rising trend in the solar wind temperature from 1987 to 1995 was driving the warming:
http://snag.gy/dXp1s.jpg
1987 to 1996 rather.
Thank you for that explanation, sir. As a layman with only a tad bit of scientific and math background, comparatively speaking, even I can follow it. It’s the one type of approach that makes the most sense to me – Earth’s climate is just too complex and chaotic to attribute to isolated causation. Skeptics are the only ones with the intellectual humility, it seems, to make that admission and frankly the only ones I trust for that very reason.
Apology. Reply was to rgb, 7:33am(“Sigh, Cause and Effect”). I got lost in a time warp.
With clouds explaining The Pause in this paper, and with the Atlantic Ocean explaining The Pause in the Chen and Tung paper, those who continue to deny that there is a plateau in temperatures look more and more foolish.
Satellite data reaches back at least this far, if not farther. Global weather has been tracked pretty much from WWII, where the various forces involved “suddenly” discovered that weather forecasting was a strategic asset. D-Day, for example, happened when it did because they were able to forecast at least a few days of flying weather, with a full moon, with the tide high near dawn:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normandy_landings#Weather
The invention of jet aircraft that can fly in the stratosphere, the cold war (maintaining the military incentive to be able to launch full-scale nuclear attacks in known weather), and TIROS-1 in 1960 launched the “modern era” in climate observation, although it took another 15 or 20 years before we developed the ability to measure temperature from space consistently and accurately. But there is lots of data on things like cloud cover as photographed from space, cloud cover as locally reported by weather services, atmospheric soundings at at least some locations, airport weather reports, and so on, from 1950 on. Weather was critical to commercial airplane traffic well into the jet era, and in some sense still is. To farmers, fishermen, commercial shipping companies, boaters in general, and people planning a wedding too, as well as the eternal military.
rgb
Widespread insolation data is available since 1952. link
This paper is good in that it is showing how some of the natural variability in the climate system of the earth can be correlated to global temperature changes.
The problem is it is not taking into account all of the natural factors such as atmospheric circulation patterns(which can effect snow cover/cloud cover–A more meridional atmospheric circulation pattern favoring more snow cover /clouds, solar variability(primary and secondary effects example cosmic rays versus cloud coverage, atmospheric circulation pattern which I just mentioned) volcanic activity although it mentions it to some degree, phase of the PDO/AMO.
Note this season N.H. snow coverage is near record levels.
I still maintain that the route cause for the climate to change on a large scale are the strengths of the solar/geo magnetic fields.
ENSO contribution is on a small scale, causing changes within a particular climatic regime but not capable to change the climate into another climate regime.
The weaker they are combined to cooler the climate and vice versa.
The paper notes a temp spike in the 90’s over land. Could this have anything to do with the urbanization of reporting stations?
This could be true, but another factor to remember is the dramatic reduction in the number of stations reporting which took place during the 1990s IIRC.
SteveT
Look for plots of number of surface stations over time. A large proportion of weather stations closed in the 1990s. Most of the dropped stations were located in “rural” locations. The remaining stations are located in “urban” locations. Urban temperatures represent the urban environment, which is known to be warmer than surrounding land.
See the important SurfaceStations dot org site for info on the “urban heat island” bias.
There are very few weather stations maintained over many years in “uncontaminated” locations. When you look at such surface temperatures you will see that there has been no significant warming at those stations.
History shows some anecdotal warming since the “little ice age” that ended in the 19th century, with some warming from the 1890s to around 1940. Most of that is likely not global but due to industrial soot falling on the far northern ice.
I think that any warming seen can quite likely be attributed to multiple causes, so it’s possible that everyone is right to some degree. A bit from cloud cover, some from CO2, UHI, etc. etc.
It is pretty pointless trying to pin it all on one cause in such a complex system.
Cloud cover decreased when the climate zones moved poleward and the jets became more zonal.
That allowed more solar energy into the oceans to warm the system.
The cause was solar induced changes in the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles.
I hate papers like this, where they do not identify their dataset with enough precision to be able to replicate their work. The paper says:
That sounds clear … but when you go to the ISCCP dataset, your choices are:
So … are they using the D2 data, the DX data, or the D1 data? Are they using the monthly-mean data, or the “complete” data? And since the ISSCP says that these datasets start in 1983 … why does the paper say they start in 1984?
In addition, their “references” in the paper are a pathetic joke. They start with these two winners:
Trying out this nonsense of “citing” a 1535 page document with no indication of chapter and verse would have earned me an “F” in my high school science class. How has it become acceptable to pass this garbage off as “science”?
I hate this kind of BS. This paper is crap, incapable of replication, with no data, no code, and a pathetic joke passing for references. As Mosher observed, without data and code a “study” is not science in any way, shape or form—it’s just an advertisement for science, and nothing more.
w.
Why don’t you email him and ask which data sets he used? That’s how it’s usually done.
i agree Catherine. All it would have taken is an email. The ISCCP data is the D2 dataset. As for the IPCC reports, I thought them well enough known to simply cite the basic reference. I have never seen anyone cite particular pages of IPCC reports in a scientific paper but, as I have done, specific pages will be cited when writing articles for a wider audience.
Willis: “this paper is crap”
#####
Willis, the usual procedure is to contact the author and ask for help. Replicability is important, absolutely, but the fact that you are having problems confirming the data does not constitute a valid condemnation of the study or “this paper is crap”. That seems dispeptic.
Agreed. I have contacted authors for confirmation and further information. They have been very agreeable, and I have made new contacts that way. It is certainly the more scientific thing to do, rather than running off to a blog.
mpainter October 30, 2014 at 2:10 pm
Can I take it that this means you won’t even be attempting to provide data as used or code as used for the paper, then?
w.
Willis:
“Its time to put up or shut up”
####
Willis, if you would ask me in a nice way, I would consider doing this for you.
But mind you, I will not be holding my breath.
There is some validity in remaining skeptical of all assertions without error bars. When Leif S positively asserted that there was no connection between CR & cloud cover, linking to a paper; my response, after looking at the paper, was to assert that …” if you do not have the resolution necessary to determine postulated relationship, then robust evidence is , well not possible.”
Within the paper Leif S linked was this…
““Furthermore, although not in direct relation
to the solar-cloud studies, Brest et al. (1997) state that the
ISCCP data are not sensitive enough to detect small changes in
cloud cover over long timescales. As the total relative uncertainties
in radiance calibrations of this dataset are approximately
5% for visible and 2% for IR cloud retrievals (where absolute
uncertainties are <10% and <3% respectively
and
"Assuming a CR-cloud connection exists, there are various
factors which could potentially account for a lack of detection
of this relationship over both long and short timescales studies,
including: uncertainties, artefacts and measurement limitations
of the datasets; high noise levels in the data relative to the
(likely low) amplitude of any solar-induced changes; the inability
of studies to effectively isolate solar parameters; or the
inability to isolate solar-induced changes from natural climate
oscillations and periodicities.
Even without such limitations it is still possible that we may
be unable to detect a clear CR-cloud relationship for several
reasons.
Put simply, the resolution capacity to measure and detect such changes may not allow us to determine the connection.. The paper also lists numerous studies the show some correlation evidence and postulate some mechanisms, but it effectively shows the limitations of our current technology.
Willis your recent post concerning the earth’s seasonal GAT, where despite an increase in insolation during the SH summer of immense proportions, (at least relative to any CO2 forcing) the atmosphere cools about 4C, the opposite of the quick glance intuitive assumption, was intriguing, but left me with many questions. Actually I consider the seasonal earth response to insolation changes an immense field to study, and have been asking these questions for some time, so I was pleased you did a post on this.
Here are some of those questions…
The questions are many…
“Does the earth (oceans, land and atmosphere combined) gain or lose energy during this period on most intense insolation?”
Does the increased albedo and potentially increased cloud cover more then make up for the increased energy striking the oceans?
How much of the atmospheric cooling is due to said increased insolation entering the oceans, and thus lost to the atmosphere for a time?
Is there a greatly increased cloud cover during this time of increased ocean insolation?
Does much of the energy simply go into an accelerated hydraulic cycle?
Does some relevant quantity of this increased insolation energy go into algae and diatomic life growth spurts?
Do the IPCC climate models accurately model the decrease in T associated with seasonal insolation changes?
I am not certain any of my questions were answered, alas.
David, thanks for the reminder. I try to answer all serious questions, but there’s a lot going on and some get by me.
I’ve replied to your questions on the other thread here.
w.
Regarding Willis says David, thanks for the reminder. I try to answer all serious questions, but there’s a lot going on and some get by me.
I’ve replied to your questions on the other thread here.
——————————————————————————-
Thank you Sir, and both good and honest replies. A follow up regarding this question in particular, if you find the time to extricate yourself from the fire on this thread that is. (-;
I asked…”How much of the atmospheric cooling is due to said increased insolation entering the oceans, and thus lost to the atmosphere for a time?”
Your answer was…”Unknown, we don’t have sufficient data to figure that one.”
———————————————————————
I am wandering if the TOA radiation imbalance at that time of year, which I guess takes into account all
below it, including albedo changes, leaves a net imbalance that gives an indication of the answer? If, we know the net positive into the system (land, atmosphere, and oceans) and we know the atmosphere and surface, despite the increased insolation, cools by several degrees C, then the extra energy must go into the oceans, or into the increase in ocean life, algae and diatoms mostly. Now if this is the annual season where the oceans are recharged, plus 90 W/M sq for a large part of the ocean, then perhaps the ocean flux (surface to 250 meters or so, ) can give us a better understanding of solar impacts on the ocean, and ocean residence time of disparate solar W/L. But alas, the research money is funneled into the CAGW political power game, instead of real research.
Oh, and a second question. Do the IPCC global climate models accurately model the seasonal changes? If they do, then the must model the energy entering the oceans, at least I would think so.
Crap, I forgot the other question, (which you have thought a lot about) which does greatly complicate the matter, how much energy is used up in an acceleration of the hydrological cycle? That may be a hard one.
Willis: This paper is crap, incapable of replication, with no data, no code, and a pathetic joke passing for references.
The shortcomings that you cite are valid, but also extremely common. Would you settle for “not very good”?
Have you asked the authors for the details that you would like? Some authors respond positively, some don’t, but I do think you ought to ask first before making the extreme judgment.
The citation of a long work without a page number is sort of a “common courtesy” of no practical importance, just to acknowledge the precedence of the cited paper and the community at large. You may recall that Dr D. Roy Spencer faulted you for not citing enough: I thought he over-reacted, but he was expressing what I have called here the “common courtesy” of citing a full history in the introduction of most scientific papers.
I wonder sometimes if you get offended when speakers wear mismated socks or have their shirts untucked under their jackets.
mpainter October 30, 2014 at 10:58 am
No, mpainter, that was the usual procedure back in the 20th century. But this is 2014, and the responsible scientific journals now require both data as used and code as used as a requirement for publication.
The main reason I don’t “contact the author and ask for help” is that the 20th century system doesn’t work for beans. I’ve been turned down far too many times, and I’m sick of that dance, with emails going back and forth. Everyone wants the glory of publication, but when it comes to sharing their data and code with an unknown like myself, suddenly it’s all a state secret.
So yes, I will call them out for not being transparent. There’s no other way to get drag these good folks into the 21st century.
(Let me add that if it looked like this was otherwise fantastic work and there were no other way, I might consider asking them. But when someone cites the entirety of the 1,535 page IPCC tome as one of their references, I can’t be bothered. That alone identifies the paper as crap, that nonsense wouldn’t pass muster in my high school.)
However, since Catherine and mpainter and Matthew Marler seem to be the experts on how it should be done, I’ll leave it to you three. When one of you comes back with the code as used and the data as used for their paper, I’ll believe your method actually works … me, I’ve tried it and it hasn’t worked for me, but maybe y’all know the secret passwords.
In any case, the ball’s in your court, it’s time to stop giving me pious good advice and to put up or shut up. Come back with the code as used and the data as used for this paper, and I’ll believe it can be done.
And until then, I’ll say it again—no code, no data, no science. This paper is just an advertisement for science, and not science in any form.
w.
Willis, you didn’t know whether I’d reply and you simply assumed. You shouldn’t assume. The ISCCP data was the D2 dataset, which is the only practical dataset to use for this kind of study. I thought the conclusions of the IPCC were well enough known that I did not have to cite chapter and verse. Note that when it comes to the IPCC’s estimates of increased energy I do give a precise reference to the section of the report.
I used to like your analyses in the Climate Skeptics Internet discussion group but your bombastic criticisms both of this paper and the hypothesis about solar influences presented by David Evens a few months ago have me wondering. Your over the top criticisms might have people wondering whether you are peeved that you didn’t write the papers yourself. I suggest that in future you tone your criticisms down – don’t abandon them altogether just make sure they are reasonable and not excessive.
Matthew R Marler October 30, 2014 at 12:10 pm
The fact that a paper is incapable of replication and that the shortcomings are common does not magically transmute “crap” into “not very good”. It is NOT REPLICABLE as it stands, and therefore it is NOT SCIENCE OF ANY KIND.
No. See my post above for my reasons.
No, it’s not a “common courtesy”. It is a bogus and meaningless attempt to make a paper look more “sciency”. As my high school science teacher knew very well, it is meaningless without a reference to a page and a paragraph. As to whether it is of “practical importance”, it’s important to me because it’s the certain sign of bogus science, a pathetic attempt to claim respectability.
In fact, they used the IPCC reference to cite certain very specific claims about what the IPCC may or may not have said somewhere or other … but then they didn’t identify where in the IPCC report we could find what they were referring to.
That’s not “common courtesy”. That’s terminal laziness.
Actually, Dr. Spencer faulted me for not citing an author who had written NOTHING about my hypothesis regarding emergent phenomena, an author who I had cited in another context where he actually had written about what I actually was discussing.
In other words, Dr. Roy was doubly wrong. All he revealed was that either he didn’t understand what I wrote, or he didn’t understand what Dr. Ramanathan wrote. Drawing any other conclusions from the unpleasant attack which he launched based on his incorrect assumptions makes no sense at all.
And me, I couldn’t care less about socks, but I do wonder why people are so willing to let others pass crap off as science, and go to such lengths to excuse their actions …
w.
Willis:
Have you considered consulting an internist?
The author did provide you with all the data you need.
Just download the Complete ISCCP D2 Data and find the Total Cloud Cover Anomaly (percent sky) set within it. Not that hard, but more difficult I guess than bitching because your hand isn’t being held.
sturgis, they did not identify whether they used the D2, D1, or DX dataset. All they said was:
Now, my guess (like yours) would be that they used D2 data … but we don’t know that. It is certainly possible that they used the D1 dataset, nothing stands in their way.
And even if we knew that they used the D2 version, the D2 files have two global datasets. One is a D2 dataset for each six-hour period (ISCCP.D2.V.GLOBAL.YYYY.MM.99.HH99.GPC), and the other is a monthly average over all GMTs (ISCCP.D2.V.GLOBAL.YYYY.MM.99.9999.GPC) … care to tell us which of these two datasets they used, and let us in on how you know that?
And even if we knew that, what kind of “cloudy” are they referring to? The D2 dataset distinguishes between the following kinds of “cloudy”, with “IR” being infrared, “VIS” being visible, and “NI” being near infrared:
Care to tell us which of these categories they are talking about … and how you know that?
More to the point, without having the code and data AS USED we can’t tell whether they are using the data set that they think they are using, or whether their code does what they think it does.
For example they say:
Did they carry the error in the climatology forwards when they calculated the error in their results? Who knows? Did they calculate the climatology correctly? Without the code there is no way to find out.
Next, did they adjust their results for autocorrelation? If they did so they didn’t mention it in the paper, but in this kind of an analysis it is crucial to adjust for autocorrelation. Standard random normal statistics are useless for this kind of analysis.
So no, sturgis, neither you nor I know what dataset they used, or how they used it, or how they calculated their statistics, and we most definitely don’t have their code so we can settle the questions.
That’s why the 21st century rules are, “No code, no data, no science”, and the better professional journals have taken that up as their requirements. Without code and data AS USED, there is simply no way to find bugs, glitches, incorrect assumptions, or improper calculations. Transparency is integral to science, it doesn’t work without it.
w.
PS—the personal attack you appended to your scientific claims merely reveals the paucity of your actual arguments.
Of course it was D2. When you go to the linked site, that’s what shows up. How did you miss that?
When you call a good paper “crap” without bothering to look at its data, what kind of personal comment do you expect? Far from paucity of science, all the data about which you complained are readily available. You have a paucity of interest in doing real science rather than making excuses to avoid learning how wrong you’ve been for so long.
It’s all there. Only laziness or unwillingness to discover what you might find out can explain your not accessing it. In the time you have spent spewing, you could already have downloaded and analyzed it.
sturgishooper October 30, 2014 at 3:40 pm
Say what? The link (which I also provided above) goes to the index page of the ISCCP, which contains links to all of the data, which in turn contain links to the DX, D1, and the two D2 datasets.
In other words, your claim that “when you go to the linked site, that’s what shows up” is simply not true. Click the link, folks, you’ll see that sturgis is just blowing smoke.
I can’t “look at its data” because neither you nor I know what dataset they are using
No, it’s not “all there”. Despite your energetic handwaving, we don’t even know what dataset they used, and if you think the code as used is available, please give us a link to it …
Oh, good heavens. Your personal attacks are more proof that you are fresh out of scientific attacks.
w.
The post and cooling forecast at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
has this to say about the sun and climate.
“NOTE!! The connection between solar “activity” and climate is poorly understood and highly controversial. Solar “activity” encompasses changes in solar magnetic field strength, IMF, CRF, TSI, EUV, solar wind density and velocity, CMEs, proton events etc. The idea of using the neutron count and the 10Be record as the most useful proxy for changing solar activity and temperature forecasting is agnostic as to the physical mechanisms involved.
Having said that, however, it is reasonable to suggest that the three main solar activity related climate drivers are:
a) the changing GCR flux – via the changes in cloud cover and natural aerosols (optical depth)
b) the changing EUV radiation – top down effects via the Ozone layer
c) the changing TSI – especially on millennial and centennial scales.
The effect on climate of the combination of these solar drivers will vary non-linearly depending on the particular phases of the eccentricity, obliquity and precession orbital cycles at any particular time.
Of particular interest is whether the perihelion of the precession falls in the northern or southern summer at times of higher or lower obliquity.”
I am gratified to note that the McLean paper provides strong support for a) above. Closer investigation into the exact processes involved in the solar magnetic field strength -GCR -cloud connection should prove fruitful.
It highly significant that the sharp decline in the 0-30 N and 0-30 S cloud cover (Fig 10) coincides with the late 20th century warming and ends at about the same time as global warming stops.
It is also of interest to note the almost coincident drop to what looks like a new baseline in the Magnetic Plage Strength Index.see p34 in Leif Svalgaard’s http://www.leif.org/research/
1610 Solar-Activity-Past-Present-and-Future.ppt (TIEMS Conference, Oslo, Norway, 2012) pdf pdf with notes
Dr. Page, you state…”Of particular interest is whether the perihelion of the precession falls in the northern or southern summer at times of higher or lower obliquity.”
=======================================
My understanding is that a full precession cycle is about 24,000 to 25,000 years. (I say 24,000 because apparently precession is accelerating.) So a 1/2 cycle would move perihelion from the SH to the NH.
In the last 2000 years perihelion should have moved almost twenty percent towards that shift. Is there any evidence that this has happened? Is there any evidence of a pereodic12,000 year major climate shift? Thanks in advance.
But isn’t that what the alarmists have been saying all along?
They agree with the low 1C sensitivity for the direct effect of CO2 doubling.
But they claim a positive multiplier for the secondary effect, mostly clouds.
I’m not so good with logarithmic radiation and filtering equations…….does the data here support the alarmist’s claims?
In a word No. The IPCC does not predicate positive cloud feedback based on less cloud cover. (even if they did the trend has started to reverse.)
Nowhere does the observational data support CAGW. Not in surface warming, ocean warming, troposphere warming, global sea ice, global humidity, extreme weather events of all kind, etc.
.David A:
Distinguishing between the two, neither does the data support AGW, except by tenuous and inconclusive argument, which argument is refuted by such studies as the one posted here.
agreed, the anthropogenic influence on the minor warming is not well supported, however the benefits of additional CO2 are very well supported.
No. The bogus positive feedback effect relied upon by IPCC is water vapor, not clouds. Not only is there no evidence to support the assumptions its models make about water vapor feedback, but real world observations show them false.
The UN can’t model clouds, so essentially ignores them. From the SAR:
“The single largest uncertainty in determining the climate sensitivity to either natural or anthropogenic changes are clouds and their effects on radiation and their role in the hydrological cycle� (Kattenberg et al., 1996, p.345). And yet, the single greatest source of uncertainty in the estimates of the climate sensitivity continues to be clouds (see also Chapter 7, Section 7.2).”
Willis, no page number was given when suggesting that IPCC2013 had models that ran hotter than temps which seems rather non-controversial (though a page # would have been better as would the exact ISCCP data)
I do notice later on when citing more specific things from that document, page number is in fact cited, for example:
“To put this into context, the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report [1], section 8.5.2, states that the total anthropogenic radiative forcing for 2011 relative to 1750 is 2.29 [1.13 to 3.33] Wm−2 for all greenhouse gases and for carbon dioxide alone is 1.68 [1.33 to 2.03] Wm−2.”
Maybe a little early to throw out baby and bath water.
Respectfully,
Someone correct me if I’m wrong but a couple minutes at ISCCP leads me to believe this is the D2 data set?
Dave in Canmore October 30, 2014 at 12:36 pm
I’m sorry, Dave, but your belief is immaterial. There is absolutely no reason that they could not have used the D1 dataset. In addition, even if your belief mattered, we don’t know which of the two D2 datasets were used, the 6-hour one, or the monthly average one.
Finally, I’ve played this game a lot, and I can’t tell you the number of hours I’ve wasted following my “belief” that the authors had used a certain dataset, only to find out that they had used a variant of that dataset, or an older version, or a gray version, or a different version entirely … so I’ve given up playing that guessing game entirely. If the authors don’t identify their data AS USED in a clear fashion, I figure they are not interested in science, and I give it a pass.
There’s too much bad science out there for me to waste my time with folks that don’t provide data and code, and then make claims and airily wave their hand at the 1,535 page IPCC document and say “the evidence is in there, it’s up to you to find it” …
Sorry, not interested. No code, no data, no science.
w.
Dave in Canmore October 30, 2014 at 12:27 pm Edit
Thanks for that, Dave. The issue is not whether the claim is controversial, although I assure you that the claim that the climate models run hot is still the source of great controversy. The questions are things like, what specific claim of running hot is he talking about, and how much hotter do they run, and what evidence does the IPCC present to back up the idea that the models are running hot? I certainly don’t recall the IPCC saying “the climate models run hotter than the temps”, in fact they’ve claimed the exact opposite many times.
There was also no page number given to support some vague claim about the
Which relative accuracy are they babbling about? How was the accuracy measured? What did the IPCC say about the accuracy?
My point exactly. Doing that for some claims and not for others is a red flag for me. It means that the lack of page numbers elsewhere is not accidental.
Neither the paper itself, nor anyone giving me heaps for things like “throwing the baby out with the bath water” and the like, have come up with the code as used, nor the data as used.
As a result, I don’t even have a baby to throw out …
w.
“I’m sorry, Dave, but your belief is immaterial.”
lol thats what ‘correct me if I’m wrong means ‘
Didn’t mean to get your prickles up 😉
Doh! The ISCCP data used in the paper goes back to 1984 and it’s global. Follow the reference (to ISCCP head William Rossow’s paper) that I provide in the paper if you doubt me.
“greenhouse gases played little if any part in the warming”
At last, evidence that climate sensitivity to CO2 = 0
Euan Mearns and myself tried to get a paper published on this subject at Climate Dynamics a year ago. The question mark is always the validity of the ISCCP data. Changes in global cloud cover alone cannot explain all the observed warming. We used a combined CO2/cloud forcing model using M-L CO2 data and ISCCP cloud cover data to fit the Hadcrut4 data. A spreadsheet of the model we used can be downloaded at http://clivebest.com/GCC
Clouds have a net average cooling effect on the earth’s climate. Climate models assume that changes in cloud cover are a feedback response to CO2 warming but is this assumption valid?
Based on satellite measurements of cloud cover (ISCCP), net cloud forcing (CERES) and CO2 levels (KEELING) we developed a model for predicting global temperatures. This results in a best-fit value for TCR = 1.4 ± 0.3°C. Summer cloud forcing has a larger effect in the northern hemisphere resulting in a lower TCR = 1.0 ± 0.3°C.
more detail can be found here
Unfortunately the HadCRU data are so shamelessly manipulated as to be worthless, at best, so to speak.
clivebest commented
Changes in cloud cover has an order of magnitude larger effect than 3W/m^2 from Co2 has.
Clive, I accept that questions have been asked about the accuracy of ISCCP data but then again questions have also been asked about CO2 data and temperature datasets. There was a problem with the ISCCP data near the limits of “vision” for one or maybe two satellites, particularly in the mid Indian Ocean, but I believe the ISCCP folk adjusted that data. I’ve also done what I can to compare ISCCP total cloud coverage data for Australia with data from Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology (see my webpage http://mclean.ch/climate/cloud_cover_main.htm, which dates from 2007, for more details). Cloud cover data is also available elsewhere but I’m not sure that the coverage is global. Having said that, these other sources might help to confirm the hypothesis at some scale (e.g. regional).
There are actually two independent satellite measurements that imply that clouds/H2O are not simple feedbacks reacting to CO2 forcing. Post 2000 the total water column (NVAP) has been falling while cloud cover has been stable or increasing. The first effect reduces the H2O GHE and the second increases albedo, both offsetting global warming.
http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/TPW-global.png
http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Fig2BW.jpg
Can it possibly be a coincidence that these coincides with a hiatus in warming ?
“The question mark is always the validity of the ISCCP data”
——————————————————————————–
Indeed. I do not know why this is not clearly talked about. Reposted from up-thread…
Within the paper Leif S linked was this…
““Furthermore, although not in direct relation
to the solar-cloud studies, Brest et al. (1997) state that the
ISCCP data are not sensitive enough to detect small changes in
cloud cover over long timescales. As the total relative uncertainties
in radiance calibrations of this dataset are approximately
5% for visible and 2% for IR cloud retrievals (where absolute
uncertainties are <10% and <3% respectively
and
"Assuming a CR-cloud connection exists, there are various
factors which could potentially account for a lack of detection
of this relationship over both long and short timescales studies,
including: uncertainties, artifacts and measurement limitations
of the datasets; high noise levels in the data relative to the
(likely low) amplitude of any solar-induced changes; the inability
of studies to effectively isolate solar parameters; or the
inability to isolate solar-induced changes from natural climate
oscillations and periodicities.
Even without such limitations it is still possible that we may
be unable to detect a clear CR-cloud relationship for several
reasons.
Put simply, the resolution capacity to measure and detect such changes may not allow us to determine the connection.. The paper also lists numerous studies the show some correlation evidence and postulate some mechanisms, but it effectively shows the limitations of our current technology.
BTW, your work looks interesting.