Scripps-led study confirms computerized climate simulations projecting effects of global warming
From the UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA – SAN DIEGO
A Scripps Institution of Oceanography at University of California San Diego-led research team analyzing satellite cloud records has found that the cloudy storm tracks on Earth are moving toward the poles and subtropical dry zones are expanding. Cloud tops are also moving higher in the atmosphere.
The record confirms computer climate models that have predicted these changes to have taken place during the past several decades as a consequence of the accumulation of societally generated greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
“What this paper brings to the table is the first credible demonstration that the cloud changes we expect from climate models and theory are currently happening,” said study lead author Joel Norris, a climate researcher at Scripps.
With the simultaneous roles clouds play in cooling and heating the planet – reflecting solar radiation back to space but also trapping solar energy in their structures – clouds are among the most important variables in climate.
Their complex behavior has been one of the biggest areas of uncertainty for scientists attempting to understand current climate and forecast future trends.
Inconsistent satellite imaging of clouds over the decades has been a hindrance to improving scientists’ understanding. Records of cloudiness from satellites originally designed to monitor weather are prone to spurious trends related to changes in satellite orbit, instrument calibration, degradation of sensors over time, and other factors.
When the researchers removed such artifacts from the record, the data exhibited large-scale patterns of cloud change between the 1980s and 2000s that are consistent with climate model predictions for that time period, including poleward retreat of mid-latitude storm tracks, expansion of subtropical dry zones, and increasing height of the highest cloud tops. These cloud changes enhance absorption of solar radiation by the earth and reduce emission of thermal radiation to space. This exacerbates global warming caused by increasing greenhouse gas concentrations.
The researchers drew from several independent corrected satellite records in their analysis. They concluded that the behavior of clouds they observed is consistent with a human-caused increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and a planet-wide recovery from two major volcanic eruptions, the 1982 El Chichón eruption in Mexico and the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines. Aerosols ejected from those eruptions had a net cooling effect on the planet for several years after they took place.
Barring another volcanic event of this sort, the scientists expect the cloud trends to continue in the future as the planet continues to warm due to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations.
###
The study, “Evidence for Climate Change in the Satellite Cloud Record,” appears July 11 in the journal Nature. Researchers from University of California Riverside, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and Colorado State University are co-authors. NOAA, the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science, and NASA supported the research.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Note the three instances of the conspicuous absence of the “middle man”, inserted for completeness by me in the brackets:
“This exacerbates global warming [which we assume without evidence is] caused by increasing greenhouse gas concentrations.”
“the behavior of clouds they observed is consistent with a [warming climate which they assume without evidence is the result of] human-caused increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”
“as the planet continues to warm due to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations [which is the assumed-without-evidence cause of the warming].”
Incredible how the warmists expect us to automatically accept, or even fail to see, their giant unsupported leaps that always end up with AGW as the culprit.
AGW predicts everything… drought and despair, greening of deserts in the very same area. It’s all bad. More cold and snow, less cold and snow, more droughts and flooding. Is there no end to what this evil co2 can do? It’s all predicted. Whatever happens they can bring to the table as proof.
CAGW didn’t predict any thing of the sort with cloud changes. It would have been an issue years ago, when aggh, the Great American Dought. And it never stopped. Even when the dust bowl years were brought up. Then, like now, CAGW has a pocketful of excuses. Don’t worry CAGW the drought in the west will be back. You can pick up right where you left off. No doubt you’ll be talking about the clouds then too. Did the clouds make the ” worst every drought” in the west too? It’s amazing how they kept talking about the drought and then suddenly they weren’t.
Why do they seem to think Europe is going to get colder all of a sudden? And so what. Doesn’t the world have a fever ?
Why do they think Europe is going to get colder?
I suppose someone noticed the AMO turning negative. Cheep magicians for profit.
+1 Alan
Would love to see Roy Spencer’s take on this.
Yet more “corrections” making the data fit the model. Perhaps the model is what is wrong?
Man, that’s a whole lot of conclusion and assumption mixed together from a few removed artifacts and given an air of authority by name dropping a few government and government supported agencies already looking for bias confirmation through confirmation bias. Science is more modest than this.
A Scripps Institution of Oceanography at University of California San Diego-led research team analyzing satellite cloud records has found that the cloudy storm tracks on Earth are moving toward the poles and subtropical dry zones are expanding. Cloud tops are also moving higher in the atmosphere.
=
Once again Mr Jourdain is surprised that he was using prose all the time… How about rapid mode of circulation consequence? shhhh
Nice they do not know how to model clouds and surely do not model the effects of cosmic wind on cloud cover, they have clouds being a product of the climate rather than a product and an independent factor. This means that their conclusions are reactions not real modeling. Again, models are not science.
clouds are difficult.
Thanks 😉
Specially when they block solar energy from reaching the deep oceans to get stored as heat until we need it sometime later (much later).
I hate it when climate “studiers ” bandy about the word “albedo”, when they really mean cloud reflection coefficient, which really isn’t a reflection at all, since clouds are mostly water, which reflects about 2% of solar spectrum radiation at normal incidence, or about 3% integrated over 180 degree incidence angle. It is actually multiple refractive scattering by water droplets or ice crystals that turn the collimated sunlight beam into a near perfect diffuse energy distribution.
And the word they use “albedo” sounds awfully similar to the word “Albedo” which means the total solar spectrum energy returned to space (as solar spectrum energy) for the ENTIRE planet.
G
I’ve looked at clouds from both sides now
From up and down, and still somehow
It’s cloud illusions I recall
I really don’t know clouds at all
The record confirms computer climate models that have predicted these changes to have taken place during the past several decades as a consequence of the accumulation of societally generated greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
____________________________
Wow – computer climate models
have predicted these changes
to have taken place.
Predicted futures, done and out. Translated from academic – could it be
“The record confirms computer climate models that have predicted these changes to take place during the past several decades.”
Or simply common
“The record confirms computer climate models that have predicted these changes to occurr / happen during the past several decades.”
Plain common too,
who needs
climate models
when
theory already said
what study lead author Joel Norris, a climate researcher at Scripps meant to say.
climate model science maleware does the masters magic wants proof.
Clouds being higher and drier should result in less heat being trapped by them.
Clouds are NOT dry. They are almost 100% wet, save for some microbes that they condense on.
g
Isn’t the water in ice form and hence dry? Just asking george.e.smith.
Ice crystals are H2O whether that water is liquid or solid does not alter the fact that visibly radiation is 98% transmitted, and LWIR is about 98% absorbed.
G
George: It’s hard for me to wrap my head around this. Water in ice form seems to me to reflect light differently than clearer liquid water. Anyway – thank you for clarification. Since I do not know, I will take your word for it.
To get accurate models you need all the facts no matter how small it is. Watch Earth from space p1080 on Youtube. It shows how every factor plays a part on how our earth works.
I am not sure, and maybe I am wrong too, but from what I read here in the comments I see a considerable blindness.
According to this article, and the way it explains the situation, is not very difficult to conclude that the main claim is a self stub by the AGW cabal..
For once it shows that the memo from the AGW high priests like Joneses and company is ignored.
The memo that asks that no one fucks up with GW as it stands (naturally).
These guys with this new approach have fucked very badly.with that memo.
The claimed evidence that all this new AGW explanation holds on, it does not leave room any more for any consideration of any natural GW.
What ever warming there was in the 20th century, in natural terms, has no any significance, and for lack of better word is with even less significance for the present and the future to come, as according to the evidence claimed here it did not seem to have had any impact in the long background climatic trend of cooling, it seems to have been only a small bursting bubble.
The pattern of a natural significant global warming is the opposite of the one considered here.
In a global warming period, a natural one, the humidity and water does not tend to move towards the polar regions. And it is not consistent with desertification or subtropical drought expansion.
SO WHAT WE LEFT HERE IS EITHER AN AGW OR A COOLING TREND PATTERN.
Still strangely enough a scenario of an AGW, a benign one, a not run-away one can afford to contemplate the possibility of such as described above, the humidity and water moving towards the polar regions or some kind of a similar pattern that shows that to a degree, but in same time must satisfy the null-hypothesis requirement, which in this case will be that no further desertification or a subtropical drought expansion is happening. as that means only one thing…….. a natural cooling trend……
You see even in this article, observation versus computer simulation projections is partially compared only with the humidity and water movement and direction, not the subtropical drought expansion,,,,,,,, the later is ignored as far as I can tell, in that comparing.
IS NOT CLEARLY CLAiMED THAT COMPUTER SIMULATION OR MODELS DO PROJECT SUBTROPICAL DROUGHT TOO.
There could not be any AGW of any king contemplated if the long term desertification continuing, no matter what.
AGW as claimed here means extra warming in tropics, extra humidity increased from tropics……and even when contemplating that most of that extra humidity (due to the anthropogenic effect) will move towards the polar regions due to a further increase in differentiation of temps between tropics and polar regions, still some of that extra humidity will add to subtropics and make these places less droughty……..and more wet…….
According to this latest claim the question is simply framed as: Is climate an AGW one or is climate natural still and in a cooling trend…..there is no much room left for any other contemplation.
AGW still fails badly, especially when considering under this claim that the new climate equilibrium under AGW scenario means a new path, a new one towards a glaciation due to more warming due to the extra warming of the tropics, completely contrary to natural one.
For once these guys should stop screaming sea level rise as that is not possible under this new scientific “revelation” of AGW….
cheers
Everything I ever needed to learn I learned in kindergarten.
Like how to look up at the clouds, and see all kinds of things.
2000-2016 Cloud fraction animation. Whiteouts in around 2013/14/15
maybe Svensmark’s cosmic rays :p
Link would be good..
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/GlobalMaps/view.php?d1=MODAL2_M_CLD_FR
“When the researchers removed such artifacts from the record, the data exhibited large-scale patterns of cloud change between the 1980s and 2000s that are consistent with climate model predictions for that time period, including poleward retreat of mid-latitude storm tracks, expansion of subtropical dry zones, and increasing height of the highest cloud tops. These cloud changes enhance absorption of solar radiation by the earth and reduce emission of thermal radiation to space. This exacerbates global warming caused by increasing greenhouse gas concentrations.”
_________________________________________
No clouds at all over all mid-latitude subtropical dry zones
and increasing height of the highest cloud tops
reduces emissions of thermal radiation to space.
This exacerbates global warming caused by
human-caused increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.
_________________________________________
Move along, no consistent logic here to see.
The whole article is a red herring. Why? They don’t state what magnitude/ sensitivity this supposed shift in clods is associated with. 1 deg/doubling ? 4 deg/doubling? There are very few that would argue that sensitivity is zero. So ones personal thought on sensitivity may be consistent with their observations but not consistent with a catastrophic scenario but their press release narrative is written to suggest it must be catastrophic & you are to blame.
This type of global projection gives wrong impression of global distribution
?w=1044&h=530
while type shown below would be preferable
http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/36000/36699/gisstemp_2008_map.png
“This exacerbates global warming caused by increasing greenhouse gas concentrations.”
Really, so it should be WORSE then predicted, then right? Luckily, observation ALWAYS trumps theory, or hypothesis! We have not seen this exacerbated global warming signal, so what the hell are they talking about? FAIL!
It would be fascinating to read the grant application for this research…
I see don’t see any evidence there that CO2 is causing any of the warming. That part just seems to be presumed now.
I have lived in the tropics for 7 years, nothing much ever changes here. It gets dry then it clouds then you get rain. If someone were to snapshot pictures of clouds when it were best to take pictures of clouds that might show some kind of trend that were completely negligible.
I noticed this with my local weather, we got a lot of cumulus clouds in the afternoon, but by night they cleared up. In Florida in the early 80’s we’d get thunderstorms in the afternoon, but it’d clear up later.
That is adaptive feedback. The entire sky, except right around the Sun, is cold, any clouds slows that radiative cooling. But what’s invisible is as air temps near dew point, air temp cooling at night slows, another adaptive feedback.
The average change in entropy between max and min temp over about 2,500,000 daily station records/year over the decade or so (off the top of my head) is 9,000kJ/kg
If my math is right, all of the Co2 surface forcing is about the same as 1 kg of air, just one.
It’s 2016 and they are still doing the same thing. Generally after 3 pm they build enough to rain out. A strong haze in the morning usually indicates thunderstorms by noon to 1 pm.