People send me stuff.
Today my inbox got what some people might describe as an important clue to finding the “holy grail” of climate science. It’s a big step forward, it’s an even bigger step to get those entrenched, invested, and employed in the “CO2 rules the climate” theory industry to accept it. The battle of self-correcting science is about to be fought.
In a few days, I’ll be able to tell you what it is, since it is embargoed, but for now, I wanted to remind you all of this quote from the past:
“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.”
That’s from Dr. Roy Spencer’s book: The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists
My advice: get a copy between now and Tuesday, and read it.
Also, on the subject of clouds and climate, this analysis by Willis Eschenbach is also well worth reading, because it illustrates the self-regulating mechanism Earth has due to cloud action.
Where The Temperature Rules The Sun
Meanwhile, as hinted at in the title graphic, invest in popcorn futures.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Dr. Roy Spencer’s book The Great Global Warming Blunder.
So I trotted off to the local library and not only didn’t they have it, but it wasn’t on the shelf anywhere in Milwaukee County’s Federated library system and I was told that the inter-library network in all of Wisconsin also did not have a copy available. The librarian took my number and said if she could locate a copy she would give me a jingle.
If it is a hard science paper, backed by serious research from senior scientists, the really interesting aspect will be how the BBC manages to misreport/misrepresent/ignore/fudge and general turd the evidence.
Usually at times of crisis they get the stand-up comedian Roger Harrabin to wave his hands furiously to the side of the issue trying to distract his audience of middle class ‘useful idiots’ so they cannot see the awful truth at the centre of the story.
We await with interest – but, trust me, the Beeb’s lefty editors are already gearing up the smokescreen ‘explanation’ about what the research ‘really means’.
Oh, it’s hard science alright.
Speaking of turds, we are about to have a close encounter with a large and hard, not mention polished…
What ?? . No sprinkles or glitters ! 🙁
Only 3 things really determines the earth climate:
Gravity
The properties of water
The fact that the earth is more than 70 % covered by water
That’s all
Those set the basic temperature, for sure.
Ocean currents, clouds, volcanic activity and changes in solar penetration into the oceans due to frequency changes seem to cause most of the minor ups and downs.
A first order approximation using say Trenberth’s chart as a baseline, his 79 watts reflected coming from an overall earth average albedo of 0.3….then assume the albedo of cloud cover is 0.8 and ocean is 0.1…..assume a 1degree C rise in ocean surface temperature causes 7% more water vapour by C-C equation ….which likely causes the random motion of the atmosphere to “attempt” to form 7% more clouds….do some basic math and pretty soon you realize you can’t possibly form 7% more clouds without causing cooling of more than 1 degree….a negative feed back about 10 times higher than CO2 increase from 3 molecules per 10,000 to 4 molecules per 10,000….
Doug, logic says that it is a balancing act.
Moisture and Clouds in Particular reflect or absorb Very High, High, Medium and low Energy during the day.
But only absorb low energy leaving the Surface at Night.
So which logically would have most affect overall, it has to be the reduction of Very High and High Energy plus the rest during the day.
In fact I do not believe in any of the concensus so called Climate Science.
Take the claim that CO2 is a well mixed gas and they have Stations around the world showing that it is true.
Then we get the CO2 measuring Satellite and they make the mistake of showing us the the early results which show that it is not at all well mixed.
The Temp Data, now the Tide data all manipulated.
Magic Back Radiation from CO2 with more energy than sunlight.
It is all a concoction, the biggest scam in Human history.
The emissivity of a cumulus cloud is about 0.95. Its really not clear what you are trying to say.
Soory that was intended to be a reply to Leitwolf later in the thread.
A C Osborn, just picking on one of your points. Saying “Magic Back Radiation” is poor understanding on your part. The applicable equation is Q=(a constant) x (Thot^4 – Tcold^4) For our purposes T hot is ground temp and T cold is the ‘sky’ temp. The ‘back radiation’ is simply the (-Tcold^4) part of the equation. It is accepted by anyone with a science degree. Mathematically it is an appreciable number. But it is just a number in half of an equation. Use the whole equation and you find sunlight has almost three times the heat input as the above Net radiation equation shows. Which confirms what your senses feel on a sunny day. Convection and evaporation making up the rest. My concern is that bringing up back radiation without understanding it, is just a good way to lose the argument by very quickly showing a lack of science education.
Suppose, as Willis has noted, that short-term changes in daily cloud cover are part of a thermostat mechanism.
Suppose that these cloud changes occur at a time each day between minimum and maximum temperatures, as measured by historic thermometers.
Question. Given that historical reconstructions before about 1970 rely on Tmax and Tmin measurements, do we have adequate historical data to allow us to see the effects of clouds?
Alternatively, suppose that these cloud cover changes happen right on either Tmax or Tmin reading times for most days of the year. Similar questions arise.
The Tmax/Tmin method has long been held inferior to an ‘area under the curve’ approach. Indeed, that was the topic of my first ever climate blog comment, made many years ago now. Geoff
This is something I’ve been banging on about for years. First at the BBC (anybody else noted all Richard Blacks pieces have had the comments removed?), then at other places such as here https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/20/spencers-cloud-hypothesis-confirmed/#comment-1062038
I presume the CERN guys have demonstrated that cosmic ray variation changes cloud formation , type as well as amounts and this affects temperatures many times in magnitude more than any other ‘forcing’.
This is completely consistent with actual real temperature readings which show very slight increases in winter and nightimes balanced by slightly lower summer; overall producing very slight increases in overall annual averages.
Will this finally stop the zealots trying to wreck western economies? No chance, as its elite driven money aided by politicians who are running this. They need to keep the masses ‘believing’ to aid the policies of tax payers covering the downside of risk free investments. Can one ‘Trump’ figure stop this? Only if he manages to get reelected with the senate still under control and doesn’t get corrupted in the meantime.
Warm clothing futures look to be a safe bet.
[Invest at your own risk, no matter whether you believe me or believe me not, as your investments decisions are your own and due to your diligence, not mine! ]
“To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest.”
Dr Stephen Schneider
Leading greenhouse advocate, close friend of Al Gore AND major advisor to the IPCCC!
Clouds do drop Earths absorptivity by about 20%, as they make up for about 2/3 of the total albedo. However they have not the slightest impact on emissivity. I mean not in the common greenhouse model.
You can count clouds towards the surface, or account for them separately. What you must not do however, is treating clouds in opposite ways with regard to absorptivity and emissivity. While they are surface on the one side, they are not on the other side, and even worse, transform into a GHG.
All that non sense arrangement has been established to give us the GHE, which otherwise, rationally speaking, would hardly exist.
Unless this fundamental flaw in the theory is tackled, there is little point in discussing details of the dynamics of cloud forcing in a changing climate.
There is very little doubt about human-caused global warming. There’s a whole lot of doubt, however, that it’s due to carbon dioxide.
Given the reality of the past two decades of the “global warming hiatus,” with its elevated but statistically flat temperatures, while carbon dioxide continues upward unchecked, the long-trusted CO2/warming link is beginning to look rather like the emperor’s new clothes, i.e., less and less believable. Not helping at all is the fact that there’s not one hard-data-based study in the peer-reviewed literature that actually supports that link. Even Feldman, et al., 2015, so often cited as “hard proof” of the link, uses correlation and theoretical arguments to “prove” it. I know of a few hard-data-based studies, including one of my own, that actually disprove the link.
What, then, caused the “global warming” or “climate change” that everyone’s talking about? Climate scientists have no alternative to the old CO2/warming model. That’s why they’re so adamantly trying to prove that the “hiatus” never happened.
Let’s look at the actual temperature record. The only period during which global warming has unquestionably happened is between 1975 and 1998, when global temperature shot up by almost a centigrade degree. Since then, we’ve had the “hiatus” of lackluster warming (if any) and a couple of El Ninos, which don’t count. If you remember, 1975 to 1998 was just the time when we were filling the atmosphere with CFCs from spray cans. What do CFCs contain? Chlorine. What does chlorine do? It depletes ozone. What happens then? All the potent solar ultraviolet-B radiation that would otherwise destroy ozone penetrates to Earth’s surface and causes global warming (which it can certainly do if it can cause severe sunburn and genetic defects!) Why did it stop? The Montreal Protocol, which went into effect in the ’90s, banning further CFC production. Why is temperature still elevated? Because chlorine destroys ozone catalytically (i.e., it isn’t itself destroyed) and it has a long residence time in the atmosphere. I.e., the so-called “global warming hiatus” is likely to be in effect for several decades to come, so we’d better get used to it, but at least we really don’t need to worry about CO2, because it’s clearly not the problem.