Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach [See Update at the end]
Sometimes climate research is just plain funny. I wrote before about Irish rain and investigated whether there is any effect on the rain from the solar variations linked to sunspots. I was looking for evidence that the Svensmark hypothesis is true. Svensmark said that changes in the heliomagnetic field related to the sunspot cycle affect the number of cosmic rays (true), and that this, in turn, affects the number of clouds (unproven). I found no evidence of any such effects in the Irish rainfall data.
In response, folks said a) rain is not the proper measure of the Svensmark effect, I should look at clouds instead, and b) I should look at some place that is drier than Ireland, where it’s basically all clouds all the time.
Fair enough, reasonable objections. So I thought I’d see what other cloud datasets I could find in drier areas. Since I’d already looked (unsuccessfully) for evidence of the Svensmark effect in US cloud data, I went to see what I could find about clouds in Australia. I found some good data, but along the way, I read something pretty hilarious. It had to do with what is called the “pan evaporation” data.
The idea behind pan evaporation is simple. Put some water in a pan. See how fast it evaporates. This measurement involves wind, temperature, humidity, solar input, and rainfall. It’s an important measure for farmers, who use it to determine when and how much to water their crops.
Figure 1. Flat pan-type container used to collect pan evaporation data, along with an anemometer to measure wind speed.
When I saw a link to the Australian pan evaporation data, I thought hmmm, that could be interesting. So I took a look … and found a truly funny statement, viz:
However, the installation of birdguards on the pans during the late 1960s and early 1970s is known to have created an inhomogeneity in the climate record.
Ya think??
Seriously, they put out pans of water to see how fast they evaporated and they didn’t do anything to stop birds from drinking the water? Gotta love climate science. But I digress …
I did find cloud data, from what is called the ACORN-SAT network of climate stations. This is a network of high-quality stations with longer-term records. The ACORN-SAT data is here. Figure 2 shows the locations of the ACORN-SAT stations.
Figure 2. Locations of the ACORN-SAT Australian climate stations
Now, the indefatigable Joanne Nova has done sterling work over at her blog showing that the temperature records from the ACORN-SAT networks have been … well … let me call it “massaged” and leave it at that. It’s a shame.
But I doubt greatly whether any such massaging has been done with the cloud data, because clouds are not political like the temperature data is.
So I went and got the cloud data. Actually, it is very detailed, in that they have recorded cloud coverage both in the morning (9AM) and the afternoon (3PM). I downloaded the data, which turns out to be a total of 888 separate files … urgg. So I girded my loins and started writing computer code. I identified all of the files containing monthly cloud data for both mornings and afternoons, that’s 260 files. I extracted them, did some simple QC on them, and saved them as a pair of CSV files (morning and afternoon clouds) so folks could look at them without the hassle I had extracting them. The data runs from July 1954 to April 2015.
Once I had the cloud data, I did a straight average on them. Yes, I could probably get a more refined answer by doing some kind of geographically-weighted average, but a straight average is generally more than adequate for this type of analysis.
Then I created a periodogram of the average Australian morning and afternoon clouds, and compared that to a periodogram of the sunspots for the same period. Figure 3 shows that result:
Figure 3. Periodograms, Australian clouds and sunspots.
Once again I don’t find any sign of any relationship between the sunspots and the clouds. The clouds have the usual variety of small cycles that you find in any natural dataset, including one at 12 years … but during the period the sunspot cycles were at ten and a half years. Close, but no cigar … and close only counts in horseshoes. And hand grenades. But this is neither one of those.
So, nothing to see regarding the Svensmark effect. However, there is more to be seen in the Aussie cloud data. For starters, my hypothesis that clouds and thunderstorms act to regulate the temperature implies that cloudiness should increase with temperature. And since temperatures are higher at 3PM than at 9AM, my hypothesis would suggest that there should be more clouds in the afternoon than in the morning. I’ve shown elsewhere that this is generally true in the wet tropics, but not in a mostly desert landmass like Australia. Here is the distribution of the morning and the afternoon Australian clouds …
Figure 4. Boxplots, Australian morning and afternoon clouds. Heavy black lines show medians. If the notches of two plots do not overlap this is ‘strong evidence’ that the two medians differ (Chambers et al, 1983, p. 62). “Whiskers” extend out 1.5 times the interquartile range. Circles are outliers.
Clearly, there are more clouds in Australia in the afternoon when it is warmer, as my hypothesis implies.
How much difference will the cloudiness make in the amount of sunlight that gets past the clouds to the surface? We can estimate this by using the CERES data. Here is the scatterplot of Australian cloud coverage (%) and Australian cloud solar reflections (W/m2).
Figure 5. Scatterplot, CERES monthly cloud coverage (%) and cloud solar reflections (W/m2) for Australia.
Now, the average difference between morning and afternoon clouds in Australia is 4.6% … which would imply a decrease in afternoon sunshine on the order of 4.6 W/m2. This is a significant amount of cooling.
There’s another way to consider this, again using the CERES data. This is to look at the relationship between the cloud reflections and the temperature.
Figure 6. Scatterplot, CERES monthly cloud coverage (%) and temperature (°C) for Australia.
This shows that in Australia when the temperature goes up by 1°C, the increased clouds reflect an additional 1.4 W/m2. Again, this is in agreement with my hypothesis about the clouds being part of the temperature regulating system.
Finally, note that this is just one of the ways that the cooling increases with the clouds. In addition to the change in the amount of reflected sunlight, there are the effects of rain and thunderstorms. Both of these cool the surface strongly through a variety of effects. See my post entitled Air Conditioning Nairobi, Refrigerating The Planet for a discussion of these effects.
So that’s the result of my wandering around the Australia outback … no sunspot effects on the clouds, and increasing clouds with temperature. Plus a good laugh about the birds drinking out of the Australian evaporation pans …
My best regards to all of my Aussie mates, it’s a great country with interesting folks. If you haven’t visited there you should … and if you are Down Under and you need a tattoo, and who doesn’t need one, go see my mate Tu and his lovely wife Ify, they are both fantastic artists.
And of course, warmest wishes to everyone,
w.
PS: As always, I politely request that you quote the exact words that you are discussing, so we can all be clear who and what you are talking about. Misunderstandings are the bane of the internet. Plus, if you wish to refute something you need to quote exactly what it is that you are refuting. I ask politely, but if you don’t quote what you are talking about, I may indeed cast aspersions on your cranial horsepower or the personal habits of your antecedents …
[UPDATE] A commenter asked to see the CEEMD analysis of the Australian clouds. Here it is …
As you can see, there is no solar signal visible in the cloud data.
A bit off topic but within the subject matter of temperature records.
This is the data from Augusta GA where they have been playing the Masters Golf tournament since 1935.
1935-2017 data from the same place at the same time each year (within a week or so) and untouched.
It needs to be enlarged and perhaps someone can fit it into this blog. Looks like no sign of any warming for 82 years.
https://www.sercc.com/MastersClimo.pdf
Good find.
Gonna be a temp rollercoaster this year there. Just sayin…..
The Masters is never off topic :). I remember walking home from school in the mid1950s when the temperature was in the 70s here excited to be watching the Masters on our 19 inch B&W TV. This morning I notice snow on the ground. The lows Friday and Saturday here are predicted to be 16F and 17F.
The only thing that has changed about the Masters for golf nuts like me is that I will be watching it on a 55 inch color TV instead of a 19 inch B&W. However, this year the warmth of Augusta will look so much more attractive and inviting than the cold outside my window.
Cloud formation by GCRs modulated by solar magnetic flux has been observed repeatedly in nature and verified in the lab experimentally:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/25/svensmark-publishes-solar-activity-has-a-direct-impact-on-earths-cloud-cover/
https://home.cern/about/experiments/cloud
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/kirkby_cern_slideshow09.pdf
To the best of my knowledge, the latest from CERN is our polluted atmosphere forms clouds readily enough that GCRs aren’t needed.
But prior to 1800 or so, that wasn’t true and GCRs had a major effect.
Yes, we do have many sources of CCNs now.
CERN concluded in 2016 that ionization is still a source of CCNs, but not enough to affect climate at the present:
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6316/1119
Fundamental questions remain about the origin of newly formed atmospheric aerosol particles because data from laboratory measurements have been insufficient to build global models. In contrast, gas-phase chemistry models have been based on laboratory kinetics measurements for decades. We built a global model of aerosol formation by using extensive laboratory measurements of rates of nucleation involving sulfuric acid, ammonia, ions, and organic compounds conducted in the CERN CLOUD (Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets) chamber. The simulations and a comparison with atmospheric observations show that nearly all nucleation throughout the present-day atmosphere involves ammonia or biogenic organic compounds, in addition to sulfuric acid. A considerable fraction of nucleation involves ions, but the relatively weak dependence on ion concentrations indicates that for the processes studied, variations in cosmic ray intensity do not appreciably affect climate through nucleation in the present-day atmosphere.
That is very interesting. I remember reading years back a convincing argument that the glacial and interglacial periods match closely with the motion of the sun through the galactic spiral arms.
“…and close only counts in horseshoes. And hand grenades.”
You forgot nuclear weapons. Close counts with them, too. 😄
Great minds think alike .. or maybe sub sailors do ?
In fact any explosive device.
and artillery, mortars, carpet bombing, cluster munitions, MOBs …
And dancing!
If you’d ever seen me dance, you’d retract that statement in a New York minute.
“Close” counts in horseshoes , hand grenades …..and nuclear weapons …..
Chimp April 3, 2018 at 2:58 pm
Here’s my comment on your first link with the claim that the effect has been seen in the atmosphere:
The second link does NOT show that it works in the lab. It actually says nothing other than that they were going to try the experiment.
The third link shows little about the modern climate other than repeating unverified claims made by Holgate, which I showed were not true in Sunspots and Sea Level. It does contain claims about what happened a million years ago … really? You believe that kind of thing? If the relationship were actually there, you wouldn’t have to look back a million years with proxy data to show it—you’d show it with real data in modern times.
Finally, no one has ever explained the following graph:
People wave their hands and say things about “the lag” … but sliding the HadCRUT data to the right to emulate a lag does NOT make anything better, so clearly it’s not due to any kind of lag.
Regards,
w.
Willis,
Your concern about when to begin the time integration of solar irradiance is easily alleviated. Start at the peak or trough of whichever solar cycle interests you, ie the Schwabe, Hale, Wolf-Gleissberg, etc.
Signature of Hale and Gleissberg solar cycles in the geomagnetic activity
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/envirophilo/signature.pdf
Oh, man, another foolish paper that uses an 11-year boxcar filter on sunspot data … note how in the top right corner of Figure 2, their inane averaging has created peaks where the data shows troughs, and vice versa. Useless.
Next, they claim that the so-called “Glessberg Cycle” is 88 years … in fact, various authors have claimed lengths from 65 to over 100 years for the cycle, so they are just picking a value that happens to agree with their preconceptions.
You truly need to start reading these more closely before citing them, Chimp, and dial up your skepticism. Just because a study agrees with your preconceived ideas about sunspots does NOT mean that it is good science …
w.
Willis,
You really ought to study solar literature before presuming to comment upon it.
The authors here use the Gleissberg Cycle as observed for the interval of their study.
As with the shorter cycles, its quasiperiod varies around 80 years. The Gleissberg cycle most often is considered a 78-year cycle. Its limits are normally 72 and 83 years (but at times 90), according to the Schove rules, ie ~six to seven Jovian years.
https://geoscienceenvironment.wordpress.com/2015/10/23/the-gleissberg-cycle-of-solar-activity/
However Feynman and Ruzmaikin did find a recent 90-100 year version of the cycle, also noted during the millennium c. AD 450-1450:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/2013JA019478
The recent extended minimum of solar and geomagnetic variability (XSM) mirrors the XSMsin the nineteenth and twentieth centuries: 1810–1830 and 1900–1910. Such extended minima also wereevident in aurorae repor ted from 450 A.D. to 1450 A.D. This paper argues that these minima are consistentwith minima of the Centennial Gleissberg Cycles (CGCs), a 90–100 year variation observed on the Sun, in thesolar wind, at the Earth, and throughout the heliosphere. The occurrence of the recent XSM is consistentwith the existence of the CGC as a quasiperiodic variation of the solar dynamo. Evidence of CGCs is providedby the multicentury sunspot record, by the almost 150 year record of indexes of geomagnetic activity(1868 to present), by 1000 years of observations of aurorae (from 450 to 1450 A.D.) and millennial recordsof radionuclides in ice cores. The aa index of geomagnetic activity carries information about the twocomponents of the solar magnetic field (toroidal and poloidal), one driven by flares and coronal massejections (related to the toroidal field) and the other driven by corotating interaction regions in the solarwind (related to the poloidal field). These two components systematically vary in their intensit y and relativephase giving us information about centennial changes of the sources of solar dynamo during the recentCGC over the last century. The dipole and quadrupole modes of the solar magnetic field changed in relativeamplitude and phase; the quadrupole mode became more important as the XSM was approached. Someimplications for the solar dynamo theory are discussed
Based on the proposed mechanism for causing the increased cloudiness, there really shouldn’t be a lag longer than the time required for the magnetic fields to adjust to incoming ions from the Sun, so days, not years.
You also can’t see any reason for the global cooling scare in the HadCRUT but you do in the sunspot number.
I also have huge doubts about the satellite measurements. We are talking about global average changing by a fraction of a degree so most of the extreme cold weather is negated by above average temperature elsewhere but you still have to wonder if the numbers are right. Even here in Australia, extreme unseasonal frosts are not only claimed to be consistent with global warming but a finger print of global warming.
Robert B April 3, 2018 at 5:11 pm
I have absolutely no idea who “you” is, or what your babbling about HadCRUT means. QUOTE THE WORDS YOU ARE DISCUSSING, YOU HOCKEY PUCK!
w.
Willis …. to repeat the known, if you take that hadcrut line and rotate it clockwise so it is flat as it most likely is in reality, and eliminate the further adjustments at the end that was made to bring the data closer in line with the mainstream catastrophe theory ….. there’s actually a pretty good match of the peaks and troughs. …. yeah, if you think I believe in the accuracy of that trend, I have some ocean front property I’ll sell you in Kansas. 🙂
But on topic, nice analysis …. though you’ll never find truth when using the crap that is assumed to be climate data sets. Cheers.
Dr Deanster April 3, 2018 at 5:58 pm
Doc, you are correct. If you take the HadCRUT data, which I’ve shown several times to be in close agreement with the UAH MSU data during the time in question, and also agrees with the GISS and the Berkeley Earth data over that period, and you twist it and rotate it until it agrees with your theory, guess what?
It will then agree with your theory.
Gosh … that’s so very impressive …
w.
You make it sound as if I’m just pulling that out of thin air. I recall numerous analyses, debates, etc, that show that 1930s were as warm as 1998. …. that’s the rotation I was talking about.
I can offer my semiempirical model to explain the Sunspot and Hadcrut temperature for a non-existing relationship. Of course I have changed the rules of the game: the temperature is not Hadcrut (because I do not believe in it) but a conbined from the Natinal Academy of Science graph with mainly UAH, when they were afraid of ice age. The sunspot has been replaced by TSI (Total Sun Irradiance) with the amplification by GCR+clouds ( amplified by about 4.3 times). This is not good enough but you need the AHR (Astronomic Harmonic Resonance) signal as well. Then you get a pretty good graphs having a strong correlation.
Too many assumptions? Yes, it is is a theory. So far I have not seen any other than AHR signal explaining the temperature peak of 1930s – and 2000s as well. I sticked my neck out that after 2020 temperature will start to decline. IPCC says that no way. We will see.
You probably have already discussed this elsewhere, but different clouds effect sunlight differently. Flat gray clouds make a landscape dull and drab, (but sometimes increase visibility) but white, puffy cumulus can be all but blinding. I read of cumulus messing up some sort of sunshine detector so that it was reading 110% of available sunshine.
In conclusion, I think we need more funding for more sensitive instruments. Please remit in a brown paper bag.
Fig 3. Morning and Evening Clouds are obviously correlated. Unsurprisingly.
But Sunspots do seem to have a pull on the clouds. – at least over the four year cycles.
From an eyeball a graph of above average and below average for all the cycles would look like they would correlate very well.
OK. That throws our magnitudes. That throws out all those mini-epicycles. But is that really losing a lot?
Hi Willis, can I suggest a further refinement, try splitting the data by latitude.
From my experience “Warmer in the afternoon” is far more pronounced at higher latitudes, like Melbourne.
At lower latitudes the blazing tropical sun usually warms everything close to maximum temperature well before midday.
High humidity level has a strong effect on earlier ground level tropical morning heat. On lower humidity days the temp rise is much more gradual.
I agree with Eric Worrall I live in Melbourne (37 South) and summer and autumn days frequently start cloudy but end up with clear sunny skies by mid afternoon However as a fairly regular visitor to the Gold Coast (28 South) with 9 degrees difference I have experienced the opposite pattern occurs daily, usually starting with sunny still mornings followed by cloudy windy afternoons-often sufficient to cause bathers to leave the great surf beaches for the bars and coffee shops
Eric, Willis – what about longitude? Eliminating the clearly different climate of the eastern coastal strip, and maybe also the extreme west, Might concentrate any effects the desert climate has in the results. Maybe not the sunspots, but cloudiness v temperature am/pm, as Willis surmised in the head post?
Thanks to Willis once again for doing the hard yards- love your challenging look at things
In figure 6, the reflectance is generally below your straight line and it crosses it around 28-30 C. Isn’t this an indication of a thermostat type action ?
Hi Willis, I think any funding for this type of research serves all people with the change for a better life, when we understand science. Thank you.
http://legendsbooksmythschocolateandcoffee.com
Close also counts in curling, which is a
ALL about being closest to the pin.
And it counts in Tiddly-winks.
And in crokinole, pitchnut, carrom, marbles, shove ha’penny, archery and shuffleboard, in the final tally. And probably dozens more.
While initial results from the CERN experiments have been promising, I still don’t see the Svensmark effect as a major driver of climate. However, I would reiterate two points about trying to detect the effect in climate data that have been repeatedly made by Svensmark and others:
1. The Svensmark effect is supposed to increase cloud due to cascading cosmic rays providing additional cloud seeding nucli. As such, this effect should only be noticeable over the oceans where other cloud nucleation particles are lowest. Over land, dust and pollen dominate. Looking for the Svensmark effect in cloud data over land will yield little.
2. Svensmark has proposed that a decrease in cloud may be detectable after a Forbush event where there is a sudden reduction in cosmic rays. But this would only be detectable in an open ocean location where there was a site specific cosmic ray count, the Forbush decease was significant (~20%) and the air was known to saturated.
While I am not convinced that the Svensmark effect is a major driver of climate, I do note that many have indicated just a 2% decrease in cloud cover over the oceans would account for all slight warming since the end of the Little Ice Age. However I am convinced that the Svensmark effect cannot be dismissed by comparing cloud cover over land to sunspot data.
The air over some ocean areas get dust from land, such as some of the tropical and subtropical North Atlantic getting dust from the Sahara. Also there are ocean areas downwind of areas with lots of industry, motor traffic, farms with automotive machinery, buildings heated by coal or older tech oil furnaces, or plants that produce airborne pollen. Ocean areas where cosmic ray variation are a major factor for the amount of cloud formation could be rather limited.
You raise valid points. Modern pollution, especially that from China, has a huge footprint over the ocean. Dust from the Sahara is found in the soil of the Amazon.
My choice of observation zone would be mid Pacific in the ITCZ.
I wouldn’t choose “down the back of the sofa”, as in “I can’t find the Svensmark effect down the back of the sofa, therefore it doesn’t exist”. I found my car keys down the back of the sofa once, but it’s not the place I’d hope to find evidence of the solar influence on climate. Looking at cloud cover over land for the Svensmark effect is looking down the back of the sofa.
For many WUWT readers, the whole “I can’t find solar influence on climate in icecream sales figures” routine is getting old and it lost its comedy value long ago.
“my wandering around the Australia outback”
But did you get bitten by a redback? You haven’t been properly outback unless you’ve found a redback in the dunny.
or been attacked by a drop bear….
Hi Willis – love your posts.
I have an idea – since the Svensmark effect is driven by ionizing radiation – let’s take our radioactive waste and put it in permanent orbit around the Earth. Two birds with one stone!
It is likely that if you continue to look where you are reasonably certain you won’t find anything that is exactly what you will find, a form of negative confirmation bias. It appears that stratospheric ozone plays some part in the climatology of the Jet stream https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/1352231094900213,
the Jet stream certainly plays a role in weather.
Could there possibly be an 11 year signal in the stratospheric ozone?
Gibo April 3, 2018 at 5:21 pm
Gibo, that is a pile of reeking shite. I have asked over and over for people to send me two links—one to the study that they think shows the strongest evidence for the solar effect on surface weather, and the other to the data used in that study. My only constraints were that I wanted studies of the surface where we live, not the atmosphere where we don’t live, and that I won’t deal with reanalysis “data” because it’s not data at all.
And when people have actually done that, I’ve looked at their pet studies and found piles and piles of unsupported claims, horrendous statistical errors, cherry picking, and a host of other problems.
After doing that over and over and over, looking not where I want to but where people say the effect is to be found, for you to accuse me of looking where I’m “certain I won’t find anything” marks you as both ignorant and vindictive. Here’s a protip—that ugly stuff you’re hearing is just the voices in your head. It has nothing to do with me.
I just showed that there is an 11-year signal in the stratospheric temperatures, so there may well be such a signal in the stratospheric ozone … but the claims are all about how the sunspot cycles affect the temperature down here at the surface, so that’s what I’ve asked for.
Next time, do your damn homework before you launch into attack mode … all it has done for you this time is to make people point and laugh at your ignorance.
w.
Willis Says
My only constraints were that I wanted studies of the surface where we live, not the atmosphere where we don’t live
My sincere apologies, I was not trying to be in attack mode.
Is it not possible that changes in the stratosphere can have an effect on the troposphere?
Erl Happ mentions this on his Blog..
Gordon Dobson, who developed the use of a spectrophotometer almost a century ago, to measure total column ozone, discovered that ozone distribution mapped surface atmospheric pressure with 25% less ozone in the core of a high pressure system than at its perimeter. Zones of low surface pressure exhibit the highest total column ozone. Plainly there is more ozone in the upper air, and the stratosphere is warmer when surface pressure is low. A cold core polar cyclone is a warm core polar cyclone aloft. Is it not the warming aloft that drives uplift? Indeed, warming in the stratosphere is linked to the creation of polar cyclones.
https://reality348.wordpress.com/2015/12/20/how-do-we-know-things/
See also https://reality348.wordpress.com/2016/09/12/39-influence-of-cosmic-rays-on-the-global-circulation-of-the-atmosphere-and-surface-temperature/
I do understand that I have not provided the two links that you demand… my apologies again.
Gibo, you are a gentleman to apologize, and your apology is accepted without reservation.
Yes, things in the stratosphere can indeed affect the surface … I’ve just never found any surface dataset where the sunspot signal is visible.
Thanks again,
w.
I’m not pointing and laughing at Gibo’s ignorance. Cloud cover over land was the perfect place not to find the Svensmark effect.
Now, who to point and laugh at? Anyone who still accepts “Surface Tav of 255K for Earth without radiative atmosphere”.
Well I can’t point and laugh at Viscount Monckton. He says that figure is too low. (And he’s right).
I suppose that only leaves Mr. W and Dr. S.
I don’t know what the author wants to say from this article? Cause and effect have always present some type of lag — solar-sunspot 10.5 years cycle and cloud 12.0 cycle.
I studied sunspot cycle presence in solar and net radiation over some Indian stations as back as 1977 [Indian Journal of Radio & Space Phys., 6:60-66]. They showed the presence of 10.5 plus or minus 0.5 year cycle and its multiples; as well sub-multiples with less significance. .
I presented a method to estimate sunshine from cloud amount — Solar Energy (Pergamon Press): 15:281-285 (1974).
Summary of papers on estimation of global solar radiation and evaporation through precipitation [cube root of precipitation) (over northeast Brazil) were presented in Solar Energy, 38:97-104 (1987).
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
I don’t believe a periodogram is sensitive to lags. If one signal lags another by a fixed amount it still has the same period. It’s just shifted in phase.
There’s a reason why shallow pans of water outdoors are called bird ‘baths’. The birdies are doing more than just drinking. Those little blighters throw it all over the place, while they’re getting bathed and refreshed!
An interesting analysis, Willis! Thanks.
This shows that in Australia when the temperature goes up by 1°C, the increased clouds reflect an additional 1.4 W/m2. Again, this is in agreement with my hypothesis about the clouds being part of the temperature regulating system
Won’t the clouds also direct more IR back towards the surface via BB radiation? Any data on that?
The theory is based on cloud radiative impact “declining” by 0.7 W/m2 per 1.0C change in temperatures.
This is really based on the idea that low clouds decline per 1.0C increase in temperatures. You are not getting a decline in low clouds if reflection increases by 1.4 W/M2. That means clouds increased.
There would have to be an offsetting 2.1 W/m2 increase in clouds holding in out-going radiation for that to happen. And we know cloud reflection of solar radiation is about 2 times bigger than the cloud holding in of out-going radiation so that would be extremely unlikely to occur. But climate science will not give up on this feedback effect because it is crucial for the math to work at 3.0C per doubling. AND, they will simply NOT measure it just in case the sign goes the other way. Perhaps Willis can run the numbers for Australia here. My guess is it is still a strong negative feedback rather than a positive feedback.
There is no doubt that clouds are part of the temperature regulating system. Anyone who has ever been outside, especially in Australia, will agree with this idea. I would regard your hypothesis about the clouds being part of the temperature regulating system as sound.
Simple birdbathology would tell these taxpayer funded meteorologists that birds not only drink drink water that has been conveniently laid on for them but they also enthusiastically bath in it, splashing large amounts of the wet stuff out onto the ground.
Willis in another lifetime I held a private pilot’s license and flew single engine land planes, e.g.,, Cessna 172 and Piper Archer, all on business and pleasure. Weather was always a consideration and all major airports issued forecasts daily, updated during the day/evening. Since I was never Instrument-rated I could only legally fly under VFR ( visual flight rules ). One of the criteria for VFR was cloud cover—the extent of which was forecasted, as well as the altitude. I have to believe that information is archived at the FAA ( Federal Aviation Administration ) or its weather affiliate whoever that was in the 1980s and going forward. I can’t guarantee the extent of archiving or where to start your search but I’m certain there is someone on this site that might offer you some direction. That might provide the United States cloud cover information you seek.
Yeah mate, the effect is known as the pan evaporation parrot-dox down here! 😉
Ah, Scott, I do miss that good Aussie humor …
Thanks,
w.
You should have signed off with “Good eye mite.”
Ta, mate! 😉
You could treat the oceans as a giant pan.if you could keep the budgies out. But as always, it’s the plague of penguins that really does yer head in.
Have you considered resolving clouds against barometric pressure as well as temperature? That is have temperature and barometric pressure as the independent variables and cloudiness as the dependent variable.
Low pressure systems are often accompanied by hot weather and cloudiness, and high pressure systems the opposite, with cold southerlies and often not a lot of cloud. This should bring out the dependence of cloudiness upon temperature even more, I think.
So often I see a focus only on cloud effect during daylight hours. What about night? IME A cloud free atmosphere at night results in more rapid cooling than when cloudy. At any one time 50% of Earth is in shade
Re: cooling by thunderstorms. I worked for 12 months in Darfur. For several months thunderstorms would last for several hours from late afternoon through to about 10 pm, every night. Thunder was a consistent growl with flickering light that lit up ones bedroom as though there was a faulty street light right outside. It was as though a mighty artillery battle was in force. Wonderful
Regards
m