[update from a reader 10/23/2021: Message: Regarding the quotation in Kenneth Richards’ Oct 18 article “2001-2019 Warming Driven By Increases In Absorbed Solar Radiation, Not Human Emissions.” While I am a climate skeptic, it worries me to see that the author quotes the Loed, et al report incorrectly. (https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2021GL093047)
The full statement in the report is “This trend is primarily due to an increase in absorbed solar radiation associated with decreased reflection by clouds and sea-ice and a decrease in outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) due to increases in trace gases and water vapor.” Richards left out everything after the word “clouds.” CO2 is one of the trace gases, and according to this report, its heat-trapping propensity in the atmosphere is equally important as a cause of global warming as “decreased reflection by clouds.” I also note that there are theoretical connections between decreased cloud cover and increased levels of CO2.~cr]
Reposted from the NoTricksZone
By Kenneth Richard on 18. October 2021
Three new studies affirm the increase in absorbed solar radiation associated with decreased reflection by clouds (albedo) has been the “root cause” of the positive Earth Energy Imbalance and global warming since the early 2000s.
Scientists (Loeb et al., 2021) have determined the rather uncertain positive trend in Earth’s Energy Imbalance (EEI) from 2005 to 2019, 0.5 W/m² ±0.47 W/m² per decade−1, is “primarily due to an increase in absorbed solar radiation associated with decreased reflection by clouds.”
CERES satellite data indicate clouds and surface albedo account for 89% of the absorbed solar radiation trend in the 21st century, whereas anthropogenic greenhouse gases account for but a tiny fraction of the trends in combined absorbed solar radiation and greenhouse effect forcing (reductions in emitted thermal radiation) during this period.
This very small human emissions/greenhouse gas impact is represented by the red “Other” (“trace gases”) bars in the graph below. In emitted thermal radiation, graph (e) shows the greenhouse gas impact is effectively offset by the cloud influence; both factors are cancelled out by temperature changes. This leaves the increase in absorbed solar radiation shown in graph (d) due to natural variations in clouds and surface albedo (SFC) as the primary driver(s) of top-of-atmosphere (TOA) flux forcing during the last two decades.
Image Source: Loeb et al., 2021
Other scientists (Dübal and Vahrenholt, 2021) have also concluded that the positive TOA net flux (+1.42 W/m²) from increasing downwelling shortwave (SW) facilitated by a drop in cloudiness has been the “major driving effect,” “dominating influence,” and “major heating cause” explaining the 2001-2019 ocean heat content increase (240 ZJ).
The authors note these CERES satellite observations “conflict with the assumption further global warming originates mainly from the LW [longwave] radiation capture caused by greenhouse gases, i.e., a decline in outgoing LW.” In fact, the LW or greenhouse effect impact has been negative; it has contributed a net cooling influence (-1.1 W/m²) over the last two decades.
Image Source: Dübal and Vahrenholt, 2021
The summarizing text from another new study (Ollila, 2021) bluntly asserts the substantial increase in downwelling SW radiation from 2000-2019 demonstrates “there are natural climate drivers that have rapid and significant temperature impacts exceeding the anthropogenic drivers,” and that any temperature increase since 2015-’16 “cannot be due to anthropogenic reasons.”
Image Source: Ollila, 2021
These newer studies affirming the 21st increase in absorbed solar radiation has driven modern warming are further substantiated by a 2020 Nature journal paper (Delgado-Bonal et al., 2020) extending the positive (+3 W/m²) cloud-albedo SW impact back to 1980.
[S]hortwave radiation is the main driver in the dynamics and plays a major role in the energy balance by affecting the longwave radiation field.”
“Our research supports the idea that clouds and albedo, which ultimately determine the SW radiation, are variables of the utmost importance for current climate change, in agreement with previous research about the changes in stratocumulus or energy imbalance in the last four decades for example. An increase in cloud coverage of 0.1 would, on average, lead to a 7% increase in spectrally integrated global average reflectance of shortwave radiation.”
Thank you, Kenneth 👍
From the article: “In emitted thermal radiation, graph (e) shows the greenhouse gas impact is effectively offset by the cloud influence”
THIS is the control knob of the Earth’s temperatures.
I think people need to realise, it can take some time for a climate to warm up, as from 1850 to the 1920s/30s but cooling as in the early 1940s can happen almost overnight., The strange thing, looking back, is that if Hitler had attacked Russia in the 1930s then he may have actually won. By the time he did, in 1941, it had started to cool off and if you are talking about a cooling Russian winter then you know you are in trouble.
Now all we have to do is to get somebody in power to listen, understand and act.
Small to nil chance of that happening.
Three new studies affirm the increase in absorbed solar radiation associated with decreased reflection by clouds (albedo) has been the “root cause” of the positive Earth Energy Imbalance and global warming since the early 2000s.
Clouds? They have a parameter for those.
And that’s what happens when true scientific analysis is hijacked by false models and experts – disastrous public policies follow. This is the equivalent of accusing a man for murder and imprisoning him for 20 years or more, just to find out that he was ultimately innocent.
From the article: “In fact, the LW or greenhouse effect impact has been negative; it has contributed a net cooling influence (-1.1 W/m²) over the last two decades.”
My, my. What do you know about that. Ole Muller had it right.
Interesting, thanks for reposting. Although for these papers to pose reduction in cloud cover as the ‘root’ cause is a bit odd. In root cause analysis you keep asking why-why-why?. Cloud cover reduces as a result/consequence of something as well (likely very complex), so the root must lie deeper than this. Are there any hypotheses why cloud cover is reducing (as evidenced by Ceres).
Or this is a correlation, rather than a root cause?
So I guess this not only blows up the greenhouse gas warming of the atmosphere as being the control knob of the Earth’s temperatures, but it also blows up the claims of the Global Cooling Club that aerosols are the reason for cooling periods.
Now can we stop wasting Trillions of dollars on trying to regulate CO2, since it doesn’t need to be regulated?
To make up for the loss of the IPCC, maybe the UN can form a new group to study how to control clouds. No, we better not give them any ideas. Look how badly they have screwed up the first time they tried to regulate the Earth’s temperatures.
Less cloud, less oceanic stratocumulus. So why?
A) Oil and surfactant smooths reducing wave breaking and hence salt aerosols.
B) Stratification reduces productivity and hence DMS production.
C) Nitrate run-off alters phytoplankton ecology, less DMS.
D) Dissolved silica run-off altering the phytoplankton ecology.
JF
Interesting to put this with the 99% study. The summary of the papers here shows the complexity of the science when it comes to global climate and causes and influences of trends.
To put it, as the 99% paper does, in terms of for or against some ill defined proposition is a religious or political and not a scientific approach.
The question should not be, are you a believer or a denier. It should be, how does this thing work in all its complexity.
Actuality:
They’re Measuring Snow In The FEET Across The Rocky Mountains, Coldest Early-October Day In [At Least] 125 Years Strikes Seattle, as Historic Cold Keeps China Coal Prices High
The Rocky Mountains have received their first big snowfalls of the season, weeks ahead of schedule.
Since Monday, October 11 parts of Montana, Idaho, Wyoming and Utah have received well over 2 feet of early-season snow, with higher elevations receiving much, much more.
This is an unsettling report for the science is settled issue of Climate Change. I wonder how much of a discussion it will have at COP26? I am 99.9% certain that will be ZERO.
First let me say I am skeptical on most ‘Climate Change’ claims. Because the solutions are ridiculous, and the claims of how the world is going to end is equally foolish, if we had adults i nthe room instead of politicians and fear mongering it would be better.
I am however also skeptical of claims that man, including CO2 emissions are entirely negligible. I would argue that saying a half degree to a little over that since Pre-industrial times being caused by mankind by land-use, CO2 emissions etc and so on is ENTIRELY plausible. Of course additional warming due to CO2 is going to be negligible, in point of fact it is almost impossible short of amplifying the warming from CO2 by a factor of 10 to cause much more warming than we have had already, not only that but anytime I only hear that something is ONLY bad, I sort of find it disingenuous. Science does not measure the VALUE of something in terms of good or bad, People do.
HOWEVER the panic over said increase in temperature is not. Nor is the idea that the temperature is on some kind of amplified feedback loop that is going to take us to 6+ degrees Celsius.
These papers in many ways will still be interpreted by the Climate Change community as evidence of the feedback loop caused by CO2 and not natural… Which is simply the way the world looks at ‘Climate Change’ now.
Interesting reads however.
CERN, the site that operates the Large Hadron Collider, has a long term project to investigate how aerosols in the atmosphere influence clouds behaviour and performance.
It is not only the IPCC who pay scant attention to how the largest greenhouse gas affects the planet. Not many articles come to WUWT readers attention either.
Please, more, more, more, on what the geographers of a century ago referred to as “atmospheric cloudiness”…_
Well, I will be sure to tune in CBS News tonight to listen to Norah O’Donnell breathlessly exclaim that CO2 is not the control knob of global temperature as previously thought, and that the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been dissolved, and governments around the world can forget about the 2015 Paris agreement and regulating CO2 and methane, So . . . .
How much of the reduction in cloud reflection is related to the Clean Air Acts over the past 50 years and the reduction of SO2 which is known to cause cloud nucleation? Does anyone know?
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Termination-Shock-prescient-bestselling-author-ebook/dp/B08VR9QTD9/ the propaganda continues
Awesome…. thanks. Love it! Solar Variation does impact the Earth’s atmospheric temps. I knew it wasn’t a pristine random dynamic despoiled by the descendants of Adam and Eve. LOL
Rows and flows of angel hair
And ice cream castles in the air
And feather canyons everywhere
Looked at clouds that way
But now they only block the sun
They rain and they snow on everyone
So many things I would have done
But clouds got in my way
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
does that mean Lynas’ number is now down to 99.8% ?
The increase of absorption of solar radiation has a cause. Climate models predicted this, and this is one of the few things they got right. Related to this is something climate models got wrong, was overstated water vapor feedback, due to being tuned to hindcast the past (especially the 30 years before their hindcast/forecast transitions) without considering multidecadal oscillations (during times when upswing of multidecadal oscillations caused some of the warming), which caused overstatement of positive feedbacks especially the water vapor feedback.
The reduction in cloud cover did have an effect on ASR, however it wasn’t the main cause.
These studies miss there is more to ASR than just clouds, so their conclusions are helpful but not definitive. For example there isn’t any connection made in these studies to the state of the solar activity between 2001-2019, or the effect of the solar cycles on cloudiness.
My contention with the authors is they set clouds up to be the independent variable, when my research shows extended low solar activity yields cooler tropical temperatures and fewer clouds, while higher solar activity drives warming and more clouds. This is part and parcel of the ‘solar cycle influence on the ocean’. Clouds are therefore the dependent variable.
The fact of the matter is decadal warming only occurs when TSI is high enough. Lower TSI over time – excluding the solar maximum years, did not increase the temperature. After the 2015/16 El Nino, which my research shows was caused by the solar maximum TSI of SC24, there has been no additional ocean warming (beyond the 2016 peak) during these solar minimum low TSI years.
The last image inset (k) from my 2018 AGU poster says “Cold winters, Hot Dry SW US Summers” for the start of SC24, a concept which also applies to the present time period before the effect of the SC25 solar maximum activity increase. These very conditions have happened again recently, there have been fewer clouds, less rain, more drought, and more land heat as a result of ongoing low TSI during this solar minimum. UV Index (ground insolation) for the same period as these three studies also indicates fewer clouds during solar minima, especially for 2019-2020.
1) Svensmark’s theory is invalidated, as there were fewer clouds during the solar minima when cosmic rays were highest, exactly opposite his cosmic ray climate theory.
2) These authors’ findings are invalidated, as ocean hiatus (or cooling), not ocean warming, occurred during the periods of fewer clouds.
3) Net Decadal ocean warming was driven by solar cycle maximum TSI above the threshold I established in 2014, which in turn drove an cloud cover increase (now dissipated) from the 2015/16 El Nino.
Thank God Sol is in a minimum or there actually would be globall warmining.
This study used earthshine measurements of the moon to calculate earth’s albedo. Steve Koonin is one of the authors.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2021GL094888
No one will believe this, even if it subsequently is proven to be substantially correct.