Michael Jonas
I have been working for quite a while on cloud data, and have now had a paper published on the behaviour of clouds, which challenges the way clouds are interpreted by the IPCC and in the climate models. The IPCC indicate that clouds (1) provide a positive feedback to (CO2-driven) climate change, and (2) have reacted to aerosols with an increasing cooling effect. The IPCC logic is essentially that man-made CO2 helped by #1 has been so powerful that it has more than overcome #2. My paper argues that clouds behaved largely independently of CO2 and had as much of a warming effect as CO2, maybe much more. As far as I can tell from searching the scientific literature, this analysis has not been presented before.
Abstract:
The patterns of behaviour of clouds, both for cloud area and cloud optical thickness, are studied over the period of available data, 1983 to 2017. There was a decrease in cloud cover over the study period, while global surface temperatures increased. The patterns of clouds and temperature indicate that the cloud cover decrease could not have been caused by the increased surface temperature. The clear implication is that the decrease in global cloud area must have been caused by some other unspecified factor, and was not caused directly or indirectly by CO2. Evaluation of the changes in clouds and CO2 over the study period indicate that this unspecified factor had as much positive impact as the increase in CO2, with respect to the amount of radiation reaching the surface (radiative forcing), and possibly a much larger positive impact. The climate models, which have zero or negative cloud impact on radiative forcing independently from CO2, need to take this into account in order to avoid over-estimating the influence of CO2.
The paper covers a fair amount of ground, and is open source so that everyone can read it, here. ‘Full text article in PDF‘ opens the full paper.
First, I should point out that whereas scientific papers tend to go into ever more intricate detail, this study stays at a much higher level, dealing only with global numbers or with global numbers split by sea and land. In other words, I am looking at the ‘forest’, while many scientific papers tend to look only at the ‘trees’. That’s particularly true of the climate models, which try to build a picture of the ‘forest’ from all the individual ‘trees’ – a futile approach in my view, since no ‘tree’ can be predicted more than a few days into the future.
A brief summary of the paper follows (NB. This is only a summary, if you want to disagree with it then please do so by disagreeing with the paper not with the summary):-
Available cloud data runs from mid 1983 to mid 2017 (34 years), so that is the paper’s study period. Global cloud cover went down over this period, while global surface temperature went up [Figure 1]. But if you look at cloud and temperature patterns over shorter time scales (a few months), warmer temperatures cause more cloud, not less [Figures 2, 3, 4]. The reducing cloud cover could therefore not have been caused by increasing temperature. The cloud behaviour must therefore have been independent of the temperature, ie, independent of man-made CO2.
The paper goes on to evaluate this independent cloud behaviour [Figures 5, 6]. Instrumental in this, is that cloud area decreased, while cloud optical thickness increased. But cloud area decreased very similarly over sea and land, while cloud thickness increased much more over sea than over land [Figures 7, 8]. The most likely explanation is that the increase in thickness over the sea was not caused directly by the unspecified factor mentioned in the abstract, but was a reaction to higher temperatures.
The conclusion is that the independent warming effect of clouds was comparable to the effect of man-made CO2, and possibly much larger. The IPCC and the models contain no provision for this [Figure 9]. If the models do take this into account, then it can help them to avoid running too ‘hot’.
Not stated explicitly in the paper (maybe it should have been), although it is implied, is that if the models do take this cloud behaviour into account, then the amount of warming from man-made CO2 necessarily becomes a lot smaller when the models are tuned against observed temperature. Hence the future effect of man-made CO2 becomes a lot smaller.
Also omitted from the paper is any attempt to identify the unspecified factor causing cloud cover to decrease. The reason is simply that I hadn’t studied it. I could possibly have mentioned things like cosmic rays or solar UV (ultra-violet) as possible causes, linking them to the IPCC reports which mention them, but I chose not to. It would only have been pure speculation.
The paper does state explicitly that the models’ projections are already known to be highly unreliable (citing the reasons given in the IPCC reports), so there is no excuse on that score for not adding in a provision for independent cloud behaviour.
Those who like to see error-bars on all numbers will be disappointed. The reason is that the calculations are all very approximate anyway, so error-bars would be meaningless. The final conclusions, “similar impact” and “possibly a much larger impact” are not numbers anyway.
Note: I have written before on WUWT about cloud feedback:
That study was restricted to ocean areas only. This paper starts with global data in order to make it more relevant for comparison with the IPCC re radiative forcing.
I find this all rather academic given the rather obvious and well understood cause and effect stability of. Earth’s climate. An equilibrium is imposed by the level of ocean evaporation and subsequent resulting condensation into low level tropical clouds, a process that releases the latent heat as IR to space while also creating clouds to reflect the Sun more or less.
It’s really that simple, because this iceanic evaporative responce to changing SST is the dominant control of planetary climate .
The feedback establishes a heat balance at the naturally necessary temperature for any given set of parameters. Basically solar radiation varied by a small cosmic ray effect on the natural rate of low level cloud formation. The overall lapse rate to 0.1 Bar is primarily created by the combination of solar radiation and gravity under the well known laws of the Barometric formulae, in convective adiabatic equilibrium, and not by GHE.
If there is a change in oceanic SST, due to the tiny effect of a GHE gas, say, or even a major extreme volcanic event or asteroid strike, then the powerful negative feedback pf oceanice vaporation change and the resulting effect on low level cloud albedo will rebalance the system at whatever equiibrium temperature is required to maintain a new heat balance. It really is that simple. If you view Earth as a strongly fed back control system driven by oceanic evaporation that increases or decreases the rate of evaporative heat loss response to surface warming, that in turn adjusts cloud albedo to reverse the effect of change by chaging solar radiation levels at the surface, you have it.
What goees on inside the atmosphere is of interest to acedemics, but not control engineers, because it si very clear that, at the macro level, the negative feedback control imposed by the ocean are dominant, and have been for 500 Million years we can observe.
CO2 has almost nothing to do with this control system, simply a small and easily reversed perturbation within the system, as far as temperatures go. Valuable toplant growth and drought resistance, etc.
It is clear that the natural observations are no different now to the cahnge that occurred before CO2 level began to rise, and show little correlation with the changing temperature over time, rising steadily through the almost flat line since the 1998 El Nino. So any effect is actually being negated by the natural control system. This is deterministic observation that support the above analysis, not a model that guesses wrong.
Now is warmer than 1850 because that is the form of the multi frequency natural cycles, with the main cycle at 1Ka, observed throughout at least the last 4 ice age cycles. Our cu urrent warming was happening naturally, as it will revers naturally from here. All strongly stablislosed by the dominant feedbacl of the oceans that ensure the heat balance of Earth climaye systems at wherever the equilibrium point settles.
THis is the true Gaia. Control theory 101. Simples
It really isn’t hard. It’s only hard if you are a consensual climate scientist that doesn’t have broad grasp of physics, is obsessed with the small effect of detail perturbations rather than the dominant controls, thinks models are real, and simply doesn’t have the formation to see the big picture of global physics. The sun shines, the oceans evaporate, the (low level) clouds control.
We know it works, and has no “tipping points” outside of massive perturbations. It handled major asteroid sr strike just fine, re established the system after the flora were burnt off and the surviving fauna mostly starved to death, for a new lot of land based organics to re use the available CO2- because the observations show us it has exercised such control, over a large range of gradually decreasing equilibrium temperatures, from 500Ma BP to the coldest extremes we see in the current glacial phases of ice ages.
It’s really obvious. The oceans lose any excess heat evaporatively, the changed amount of low level tropical cloud albedo reflects the Sun, and the system establishes the necessary temperature to maintain planetary heat balance. Not hard to get, not mysterious, not easily stressed outside its very broad limits of control. OBS. QED.
Mike Jonas –
Question:
In Figure 2 of the paper, why was a three month time lag used for examining short term cloud cover change versus temperature change? Is there some reason why one should expect cloud cover to take three months to respond to temperature change? What do similar plots for 1 month, 2 month, and 4 month lags look like in comparison?
Roy W Spencer report in a newer WUWT says this at his site
“June 1, 2022 at 2:43 PM
This is the whole chicken-vs-egg issue I’ve been harping on for many years (and even wrote a book about). When a decrease in clouds occurs with warming, is it from decreasing clouds causing warming (which can also include strong negative cloud feedbacks on warming), or is warming causing a decrease in clouds which amplifies the warming (positive cloud feedback)? I’ve never found a way empirically to answer the question. Yet, everyone still thinks they have stumbled upon the answer. As usual, it’s a matter of faith which way you believe.”
–
Says it all.
Nick Stokes made a similar themed comment early on here, I believe
MGC June 1, 2022 Question:
In Figure 2 of the paper, why was a three month time lag used for examining short term cloud cover change versus temperature change? Is there some reason why one should expect cloud cover to take three months to respond to temperature change?
What Eben says: at Roy Spencer’s site
June 1, 2022 at 3:44 PM
It is well known that global temperature reacts to ENSO with about 5 month delay , The La Nina reached the lowest peak only last month , so that wouldn’t show up in the temperature until about 4 month later from now,
angech –
I was asking about the timing of an effect of temperature on a natural phenomenon. The quote you reference from Eben is the reverse: the timing of an effect of a natural phenomenon on temperature.
MGC – I expected clouds to react fairly quickly to temperature, and I looked at 1, 3 and 6 months. 3 months was nice and clear cut so I went with that – maybe 2 or 4 months might have been better but I didn’t look. Longer time scales were unlikely to work, because the competing opposite longer term trend would become more significant. The relationship over the ocean is even more clear-cut, but at that stage of the paper I needed to remain global in order to relate better to the IPCC.
Sorry folks, but it appears that there is a massive hole in this analysis that, as far as I can tell, completely negates all of its conclusions:
autocorrelation was not considered. The cloud cover time series is highly autocorrelated on a short term basis.
Download the cloud cover data and inspect it yourself: there is a strong tendency for changes in cloud cover, positive or negative, to proceed in the same direction for several months. The short term 3 month correlation seen in Figure 2 of the paper is not so much a correlation between cloud cover and temperature as it is a correlation between cloud cover and itself.
Not taking autocorrelation into account is a common time series analysis error that can easily result in spurious, incorrect conclusions. Lots of natural phenomena exhibit autocorrelation. Rainfall is one of the more well known: if it has rained today, there is a higher than average probability that it will rain again tomorrow. But we do not need to invoke any “mysterious X factor” to explain this well known observation. Nor do we need to invoke one here.
Taking autocorrelation into account falsifies the notion that there is some “mysterious X factor” controlling cloud cover.
The further notion that this analysis somehow demonstrates that temperature increase is “not” a cause for a decrease in cloud cover over the past few decades would therefore also be incorrect.
I disagree. If you look at figures 3 and 4, you will see that one looks ONLY at periods when temperature peaked and the other looks ONLY at periods when clouds peaked. In both cases, the temperature peak preceded the cloud peak. Auto-correlation can’t do that.
Mike,
Please take a look at our latest analysis regarding climate sensitivity to changes in cloud albedo, and the proof we provide using CERES data that cloud cover changes are the actual and only driver of recent climate change. No role of CO2 whatsoever!
Exact Calculations of Climate Sensitivities Reveal the True Cause of Recent Warming by Ned Nikolov & Karl Zeller
This is the same Nikolov that published “Nikolov and Zeller 2017” a “work” that has been refuted countless times, including multiple times even right here on WUWT.
This latest Nikolov and Zeller “work” only further “builds” upon that previous fairy tale fantasy.
The claim “no role of CO2 whatsoever” has already been demonstrated to be totally false for well over a century, by research published not in the “open peer review” literature (the bargain basement dust bin of the scientific literature) but in the most prestigious scientific research journals in the world.
MGC, you don’t know what you are talking about! NO ONE has refuted our work, NO ONE! Why don’t try to educate yourself a bit by reading our papers instead of spewing nonsense…
I read your papers, Ned.
Sorry, but very good evidence has been stated over and over and over again which demonstrates why your work is fatally flawed. Even articles right here on WUWT have shown why your work cannot be taken seriously. That’s why you’ve had to resort to publishing in the bargain basement dust bin of the scientific literature.
And again, the claim “no role of CO2 whatsoever” had already been demonstrated, over a century ago, to be totally false.
Why don’t you provide some actual links to the refutations nstead of just using magical hand waving?
Mike Jonas,
In figures 3 and 4, the temperature peaked earlier “on average” only.
I took a look at the actual cloud and temperature datasets and noticed that individual temperature peaks at 15 month intervals occur during the time series both before and after 15 month interval cloud peaks.
While temperatures may have peaked earlier “on average” during 15 month intervals, the standard deviation of the difference in the timing of the two peaks is enormous in comparison to the average timing difference being claimed. Sorry, but what you’ve graphed in figures 3 and 4 is little but noise. The timing difference of the two peaks is nowhere near statistically significant.
This study still does not support the notion that temperature is “not” a cause of decreased cloud cover over the past several decades.
I note that you quote no numbers, even though you claim that one is enormous. Did you also note that I worked on 12-month differences. There is an additional consideration that you may have missed: the 5*3-month periods that I presented had to work quite hard to overcome the longer term trends of decreasing cloud cover and increasing temperature. If there indeed was only noise as you claim then the peaks in cloud cover would have been associated with falls in temperature and vice versa.
Mike Jonas says: “the 5*3-month periods that I presented had to work quite hard to overcome the longer term trends of decreasing cloud cover and increasing temperature”
Not true. Because the cloud cover data is auto-correlated, once it starts going up, it often keeps going up for a while (and once it starts going down, it often keeps going down for a while as well). Thus, there are numerous instances sprinkled throughout the time series record where both cloud cover and temperature happen to be increasing together.
This further discussion also just made me realize that your earlier claim: “the temperature peak preceded the cloud peak. Auto-correlation can’t do that” is also incorrect. Here’s why:
You have looked at situations where temperature and cloud cover both happened to be initially rising, then peaked and changed direction downward. Given that cloud cover is auto-correlated (it continues in the same direction from one month to the next much more than random chance would indicate) then which of these two variables will be more likely to change direction first and “peak out”? Obviously, temperature is more likely to peak out first.
Yep, it turns out that everything you have observed in this study is fully explainable by nothing more than auto-correlation.
No mysterious “X” factor.
No more pretending that temperature rise is “not” a cause of decreasing cloud cover.
“You have looked at situations where temperature and cloud cover both happened to be initially rising, then peaked and changed direction downward.”. Incorrect. I looked at situations where temperature did that and then plotted clouds for those periods. I separately looked at situations where clouds did that and then plotted temperatures for those periods. If there was no cause and effect between temperature and clouds then the cloud pattern for peaking temperature and the temperature pattern for peaking clouds would have been indistinct. The fact that both showed temperature peaking before cloud is striking, particularly as the long term trends of temperature and clouds are in the opposite direction. When supported by the other facts that I mentioned, the picture is about as conclusive as it could possibly be.
Jonas, I checked the method for your figure 3 graph myself and found quite different results.
Differences to your analysis: I did not use 3 month means, which provide only a paltry 5 data points with which to try to define a cloud cover “trend”. Instead I did the analysis on a monthly basis, which provides a much better 15 data points for defining the cloud cover trend around temperature peaks. Also, the temperature peak was not just “within the middle three months” but was always exactly the middle month of the 15 month range.
I used HADCRUT4 global mean as the temperature dataset. The cloud cover dataset was from: http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi The analysis was over the same time frame, 1983-2017.
What I found was that, on average, as 12 month temperature changes moved upward toward a peak, 12 month cloud cover changes (3 months delayed) moved downward toward a minimum. And as 12 month temperature changes moved back down from their peak, cloud cover increased from its minimum. See attached graph.
This short term result is exactly in line with the long term trend: temperature increase results in cloud cover decrease.
“the picture is about as conclusive as it could possibly be.”
That is a useful chart, maybe I should have done that extra analysis and included it in the paper. Too late now, of course. What you have found is that clouds cool. Note that your fitted curves show clouds hitting their minimum a month BEFORE the temperature maximum. The competing factors operate on slightly different time scales: reduced cloud cover raises temperature on the shortest time scale (0-1 month). Then there is negative feedback as the increased temperature causes increased cloud over a slightly longer time scale (~3 months) as shown in my charts. But because the negative feedback is as usual less than 100%, over the longer time scales the cloud cooling effect prevails.
re: “Note that your fitted curves show clouds hitting their minimum a month BEFORE the temperature maximum.”
Sorry, but no. Remember, the cloud cover data is three months delayed. What the fitted curves actually show is that cloud cover reaches its minimum two months after temperatures have peaked.
re: “as the increased temperature causes increased cloud … etc.”
The data from my much more refined analysis (while also not forgetting that the cloud cover data is 3 months delayed) clearly demonstrates that this claim is simply not correct, on any time frame.
By the way, just for the sake of completeness, there was another conjecture in your paper that was also incorrect:
re: “It is reasonable to expect that a rise in temperature would cause an increase in cloud cover … because a warmer ocean would evaporate more moisture, which would then rise in the atmosphere and condense into clouds.”
Yes, it is true that a rise in temperature does evaporate more moisture, increasing the absolute humidity of the atmosphere.
However, for the purposes of cloud formation, what matters is relative humidity, and that has been decreasing at cloud formation altitudes as temperature has increased. See attached graph. Yet another line of evidence that increased temperatures have caused a decrease in cloud cover.
Bottom line: nothing here, nothing at all, in any way, on any timeframe, upsets the already well established conclusion that increasing global temperatures have caused a decrease in global cloud cover. There is no mysterious “X” factor, and the global scientific community has not been “wrong”.
Moreover, as fossil fuel CO2 emissions continue to drive global temperature increase, we should expect the trend of decreased global cloud cover to continue into the future.
At the 1-month level, there is no 3-month delay in cloud cooling. It may be instructive to repeat your study the other way round, ie. look at how temperature responds to a cloud peak, as in
http://jonases.org/HadCRUT5Analysis_Graph4p1.jpg
Durack, Wijffels and Matear’s findings (reference [3]) of an increased hydrological cycle refute your assertions about cloud formation. The obvious interpretation is that increased temperatures have increased the hydrological cycle, while separate forces have reduced cloud area. It makes no sense that the one factor – increased temperature – can increase cloud thickness and the hydrological cycle while at the same time reducing cloud area. Yes, those trends are observed, but No, the causes are not established.
I’ll try to find time to check the data behind your chart in more detail. It’s certainly interesting looking at all possible combinations, but, unfortunately, very time-consuming too.
re: “Durack, Wijffels and Matear’s findings (reference [3]) of an increased hydrological cycle refute your assertions about cloud formation”
Again, false. As already agreed before, yes, the hydrological cycle does become more active as temperature increases. And yes, an “increased hydrological cycle” will increase the absolute humidity in the air.
But even though there is more water vapor evaporating into the air, warmer air can also hold more water vapor without it condensing into clouds. Relative humidity has been decreasing, as the graph just posted shows.
Relative humidity is the important variable that controls cloud formation. Rising temperatures have led to less relative humidity, and less relative humidity has led to less cloud cover. Period.
This simple chain of cause and effect is really little more than Meteorology 101.
Why you are trying to dispute Meteorology 101?
And if all that weren’t already more than enough evidence, just look at a global mean cloud cover map. Where are there the most clouds? In the high latitudes, where it is coldest. Where are there the fewest clouds? In the low latitudes, where it is warmest.
Higher temperatures result in less clouds. Meteorology 101.
Why do you want to dispute Meteorology 101?
Cloud map:
I reproduced your chart as described by you (cloud 3mths delay etc), using the same cloud and temperature data as in my paper, and it bears absolutely no resemblance whatsoever to your chart. Temperature is very similar, but cloud is way lower in months 1-3 (after the 3mths delay, ie, mths -7 to -5 in the scale on your chart), and has separate mini-peaks 2 and 7 months after the temperature peak (ie, mths -1 and 4 in the scale on your chart. Cloud area is also way lower over the last three months in the chart. Sample size is 19 (ie, temperature peaks 19 times in month 8).
http://jonases.org/ReproduceMGC.JPG
We are using different cloud cover datasets. I’m not sure how those datasets differ. Sample size for my chart was 20.
The totality of the evidence I’ve produced, which includes not only the short term peaks trend, but decreasing long term relative humidity trend, and map of cloud cover distribution across the globe, still points directly to increased temperatures as a cause of decreasing cloud cover. And yes, it’s still basic Meteorology 101.
And I’m still waiting for an answer to the question:
“Why do you want to dispute Meteorology 101?”
I’m not disputing meteorology 101, I’m presenting a straightforward analysis of data. If it disagrees with anything else, even meteorology 101, so be it. The climate modellers observe that temperature increases while clouds decrease, they consider CO2 to be the only long term driver of climate, they therefore attribute the warming to CO2 (not to clouds) and they attribute the cloud change to the CO2-driven warming (because CO2 has no such direct effect on clouds), so any claim of theirs that the models show that the CO2-temperature-clouds sequence of influence is correct is just circular logic. That doesn’t prove that they are wrong, BTW, just that they cannot legitimately claim what they claim.
My study shows a new and different way of interpreting the data, and while I cannot possibly claim 100% proof, the data and logic I present are IMHO compelling enough to be taken seriously.
I find it extraordinary that your cloud data is so different, when AFAIK all the global cloud data in the satellite age comes from the one source.
Lotsa stuff you write just ain’t so, Jonas:
“they consider CO2 to be the only long term driver of climate”
No, CO2 is rightfully considered to be, based on overwhelming evidence, the current primary driver of climate.
“the CO2-temperature-clouds sequence of influence … is just circular logic”
No, its Atmospheric Physics 101 and Meteorology 101. There’s no doubt that increased CO2 levels have a strong warming influence. And there’s no doubt that warming causes a decrease in cloud cover.
Sounds to me like your analysis is, at its root, just a grasping at straws exercise to try to find pseudo-scientific excuses so as to pretend away the known and well established warming effect of increased CO2 levels, caused by human fossil fuel emissions.
Please take a look at our latest analysis regarding climate sensitivity to changes in cloud albedo, and the numerical proof we provide using CERES observations from the past 20 years that cloud cover changes are the actual and only driver of recent climate change. No role of CO2 whatsoever!
Exact Calculations of Climate Sensitivities Reveal the True Cause of Recent Warming by Ned Nikolov & Karl Zeller
More than a century’s worth of research evidence, published in the most prestigious scientific journals in the world (not in the “open peer review literature”, which is the bargain basement dust bin of the scientific literature) has already conclusively demonstrated that the claim “no role of CO2 whatsoever” is nothing but pure nonsense.
This latest “work” by Nikolov and Zeller “builds” upon an earlier pseudo-scientific fantasy of theirs (Nikolov and Zeller 2017) which was even refuted multiple times right here on WUWT, LOL.
Thanks for the laughs, Ned!
Nikolov has exaggerated his own work. In fact, he finds 0.004K per doubling. I’m sure he looks forward to any novel rebuttals based on your identification of flaws in the math or physics to improve the work.
Anyone motivated to throw shade should also be willing to put in the work to identify the fundamental error and to engage in constructive dialogue with the author. It is dehumanizing to believe he would continue to engage in putting himself out there if he is convinced someone has identified a fatal flaw.
Good ideas, JCM, though the intent of my comment was never to try to “engage in constructive dialogue with the author”. Given the fact that the fatal flaws of this “research” have been pointed out many, many times already, including right here on WUWT, that path has microscopic chances of success.
No, the intent of my comment was instead to simply serve notice to other readers, who may be unaware that what Nikolov is peddling is total nonsense.
JCM,
MGC is just one of those shadowy creatures, who does not even have the courage to disclose his/her identity, let alone to have an open scientific debate with me. Over the years, I have tried to engage some top climate scientism in a meaningful scientific (physics-based) discussion. They all bailed out and refused to talk to me. When confronted with strong evidence undermining their beliefs, they became incoherent in their responses. It’s pretty amazing to watch this transformation. My most recent interaction of this kind was with Kevin Trenberth at NCAR in Boulder USA. I have a PDF with the email exchange that proves the above point.
Watch this video I created last year that shows the physical ridiculousness of the radiative “greenhouse” theory:
Demystifying the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect
The big problem is that most people are lazy to do a diligent research on their own and prefer instead to criticize our concept without having the slightest clue what they are talking about. Don’t listen to uninformed characters like MGC! Study our work yourself and make your own opinion!
JCM –
Really? You are also on the bandwagon of this long refuted “atmospheric pressure” nonsense claim? This pseudo-scientific falsehood has been refuted countless times, including many times right here on WUWT.
re: “uninformed characters” Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Thanks for the laugh, JCM!
?
Why the “?” JCM? I looked at your video link. It’s just more of this same tired old, long refuted “atmospheric pressure” nonsense claim.
Oops, sorry, JCM !
I somehow thought that previous reply was from you. That silly pseudo-science video link was actually from Ned.
Appeal to Authority has no merit.
Pointing out the existence of well over a century’s worth of research evidence published in the scientific literature is not an “appeal to authority”.
I note that you make a comparable finding to mine from a completely different approach. That’s encouraging, but, of course, not proof.
Ned Nikolov, Ph.D.
“Please take a look at our latest analysis regarding climate sensitivity to changes in cloud albedo, and the numerical proof we provide using CERES observations from the past 20 years that cloud cover changes are the actual and only driver of recent climate change. No role of CO2 whatsoever!
Exact Calculations of Climate Sensitivities Reveal the True Cause of Recent Warming by Ned Nikolov & Karl Zeller”
–
MGC Reply to Ned Nikolov, Ph.D. June 3, 2022
“the scientific literature) has already conclusively demonstrated that the claim “no role of CO2 whatsoever” is nothing but pure nonsense. This latest “work” by Nikolov and Zeller “builds” upon an earlier pseudo-scientific fantasy of theirs (Nikolov and Zeller 2017).
–
Ned has put forward a lot of well thought out scientific work towards the topic of estimating surface temperatures of planets.
Unfortunately he has done it with a bias of trying to prove that CO2 has no effect.
If one includes the role of CO2 into the rest of his physics it would be quite acceptable.
MGC is quite out of line in describing serious work and statements as pseudo fantasy.
–
The physics is complex but Basic principles always apply.
Saying CO2 has no role is saying CO2 does not exist.
It does have a role.
–
on the other hand saying that CO2 is a driver of temperature change is a gross overstatement as well. Temperatures can change for a multitude of reasons without CO2 being involved in the causation or process.
–
CO2 does not initiated change, it is not a heat source.
CO2 is part of the medium being changed and it’s properties ensure that the temperature changed to is different from an atmosphere with CO2 in to one where it is not present.
–
Where Nikolic does not take this into account he is wrong.
where others fantasise that CO2 produces energy de novo, they are wrong.
.
Hello again angech –
Sorry, but I couldn’t disagree more. Nikolov’s fundamental claim in his “research”, that atmospheric pressure regulates surface temperature, is not “well thought out scientific work”. It is pseudo-scientific hogwash, and has been refuted countless times, including numerous times right here on WUWT. If this claim were really “correct”, then why don’t pressure vessels become intensely hot when pumped up?
Your claim “saying that CO2 is a driver of temperature change is a gross overstatement” is also proven false by over a century’s worth of careful scientific research evidence. There is little if any doubt whatever within the worldwide professional scientific community that increasing CO2 levels in the air, due to human fossil fuel emissions, are the most influential driver of current climate change.
Last point: sorry, but no one is claiming that CO2 is itself a heat “source” or that it produces heat “de novo”. These are invalid strawman arguments.
Mike,
I have a suggestion for an independent cause of cloud reduction supported by anecdotal observation*. Email me for details.
JF
*20 years flying over the water.