CO2 is Innocent but Clouds are Guilty.  New Science has Created a “Black Swan Event”**

By Charles Blaisdell PhD ChE  

**From web sources: “,… in 1697 the Dutch explorer Willem de Vlamingh discovered black swans in Australia, upending the belief” (that all swans were white) “and transforming how we understand the natural world.  …the phrase “black swan event” came to refer to an event that suddenly proves something that was previously thought to be impossible.”

(This paper is a continuation of my previous paper   (1) with new data that reaches the conclusion that “CO2 is innocent but Clouds are Guilty” )

Part I:  CO2 is Innocent but Clouds are Guilty.

     Our tax dollars have been at work with NASA for the last 20+ years putting satellites in orbit to detect and measure the “CO2 effect” on Global Warming, GW.  After 20 years, the CERES satellite (and others) has discovered that cloud reduction is the major effect on GW for those 20 years. Two papers published in 2021 reach this conclusion, Dübal and Vahrenholt,  (2) and. Loeb, Gregory et al  (3)  These new papers do claim some sign of CO2 effect (and other greenhouse gases) on GW; but the papers show the dominate effect on GW for those 20 years was the cloud reduction effect (albedo reduction- warming).   This paper will show that the observed cloud reduction will account for all the GW in those 20 years and back to 1975, leaving no GW left over for the CO2 effect on GW. Cloud reduction is albedo reduction, (albedo: color of the earth, black, 0.0, is hot and white, 1.0, is cool).  Another recently published paper (2021) by Goode et al (4) measuring earth’s albedo from moon shine also reports the same reduction in albedo as the CERES data of both Dübal and Loeb:  one can only conclude that for 20 years of data the albedo change is real.   Why is albedo change important?  Because the IPCC theory of CO2 effect on GW assumes that the earth’s albedo has been constant (or not changed much) and CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) thru Radiative Forcing effect GW.  The resent satellite data says this is not true.   Cloud cover changes are best documented at “Climate and Clouds”(5) with links to the data source at “Climate Explorer” (6).  “Climate and Clouds” conclude that cloud change only accounts for 25% of the GW.  This paper will show an improved analysis of “Climate and Clouds” data agrees with the CERES data of Dübal and Loeb that cloud reduction is accounting for most if not all of the warming over CERES’s 20 years.  Figures 1 and 2 show a graphic representation of what Dübal and Loeb observed in the CERES data and what was expected from IPCC Radiative Forcing, RF, theory.  The shape (slopes) of the observed and expected are entirely different but the increase in the missing energy (Earths Energy Imbalance, EEI) is the same.  The missing energy, EEI, is used to warm the earth though the energy balance equation:

Energy In = Energy out + Accumulation (EEI)    Eq 1.

If the accumulation (EEI) is positive the earth warms if negative the earth cools.

     Cloud reduction effects GW by reducing the amount of highly reflective clouds covering the earth and letting in more sun light to warm the earth, Cloud Reduction Global Warming, CRGW.

Is Cloud Cover Changing?

     Yes, Cloud cover changes with seasons, hemisphere, altitude, and over time. Figure 3 shows the satellite data for cloud cover for the whole earth vs time (about 36 years).  The sine-al nature of the graph is a seasonal variation shown in Figure 4.  Figure 5 shows the hemispherical differences in cloud cover.  The hemispherical and seasonal variation in cloud cover is related to the tilt of the axis (23.5’ north) of the rotating earth favoring the northern hemisphere with more sun light and the larger land mass of the northern hemisphere (Total land mass of the earth is 39% of that 68% is in the northern hemisphere and 32% in the southern hemisphere).  It will be later shown that, these variables change the relative humidity which are responsible for the sine-al nature of the cloud cover.

     For global warming the change in cloud cover over years is the variable of interest.  The whole earth’s cloud cover (least squares fit from “climate Explorer” data) vs time in Figure 5 show a 0.075 % cloud change/year.  Note the high degree of variability in Figure 5, some of this variability is theorized by Dübal and Vahrenholt,  (2) to be due to the AMO (Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation) in the northern hemisphere which is a natural oscillation in ocean temperature with a period of 60-80 year and an amplitude of +/-0.2’C.  (a period up swing of the AMO occurred in the 1985 to 2020 range and could be related to the peak in 1997 and flatting after 2000 in Figure 5).  There is also a periodic swing in ocean temperature in the Pacific, PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) in the southern hemisphere (commonly known as El Nino) with a period similar to the AMO of 60-80 years and a smaller amplitude of about +/- 0.1’C. The amplitude of each of these oscillations is smaller than the overall change in temperature and are not increasing over time.  The periods of AMO and PDO seem to be opposite and may have some canceling effect on a global basis.  Further explanation of these oscillations are best left up to the experts, in this paper, they are just potential noise makers to the cloud reduction data and emphasize the importance of long term data (the 36 years of cloud data may not be enough).  The 36 year cloud cover decrease of 0.75% per decade will be used in calculations of cloud effected energy changes.

     One more variable that needs to be considered in temperature vs cloud cover:  Time delay, when clouds decrease part of the sun light fall on land and the rest on water.  Land gives its energy back to the atmosphere quickly (over days), over water the energy is stored for years.  Some have calculated up to 80 years for a step change in energy into the ocean to come the full equilibrium  (20) and (21).   This time delay is another reason to use long term slope date to analyze cloud change data.  Our current 36 years of cloud data is probably not enough to complete our understanding of cloud cover and GW. It should be noted that surface sea temperature, SST, follows air temperature closely, questioning the significance of the time delay.

Cloud Cover Change vs Temperature Change

     An empirical way to relating cloud cover to temperature is to divide the least squares fits of the temperature change by cloud reduction change over the 36 years of data.  Figure 6 shows both least squares fits with the result of the ratio being -0.27 ‘C/% cloud change.  “Climate and Clouds”(5)  scatter plot of monthly temperature and cloud cover of the same data showed a least squares fit of -0.066 ‘C/% cloud cover; further emphasizing the need to use long term data to better understand cloud and temperature relationships.    [“Climate4You” (5) web site is a product of ISCCP:  (“Since July 1983, ongoing variations in the global cloud cover have been monitored by The International Sattelite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP). This project was established as part of the World Climate Research Program (WCRP) to collect weather satellite radiance measurements …”.) ] The “Climate4You” ratio only accounts for 25% of the observed ( 0.4 ‘C) 20 years of CERES data.  Figure 6’s -0.27 ‘C/% cloud cover accounts for all of the observed temperature change.

     Although significant, this ratio of temperature and cloud cover change is not the best way to prove the significance of cloud cover change.  The CERES data is energy data, cloud cover change must be related to CERES energy observations. Table 1 converts the observed albedo from Dübal (2) to energy change (Short Wave, SW, in – SW out at Top Of the Atmosphere, TOA) and is shown in Figure 7.  Table 2 uses the cloud cover from “Climate Explorer” least squares fit in Figure 5 and the Dübal “cloudy area” and “clear sky” albedo data to calculate the energy to the earth, the results are shown in Figure 7.  The comparison of the two calculation is close enough to claim: the cloud cover change can account for all the temperate change and energy change observed in the 20 years of CERES data.

     (Note: in Table 2 Dübal observed a small (but significant) change in the “Clear sky” albedo (decreasing). The “clear sky” albedo is the ground (land + ocean) color of the earth.  Holding the cloud change constant shows this small albedo “clear sky” albedo change can account for 15% of the observed energy in the 20 years of CERES data.  Cloud change is the major effect on GW)

Why a 1975 Zero for the CERES data?

     Many researchers have noticed that the temperature vs time curve since 1880 is not linear, the data better fits an exponential or 2ed degree polynomial.   One can also use two linear equations to fit the data, as shown in Figure 8.  The intersection of the two lines is about 1975.  The lower line has a poor R^2 and accounts for about 25% of the temperature rise.  The second line has a much higher R^2 and account for about 75% of the rise.  We have a lot more data in the 1975 to 2020 range so we should have a better chance of explaining GW in that range.

     The extrapolated data and 20 years of CERES data in Figure 7 are overlayed on Figure 8 – a good fit.  Table 1 and 2 show that albedo change and cloud cover change from 2001 to 2020 and from 1975 to 2020 can account for all the temperature change in each period.   CRGW is a valid theory and should be considered by the IPCC.

How did this significant change in scientific understanding occur?

     The 2021 papers by Dübal, Loeb, and Goode (and some others) verifying a 20-year change in the earth’s albedo is like a scientific “Black Swan Event” **.  The earth’s albedo and cloud cover changing over time was totally unexpected (“all swans are white”).  Albedo change being caused by cloud cover reduction was also unexpected prior to 2021.  All previous methods of measuring albedo and cloud cover showed no change.  There were modelers like Walcek (7) who predicted that if cloud cover changed it could be as significant as the predicted greenhouse gas GW.  The effect of greenhouse gases could be measured in the lower atmosphere and was known to be saturated (all ready enough, more would not change GW).  The IPCC needed a theory that could account for the observed GW with constant albedo and cloud cover – That theory was Radiative Forcing, RF.  RF is a plausible theory but needed to be measured in the upper atmosphere.  NASA sent up satellites to measure the RF (along with many other thing).   NASA’s satellites changed the method of measurement and the accuracy and with 20 years of data could see the small differences in big numbers needed.  And here we are today trying to get the IPCC to look at the “Black Swan”.

     Models are also a contributing factor.  There are climate models that use scientific laws and math (like IPCC’s Global Circulation Models, GMC’s) to calculate GW and like the simple models in Tables 1 and 2.  Other models use statistical multi variable analysis, SMVA, to predict GW.  The use of SMVAs can lead to some inaccurate conclusions.  Good multi variable analysis design an experimental grid to avoid confounded variables, it is difficult to do this with natural data.  In the case of GW, Cloud cover, relative humidity, albedo, specific humidity, CO2, and other GHGs are all confounded with the earth’s temperature change.  Variables with high accuracy in measurement and definite trends, like CO2, will dominate in SMVAs, even if they have nothing to do with GW.  Variables with poor measurement but good trends (but are the real effect on GW), like cloud cover, will show significance in SMVA’s but not eliminate variables like CO2.  Results from a SMVA are not a proof.  The IPCC’s SMVA model has a “dog’s breakfast” of variables in its AR6 model of GW, in AR6 cloud cover is not listed, but cloud density is, as a global cooling variable.   In all fairness, AR6 was issued in 2021 the same time at the Dübal and Loeb papers  – they may be looking at them now.

What is causing the reduction in Cloud Cover?

     Cloud cover is part of the earth’s water cycle:  the sun’s energy evaporates water, the water vapor makes clouds, and clouds make rain.  We are looking for a disturbance in this natural cycle

The water cycle variables that are a signature of cloud cover change:

Long term Signature of Cloud Cover Reduction

1.     Temperature increasing (less cloud cover – more sun’s energy to the earth, see Figure 8)

2.     Specific Humidity increasing (a result of higher temperature and more evaporation the atmosphere can holding more water, see Figure 9)

3.     Rain fall increasing (more energy in evaporates more water, (if not used for specific humidity increase) the water got to come back down.  A statistical increase has been observed but very low R^2 – graph not shown)

4.     Relative humidity decreasing (main effect on less clouds which leads to the other atmospheric variables, see Figure 10 and Figure 12)

     This is a unique set of atmospheric variables only associated with cloud reduction.

Relative Humidity and Cloud Reduction

     Relative Humidity, RH, has for a long time been associated with clouds.  Figure 11 show a page from Walcek (7)  1995 report which show the decline in cloud cover vs RH observed by him and other researchers.  The trend is there but the noise level is high.  Satellites have improved the observation.   “Climate and Clouds”(5) shows that different types of clouds form at different levels and that their formation may be triggered by things other than RH.  Particulates (aerosols) and cosmic rays have been documented as sources of cloud formation.  Even at 100% RH air can become super saturated and not form clouds.  All the variables are probably responsible for the noise in Figure 11; but the general trend is RH.  Of the three categories of clouds mentioned in “Climate and Clouds”(5) The only one that showed a significant reduction over time was the “Low Level” clouds, cumulus clouds.  Cumulus clouds are about 28% of the total 63% cloud cover of the earth.  The other clouds only create noise in the total cloud cover data.  In “International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project” (8) Cumulus clouds were the only cloud types of nine types of clouds that showed reduction over time, see Figure 13.   

     Cumulus clouds are the ones most affected by changes in RH from the earth surface in that they are the ones in contact with low RH air first.   The data in Figures 4, 5, and 6 contain all cloud types, but the yearly oscillations are related to similar changes in “low level” clouds and RH with time.  These oscillations can be used to make a plot of RH vs cloud cover for all the monthly data in Figure 3 to produce the scatter plot in Figure 14.  The data points used in the model in Table 2 are in red.  Note that these points are within the range of the natural variation of the data.

     The data in Figure 14 can be broken down into more detail to show the difference in monthly profiles between Northern Hemisphere (NH), Sothern Hemisphere and Time shift, see Figure 15.  Note the expected difference in shape of the NH and SH plots, in some months they cancel each other and in other complement each other giving the overall results in Figure 4.  In Figure 15 the cloud change in the Southern Hemisphere is greater than in the NH and the Sothern Hemisphere somewhat dominates the overall cloud change.  All the plots shift with time as the relativity humidity decreases.

The Missing Energy in the Earth’s EEI, Eq 1

     The missing energy in Figure 1  can go to the following paces  see Table 7 for details:

·      Warm the dry air in the atmosphere.  (Small but significant)

·      increase the moisture in the atmosphere and is the major use of EEI energy (specific humidity, Figure 9 and Table 7)

·      increase precipitation (small)

·      warm the land (small)

·      warm the oceans (small, with a time delay)

The bulk of the energy goes into water increase in the atmosphere.

    The Dübal and Loeb data can be used to estimate a degrees Celsius / W/m^2 energy change from short wave energy change of 0.3 ‘C per W/m^2.

Conclusion So Far

     There is no doubt that albedo of the earth has changed over the last 20 years (and longer) and that this albedo change is due to cloud cover reduction (and a little “clear sky” albedo change).  The cloud cover reduction is related to relative humidity reduction.  Relative humidity reduction has been going since 1948 (possible longer).  The cloud reduction data (starting in 1984) has been extrapolated back to 1975.  Cloud reduction has been around for a while.  CO2 is innocent but cloud cover reduction is guilty.  Leaving the question:

Part II.  Cloud reduction effects GW but ‘Man” is still Guilty.

What is affecting the Relative Humidity reduction?

 The observation of relative humidity decreasing (see Figure 10 and 12) has long puzzled climate scientist.  Most climate models show specific humidity increasing (which it does) and relative humidity staying the same.  Papers by J. Taylor (9) and K.  Willett (10)  both express that increasing SH and decreasing RH is inconsistent with CO2 (and other GHGs) effect on GW with no explanation as to why.  This paper gives an explanation.

     The theory Cloud Reduction Global Warming, CRGW, has been proposed (1): “Man’s changes to land use effects the production of low relative humidity, RH, hot air rising to where clouds could be prevented (or destroyed) thus reducing the albedo of the earth”.  This reduction in RH is triggered by a localized reduction (not an increase) in Specific Humidity, SH.  This reduction in SH is occurring only on land and is over whelmed by the increase in SH from evaporation (from oceans) due to the lower Cloud Cover, CC.  The relationship between SH, RH, and CC has a very large natural amplification factor.

  The key to CRGW is water evaporation, transpiration, or run off on land.  When water (rain or snow) falls on the land it can soak into the ground or run off.  On land when ground water is not available the relative humidity drops.  In any man-made structure that covers the virgin land prevents water from soaking in and increases the Run Off, RO.  When water is not available for Evaporation or Transpiration, ET, the relative humidity drops.  (ET is sometimes called Evapotranspiration.)  Some man-made effects (anthropological global warming, AGW) sources of relative humidity reduction are:

·      Cities

·      Any man-made structure that covers the natural ground

·      Forest to farm land or pasture land

·      Pumping water from aquifers

·      Forest fire land change.

·      Flood water prevention like dams and levees.

·      I am sure there are others

     Figure 13 shows a very good depiction of the water cycle on earth.  Of interest to the CRGW theory is the land part showing rain fall, evaporation, transpiration, and run off, RO.  Note that the rain fall is the sum of the evaporation, transpiration, and run off.  The evaporation is from water that has soaked in to the ground.  Transpiration is water that evaporates through any kind of vegetation, trees have the highest.  In the land water balance if any one of these changes it effects the others.   An example: if the virgin land is cover with asphalt or concrete that prevents water from soaking in to the ground where vegetation can evaporate the water then the water will run off and the ET will decrease.  Another example: If a forest is replaced with farm land or pasture the forest’s ground cover no longer holds water.  The crops that replaced the forest are only growing part of the year and do not have the leaf area as the tree’s many leaves and deep roots, all this decrease the ET.  A decreasing ET increases the Run Off, RO.  This change in ET sets in motion a series of events on land where ET has been restricted:

1.     RO increase making ET decrease, this lowers the local specific humidity, SH (SH % change is another measure of ET % change).  The land-based change in RH vs SH is shown in Figure 17, showing a 21:1 ratio.  Table 6 adjusts this relationship for the whole earth, down to 6.2 : 1.

2.     As the ET decrease, this creates low relativity humidity, RH, air with SH change equal to the change in -RO(%) and +ET(%).  In this step the RH and SH both decease.  Note at this point the local SH decrease is opposite the observed global increase.

3.     As the low humidity air rises (to where clouds form) the relative humidity, RH, drops even further. Another amplification occurs, 4.58 : 1, Figure 10 slope ratios, SH 850mb/SH 1000 mb..

4.     The low RH air spreads around the world (mainly off shore) and reduces cloud cover, CC,  this process has the smallest of amplifications, 1.2 : 1, In Table 3 dif. CC/dif. RH 850mb.

5.     Less CC lets more sun’s radiation in.  Table 6 shows the product of all these amplifications to be  34:1 change in CC per change in SH through this series steps of RH changes.

6.     More radiation warms all earth’s surfaces.  On land more radiation makes the relative humidity even lower.

7.     On the oceans the radiation increase warms the water and evaporates more water increasing the global specific humidity, SH.  This increase is greater than the local land decrease in SH resulting in the observed increase in SH.

8.     The result is the rising SH and dropping RH.  The localized short term ET effects are not seen on a yearly basis.  (Figure 1 in (1) shows city examples)

     This list of events is better seen by Figure 18.  Figure 18 is a blowup of a small part of a Psychrometric Chart, PC, that best describes the earth’s atmosphere.  Table 3 is a list of all the least squares fit data (from Figures in this paper) that are used to show the CRGW theory is valid.  Table 4 puts this data in to a “Free on Line PC “, (11) to test the fit of actual 1975 and 2020 data to calculated data from (11).  The low difference in Table 4 shows a good fit.  The “Free on-Line Psychrometric Chart” is a good calculator for atmospheric changes.

Estimating ET changes

     ET is somewhat like cloud cover; It varies a lot from season to season, hemisphere to hemisphere, and with land mass.   What we are looking for is small changes over time (smaller than the cloud changes – remember the amplification factor).      

     The easiest to explain change is ET is Cities or better known as Urban Heat Islands, UHI’s,   UHI’s got their reputation as heat island due the higher temperature from lower albedo and lower water, SH.  The effect on RH was not appreciated until this paper and the previous paper.  UHI’s temperature, SH, and RH behavior is predicted by a PC in (1).  The UHI’s change in ET is related to run off, RO, increasing, (if precipitation cannot soak into the ground, it runs off and is not available for ET).  The earths land surface is covered by 3% urban development, and about half of the population lives there.  The structure that the other half lives in also covers the earth with roof tops and drive ways that do not allow water to soak in and also increasing the RO.  That gives 6% of the earths land mass having an effect on the RO and ET.   The amount of RO change for UHI’s is hard to find data on but a lab experiment by U of Colorado College of Eng. (16) shows a 20%-30% increase in RO.  Table 5 uses 6% of land coverage and 25% change in RO.

     RO changes from land use changes are also hard to find.  One of the best reports on land change from satellite data is by Winkler K. et al (16)  with data claiming 32% of the land has been changed by man.  Most changes were virgin land to crop or pasture, some was reclaimed pasture back to forest.  Run Off in the Mississippi river basin computer simulations is documented by Tracy E. et al (18) showing a range of RO from +45% to -25% depending on what was being converted to what.     McMenemie C. (19)   paper singles out damming rivers and putting in levies to prevent flooding to have a significant effect on ET. 

     Depleting aquifers effects the water table to lower and reduce the water available for ET thus making more low RH air.  Most ground water from aquifers is recycled back as recharge yet the earths aquifers are decreasing.  According to the web “Typically, 10 to 20 percent of the precipitation that falls to the Earth enters water-bearing strata, which are known as aquifers.”  The 10 to 20 percent may not be shown accurately in Figure 16 (it is possible it is part of the RO).  No data could be found on the total earth effect of lower ground water on ET or RH – it should not be insignificant.  

     The study of ET is a relatively new monitoring field.  Most paper on the subject at less than 10 years of data and the emphasis of the studies are usually water management or carbon sequestration very little atmospheric specific humidity  or relative humidity data is reported.  Some satellite data is just started (< 5 yrs).  The results of current papers are not consistent.  Some examples: BaolinXue et al (23)   shows no change in 20 years from rural land-based stations in the FLUXNET dataset (as expected on non-land change areas and not urban data).  Samuel Zipper et al  (24) have a short (4 year) but very good study of Madison Wi USA UHI showing a 5%/year drop in ET in a 20 km^2 radius of Madison central (not a statistically significant time).  Qingzhou Zheng et al (25) study of a whole water shed (110 km^2) in China that included forest, crop-land, baron land, rivers, wetlands, and cities showed a 7% reduction in ET in 13 years, with the main factor being urban expansion.

     This paper will use estimates of land change RO that is in the range of the publish data as shown in Table 5, 30% land coverage and 10% RO change.  The man-made structure RO (% of global) added to the RO (% of global) totals 1.3% (% of global) (or -ET% change).   It is not the intension of this paper to be an expert on ET change only to show this change can account for all the GW at  1.3% (% of global) from 1975 to 2020.

Explanation of Figure 18 model of the Path taken by the 1975 to 2020 climate change.

      Figure 18 is a very blown-up Psychrometric Chart showing the chain of effects (the path) to the final 1975 to 2020 observed climate change.  The parallel energy (all atmospheric changes occur at constant energy or a shift in energy) lines are established from the observed 1975 and 2020 data of 33.54 kJ/kg(da) for 1975 and 35.72 kJ/kg(da) 2020.  The starting point is the 1975 SH at 7.7 g/kg(da) on the 33.54 kj/kg(da) energy line.  The ET change of -1.3% (above) is about -0.1 SH change shown at 7.6 g/kg(da) in the Figure 18 model.   The 34:1 natural amplification of this SH change (through RH changes) results in the CC reduction (see Table 6) and the energy shift to the 2020 parallel energy line of 35.72 kJ/kg(da).  The hot low RH air evaporates water (increase SH), cools the air and increases the RH to the 2020 end point.  This technique of tracing an energy, temp, SH, and RH path is standard in engineering heating cooling design.

Conclusions on the Effects of Relative Humidity Reduction Over Time.

     The high sensitivity of SH to RH to CC is a natural phenomenon.  The CC variation in Figure 3 is natural (effected by tilt of the earth and larger land mass in the NH) tracked by RH and SH.   These natural CC variations are greater than the CC reduction observed.   The natural laws used in the Psychrometric Chart show the high sensitivity of RH to SH.  Using an estimate of RO in the range of publish data shows a good fit to observed data.  This explains the rising SH and decreasing RH.

     The modelers of the 1990’s where on the right track – if clouds change the results would be as strong as the that expected from CO2.  The IPCC should evaluate CRGW theory. 

Figures and Tables

Figure 1,  Graph of what Dübal and Loeb both observed (all energy is TOA).

Figure 2,  Graph of what was expected in the 20 years of CERES data based on IPCC Radiative Forcing theory of greenhouse gases.

Figure 3, Cloud Cover over 45 years from “Climate and Clouds”(5) shows the seasonal and time reduction in global cloud cover.

Figure 4, Breaking down Figure 3 data by average/month shows a low in cloud cover in the summer month (NH) and a high in the winter months (NH) due to larger land mass and axis tilt in NH vs SH.  Later Figures shows the hemispherical contribution to this Figure.   Relative Humidity from “NOAA Physical Science Laboratory” was added to show the good fit.

Figure 5, From “Climate Explorer” (6).  Showing the difference in hemispherical cloud cover due to northern hemisphere getting more sun than the southern hemisphere.  All data is 3 year smoothed.

Figure 6, Combine satellite data for cloud cover and temperature on graph to get a -0.27 ‘C/% cloud cover ratio.  All data is 3 year smoothed.

Figure 7,  Observed from Albedo change and Calculated from Cloud Cover Change in the 20 years of CERES data.  A very good match.

Table 1, Albedo Change Model from Dubal (2) data.  Extrapolation to 1975.

Table 2, Calculated energy change using Cloud change data from “Climate Explorer” and Dübal data for “cloudy area” albedo and “clear sky” albedo.

Figure 8, Dividing Temperature vs Time into two parts and overlaying SW energy change from albedo and clouds.  Good fit to 1975 to 2020 data. All data is 3 year smoothed.

Figure 8a,  1975 to 2020 part of Figure 8 with actual data, least squares fit used for calculation.  All data is 3 year smoothed

Figure 9, Specific Humidity vs time, note the break point at 1975.  All data is 3 year smoothed

Figure 10,  Relative Humidity vs year for ground level and cloud level.  Cloud level RH much more sensitive than ground level RH.  Cloud level RH will be used.

Figure 11 Copy of page from Walcek (7) showing the 1995 correlation of clouds and RH.

Figure 12,  Relative Humidity at 850 mb (cloud level) vs time.  Note difference between NH and SH.  Good correlation, RH has been changing for a long time.

Figure 13,  “International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project” (8) of just Cumulus cloud cover over 27 years.  Cumulus clouds were the only ones changing of 9 cloud types studied.

Figure 14,  Scatter plot of all the monthly data in Figure 3 and 12 to obtain a correlation between RH and Cloud Cover.  Red dots are data used in the Model in Table 2.

Figure 15,  Monthly plot of cloud cover in both northern hemisphere and southern hemisphere.

Figure 16.  A good diagram of the water cycle on earth from Trenberth et al (13)

Figure 17.  Relative Humidity vs Specific Humidity the average slopes, 21, will be used in Table 6 to show the natural change in RH/SH.

Figure 18,  Path of energy and Specific Humidity, SH, change that accounts for the observed 1975 to 2020 change.

Bibliography

1.     “Where have all the Clouds gone and why care? “ web link:  Where have all the Clouds gone and why care? – Watts Up With That?  

2.     “Radiative Energy Flux Variation from 2001–2020” by Hans-Rolf Dübal and Fritz Vahrenholt  web link:  Atmosphere | Free Full-Text | Radiative Energy Flux Variation from 2001–2020 | HTML (mdpi.com)

3.     “Satellite and Ocean Data Reveal Marked Increase in Earth’s Heating Rate” by Norman G. Loeb,Gregory C. Johnson,Tyler J. Thorsen,John M. Lyman,Fred G. Rose,Seiji Kato  web link  Satellite and Ocean Data Reveal Marked Increase in Earth’s Heating Rate – Loeb – 2021 – Geophysical Research Letters – Wiley Online Library

4.     “Earth’s Albedo 1998–2017 as Measured From Earthshine”  by P. R. Goode,E. Pallé,A. Shoumko,S. Shoumko,P. Montañes-Rodriguez,S. E. Koonin  First published: 29 August 2021 https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL094888  web link:  Earth’s Albedo 1998–2017 as Measured From Earthshine – Goode – 2021 – Geophysical Research Letters – Wiley Online Library

5.     “Climate and clouds” by web site  link    climate4you ClimateAndClouds

6.     Climate Explorer web site  Climate Explorer: Select a monthly field (knmi.nl)  go to “Cloud Cover”  click “EUMETSAT CM-SAF 0.25° cloud fraction”  click “select field” at top of page on next page enter latitude (-90 to 90) and longitude (-180 to 180) for whole earth.

7.     “Clouds and relative humidity in climate models; or what really regulates cloud cover?”  by Walcek, C. web link Clouds and relative humidity in climate models; or what really regulates cloud cover? (Technical Report) | OSTI.GOV

8.     “International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project” Web page:  ISCCP: Climate Analysis – Part 7 (nasa.gov)

9.     “Declining Humidity Is Defying Global Warming Models”  by James Taylor  web link  Declining Humidity Is Defying Global Warming Models (forbes.com)

10.“Investigating climate change’s ‘humidity paradox’”  by Dr Kate Willett  web link How is climate change affecting global humidity levels? | World Economic Forum (weforum.org)

11.“Free Online Interactive Psychrometric Chart”  by  Free Online Interactive Psychrometric Chart web link:  Free Online Interactive Psychrometric Chart (flycarpet.net)

12.“NASA Physical Sciences Laboratory” web site:  Monthly Mean Timeseries: NOAA Physical Sciences Laboratory

13.”Atmospheric Moisture Transports from Ocean to Land and Global Energy Flows in Reanalyses” by Kevin E. Trenberth1, John T. Fasullo1, and Jessica Mackaro1  web link:  Atmospheric Moisture Transports from Ocean to Land and Global Energy Flows in Reanalyses in: Journal of Climate Volume 24 Issue 18 (2011) (ametsoc.org)

14.“Met Office Climate Dashboard”  web link  Humidity | Climate Dashboard (metoffice.cloud)

15.“Vital Signs”  Web link  Global Temperature | Vital Signs – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (nasa.gov)

16.“Natural and Urban “Stormwater” Water Cycle Models” by U of Colorado college of Engineering web site  Natural and Urban “Stormwater” Water Cycle Models – Activity – TeachEngineering

17.“Global land use changes are four times greater than previously estimated” by  Karina Winkler, Richard Fuchs, Mark Rounsevell & Martin Herold  web site:  Global land use changes are four times greater than previously estimated | Nature Communications

18.“Effects of Land Cover Change on the Energy and Water Balance of the Mississippi River Basin”  by Tracy E. Twine1, Christopher J. Kucharik2, and Jonathan A. Foley3 web link Effects of Land Cover Change on the Energy and Water Balance of the Mississippi River Basin in: Journal of Hydrometeorology Volume 5 Issue 4 (2004) (ametsoc.org)

19.“Reasons for Increase in Global Mean Temperature and Climate Change”  By Conor McMenemie web site:  Reasons for Increase in Global Mean Temperature and Climate Change (allaboutenergy.net)

20.“How to Heat a Planet? Impact of Anthropogenic Landscapes on Earth’s Albedo and Temperature Mark Healey Lindfield”,  Web file:  www.scirp.org/pdf/ijg_2020062914563820.pdf

21.“Analogy 04 Ocean Time Lag”  by Skeptical Science  web link  SkS Analogy 4 – Ocean Time Lag (skepticalscience.com)

22.“Effect of groundwater pumping on the health of arid vegetative ecosystems” by Victor M. Ponce web link effect_of_groundwater_pumping.pdf (sdsu.edu)

23.Global evapotranspiration hiatus explained by vegetation structural and physiological controls by BaolinXue et al  web link Global evapotranspiration hiatus explained by vegetation structural and physiological controls – ScienceDirect

24.Urban heat island-induced increases in evapotranspirative demand by Samuel Zipper et al web link  (PDF) Urban heat island-induced increases in evapotranspirative demand (researchgate.net)

25.Effects of Urbanization on Watershed Evapotranspiration and Its Components in  Southern China  by Qingzhou Zheng web link Microsoft Word – water-713292.docx (usda.gov)

4.6 18 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
69 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Dodgy Geezer
November 23, 2022 6:42 am

I don’t understand this. Don’t the authors know that human-caused climate change is now a settled world religion?

That means that WHATEVER advances in scientific understanding occur, we will invariably have to lower our living standards and pay ever-increasing taxes to remain alive on this planet….

guidvce4
Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
November 23, 2022 7:10 am

sarc/ recognized and appreciated. The last sentence sez it all. Its what the climate BS is all about…enriching and empowering the politicians, and their minion “scientists”, over all the peons not in on the scam. That would be most of the normal folks on the planet.
Also, they are not winning any hearts and minds with all their false predictions which don’t seem to come true.

Greg61
Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
November 23, 2022 7:26 am

Obviously the only way to avoid global catastrophe is to submit to the New World Order, put Bill Gates and the WEF in charge and implement world wide communism.

pillageidiot
Reply to  Greg61
November 23, 2022 7:38 am

Ah, I see you have access to the unpublished working group notes from the most recent WEF meeting!

(I hope Greg61 isn’t your real name, or you will soon have 20 heavily-armed FBI agents at your door with an arrest warrant.)

Drake
Reply to  pillageidiot
November 25, 2022 4:10 pm

Warrant, we don’t need no stinking warrant!

And if we have one, YOU will not be allowed to see it, or the “justification” provided to the “judge”.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
November 23, 2022 7:28 am

This new religion has preachers, saints, devils, hierarchies, scripture, dogma, the equivalent of the Jesuits (defenders of the faith), tax collectors, scribes promoting the faith in the MSM, objects of worship (sun/wind) and the most high and mighty meet annually at COP events. If you challenge any of this you will be shunned as a DENIER.

abolition man
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
November 23, 2022 8:58 am

“…you wii be shunned as a HERETIC and SINNER!” There, fixed it for you.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  abolition man
November 23, 2022 11:07 am

Yeah, same thing. A secular religion for sure.

Elliot W
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
November 23, 2022 12:20 pm

Plus medieval “indulgences”. Where ordinary people paid the church money to allegedly offset sins. These are now known as “carbon credits”.

Sceptic-Al
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
November 23, 2022 1:25 pm

They now even have a goddess, preaching the new religion and prophesying the end of the world. Greta Thunberg
.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Sceptic-Al
November 24, 2022 12:54 pm

A reincarnation of Nongqawuse

186no
Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
November 23, 2022 9:48 am

….with or without being boostered, # God knows how many, prior to which instalment being shot full of mind altering drugs to cure depressive reactions to jabs (aka a sceptical informed sense of realism)….who said “religion” is bad for humanity ( Chorus of “WE DID”, with respect to sincere believers)

usurbrain
Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
November 24, 2022 6:57 pm

Stranger is that 60 years ago as a student in an electronics course on vacuum tube amplifiers I was taught that if one feedback is more than ten times the other the lesser feedback can be ignored for preliminary evaluation and calculations as it will dominate the effect of the circuit feedback. This was demonstrated with a circuit that had several variable potentiometers.

strativarius
November 23, 2022 6:49 am

Clouds are a major assumption in the models. It’s one thing to play what if, but it’s quite another to try to ‘use’ the models as the ]scientific] basis for global policies. Anything involving the Sun, cosmic rays, plant aerosols etc – I’m willing to bet there are plenty of unknown unknowns in there somewhere, too – is treated as fringe lunacy. The more so when it is clearly the opposite.

They cannot fathom – to date – how clouds work. Wouldn’t it be great if someone could. As things stand, advanced as we might be, the complexity of the climate is way beyond our full understanding. In that context the 70s global cooling scare which then gave way to the global warming scare seems understandable. 

Then in 1989 the UN told us under no uncertain terms that we had ten years to turn things around. Then in 2000 it told us the same thing again. By current reckoning we still have a few years left. 2030?

What you can say is current policies will have us cold, hungry and in the dark by 2030. Probably eating insects, artificially cultured meat and a whole host of vegan goodies dressed up as fake meat – if they have their way.

“CO2 is innocent”

I’d say it’s essential, yet the BBC has recently referred to it as “dumping Carbon in the sky.” That’s what passes for serious, objective journalism in the 21st century – but then, they have an agenda to promote, they do not report news as such anymore. I doubt they will again.

Rick C
Reply to  strativarius
November 23, 2022 8:01 am

Stradivarius ==> Agree completely. It is mind boggling to me that anyone who claims knowledge of weather/climate/physics/chemistry, etc. would not acknowledge that climate is the result of complex interactions of dozens of variables. We know of several factors that vary sufficiently to explain most global temperature change on their own – solar radiation, ocean oscillations, cloud cover, orbital changes, atmospheric energy transport, land use and vegetative cover, ice and snow cover, etc.

There are simply too many variables that we don’t understand, can’t measure accurately and perhaps don’t even know about to allow for any meaningful prediction of future climate. We can’t even predict the high and low temperatures in a specific location 3 days hence better than within +/- 4 F. We most certainly have no hope of being able to control the climate. In fact, the only defense we have against adverse weather depends on our technology and access to abundant low cost energy which we obtain mostly from fossil fuels.

186no
Reply to  strativarius
November 23, 2022 9:54 am

What can we expect given that Tim Davie is at the helm, an attendee at the infamous 2009 (?) seminar/conference which decided , among other crass blx, that the science is settled and they do not have to balance their Op ed output, sorry agenda driven narrative or fairy story if you will. What I don’t understand is if the “science” was “settled” that far back, how can the WHO “own” it now?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  strativarius
November 23, 2022 9:16 pm

There is no question that clouds are the weakest link in the extant GCMs as they have to be parameterized. That provides lots of opportunity for mischief, whether intended, or the result of unrecognized bias.

wilpost
Reply to  strativarius
November 25, 2022 8:01 am

CO2 is a Life Gas; No CO2 = No Life
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-is-a-life-gas-no-co2-no-lifeUN IPCC Climate Gate

The graph shows no decrease in CO2 during the 400-y Little Ice Age, LIA, from 1450 to 1850; the low temperature point was about 1700!!
See URL for graph

Some years ago, the UN IPCC claimed, the LIA was merely a European climate event, because the more than 100 computer programs could not explain why CO2 in the atmosphere did not decrease with temperature during the LIA.

The UN IPCC would never admit the more than 100 computerized temperature predictions were “running hot”

However, scientists from various parts of the world claimed their countries had an LIA as well.

A red-faced IPCC had to stop making its spurious claim. See image
 
The LIA event is just one more proof, CO2 had nothing to do with the world’s temperature for at least 400 years.
Those laws of physics have not changed!!
 
APPENDIX 4
 
Whereas, the CO2 ppm increased from about 280 ppm in 1825 to 412 ppm in 2020, the increase in temperature due to that ppm increase was less than 0.1 C, as shown by the graph in Appendix 4.

The Appendix 4 graph shows, each 20-ppm increase of CO2 beyond 412 ppm, causes less and less of an increase in temperature!!

Any additional temperature increase, during that period, likely was due to other factors, such as reduced cloud cover
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/11/23/co2-is-innocent-but-clouds-are-guilty-new-science-has-created-a-black-swan-event/

The UN IPCC found it so convenient to blame  evil, poisonous CO2, but, finally, that game is over.
 
APPENDIX 5
 
The same holds true for methane, CH4, aka natural gas, and N20, nitrous oxide

Both are used for producing fertilizers.

The world’s population could not be fed without them
 
For example: Some scare-mongered politicians in Sri Lanka banned fertilizers to create the appearance of being “green”, but nationwide crop failures were the result!!

blais
Reply to  strativarius
November 25, 2022 9:24 am

Cloud reduction is not an assumption it is a statistical fact that took 36 years of data to see (Figure 6) the “black swan”. The agreement between the energy from the 36 years of cloud reduction and albedo observations is very good.

Chris Foskett
November 23, 2022 6:57 am

Just a layman’s thought. Would the conversion of 120 billion litres of water into the additional 4 billion humans over this time period have any impact?

Matt Kiro
Reply to  Chris Foskett
November 23, 2022 7:32 am

I have wondered about that myself . But the fact that the oceans hold so much water , probably means it makes little difference

Nick Graves
Reply to  Matt Kiro
November 24, 2022 1:13 am

It probably has been significant (via reduced aquifers, UHI effect, etc) affected the SH/RH equation in a lot of specific areas.

Probably of little significance overall, as the Earth’s closed-feedback loop seems to have created a lot of global greening over that Modern Warmer Period of the mid-20th Century.

I seem to remember a lot more warm, overcast days when the unpleasant closeness would only be lifted when it finally pissed down (official meteorological term) watering the place thoroughly.

MarkW
Reply to  Chris Foskett
November 23, 2022 7:40 am

It might have lowered the sea levels by a micrometer. However trying to measure that micrometer given the noise in the system is not possible at this time.

Phillip Bratby
November 23, 2022 7:03 am

Cloud reduction is the only cause of ocean warming (if there is any).

BurlHenry
November 23, 2022 7:24 am

Dr. Blaisdell:

You are correct that decreased cloud cover will cause global temperatures to rise, and that CO2 has no detectable role in our warming temperatures.

However, you have missed the actual cause of the rising temperatures since circa 1975, which is the decrease in the amount of Industrial SO2 aerosol emissions into the atmosphere due to global Clean Air efforts.

SO2 aerosols are reflective,and decrease the intensity of the Sun’s rays that strike the Earth’s surface. If their quantity in the atmosphere is reduced, warming WILL occur. Their level in the atmosphere peaked at a reported 136 million tons in 1979, and have fallen since then, to 79 million tons in 2019, although the resultant increase in temperatures has shown many fluctuations, because of volcanic SO2 aerosols, and changes in the rates of Clean Air decreases.

The inset shows recent levels of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere. The are heaviest in the industrialized NH, so decreases there would be greater than in the SH .

fluid4.png
Mash Man
Reply to  BurlHenry
November 23, 2022 8:23 am

I wondered about that years ago after reading Svensmark.

eo
Reply to  BurlHenry
November 23, 2022 8:42 pm

not to mention that sulfur dioxide is a major chemical in the formation of aerosols, nucleation and hence cloud formation.

blais
Reply to  BurlHenry
November 25, 2022 6:26 pm

Interesting data, Cloud Cover, CC, reduction seems to be statistically in line with SO2 atmospheric aerosol reduction. The reflectivity of CC can go both ways, some high thin clouds reflect SW light from the sun as well as SW light from the earth back down (these clouds are white on both sides). Lower cumulus clouds are much thicker and are reflect SW on the sun side and hold in LW on the darker bottom side. I don’t know if SO2 aerosol is like high clouds reflecting SW both ways or like cumulus clouds reflecting SW in and LW out. As this paper shows only the cumulus clouds are reducing with time. SO2 reduction could be playing a role in cloud reduction but it would need relative humidity as a partner. I looked for some clear sky data on SO2 aerosols- found some but could not relate it to global albedo contribution. Your points are well taken and should be considered.

Stephen Wilde
November 23, 2022 7:25 am

It is simpler than all that.
An active sun alters the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles so that jet stream tracks become more zonal. That involves less clouds than meridional tracks so albedo declines and more energy gets into the oceans.
El Ninos become dominant and the system warms.
The opposite for a less active sun.
I said here long ago that a persistently quiet sun would lead to La Niña dominance and that has come to pass.

Henry Pool
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
November 23, 2022 9:53 am

Ja. Ja. Storms and climate change are of all times. It has been directed. If it was not for the enormous waste of money worldwide, I would have said my goodbyes to you all a long time ago.

https://breadonthewater.co.za/2022/11/20/the-lord-of-the-weather/

Oldseadog
November 23, 2022 7:41 am

Yoy would think that papers like this blow the whole CAGW hypothesis out of the water as soon as they appear, but so far they haven’t and I’m not holding my breath about this one either since the MSM won’t report it just like they haven’t reported any of the others.

186no
Reply to  Oldseadog
November 23, 2022 10:17 am

To these weather deniers, it seems to me, here has not been an incidence of some inane triviality – or bandwagon if you prefer – on to which they could jump and surrender their crass beliefs and claim it as the panacean step change/”discovery” sufficient to enable them to save face. Everyone else, whether steeped in the science or not (me) will see straight through that and demand a compulsory Calvinistic, Inquistional “Truth and Irreconciliation” session from which they never reappear. Just a random thought – cloud water vapour has long been cited as being more reflective of radiated heat than anything else, unless I am mistaken…?

wilpost
Reply to  Oldseadog
November 25, 2022 8:04 am

Would you deny CAGW, if your job, career, benefits and retirement funds depended on it?

Peta of Newark
November 23, 2022 7:48 am

IOW: Water controls the weather – or – movement of water is the weather

Next, go ask any farmer why he uses, or might want to use, A Plough
Oddly, most all of them are in the much/rapidly-changing (according this essay) Northern Hemisphere

Ulric Lyons
November 23, 2022 8:03 am

Every other warm AMO phase is during a centennial solar minimum, so the associated decline in low cloud cover operates as a negative feedback.

Mash Man
November 23, 2022 8:13 am

So, is it safe to assume that CRGW, while ‘man-made’, does not include a world destroying positive feedback loop, that requires our governments to spend trillions of dollars?

blais
Reply to  Mash Man
November 25, 2022 4:23 pm

A start would be for the government to spend $$ on the right problem.

JCM
November 23, 2022 8:27 am

Clay micro particles visible in the air near the old bridge after light cultivation. Blue skies and suspended haze persist

182 - 30032021- Phone.jpg
Richard M
November 23, 2022 9:44 am

Definitely on the right track that the warming we’ve seen is due to increased solar energy making it to the surface. However, the cloud reduction which caused it appears to be of 2 separate causes. First, we saw a reduction in clouds and second was a thinning of clouds. I suspect the mechanisms were also separate.

Take the most recent thinning as report in Dubal/Vahrenholt 2021. It shows up mainly in the eastern Pacific. Seems unlikely such a specific location would be due to land use changes. In addition, the reduction in surface reflection was likely due to Antarctic sea ice reduction starting around 2014 (a PDO phase change).

The reduction in clouds appears to be mainly around the AMO phase change in the 1990s. This likely changed atmospheric currents as the ocean temperatures changed.

The timing of the ocean phase changes and the temperature changes is just too good not to be related. I’m not saying land use is not a factor. It just seems that the ocean changes are a larger factor in the cloud changes.

What may be happening is the land use changes provide a small upward influence in the global temperature while the ocean phase changes have added to the warming over the last 50 years.

Editor
Reply to  Richard M
November 23, 2022 1:03 pm

Thinning of clouds? The data I looked at showed clouds thickening globally. In my paper, see Figure 8: “Cloud opacity 1983-2017 – global, over land, and over sea. Linear 1983-2017 change is 5.5% globally, 3.9% over land, 6.1% over sea (NB. percent, not percentage points)”.

Richard M
Reply to  Mike Jonas
November 23, 2022 7:34 pm

My comment is an interpretation of Figure 5. from Dubal/Vahrenholt 2021. It shows that most of the decline in reflected solar energy was over cloudy areas.

Editor
Reply to  Richard M
November 23, 2022 7:56 pm

OK, so maybe for “thinning” of clouds you are actually looking at a decrease in area of cloud cover. From 1983 to 2017 (all available cloud data) the area of cloud cover decreased while the thickness of the clouds increased (especially over the oceans).

Richard M
Reply to  Mike Jonas
November 23, 2022 8:12 pm

There was a reduction in clouds but that particular graph seems to be specifically looking at places with clouds and computing the amount of reflected solar energy. It is independent of the amount of cloud cover.

There is another possible interpretation though. If you have relatively thin clouds over ice or snow and you have a reduction in the amount of ice or snow, the now open land/ocean area would absorb more of the solar energy. There wouldn’t need to be any change in the clouds.

Richard M
Reply to  Mike Jonas
November 23, 2022 8:41 pm

Another possibility since the ice/snow change disagrees with the claim that most of the change was in the eastern Pacific. In fact, I believe it was the equatorial regions.

You could have thinning where you have more solar energy available while also having clouds getting thicker in high latitude areas. It could average out to thicker clouds, but the change in reflected energy could have the opposite sign.

douglasproctor
November 23, 2022 10:02 am

Weather stations tabulate hours of Bright Sunshine. Bright sunshine, of course, occurs when cloud cover is minimal and low cloud cover, of course, causes warmer ground temperatures.

Take any regional database and plot Hours of Bright Sunshine and temperature anomalies on an annual basis and you will see that most of temperature rise and fall of temperatures are related to changes in Bright Sunshine, ie cloud cover. (You’ll need to colour code the data points to see the progression over time.)

If the data allows you to do this for max temperatures the result will be the same but stronger.

I did this for CET temperatures 1930 – 2010. (Posted on Tall Blokes Talkshop in 2010). I don’t understand why it hasn’t been done in the research literature – except to say “Bright Sunshine” is not a quantitative character. It is a “threshold” character, however, which is sufficiently numerical and free of observational and instrumental variance to be used. Otherwise the correlation would not show up so well.

DavsS
Reply to  douglasproctor
November 24, 2022 5:35 am

I did something similar with the south west regional data 1919-present from the MO’s website recently. Monthly hours of sunlight vs Max T. Correlation is greatest in July (r2=0.68) and declines to zero in winter.

douglasproctor
November 23, 2022 10:12 am

A question for statisticians in the audience:

How much of a dataset do you need to become seriously above the previous mode to change the mean enough to distort the “global” picture.

Say Australia had a progressive 50% loss of cloud cover and temperatures rose a lot. If you merged that into the global dataset, would it look like the world was warming up?

How much UHIE would it take to make the global temperatures appear to be rising?

Do we truly need to have a global reduction in clouds to get an apparent global rise in temperatures? That’s the bottom line here: can local regional changes change the apparent global picture?

On the Notrickszone.com you see repeated local temperature profiles that don’t show the global warming trend. Like Antarctica also. So how many strong but lical datapoints do we need to skew the global picture?

Brad-DXT
November 23, 2022 10:52 am

CO2 is Innocent.It always was.
I’m sure there are more factors that effect climate that we haven’t discovered or thought about yet, so be prepared for more “Black Swan” events.

That won’t change the leftist narrative because it is and always was about power and control. These autocrats are determined to control every aspect of human life even if it leads to massive amounts of misery and death.

mkelly
Reply to  Brad-DXT
November 23, 2022 12:08 pm

Fully agree. If the CO2/IR interaction caused warming there would need to be two energy columns in the specific heat table of air and CO2. One column with IR and one without IR.

And the emissivity of CO2 is almost zero at atmospheric pressure and temperatures.

Last edited 13 days ago by mkelly
Philip Mulholland
November 23, 2022 11:41 am

Vangelis Albedo 0.39 released in 1976.
Isn’t it curious that he got the value of the Earth’s Albedo wrong?

Philip Mulholland
Reply to  Philip Mulholland
November 23, 2022 11:56 am

And here is the Earth in 1968.

Last edited 13 days ago by Philip Mulholland
Editor
November 23, 2022 12:55 pm

I would like to add my paper https://wjarr.com/content/clouds-independently-appear-have-much-or-greater-effect-man-made-co2-radiative-forcing to the reading list. The data – 1983-2017 – shows decreasing cloud cover but increasing cloud opacity (optical thickness). This pattern is pretty relevant to this interesting article by Charles Blaisdell. Possibly the most important finding of my paper is that clouds operate independently from man-made CO2, whereas the IPCC reports appear to think that clouds act only in reaction to man-made CO2 (“cloud feedback”). Clouds are a very important part of Earth’s climate, and the more we understand them, the better.

blais
Reply to  Mike Jonas
November 25, 2022 9:54 am

Sorry I missed your paper in my research – it should have been included in this paper. You may have been one of the first researchers to see the “black swan”. I hope this paper answers your question, what effects the reduction of cloud cover: a series of natural relationship between lowering local specific humidity, SH, (lower ET) followed by lower Relative Humidity at 1000mb. followed by lower Relative Humidity at 850mb (where the cloud are) and the strong correlation to Cloud Cover, CC. This over all amplification of 34:1 (SH to CC) was surprising to me, but it is real and natural, and I could not find any other reference to it. I hope other researchers will check it out.

MichaelNelson
November 23, 2022 12:56 pm

I enjoyed your article. I published an article (http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ijg.2016.710092) that plotted the world’s monthly average specific humidity at sea level and compared it to CO2. There were several observations that I was unable to answer. For example, CO2 and ocean temperatures were inversely related (see my figures 23 & 24). The two (CO2 and Temp) showed a six-month shift. Land biology has been suggested as the reason. But there is very little land biology at the poles, and yet the CO2/Temp relationship remained inverse. Your Figure 15 shows a general six-month cycle in albedo. Do you have any opinions about whether the monthly albedo deviations have an effect on the cyclic CO2 concentrations? It should be noted that the published CO2 concentrations (volume ratios) are based on dry measurements, not the actual concentrations (See my figures 2-4).

blais
Reply to  MichaelNelson
November 25, 2022 4:14 pm

I also noted the CO2 monthly oscillations well as SH, RH, Temp. and Cloud Cover monthly oscillations (different at each hemisphere) all seem to have an effect on each other. Cloud Cover and CO2 are inversely correlated. RH and CO2 have no correlation. Suggesting temperature is related to CO2 oscillations. CO2 and Cloud Cover are confounded (vs temperature) and as this paper suggest Cloud Cover is dominate.

cognog2
November 23, 2022 1:41 pm

They have gone round the houses have they not?
Here is my rough summary:

The RATE of water evaporation is a function of the difference between the Specific Humidity (Partial Pressure) and the Vapour Pressure; with the gaseous Vapor produced absorbing some 894KWatthrs of Enthalpy/Kg (Latent Heat) from the solar energy at constant temperature. This takes place in the Oceans resulting in a rough maximum 32deg.C Sea Surface Temperature (SST). (On land the results vary.)
The reason for this being that the global specific Humidity (SH) is stable at around 4.2% in the atmosphere.This giving circa 0.6174 psi at sea level. At 30Deg.C the Vapour pressure is 0.6154 psi.(ie: the same*) but this rises very rapidly thereafter so too the RATE of evaporation.
In effect this swamps the incoming radiation to prevent further temperature increase.
(*A coincidence? I think NOT)

The Vapor rises UP through the atmosphere where it dissipates the majority of its Enthalpy to form the clouds, with the balance going into Space, before returning to Earth in the water cycle.

The clouds indeed do alter the Earth’s Albedo, among other things and so the level of solar radiation and the RATE of evaporation adjusts for this giving a variable but stable equilibrium State which we all call the Climate.

OK its all very well conjecturing like this; but getting close to proving the hypothesis is very difficult, at least for me, due to the many other variables involved.
Constructive comments most welcome. I’m working in a bit of a vacuum here; but I am finding that as I progress, many apparent quirks in the weather can get easily explained. (rightly or wrongly!!)

blais
Reply to  cognog2
November 25, 2022 2:48 pm

SH and RH are not stable in the atmosphere see Figure 9 and 10. This is one of the points of the paper Why Are They Changing and Can They Account for the Cloud Change.CC. The paper shows the complex relationship between local SH decrease (a result by man’s changes to land use) followed by RH 1000mb global decrease followed by RH 850mb global decrease corelated to CC global reduction. CC reduction raise the earth’s temperature evaporates more water (increases the SH). At the local level (where the land use was changed) this processes feeds back to the beginning of this cycle.
This cycle is not conjecturing it is real proven science. The SH to RH 1000mb and constant energy is proven by the Psychrometric Chart. The decrease in RH with altitude is documented by NOAA Physical Science Labatory. The RH 850mb to CC is the real correlation of NOAA data and CC data from Climate Science. The increase is SH from the CC temperature increase is from the Psychrometric Chart.
How important this cycle is may be call conjecturing. My use of 1.3% change in ET for the beginning of this cycle is on the high side of suggested values – but possible. I believe there are other researchers out there who can put a better light on what the real change in global ET is. I hope I have done my part by showing the importance of better understanding ET changes.

greggylad
November 23, 2022 1:48 pm

So actually, reducing CO2 emmissions is the LAST thing you want to do as it greens the planet which will increase RH right?

blais
Reply to  greggylad
November 25, 2022 1:54 pm

Glad you read the paper. You are right in your observation. But we need to fix the water cycle problem at the same time as plants can shut down their transpiration without water even a higher CO2.

Geoff Sherrington
November 23, 2022 7:41 pm

Dr Blaisdell,
Thank you for this important essay.
Philosophically, I have long felt that we are here, ona psrticular type of Earth planet, because of the presence of water. The system has been operating for milliuons of years and has long ago acxhieved a state where perturbations are corrected by process that plausibly have a central role with water.
Please keep the study going. It raises important but neglected topics. Geoff S

Clyde Spencer
November 23, 2022 9:11 pm

Condensation nuclei are an important factor in cloud formation. The most important are thought to be salt introduced into the air from waves and coastal surf, and dust from the Sahara, Mongolia, and other desert areas. These in turn are probably both driven by windiness.

stevekj
November 24, 2022 5:07 am

It sounds like the authors are on the right track, but nevertheless I have a serious problem with a graph that has an axis labeled “Energy” and is denoted in W/m^2… (a gaffe which is, of course, not unique to this article but permeates all of official climatology)

MissHellKitten
November 24, 2022 9:25 am

What about geoengineering technologies like cloud seeding? Where is this factored in?

zzebowa
November 24, 2022 10:01 am

Stunning science!

matutinal procyonlotor
November 26, 2022 6:05 am

An abstract should be included with a one paragraph length. Here is a possible one, but my understanding is most likely flawed.
“Man made structures like cities, urbanization … cause fewer clouds, and this makes the earth less reflective( clouds reflect sunsight back out t o space) so global temperature goes up.”
I have not studied the article because it is not organized well and a lot of study would waste my time. The author is no doubt a smart fellow, and I am basically on his side on this, but this article is for a general audience, not a scientific one. A scientific audience is more willing to study details and form conclusions, but general audiences are not so indulgent. I really wish the author success, and if the audience was more sophisticated than I am, I am sorry for wasting his time reading this comment. Maybe the same material organized with summary up front and bullet items to tie together the conjectures and conclusions would be — good.

blais
Reply to  matutinal procyonlotor
November 27, 2022 8:52 am

Thanks for the comments. Here is the short version.
Executive Summary:
CO2 is innocent but clouds are guilty. (New science could end the war on fossil fuels)
      Our tax dollars have been at work with NASA for the last 20+ years putting satellites in orbit to detect and find the reason for Global Warming, GW. After 20 years the CERES satellite has discovered that cloud reduction is the major cause of GW for those 20 years. The same data shows little sign of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) being a dominate cause.  Other satellite and ground-based data have shown cloud reduction for 36 years.  This observed cloud reduction can account for all the GW observed in the 20 years of CERES data, leaving no GW left over for CO2 caused GW. If the 36 years cloud reduction is extrapolated to 1975 it can account for all the observed GW since 1975. Cloud reduction causes GW by reducing the amount of highly reflective clouds covering the earth and letting in more sun light to warm the earth, Cloud Reduction Global Warming, CRGW.
    A new theory for CRGW has been proposed: man’s change in land use (cities, any man-made structure, conversion of forests to farm land, etc.) has caused a small but significant reduction in the natural water cycle that creates clouds. The paper shows that a small change (1.3%) in the earths water cycle is amplified by relative humidity (a natural phenomenon) to cause the observed cloud reduction.

MichaelK
December 2, 2022 3:10 am

A simple comparison of average annual temperature and the annual total hrs of sunshine for England ( as published by the Met Office) shows a strong correlation between temperature and sunshine hrs (ie cloud cover) with a gradual increase in both sunshine and temp over the last century.
Maybe it is down to cleaner air, but the little ice age was before large scale industrialisation so maybe it’s just the sun?

Eyes Wide Open
December 3, 2022 11:21 am

So I believe the basic premise here is that a decrease in clouds (due to lower relative humidity) lowers albedo and increases incoming short-wave radiation which acts to increase the heating of the planet. What I don’t understand is while Figure 1 shows incoming short- wave radiation increasing since the start of the 21st century, Figure 3 shows that over this time frame cloud cover has actually been increasing slightly.

Anyone what to reply as to why this is not a contradiction of the espoused theory here? I am curious.

Last edited 3 days ago by Eyes Wide Open
Eyes Wide Open
December 3, 2022 11:32 am

While a reduction in clouds could be a key driver of increased incoming shortwave radiation prior to the turn of the century, Figure 3 from this post clearly shows that this couldn’t be the case for this after that point in time. Instead, could anti-pollution measures driving the reduction in sulphur dioxide emissions be the underlying reason?

Global sulphur dioxide (SO₂) emissions by world region (ourworldindata.org)

%d bloggers like this: