From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
h/t AC Osborn
A very telling pair of graphs from Ole Humlum’s Climate4You:
We can debate the reasons for less cloud cover, but generally speaking less cloud/more sunshine leads to higher temperatures. (Certain high level clouds may have the reverse effect, but this is small).
Even the Met Office admitted this a few years ago, in a study they have since buried.
In particular, it is the sun that predominantly heats the oceans. The equilibrium effect on the seas from a slightly warmer atmosphere are so small as to be unmeasurable.
In alarmist world, of course, CO2 is the only driver of global temperatures, so don’t expect them to mention that cloud cover has been a major factor behind global warming in recent decades.
“We can debate the reasons for less cloud cover”
Indeed. A very plausible reason is higher temperatures.
Here is a Nature paper setting this out:
“On a global and annual average, we find a parameterization in which the cloud cover increase is proportional to the mid tropospheric temperature increase, with a negative proportionality factor. If the relative humidity is conserved throughout the troposphere, a 1 °C heating (cooling) of the mid troposphere, decreases (increases) the cloud cover by 1.5 percentage points (pp). But if the relative humidity is not conserved, then the cloud cover decreases (increases) by 7.6 pp. If the shortwave reflection effect of the cloud cover is dominant on a global scale, this parameterization leads to a predominant positive feedback: if the temperature increases like in the current climate change, the cloud cover decreases and more solar radiation reaches the surface increasing the temperature even more.“
More climate models
Beats hand-waving.
Oh my.
Hand-waving is exactly what YOU are doing Nick.
Trying pitifully to find some way of blaming climate variability on human CO2.
The question is .. WHY !!!
Parameterization in unvalidated junk models.. is JUNK non-science.
…. especially like the CSIRO model… one of the absolute WORST.
Did you have something to do with that particular piece of scientific ineptitude ??
Viewed from outer space, clouds look as white as snow, I.e., they reflect a lot of short wave energy, likely more than they are credited with in NASA energy balance calculations
Less clouds, less reflection, more short wave energy reaches earth surface, from which it is emitted as long wave energy that warms the atmosphere, by about 1.2 C since 1900, no big deal, because it was a lot warmer during the Medieval Warm Period, and Roman Warm Period, both were boom times, because warm is good.
Why foolishly spend tens of $trillions to reduce CO2, which plays less than 1% role regarding global warming, as proven in very cold areas?
Unverified models are not as good as hand-waving.
It may be true that cloud cover correlates to temperature but that is quite different from the statement in the article. What is the evidence that less cloud cover is the cause of higher temperatures?
A while back Roy Spencer addressed this topic, expressing the belief that a 1% decrease in global cloud cover would equal, or perhaps exceed, the warming of some much large % increase in CO2.
I don’t recall the numbers. However, he went on to say that no responsible scientist would claim that we can accurately measure changes of +/-10%, perhaps more like +/-20%, in global cloud cover. I don’t know what the uncertainties are but I suspect, as with so many of the claims made, the uncertainty is much larger than the claimed signal.
Indeed. And John Clauser would agree. Anybody can state anything but you cannot overcome the basic uncertainties, especially anything to do with cloud cover. However, it seems pretty obvious that more cloud cover= less energy reaching the Earth=cooling. Just the temperature you feel standing under a cloud and the reduced radiation from the surface is enough. Of course it doesnt stay that way. The Earth is pretty good at balancing energy just by itself.
By itself, without heroic efforts, such as seeding clouds.
That could be used to rain on the enemy during a battle.
Indeed. However many things things that seem self evident turn out not to be under the rigorous scrutiny of objective measurements. Weather events of themselves are generally not good insights to climate
So you have never heard of the measurement of “sunshine hours then?
Roy Spencer may well have said that, but the IPCC certainly did. In I think AR4 they said that a 1% decrease (actually a 1 %pt) in cloud cover would deliver as much warming as doubled CO2.
Hand-waving beats alarmists’ climate change masturbation – dreaming of ways that a bit of gentle, slow warming could cause the climate zombie apocalypse 🤕
Actually, climate models are little more than scientific hand waving.
Parameterization is just a fancy term for hand waiving.
Parameterization is the representation of physical processes that occur outside the domain or resolution scale of the numerical core of the main model. I provide examples of what parameterization is in this post. It has nothing to do with hand waiving.
It is what you think it should be. If you calculate the value for inside grids so can the computer.
It is hand waving.
except at the tropics
Nick,
Do CO2 emissions cause the Earth’s surface to warm by reducing OLR or by increasing ASR?
‘Trenberth and Fasullo considered global energy accumulation within the ensemble of coupled general circulation models (GCMs) participating in phase 3 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison (CMIP3). They report that, under the Special Report on Emission Scenarios A1B emissions scenario, wherein increasing radiative forcing is driven principally by increasing GHG concentrations, OLR changes little over the 21st century and global energy accumulation is caused nearly entirely by enhanced ASR – seemingly at odds with the canonical view of global warming by reduced LW emission to space.’
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4250165/
Assuming you’re in the latter, ‘post-canonical’, camp, maybe you can explain to the deniers exactly 1) when the evidentiary goal posts got moved and 2) why no one has been awarded a Nobel prize for having done so.
Frank,
“Do CO2 emissions cause the Earth’s surface to warm by reducing OLR or by increasing ASR?”
The canonical view since Arrhenius is that OLR has to balance incoming SW in the medium term and so is basically constant. GHGs increase the impedance and so force surface temperature to rise to get the same flux with higher impedance. You’re talking about the mechanism for that required rise.
More down welling IR is one possibility; increased ASR is another. The point is that they ar satisfying a condition imposed by GHGs.
Your link starts out:
“The greenhouse effect is well-established. Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, reduce the amount of outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) to space; thus, energy accumulates in the climate system, and the planet warms.”
Arrhenius made a naive conjecture.
Couldn’t even get his equation dimensionally coherent.
Climate science hasn’t progressed much since then.
Still the fake hypothetical mechanisms…
… still the anti-science of downward flux against the net flux.
Only GHG that effects rate of atmospheric cooling is H2O
Provide a scientific paper proving CO2 causes warming…
Prove it can overcome and alter the gravity based thermal gradient.
…. otherwise you have nothing.
Excellent reply. It still boggles my mind when people try to explain the ‘back radiation’ hypothesis using energy balance as an argument instead of explaining the mechanism by which it works. AND overcome the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
It is pretty clear to many that H2O in various forms regulate the temperature of the atmosphere, mainly oceans by energy transfer using wind and clouds as cooling factors.To try and push CO2 in there as a forcing ‘agent’ brings up the image of the elephant and the mouse on the bridge. Nice try…but no cigar.
Otherwise known as Errornius…
I’ve read Arrhenius’ 1896 paper on the effect of “carbonic acid” on “the temperature of the ground” in detail. He derived his estimates of IR absorption coefficients for water vapor and CO2 from Langley’s experiments on moonlight (from the full moon on clear nights) refracted through a “salt prism”, where the absorption coefficients were calibrated as a function of refraction angle, not wavelength. The correlation between wavelength and refraction angle of the prism is hinted at for wavelengths less than 9 microns, but is not detailed for the CO2 peak absorption between 14 and 16 microns. The absorption spectra deduced by Arrhenius do not resemble spectra obtained by modern measurements.
Arrhenius had no idea of the supposed blackbody radiation temperature of the full moon, and alternately cites estimates of 40 C (313 K) to 100 C (373 K). Arrhenius knew of the dependence of blackbody radiation on temperature to the fourth power, but the spectrum of intensity of blackbody radiation as a function of wavelength (the Planck distribution function) had not yet been discovered, since Max Planck published it four years later.
Arrhenius then used a single absorption coefficient for infrared radiation through the entire atmosphere as a function of concentration of water vapor and CO2, as if these concentrations were constant. It is possible that the CO2 concentration measured in the laboratory was higher than that outdoors, if the laboratory was poorly ventilated. Since the atmospheric pressure decreases as altitude increases, even at a constant mole fraction, the concentration of both water vapor and CO2 in moles/m3 would decrease with altitude, but this was lumped into a single coefficient by Arrhenius, who also thought that temperatures in the upper atmosphere were about 40 C higher than at ground level, which is now known to be false.
Arrhenius’ theory that ground temperatures would increase due to increasing CO2 concentrations in the air was an interesting speculation based on rudimentary input data and generous simplifying assumptions, some of which later proved to be inaccurate. He calculated that if CO2 concentrations doubled from his assumed 300 ppm in 1896 to 600 ppm, surface temperatures would increase by about 5.0 C in the tropics to 5.6 C at high latitudes, which is beyond the range of the most alarmist estimates from the IPCC.
If a similar analysis is made using modern IR absorption spectra, a profile of temperature and pressure with altitude based on the adiabatic lapse rate, the Planck blackbody distribution, and the Beer-Lambert law of absorption, the “equilibrium climate sensitivity” for doubling the CO2 concentration ranges from 0.3 K in the tropics to 0.5 K (summer) to 1.0 K (winter) at middle latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere.
To be fair, Arrhenius made great contributions to the science of chemistry, particularly in predicting how reaction rates depend on temperature, and some equations used in modern chemistry and reactor engineering still bear his name.
It seems like the IPCC has used Arrhenius’ excellent reputation as a chemist to justify his speculative conclusions about the effect of CO2 on climate, which were based on rudimentary input data and faulty assumptions, and later proved to be greatly exaggerated.
You may recall that Jim Steele posted an article here recently in which it was posited that the observed increase in OLR concurrent with a decrease in cloud cover indicated that CO2 was not behind the current increase in GST, since the alarmist narrative is that more CO2 causes GST to increase by decreasing OLR.
As you duly quoted from the linked paper, OLR is supposed to decline if CO2 emissions are a significant factor in surface warming, but it hasn’t. Instead, OLR is increasing, a phenomenon which the authors of that paper term ‘paradoxical’, and which Trenberth & Fasullo in a previous paper said was ‘seemingly at odds’ with the narrative that Alarmists have been pushing from day one.
My earnest question is when did the ‘canonical’ decreasing OLR mechanism get dropped in favor of the increasing ASR mechanism that apparently seems to have been uniquely ‘revealed’ to the modelers, with little fanfare, by the GCMs?
“OLR is increasing, a phenomenon which the authors of that paper term ‘paradoxical’”
No, you quoted what they said in bold:
“OLR changes little over the 21st century”
Which measurements show is not correct….
…. so undoubtedly something Nick “believes”
OLR increases in line with atmospheric temperature changes.. and since there was no atmospheric warming from 2000 – 2015.
… so OLR was basically level from 2000-2015
OLR has absolutely nothing to do with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
To “OLR changes little over the 21st century”
Oxymoron says:
“Which measurements show is not correct”
And posts a graph that goes to 2018.
Err, and what has OLR done in the 82 years that lie beyond that graph?
Been there in a time machine or did you think 18 years comprises a century?
Pray tell.
Nick,
Here’s the quote:
‘The greenhouse effect is well-established. Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, reduce the amount of outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) to space; thus, energy accumulates in the climate system, and the planet warms. However, climate models forced with CO2reveal that global energy accumulation is, instead, primarily caused by an increase in absorbed solar radiation (ASR). This study resolves this apparent paradox.’
They also said the results were ‘surprising’. Again, when were the goal posts shifted from reduced OLR to increased ASR as the warming mechanism?
Read the abstract of the paper you’re citing:
Greenhouse gases reduce OLR, which induces global warming, caused, according to this paper, by increased ASR.
Put another way, increasing GHGs produces a condition under which the planet has to warm to comply with the laws of physics. What produces this warming can be any variety of mechanisms, the warming just has to happen, and it has to continue until the incoming and outgoing fluxes are balanced.
Alan,
The ‘greenhouse’ effect of CO2 emissions from Arrhenius onwards has been predicated on the mechanism that CO2 emissions (and those from WV feedback) suppress OLR relative to ASR until increasing GST causes OLR to rise sufficiently to re-establish radiate balance at TOA.
But observations don’t support this mechanism. Instead, we are seeing increasing GST and OLR concurrent with reduced cloud cover, which itself would imply increased ASR. So now the modelers (thanks for the Donohoe et al paper, by the way) would have us believe that these ‘surprising’, paradox(ical) and ‘odd’ results are just what their models revealed to be the true mechanism by which CO2 emissions warm the Earth.
Sorry, but models ain’t data, so all this looks way too much like special pleading to keep CAGW alive on the basis of GCM models that everyone acknowledges run too hot. There’s also the issue that CAGW theory now seems to unfalsifiable, i.e., occurs under both increasing and decreasing OLR scenarios – not a good look for ‘consensus’ science.
“Sorry, but models ain’t data”
Sorry, but as we cant put the Earth in a lab and well abacuses and slide-rules are a bit inadequate – then that is what we have to use.
And “models” say that feedbacks to CO2 warming cause greater ASR.
That you will not accept that, is of course taken for granted.
But I’ll bet you have no quibble with model results for the outcome of nuclear fusion or the ones used at CERN.
They, of course, don’t threaten your ideological objection to climate science.
Now, I wonder what the problem is here? (sarc)
While completely true, is still not sufficient reason to start pretending that the output of models is just as good as real data.
‘Sorry, but as we cant put the Earth in a lab and well abacuses and slide-rules are a bit inadequate – then that is what we have to use.’
No we can’t, but physicists like Wijngaarden and Happer (W&H) don’t seem to have any problem accurately modeling the radiative properties of various atmospheric conditions common to the Earth, which is something the GCMs can’t do. Then there’s also a substantial amount of paleo data that clearly dispels any notion that CO2 is the Earth’s climate ‘control knob’.
‘But I’ll bet you have no quibble with model results for the outcome of nuclear fusion or the ones used at CERN.’
I have no idea what you mean by this. However, I’m willing to bet that nuclear fussion will not be an economically viable energy source during my life time.
‘They, of course, don’t threaten your ideological objection to climate science. Now, I wonder what the problem is here?’
I have no ‘ideological objection’ to climate science – just the use of inherently flawed GCMs to ‘justify’ the trashing of Western economies and freedom.
GCMs absolutely handle radiative transfer through the atmosphere. W&H repeat calculations used by Manabe et al. to build the early general circulation models.
Well said Frank.
Though there may be some GHG warming from CO2, the IPCC rely on water vapour to enhance this warming beyond say 0.5C where it may be measurable. However, their high ECS model values >2C appear to be nonsense. Clouds here appear to be vital for overall temperature moderation, with both warming and cooling possible.
But It’s hard to get emotionally worked up over all this physics and the AGW twaddle in general.
And that is the process laid out in the article you cite. The idea that is with small shortwave forcing, OLR takes a very long time to recover from a perturbation from CO2 increase, but in the presence of strong shortwave forcing, it recovers in a few years, and most of the energy accumulation resulting from the enhanced greenhouse effect is coming from increased ASR. That is to say that the specific climate response from greenhouse forcing depends on the particulars of the system being forced, which isn’t anything revolutionary, and doesn’t contradict any known view of the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect.
It is a straightforward effort to learn something about the climate system. The implication of nefarious intent you are making is nothing more than an application of your own prejudice. “It seems too convenient to suppose that scientists can explain observations, so they must be engaging in fraud.”
‘The idea that is with small shortwave forcing, OLR takes a very long time to recover from a perturbation from CO2 increase, but in the presence of strong shortwave forcing, it recovers in a few years, and most of the energy accumulation resulting from the enhanced greenhouse effect is coming from increased ASR.’
Well, that’s very convenient. I would suggest that the IPCC allocate some serious resources in their next Assessment Report to make it clear that they have revamped their theory to conform to the output of GCMs that themselves don’t provide consistent results.
‘It is a straightforward effort to learn something about the climate system. The implication of nefarious intent you are making is nothing more than an application of your own prejudice.’
Which I always endeavor to do. I do admit to having prejudices, but they are solely driven by the clearly stated intent of many politicians who see ‘consensus’ climate science as the means to achieve their nefarious ends.
The output of GCMs is consistent with observations of OLR. That is certainly convenient in the sense that it means the GCMs are able to replicate important aspects of climate change and allow us to understand it better. The IPC devote considerable space to such discussions in their reports.
Let’s rewrite this.
Increasing GHG’s produces a previously unknown and still unresolved condition under which the planet has to warm.
Your lack of anything scientific really proves your point don’t you think?
Let’s not. Let’s leave it with the original intended meaning.
Steele is an unreliable source because he is a CO2 Does Nothing Nutter
A one degree C. warmer Earth emits more OLR.
Steele claims more CO2 is supposed to reduce OLR, and that proves CO2 does nothing.
If CO2 only increased OLR, then more CO2 would cool the planet. That is a fantasy, not reality. Only a Nutter woul believe that.
Stefan-Boltzmann law: Total radiant heat power emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature.
As temperatures increase, the amount of thermal radiation emitted also increases, leading to more outgoing longwave radiation (OLR),
More energy will radiate out, according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law, until the net energy balance is restored to zero. So Earth’s temperature will stabilize at another, increased value. The Stefan-Boltzmann effect acts like a negative feedback to keep Earth’s temperature from changing in one direction only.
outgoing LW radiation (OLR) initially decreases because of enhanced LW absorption by higher GHG levels; as energy accumulates in the climate system, global temperature rises and OLR increases until the TOA energy balance is restored—when OLR once again balances the net absorbed solar radiation (ASR).
There is less OLR than there would have been with no greenhouse effect.
******************************
Clouds usually have a higher heat content and higher temperature than clear atmosphere, and therefore there is increased downwelling longwave radiation on cloudy days.
‘Steele claims more CO2 is supposed to reduce OLR, and that proves CO2 does nothing.’
No, Richard, the Alarmists claim that more CO2 will suppress OLR until the accumulated heat again causes OLR to rise to where it again balances ASR. But there has been no observed decline in OLR with rising GST, meaning the warming is not the result of CO2 but something else that has caused ALR to increase. The Alarmists are claiming that their GCMs have ‘revealed’ that the observed concurrent increase in ASR and OLR were expected. They weren’t, so don’t let them off the hook.
Mr. Greens says:”Stefan-Boltzmann law: Total radiant heat power emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature.”
The above is modified by the emissivity of the “surface”. As the emissivity of CO2 is almost zero at STP how can it do anything?
You make the same mistake as most do when it comes to the SB equation. The land and oceans are heat sinks, meaning they store heat in their mass for release at a later time.
The algebraic form of SB only applies for an infinitely small point in time. To model the earth, one must develop time based gradients for the temperatures involved and for the emissivity in order to adequately assess the radiation balance over the earth.
“when did the ‘canonical’ decreasing OLR mechanism get dropped in favor of the increasing ASR mechanism”
It seems to be this paper (2009)
Global warming due to increasing absorbed solar radiationKevin E. Trenberth, John T. Fasullo
“Abstract: Global climate models used in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) are examined for the top-of-atmosphere radiation changes as carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases build up from 1950 to 2100. There is an increase in net radiation absorbed, but not in ways commonly assumed. While there is a large increase in the greenhouse effect from increasing greenhouse gases and water vapor (as a feedback), this is offset to a large degree by a decreasing greenhouse effect from reducing cloud cover and increasing radiative emissions from higher temperatures. Instead the main warming from an energy budget standpoint comes from increases in absorbed solar radiation that stem directly from the decreasing cloud amounts. These findings underscore the need to ascertain the credibility of the model changes, especially insofar as changes in clouds are concerned.”
And if you look at figure 1 you will see that OLR is the claimed warming mechanism up until 2040-2070. The ASR warming doesn’t start until later this century.
The paper you’re quoting makes my point:
‘These findings underscore the need to ascertain the credibility of the model changes, especially insofar as changes in clouds are concerned.’
I’m not aware they have a grip on clouds yet.
I can track the hypothesis back to 1960s with Wetherald and Manabe’s research. Spot checking the research at the time it appears there was no clear indication either way in regards to the validity of the hypothesis, but it was discussed. By the 1980s it was pretty common for models to predict the increase in both OLR and ASR as a result of positive radiative forcing. And as cloud microphysics understanding matured more and more models were showing the result explained by Donohoe et al. 2014. Today the consilience of evidence has shifted dramatically in favor of the position that the shortwave cloud is positive.
BTW…you asked about the Nobel Prize…Manabe won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2021 for research related Earth system climate modeling which includes his work related to the cloud feedback. I’m sure Wetherald would have shared the prize had he not already died.
bdgwx,
Thanks for the background, but I remain concerned that the so-called canonical theory by which CO2 increases GSAT has evolved over time on the basis of modeling (parameterization changes?), rather than on the basis of observations. However, I’d be more amenable to being convinced about this if the IPCC could show how the Earth’s Energy Balance would have responded at equilibrium, assuming the forcings under one of its scenarios, say, SSP3-7.0 were to have occurred.
If I remember correctly, such an analysis was not available at the time we had a very similar OLR vs. ASR discussion pursuant to one of Javier’s articles. Is that still the case?
ASR is absorbed solar radiation
The study is garbage because there are no data for ASR, such as a global annual average
statistic based on many measurements
Therefore, conclusions about ASR are speculation, not supported by evidence.
This infrared radiation is what keeps the Earth warm. Only about 47% of the Sun’s energy reaches Earth’s surface because the rest is absorbed or reflected by the atmosphere. The atmosphere absorbs about 30% of the Sun’s energy, and the clouds reflect about 20%.
about 47%
about 30%
about 20%
Not very precise
Much easier to measure TOA TSI with satellites.
Increased sunlight would not be a good explanation for the majority of warming since 1975, which was at night
Since when did IR radiation warm the deep Oceans, which are the heat sink of the Earth.
There are few temperature measurements of the deep oceans (under 2000 meters — half of ocean volume) so how do you know what is there?
This is just the latest paper on Cloud cover effects.
https://notrickszone.com/2024/04/29/post-1980s-increases-in-shortwave-radiation-explains-europes-warming-trends-far-better-than-co2/
‘The study is garbage because there are no data for ASR…’
Both the current and the previous article by Steele reference cloud cover. As you know, cloud cover has a large affect on the Earth’s albedo, so given the assumption that solar insolation at TOA is constant, a reduction in cloud cover would reduce albedo, thereby increasing ASR.
See there, increasing ASR, OLR and GST, all occurring concurrently and without needing to invoke the deux de machina of CO2.
Do you know what the word “Parameterization” means? I am betting you think your audience does not. It means “We made this up.”
Go take a long walk on a short pier.
An alternative definition is, “We can’t compute this, so we will just have to make our best guess.”
In this context “parameterization” is the way physical processes beyond the scale or domain of the numerical core are represented in the model. They are typically implemented as separate models often developed by separate groups that are then coupled often bidirectionally with the main model.
One example is the solar input. A parameterization scheme is ran outside the numerical core to perform the orbital calculations (often so complete that eclipses are predicted) to compute the orbitally induced variation in solar insolation. The result is then injected one way into the main model. This is the exact opposite of “We made this up.”
Another example is radiation. That is a phenomenon that works at the molecular scale. This cannot be computed natively in the numerical core of GCMs since they operate on kilometer scales. Instead a separate parameterization scheme like the RRTM is invoked to do the computations and whose inputs and outputs are morphed into and out of the scale of the main numerical core. It is the exact opposite of “We made this up.”
Yet another example is deep moist convection. Models like the HRRR running at ~3km and lower can natively compute the physical process. It does not need to be parameterized. However models like the GFS and most climate models run at 10 km or higher and so cannot natively compute the process. Instead it has to be parameterized into a separate model. This is not because anyone is making anything up. It is a technical limitation mostly caused by inadequate computing resources.
If CO2 causes global warming
And global warming causes a water vapor positive feedback
If the combined warming of CO2 and water vapor leads to less cloudiness, then what we will have is runaway global warming
I find that hard to believe.
There has never been runaway warming in Earth’s history, even with CO2 levels believed up to 10x higher than today, based on estimates,
SOMETHING must eventually prevent runaway global warming
One possibility is more clouds, not fewer clouds, from more humidity in the troposphere
In the long run, cloud cover should be directly proportional to humidity and inversely proportional to temperature. Perhaps these two effects will cancel each other?
“ then what we will have is runaway global warming”
No, all you have is positive feedback. There is a big negative feedback, which is the Planck feedback; more heat causes more radiative loss, etc. The positive feedback has to exceed that before runaway, and there is a long way to go.
“ Perhaps these two effects will cancel each other?”
Not exactly
The Plank feedback is theoretical and not measured.
Any claim that it would stop warming caused by more CO2, more water vapor and fewer clouds, is speculation, not a fact.
Eggs and chickens Nick.
It’s circular logic, as usual. “We find a parameterization” that better matches observation cannot be used to suggest that the reason for the warming has been found before the mechanisms are identified and demonstrated. But you did just that.
That includes the word “if” 4 times.
Do you or anyone else ever sit down and think about the claims you make? Show the evidence that relative humidity has decreased throughout the troposphere. Then show the evidence of how reduced relative humidity increases clouds. Models don’t count because they can only handle the parameterizations that are programmed. That is not evidence.
You have just described a system with positive feed back. Such systems are generally unstable and destroy themselves in short order. If the theory were correct, we would see hot spots in the tropics. Instead, we see that the clouds build up as temperature increases, preventing further temperature rise. This is why equatorial temperatures are stable.
If this positive feedback effect existed the planet would have boiled away our oceans long before humans ever existed.
Long before life itself existed.
That was my first draft but couldn’t see how O2 or CO2 would make up much of the atmosphere at all, without life.
There was lots of methane, though 🙂
Not if the feedback fraction were less than 1.
That relative humidity stays the same as temperatures rise, is the core assumption of every climate model out there.
Is Nick admitting that every climate model is broken?
Disproven by legitimate field experiments.
Higher temperature leads to more cloud coverage, not less, and cosmic rays, plant aerosols, and sea aerosols play a big part in this.
Of course but it is due to more intense sunlight over NH land and gradual reduction in permanent land ice over the last 500 years. It has nothing to do with CO2.
There are no accurate data for TOA TSI befor the 1970s
Sunspot counts are nonsense
You are a CO2 Does Nothing Nutter
There goes the “CO2 causes warming, but he has no evidence” ranter… yet again !!
Why not ask almost 100% of scientists who agree about CO2 — or would you rather hold on to your myths like a child holds on to a security blanket?
97% of Baywatch viewers agree that Pam Anderson is beautiful in a bathing suit.
But 100% of her 5 former husbands, not so much.
Lucky for you, she is still single. Go for it.
“There are 3 kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
— attributed to Mark Twain
Re: Pam Anderson on Baywatch: that was then, this is now.
“almost 100% of scientists agreeing” on anything? . . . that is a myth if I ever saw one!
Oh God it’s pathetic!
“plausible reason”
Put your left foot in.. put your left foot out.
Play hokey-pokey as much as you like Nick… but don’t pretend it is science.
Very good Nick, but let me lead you to a deeper conclusion. Notice that the warming with reduced cloud cover since since 1979 adds up to 0.8°C !!! So take what you think the anomaly should be and subtract 0.8°C to get the feedback attributable to CO2. Is that not an Ionian moment for you.
How does reduced cloud cover explain most of the warming, which was at night?
And how about stratospheric cooling?
The heat goes in to the Oceans and land surface and is released at night, or for the Oceans over much longer periods because it goes much deeper.
Releasing heat is called cooling
Absorbing heat is called warming
Earth’s surface is not cooling as well as it used to cool because of a larger greenhouse effect. This is easiest to measure at night because downwelling longwave radiation from greenhouse gases are most effective at night.
Mr. Greene says:“Absorbing heat is called warming”
As only work or heat can cross a thermal boundary how does “heat” transfer from a cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface?
Paleoclimatology proxies say otherwise . . . note past average global temperatures 10 °C or more warmer than today:
Not necessarily . . . when water absorbs the heat of fusion in going from snow/ice to liquid water, and when water absorbs the heat of vaporization in going from liquid to vapor, it absorbs heat without any change in temperature.
Elementary thermodynamics and physics.
UHI
UHI does not affect 71% of the planet that are oceans. And they are warming too.
It had been widely accepted since the 1950s that global temperature rises were not consistent throughout the day and night, with greater nighttime warming being observed.
Feb 1, 2024
Show me the data of increasing min. tempertures at night of oceans.
These data are collected on land.
You know what radiation frost is ?
You may see it on your car in the morning, but not on the sides where a wall is nearby.
So most of the warming was at night! Did you know the ‘definitive’ study for this chestnut used data from 1980 to 2017. Before major fiddling of the temperatures by their keepers, the 20th century highstand of T° was mid 1930s to mid 1940s. From 1945 to to 1979 we had declining T° known as “The Ice Age Cometh” that deeply worried world scientists. Find the documentary narrated by Leonard Nimoy.
The major fiddling of
T° was to erase the earlier warm period where all the record Ts stil remain in State held data and the 35yr deep freeze was also largely erased. They had to do these to avoid falsification of crisis climate (like how did CO2 make it hottest before 1945 and coldest for 35 years after that. Did you know that until Hansen of GISS, on the eve of his retirement in 2007 fiddled the Ts, again that the super el Niño of 1998 did not break the record of the late 30s? I didn’t think so. At the time, much of the warming in the 1980s 90s was recovery from the brutal “Ice Age Cometh”! BTW, I’ve been here since the late 30s so I’ve watched it unfold you might say. You came to the party late after they tidied up the data to make it fi the meme so you take it as a given.
So, when you measure warm up of night Ts, starting from the coldest period you get the biggest warm up ‘data’.
It is plausible in the context of looking for something that gives the result you want. You do so at the cost of ignoring the abundance and type of condensation nuclei. There is also the issue of certain bacteria that suppress the freezing point of water, which appears not to have been examined by anyone beyond confirming the effect. I think that it would be better to look for a negative feedback loop and start with the assumption that it controls the behavior of the system, rather than a positive feedback. Why assume that the relative humidity is conserved in the absence of explicit empirical data supporting the relationship?
“Why assume that the relative humidity is conserved in the absence of explicit empirical data supporting the relationship?”
It isn’t. It has diminished, which reduces cloud cover further. From here, a plot of observations; RH is the top map:
” To evaluate the extent to which ERA5 cap-
tures climate variability and to set the stage with fields that
have a well-studied reference, we analyze the global surface
air temperature (ST – the air temperature at 2 m above the
surface) together with the total cloud cover (TCC – the part
of a grid box covered by clouds).”
Who knew the satellites were that accurate? 😉
Thank you for the evidence suggesting that reduced cloud cover is resulting in warming.
Yep, Nick has just proven what he is arguing against.. Very funny ! 🙂
No, that you think that the logic starts with reduced cloud cover and not the reason for it is what is funny.
And typical.
And you don’t think.
Thanks for drawing that to everyone’s attention.. again.
You could make up some imaginary fake CO2 meme.. if you wanted to…
… that would be even funnier.
No, you swerved the start of the feedback chain.
The causation of the reducing cloud cover is resulting in warming.
Pure suppository !
But hey, the model says it is true!
What is causing the reduced clouds?
Good God Stokes,
How could increased temperatures, more ocean evaporation, possibly lead to less clouds? Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Do you enjoy your work? The first Stokes as in Navier-Stokes, your dad or your grand-dad?You must be massively jealous,
Find a job not costing the world trillions. Without FF-based fertilizers, billions will starve.
Good luck with killing billions, a noble goal…
Yep, anyone supporting the climate scam in any way, needs to realise just what they are doing.
The destruction of western civilisation is one of the stated aims of this scam.
Nick has shown it that isn’t about the science or reality….. so why is he doing it ?????
Why would anyone living in the western world support this anti-science, politically-based idiocy.
“CO2 is causing global warming” is a scientific hoax
The financial exploitation by elites of the hoax is a scam to impoverish all others.
Just to make things clear
Here is the expanded version from another site
The elites, and IPCC, and WEF, and $politicians, and entrenched bureaucrats, and compromised academia, and lapdog Media, have combined to perpetuate and/or enrich themselves, using the hoax of “CO2 causing global warming”
.
The financial exploitation by self-serving elites of the hoax is a scam to impoverish all others.
The self-serving Democrat elites are implementing the West’s rules-based renewables scam to defraud all others
However, fast-growing BRISC, including China, India, Russia, etc., are not playing along with the hoax and scam
“How could increased temperatures, more ocean evaporation, possibly lead to less clouds?”
Try reading the link that Nick posted and find out!
https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/23/6559/2023/acp-23-6559-2023.pdf
“Abstract. Clouds play a key role in Earth’s energy budget and water cycle. Their response to global warming contributes largest uncertainty to climate prediction. Here, by performing an empirical orthogonal function analysis on 42 years of reanalysis data of global cloud coverage, we extract an unambiguous trend and El- Niño–Southern-Oscillation-associated modes. The trend mode translates spatially to decreasing trends in cloud coverage over most continents and increasing trends over the tropical and subtropical oceans. A reduction in near-surface relative humidity can explain the decreasing trends in cloud coverage over land. Our results suggest potential stress on the terrestrial water cycle and changes in the energy partition between land and ocean, all associated with global warming.”
That does not agree with observations, according to ISCCP data decreasing cloud cover over the tropics that are mostly ocean corresponds with increasing temperatures as over the globe generally.
Uses junk urban surface data… without realising it is junk…. very sad. 🙁
Not science… meaningless.
A total waste of their time and effort, actually.
The highest incident solar energy occurs in the tropical and sub tropical areas.
Increasing trends in those locations reduces solar energy reaching the surface.
(my bold emphasis added)
Word salad if I ever saw one. Consequently, warning bells going off everywhere.
Chinese cloud seeding will reduce atmospheric humidity levels.
Specific humidity can increase simultaneously with a decrease in relative humidity. As a first approximation the expected result in such a scenario is less clouds. Over the last few decades SH has increased and RH has decreased so makes since that ASR has gone up.
Does RH have much effect on cloud formation? My limited understanding is that provided there are water vapour, nucleating agents, and the temperature is below the freezing point clouds will form. The type of cloud depends on height and amount of water vapour.
Iirc, Anthony Banton is or was a meteorologist, so I would value his input on this.
Generally speaking…yes. RH or equivalent metrics that relate water vapor to temperature is the most discriminating factor in cloud formation. Examples of equivalent metrics are dewpoint depression and vapor pressure deficit. Like you say nucleation is also a factor as are other factors like vertical lift. But yeah ceteris paribus the higher the RH the more likely it is for cloud formation…again generally speaking.
I always assumed it was SH at cloud forming altitudes, and ground level RH was only a minor factor.
That’s probably coloured by my own circumstances, though.
I grew up on the NW Plains of NSW. In dry years, we didn’t get much rain or many clouds.
In better years, we were a summer rainfall area. Most summer days, there would be cumulus or cumulonimbus buildup starting early to mid afternoon. If we were lucky, we’d get a decent shower or thunderstorm. If we were unlucky, we’d get a deluge.
We certainly had higher RH in the wetter years, but the RH was decreasing as the day progressed.
I forgot to include this link to the BoM’s guide to cloud types
I remember, when following via webcam some years ago the Gunung Agung eruption that in the morning the sky was clear, and then, the clouds developed more and more with increasing temperatures over the day to disapear to the evening when temperatures decreased.
Lots of things are plausible- but that’s not science.
It’s not science to hypothesize that a change in temperature would cause a change in clouds?
Look at the graphs before you make up sh!t. Increasing temperatures would tend to cause more clouds from evaporation, not less.
There was a step transition 1995-2005 to a lower cloud level – not a proportional function to temperature.
Why?
New satellites added after that date, need better calibration?
Major polluters change something so less cloud seeding from SO2 and particulates?
Speaking of pollution, China and India and so on were coming on strong during that time, emerging as it were. Did that extra pollution have a different effects than what I thought of in the previous paragraph?
All of the above and more?
At a first approximation that’s only true if RH increases. It turns out that in this warming world the increase in specific humidity cannot keep up with the increase in temperature. Thus RH declines.
BTW…clouds are very tricky. It is only low clouds by day that causes warming when they decrease. Low clouds by night or high clouds result in cooling when they decrease. In addition the water/ice phase of the cloud matters too. So you have to be careful about generalized statements regarding clouds and how they effect temperature.
Just like the climate models, Nick has lots of trouble getting clouds right.
Higher temperatures would only result in fewer clouds if the higher temperatures resulted in lower relative humidity.
However one of the key arguments in favor of restricting CO2 emissions is that the warmer air temperatures caused by more CO2 in the atmosphere results in more water vapor in the atmosphere, hence the strong positive feedback that is built into every climate model.
So, did Nick just admit that every climate model is broken and that water vapor is in fact not a strong positive feedback?
There can’t be a larger and larger positive water feedback with less and less water.
It is possible for specific humidity to increase thus resulting in a positive water vapor feedback simultaneous with relative humidity to decrease thus resulting in a positive cloud feedback. In fact, that’s what’s happened over the last several decades. Refer to the graphs above.
The cloud feedback in the tropics is highly negative. That is where the temperature is limited to 30C. .Oceans cannot get warmer than 30C.
This chart shows the negative feedback where the water vapour is increasing. When the surface is being limited to 30C, the SWR goes up twice as fast as the OLR comes down.
?ssl=1
Tropical clouds provide highly negative feedback that is so powerful it limits ocean surface temperature to 30C. The maximum temperature possible with the present atmospheric mass.
So-called “greenhouse gasses” are not involved in Earth’s energy balance. Atmospheric water in all its phase control the surface temperature.
Since NH land peak solar intensity started increasing 500 years ago, there has been a lot of permanent land ice lost so the albedo is reducing; accelerating the response to more sunlight. From Rutgers snow lab, snow cover in August 67 was 5.31e12m^2. Last year it was under half that at 2,57E12m^2.
https://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/table_area.php?ui_set=1&ui_sort=0
The other observable trend is the decline is surface runoff despite increasing precipitation over land. Warmer land but less water from the oceans means lower humidity over land and less cloud despite more water in the atmosphere.
The only places where reflected sunlight has not reduced is near the South Pole and just north of the equator.
And contrary to the GHE nonsense, OLR has increased everywhere except where sunlight has reduced.
?ssl=1
If climate models could model clouds, they would be useful but they can’t so they’re as useful as tits on a bull.
The NH will keep warming until the permanent snow starts coming back around 2200. Greenland and a few northern slopes near the Arctic oceans are the only places where permafrost is currently advancing:
?ssl=1
“And contrary to the GHE nonsense, OLR has increased everywhere except where sunlight has reduced.”
No, that is what is expected via increased GHGs.
Precisely because of the feedbacks you mention ….
“ ….. there has been a lot of permanent land ice lost so the albedo is reducing; accelerating the response to more sunlight.”
“…..Warmer land but less water from the oceans means lower humidity over land and less cloud despite more water in the atmosphere.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-00555-5
“The cloud cover increase can generate surface warming by longwave greenhouse, or cooling by shortwave reflection due to the cloud high albedo. When the reflection effect is dominant, which occurs on a global scale, Eqs. (5), (28) or (29) lead to a predominant positive feedback13,14. If in a climate change the temperature increases, the cloud cover decreases, more solar radiation reaches the surface, and the temperature increases even more. In regions where the greenhouse effect dominates (for instance, in polar regions), these formulas indicate that, given an increase in temperature, the cloud cover reduction allows an increase of outgoing longwave radiation, which propitiates a damping of the temperature increase, that is, we are in the case of a negative feedback.”
Parameters, models and other balderdash.
Is the elephant wiggling its tail yet ??
Mr Oxymoron
Get out your abacus or slide-rule then and give us the definitive answer.
The cloud feedback has very high NEGATIVE feedback over the tropical warm pools responsible for what is shown on the chart. SWR increases twice as fast as OLR reduces so the warm pool regulates to 30C. The feedback is so strongly negative that it limits ocean surface temperature to 30C. Something that can be observed somewhere on the globe every day of every year.
Did you not observe that the high southern latitudes are doing the opposite of the high northern latitudes. So in which regions are the GHGs doing their wizardry?
The chart and article are deceptive
The reduction of the percentage of cloudiness suggests warmer days and new TMAX records.
But so does the reduction of SO2 emissions since 1980.
There is no way to differentiate between the two causes of more sunlight reaching Earth’s surface.
The percentage of cloudiness is a proxy for the amount of solar energy blocked by clouds, which actually depends on the types of clouds, the height of clouds and the timing of clouds, In addition, clouds are also part of the greenhouse effect. Needed data are not available.
2/3 of temperature records since 1975 are TMIN records near dawn. Such records are most likely caused by increased greenhouse gases, not more solar energy reaching earth’s surface. Increased UHI also affects nights.
Most of the warming since 1975 has happened when there is little or no sunlight (TMIN). Mainly at night in the colder nations of the Northern Hemisphere. There is no good solar energy explanation for that dominant timing and pattern of warming since 1975.
The Honest Climate Science and Energy Blog
Increased CO2 cannot cause warmer nights or mornings.
Any action of CO2, if there is any (never been measured, or observed anywhere) is basically instantaneous.
You are heading down the wrong path, yet again. !
The only wrong path is reading your nonsense comments
Long wave radiation from the earth surface contains only 7% of 15 micron photons
Almost all photons, with many wavelengths, are impacting other molecules.
CO2 absorbs a very small fraction of the 15 micron photons
WV absorbs a very large fraction of the 15 micron photons, plus many photons with other wavelengths, because it has many big “windows”
All this absorbing and colliding will warm the atmosphere, which will radiate up and down, at longer wavelengths, because it is colder than the surface, etc.
Those longer wavelengths are beyond the CO2 window, but not beyond the WV window.
So why isn’t there a reduction in SO2 just north of the equator? Short wave reflection has increased significantly from Equator to 8N. .Up almost 6W/m^2 from neighbouring regions. How is that these “greenhouse” gasses can be so selective in where they work or don’t work as imagined?
The atmospheric residence time of sulfur dioxide is about 10 days.
Most of the sulfur dioxide released into the environment comes from electric utilities, especially those that burn coal.
Some other sources of sulfur dioxide include petroleum refineries, cement manufacturing, paper pulp manufacturing, and metal smelting and processing facilities.
The majority of SO2 emissions tend to be located near large point sources such as coal-fired EGUs or large industrial facilities.
Counties near urban areas also tend to have higher SO2 emissions due to the higher concentration of industrial facilities.
Have you thought about the map you have included? It shows China has next to no SO2 output. Do you think that is right? Why you you post anything with “capita” on the denominator if you are trying to make a point about more SO2 just north of the Equator and less everywhere else.
My understanding was that everyone accepted that CO2 alone couldn’t raise the average global temperature the dreaded 1.5C or 2C but needed the positive feedback of added water vapor. Wouldn’t added water vapor increase cloud cover? What am I missing here?
Added water vapour would possibly not increase cloud cover if relative humidity didn’t increase, IOW if the atmosphere’s water vapour carrying capacity kept pace. It’s a tricky area. The alarmists manipulate parameters (as described by Nick Stokes) to try to exploit this particular possibility. As I said in an earlier comment, Nick Stokes’ argument is circular because the “finding” is the same as the initial assumption (they started with the fact that cloud cover had declined).
“…cloud over has declined”. Not here in SE England it doesn’t seem to have! Rain, rain, and more rain so far this year – and you don’t get that without clouds…
Almost all WV is created in the tropics, 24/7/365, because of unvarying temps, and in the sub tropics.
This produces huge, big sky clouds, which transport the heat to areas which get too little sunshine.
Any impairment of the tropics is like removing a lung
Not necessarily. As a first approximation cloud cover follows relative humidity; not specific humidity. If the increase of specific humidity does not keep pace with the increase in temperature then you’ll have less clouds even though there is more water vapor in the atmosphere.
Cloud cover and its cooling influence is the biggest unknown factor in the whole climate balance debate. You can’t properly measure it. The (biased) IPCC et al simply claim it is small. People like John Clauser say it’s big and i think he has better reasons for thinking that.
It goes to show how much of the whole climate temperature is still based on a series of hypotheses wrapped up in theories with wide error bars. I think they cannot a priori be overcome. Bigger computational power actually often seems to hinder the advance of science. More and wider variables w questionable averages spinning out of control. ‘Unsettled’ is putting it mildly.
In this discussion, it is important to note that incoming SW from the sun warms the upper sea layer more than the same amount of incoming LW from GHGs. That’s because SW does penetrate into the ocean thus warming it, while LW does not thus increasing evaporation but not temperature.
Did anyone bother to do a cross correlation between the cloud cover record and the UAH temperature record? If so, there would be a hint of a maximum at a particular lead or lag. That would bolster arguments as to whether changes in cloud cover caused temperature change, or vice versa.
I just thought of this. If increased temperature, resulting from CO2 or some other factor, causes lower cloud cover, then it would be an example of positive feedback. This is because lower cloud cover results in decreased albedo, which should in turn cause increasing temperature. I seem to recall writing an article here that explored how much positive feedback we can tolerate without the climate starting to fluctuate wildly, something not allowed if you believe in hockey stick handles.
If, on the other hand, decreased cloud cover causes an increase in temperature, this could either be neutral or quite possibly even negative feedback. One might expect warmer oceans to generate more clouds. This would be perfectly compatible with a hockey stick handle and so it should therefore be endorsed by climate catastrophists.
Oh to be “scientist” like Nick. Then I could understand how higher temperatures lead to more insolation, which leads to higher temperatures, which lead to more insolation, etc., etc., just has it has throughout geological history. And our additional 0.01 % of CO2 in the atmosphere is to blame for it all.
Indeed … which is why GHGs are so important for planetary life.
Despite your appeal to the atmospheric content of them being small.
The non-condensing ones, of which CO2 is 99% of, is up from ~280ppm pre industrial to ~420ppm now.
A 50% increase.
Without it then WV would condense out as land mass snow/ice sheets, leading to runaway negative feedback and ice-ball Earth.
BTW: O3 is just 0.00006 percent in the atmosphere – but we’d be in a pickle without it.
This is utter rot. Clearly no idea how convective instability works.
With the present atmospheric mass, a level of free convection forms over surface above 15C and 30mm of TPW.. That guarantees convective instability and turnover of the atmosphere. CO2 could go to zero and water would still regulate the temperature.
Cleaner air makes for less atmospheric condensation nuclei.
So since 1995 the has AMO warmed, driving a decline in low cloud cover, and the AMO warmed in response to weaker solar wind states from 1995, via negative North Atlantic Oscillation regimes 1995-1999 and 2005-2012.
Rising CO2 forcing is expected to increases positive NAO states, which can only drive a colder AMO.
https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-3-5-6.html
Venus has LOTS of CO2 and other GHGs. Very hot.
How hot would it be without the Sun?
Cleaner air causes less clouds and more sun
Sigh…
Why the sigh, doc?
Highly illuminating.
I can never keep up with all these discussions, so for a bit of fun I ask ChatGPT for a summary. This is my criteria and ask for a summary based on the arguments. If you have any suggestions for improving the criteria, happy to take suggestions.
“”Your criteria for evaluating arguments and discussions about climate change emphasize the importance of grounding arguments in factual data and real-world observations, rather than relying on consensus or theoretical models that do not align with observed data. You prioritize empirical evidence over model predictions, especially when models and predictions diverge from what is directly observable or measurable. This approach discounts arguments that depend heavily on climate models or consensus without solid observational backing.””
Certainly! Here’s an assessment based solely on the factual data and observations from the posts, ignoring consensus validation:
Based on these posts, the arguments from wilpost, AndyHce, ballynally, Frank from NoVA, and Richard Greene stand out for their insistence on empirical data and observable phenomena over theoretical models. These contributors focus more directly on what can be measured and observed, aligning with your criteria for evaluating the credibility of the arguments presented.