Clouds not CO2 dominate the climate system

[mop]

Here is another peer-reviewed study that shows that we have radically underestimated the role of the cloud albedo feedback. This study suggests that since 1990 alone we have seen about 291% of what we have blamed CO2 for since 1900. In other words, clouds may have MUCH more to say about warming than CO2 does. To quote from the study's author:

In reply to:

---

---

 

[mop]

from their "conclusions" we see this as well:

In reply to:

---

---

 

[mop]

here is a presentation the author did on his findings which make it clear that he does not credit CO2 with as much power as some on this board do (not to mention many others who have made entire careers, and in some cases millions, out of demonizing CO2).

PDF presentation by author

 

[mop]

i admit to finding it quite amusing when i meet all the standards of the "convinced" on this board and then it goes as quiet as crickets. come on guys….this is peer-reviewed, it is suggesting that clouds play a MUCH more important role than we previously thought, it is NEW….what more could you ask for? do none of the AGW enthusiasts on this board have a response?

 

[pasotex]

What do you think this paper from 2007 proves or doesn't prove?

 

[Dionysus]

You really need to break the ellipsis habit, mop. It’s just not working.

 

[mop]

paso, it proves a couple of things. one is that we still understand VERY little about how clouds actually function as an albedo (for negative or positive) and on that basis alone, it is silly to give CO2 so much credit. this paper actually suggests that clouds have FAR more influence than CO2, thereby calling the entire CO2/warming link into question in terms of the amount of credit given to CO2 for the warming we have seen in the past 150 years.

Dionysus, I wholeheartedly agree! I am working on it I promise.

 

[mop]

paso, what do you think this paper suggests?

 

[mop]

man, things sure get quiet from all of the "pro-science" crowd on here when I post to a peer-reviewed paper that questions their beliefs! what's going on? is this an actual version of "science-denial" by silence we are seeing going on?

 

[Uninformed]

I just find it interesting that I brought this up before the paper was written. Kudos to me. <JK>. It seems obvious just using observational powers that clouds play a massive role in global temperature regulation. And for people who look up at the sky it is pretty apparent that wind direction and the type of cloud (or more specifically the altitude of the cloud and the thickness of the cloud) play large roles in heat retention.

 

[mop]

great point Uninformed and Dr. Roy Spencer has also been suggesting as much for years, yet none of the IPCC climate models consider cloud coverage as a significant contribution to global temperature.

 

[Uninformed]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[mop]

we know very little. a satellite has gone up in the last few years that will start to monitor global cloud coverage numbers which will be very helpful. I believe it is called CERN.

 

[pasotex]

A different view

 

[Uninformed]

Paso, what do you think that article states? Is it peer reviewed? One of the first statements that the article makes is, "The long term trend from albedo is that of cooling. In recent years, satellite measurements of albedo show little to no trend".

The first sentence needs clarification. What is the long term trend that indicates albedo? Then the second sentence states that satellite data show little trend. Well, so? There could be other factors at play. really incomplete and there is no causation shown. earthshine is interesting but it shows incomplete data at best - it not only needs to be confirmed. It also needs to be supplemented.

 

[pasotex]

You really should read the entire article and the scientific papers it links because the full article explains what is meant by the summary.

The long term albedo trend (1850 until 2000) was slightly cooling. The "trend" since then is neutral. There also were some data issues between ground instruments and satellites that appear to have been resolved. This is just another red herring from watts & mop.

 

[Uninformed]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[pasotex]

and it is being studied ...

 

[mop]

paso, i think you are entirely missing the point. the question is what is behind cloud formation? in other words, does total cloud coverage change over time. it doesn't only matter if clouds are a net positive or negative in terms of albedo but if the percentage of global coverage changes over time. if it does then clouds could be (and seem to be in fact) largely responsible for the heating we have seen. i don't know why you are blaming a peer-reviewed study on Watts (or me for that matter). do you now NOT trust peer reviewed studies? or is it only peer reviewed studies that go against what you believe? how do you decide which ones you accept and which ones you don't accept?

as for my answer to those questions, I want to see that MAJOR variables in global temperature and climate are considered in the models before i give them too much weight. the sun's role as well as the role of clouds are two variables that we clearly don't know very much about yet.

now tell me where you disagree without pretending myself or Watts had anything whatsoever to do with this peer reviewed study.

 

[pasotex]

You very clearly do not understand what the studies do and do not "prove." You regurgitate nonsense from Watts and think it is "science" provided you claim a study "supports" your claim. I admire the patience exhibited by GWUT and others because I just cannot do it. The peer-reviewed paper that you linked does not say or stand for what you think it does. You could read the entire series of papers and figure this out (or maybe you couldn't).

And I guess that I just don't get what you are doing anyway. Is it your position that climate is just too complex for us to ever figure out whether the doubling of CO2 will have an impact and if so to generally quantify this risk? I think this defies pretty basic and simplistic physics, but it may just be me. I also wonder if there is any level of "certainty" that would convince you skeptics?

In any event, you guys have pretty much worn me out on these threads so I will continue trying to avoid them (with varying levels of success). I am still working on a response to some questions from bronco about two months ago. This stuff takes time (because being accurate matters to me and I have to spend a great deal of time researching my responses) and my day job interferes.

 

[mop]

paso, you used powerful rhetoric but still failed to answer the basic questions i was asking. let me be more specific:

1. do you think that the IPCC models fully consider what a change in global cloud coverage causes in terms of a rise or a reduction in global temperature?
2. if so, could you point me to one of the models used by the IPCC that does indeed take into account global cloud coverage?

to answer your general questions, I would say that climatology is more or less in its infancy and we have rushed to judgment in ways that will look extremely silly even to our children 20 and 30 years from now. the real world data continues to diverge from the predictions we had back in 1990 and in spite of everyone saying that global temperature rise can take a 10 year period "off" no one really expected it and as the time period with no significant warming continues to lengthen it gets more uncomfortable.

once again, i did not publish this study or have any influence on the men and women who did. anthony watts similarly had no effect on the scientists who published this study. i did not come to find out about it from Watts site (although i would not be surprised if he did indeed comment on it) and there are many other great sites that question global warming and discuss peer reviewed papers like this.

 

[pasotex]

The questions you pose tell me that you have either not read or not comprehended the material posted by me (and you for that matter). Clouds are a part of the IPCC reports and a part of the climate models. To ask whether they have "completely" considered an issue reflects an agenda and an abject failure to understand or comprehend what science can and cannot do particularly when being used in an effort to guide policy decisions. While I do not think we have completely considered gravity, I have no desire to walk off a cliff.

 

[pasotex]

And then there is this red herring:

In reply to:

---

---

 

[pasotex]

Of course my chart is from 2009 so maybe 2010 corrected everything or perhaps not.In reply to:

---

---

 

[Ag with kids]

This is not a chart of what the predictions were in 1990, as you are stating.

These charts shows the predictions at they were put for by the models in 1990:

The Link

The Link

What your charge shows is the AR4 model predictions into the future and the past...

Basically, the models have changed significantly since 1990...

NOTE: Apparently, HF can't display .png files as images so I've linked the images as urls...

 

[pasotex]

What were the climate models in 1990?

Here is what Hansen did in 1988:

The Link

 

[Ag with kids]

They were the models the IPCC used to make predictions...

Here is an explanation of where they came from...

 

[pasotex]

No. You might reread the 1990 IPCC for what those projections were and were not. You might also fix your links.

Additionally, even if those "charts" are climate models (which they are not), the temperatures are within the "models", no?

And some peer-reviewed stuff on comparisons:

The Link

 

[Ag with kids]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[pasotex]

The link in your second post doesn't work. As I recall, the 1990 stuff wasn't modeling, but rather were projections with caveats. The actual models came later and they have gotten better over time (as one would expect). I also find it curious that one of the comparisons ignores GISS.