|
|
Post by trbixler on Sept 20, 2011 13:04:28 GMT
"New peer reviewed paper: clouds have large negative-feedback cooling effect on Earth’s radiation budget" "This new paper by Richard P. Allan of the University of Reading discovers via a combination of satellite observations and models that the cooling effect of clouds far outweighs the long-wave or “greenhouse” warming effect. While Dessler and Trenberth (among others) claim clouds have an overall positive feedback warming effect upon climate due to the long-wave back-radiation, this new paper shows that clouds have a large net cooling effect by blocking incoming solar radiation and increasing radiative cooling outside the tropics. This is key, because since clouds offer a negative feedback as shown by this paper and Spencer and Braswell plus Lindzen and Choi, it throws a huge monkey wrench in climate model machinery that predict catastrophic levels of positive feedback enhanced global warming due to increased CO2. The cooling effect is found to be -21 Watts per meter squared, more than 17 times the posited warming effect from a doubling of CO2 concentrations which is calculated to be ~ 1.2 Watts per meter squared. This -21 w/m2 figure from Richard P. Allan is in good agreement with Spencer and Braswell. Here’s the paper abstract, links to the full paper (which I located on the author’s website) follow."wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/20/new-peer-reviewed-paper-clouds-have-large-negative-feedback-cooling-effect-on-earths-radiation-budget/ |
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Sept 20, 2011 16:52:48 GMT
I have been discussing this sort of subject with steve and glc for years on this blog. I have never believed any of the hypothetical estimations which are used to claim that doubling CO2 causes a large increase in global temperatures. Now we have 3 peer reviewed papers which show from observed data that these hypothetical estimates are bogus. However, I dont expect any warmaholic to ever agree to this statement. It is heresy, and against their religion. I look for all sorts of excuses as to why these sort of papers do not represent scientific truths. Oh well!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Sept 20, 2011 19:15:06 GMT
They've misunderstood the paper. It's about the net cooling effect of clouds, not the change in cooling effect as warming occurs (feedback). Now we have a paper from Dessler that identifies a potential positive feedback, another that blows Lindzen and Spencer out of the water and we still are not talking about the other positive feedback which is due to the increase in water vapour that is occurring due to warming. Even so, Jim's religious zeal is unbroken...only joking Jim. But shut up about religion please and accept that you've made an error on this thread  |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 20, 2011 20:09:43 GMT
They've misunderstood the paper. It's about the net cooling effect of clouds, not the change in cooling effect as warming occurs (feedback). Now we have a paper from Dessler that identifies a potential positive feedback, another that blows Lindzen and Spencer out of the water and we still are not talking about the other positive feedback which is due to the increase in water vapour that is occurring due to warming. Even so, Jim's religious zeal is unbroken...only joking Jim. But shut up about religion please and accept that you've made an error on this thread Steve: I agree with you 100% that the paper in question does not deal with the feed back issue. It does however, confirm, that during times of El Nino that radiation escapeing to space dramatically increases, even WITH a very small increase in temperature. So, by correlation there is the hint that during these phenominum, the clouds allow either escape OR reflection to be dramatically higher than without the El Nino effect. I WILL disagree that Dessler 2011 found anything of substance. He used the same methodolgy in 2011 that he used in 2010. Junk statistics that don't prove anything one way or the other. |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 21, 2011 1:35:30 GMT
They've misunderstood the paper. It's about the net cooling effect of clouds, not the change in cooling effect as warming occurs (feedback). Now we have a paper from Dessler that identifies a potential positive feedback, another that blows Lindzen and Spencer out of the water and we still are not talking about the other positive feedback which is due to the increase in water vapour that is occurring due to warming. Even so, Jim's religious zeal is unbroken...only joking Jim. But shut up about religion please and accept that you've made an error on this thread Steve: I agree with you 100% that the paper in question does not deal with the feed back issue. It does however, confirm, that during times of El Nino that radiation escapeing to space dramatically increases, even WITH a very small increase in temperature. So, by correlation there is the hint that during these phenominum, the clouds allow either escape OR reflection to be dramatically higher than without the El Nino effect. I WILL disagree that Dessler 2011 found anything of substance. He used the same methodolgy in 2011 that he used in 2010. Junk statistics that don't prove anything one way or the other. I don't know sigurdur, it sure looks like a thermostat in action to me. See, they are fighting the cloud issue to the death because once they lose this one, it is all over regardless of anything else, and even if Dessler was half right, they still are losing on other fronts. It's like when your kids tell a fib; they have to tell more fibs to cover for the previous fib. Keeping track of fibs can be very difficult. BTW, I'm still waiting for details on what is wrong with SB. Anyway, why does steve say Dessler has done anything since his paper has not even been published yet  steve will love this one. It must be true. I thought climate models could only work when CO2 was used as the driver. ;D hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/09/multi-institutional-study-group-finds.html |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Sept 21, 2011 13:07:25 GMT
The increase in radiation can be explained by the rise in sea surface and air temperatures. The details are that there is no sensitivity analysis, there is no realisation that ENSO is the real cause of the observations Spencer has analysed (as shown when you display the models with an ENSO response that Spencer analysed but refused to include in his paper), and that Spencer's press release and press coverage mis-stated even the meaning of his own paper. Yes Dessler said this in a so far unpublished paper. But so did I on 29th July solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=globalwarming&thread=1759&post=71729slightly ahead of the more detailed rebuttal by Trenberth and Fasullo on realclimate. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Sept 21, 2011 13:09:26 GMT
magellan,
As I have a scientific interest rather than a desire to prove a particular position, of course I'm interested in this. However at the moment the details appear to be too sketchy to fully understand what they have done.
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 21, 2011 13:22:26 GMT
magellan, As I have a scientific interest rather than a desire to prove a particular position, of course I'm interested in this. However at the moment the details appear to be too sketchy to fully understand what they have done. As I have a scientific interest rather than a desire to prove a particular position Yeah, ok steve, you have no predisposed position at all, none whatsoever. Now we have a paper from Dessler that identifies a potential positive feedback, another that blows Lindzen and Spencer out of the water and we still are not talking about the other positive feedback which is due to the increase in water vapour that is occurring due to warming. The same was said about Dessler 2010. Dessler will end up just like Santer, Mann and Steig; the pattern is uncannily similar. With every new research supporting negative feedbacks and a thermostat that limits warming, you must squeal louder and louder to persuade others to accept your POV. So tell us steve, why did Dessler contact Spencer and why the delay in getting his "Spencer/Lindzen stomping" paper published? CA completely dismantled Dessler 2010 in a few paragraphs. What makes you think there are already those poring over Dessler 2011? Nobody has yet to list the precise details which makes SB 2011 "rubbish". All we have is Trenberth waving his hands at light speed with the usual ad hominem attacks and smears from RC and their ilk. Nothing you have presented has refuted Spencer. Zero. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 21, 2011 19:26:14 GMT
Nothing you have presented has refuted Spencer. Zero.
Steve is still stuck on the illusion of consensus. Today the only assumptions that preserve AGW theory are that our monitoring systems are inadequate. But the AGW theory was built 100% on archaic monitoring systems.
Spencer pointed out some time ago and so did Akasofu and Easterbrook that you have to understand weather to understand the effect of weather on climate and that understanding is necessary to understand where you start in defining climate.
Today we are down to the conclusion by warmists all that weather monitoring sucks and we have not clue one where we are equilibrium-wise in order to begin to define climate.
Indeed the sword slices both ways assuming you are not cherry-picking where the cutting edge is.
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Sept 22, 2011 18:04:30 GMT
To be honest I've only vaguely followed the climateaudit soap opera which seemed to be around the topic "Ignore the Spencer rubbish, lets pretend Dessler has deliberately been dishonest". But finally it seems that McIntyre has perhaps realised that he has to be clear that: climateaudit.org/2011/09/21/troy-dessler2010-artifact-of-combining-two-flux-calculations/I don't know if the Dessler paper is "delayed" or whether Spencer is playing games. Dessler's paper looked a bit of a "look how easy it is to rubbish Lindzen and Spencer" rush job. If he is getting Spencer's engagement in writing a more complete demolishment reaching a more consensus position then that's good. |
|
|
|
Post by northsphinx on Sept 22, 2011 20:38:34 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Sept 22, 2011 21:29:32 GMT
Nothing you have presented has refuted Spencer. Zero. Steve is still stuck on the illusion of consensus. Today the only assumptions that preserve AGW theory are that our monitoring systems are inadequate. But the AGW theory was built 100% on archaic monitoring systems. Spencer pointed out some time ago and so did Akasofu and Easterbrook that you have to understand weather to understand the effect of weather on climate and that understanding is necessary to understand where you start in defining climate. Today we are down to the conclusion by warmists all that weather monitoring sucks and we have not clue one where we are equilibrium-wise in order to begin to define climate. Indeed the sword slices both ways assuming you are not cherry-picking where the cutting edge is. Another excellent observation by Icefisher and spot on. "Spencer pointed out some time ago and so did Akasofu and Easterbrook that you have to understand weather to understand the effect of weather on climate and that understanding is necessary to understand where you start in defining climate."Exactly. Once you define the climate as astronomically-forced - the laws of physics - then you begin to understand the effects of weather. Over the past 15-20 years, but especially this last decade, it has been ideology attempting to trump actual weather and climate forecasting. Most, if not all of climate modelers and meteorologists have not proven that they can forecast with over 15% accuracy, much less 5% - and all of short-range forecasts are dependent on radar models. Short-range forecasting can be very difficult because of the Earth's highly variable and dynamic weather - forced astronomically. The great desire to forecast in the medium to long-range is weighed down by heavy dependence on measurement tools. But these tools cannot forecast. They only measure. We draw from them what data they provide, but these are only the effects - not the causes. One does not forecast from effects. You must forecast based on the causes. Again you have to understand weather to understand the effects of weather on climate. Yet, the climate gamers confuse weather with climate and visa versa - mainly because they fail to heed to the basics - the natural physical laws that rule and regulate the Earth's climate and its weather. This is why conventional climatologists and mets cannot forecast seasonal weather (three months) which is medium-range weather and climate forecasting in astrometeorology. Longer-range is mainly climate forecasting. This is 6 months and more out into years. In this critical sector (the most important of all) there is literally no conventional climate centers actually forecasting. (None in the seasonal forecasting arena either except for specialized services.) The fighting over the cooling effect of clouds tells the truth about climate negative feedback by means of cooling. The ones who are most upset about the findings are those who see the cloud negative feedback as a 'threat' to their ideology of AGW. That is not Science. The climate modelling industry (and it is an industry) has taken on an ideology that continues to wastes billions in dollars and more brain power by ignoring the laws of thermodynamics and physics that rule over the Earth's dynamic highly-variable climate/weather system. Therefore, because of this, it is impossible to work with those who would presume that the natural physical laws do not exist; as they would rather continue to believe their outrageous models that are tweaked to support a pseudo-thesis that is mathematically-impossible to ever occur on Earth. |
|
