Democracy, knowledge and ignorance

Politics and Social Issues
21

The clouds reflecting sunlight back into space reduces warming. But you have not even touched on the cooling caused by rain and evaporation.

Timeline data from 1990 -1995. From the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP)

Clouds cool Earth’s surface by reflecting incoming sunlight.

Clouds warm Earth’s surface by absorbing heat emitted from the surface and re-radiating it back down toward the surface.

Clouds warm or cool Earth’s atmosphere by absorbing heat emitted from the surface and radiating it to space.

Clouds warm and dry Earth’s atmosphere and supply water to the surface by forming precipitation.

Clouds are themselves created by the motions of the atmosphere that are caused by the warming or cooling of radiation and precipitation.

If the climate should change, then clouds would also change, altering all of the effects listed above. What is important is the sum of all these separate effects, the net radiative cooling or warming effect of all clouds on Earth. For example, if Earth’s climate should warm due to the greenhouse effect, the weather patterns and the associated clouds would change; but it is not known whether the resulting cloud changes would diminish the warming (a negative feedback) or enhance the warming (a positive feedback). Moreover, it is not known whether these cloud changes would involve increased or decreased precipitation and water supplies in particular regions. Improving our understanding of the role of clouds in climate is crucial to understanding the effects of global warming.

A doubling in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), predicted to take place in the next 50 to 100 years, is expected to change the radiation balance at the surface by only about 2 percent. Yet according to current climate models, such a small change could raise global mean surface temperatures by between 2-5°C (4-9°F), with potentially dramatic consequences.

Timeline data from 2022 . Now let’s fast forward 30 years.

Evaluations of the Climatologies of Three Latest Cloud Satellite Products Based on Passive Sensors (ISCCP-H, Two CERES) against the CALIPSO-GOCCP

Clouds cover a large portion of the Earth’s atmosphere at any given time and play a significant role in the weather and climate systems of the Earth by regulating its radiative balance and hydrological cycle. Based on numerous International Plan on Climate Change (IPCC) reports and modeling studies the current general circulation models (GCMs) suffer from significant uncertainties in predicting the future climate. One of the main sources of these uncertainties is believed to be related to the representation of clouds.

What is hot on the radar screen today? Radiative Energy Flux Variation from 2001–2020

What are they talking about? Heat comes from the sun. We have different wavelengths of energy that can change with the sun’s many cycles. For example, this connection can be matched to how Co2 is warmed. Example, sunlight can warm colors differently due to wavelengths of the light and wavelength of the color. Carbon dioxide (CO2) molecules have four different vibration modes. The ability to absorb infrared waves is what makes carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas.

What are the questions trying to be answered today?

Two independent measures and reanalysis agree that the sensitivity to CO2 is less than modeled because some to most of the warming of the last two decades is from solar, not CO2.

Which simply means that there is natural variability in the global energy dynamic that is combined with slow but inexorable anthropogenic climate forcing.

The big picture stated by J. J. Braccili - Fluctuations do not impact planetary temperatures. To cause a continuous increase in planetary temperature requires a continually increasing energy source. Fluctuations are nothing more than noise. Climate has always changed – Earth system science 101. Climate doesn’t vary for no reason. It takes energy to make the climate change.

Robert I. Ellison say it this way. ‘The top-of-atmosphere (TOA) Earth radiation budget (ERB) is determined from the difference between how much energy is absorbed and emitted by the planet. Climate forcing results in an imbalance in the TOA radiation budget that has direct implications for global climate, but the large natural variability in the Earth’s radiation budget due to fluctuations in atmospheric and ocean dynamics complicates this picture.’

22

Oh aren’t you the same guy telling us clouds have been ignored???

Here’s an example of your devotion to delusional thinking. There is NO “should” in that sentence! It’s greenhouse gas physics and you can’t even own up to that reality.

The atmosphere is holding more moisture, but you’re telling us “It is unknown if these cloud changes would involve increased or decreased precipitation.”

Radiative Energy Flux Variation from 2001–2020

by Hans-Rolf Dübal, and Fritz Vahrenholt

##WIKI Vahrenholt & Global warming denial

Vahrenholt belongs to the minority that is dismissive about human-induced global warming. In 2012 Vahrenholt together with geologist Sebastian Lüning published Die kalte Sonne: warum die Klimakatastrophe nicht stattfindet [7][8] (The Cold Sun: Why the Climate Crisis Isn’t Happening), a book asserting that climate change is driven by variations in solar activity. They predict the Earth is entering a cooling phase due to periodic solar cycles, and will cool by 0.2 to 0.3 degrees C by 2035.[4] Other contributors are Nir Shaviv, Werner Weber, Henrik Svensmark and Nicola Scafetta.

Numerous scientists, including the Council for Sustainable Development[9][10] , criticised the book and considered its underlying assumptions to be either outdated or highly speculative.[11][12][13][14]

The later events showed that in spite of a quite low activity of the sun during the Solar cycle 24, as had been forecast in principle by Vahrenholt, the result of global cooling forecast by Vahrenholt did not occur; the earth rather heated up even more

So Mike tosses out a bunch of complicated stuff at a lay audience, who, just like Yohe, don’t understanding half of it, because now we’re getting into the expert realm. Toss in speculation presented like facts and any claim may be made comfortable that nobody has the expertise to explain the fallacious arguments being used.

Posted on November 27, 2021 by …and Then There’s Physics

I haven’t done a paper debunk for a while, but a reader got in touch to ask about a recent paper by Hans Rolf-Dübal and Fritz Vahrenholt, so I thought I would have a quick look. The paper is Radiative Energy Flux Variation from 2001–2020 and is in the open-access journal Atmosphere. The paper doesn’t actually draw any strong conclusions, but it does stress that [t]he declining TOA SW (out) is the major heating cause (+1.42 W/m2 from 2001 to 2020) , where TOA stands for top-of-atmosphere, and SW is short-wavelength.

What the paper is essentially claiming is that most of the warming over the period 2001-2020 is due to a reduction in cloud albedo which then leads to more absorbed solar radiation. This has then been used by some to claim that [c]hange in clouds likely cause of warming in the past 20 years.

… So, although I haven’t work through the Dübal and Vahrenholt paper in detail, the basic result they present seems broadly consistent with what is expected. That they find that most of the warming over the 2001-2020 period was due to a reduction in cloud albedo doesn’t really contradict our understanding of greenhouse warming and doesn’t suggest that most of the warming over this period was due to changes in clouds.

Most of the warming is almost certainly due to the human emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. How clouds then respond to the subsequent warming then leads to most of the accumulated energy being due to an increase in absorbed solar radiation. If anything, as highlighted in the video in this post, this might actually be suggesting that equilibrium climate sensitivity is well above 2oC, rather than highlighting some major challenge to our understanding of greenhouse warming.

Links:

Outgoing longwave radiation – post I wrote explaining why most of the accumulated energy is due to increased absorded solar radiation.
Global warming due to increasing absorbed solar radiation – paper by Trenberth and Fasullo.
Shortwave and longwave radiative contributions to global warming under increasing CO2– paper by Donohue et al.

No that is simply false, no matter how much rhetoric you toss at it.

As reported at Judith Curry . . . a frustrated chemist, not a climatologist.

So your point?
What’s this paragraph even saying. That the physics at the TOA is more straightforward than following heat as it moves through our Earth’s climate engine. Yeah, no shite Sherlock.

What was your point?

23

To go back to the beginning of the thread:

“Don’t join the book burners,” President Eisenhower said. “Don’t think you are going to conceal faults by concealing evidence that they ever existed. Don’t be afraid to go in your library and read every book, as long as any document does not offend our own ideas of decency. That should be the only censorship.” President Eisenhower’s Commencement Address 1953 while receiving an honorary degree from Dartmouth University. The target was Mc Carthy……

I am wondering what he would think of the nowadays republicans ?

[President Eisenhower's Commencement Address | Celebrate Our 250th]

24

Yes, I am. The scientists were saying that clouds needed to be researched for the Climate Change models for the reasons stated. It was not. The view by those who oversaw what programs had to be used in the Climate Change models was that clouds zeroed out. So, there was no big deal to research the scientific numbers on clouds for the models beyond the programs they deemed correct. You also agreed with Mann that the clouds zeroed out. Now decades latter we are getting around to doing what many scientists said we should have done. Garbage in equals garbage out of the models. You also followed Mann when he claimed that all the science on Climate Change was done. All the need to be done now as to pass regulations.

Yes there should. That was the viewpoint in the Timeline data from 1990 – 1995.

Yes, again in the Timeline data from 1990 – 1995 that was one of the questions the computer models were asked to find out.

I did explain is simple terms what Radiative Energy Flux was about in layman’s terms. If you have a problem just ask and I will do my best to make it understandable.

You can say that. But tell me how many decades will you need to get three out of thirty Climate Change models to agree just a little bit? And how long until you can measure the effect of Co2 on the climate in a scientific way that could be strong enough to use in a court case?

Judith A. Curry is an American climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Following what is going on at Judith Curry’s site is a good source of information. Curry’s data is sought after by companies and governments around the world as a very reliable source of for the planning of future weather strategies for items like military, insurance and pre-planning for sea-level rise and up-coming hurricane levels.

My understanding of your viewpoint is that the earth’s tempeture driving force is Co2 and other greenhouse gases. Is that not correct?

The other pathway is based on the amount of heat coming from the sun and moon and absorbed by the earth. Which means the sun is the tempeture driving force.
As the earth goes about balancing the incoming heat and releasing heat that it cannot absorb it is very hard to mathematically figure out because of the earth’s air and water systems.

25

Mike , what’s your predictions for the mid term elections?

26

Have not made up my predictions yet. I would first want to see what the Turk is up to and what the push the democrats are doing with student loans to get the greed vote.

27

Will they capture the House and Senate?

29

News flash, Trump is now the definition of low approval ratings.

Presidential polling is In a different world now.

30

That might help. But not the main factor. Draining the swamp is what we need. That covers both Dems and Repubs.

31

Drain the swamp as in dark money? Is that what you are promoting?

32

You bet. I am for transparency in all levels of government.

33

It’s a logical assumption, but Mike Yohe is lying about the facts.

If the Sun were to intensify its energy output then, yes, it would warm our world. Indeed, sunspot data indicate there was a small increase in the amount of incoming sunlight between the late 1800s and the mid-1900s that experts estimate contributed to at most up to 0.1°C of the 1.0°C (1.8°F) of warming observed since the pre-industrial era. However, there has been no significant net change in the Sun’s energy output from the late 1970s to the present, which is when we have observed the most rapid global warming. Learn more.

https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-climate/2910/what-is-the-suns-role-in-climate-change/

===========================

I was referring to J.J.Braccili, not Curry.
Curry is long time crazy maker and her asserts have never come to fruition. Following her site is a good way to get the latest crazy talking points - but to constructively learn, no that ain’t happening at Curry’s joint.

Yeah, right and trump is a billionaire. Try finding anything on the internet about this consulting she does. It’s the province of rumor mill marketing, can you come up with some objective documentation?

===========================

What are you talking about. Some details please. Produce some specifics, in the mean time in the world of grown ups, this is the evidence that’s going around. Why don’t you dispute some of the links I’ve already provided? Do some education.

This is what makes Mike Yohe such an enraging criminal fraud, no matter how much authoritative substantive information one shares with him over and over, his politics
dictate his words. It won’t allow him to look at it or absorb new information and lessons, so we get the same discredited garbage talking points over and over like a dog chasing its tail.

https://www.science.org/content/article/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/

https://www.nationalacademies.org/based-on-science/climate-models-reliably-project-future-conditions

===================================
Same with the clouds crazy making, particular the malicious claim that scientists somehow ignored clouds. It’s down right criminal, but he call such dishonest with malicious intent free speech and now we got trump, who’s to argue with them

34

Yes , and we cannot have people that can make “informed” decisions about issues that affect their lives, right?

Mike, you are so far out in woo land that your posts are beginning to really scare me.