CO2 as the major climate driver looks shakier than ever.
Scientists confirm clouds and their changes have a huge impact on the earth’s surface temperature…
Anna Possner’s research shows clouds and their changes have a real impact on earth’s surface temperature, a Goethe University press release confirms. Photo source: annapossner.com, Carnegie Science.
According to Germany’s Goethe University, Carnegie Institution for Science climatologist Anna Possner’s research on layered clouds in the lower atmosphere shows that clouds “act as a semi-transparent parasol” and “reflect a significant portion of incoming sunlight” and “have a cooling effect on Earth’s surface.” …and that cloud changes “can result in significant changes to Earth’s surface temperature”.
Clouds like a semi-transparent parasol
Released at: Wed, 09 May 2018 13:40:00 +0200 (024)
FRANKFURT. Following the Paris Climate Agreement, Germany and France created the program “Make Our Planet Great Again,“ to promote climate change research. One of 13 researchers selected by an expert jury of the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) is coming from the USA to the Goethe University in a few months.The climate change researcher Dr. Anna Possner is leaving the renowned Carnegie Institution for Science in Stanford and will join the Department for Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences at the Goethe University. Thanks to a one million euro grant, she will start her own research group in Frankfurt. This group will cooperate with the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies (FIAS), where it will also be located.
Anna Possner’s research focuses on layered clouds in the lowest kilometres of the atmosphere, which act as a semi-transparent parasol for Earth’s surface. They reflect a significant portion of incoming sunlight, but only marginally affect Earth’s heat emission. They thus have a cooling effect on Earth’s surface. Any sheet of low-level cloud may span hundreds of kilometres and all together they span around one fifth of Earth’s oceans. Changes in their areal extent or reflective properties can result in significant changes to Earth’s surface temperature.
In some regions of the globe, the mid-latitudes and the Arctic, these clouds consist not only of water drops, but may contain a mixture of ice particles and water drops. The proportion of water drops to ice crystals affects the clouds’ reflective properties. “While we have hypotheses about how the radiative properties may be affected within a single cloud,” Anna Possner explains, “we are limited in our understanding of how the presence of ice crystals impacts the areal coverage and reflective properties on the scale of an entire cloud field.” She will use satellite retrievals and sophisticated numerical models to help answer this question.
Since completing her doctoral dissertation at the ETH Zurich, Anna Possner, who was born in Jena, has studied the impact of particles on the reflective properties of clouds. During this time she focused in particular on low-lying clouds over the oceans, where she quantified and evaluated the impact of ship emissions on clouds. During her postdoc years at the ETH Zurich and the Carnegie Institution for Science in Stanford, she extended her analyses to include mixed-phase clouds.
The German-French program “Make Our Planet Great Again“ seeks to support the creation of solid facts as a basis for political decisions in the fields “climate change”, “earth system research” and “energy transformation”. Of the 13 scientists selected for Germany, seven are in the US, two were most recently working in Great Britain and one each is in Switzerland, Canada, South Korea and Australia. They were selected during a two-stage process out of approximately 300 applications.
Further Information: Prof. Joachim Curtius, Department for Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences, Faculty for Geosciences / Geography, Riedberg Campus, Tel.: +49 (0) 798-42058, curtius@iau.uni-frankfurt.de.
And cloud cover has been decreasing, letting more energy into the oceans, to be released as El Nino steps or transients.
Warming has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with atmospheric CO2.
Readers: This story had appeared earlier today briefly, but was taken down so as not to draw too much attention away from Kenneth’s most recent post. Sorry if some of you may have missed it. But here it is to stay!
This pretty much confirms half of Svensmark’s theory of clouds being the regulator of temperature. The other part of cosmic ray seeding clouds is also looking extremely likely.
What regulates the cloud cover?
I thought that effect would at most explain 5% of the cloud cover change? Has something changed?
“What regulates the cloud cover?”
Not CO2 , that is for certain !!
And not humans either. !!
Totally NATURAL, and you are TOTALLY INCAPABLE of proving otherwise.
So it’s random? Seriously, on almost every topic related to climate science you guys seem to be extra sure what is not causing something, but asked about what does cause something … no straight answers :/ The best (worst) is Kenneth posting list of quotes he thinks could answer the question for him …
Of course clouds do not move at random. They move according to my divine command. Want to join the fun, and decide who gets drought and who gets floods? It can be arranged, for a small fee…
Of course some unscientific people say cloud movements are random.
Pushed by the winds around the globe by the winds, cloud movement is at worst chaotic not random.
How and why clouds appear (or vanish) where they do is an unsolved problem.
Yes there are scientific reasons for their appearance but given the inherent chaotic nature of the weather, cloud appearance and evolution is not readily predictable. Indeed the overall energy movements within all cloud structures are not well known or investigated.
Clouds and there movement are not easily predicted but are a major contributor to how our weather/climate evolves and changes, and yet they are largely unknown even to the AGW advocates highest authority –THE CLIMATE MODEL.
As long as they can not accurately model clouds and precipitation from them THE CLIMATE MODELS will always be INACCURATE!
What do you believe regulates the cloud cover? Anthropogenic CO2 emissions, right?
I asked first … don’t distract by asking me questions.
You asked Pierre first what regulates the cloud cover. You didn’t ask me. So now I’m asking you (first). How is it a “distraction” to ask you the same question you asked someone else?
What regulates cloud cover, SebastianH? Do you believe it’s anthropogenic CO2 emissions, yes or no?
I see, swooping in and asking someone who is waiting for an answer another question is no distraction …
I’ll answer once my question got answered.
Pierre has already answered your question. He wrote: “This pretty much confirms half of Svensmark’s theory of clouds being the regulator of temperature. The other part of cosmic ray seeding clouds is also looking extremely likely.”
So now that you know that Pierre thinks it’s quite likely that the GCR explanation for regulating cloud cover changes is gaining more acceptance in the scientific community (and he’s right, it is), answer the question yourself:
What do you believe regulates the decadal-scale changes in cloud cover? Do you believe anthropogenic CO2 emissions do that? Yes or no?
Stop pretending that it is a “distraction” to ask you to identify what you think regulates clouds. A distraction would be defined as asking you something that is entirely unrelated to what you wrote. Since it’s the same question that you asked, but posed to you, it cannot be considered a “distraction”. So answer it.
It’s not and the effect is minimal at best.
I “believe” that cloud cover changes are a climate system internal feedback to temperature in addition to the aerosol levels in the atmosphere.
Now, that I answered it. What do you think regulates cloud cover? Cosmic rays? Seriously?
Can you support this belief of yours that the temperature of the oceans (where nearly all the heat in the “climate system” resides) causes cloud cover changes? Also, what regulates the temperature of the oceans? Anthropogenic CO2 emissions?
If cloud cover changes are a “feedback” instead of a forcing, why is it that it that the cloud radiative forcing values are routinely cited as 10 times larger (and more) than the radiative forcing values associated with CO2 changes? Wouldn’t cloud radiative forcing be the agent of change more so than a feedback since its radiative forcing values are much, much larger than the alleged forcing values associated with, say, a +22 ppm increase in CO2 concentration (a paltry 0.2 W m-2 per decade)?
For that matter, isn’t the temperature of the ocean water that determines how much or how little CO2 is released/absorbed? In that way, isn’t it the temperature that determines CO2 emission parameters — and not the other way around?
Ahlbeck, 2009
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1260/095830509789876772
“The increase rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide for the period from 1980 to 2007 can be statistically explained as being a function solely of the global mean temperature. Throughout the period, the temperature differences seem to have caused differences around a base trend of 1.5 ppmv/year. The atmospheric CO2 increase rate was higher when the globe was warmer, and the increase rate was lower when the globe was cooler. This can be explained by wind patterns, biological processes, or most likely by ,the fact that a warmer ocean can hold less carbon dioxide. This finding indicates that knowledge of the rate of anthropogenic emission is not needed for estimation of the increase rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide.”
—
Quirk, 2009
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1260/095830509787689123
“The results suggest that El Nino and the Southern Oscillation events produce major changes in the carbon isotope ratio in the atmosphere. This does not favour the continuous increase of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels as the source of isotope ratio changes. The constancy of seasonal variations in CO2 and the lack of time delays between the hemispheres suggest that fossil fuel derived CO2 is almost totally absorbed locally in the year it is emitted. This implies that natural variability of the climate is the prime cause of increasing CO2, not the emissions of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels.”
That’s pretty much what today’s scientific literature says. And instead of saying “the effect is minimal at best”, they say the opposite: “the Earth’s cloud coverage is strongly influenced by cosmic ray intensity.” Prove these scientists wrong, SebastianH.
–
Vieira et al., 2018
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aaa27a
“Galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) are the main source of ionizing radiation in the lower troposphere, in which secondary products can penetrate the ground and underground layers. GCRs affect the physical–chemical properties of the terrestrial atmosphere, as well as the biosphere. GCRs are modulated by solar activity and latitudinal geomagnetic field distribution.”
–
Biktash, 2017
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2090123217300334
“The effects of total solar irradiance (TSI) and volcanic activity on long-term global temperature variations during solar cycles 19–23 [1954-2008] were studied. It was shown that a large proportion of climate variations can be explained by the mechanism of action of TSI [total solar irradiance] and cosmic rays (CRs) on the state of the lower atmosphere and other meteorological parameters. … Recent studies by Pudovkin and Raspopov, Tinsley, and Swensmark have shown that the Earth’s cloud coverage is strongly influenced by cosmic ray intensity. Conditions in interplanetary space, which can influence GCRs and climate change, have been studied in numerous works. As has been demonstrated by Biktash, the long-term CR count rate and global temperature variations in 20–23 solar cycles are modulated by solar activity and by the IMF (interplanetary magnetic field).”
A fascinating mixup of two questions …
1) are you doubting that water vapor is what clouds are made of? What causes an increase/decrease of humidity?
2) ignoring land, yeah right. Evaporation from forests causing clouds comes to mind.
Please name an external variable that regulates the temperature of the oceans. The Sun? Decreasing output. You can’t be seriously thinking that cosmic rays or the Moon (or other planets in the solar system) influence cloud cover to a degree worth mentioning, can you?
What’s left are anthropogenic changes to the variables.
Another confusing mix up. Everything is a forcing, even feebacks. And no, you can’t compare the average forcing of the clouds to what is associated with CO2 concentration changes. You should compare the change of cloud cover forcing (and when you are at it find the percentage of that change that can be attributed to cosmic rays).
See, if the cloud cover forcing is 20 W/m² and cloud cover decreases 5% in 20 years, then you have a forcing change of 1 W/m² over 20 years. Understood?
Size does not matter. The cloud cover can’t change by it’s own, it’s caused by something. That is temperature and aerosol levels and (maybe) to a very small part cosmic rays.
Please look up the equation that describes the transfer of CO2 between the atmosphere and the oceans depending on temperature. Then ask yourself if Ahlbeck comes to a comparable equation.
I don’t have to, I only need to prove you wrong.
But, … from Vieira et al., 2018:
It’s basically the same method as used by Ahlbecm 2009. No physical mechanism, just looking for spurious correlations. Maybe you can explain to them why they found some correlation between GCR and mortality, but not between sunspots and mortality. Even thought both (sunspots and GCR) seem to be anti-correlated.
You have a tendency to single out those papers.
Kenneth, would you be so kind and find us an actual graph of GCR changes over the last decades? So we can correlate it to cloud cover and maybe temperature to see if what you are hoping to be true is even possible? Thank you.
No.
The Sun.
There are no forests in the Arctic or Antarctica. And yet clouds still form there. What seeds them?
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Cooling-Warming-Temperature-Cloud-Page-17.jpg
1) Volcanic aerosols (the human contribution to aerosol depth is negligible). The Oceans2k conglomeration of scientists attributed the several hundred years of ocean cooling to increased volcanism during the Little Ice Age years. 2) Cloud cover changes as seeded by cosmic rays. See Stozhkov et al. (2017) for the latter mechanism.
Stozhkov et al., 2017
http://link.springer.com.secure/article/10.3103/S1062873817020411
“One of the most important problems facing humanity is finding the physical mechanism responsible for global climate change, particularly global warming on the Earth. … Summation of these periodicities for the future (after 2015) allows us to forecast the next few decades. The solid heavy line in Fig. 1 shows that cooling (a drop in ΔT values) is expected in the next few decades. … Figure 2 shows the dependence between the annual average changes ΔT in the global temperature in the near-surface air layer and charged particle flux N in the interval of altitudes from 0.3 to 2.2 km. We can see there is a connection between values ΔТ [temperature] and N [charged particle flux]: with an increase in cosmic ray flux N, the values of changes of global temperature decrease. This link is expressed by the relation ΔT = –0.0838N + 4.307 (see the dashed line in Fig. 2), where the ΔT values are given in °C, and the N values (in particle/min units) are related to the charged particle flux measured at an altitude of 1.3 km. The correlation coefficient of the line with the experimental data is r = –0.62 ± 0.08. … Our results could be connected with the mechanism of charged particle fluxes influencing the Earth’s climate; it includes, first of all, the effect charged particles have on the accelerated formation of centers of water vapor condensation, and thus on the increase in global cloud cover. The total cloud cover is directly connected with the global temperature of the near surface air layer.”
The Modern Grand Maximum of solar activity (which roughly lasted from the 1920s to the 2000s) was not an example of “decreasing output.” It was the highest level of solar activity since Medieval times, when Greenland was warm enough to be farmed on. The Little Ice Age’s Maunder, Dalton? Those were decreasing output examples on a 50-100 year scale. Besides, TSI is not the only means by which the Sun’s radiance influences surface temperatures. It’s an indirect mechanism. But you’ve been told this many times and still insist that TSI is the only solar parameter to consider. You just close your eyes and cover your ears when this is pointed out to you, apparently.
That’s exactly what scientists are increasingly saying and publishing their results in peer-reviewed scientific papers. I’m just repeating the scientists’ conclusions. If you don’t agree with them and believe humans cause clouds, perhaps you could see if scientists actually agree with these beliefs of yours.
And what changes in cloud seeding might those be? Please identify a paper where it demonstrates that humans cause clouds to form…and how more clouds cause more warming since the opposite is true (they’re anti-correlated).
So why do scientists continue to do just that?
Jones et al., 2017
http://file.scirp.org/pdf/AJCC_2017062016485502.pdf
“The net radiative forcing from clouds can be as high as four times as large as the radiative forcing from a doubling of CO2 levels in the atmosphere”
You have once again demonstrated for all to see that you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about when it comes to cloud radiative forcing.
I see. So when cloud radiative forcing is shown to be far more influential than alleged CO2 radiative forcing, then size ceases to matter.
That’s pretty much what today’s scientific literature says. And instead of saying “the effect is minimal at best”, they say the opposite: “the Earth’s cloud coverage is strongly influenced by cosmic ray intensity.” Prove these scientists wrong, SebastianH.
You have epically failed in doing so. Again, I’ll just keep citing the peer-reviewed science. You keep pretending that you don’t have to worry about what the scientists publish in scientific journals, and that you only need to worry about me.
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Solar-Constant-Cosmic-Rays-Correlation-Utomo-2017.jpg
Utomo, 2017
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/817/1/012045/pdf
“A similar result was also found for the relationship between solar activity and cosmic ray flux with a negative correlation, i.e. 0.69/year. When solar activities decrease, the clouds cover rate increase due-0.61/month and – to secondary ions produced by cosmic rays. The increase in the cloud cover rate causes the decrease in solar constant value and solar radiation on the earth’s surface [cooling]. … The increase in the formation rate of cloud would affect the decrease in the intensity of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface.
“The relationship between cosmic rays and solar constant is an “opposite” relationship because of the negative correlation type (r < 0). The phenomenon of “opposite” is in a good agreement with the result by Svensmark (1997) who found a correlation between temperature and global cloud coverage with the cosmic rays. … [T]he climate also depends on variations in the flux of solar energy received by the earth’s surface. Variation in the solar energy flux is caused by variations in solar activity cycle. Thus the climate is a manifestation of how solar radiation is absorbed, redistributed by the atmosphere, land and oceans, and ultimately radiated back into space. Every variation of solar energy received at the earth’s surface and reradiated by the earth into space will have a direct impact on climate change on Earth.”
————–
The correlation between cloud cover changes, seeded by cosmic rays, and temperature…
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Solar-Activity-Cloud-Cover-Climate-Connection-Avakyan-2013.jpg
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Solar-Forcing-of-Global-Temperatures-1983-to-2001-Ogurtsov-2012.jpg
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Cooling-Cosmic-Rays-Stozhkov-2017.jpg
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Cooling-Warming-Temperature-Cloud-Page-17.jpg
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Fleming-2018-Summary.jpg
“The Sun? Decreasing output.”
A little analogy for seb.
Suppose you put a pot of water on the stove and turn the heat up to 10 (Grand Solar Maximum)
Then well before the water reaches boiling , you turn it down to 8. What happens to the water?
STILL waiting for empirical proof that enhanced atmospheric CO2 does anything except enhance plant growth.
K , I like this particular quote from Fleming..
Well DUH !!! 🙂
Humidity and temperature! I didn’t say that forests are the only thing causing clouds to appear.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263038283_The_Atlantic_Multidecadal_Oscillation_as_a_dominant_factor_of_oceanic_influence_on_climate (see figure 1, two thirds of the recent warming is anthropogenic)
The link isn’t working, but I found it anyway (before you complain again that I wouldn’t know how to work the internet *sigh*).
And no, there is no mechanism in a paper that looks for spurious correlations and uses past periodicities to predict the future (essentially curve fitting).
Besides, cosmic ray intensity has been increasing recently (since the 90s) as the Sun got weaker, right? Shouldn’t that cause more clouds and thus cooling? Did that happen?
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/045022/meta
Sloan and Wolfendale, 2013
“The contribution [of solar activity and cosmic rays] is shown to be less than 10% of the warming seen in the twentieth century.”
Huh? I thought it was of volcanic origin just a few paragraphs ago?
Yes, albedo determines how much reaches the surface and the GHE (whether it be clouds, water vapor or CO2 & Co) determine how much accumulates in the Earth system. Of course there are numerous other effects, none add up to anything remotely close to the CO2 effect (see first paper I linked to in this comment).
I am not the one “closing my eyes and covery my ears”, Kenneth. You repeatedly ignore anything that could make you a better skeptic. Instead you chose to uphold the same weird claims like nobody had told you that they are questionable. You like to be skeptical, but you don’t like it when others are skeptical about your claims …
Well, I repeated one pair of scientists results above. I can link you to many other papers or lists of papers on websites you don’t like me to link to. The GCR is – if it exists – negligible.
Please don’t act like I have not written that clouds are a feedback mechanism. You are certainly familiar with the direct and indirect influence of human aerosol emissions. You must also be familiar with the fact the the aerosol optical depth is decreasing since mankind noticed that filtering exhaust could be beneficial.
This reduction causes less clouds to form, not more. It caused more clouds to form before though … thus the term “global dimming”. This can’t be news to you, can it? Are you selectively blinding that out of your reality?
One comment in the spam bin? Please recover it from there or don’t if you don’t want to know what I replied to you on this.
Part 2:
*sigh* because they are citing you Ramanathan paper that did make that claim … I already explained to you why it makes no sense to compare the total forcing of the cloud cover to the change in forcing a CO2 concentration doubling would cause.
Did I? How so? What is the total net forcing of the cloud cover? By how many W/m² does a 5% change of the cloud cover change this net forcing?
Please don’t make up something that I didn’t write. I wrote “Size does not matter. The cloud cover can’t change by it’s own, it’s caused by something. That is temperature and aerosol levels and (maybe) to a very small part cosmic rays.”
You seem to forget that your claim is that a small change in TSI can influence the cloud cover via GCR to increase the change in temperature (a positive feedback to solar activity). If the effect of a cloud cover change is so profound, isn’t that change then more likely causing a change in TSI than the other way around? See the problem with this kind of argument?
Nope, you just demonstrated you don’t have no idea what I am getting at (see, I can play that game too).
Good! Now correlate that greenline with the (low) cloud cover and you’ll see where the problem with the claim that GCR are causing cloud cover changes to significant percentage is.
Nope …
Graph 1) Is actually trying to show the influence of solar activity on cloud cover, the variable that is anti-correlated to GCR … a complete contradiction of you claim.
Graph 2) Found the paper … maybe you should read it again to find out what it is about. It’s a scientist wondering why the observed short-wave radiative forcing (mainly by change of cloud cover) doesn’t match up with the observed temperature increase (should be warmer according to this scientist). It’s doesn’t seem to occur to him that a decreasing cloud cover also has a longwave forcing effect though … that’s why the usual components of the forcings explain the temperature change pretty well (see figure 2)
Graph 3) what a correlation, would you have guessed that it is linear without that line? Besides, looking for that cloud cover to GCR correlation, not temperature.
Graph 4) No GCR visible in that graph. Again, use your own Utomo graph and try to fit in in this one … let’s see where tropical cloud cover correlates with GCR (or not)
Graph 5) Fleming, please you should be able to tell what is junk science and what is not by now. Really need to bring this up? Are you fully behind the claims of this guy or are you just throwing it in to troll commenters like me?
AndyG55:
Well, let’s assume 10 causes the water not to boil, but just reach 60 °C while 8 would be enough to heat it up to 50 °C. Let’s also assume the experiment starts with water at a temperature of 20 °C and it’s short enough so evaporation from heating doesn’t significantly change the volume.
Then the water would warm up to 60 °C and when you turned it down to 8, it would cool down to 50 °C because that is the equilibrium temperature for that input.
Now let’s assume the equilbrium state for 10 indeed is boiling, then it will of course cool down when you turn it down to 8.
If you a referring to a stove where 8 also causes boiling, then you really seem to have no clue about how to construct working and relevant analogies 😉
“while 8 would be enough to heat it up to 50 °C.”
What a strange idea. Totally divorced from reality. (nothing unusual about that, from seb)
seb has obviously never boiled a pot of water.. always had his granny there to do it for him.
““while 8 would be enough to heat it up to 50 °C.””
Time to buy a new stove. !!
… or stop using just wind energy.
You were to one who suggested a stove would do the same to water as the Sun with varying energy output. So will the oceans boil in a solar maximum and also boil with slightly less solar output? What was your point again? 😉
OMG, its like trying to explain basics of heating to a 5 year old. !!
Just because there is slightly less solar energy coming in, doesn’t mean what there is doesn’t continue to warm the oceans.
Only a complete nut-job would think that turning a heat source down slightly means it stop heating.
Another thing to add to the seb UNAWARE file. !!
About that “nutjob” part … please tell us at what point the Sun stops warming the planet’s surface and the oceans when its output decreases! When is the Sun dim enough so climate cools?
LIA levels of course.
Why are so UNAWARE of basically EVERYTHING !!
It MUST be wilful, because no-one could possible be that unaware by nature.
Svensmark et al., 2017
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02082-2
“In conclusion, a mechanism by which ions condense their mass onto small aerosols and thereby increase the growth rate of the aerosols, has been formulated theoretically and shown to be in good agreement with extensive experiments. The mechanism of ion-induced condensation may be relevant in the Earth’s atmosphere under pristine conditions, and able to influence the formation of CCN [clouds]. It is conjectured that this mechanism could be the explanation for the observed correlations between past climate variations and cosmic rays, modulated by either solar activity or supernova activity in the solar neighborhood on very long time scales. The theory of ion-induced condensation should be incorporated into global aerosol models, to fully test the atmospheric implications.”
(press release) “The impact of changes in solar activity on Earth’s climate was up to seven times greater than climate models suggested according to new research published today in Nature Communications. Researchers have claimed a breakthrough in understanding how cosmic rays from supernovas react with the sun to form clouds, which impact the climate on Earth. The findings have been described as the “missing link” to help resolve a decades long controversy that has big implications for climate science.”
Wonderful, a quote with a link (and a non working one to a press release). Nothing else.
You get the same reply from me as last time you posted this:
http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-study-looking-at-cosmic-rays-cloud-formation-and-climate/
I apologize that the link to the Nature paper on cosmic rays was broken. It took about 30 seconds to find a working one:
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/cosmic-rays-solar-activity-have-greater-impact-on-climate-models/news-story/ecff81870e18ea3c6fb4b9aad1a48acf
I apologize I didn’t provide you with enough reading material. Please provide links that refute each of these papers below so that by writing “You get the same reply from me” you can prove to us all how good you are at providing rebuttals. After refuting each of these papers with links, I’ll provide another list of 10 more for you to provide another 10 links worth of rebuttals. That way you can smugly write “You get the same reply from me” for all 10 links and then you can feel like you’ve done your job here at NTZ.
Pfeifroth et al., 2018
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017JD027418/full
“The incoming solar radiation is the essential climate variable that determines the Earth’s energy cycle and climate. In this study, these new climate data records are compared to surface measurements in Europe during the period 1983–2015. The results show an overall brightening period since the 1980s onward (comprised between 1.9 and 2.4 W/m2/decade), with substantial decadal and spatial variability. The strongest brightening is found in eastern Europe in spring. … We conclude that the major part of the observed trends in surface solar radiation in Europe is caused by changes in clouds and that remaining differences between the satellite- and the station-based data might be connected to changes in the direct aerosol effect and in snow cover.”
–
Wilson and Sidorenkov, 2018
https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/a-lunisolar-connection-to-weather-and-climate-i-centennial-times-scales-2157-7617-1000446.pdf
“The fact that the periods of eight out of nine of the most prominent peaks in the lunar alignment spectrum (highlighted column 3 of Table 2) closely match those in the spectra of ϕm [solar modulation potentional] and Tm [maximum daily temperature], strongly supports the contention that all three of these phenomena are closely related to one another. … principal component analyses of the 10Be and 14C records show that, on multi-decadal to centennial time scales, the radionuclide production signal accounts for 76% of the total variance in the data [18,19]. This would imply that there is a causal link between Tm [maximum daily temperature] and near-Earth GCR flux, with a factor related to the latter driving the former. … An implicit assumption that is used by those who reject GCR [galactic cosmic rays]-cloud models is that the GCR flux hitting the Earth needs to produce changes in the total amount of cloud cover over the majority of the globe in order to significantly affect the world mean temperature. However, this assumption ignores the possibility that regional changes in the amount of cloud cover could influence the rate at which the Earth’s climate system warms or cools. Of course, for this to be true there would have to be observational evidence that shows that the GCR flux can affect the level of cloud cover on a regional scale. Support for this hypothesis is provided [23] who claim that existing multi-decadal ground-based datasets for clouds show that there is a weak but significant correlation between the amounts of regional cloud cover and the overall level of GCR fluxes. In addition, Larken et al. [2010] find that there is a strong and robust positive correlation between statistically significant variations in the short-term (daily) GCR ray flux and the most rapid decreases in cloud cover over the mid-latitudes (30° – 60° N/S). Moreover, Larken et al. [2010] find that there is a direct causal link between the observed cloud changes and changes in the sea level atmospheric temperature, over similar time periods.”
–
Biktash, 2017
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2090123217300334
“The effects of total solar irradiance (TSI) and volcanic activity on long-term global temperature variations during solar cycles 19–23 [1954-2008] were studied. It was shown that a large proportion of climate variations can be explained by the mechanism of action of TSI [total solar irradiance] and cosmic rays (CRs) on the state of the lower atmosphere and other meteorological parameters. … Recent studies by Pudovkin and Raspopov, Tinsley, and Swensmark have shown that the Earth’s cloud coverage is strongly influenced by cosmic ray intensity. Conditions in interplanetary space, which can influence GCRs and climate change, have been studied in numerous works. As has been demonstrated by Biktash, the long-term CR count rate and global temperature variations in 20–23 solar cycles are modulated by solar activity and by the IMF (interplanetary magnetic field). A possible geophysical factor which is able to affect the influence of solar activity on the Earth’s climate is volcanism. The effects of volcanism can lead to serious consequences in the atmosphere and the climate.”
–
Utomo, 2017
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/817/1/012045/pdf
“A similar result was also found for the relationship between solar activity and cosmic ray flux with a negative correlation, i.e. 0.69/year. When solar activities decrease, the clouds cover rate increase due-0.61/month and – to secondary ions produced by cosmic rays. The increase in the cloud cover rate causes the decrease in solar constant value and solar radiation on the earth’s surface [cooling]. … The increase in the formation rate of cloud would affect the decrease in the intensity of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface. The relationship between cosmic rays and solar constant is an “opposite” relationship because of the negative correlation type (r < 0). The phenomenon of “opposite” is in a good agreement with the result by Svensmark (1997) who found a correlation between temperature and global cloud coverage with the cosmic rays. … [T]he climate also depends on variations in the flux of solar energy received by the earth’s surface. Variation in the solar energy flux is caused by variations in solar activity cycle. Thus the climate is a manifestation of how solar radiation is absorbed, redistributed by the atmosphere, land and oceans, and ultimately radiated back into space. Every variation of solar energy received at the earth’s surface and reradiated by the earth into space will have a direct impact on climate change on Earth.”
–
Luthardt and Rößler
http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/early/2017/01/12/G38669.1.abstract
“The 11 yr solar cycle, also known as Schwabe cycle, represents the smallest-scaled solar cyclicity and is traced back to sunspot activity (Douglass, 1928; Lean, 2000), which has a measurable effect on the Earth’s climate, as indicated by the Maunder minimum (Usoskin et al., 2015). Global climate feedback reactions to solar irradiance variations caused by sunspots are complex and hypothesized to be triggered by (1) variation in total energy input (Cubasch and Voss, 2000), (2) the influence of ultraviolet light intensity variation on composition of the stratosphere (Lean and Rind, 2001), (3) the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation (Marsh and Svensmark, 2000; Sun and Bradley, 2002), and/or (4) the effect of high-energy particles on the strato- and mesosphere (Jackman et al., 2005). … [L]ike today, sunspot activity caused fluctuations of cosmic radiation input to the atmosphere, affecting cloud formation and annual rates of precipitation”
–
Frigo et al., 2018
https://www.ann-geophys.net/36/555/2018/angeo-36-555-2018.pdf
“In this work, we investigate the relationship between the ∼ 11-year and ∼ 22-year cycles that are related to solar activityand GCRs [galactic cosmic rays] and the annual average temperature recorded between 1936 and 2014 at two weather stations, both located near a latitude of 26◦ S but at different longitudes. … Sunspot data and the solar modulation potential for cosmic rays were used as proxies for the solar activity and the GCRs, respectively. Our investigation of the influence of decadal and bidecadal cycles in temperature data was carried out using the wavelet transform coherence (WTC) spectrum. The results indicate that periodicities of 11 years may have continuously modulated the climate at TOR [Torres, Brazil] via a nonlinear mechanism … . The obtained results offer indirect mathematical evidence that solar activity and GCR variations contributed to climatic changes in southern Brazil during the last century. The contribution of other mechanisms also related to solar activity cannot be excluded.”
It is still broken to me. I get redirected to a subscription website with a login form.
Hmm, apparently you don’t remember how often you posted that quote already and what I replied to you the last time(s). That’s what I meant by “the same reply”. Not that I would reply the same thing to everything you write/quote from …
I have no interesting in refuting every paper you bring up. I am interested in showing you the flaws in your thinking, the mistakes you make, that you can’t choose one aspect of a paper you deem quotable and ignore the rest of the text, etc.
Did you know that you can copy/paste a large section of the quote from an article into a search and then the search will turn up many links to that text? It’s uncanny how often you whine about broken links. This is how the internet works, SebastianH. Why do you need to be taught how to access content when a link is broken? Why is this brand new information for you?
https://www.thegwpf.com/new-study-cosmic-rays-solar-activity-have-much-greater-impact-on-earths-climate-than-models-suggest/
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/12/171219091320.htm
https://climatechangedispatch.com/new-study-finds-cosmic-rays-climate-link/
That’s because you’re incapable of doing so. I wouldn’t be interesting [sic] to try to undermine the GCR–>Cloud–>Climate connection either since it is increasingly being substantiated as more and more evidence is compiled to support it. But you go ahead and find some more blogscience. I’ll just keep posting peer-reviewed scientific papers.
It doesn’t appear that you have been particularly successful thus far. Instead of coming after me, read the papers and inform all of us how wrong the scientists really are. I have dozens of papers published just in the last year for you to try to refute. But since you can’t refute them, all we get is empty rhetoric. As usual.
“I am interested in showing you the flaws in your thinking”
ROFLMAO.. then you have FAILED massively
All you have managed is to show up your own IRRATIONAL, ILLOGICAL anti-science, non-thought processes.
Sorry, I thought you might like to know when your links don’t work anymore. Why do you have to make up another strawman? Trying to make it look like I am the computer/network illiterate here?
No, that’s because you tend to misinterpret papers and/or use key phrases out of context to support whatever you are trying to say despite the paper saying something very different. It’s really enough to refute you, not the papers. The only exception is when you are 100% behind a ridiculous paper (e.g. something like Ahlbeck, 2009) … then I kind of enjoy telling you where the paper is wrong and watch you completely ignore what I wrote, because “it’s a scientist” who wrote the paper. Which tells us more about you than you’d like to admit.
Why would I need to undermine anything here? Do you really believe that 100% of the cloud cover is caused by GCR? No? What percentage is? What change of GCR causes what change in cloud cover? What is the equation (the model if you will) that describes that connection? Is it based on an actual physical mechanism that we can observe or is it just a spurious correlation (like in the Ahlbeck, 2009 paper)?
I’d like to see that peer-review next time 😉
I don’t think so. You keep ignoring it and think you can’t be wrong when what you say sounds so right. Zero drive to become a better skeptic by understanding the mechanisms and/or correcting your mistakes.
I am reading as many papers as I can, but my time is limited. And again, no need to refute papers that are perfectly fine, but just aren’t saying what you quote them for.
You go on and compile these list, so everyone who actually has the time to review them and read the papers can see for themselves how they don’t really support a skeptic view on climate science or if they do, are almost always ridiculous junk science that you should have detected if you really read them completely before extracting the quoteable part from the abstract 😉
I see. So you are and have always been intending to help me.
So what is the “something very different” about statements from papers that say this:
—-
“The Earth’s cloud coverage is strongly influenced by cosmic ray intensity.”
“There is a strong and robust positive correlation between statistically significant variations in the short-term (daily) GCR ray flux and the most rapid decreases in cloud cover over the mid-latitudes”
“There is a direct causal link between the observed cloud changes and changes in the sea level atmospheric temperature”
—-
What do these phrases really mean, since you believe they don’t mean what I think they do?
They mean exactly what the say.
The problem is with you taking them and re-interpreting them in a different way.
The first sentence cites a Svensmark paper by misspelling his name (in the Biktash, 2017 paper where the quote comes from). If Svensmark’s results don’t support that “strong influence”, then that’s just wrong.
The second sentence is taken from a paper citing Laken 2010. Their conclusion? “This work has demonstrated the presence of a small but statistically significant influence of GCRs on Earth’s atmosphere over mid-latitude regions.” It’s also completely model based. How can you be comfortable with using this as support for anything you want to claim?
Sentence three is a kind of obvious statement, isn’t it? Also notice the repeated misspelling of “Laken” (it’s not “Larken”).
I very much doubt those papers received ANY peer review, Kenneth.
https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-advanced-research
“Journal of Advanced Research (abbreviated as J. Adv. Res.) is an applied/natural sciences, peer-reviewed journal with interdisciplinary activity.’
So you think this paper never got peer reviewed for a journal that only publishes peer-reviewed material. See if you can substantiate your claim, then.
One can find “Peer review under responsibility of Cairo University.” below the paper … but what kind of review doesn’t find a simple error like “Swensmark” in a citation?
Seb has obviously never had to do any scientific paper review.
If he has, it would be in climate or related propaganda pal review where they think that checking the spelling is the most important thing to do.
What a PETTY little mind thinks minor spelling errors aren’t going to occasionally slip through.
Actually, replacing the v with a w is quite common…
https://www.google.com/search?num=100&rlz=1C1BOBA_enUS751US751&q=%22henrik+swensmark%22&nfpr=1&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwijm43HkIPbAhUK5YMKHaBTCMUQvgUIJygB&biw=1707&bih=816&dpr=1.13
And this is his evidence that a paper in a scholarly journal was not peer-reviewed?
“Actually, replacing the v with a w is quite common…”
I would say that seb knew that already.
Just like he also knows how to recover text from broken links…but yet he complains that he can’t access the text anyway. He’s just tossing out something, anything, to distract from what the paper (or press release with a broken link) has to say because he doesn’t want to deal with content or substance. It’s not like this isn’t patently obvious what he’s doing.
I see, so the defense is “spelling mistakes like this one are common” and you are admitting that you don’t want to know when something isn’t working (or is incorrect).
Got it.
The “defense” is that switching a w for a v has absolutely nothing to do with cosmic rays. Nor does whether a v vs. a w was used in a name have a connection to your claim that the paper was or was not refereed. And yet this is all you could come up with in your “defense”. Instead of replying with something substantive, we get surmises about peer review. This is apparently the best you have to offer.
Links get broken all the time. I fix them when I find them. Sometimes I check before linking to them on comment boards, other times I don’t. It was working the last time I checked. It was working when I linked to it a few days ago. Then, for some reason, it wasn’t working anymore. I don’t think I should have to go out of my way to help you find out how to locate the original text. And yet I do.
Your intent was not to help me out. It was to niggle.
We are talking about a spelling mistake now instead of what these papers cited and what it means and what you think it means. I am not the one distracting from what papers have to say …
Then why are you talking about switching a v for a w and claiming that this demonstrates the paper wasn’t peer-reviewed? What does a v vs. a w have to do with the cosmic ray connection to climate change? Absolutely nothing, of course.
You really are becoming deceitfully deceptive and petty nowadays, seb..
A beaten little zero-science AGW-cultist.
And STILL no empirical evidence that enhanced atmospheric CO2 causes ANY WARMING WHAT-SO-EVER.
I am not, you made this the main point of this subthread, not me.
That switcheroo wasn’t may main point about this and the other paper. Maybe scroll up to the first reply in this comment thread and read what I a professor had to say about Svensmark results. The influence of GCR is small. Less than 10% of the cloud cover change could be attributed to this. Some write 5%.
And GCR doesn’t correlate at all with cloud cover change since the 1990s.
You are the one brought up the spelling NON-error.
Stop trying to weasel your way out of it.
Your deceit is obvious to everybody, except yourself, of course.
I note that you are still oozing away from producing proof of any CO2 warming. EMPTY
Science is against your ridiculous and petty AGW religion, seb
Get over it.
Yes, here. Notice that it wasn’t the only thing I wrote and yet you guys jumped on it as if it was the main point … pretty telling, don’t you think?
I can never get over this here … it’s kind of sad to see someone acting like you do. You feel like you can’t be wrong, yet you demonstrate the opposite daily and to compensate for knowing deep down that you are wrong you employ insults whenever you can. Sorry, I just can’t take you serious AndyG55 and I hope for you that what you do is just an elaborate troll act to make skeptics look bad or something like that …
You wrote: “I very much doubt those papers received ANY peer review, Kenneth.” Your stated evidence? 1) A v and a w were changed. 2) It’s model based so I shouldn’t be assuming it’s correct. 3) An r was added to Laken.
Two of the 3 reasons you state for claiming there was not ANY peer review of these papers (published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals) had to do with spelling surnames.
Do you actually believe that, deep down, AndyG55 actually knows that he is wrong about CO2’s dominant capacity to heat the ocean and melt ice sheets and raise sea levels?
Here’s you chance seb
Convince me that CO2 enhanced atmospheric CO2 causes any warming of ANYTHING, ANYWHERE, ANYTIME
Produce that empirical science.
But you KNOW you can’t.
All you have is your incessant distractions and avoidance, and your constant unprovable AGW mantra yapping.
You are EMPTY of any relevant science.
Your PATHETIC attempts to put YOUR attention-seeking trolling onto others is really passed a joke. !
“You feel like you can’t be wrong, yet you demonstrate the opposite daily”
You have NEVER demonstrated me wrong, and you have NEVER demonstrated that you have the slightest science to back up anything in your cult-like AGW belief.
Remain EMPTY seb.. its your NATURAL state.
““spelling mistakes like this one are common””
Oh dear, seb STILL hasn’t figured out that it ISN’T a spelling mistake.
So sad to see one with so little functional brain matter.
@SebastianH 14. May 2018 at 12:33 AM |
I wonder how you could defend your misspelling of ‘defence’ as ‘defense’?
http://grammarist.com/spelling/defence-defense/
Hi Pierre
Thanks for the interesting information. However you should change this mistake:
The Goethe-Insitute for the advancement of the German Language
(see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goethe-Institut)
is quite a different thing than
The Goethe-University in Franfurt/Main
(see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goethe_University_Frankfurt)
and the first of the two does not perform any kind of Natural Science.
Regards, GT
THANKS!
Bloody Typos…
It should be “Goethe-Institute” – Of Course…
Sorry 😉
http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/file/cloud%20radiative%20forcing.pdf
“The size of the observed net cloud forcing is about four times as large as the expected value of radiative forcing from a doubling of CO2. The shortwave and longwave components of cloud forcing are about ten times as large as those for a CO2 doubling.”
–
ftp://bbsoweb.bbso.njit.edu/pub/staff/pgoode/website/publications/Goode_Palle_2007_JASTP.pdf
“The decrease in the Earth’s reflectance [cloud cover] from 1984 to 2000 suggested by Fig. 4, translates into … an additional global shortwave forcing of 6.8 Wm2. To put that in perspective, the latest IPCC report (IPCC, 2001) argues for a 2.4 Wm2 increase in CO2 longwave forcing since 1850. The temporal variations in the albedo are closely associated with changes in the cloud cover.”
–
http://file.scirp.org/Html/22-4700327_50837.htm
“The reduction in total cloud cover of 6.8% [between 1984 – 2009] means that 5.4 Wm−2 (6.8% of 79) is no longer being reflected but acts instead as an extra forcing into the atmosphere… To put this [5.4 Wm-2 of solar radiative forcing via cloud cover reduction between 1984-2009] into context, the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report…states that the total anthropogenic radiative forcing for 2011 relative to 1750 is 2.29 Wm−2 for all greenhouse gases and for carbon dioxide alone is 1.68 Wm−2. The increase in radiative forcing caused by the reduction in total cloud cover over 10 years is therefore more than double the IPCC’s estimated radiative forcing for all greenhouse gases and more than three times greater than the forcing by carbon dioxide alone [from 1750 to present]. … According to the energy balance described by Trenberth et al. (2009), the reduction in total cloud cover accounts for the increase in temperature since 1987, leaving little, if any, of the temperature change to be attributed to other forcings.”
–
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/usoskin_CR_2008.pdf
“Even a small change in the cloud cover modifies the transparency/absorption/reflectance of the atmosphere and affects the amount of absorbed solar radiation, even with no changes in the solar irradiance. Since the flux of CR [cosmic rays, which influences cloud cover changes] is modulated by the solar magnetic activity, this provides a link between solar variability and climate.”
–
http://eae.sagepub.com/content/25/2/389.abstract
“We will show that changes of relative humidity or low cloud cover explain the major changes in the global mean temperature. We will present the evidence of this argument using the observed relative humidity between years 1970 and 2011 and the observed low cloud cover between years 1983 and 2008. One percent increase in relative humidity or in low cloud cover decreases the temperature by 0.15 °C and 0.11 °C, respectively. In the time periods mentioned before the contribution of the CO2 increase was less than 10% to the total temperature change.”
–
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/8505/2013/acp-13-8505-2013.html
“[T]here has been a global net decrease in 340 nm cloud plus aerosol reflectivity [1979-2011]. … Applying a 3.6% cloud reflectivity perturbation to the shortwave energy balance partitioning given by Trenberth et al. (2009) corresponds to an increase of 2.7 W m−2 of solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface and an increase of 1.4% or 2.3 W m−2 absorbed by the surface.”
–
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/12/9581/2012/acp-12-9581-2012.html
“The Earth’s climate is driven by surface incident solar radiation (Rs). Direct measurements have shown that Rs has undergone significant decadal variations. … By merging direct measurements collected by Global Energy Budget Archive with those derived from SunDu [sunshine duration], we obtained a good coverage of Rs [surface incident solar radiation] over the Northern Hemisphere. From this data, the average increase of Rs [surface incident solar radiation] from 1982 to 2008 is estimated to be 0.87 W m−2 per decade [2.3 W/m-2 total]”
–
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alejandro_Sanchez-Romero/publication/281448448_Trends_in_global_and_diffuse_solar_radiation_in_Spain_based_on_surface_observations_1981-2012/links/55e8155d08ae65b638996cf3.pdf
“The linear trend in the mean annual series of global solar radiation shows a significant increase since the 1980s of around 10 Wm-2 over the whole 32-year study period.”
–
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-016-1829-3
“The present paper describes how the entire series of global solar radiation (1987–2014) and diffuse radiation (1994–2014) were built, including the quality control process. Appropriate corrections to the diffuse component were made when a shadowband was employed to make measurements. Analysis of the series reveals that annual mean global irradiance presents a statistically significant increase of 2.5 W m−2 (1.4 %) decade−1 (1988–2014 period), mainly due to what occurs in summer (5.6 W m−2 decade−1). These results constitute the first assessment of solar radiation trends for the northeastern region of the Iberian Peninsula and are consistent with trends observed in the regional surroundings and also by satellite platforms, in agreement with the global brightening phenomenon. Diffuse radiation has decreased at −1.3 W m−2 (−2 %) decade−1 (1994–2014 period), which is a further indication of the reduced cloudiness and/or aerosol load causing the changes.”
Are you hoping something will change when you repeat those quotes?
Nothing has changed. Nothing has been refuted. The quotes are illustrative of the supporting evidence in the scientific literature for the subject of this article. They weren’t cited for your benefit. I am entirely convinced that you know very little about the expansive supporting evidence for cloud radiative forcing.
Kenneth, thank you for your posts on this thread. They add detail to my former understanding.
Exactly.
Still remains a nonsense claim since it compares the absolute forcing of clouds to the forcing of a change in CO2 concentration. It would have been interesting getting to know by how much the cloud cover needs to change to cause the same forcing change as a CO2 doubling … do you know how much they’d need to change?
That is still a nonsense claim. Yes, it puts it “into perspective”, but it isn’t the whole story, isn’t it? (hint: missing the cloud greenhouse effect)
And so on …
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Ramanathan-Cloud-Radiative-Forcing-100-Fold-Greater-Than-CO2.jpg
Ramanathan et al., 1989 (“Cloud Radiative Forcing”), Science, cited 1,621 times:
—
“The size of the observed net cloud forcing is about four times as large as the expected value of radiative forcing from a doubling of CO2. The shortwave and longwave components of cloud forcing are about ten times as large as those for a CO2 doubling. … The greenhouse effect of clouds may be larger than that resulting from a hundredfold increase in the C02 concentration of the atmosphere.“
—
SebastianH, cited by no one:
“The greenhouse effect of clouds may be larger than that resulting from a hundredfold increase in the C02 concentration of the atmosphere.”
Kauppinen et al, 2014
http://eae.sagepub.com/content/25/2/389.abstract
“We will show that changes of relative humidity or low cloud cover explain the major changes in the global mean temperature. We will present the evidence of this argument using the observed relative humidity between years 1970 and 2011 and the observed low cloud cover between years 1983 and 2008. One percent increase in relative humidity or in low cloud cover decreases the temperature by 0.15 °C and 0.11 °C, respectively. In the time periods mentioned before the contribution of the CO2 increase was less than 10% to the total temperature change.”
All god stuff, Kenneth.
But wasted on the troll.
DNFTT
Not “god”, “good”.
My bad.
Troll food…
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-CCuO5F_cNrg/VeRa0bMiGLI/AAAAAAAAB00/5Oy3fRncWMMJLTDFsYRyQpzaYKBKhv-UwCPcB/s1600/CowPie%2BbyJeff%2BVanuga%2Bat%2BUSDA%2Bat%2BWikimedia.jpg
😁😆😝🤣😜
Another one for your store of good science Kenneth.
Payomrat, P., Liu, Y., Pumijumnong, N., Li, Q. and Song, H. 2018. Tree-ring stable carbon isotope-based June-September maximum temperature reconstruction since AD 1788, north-west Thailand. Tellus Series B: Chemical and Physical Meteorology 70: 1443655, https://doi.org/10.1080/16000889.2018.1443655.
“A graphical presentation of the proxy temperature record is presented.
Perhaps the most significant observation to note from this paper is the decline in temperatures since the mid-1980s, with current values approaching the lowest recorded in the 226-year record. What is more, temperatures are not rising in response to the supposedly large CO2 forcing that has occurred in the atmosphere since World War II. Indeed, Payomrat et al. report that a majority of the ten warmest years of the record occurred prior to second half of the 20th century, including the six warmest years of 1950, 1949, 1948, 1947, 1945 and 1946.”
Says ‘co2science·org’ short summary of the paper.
Abstract available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323716733_Tree-ring_stable_carbon_isotope-based_June-September_maximum_temperature_reconstruction_since_AD_1788_north-west_Thailand
It’s in there, about half way down…
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Holocene-Cooling-Thailand-NW-Payomrat-2018.jpg
“During the third segment (1870–2001), the maximum temperature pattern seemed to be constant compared to the changing rate (+0.004 °C/decade). … The short fourth segment, which occurred from 2002 to 2013, showed a deceasing trend at a rate of -0.12 °C/decade.”
Oh, missed that. But OK I’ll keep looking.
Thanks. I have 5 more that I just haven’t added yet. But thanks for looking too.
“Scientists confirm clouds and their changes have a huge impact on the earth’s surface temperature…”
Well…duuuuuuuhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!
[…] Ref.: https://notrickszone.com/2018/05/10/goethe-institute-renowned-us-climate-scientist-confirm-clouds-can… […]
clouds “act as a semi-transparent parasol” and “reflect a significant portion of incoming sunlight”
Who knew?
A pity we don’t have cloud cover data going back further.
It would be very interesting to see if it was linked to the AMO or PDO in any way.
I hope You all have seen Willis Eschenbachs studies:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/05/09/clouds-and-el-nino/
He have put/detected clouds at different levels and thus regulating better.
In Sweden we have seen the sun 8% more since 1980s!
Even for someone named Possner, how can it possibly be news that changing cloud cover affects the climate? I thought that was old established knowledge. But maybe old knowledge is not taught anymore, only new ignorance.
Possner may have been trying to demonstrate the falsity of the counterargument that clouds retain more surface heat than the solar heat that they reflect.
Having an actual numerical grasp on the two is quite valuable.
Further Information: Prof. Joachim Curtius, Department for Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences, Faculty for Geosciences / Geography, Riedberg Campus, Tel.: +49 (0) 798-42058, curtius@iau.uni-frankfurt.de.
May be Sebastian could satisfy his curiosity by contacting Professor Curtius. A polite enquiry might result in some links to the work they are doing.
If these scientists are bothering to look into this, and spending time and money on it, they must have a reasonable hypothesis which can be investigated in depth. Let them do it and see the results then advance your own hypothesis based on those results. Next set up your own study , produce results and let others see them.
If that woman would go blond, ditch the eyegasses and learn face makeup, she would be a knockout. And still smart. Very dangerous.
Didn’t think this would escape moderation. 😇
I think she’s pretty. Looks are temporary, brains are forever.
“brains are forever”
wait ’till you get old…
I expect she’s doing better things with her time, no?
Unfortunately, the French-German program “Make Our Planet Great Again” is a determination to continue the hoax. Quote from their webpage:
“The fight against climate change must change scale and become irreversible. On the initiative of the President of the Republic, Emmanuel Macron, France is swinging into action with a bold Climate Plan. Presented in July 2017, it contains a series of ambitious and innovative measures to embed the objectives of the Paris Agreement in public action and to involve all actors in this global fight. With this plan, France is speeding up its commitment to achieve energy and climate transition on its own territory, within the European Union and at the international level.”
Makes it all the more ironic.
Nothing is ironic about finding out what clouds do. The ironic part is that you guys seem to think that cloud cover is regulated by external forces by more than a few percentage points.
We think that cloud cover changes are quite natural, as are temperature changes.
What’s the number of percentage points that humans regulate cloud cover by contributing to the change in atmospheric CO2 concentration (i.e., in 1900, 99.97% of the atmosphere’s gases were CO2, and now it’s down to 99.96%)? In what way did that 1/100ths of 1 percent change become the control knob of cloud cover? And why did cloud cover increase during the dimming period (1950s to early 1980s) but then decrease after the early 1980s? Why the undulation rather than a linear increase (correlating with the CO2 changes)?
Is this a serious question? Do you really think global dimming had something to do with CO2 and thus should be correlating with increased CO2 emissions?
No, of course I’m not a believer that CO2 controls the temperature and cloud cover changes are a feedback response to temperature. That’s what you have stated you believe, thus connecting cloud cover changes to CO2-controlled temperature changes, and thus anthropogenic emissions. Do you not remember writing this when I asked you What do you believe regulates the decadal-scale changes in cloud cover?
So, yes, since you believe decadal-scale cloud cover changes are caused by internal feedback to temperature changes which are in turn caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions, then it would follow that there should be a correlation between CO2 emissions and cloud cover changes. There’s not. Why?
The stupid part is that seb and his ilk think clouds are regulated or affected by a tiny increase in atmospheric CO2.
DUMB !!!
And that even though there is ZERO EVIDENCE that CO2 warms the atmosphere in anyway, anywhere, anytime.
They still just “believe”.
CULT RELIGION !!
No, I and my ilk do not think that. Why this misinterpretation or do you really didn’t understand?
When I asked you What do you believe regulates the decadal-scale changes in cloud cover?, you wrote this:
When asked what regulates the temperatures of the oceans that in turn regulate changes in cloud cover, you wrote this:
So are you here admitting that you don’t agree that the increase in CO2 emissions change the temperature, and the temperature regulates the decadal-scale changes in clouds? Because that certainly appears to be what you wrote.
And if it isn’t that, then I would ask you to again identify the mechanism that modulates decadal-scale changes in clouds…if you agree it’s not CO2 emissions.
poor seb..
Why are you incapable of understand what YOU actually wrote ???
Clouds regulate the temperature.
CO2 DOES NOT regulate the clouds (your own words)
So STILL absolutely ZERO effect on the climate from CO2.
Nice faceplant, seb.. straight into your own BS.
I am waiting for the public “debate” between the CAGW and non-believers. In conversational English and directed toward critical thinkers. I waste all sorts of time following blogs and other material that passes as “scientific” literature, trying to catch a nugget or two of truth.
So far, I have not caught the fever. I do not embrace theories which cannot be corroborated by empirical scientific study, instead relying on sophisticated logic and computer analysis – ruling everything out, so the answer must be what they suspected to begin with.
We don’t know what we don’t know.
Except those models are based on the laws of physics and observations. What skeptics propose never is. They do “statistical analysis” and come up with correlations that aren’t based on any known mechanism. Curve fitting is one of their strongest arguments that it’s all “natural” … that’s the kind of logic (and computer analysis) that you should oppose 😉
“Except those models are based on the laws of physics and observations. “
They are also based on many unproven ASSumptions,
They are NOT science.
They are a FANTASY.
Even the proposed mechanism of CO2 warming is anti-physics, and remains without any form of empirical proof.
You have no idea of any kind of logic, except twisted.
If you did, there is no way you could continue to support the idea of CO2 warming.
Its TOTALLY IRRATIONAL to continue on with a baseless assumption for which there is ZERO empirical proof and to base your whole MINDLESS cult belief on it.
Contrast…
REAL Laws Of Physics…
https://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/p/false-catastrophic-man-made-global.html?m=1
…vs…
FAKE “Observations”
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=e_Rc301T-hY
I know that Andy knows the difference between real science and cow-pie in the sky greenie alarmism.