By Kenneth Richard on 30. August 2018
Scientists are increasingly concluding that changes in low level cloud cover, not CO2, are what govern the surface radiation budget in the polar regions, driving and determining the retreat of the ice sheets.
It is considered “established science” that “the greenhouse effect of clouds may be larger than that resulting from a hundredfold increase of the C02 concentration of the atmosphere” (Ramanathan et al., 1989, 1,647 citations to date).
Indeed, satellite observations indicate that the Earth’s “radiation budget changes are caused by changes in tropical mean cloudiness” (Wielicki et al., 2002), not CO2 concentration changes.
Consequently, scientists have increasingly concluded that the driving mechanism that has governed and determined the melt of the polar ice sheets during recent decades has been the natural decadal-scale changes in cloud cover.
Decreasing cloud cover drives the recent
mass loss on the Greenland Ice Sheet
“The Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS) has been losing mass at an accelerating rate since the mid-1990s. … We show, using satellite data and climate model output, that the abrupt reduction in surface mass balance since about 1995 can be attributed largely to a coincident trend of decreasing summer cloud cover enhancing the melt-albedo feedback. Satellite observations show that, from 1995 to 2009, summer cloud cover decreased by 0.9 ± 0.3% per year. Model output indicates that the GrIS summer melt increases by 27 ± 13 gigatons (Gt) per percent reduction in summer cloud cover, principally because of the impact of increased shortwave radiation over the low albedo ablation zone. The observed reduction in cloud cover is strongly correlated with a state shift in the North Atlantic Oscillation promoting anticyclonic conditions in summer and suggests that the enhanced surface mass loss from the GrIS is driven by synoptic-scale changes in Arctic-wide atmospheric circulation. … Th[e] strong correlation between summertime NAO index and the MAR-based cloud cover could be used to forecast whether the observed reduction in cloud cover during summer, and the associated increase in GrIS melt, is likely to continue.”
“[Our results] also indicate that the sudden decline in Greenland’s (surface) mass balance is not primarily a direct response to the local increase in atmospheric temperature, because anomalies in downwelling longwave radiation have contributed less energy to the increase in melt of the GrIS than SWD [summertime shortwave forcing] anomalies. This is contradictory to previous analyses that have focused on the increase in temperature as the main cause of GrIS melting (15, 16), as well as on the longwave warming effect of clouds (10). Climate warming is instead altering large-scale circulation patterns.”
Wu et al., 2018
“The radiative effect of clouds has attracted increasing attention; for example, it was found that decreasing cloud cover drives the recent loss of mass from the Greenland ice sheet by enhancing the melt-albedo feedback (Hofer et al., 2017). Thus, enhanced albedo effect from increasing cloud cover in southwest China during the early Holocene could have caused a reduction in summer temperature. … From 1960 to 2005, total cloud cover decreased over southwest China, including Yunnan Province (Zhang et al., 2011b) … [as] summer temperature increased [1961-2007] (Liu et al., 2010). This negative relationship between cloud cover and summer temperature was also found in India during the period 1931-2002 (Roy and Balling, 2005).”
“The surface radiation budget of the Arctic Ocean plays a central role in summer ice melt and is governed by clouds and surface albedo. … Longwave and shortwave radiation are primary drivers in the surface heat budget during summer melt (Persson et al., 2002). The surface radiative balance consists of contributions from incoming shortwave radiation, reflected shortwave radiation, incoming longwave radiation, and outgoing longwave radiation. Clouds have a major impact on both incoming longwave and shortwave radiative fluxes. … Future impacts on net radiative balances will depend on both ice and cloud conditions. As the sea ice cover evolves towards more first year ice, greater melt pond coverage, and more open water, the area-averaged albedo will be less than the break-even albedo for much of the summer. This implies less melting under cloudy conditions than sunny. However, the net radiative balance will still likely be less under sunny skies at the beginning of the melt season in May and early June.”
Nicolas et al., 2017
“During the short Antarctic summer, strong onshore winds may by themselves raise the ice sheet’s surface temperature (Ts) up to the melting point(through exchange of sensible heat), especially at low elevations. However, Ts [surface temperature] is ultimately controlled by the full surface energy budget (SEB), being the net of radiative (short- and longwave) and turbulent (sensible and latent) heat fluxes. Clouds exert an important influence on the SEB by modulating the radiative fluxes, primarily by enhancing downwelling longwave radiation and attenuating incoming solar radiation. In particular, low-level liquid-bearing clouds can have a determinant role in either causing or prolonging melting conditions over ice sheets.”
Scott et al., 2017
“Clouds are an essential parameter of the surface energy budget influencing the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) response to atmospheric warming and net contribution to global sea level rise. … Owing to perennial high-albedo snow and ice cover, cloud infrared emission dominates over cloud solar reflection and absorption leading to a positive net all-wave cloud radiative effect (CRE) at the surface … The annual-mean CRE [cloud radiative effect] at the WAIS [West Antarctic Ice Sheet] surface is 34 W m−2, representing a significant cloud-induced warming of the ice sheet. … In summer, clouds warm the WAIS by 26 W m−2, on average, despite maximum offsetting shortwave CRE.”
Posted in Antarctic, Arctic, Glaciers |
26 responses to “Scientists Now Assert Natural Mechanisms Have Driven The Recent Retreat Of The Greenland Ice Sheet”
And all that dark dirt on the ice surface (see photo above) has NOTHING to do with it.
I wonder where that photo was taken, and where all those ice-melt ashes or whatever they are came from. See photo in this article for similar effect.
It’ll work even with clouds, though not as well.
More evidence to undermine the alarmist concept of “consensus” and “settled science”.
Kenneth, you didn’t reply to my question about what is causing cloud cover to change. Is it still GCRs in your belief system or has that changed?
Or could it be something like this?
“Decreases in subtropical low cloud cover (LCC) occur in climate model simulations of global warming.”
Or is that bad science because it’s model based? 😉
Maybe this helps?
“The trouble is that clouds are produced by the climate, specifically the atmospheric motions (winds) that are produced by the radiative and latent heating influenced by clouds. This connected loop of relations is called a feedback loop.”
Also, to be fair, the last site is full of “we need much better observations” warnings. Apparently, the cloud feedback isn’t settled science and the question seems to be open whether they will dampen or amplify the temperature response to more GHGs. But your argument isn’t that of a feedback, it’s making cloud cover changes the cause. Completely contrarian to established science.
By quoting this (Nicolas et al., 2017):
Do you think that more clouds warm Antarctica by enhancing downwelling longwave radiation and less clouds that increase incoming solar radiation also warm Antarctica … so in any case the clouds just cause the warming? A decrease in the tropics warms, an increase at the poles warms … clouds always cause warming 😉
And why is it now more frequent El Ninos in the 21st century that will cause major melt events? I thought it’s volcanoes according to spike55?
I just replied to it yesterday. But I guess I should provide a repeat of what the scientific literature says.
Though inconclusive, that’s what more and more climate/solar scientists are suggesting, yes. Do you think that humans cause cloud cover changes?
Govil et al., 2018
“The spectral analysis of the sedimentological parameters reveals the significant periodicities (>95% significance) centering at ∼1067, ∼907, and ∼824 years. The long-term trends in the data suggest the possible fluctuation of Antarctic ice-sheet superimposed on global climatic fluctuations due to solar activity. … The curiosity of climate scientists arises on the mechanism of reaction of the climate system in response to the changes in solar forcing. There are two possible mechanisms proposed which work through the atmospheric processes. The first mechanism includes the action of the ozone layer by increasing more UV radiations with increased solar activity. It must have raised the temperature in the stratosphere which produces stronger winds in lower stratosphere and troposphere. These strong winds in the troposphere result in the relocation of pressure cells and storm tracks which ultimately disturbs the climate system (Schindell et al., 1999; Crosta et al., 2007). The second proposed mechanism considers the cosmic rays and cloud cover responsible for amplifying the climate forcing (Svensmark, 2000). High solar activity is believed to be responsible for less cooling of the lower atmosphere due to reduced cloud cover (Marsh and Svensmar,, 2000). Conversely, low solar activity is believed to provide additional cooling of the lower atmosphere. These two feedback mechanisms responsible for the climatic forcing due to solar activity may work alone or in conjugation and are also superposed to other climate forcing as well as variability of internal cycling (Rind, 2002). Further, the periodic increase in solar activity results in increased temperature in the lower atmosphere which causes melting of ice-sheets in the Antarctic region. It may further provide the periodicity in freshwater discharge in the Schirmacher lakes and hence regulates the depositional environment of the studies lake.”
Tomicic et al., 2018
“Secondary aerosol particles, which are formed by nucleation processes in the atmosphere, play an important role in atmospheric chemistry and in the Earth’s climate system. They affect the Earth’s radiation balance by scattering solar radiation back to space and can also act as cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) and thereby affect the amount of cloud and its radiative properties. Clouds have a net cooling effect on the Earth’s radiation budget of about −27.7 W m−2 (Hartmann, 1993). Thus, a small change in cloud properties can have significant effect on the climate system. Results by Merikanto et al. (2009) and Yu and Luo (2009) have shown that a significant fraction (ranging between 31 and 70 %) of cloud-forming aerosol particles in the atmosphere are secondary particles that originate from nucleation. Therefore, understanding nucleation is crucial in order to fully understand the atmospheric and climatic effects of aerosols.”
Frigo et al., 2018
“In this work, we investigate the relationship between the ∼ 11-year and ∼ 22-year cycles that are related to solar activity and 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.”
“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. … 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 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.”
Wilson and Sidorenkov, 2018
“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.”
Correct. And that is why it is inconsistent for you to “reject GCR-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”, as cloud cover changes are regional, and thus they affect different regions of the globe differently.
Wilson and Sidorenkov, 2018 continued…
“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  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.  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.  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.”</em
Greenhouse gases aren’t even mentioned in Hofer et al. (2017). Shortwave and longwave radiation changes are instead characterized as being driven by cloud cover changes, which isn’t surprising since it’s established science that “the greenhouse effect of clouds [i.e., LW] may be larger than that resulting from a hundredfold increase of the C02 concentration of the atmosphere” (Ramanathan et al., 1989).
These small sampling of papers indicate that “cloud radiative forcing” (Ramanathan et al., 1989) is what “causes” (Wielicki et al., 2002) “drives” (Hofer et al., 2017) “determines” (Nicolas et al., 2017) and “governs” (Perovich et al., 2018) changes in the radiation budget and polar ice sheet melt. There are hundreds more like them. So the idea that it is “established science” that cloud cover changes do not cause melting or warming (or cooling) is not supported by the evidence.
Um, whoop-de-doo. I guess I’m supposed to be impressed that they figured out that fewer low level clouds in the tropics means more solar radiation is absorbed by the oceans, causing a warming, and more low level clouds in the tropics means less solar radiation is absorbed by the oceans, causing a cooling?
At the poles, where it’s Sunless for a third of the year and Sun-only for another third of the year, cloud cover changes lead to/cause warming or cooling, depending on timing/location. As Hofer et al. (2017) explain, summertime decreases in cloud cover are what drive the ice sheet melting.
Considering you’ve acknowledged that CO2 forcing only “causes” 0.5 W m-2 to 1 W m-2 at the poles…
…and that cloud radiative forcing is significantly greater than that at the poles (LW cloud forcing is ~25 to 30 W m-2), why are you nonetheless a believer that it’s not clouds that play a determinative or causal role in polar ice sheet dynamics, but 0.5 to 1 W m-2 CO2? Why are clouds a “feedback” if they’re what drive the radiative budget changes?
And then there’s the soot and dust, etc. (as I mentioned above)
Also algae, which feeds on soot and grows, etc.
Well, see, it is “Carbon,” just not CO2.
And, of course, the amount of light all that stuff receives modulates the effect, with clouds a “control knob” of sorts. Much more believable than CO2.
Soot and dust are well established as caused for changes in ice mass. You didn’t discover something new if you are thinking that you did.
That is the problem with you guys. Your mind is set, anything is more believable than CO2. If some scientist got around and claimed god is the force that determines the climate, you’d believe it over CO2/GHGs being the cause.
You have ZERO EVIDENCE that CO2 has caused ANY WARMING WHATSOEVER.
You don’t even really believe that fallacy yourself, as shown by the FACT that you are totally unable to present any evidence to back up that anti-science assertion
You are just TROLLING for attention.
You know, the evidence and observations do not just disappear because you choose to ignore them …
Hmm, by that logic you are the one who doesn’t believe his own BS. You never post any evidence for any of your claims. It’s actually fun to see you so deeply buried in that believe of you thinking you are on to something.
As the evidence suggest, you are part of the local troll mob, spike55.
“You know, the evidence and observations do not just disappear because you choose to ignore them …”
There goes the PATHETIC EVASION .. so on cue !!!
They don’t magically appear because you IMAGINE them up .
It is noted that YET AGAIN, you are TOTALLY INCAPABLE of posting any evidence.
EMPTY, DEVOID, NADA, ZIP.
Just rant on TROLL-CHILD.
Wow, let’s all bow to the great lord Hofer and not ever mention GHGs ever again.
As it is established science, that cloud cover is a feedback loop and not a cause for anything by its own. That’s why it is modeled as such.
Why do you think that this is an idea that was brought forward here? Of course clouds have effects. I don’t disagree with any of your cited authors. I disagree with your wild interpretation of their results as should be perfectly clear from my comment above.
Nope, I would hope that some switch in your head flipped and you stopped seeing cloud cover changes as a cause. Warming causes less subtropical low cloud cover.
You do know that I wrote this paragraph you quotes next to a cite from the Nicolas paper which claims more clouds are causing more warmth in Antarctica by “containing” the warmth brought there by warm winds caused by an El Nino, do you? And more frequent El Ninos will amplify this.
This is a weird reply of yours.
You still come up with this? You still believe for CO2 forcing to cause any of the warming at the poles it must happen at the poles and not elsewhere. Is it so unconceivable to you that increased heat content also gets transported to the poles? How is this consistent with your reply at me that GCRs would cause regional changes instead of global changes? You can’t imagine how that would work for CO2 forcing but you can imagine that GCRs might work that way? Hmm …
I am not, for the 1000th time. Don’t twist around what people say and make up positions you imagine others to have!
I’ll leave you with your imagination for today.
Oh dear … why are clouds a feedback (loop)? Seriously?
“Oh dear … why are clouds a feedback (loop)?”
What.. fantasies left you ????
Surly you can invent some more nonsense.
Greenhouse gases aren’t even mentioned in Hofer et al. (2017).
What is this?
Apparently scientists do not agree with you and the models that cloud radiative forcing does not exist (only “feedback”), as they report that cloud radiative forcing (the “cloud radiative effect”, or CRE) both causes warming and melts ice.
“…clouds warm the GrIS [Greenland Ice Sheet] surface by 1.2° (±0.1) C on average over the entire period [2007-2010]“
“The annual mean CRE [Cloud Radiative Effect] of 29.5 (±5.2) W m 2 provides enough energy to melt 90 Gt of ice in the GrIS [Greenland Ice Sheet] ablation area during July and August.”
Tricht et al., 2016
“The Greenland ice sheet has become one of the main contributors to global sea level rise, predominantly through increased meltwater runoff. The main drivers of Greenland ice sheet runoff, however, remain poorly understood. Here we show that clouds enhance meltwater runoff by about one-third relative to clear skies, using a unique combination of active satellite observations, climate model data and snow model simulations. This impact results from a cloud radiative effect of 29.5 (±5.2)Wm 2. Contrary to conventional wisdom, however, the Greenland ice sheet responds to this energy through a new pathway by which clouds reduce meltwater refreezing as opposed to increasing surface melt directly, thereby accelerating bare-ice exposure and enhancing meltwater runoff. The high sensitivity of the Greenland ice sheet to both ice-only and liquid-bearing clouds highlights the need for accurate cloud representations in climate models, to better predict future contributions of the Greenland ice sheet to global sea level rise.”
“Clouds are known to play a pivotal role in regulating the local SEB [Surface Energy Balance], with competing warming and cooling effects on the surface. … The satellite-based cloud observations allow to estimate the cloud impact on the SEB [Surface Energy Balance]. … The annual mean CRE [Cloud Radiative Effect] of 29.5 (±5.2) W m 2 provides enough energy to melt 90 Gt of ice in the GrIS [Greenland Ice Sheet] ablation area during July and August. … The snow model simulations, which capture the evolution of the GrIS SMB [Surface Mass Balance] from 2007 to 2010, indicate that clouds warm the GrIS [Greenland Ice Sheet] surface by 1.2° (±0.1) C on average over the entire period [2007-2010]. … These results further indicate that not only liquid-bearing clouds but also clouds composed exclusively of ice significantly increase radiative fluxes into the surface and decrease GrIS SMB [Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Mass Balance].”
To be clear, the Sun is the ultimate cause, whereas clouds dominate as the modulators of the absorbed solar energy in the Earth’s climate system. The role of CO2 at the poles is, by comparison, negligible (0 to 1 W m-2) per the “weak” radiative forcing estimates for CO2 found in Schmithusen et al. (2015).
No, not when cloud cover changes are the primary determinant of radiation budget variations.
“The analysis showed that the main atmospheric parameters that affect the amount of global radiation received on earth’s surface are cloud cover and relative humidity. Global radiation correlates negatively with both variables. Linear models are excellent approximations for the relationship between atmospheric parameters and global radiation. A linear model with the predictors total cloud cover, relative humidity, and extraterrestrial radiation is able to explain around 98% of the variability in global radiation.” [CO2 not even mentioned as a factor affecting surface solar radiation]
Chen and Hwang, 2016
“A set of analysis and model experiment is done to verify the effect of cloud radiative forcing (CRF). Analysis of CRF [cloud radiative forcing] shows that net CRF change during PDO is primary contributed by the change of shortwave cloud radiative forcing (SWCRF). The effects of SWCRF on SSTs acts as a negative feedback in Tropics, and a positive feedback in North East Pacific. Analysis of PDO-associated ocean mixed layer heat budget suggests that CRF [cloud radiative forcing] may play an important role shaping SST patterns during summertime.”
Correct, this is the longwave effect of cloud cover changes at the poles. By comparison the greenhouse forcing effect for CO2 is quite “weak” in the polar regions:
Schmithüsen et al., 2015
“The observation of an intensity maximum in the CO2 band above Antarctica corresponds to a negative GHE, in agreement with the negative surface‐stratosphere temperature differences. This implies that increasing CO2 causes the emission maximum in the TOA spectra to increase slightly, which instantaneously enhances the LW cooling in this region, strengthening the cooling of the planet. … Short‐wave radiation is affected by changes in humidity, cloud cover, and also by the weak absorption of solar radiation by CO2. Over Antarctica, this sums up to 0.5 W/m2 for autumn, winter, and spring and up to 1 W/m2 in summer. … For most of the Antarctic Plateau, [the CO2] GHE is close to zero or even slightly negative; i.e., the presence of CO2 increases radiative cooling. Over Greenland, the greenhouse effect of CO2 is also comparatively weak but invariably positive.”
“…it is established science, that cloud cover is a feedback loop and not a cause for anything by its own. “ – SebH (ignorant activist)
“I believe that the modelers have mistakenly interpreted decreased cloud cover with warming in the real climate system as positive cloud feedback (warming causing a cloud decrease), when in reality it was actually the decrease in clouds that mostly caused the warming.” – Roy Spencer (actual scientist)
“…the processes controlling the conversion of water vapor into precipitation in clouds are complex and remain rather mysterious.” – ibid
Oh, yeah – the best “established science” money can buy.
I’ll copy my reply from over there then:
That’s not what climate science as a field suggest though. It’s more or like the few scientists that confirm your bias that suggest this. If you dig deeper you’ll find, GCR an not controlling cloud cover to any significant amount. No amount of citing Svensmark will change this.
Nope, why would I? Temperature and humidity does. Now who affects temperature the most these days?
Wait what? I am rejecting GCRs as the all controling cloud force. Are you suggesting GCRs only cause regional cloud cover change? How would that work? And on the topic of that working, did the cloud cover recently decrease even more despite the Sun weakening and thus GCRs becoming “stronger”? Is that what caused the 21st century warming? That’s an inconsistency you can wonder about.
Be a skeptic for once. Examine what Svensmark & Co are claiming.
So you don’t understand it or don’t want to understand it. Got it. You don’t want to be convinced, your mind is already set. No amount of examples, evidence and real observations will change what you belief.
“No amount of examples, evidence and real observations will change what you belief.”
You don’t have any evidence or real observations, seb.
And your “examples” are baseless fantasies and mindless fabrications.
What’s “as a field” mean? There are hundreds of scientific papers attributing cloud cover modulation to the the Earth’s magnetic field/GCRs. The best that can be said for your “case” is that this “field” is still under construction.
Do you think that humans cause cloud cover changes?
Wow. You are so ensconced in your beliefs that you can’t even detect the circularity here. So (1) humans don’t cause cloud cover changes. (2) Rising temperatures cause cloud cover changes. (3) Humans “affect temperature the most these days” (your belief). So rising temperatures, caused by humans, causes cloud cover changes. But, simultaneously, cloud cover changes are not caused by humans (“Nope, why would I [believe that]?”). Oh, the illogical lengths you go to.
No one has suggested that GCRs are the “all controlling cloud force”. You’ve just made up another straw man, of course.
Your analogies are consistently so irrelevant that I don’t even both to read them.
The hubris you have in suggesting that your irrelevant analogies about bathrooms and bank accounts and whatever else are even remotely “instructional” is loathsome. SebastianH, I do not view you as the least bit knowledgeable on matters of cloud radiative forcing. That you think I view you as superior in knowledge and understanding on these matters is patently ridiculous.
Your analogies offer “evidence and real observations”?! Unbelievable!
“you didn’t reply to my question”
Seb, You haven’t EVER replied to those two simple questions with anything but mindless evasion and empty rhetoric
What questions AndyG55? I only see a constant demonstration that you are not willing to accept reality. You expect others to do the homework for you and when somebody falls for it you ignore them putting work into explaining something to you that you won’t accept anyway. Troll on, my vile fan.
OMG now you are in DENIAL of the two simple questions that you continually run away from
You really have reached the depths of PATHETIC CHILDISHNESS in your manic evasion strategies.
Unable to support even the most basic farce of the AGW meme.. and you wonder why everyone considers you nothing but a serial pest and a TROLL.
Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?
Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?
You KNOW that you are INCAPABLE of answering these two questions with anything resemble REAL SCIENCE..
.. because the evidence DOES NOT EXIST.
.. hence your continued pointless headless-chook avoidance routines.
I wonder to what the authors would attribute last year’s ice mass gain?
No seriously, Global warming!
No lives lost, thankfully.
AGW egos dented big time
A video forecast for the NH VERY COLD winter…
[…] (Source) […]