Two University of Turku (Finland) physicists have determined a) the climate’s sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is 0.24°C, b) the human contribution to the warming of the past century is only about 0.01°C, c) the IPCC and climate modeling dramatically overestimate CO2’s climate impact, and d) variations in low cloud cover control the climate.
Cloud cover changes “explain the linear trend of global temperature” since the 1980s
In a new paper, O.M. Povrovsky of the Russian State Hydrometeorological University analyzes satellite-observed cloud cover changes during 1983-2009 and their relation to global temperature change.
Povrovsky found global and regional cloudiness decreased between 2-6% during these decades, and “the correlation coefficient between the global cloud series on the one hand and the global air and ocean surface temperature series on the other hand reaches values (–0.84) — (–0.86).”
Consequently, Povrovsky (2019) concluded changes in cloud cover explain both the increasing global temperature during 1984-2009, but even the interannual variability.
Anthropogenic climate change isn’t supported by experimental evidence
Dr. Jyrki Kauppinen was an expert reviewer for the IPPC’s last climate report (AR5, 2013).
In a comment to the IPCC overseers, Kauppinen strongly suggested the “experimental evidence for the very large sensitivity [to anthropogenic CO2 forcing] presented in the report” is missing (Kauppinen and Malmi, 2019).
In response, the IPCC overseers claimed experimental evidence could be found in the report’s Technical Summary.
But the Technical Summary merely contained references to computer models and non-validated assumptions. Kauppinen writes:
“We do not consider computational results as experimental evidence. Especially the results obtained by climate models are questionable because the results are conflicting with each other.”
Upon examination of satellite data and cloud cover changes, Dr. Kauppinen concluded the IPCC’s claims of high climate sensitivity to CO2 forcing (2 to 5°C) are about ten times too high, and “the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature.”
Evidence for natural climate change supported by satellite observations
When low cloud cover data from satellite observations are considered, a very clear correlation emerges.
As low cloud cover decreases, more solar radiation can be absorbed by the oceans rather than reflected back to space. Thus, decadal-scale decreases in low cloud cover elicit warming.
When cloud cover increases, cooling ensues.
In this manner, Kauppien and Malmi (2019) find “low clouds practically control the global temperature,” which leaves “no room for the contribution of greenhouse gases i.e. anthropogenic forcing.”
In fact, Kauppinen and Malmi boldly conclude that the total warming contribution from anthropogenic CO2 emissions reached only 0.o1°C during the last 100 years, which means “anthropogenic climate change does not exist in practice.”
Kauppinen and Malmi, 2019
No experimental evidence for the
significant anthropogenic climate change
“The IPCC climate sensitivity is about one order of magnitude too high, because a strong negative feedback of the clouds is missing in climate models. If we pay attention to the fact that only a small part of the increased CO2 concentration is anthropogenic, we have to recognize that the anthropogenic climate change does not exist in practice. The major part of the extra CO2 is emitted from oceans [6], according to Henry‘s law. The low clouds practically control the global average temperature. During the last hundred years the temperature is increased about 0.1°C because of CO2. The human contribution was about 0.01°C.”
“We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature. The reason is that the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. That is why IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24°C. Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10 %, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature.”
The Turkish authors imply a self-regulating system, controlled by clouds. While the article doesn’t mention Svensmark, the authors, like Svensmark, invoke low-clouds as the climate controller. The following argument is applicable in both cases:
The ocean produces the clouds Svensmark claims for his cosmic ray theory, during increasing MEI/decreasing Central Pacific OLR conditions, as observed here using figure 10 from Svensmark’s latest paper.
The strong OLR-cloud relationship is plotted here and here.
Solar activity controls ENSO activity, which controls clouds and OLR.
Like Svensmark, these authors confuse an effect of the cause for the cause itself.
“Turkish” is not an appropriate adjective for Jyrki Kauppinen and Pekka Malmi. Turku is in Finland, not Turkey, and the names are distinctly Finnish too. Confusion?
You’re right. The Turku authors…
Thanks.
Agree with Bob Webber. Any analysis must consider the “third man” possibility, that solar activity is controlling temperature and clouds independently. I’m skeptical that clouds by themselves have the supposed effect, even though a “correlation” will certainly seem to be present.
The constant, tropospheric vertical temperature gradient, commonly known as the lapse rate structure, predominates over all other conditions and processes in the atmosphere (it is due to the hydrostatic condition of the troposphere), and maintains a stable global mean temperature (+/- ~0.5C over the last 10,000 years), at the surface and at any altitude in the troposphere. My Venus/Earth temperatures comparison, of temperatures at points of equal pressure in the two atmospheres and over the range of pressures in the Earth atmosphere, proved this back in 2010:
http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html
There is no valid global climate science, and no competent climate scientists. My Venus/Earth comparison shows that ONLY the distance from the Sun to a planet with sufficient atmosphere controls the global mean temperature. (The depth, or total mass, of the atmosphere determines the absolute global mean temperature at the surface of the planet, thus Venus’s surface, at the bottom of a much deeper atmosphere, is much hotter than Earth’s surface). My Venus/Earth comparison easily shows clouds don’t affect the global mean temp, because Venus and Earth have a hugely different cloud cover, with no effect; the same goes for the carbon dioxide, as Venus has over 2400 times the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide as does Earth, again to no effect on the temperatures.
The climate scientists are also incorrect in assuming that “the Sun warms the surface and the surface warms the atmosphere”, as do both the scientists discussed in the article, and Bob Weber in his comment above. My Venus/Earth comparison corrects consensus assumptions in climate science on a whole handful of basic points, needed to make it a competent science. But first the debate has to be taken away from the control-minded politicians, who are simply criminals, not legitimate governmental forces.
Harry the sun warms the ocean, then the ocean warms the atmosphere.
Except during solar minimums the air dries out and high UV index makes land surfaces hot contributing to high heat index conditions, something we’ve seen a few times this year.
There is no valid global climate science, and no competent climate scientists.
Your theory has no practical value in predicting anything to do with climate or weather other than establishing a baseline.
While I’ve been hearing you toot your own horn for a lot of years, I’ve been making many successful solar based predictions with my valid and competent solar-based climate science.
The right sorts of clouds cause shade beneath them and reflect the energy out to space. This is not news.
Bob Weber claims the Turku authors “confuse an effect of the cause for the cause itself.” If they made such a claim, or any claim for the cause of the clouds — I missed it.
The claim is fewer low clouds are the cause of warming, but that entirely misses the cause of the clouds, the ENSO activity. Most importantly, it misses the cause of fewer clouds, ie their condition for warming, which is insufficient incoming solar radiation, low insolation, as they imply the varying amount of clouds alone are enough to regulate insolation sufficiently to control warming, meaning they are ignoring the variation in the source of the insolation itself, TSI, and it’s short and long-term effect on evaporation & clouds, something outside of their model.
Look at ENSO indices and precipitation and water vapor cross-correlation plots with TSI to see the influence solar cycle variation has on hydrology and hence clouds.
One of their last sentences in the paper is:
“Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10 %, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change.”
I think that says it all 😉 true beliefers.
Is this supposed warming all based on the test tube experiments where they increase the level of CO2 in one test tube Vs the other with, what ever the year is, atmos equivalent.
I could never get my head around what it actually meant when they were increasing the levels to around 500,000-1,000,000 ppm Vs , let’s say, 400ppm of CO2.
Utter tosh if you ask me.
O/T Did you know that solar activity can affect GDP as well as electromagnetic equipment, here, on Earth?
“In our empirical analysis, we found that the Gross Domestic Products (GDP) of the 34-member countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development decreases as solar activity increases. On average, GDP decreases by at least 0.06 percent for every increase of one percent in solar activity.”
https://phys.org/news/2019-07-solar-weather-real-material-effects.amp
As more scientists take an interest in solar influences on our weather/climate, they will hopefully wean themselves from the ‘CO2 is an evil gas’ World Faith.
[…] Two University of Turklu (Finland) physicists have determined a) the climate’s sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is 0.24°C, b) the human contribution to the warming of the past century is only about 0.01°C, c) the IPCC and climate modeling dramatically overestimate CO2’s climate impact, and d) variations in low cloud cover control the climate. (Source) […]
Clouds utterly destroy climate models …
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THg6vGGRpvA
Best laughs… hand held calculators match super-computer models… 12:28, climate model uncertainty (error bars)… 24:25
“Cloud error is 114 times larger than the variable they are trying to detect”
[From a comment by ‘Gator’ at https://realclimatescience.com/2019/07/climate-scam-collapse-continues/#comment-234479 ]
Thanks for this excellent link that shows what a laughing clownery the IPCC’s “climate science” is.
I remember our argument on twitter Kenneth, where you talked up how there were so many papers finding observational evidence for cloud control of climate. Of course each and every one of them turned out to be based on cherry picking the ISCCP data set, which you neglected to disclose. Aren’t you just doing it again? This paper looks like it uses ISCCP, from the chart. Not sure they actually cite what data they’re using (very scientific). Of course, using ISCCP to claim clouds caused warming is not really any new research, or even research at all, but just a claim.
* The ISCCP data set is the only data set of many cloudiness data sets that show this claimed decrease in cloudiness. Those who use it never provide an explanation why they think this is the only valid data set. Published papers show “trends observed in the ISCCP data are satellite viewing geometry artifacts and are not related to physical changes in the atmosphere.”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006GL028083/abstract
* This is actually a logical contradiction of what most contrarians say is happening. ISCCP data would say that clouds decreased while solar activity slightly decreased. But according to Svensmark theory, lower solar activity is supposed to allow in more cosmic rays, create more clouds, and cause cooling. Instead, ISCCP says less clouds and warming. This sort of direct contradiction doesn’t slow up climate science contrarians from believing that both things are true – ISCCP shows clouds declined and therefore caused warming, and also that the sun control clouds via cosmic rays, despite the fact that physically these ideas run directly opposite to each other.
In other words, seems like you and this paper are up to old tricks.
This isn’t true, Geoff. Herman et al. (2013) didn’t use ISCCP – instead the NIMBUS-7 – and found a decrease in cloudiness corresponding to a +2.5 Wm-2 shortwave forcing during 1979-2011.
Herman et al., 2013
https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/8505/2013/acp-13-8505-2013.pdf
“Measured upwelling radiances from Nimbus-7 SBUV (Solar Backscatter Ultraviolet) and seven NOAA SBUV/2 instruments have been used to calculate the 340 nm Lambertian equivalent reflectivity (LER) of the Earth from 1979 to 2011 after applying a common calibration … there has been a global net decrease in 340 nm cloud plus aerosol reflectivity. The decrease in cos2 (latitude) weighted average LER from 60◦ S to 60◦ N is 0.79 ± 0.03 RU over 33 yr, corresponding to a 3.6 ± 0.2 % decrease in LER. 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“
Longman et al. (2014) used the GOES data and found a 9-18 Wm-2 per decade +SW forcing between 1988-2012 in the tropics.
Longman et al., 2014
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013JD021322
“…high temporal resolution Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) imagery over the Hawaiian Islands showed a statistically significant decrease in leeward cloud cover amounting to 5–11% per decade over the stations. … statistically significant (p ≤ 0.05) positive trends of 9–18 W m−2 (3–6%) per decade were found at all four high‐elevation stations tested.”
I could easily find many more. But even if I couldn’t, other than continually citing the same 2007 paper over and over again, you have yet to conclusively demonstrate that the ISCCP satellite data are wrong. Considering the prevalence of scientists using this cloud data since the publication of this paper you keep citing, it would appear your opinions about the inferiority of the ISCCP data have not been validated. There is nothing “tricky” about citing scientific papers that use cloud data from satellites (that you happen to not like).
No, according to the ACRIM, which uses observational evidence instead of models (as the PMOD does), there was an increase in solar activity during the 1980s to 2000s, which corresponds with the decrease in cloud cover over this period.
The scientific literature supporting these trends – and the corresponding cloud cover changes – can be found here:
https://notrickszone.com/2019/03/25/satellite-evidence-affirms-solar-activity-drove-a-significant-percentage-of-recent-warming/
Further, for an analysis of the dearth of observational support for the (your?) belief that CO2 drives changes in ocean heat content, melts kilometers-thick ice sheets, and raises sea levels, here’s a brief summarizing article.
https://notrickszone.com/2019/05/13/co2-climate-forcing-in-the-earth-system-context-the-honey-bee-versus-the-sun/
See if you can rise above your apparent affinity for the ad hom, Geoff. Civil debates and discussions are welcome here. Baselessly accusing others of using “tricks” (by citing scientific papers you disagree with?) is frowned upon.
Well, cloud cover is a feedback mechanism and not something that is externally forced by cosmic rays as has been shown in many experiments (for example the CERN CLOUD experiment).
So yeah, it’s great that scientists confirm that the change in cloud cover due to warming enhances the warming quite a bit (=positive feedback).
As for the ACRIM vs. PMOD thing, you are probably aware that the difference in those datasets is just a small period in the early 90s, right? The data before that gap is offset in both datasets, the data after that gap is virtually the same. And it shows a decreasing solar activity trend since the 90s.
However, it seems kind of ridiculous to claim that a smaller than 1 W/m² difference in TSI at the minimum of the 11 year interval should explain “the 1980 to 2000” warming (your link). And well, if you look at the authors of that claim (Scafetta) it becomes clear that it is a climate contrarian paper. So i’d be very sceptical about it’s content.
So apparently you believe the decline in cloud cover since the 1980s is due to the quite small heat energy increase in the Earth system – a 0.02°C warming of the ocean (where 93% of “global warming” is manifested). That’s a warming of about 0.001°C per year during 1994-2013.
In other words, you believe it’s the one-one-thousandths of a degree of heat change per year causes cloud cover to decline, allowing you to claim humans caused recent cloud cover changes – a feedback!
Using this same minuscule-warming-causes-cloud-cover-to-decline logic, why is it winters and summers north/south of the tropics have several degrees Celsius temperature changes, but yet the cloud cover variations are quite similar for both the warmer months and the cooler months?
In other words, if 0.001°C/yr changes cause cloud cover to change (more cloud/less cloud), why wouldn’t changes of several degrees cause a far more pronounced difference in cloud cover in summer vs. winter? Why is cloud cover variability effectively the same year-round?
Not small at all, just don’t stretch out a warming of the top layers to the whole ocean volume and you’ll see. Or well, use the easier to understand Joule unit to describe a change in heat content, like everyone else does 😉
You know what it is called when you try to argue against something made up, right?
Is that so?
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-19431-w
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0924271618301461
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0088.1
Well, I think you’ve made that up as well.
Yes, it’s so. What do you believe these links are demonstrating?
Decadal-scale changes in cloud cover are not controlled by a net 0.02°C change in water temperature over 20 years no matter how much you want to believe it’s true.
The water temperature didn’t change by 0.02°C, Kenneth. We had this discussion many times and I see you haven’t changed at all.
Never mind actual science and continue to believe in papers that end in “Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10 %, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change.”
You are falling for some climate contrarian BS and I think you do that gladly since it fits your agenda.
According to the scientific literature, the oceans warmed by 0.02°C between 1994 and 2013, and it’s changed by 0.09°C since 1955.
So you go right on ahead and keep believing those changes were caused by humans, and thus humans caused cloud cover to decrease due to that warming.
“… not something that is externally forced by cosmic rays as has been shown in many experiments (for example the CERN CLOUD experiment).”
So the CERN CLOUD experiment says this doesn’t exists?
https://spaceweatherarchive.files.wordpress.com/2019/05/nlc_anim_strip.gif
Add to that Kenneth with ‘experiments’ in climate modelling (yes it is not real, just models!) and water has quite a profound effect. The SPHINX model in a paper called ‘The impact of stochastic physics on climate sensitivity in EC-Earth’ by K. Strommen1 , P. A. G. Watson1 , T. N. Palmer1 Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom give these key points —
Key Points:
• The inclusion of a stochastic scheme reduces climate sensitivity in a general circulation model.
•This reduction, of around 10%, is linked to changes in cloud cover and cloud optical depth feedbacks.
•Well calibrated stochastic schemes may give more accurate global warming projections.
~~~~~~~~~~
Also this paper called ‘Co-existing climate attractors in a coupled aquaplanet’ by M. Brunetti · J. Kasparian · C. Vérard
Abstract
The first step in exploring the properties of dynamical systems like the Earth climate is to identify the different phase space regions where the trajectories asymptotically evolve, called ‘attractors’. In a given system, multiple attractors can co-exist under the effect of the same forcing. At the boundaries of their basins of attraction, small changes produce large effects. Therefore, they are key regions for understanding the system’s response to perturbations. Here we prove the existence of up to five attractors in a simplified climate system where the planet is entirely covered by the ocean (aquaplanet). These attractors range from a snowball to a hot state without sea ice, and their exact number depends on the details of the coupled atmosphere–ocean–sea ice configuration. We characterise each attractor by describing the associated climate feedbacks, by using the principal component analysis, and by measuring quantities borrowed from the study of dynamical systems, namely instantaneous dimension and persistence.
From the conclusion —
and
[my bold]
So even when playing the modeling game with an assessment of stochastic and chaotic scenarios, the effects of any CO2 warming within the banalities of the standard GCMs is diluted by the effects of (parameterized) water and clouds.
Maybe one day they will be able to move away from the unreal parameterizing of the effects of water/clouds and to a proper understanding of a physics based method.
Oops forgot the links
‘The impact of stochastic physics on climate sensitivity in EC-Earth’ is at —
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1905.06613.pdf
Co-existing climate attractors in a coupled aquaplanet is at
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.03255.pdf
Maybe someone can find the link, but several years ago researchers at Princeton (not at GFDL) compared the effects of detailed cloud models with the parameterized code going into contemporary models and found it reduced warming increase in half.
And also Loeb et al. (2018) is a key recent paper illustrating the controlling effect of cloud-cover changes on climate while using modern satellite data with global coverage: https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/6/3/62 , Dr. Normal Loeb is one of the world’s leading experts in Earth’s energy budget at umm, NASA.
A strong polar vortex is characteristic of high solar activity with increased ultraviolet in the solar spectrum. This creates a blocking action which prevents longitudinal heat transport to the polar regions, and overall makes the earth a poorer radiator, resulting in heat accumulation. This effect of solar UV on weather patterns is one of the several factors that I believe need to be considered.
Climate4you has a page on climate + clouds that includes this chart …
http://climate4you.com/images/HadCRUT3%20and%20TropicalCloudCoverISCCP.gif
… pointing out the significance of the tropical cloud cover, the tropics being mostly oceans, and linking to a chart showing the relationship of tropical cloud cover and the global sea surface and air temperatures.
There is also a chart shown the global surface temperature in relation to the tropical high and low level cloud cover observations.
[…] Physiker: Wolken kontrollieren das Klima, menschliche Erwärmung nur bei 0,01°C in 100 Jahren […]
It is interesting to note that the sensitivity derived by Kauppinen in [1], 0.24 degC/CO2 doubling, as quoted in the paper discussed above, is relatively close to sensitivity obtained by Smirnov in [2], 0.4 +/- 0.1 degC/CO2 doubling. Given the error range in the estimates, they almost overlap.
[1] https://doi.org/10.1260/0958-305X.25.2.389
[2] https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6463/aabac6
[…] blog of the day is No Tricks Zone, with a post on physicists saying clouds mostly control climate, with humans accounting for about .01C per 100 […]
I see that Edwin X Berry has an article published in International Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences
Volume 3, Issue 1, June 2019, Pages: 13-26
Received: May 13, 2019; Accepted: Jun. 12, 2019; Published: Jul. 4, 2019
and the pdf is available at http://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijaos.20190301.13.pdf .
Boom goes the Bern Model.
Sent tip to Watts about this.
Because ice cream was eaten record numbers -> summer was hot !
Flawed Reasoning: The authors’ argument claims a correlation between cloud cover/relative humidity and global temperature proves that the former caused the latter without investigating whether they have the relationship backwards.
Inadequate support: The source of their claimed global cloud dataset is not given, and no research on their proposed mechanism for climate change is cited.
Fails to provide correct physical explanation: The manuscript incorrectly claims that the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide is caused by release from ocean waters. It also provides no explanation for the claim that an increase in relative humidity causes global cooling.
Jukka,
Which of the many paper cited on this thread are you burbling about?
[…] https://notrickszone.com/2019/07/11/physicists-clouds-practically-control-climate-whereas-human-warm… […]
[…] https://notrickszone.com/2019/07/11/physicists-clouds-practically-control-climate-whereas-human-warm… […]
[…] https://notrickszone.com/2019/07/11/physicists-clouds-practically-control-climate-whereas-human-warm… […]
[…] https://notrickszone.com/2019/07/11/physicists-clouds-practically-control-climate-whereas-human-warm… […]
[…] at the usual places like WUWT, but also at some of the even-more-fringe sites like Infowars, NoTricksZone and ZeroHedge. As always, we must ask ourselves: is this paper credible? (Spoiler alert: no.) […]
[…] at the usual places like WUWT, but also at some of the even-more-fringe sites like Infowars, NoTricksZone and ZeroHedge. As always, we must ask ourselves: is this paper credible? (Spoiler alert: no.) […]
So sad that ‘Spotlight on green news & views: Doomed coal miners; perilous heatwaves; trillion tree solution | Patriots and Progressives 21.’ cannot stand the light of new science and empirical evidence. You may want to ponder on the fact that the “greenhouse” theory cannot even physically properly define its most fundamental quantity: the “Greenhouse effect”.
I will not go that site and argue the case as that would add to their already too much of a presence on the web. Sad though that people can not come to terms with their pet supposition being wrong.