Physicists: Clouds ‘Practically Control’ Climate, Whereas Human Warming Amounts To 0.01°C Per 100 Years

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

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.”

Image Source: Kauppinen and Malmi, 2019
Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

43 responses to “Physicists: Clouds ‘Practically Control’ Climate, Whereas Human Warming Amounts To 0.01°C Per 100 Years”

  1. Bob Weber

    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.

    1. Peter O'Neill

      “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?

      1. Bob Weber

        You’re right. The Turku authors…
        Thanks.

    2. pochas94

      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.

  2. harrydhuffman (@harrydhuffman)

    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.

    1. Bob Weber

      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.

  3. John F. Hultquist

    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.

  4. Bob Weber

    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.

  5. SebastianH

    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.

  6. richard

    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.

    1. Robert Christopher

      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.

  7. More Research Vindicates CO2isLife; Clouds and Oceans Control the Climate – CO2 is Life

    […] 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) […]

  8. tom0mason

    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 ]

    1. Petit_Barde

      Thanks for this excellent link that shows what a laughing clownery the IPCC’s “climate science” is.

  9. Geoff M Price

    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.

  10. pochas94

    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.

  11. Christopher Hanley

    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.

  12. Siebenschläfer 2019: Bestimmt die erste kalte Juliwoche den Rest des Sommers? – wobleibtdieglobaleerwaermung

    […] Physiker: Wolken kontrollieren das Klima, menschliche Erwärmung nur bei 0,01°C in 100 Jahren […]

  13. Gus

    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

  14. If All You See… » Pirate's Cove

    […] 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 […]

  15. tom0mason

    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.

    1. pochas94

      Sent tip to Watts about this.

  16. Jukka

    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.

    1. tom0mason

      Jukka,
      Which of the many paper cited on this thread are you burbling about?

  17. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #367 | Watts Up With That?
  18. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #367 - Scienceexist
  19. Weekly Local weather and Power Information Roundup #367 – Daily News
  20. Weekly Local weather and Power Information Roundup #367 – All My Daily News
  21. Spotlight on green news & views: Doomed coal miners; perilous heatwaves; trillion tree solution | Patriots and Progressives

    […] 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.) […]

  22. Spotlight on green news & views: Doomed coal miners; perilous heatwaves; trillion tree solution | NoPartySystem.Com

    […] 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.) […]

  23. tom0mason

    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.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close