ACCORDING to NASA we are in for a period of low solar activity which means more cosmic rays getting through to earth. According to research at the Danish National Space Center more cosmic rays means more cloud nuclei in the lower atmosphere and thus more low bright clouds which reflect incoming sunlight having a cooling effect on planet earth.
And Roy Spencer, at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, explains at his blog how the climate modellers get cause and effect the wrong way around for these clouds:
“Obviously, the question of how clouds in the REAL climate system respond to a warming tendency is of paramount importance, because that guides the development and testing of the climate models. Ultimately, the models must be based upon the observed behavior of the atmosphere.
“So, what IS observed when the Earth warms? Do clouds increase or decrease? While the results vary with which years are analyzed, it has often been found that warmer years have less cloud cover, not more.
“And this has led to the ’scientific consensus’ that cloud feedbacks in the real climate system are probably positive, although by an uncertain amount. And if cloud feedbacks end up being too strongly positive, then we are in big trouble from manmade global warming.
“But at this point an important question needs to be asked that no one asks: When the climate system experiences a warm year, what caused the warming? By definition, cloud feedback can not occur unless the temperature changes…but what if that temperature change was caused by clouds in the first place?
“This is important because if decreasing cloud cover caused warming, and this has been mistakenly interpreted as warming causing a decrease in cloud cover, then positive feedback will have been inferred even if the true feedback in the climate system is negative.”
***************************
A Layman’s Explanation of Why Global Warming Predictions by Climate Models are Wrong, May 29th, 2009 by Roy W. Spencer
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/05/a-layman%e2%80%99s-explanation-of-why-global-warming-predictions-by-climate-models-are-wrong/
The above picture is of a reportedly new type of low level cloud, Asperatus. Photograph by Laurie Richards, New Zealand http://cloudappreciationsociety.org/gallery/index.php?showimage=5174
Heard of the Coud Appreciation Society: http://cloudappreciationsociety.org
And more on the new cloud, Asperatus http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencenews/5411412/New-type-of-cloud-found.html
And more on clouds and cooling
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/airborne-bacteria-discredit-climate-modeling-dogma
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
For more detail about clouds and the controversy, the ://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/03/a-response-to-the-ipcc/#more-8162 has the new NIPCC link to ://www.nipccreport.org/ for the contrarians response with peer reveiwed citations. Can’t remember if it is Luke, SJT, or both asking for such an opus, well, here it is. Hope they do the stats and math like Ryon O on the Antarctic Stieg paper. It would be interesting.
Change “”Stieg”” with “”Steig”” if you get a chance. Thanks.
A large part of Eastern Australia has been getting a lot of unseasonal wet weather even though the SOI is negative and we are being told by the BoM to expect [haha] below average rainfall.
With this we have been getting the usual high minima and low maxima. [How average can world average be?]
This morning in my search for nesting Glossy Black Cockatoos I was looking at clouds from both sides [they were above and below me] from a trig point on a mountain top but I could not spot any Asperatus.
I have to admit I’ve been a one man Cloud Appreciation Society most of my life and have the scars to prove it.
Usually though, in Australia, it’s those dark grey, flat bottomed clouds that are the most important.
Spencer’s new paper should be very interesting; no-one has touched his previous paper with Danny Braswell and the best the empire can come up with is the usual shonk about water modeling from Dessler et al; with these guys it is not the cloud but the smug which is the problem.
SD; it sure would be great if this whole AGW garbage disappeared and we can go back to talking about cockies and surfing spots.
Spencer’s article for layman appears to gloss over a salient point about clouds. He seems to be emphasizing the albedo-enhancing effect of clouds. If the entire planet had a uniform cloud cover, that would be a reasonably accurate picture. But clouds in the real world are a mixed bag. Daytime clouds reflect sunlight, and have a cooling effect. At night, clouds reflect back IR from the Earth, and have a warming effect.
From my non-specialist’s perspective, it’s difficult to be certain about which type of cloud effect is dominant. If you increase cloud cover by 1%, what happens to surface temperatures? Spencer’s claim that that would decrease surface temperatures may be correct, but it’s not obvious to me. He should have given a more detailed argument.
Larry,
Think about the fact when a cloud moves between you and the Sun – the temperature drop you sense is obvious.
So surface temperatures.
Louis,
Yes, that’s what I meant by albedo-enhancing. But on the other hand, suppose that you camp out in the mountains for a holiday weekend. The daytime weather is the same–clear and sunny–for both days. The first night is clear, but clouds move in immediately after sunset on the second night (but with no rain). Which night would you expect to be warmer?
My main point was that in terms of writing ability, Roy Spencer is no Ian Plimer!
“Spencer’s new paper should be very interesting; no-one has touched his previous paper with Danny Braswell and the best the empire can come up with is the usual shonk about water modeling from Dessler et al; with these guys it is not the cloud but the smug which is the problem.
SD; it sure would be great if this whole AGW garbage disappeared and we can go back to talking about cockies and surfing spots.”
On the contrary, there is so much non-science out there, it’s impossible, and pointless, to address it all.
This ties in with the lower specific humidity in the upper troposphere. High clouds which are supposed to trap heat should be less frequent. Lower clouds more numerous…
that would mean a net negative feedback effect.