Given the uncertainty around datasets, Roger Andrews thinks that Ned Nikolov’s statement that:
The recent warming has been entirely a result of declining cloud cover and related cloud albedo.
Is not well supported by the data. Roger A’s recent investigation leads him to believe that the late C20th warming was more likely caused by oceanic heat release, challenging us to:
show why my competing theory that the recent warming was entirely a result of stored ocean heat releases is wrong, or otherwise show how the heat releases were triggered by cloud albedo changes.
Never a blog to shirk a challenge, here’s a fresh new thread to battle it out on. Will all protagonists please step forward. 🙂
Exhibit A: My graph of cloud cover as cobbled together with data from the International Cloud Climatology Project, hereinafter refrred to as the ISCCP, and the Earthshine Project of Palle et al with the data from their 2004 paper in dark blue, plus (take note Roger A) their 2008 reanalysis in light blue.
Exhibit B: Roger A’s plot of five different CERES, MODIS and SCIAM reflectance/albedo data sets covering the period from late 2003 through 2009.
Further exhibits can be added on request.
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Looks to me like the Palle et al reanalysis isn’t much different from the satellite datasets 2003-2008. How does Roger think this helps us work out what happened between 1980 and 2004?
Ok, you asked for it. In this corner we do not agree !
Extent of cloud cover is result of global climate change, not the other way around.
When you are inputting wrong variable you are unlikely to get correct result.
Equatorial regions receive more or less constant amount of energy, regardless of the solar activity. If more of that energy is transferred pole-ward by the oceanic currents, less is radiated back to space from the equatorial and subequatorial regions; result = global warming. The opposite is true too, less energy moved pole-ward = global cooling.
The intensity of oceanic circulation can be directly correlated to the sun-Earth magnetic link; as an example the next link shows what happens in the North Atlantic:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GTCa.htm
Once you consider correct variable you are more likely to get good result.
Round one to right corner.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/obop/mlo/
Shows decline in solar transmission: since this is a 0 – 1 y-axis, I think it means the surface reception of some value determined that a clear sky should do.
A systematic decline.
Roger A is correct that recent warming was (or could) have been entirely a result of stored ocean heat release.
That is not inconsistent with the proposition that an active sun arranges less clouds for a greater energy input to the oceans to fuel those releases.
Roger A (I think) proposes that longer stored ocean heat is responsible and that also is consistent with the solar driven scenario because one of the possibilities I have previously mentioned is that there might well now be a trend for the ocean surfaces to warm as a result of higher energy input to the oceans back during the MWP when as now the jets were more poleward, cloudiness was reduced and more energy entered the oceans.
The thermohaline circulation being about 800 to 1000 years and the lag revealed by the ice cores being about 800 years it could well be that greater energy input to the oceans during the MWP could be resulting in slightly higher upwelling temperature from the THC now than will be the case when we get to 800 years from the LIA.
So, I see Roger A’s proposals as entirely consistent with mine ( and of N & Z) and do not understand his objections.
Roger has to account for how the oceans acquired that energy in the first place and the proposed albedo scenario deals with that for him and so supplements his ideas rather than refuting them.
Do you mean this?
I don’t see much of a decline there (0.935 to 0.93, all within the error margin) except for couple of local volcanic eruptions
Vuk said:
“Equatorial regions receive more or less constant amount of energy, regardless of the solar activity. If more of that energy is transferred pole-ward by the oceanic currents, less is radiated back to space from the equatorial and subequatorial regions; result = global warming. The opposite is true too, less energy moved pole-ward = global cooling.”
I agree with that and it is dealt with in the bottom up oceanic portion of my climate model.
However it is not sufficient on its own because we increasingly see a link between AO, polar vortices and zonal/meridional jets which I regard as a separate top down solar effect. The oceans cannot influence the polar vortices in the manner observed.
The climate outturn at any given time is a result of the net interaction between the two processes.
All being entirely consistent with Roger A’s proposal that recent warming was ocean induced because the top down solar effect is filtered through the oceans via the albedo changes.
Roger actually needs the albedo link which I propose in order to provide the ocean heat content which his proposal relies upon.
If ocean heat content really did continue to rise after the big el nino’s of the late C20th, then it was due to reduced cloud IMO. Now that cloud has increased again I anticipate OHC will fall following the big el nino’s I expect to continue occurring for some time yet.
Unless the OHC figures get (or continue to be?) ‘adjusted’.
Stephen Wilde says:
March 24, 2012 at 10:07 pm
However it is not sufficient on its own because we increasingly see a link between AO, polar vortices and zonal/meridional jets which I regard as a separate top down solar effect. The oceans cannot influence the polar vortices in the manner observed.
In my short expose I said :
“The intensity of oceanic circulation can be directly correlated to the sun-Earth magnetic link; as an example the next link shows what happens in the North Atlantic”.
But I didn’t say that is the only one.
Polar vortex behaviour can be directly linked to the above said sun-Earth magnetic link, for more detail see:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
See section under title: Stratosphere Influences Winter Weather
Which is well documented by independent sources.
“If ocean heat content really did continue to rise after the big el nino’s of the late C20th, ”
It continued to rise irregularly over the period despite the run of strong El Ninos. It may have fallen a bit after individual El Nino events.
There is still plenty of residual energy in the oceans to supply a few more large El Ninos and slow down the temperature decline in the troposphere but if the sun stays quiet and the cloudiness does not reduce again and the jets stay meridional then cooling will come in its own good time.
Vuk said:
“Polar vortex behaviour can be directly linked to the above said sun-Earth magnetic link, ”
I agree that there appears to be a link and I thank you for the clarification that you also see a top down component affecting the climate system.
The issue that then interests me is as to how the magnetic phenomena can result in a climate effect.
Whatever the cause it needs to alter the vertical temperature profile of the atmospheric column and I don’t see magnetic phenomena doing that directly. I can however see magnetic phenomena as influencing the mix of particles and wavelengths coming in at the poles as compared to those coming in above the equator and so indirectly affecting climate through chemical processes involving ozone in the maner I have described elsewhere.
The tropics supply an almost constant heat input, the poles are for dumping heat into space, the temperate zones control the planets temperature.
The last few solar cycles were way up there and the temperate oceans absorbed heat, the lack of clouds over the southern hemisphere as demonstrated by prolonged drought in Australia pumped a lot of heat into the oceans.
The response is for the oceans to impinge on the polar ice and dump heat, with the sun now on holidays this heat dumping is coming to an end as can be seen by the sea ice recovery.
The cloud cover has returned and the sun is asleep, the lead and lag in the system is such that the temperature is always chasing its tail to try to reach equilibrium. Thus the AGW mob will be somewhat disappointed in the outcome of the next few decades.
My observation would be that both of these ideas are correct as they work in tandem.
Tallbloke,
You have been very busy with the boxing gloves over at WUWT well done.
TB: thank you for putting up this thread. It’s an important issue that we need to get a better handle on.
Unfortunately, however, my faithful old wood-burning computer has just decided to make its final journey to the Great CPU in the Sky, and I haven’t pulled my data off the hard drive so I can’t put up any new graphs at the moment.
Two important points before I start, First, my heat release theory isn’t really a theory. It’s a chain of observationally-based deductions. So if these deductions don’t agree with what such-and-such a theory says should happen, I’m not deliberately trying to rubbish the theory. I’m just going where the data take me. Second, it explains only the warming since 1976. t haven’t checked to see how it fits observations before then.
Having said that, on with the show:
Exhibit A in the thread shows the Palle 2004 cloud albedo reconstruction, http://oi43.tinypic.com/9hkzfr.jpg compares it with the Palle 2008 reconstruction. There are some large differences between these two reconstructions. Now eyeball in the CERES etc. data from Exhibit B. The CERES etc. data show no increase in albedo after 2003 while the Earthshine and cloud data do. Are results like these good enough to be used? Well, maybe in climate science, but if someone supplied a mining consultant such as me with a set of check assays comparisons that looked like that the whole lot would get rejected out of hand except maybe for the CERES etc. data sets, which are at least internally consistent. (In fact someone just did supply me with a set of check assay comparisons that looked like that and I rejected 45,000m of assaying because of it.)
Vuk; Thank you for you support. I think you’re probably right when you say that the extent of cloud cover is result of global climate change, not the other way around. It would be nice to be able to point to examples of a lag between cloud cover changes and temperature changes, but my attempts to do this have been frustrated by the the ISCCP cloud data, which are not easy to make sense of (to put it mildly) and which go back only as far as 1983.
Stephen W: “Roger A is correct that recent warming was (or could) have been entirely a result of stored ocean heat release.” Thank you. Take out the (or could) and I’ll buy you a beer.
“That is not inconsistent with the proposition that an active sun arranges less clouds for a greater energy input to the oceans to fuel those releases.” Indeed it isn’t, but I can’t find any observational evidence to confirm that it is or even whether the sun-cloud relationship is in the sense we would expect. In this context you might take a look at the long-term ICOADS cloud cover record and see what you can make of it (yes, we do have long-term cloud records, but no guarantees given as to quality, and with ICOADS you have to take out the spurious WWII spike) .
A lot more to talk about, but it’s getting late. Back tomorrow
Roger A: Sorry to hear about the pooter problems, but glad to know you’ll be getting a shiny new PC that will brighten and speed up your online life and crunch big datasets rapidly. I recommend you spend an extra $100 on a decent size external USB hard drive so you can back up regularly.
You said:
“Exhibit A in the thread shows the Palle 2004 cloud albedo reconstruction, http://oi43.tinypic.com/9hkzfr.jpg compares it with the Palle 2008 reconstruction.”
This is the second time you’ve failed to acknowledge that my graph contains the 2008 re-analysis as well as the 2004 result (the other reason I got a bit testy on the GC thread). Please would you acknowledge that fact before we move on.
Thanks.
Hi Steven
It is simple, polar areas under constant bombardment by charged particles (aurora), more energetic get even to the ground level, but in case of poles magnetosphere has almost an open door
so parts of the stratosphere will be permanently charged by the polar electric currents.
Since the polar vortex is moving in relation to the Earth and its magnetic field, charged particles will under influence of the Lorentz force split up and eventually end-up spinning along the magnetic field lines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force
From here see:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
and http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=36972
you may find some references here
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC20.htm
Roger A.
I see that we are nearly there and I do appreciate that some of the cloud data you have produced does not reveal the information that is revealed in the Earthshine and ICCP data.
I gave reasons for preferring the latter data sources on the other thread, namely:
“There are contradictory sets of data which is why I referred to other observations to provide guidance.
The jets did change their behaviour around 2000, ocean heat content stopped rising around 2003, tropospheric temperatures stopped rising recently, the stratosphere stopped cooling.
Taking all the observations together suggests that the Earthshine data and the ICCP data which both show cloud amd albedo declines up to the late 90s and increases thereafter appear to be the sets with something useful to tell us.
But I agree that we need to watch for a bit longer to be sure.”
Can anyone else produce further information to suggest which sets of cloud data we should rely on ?
At least the ICCP and Earthshine material is global (and agree with each other) whereas the other sources seem to be regional and inconsistent with one another in that some show increases, some show decreases and others show little change at all.
Anyway, if changes in cloudiness were NOT responsible how could one get increasing ocean heat content despite many strong El Ninos discharging heat to the air. Where would the energy be coming from ?
I have proposed some effect from stored ocean heat from the MWP but that would be too small to achieve the swings in ocean heat content actually observed wouldn’t it ?
Wayne is correct to point out that these ideas work in tandem for the late 20th century warming spell and each needs the other i.e. increased energy release by the oceans PLUS more energy getting into the oceans from reduced cloudiness, otherwise it doesn’t work.
And to top and tail it one then needs a naturally cooling stratosphere when the sun is active resulting in poleward jetstream and climate zone shifting which means there must be an opposite sign for the solar effect on stratospheric temperatures to that which is generally assumed.
I have previously pointed out that Joanna Haigh and others are producing new data in support of that very proposition.
Vuk said:
“charged particles will under influence of the Lorentz force split up and eventually end-up spinning along the magnetic field lines”.
Yes, that is how I see it working too but charged particles alone do not seem to be sufficient. One also needs wavelength variations especially in the UV to affect ozone chemistry above 45km where Joanna Haigh points out that the sign of the ozone response to solar variations is the opposite to that expected (which supports my earlier propositions).
Can the magnetic field also affect the arrival location of incoming UV ?
Since UV does not consist of charged particles I am doubtful and so I would put the enhanced polar response to more UV down to the lower atmospheric heights at the poles so that the effect on atmospheric chemistry at the poles is proportionately larger than that at the equator even though the increase in UV irradiation from a more active sun is even across the globe.
For the same reason I also think that cosmic ray quantities are unlikely to be the cause of the observed climate consequences.
I think that both magnetic field changes and cosmic ray variations are side effects of solar variability but in fact the climate changes are due mainly to UV variations affecting ozone chemistry and the atmospheric heights.
Steven, I suggest that Joanna Haigh should take a good look at the NASA’s links
http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/36000/36972/npole_gmao_200901-02.mov
and
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=36972
It should be noted that these are winter events, when polar insolation is near zero, but insolation has no effect on charged particles, particularly hits by CMEs, cosmic rays are far less numerous and I would happily ignore them.
We had prolonged bombardment of polar region in the last two months,
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=36972
not much UV though, now compare February, March with the weather in November, December, when CME impacts were low. Splitting of polar vortex moves polar jet stream, the rest is history as they say. It is the winter temperatures that are main contributor to the climate change.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETsw.htm
Two ingredients are required:
– ocean currents bring more warm waters in the North Atlantic
– polar jet stream moves, westerly winds bring warmth.
Winter energy in the UV can be forgotten, so can Joanna Haigh’ hypothesis.
Just in case you miss it compare:
At the peak of insolation: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-Jun.htm
At the trough of insolation: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-Jan.gif
I am concluding for now, weather is too great to spend any more time indoors.
Sorry link No.3 should be: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Tromso.htm
TB
The Earthshine data in Exhibit A are the up-to-date (maybe) reanalyses. The black line going back to 1983 is the Palle 2004 reconstruction. Replace it with the 2008 Palle reconstruction (the line in the lower graph in http://oi43.tinypic.com/9hkzfr.jpg ) and you have it.
And what you have is about as trustworthy as a reforming drunk left alone in a wine cellar.
Here’s a better cloud data set for you to look at – the KNMI FRESCO set (see http://www.temis.nl/fresco/ for details):
I’ve compared FRESCO against the CERES etc. data by eyeball and they seem to match up quite well, and the FRESCO data set runs from 1996 to the present. So I’m going to say that FRESCO is the closest we have to a reliable cloud albedo data set covering the period of interest. What does it show? Nothing much, as far as I can see. But please feel free to disagree.
Stephen:
“Can anyone else produce further information to suggest which sets of cloud data we should rely on ?”
See above.
“I do appreciate that some of the cloud data you have produced does not reveal the information that is revealed in the Earthshine and ICCP data.”
Right. We simply don’t have enough good data to say whether the recent warming was caused by an increase in cloudiness or not, although I think evidence is beginning to accumulate that it wasn’t. And that makes it very difficult to sustain N&Z’s claim that “The recent warming has been entirely a result of declining cloud cover and related cloud albedo”.
Unless of course they have an ace up their sleeve that they haven’t told us about.
Roger A,
How does cloud fraction and cloud pressure as per FRESCO relate to global albedo ?
Are we comparing apples with apples or apples with pears ?
I can envisage a scenario whereby global albedo might change but cloud fraction and cloud pressure might change due to alterations in geographical locations of the main cloud bands or the mix of cloud types.
I don’t think we can simply dismiss the Earthshine and ICCP albedo data just because the albedo changes are not apparent in other datasets obtained for other purposes by other methods.
I disagree. 🙂
I think 1996 on is too late to ‘cover the period of interest’ which is from 1976.
Sorry.
FRESCO does show a big jump in cloudiness around the time of the tail end of the la nina following the big el nino though, which is of interest. Also it shows a quick drop soon after.
The reason I like Palle et al’s work is it because it isn’t so susceptible to degrading sensors and the adjustment’s which go with that territory.
Every picture tells a story.
Stephen: ISCCP data is from weather satellites. Lots of them. There are issues with angle of view, intercalibration and so on.
Earthshine is reasonably clean data.
Whoops, I should have said:
“global albedo might change but cloud fraction and cloud pressure might NOT change”.
“And that makes it very difficult to sustain N&Z’s claim ”
It makes it very difficult to sustain your claim too because unless me and N & Z are right you can’t summon up the necessary oceanic heat content to support your conclusion.
Roger A said:
“whether the recent warming was caused by an increase in cloudiness or not, although I think evidence is beginning to accumulate that it wasn’t. And that makes it very difficult to sustain N&Z’s claim that “The recent warming has been entirely a result of declining cloud cover and related cloud albedo”.
Not sure if you meant to say that.
If evidence is accumulating that the recent warming was NOT caused by an INCREASE in cloudiness then it would have been caused by a DECREASE in cloudiness as per me, tallbloke and N & Z wouldn’t it ?
It does seem that tropical cloud cover precedes global temp. I posted a paper here earlier than demonstrates that the Pacific Walker Circulation/Trade winds over the equatorial pacific precede ENSO by a good marigin, and the Walker Circulation is heavily modulated by processes in the stratosphere such as the QBO, solar wind influence, etc.
Including cloud data closer to the poles seems to cause more problems rather than help anything, IMO:
The temperature of the Oceans or the Atmosphere? One changes before the other, usually a warmer ocean surface = higher evaporation rates/more convection, increasing ocean temp is very unlikely to decrease cloud cover. Atmospheric circulation change precede ENSO change, so the variation in the kinetic energy budget, and what causes them, seem to have a large impact on the thermal budget.
Phil, there was a huge jump in humidity, outgoing LWR and temperature in the 98 el nino. Sure enough this increased cloud over the tropics, and elsewhere afterwards.
This is one of the reasons I don’t trust OHC data much either. 🙂
I think it’s been bootstrapped up along with altimetry sea level data to fit the theory.
Phil said:
“higher evaporation rates/more convection, increasing ocean temp is very unlikely to decrease cloud cover.”
and
“the Walker Circulation is heavily modulated by processes in the stratosphere such as the QBO, solar wind influence, etc. ”
Odd though it may seem. I agree with BOTH those contentions.
Increasing ocean temp along the equator would invigorate the ITCZ producing more clouds in and near to the ITCZ but that upward convection has to come down again so the subtropical high pressure cells would intensify, broaden, push poleward, reduce low cloud cover and allow more solar shortwave into the oceans.
However I also contend that the extent to which the subtropical high pressure cells can push poleward is affected by top down solar effects on the polar vortices so on that basis I think that my suggestions nicely integrate the contradictory implications of Phil’s two posts.
Stephen says:
“If evidence is accumulating that the recent warming was NOT caused by an INCREASE in cloudiness then it would have been caused by a DECREASE in cloudiness as per me, tallbloke and N & Z wouldn’t it ?”
Apologies. I meant to say “LACK of warming”, referring to the period after 1998 (or 2002, or whenever we date the lack of warming from).
To clarify on this point, my observational deduction is that the recent warming was caused entirely by heat releases from the ocean that had NO impact on cloudiness, or at least none that can positively be identified from the available data.
And note that this is an observational, not a theoretical deduction.
“It makes it very difficult to sustain your claim too because unless me and N & Z are right you can’t summon up the necessary oceanic heat content to support your conclusion.”
That’s a valid criticism, and it serves me right for theorizing in advance of my data, which Sherlock Holmes said is something one should never do. However, the deduction was again observational – heat was clearly being released from the ocean and it had to have come from somewhere, but I left it at that because I’m not qualified to handle the thorny theoretical questions involved in figuring out how and when the sun put the heat into the ocean in the first place, how long it stayed there, where it stayed and why it chose 1976 to start surfacing. Maybe TB could contribute here.
TB:
We’re clearly not going to agree on the cloud data, so let me try a different approach.
Tomorrow morning, at dawn, you will be taken out, stood against a wall, and shot.
Unless, that is, you can convince a panel of objective and impartial scientists (assuming there are some left) that the recent warming wasn’t caused by greenhouse gases.
You are allowed to present one graph; Do you present:
https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/albedo.png?w=691&h=424
Or
Or
🙂
Well the Earthshine and ICCP chart shows the most grounds for doubt so that’s the one to go for 🙂
Bang bang
Heh, missed. Texan sharpshooter are you? 🙂
Here’s my graph:
=============================
__________-__________–____-__
=============================
Fastest gun this side of Mexico City.
But your graph should actually look like this:
=============================
?????????????????????????????
=============================
That’s even closer.
Do you know what aerosol really do?
The following two links come from the WUWT Potential Climatic Variables Page
Compiled by WUWT regular “Just The Facts”
“Aerosols play a critical role in the formation of clouds;”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clouds
………………………………………
Clouds form as parcels of air cool and the water vapor in them condenses, forming small liquid droplets of water. However, under normal circumstances, these droplets form only where there is some “disturbance” in the otherwise “pure” air. In general, aerosol particles provide this “disturbance”. The particles around which cloud droplets coalesce are called cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) or sometimes “cloud seeds”. Amazingly, in the absence of CCN, air containing water vapor needs to be “supersaturated” to a humidity of about 400% before droplets spontaneously form! So, in almost all circumstances, aerosols play a vital role in the formation of clouds.”
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Atmosphere/aerosol_cloud_nucleation_dimming.html
………………………………………………………………………..
Cloud-aerosol interactions dominate not only the dynamics of marine shallow clouds, but also the lifetime and the vertical disposition of latent heat of deep convective clouds over ocean and even more strongly over land.
Click to access Space_Science_Reviews_Rosenfeld06.pdf
The change in precipitation affects the latent heat release and redistributes the timing and location of this substantial component of the atmospheric heat source. Therefore, not taking into account the cloud-aerosol-precipitation interactions misses a key component that regulates the climate system. These cloud-aerosol precipitation processes are not taken into account as they should, not because we do not recognize their importance, but rather because we know too little on how to quantify them accurately in the weather and climate models.
…………………………………………………………………..
Once you realise clouds cannot form without the presence of aerosol and the fact that these solid and liquid particles are present throughout the atmosphere acting as a reservoir of material for climate variability then it becomes clear that it is not just cloud cover that alters energy exchange. In their dry state or nearly dry state (I doubt the atmosphere is ever totally dry!), ie when humidity is low and temperature is not conducive for condensation, the aerosol can still move energy. The weather is great today , sunny and dry but with a distinct haze of aerosol! Maybe evidence of a small amount of water vapour condensed onto aerosol but not enough turbulence to form into cloud!!
It seems likely that the quantity of the relatively large, dark, silt dust aerosol has been grossly underestimated. The darker they are the more energy they absorb.
A scaling theory for the size distribution of emitted dust aerosols suggests climate models underestimate the size of the global dust cycle
Click to access kok2011_pnas_scalingtheorydustpsd.pdf
This is why I am struggling with the explanation of the retention and distribution of energy within and from our atmosphere. The ‘other stuff’ floating about within the gasses is the major player imo.
Although they do not change the atmospheric mass very much they have the potential to significantly influence the amount of short-wave solar radiation arriving at the Earth’s surface.
So in conjunction with all the other variables, sorry but, the added complication is the aerosol optical depth.
The atmosphere is getting more solid and liquid material added to it so there must be an increase in the amount of cloud condensation nuclei. It follows that more energy is retained in the atmosphere and that the climatic systems have more energy to dissipate in their vain attempt at achieving equilibrium.
So the specific humidity levels and aerosol concentration dictate the speed of the water cycle. The two major sources of aerosol are salt from the oceans and dust from the land, in approx. equal amounts.
I am not clever enough to join all the relevant data together so I guess this is just that , My guess! :-
If sea surface is disturbed by an increase in wind induced wave action the amount of available salt aerosol, for cloud formation, is increased. Rougher seas mean more clouds, reducing the amount of radiation entering the ocean. Conversely calm seas means less aerosol released, less cloud formation, and so more heat in to ocean. Aerosols control the temperature of oceans via cloud formation and their role in general weather system dynamics must be taken into account.
“The atmosphere is getting more solid and liquid material added to it so there must be an increase in the amount of cloud condensation nuclei”
Really ?
Isn’t the optical depth pretty steady ?
Stephen:
Optical depth is indeed pretty steady except when there’s a volcanic eruption.
and the graph Vuk posted above:
Hi everyone:
The challenge I issued in this thread was “to show why my competing theory that the recent warming was entirely a result of stored ocean heat releases is wrong, or otherwise show how the heat releases were triggered by cloud albedo changes.” No one has been able to do either, so if there are no more comments I will thank you all for your valued contributions and declare victory by technical knockout.
🙂
If someone does wish to add comments, please note that I will probably have limited opportunities to respond this week. Off to see a man about a mine.
Heh, not so fast Roger A.
The ropes (boundary conditions) have fallen off the ring, and the referee (impartial data) has taken a knock on the jaw and gone all dizzy. So we’ll have to call it off for a rematch later.
While you’re away checking mineshafts for cracks or whatever you are up to, you might print off and take Nir Shaviv’s page on using the oceans as a calorimeter for a bit of light reading.
http://sciencebits.com/calorimeter
Have fun and profit.
“show why my competing theory that the recent warming was entirely a result of stored ocean heat releases is wrong, or otherwise show how the heat releases were triggered by cloud albedo changes”
It isn’t a competing theory. I agree with it and have been saying so for years.
The disagreement is as to what triggered the energy releases. No one says that albedo changes did that. Only that albedo changes alter the energy in the oceans available for such releases.
The releases occur periodically independently of albedo changes but albedo changes load the gun (or not) depending on solar effects on the chemistry of the upper atmosphere.
There is an apparent discrepancy between certain types of cloud data in that some datasets do not show the late 20th century cloudiness decline and subsequent increase.
I have given reasons why the Earthshine and ICCP datasets should be preferred.
Stephen Wilde says:
March 26, 2012 at 12:31 am
I said, “The atmosphere is getting more solid and liquid material added to it so there must be an increase in the amount of cloud condensation nuclei”
“Really ?”
If the info. I am reading is correct;- Like,
Biological Aerosol Particles Are A Larger Climate Forcing Than Considered By The IPCC – A New Paper “Primary Biological Aerosol Particles In The Atmosphere: A Review” By Després Et al 2012
And
Click to access kok2011_pnas_scalingtheorydustpsd.pdf
A scaling theory for the size distribution of emitted dust aerosols suggests climate models underestimate the size of the global dust cycle
And
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Aerosols/page1.php
Fossil fuel combustion produces large amounts of sulfur dioxide, which reacts with water vapor and other gases in the atmosphere to create sulfate aerosols. Biomass burning, a common method of clearing land and consuming farm waste, yields smoke that’s comprised mainly of organic carbon and black carbon.
Automobiles, incinerators, smelters, and power plants are prolific producers of sulfates, nitrates, black carbon, and other particles. Deforestation, overgrazing, drought, and excessive irrigation can alter the land surface, increasing the rate at which dust aerosols enter the atmosphere. Even indoors, cigarettes, cooking stoves, fireplaces, and candles are sources of aerosols.
I think the supply of cloud condensation nuclei must be increasing, don’t you?
“Isn’t the optical depth pretty steady ?”
Maybe it is! The reason for a changing climate therefore is precisely because the AOD hardly moves but the atmosphere has an increasing aerosol loading which the weather systems need to reduce to maintain equilibrium. This is manifest in changing intensity of existing patterns because as has been pointed out cloudiness hardly changes either. If aerosol were absent there would be no clouds, if aerosol increases or decreases the climate changes accordingly. The gasses just carry the climate forming ingredients, aerosols.
I suppose I should add IMO!!
“the atmosphere has an increasing aerosol loading which the weather systems need to reduce to maintain equilibrium”
I can go with that because I have been contending for years that anything that seeks to interfere with the basic equilibrium (set by pressure and insolation) is met with a negative system response in the form of circulation changes. That can go for aerosols as well as GHG amounts.
However I also think that the degree of variability caused by both aerosols AND GHG amounts is miniscule compared to the circulatory changes caused by variability in sun and oceans.
So, our GHGs might shift the climate zones a mile or so poleward and aerosols (if net cooling) might shift the climate zones a mile or so equatorward but from MWP to LIA and LIA to date the climate zone shifts look to have been around 1000 miles or so.
Hi Stephen, think I’ll be watching this!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01f893x
Global Weirding
Tue 27 Mar 2012 ; 21:00 ;BBC Two
I wonder if they will mention Sun, pressure and (aerosols!!? ………There wouldn’t be any clouds without them!)
But we already know what the conclusion will be,I think!
Hi Ray.
I’m dreading it and will need a drink in my hand to help me cope !!!
The last thing they would ever point out will be that greater weather variability occurs when the climate system is losing energy rather than when it is gaining energy.
The jets become more meridional for longer periods of time leading to more extremes of hot and cold, wet and dry from region to region.
Heh, knockout punch:
Click to access angeo-30-573-2012.pdf
Up off the canvas again, are you?
How does a minor decrease in cloud cover in China invalidate my ocean heat release theory?
Heh to you too.
🙂
Ah, but Roger, the China study is consistent with ISCCP findings too.
Now, there’s more than one climate mechanism, and the strong run of el nino’s in the late C20th was fueled by increased insolation and the strong Sun which drove away the galactic rays from the inner solar system. So all these things are tied together into a stronger better theory anyway.
What’s not to like?
TB:
What’s not to like is that I still haven’t figured out exactly how the earth’s climate works, but I guess that leaves me running about average.
Anyway, moving now to a neutral corner.
I think the Xia paper is important not because of what it tells us about the ISCCP findings or cloud cover in China but because it shows that aerosols don’t necessarily generate more clouds. And if they don’t then climate models have a problem because they can be made to” fit” observations only when they assume large negative sulfate aerosol forcings. Without these forcing the models would hindcast too much warming.
I’m going to think some more about this, but it won’t be for a day or two because I have some work work to do.
I think the whole aerosol forcing is a load of bucking frolics.
And climate sensitivity estimates are beginning to converge on zero 🙂