Tech | September 08, 2011 | 57 comments

Research skewers claim that clouds cause climate change

source: http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2011/09/cloud-climate-research-skewered

JanforGore
Taking on controversial claims that clouds are a main driver of temperature changes across the globe, a Texas A&M University atmospheric scientist finds evidence of cherry picking and errors.

By Douglas Fischer

New findings published Tuesday appear to undermine a controversial study - oft-cited by those who downplay the human impacts of climate change - that claimed variations in cloud cover are driving temperature changes across the globe.

You would think, if you have a scientific history of being wrong on so many issues, that you would have a little bit of humility before claiming you've overturned scientific evidence yet again. - Andrew Dessler, Texas A&M University

The latest analysis confirms – as most atmospheric scientists have long held – that the reverse is true: Clouds change in response to temperature changes. There is no evidence clouds can cause meaningful climate change, concluded the report's author, Andrew Dessler, an atmospheric scientist at Texas A&M University. "Suggestions that significant revisions to mainstream climate science are required are therefore not supported," he wrote.

Dessler's findings are the third blow in less than a week to the research of University of Alabama, Huntsville, climatologist Roy Spencer.

On Friday, the editor at the journal that published Spencer's paper resigned, stating that the paper "should ... not have been published."

And on Thursday, a separate study led by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory researcher Benjamin Santer purported to disprove earlier Spencer claims that climate models overstate observed warming and thus are unreliable predictors of the future.

Myriad atmospheric events combine to drive weather and climate. That complexity has long stymied researchers trying to predict the impact that changes to the atmospheric system - notably the addition of billions of tons of greenhouse gases from industrial activity - will have on the Earth's climate.

Spencer, a scientist whose views and findings often put him outside the consensus on climate change, co-authored a report in July that concluded the influence of those many variables are too strong to reliably attribute any climate change to humans.

That paper, published in the two-year-old – and relatively obscure – journal Remote Sensing, explored the interaction between changes in ocean heat, cloud cover and surface temperatures. It found that computer models could not adequately explain changes in temperature observed over the past 10 years but - if certain key assumptions are made and a simple climate model is used - random changes in cloud cover could drive temperature changes enough to account for the observations.

The results, widely cited by those who claim the science on the human influence on climate change remains unsettled, cut against the basic tenets of atmospheric science, Dessler said in an interview.

Data vs. assumptions
But Spencer's key assumptions were wrong, Dessler added. And while Spencer and his co-author, University of Alabama scientist Danny Braswell, claimed to have examined 14 climate models, they presented just the results of the six models showing the biggest mismatch with reality.

"You would think, if you have a scientific history of being wrong on so many issues, that you would have a little bit of humility before claiming you've overturned scientific evidence yet again," Dessler said.

More at the link
  1. groups:
    Community,   Tech,   Green,   Earth and Science,   6 more
  2. tags:
    Environment,  Climate Change,  Global Warming,  Lies,  17 more
  3.     
    |

57 comments // Research skewers claim that clouds cause climate change // Video

  • warman1138
    • 0
      warman1138  

    • Remember many years ago when coal based power companies claimed CO2 was airborne fertilizer. The misinformation barrage never ceases.

    • 1 year ago
  • jackshin
  • Gravity_Man
  • jackshin
  • jackshin
  • coolplanet
    • +2
      coolplanet  
    • warman1138:

      The deniers are still using this argument to this very day.
      As an organic gardener I notice that the plants that like this extra carbon the best are weeds -- especially poison ivy and sumac.

    • 1 year ago
  • Gravity_Man
  • jackshin
    • -1
      jackshin  
    • Gravity_Man:

      right I can learn to love eating grubs, weeds make you stronger like popeye, lol,thats a hoot. So would it be safe to say, at least on this thread, you are taking the position that, so what, even if there is global warming the so called damage is within the capacity for human adaptation, mind over matter.

    • 1 year ago
  • Gravity_Man
  • JanforGore
    • -1
      JanforGore  
    • jackshin:

      Plants are also losing their ability to sequester carbon due to the amount of nitrogen fertilizers we use and the methods of farming we have now employed in the industrial model. If we get back to more sustainable farming practices across the board that can sequester Co2 like organic, agroecology, intercropping, cover crops, terra prieta, etc. and move away from the destructive way we farm and clear land we can move closer to some sort of balance. We are not only saturating our oceans we are saturating our air and land because of the imbalance between deforestation rates and carbon sinks, and also the rate of soil erosion. This is why reforestation is so important.

    • 1 year ago
  • jackshin
    • -3
      jackshin  
    • Gravity_Man:

      Good points, but let me make this case. Now it is true, Jesus died because of humanities sin, but he didn’t have to die for the frog, even the rat, because they didn’t sin. The least among us is not just for humanities poor and sick, it is for all of earth's species.
      . Now if you don't believe me consider this. Most Christians are aware of Pascal's wager, which argues that it is better to believe in God. Wouldn't it also be better to do as God did, after all, humans were not the only species God choose to save on Noah’s Ark. In fact God thought so much of all earth's species, God commanded Noah to save them. So if the wager is correct, and given that God is a vengeful God, then protecting what God protected should be the highest priority for Christians

      Now to the question of the end of times.....

    • 1 year ago
  • Gravity_Man
  • jackshin
    • -3
      jackshin  
    • jackshin:

      Now to the question of the end of times...

      The Bible, as allowed by God, gives an excellent account as to how he wants Christians to act during the coming apocalypse, and that is the story of Job. As most know, the story is about a man, Job, who lost everything but his life for his faith in God. This is not unlike what will happen to all humans just before Christ’s second coming. However, the parallel is not only a complete destruction of the world, but that in both cases the loss happened gradually. And yet, not once did Job stop being Christian, even as god, himself, allowed his world to be destroyed. In the end, however, Job was broken, he questioned god. But one wonders, did not Job know this was a test?

      For the modern Christian, God may have an even more indicting set of queries:

      Why did you stop protecting the earth as commanded of you in the Bible?
      Why did you stop being Christian?
      Why did you break so soon?
      Where you not WARNED, God was testing you?

    • 1 year ago
  • jackshin
  • Gravity_Man
  • jackshin
    • -1
      jackshin  
    • Gravity_Man:

      Point of order,sir, you broached the topic of religion.

      to be fair, the issue that has been addressed on this part of the thread is Christian cynicism, and Job is an excellent example of what God would want a Christian to do, even if the outcome is doomed.

      But, as it relates to any further discussion, the simple fact is there was an agreement
      "To be sure we are supposed to take care of all life on Earth"

      Infact before you posted the religious statement, I was researching this idea of CO2 fertilizing. It was point I never heard of, so i entertained it. It is also closer to what I believe is the most compelling and fundamental bases for global warming. If there are no plants there is no oxygen. And to add to that, if one dismisses the idea of Global warming then one rejects the premises that support it as well, and any premises that support those premises. Or one could accept that there is destruction but it has nothing to do with Global warming. However, that is bit funny for obvious reasons. Even though it is possible to destroy the environment with human waste, no matter what science is presented, that waste didn't do what Al Gore said it's doing.

      In the end my point is clear, where do the deniers begin to draw that line of skepticism, and is that a fair skepticism. This is important to know in light of the primary goal, and as you have acknowledged: "we are supposed to take care of all life on Earth."

    • 1 year ago
  • jackshin
  • Gravity_Man
  • jackshin
  • Gravity_Man
  • jackshin
  • Gravity_Man
  • jackshin
    • 0
      jackshin  
    • Gravity_Man:

      RE: Job
      Gravity_Man sent on Fri, 09 Sep 2011 20:11:44 +0000
      "Take all the time you want but your attitude coming across to me has gotten very old.
      I write what I choose to write. You want to muzzle me into some kind of funnel go jump."

      I agree....opps did I respond to you again, sorry

    • 1 year ago
  • Gravity_Man
  • jackshin
  • Gravity_Man
  • jackshin
    • 0
      jackshin  
    • Gravity_Man:

      ok, I surrender, you won, you are better at this than me. You may have the last word, and I am certainly not implying that you need my permission.

      My soul to hell, but I can't not respond at times to your posts, sorry, just the way I think.

      Honestly, I hope my day is far worse and yours is far better. On this thread, I will not respond to you again. I promise.

    • 1 year ago
  • JanforGore
    • +2
      JanforGore  
    • Image

    • http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/the-cerncloud-results-are-...

      "However, aerosol nucleation experiments are not usually front page news, and the likely high public profile of this paper is only loosely related to the science that is actually being done. Rather, the excitement is based on the expectation that this work will provide some insight into the proposed cosmic ray/cloud/climate link that Svensmark (for instance) has claimed is the dominant driver of climate change (though note he is not an author on this paper, despite an earlier affiliation with the project). Indeed, the first justification for the CLOUD experiment was that: “The basic purpose of the CLOUD detector … is to confirm, or otherwise, a direct link between cosmic rays and cloud formation by measuring droplet formation in a controlled test-beam environment”.

      It is eminently predictable that the published results will be wildly misconstrued by the contrarian blogosphere as actually proving this link. However, that would be quite wrong.

      We were clear in the 2006 post that establishing a significant GCR/cloud/climate link would require the following steps (given that we have known that ionisation plays a role in nucleation for decades). One would need to demonstrate:

      1.… that increased nucleation gives rise to increased numbers of (much larger) cloud condensation nuclei (CCN)
      2.… and that even in the presence of other CCN, ionisation changes can make a noticeable difference to total CCN
      3.… and even if there were more CCN, you would need to show that this actually changed cloud properties significantly,
      4.… and that given that change in cloud properties, you would need to show that it had a significant effect on radiative forcing.

      Of course, to show that cosmic rays were actually responsible for some part of the recent warming, you would need to show that there was actually a decreasing trend in cosmic rays over recent decades – which is tricky, because there hasn’t been (see the figure).
      ____
      So an experiment by CERN with the initial goal of observing the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation in line with other aerosol properties was indeed taken by the contrarian blogosphere and their usual minions/pseudoscientists and twisted to put out the headlines that it proves that clouds cause global warming. Now that's desperation for you. Even CERN explained that this was not to refute the human impact on global warming. This once again is what we have to deal with in regard to a lobby whose only purpose is to distort science for their own agenda and mark it down because they can't refute it.
      ___________
      "Dessler's research, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters [pdf], looked at 10 years' worth of data from the sky and the sea. That data, he said, show the ocean's influence on the Earth's climate to be 20 times larger than any influence due to cloud cover changes."

      Blows them away.

    • 1 year ago
  • IceKat
  • IceKat
  • jackshin
  • IceKat
  • JanforGore
    • +2
      JanforGore  
    • jackshin:

      I don't respond to baiters here. Especially when they start getting to the point where you know the information is overloading them. This leech latches on to every thread about this especially the ones I post but can never do anything but try to bait others because they can't stand to see real scientists answering the bogus claims. Not even worth my time.

    • 1 year ago
  • IceKat
  • jackshin
  • jackshin
  • jackshin
    • +1
      jackshin  
    • IceKat:

      i've beem condesending to you, I must admit this, but on my last post to you on another thread, I provided an honest querry for the purposes of establishing a true discussion. I think you should answer those questions first.

    • 1 year ago
  • Gravity_Man
  • JanforGore
    • +1
      JanforGore  
    • Gravity_Man:

      Well I agree with you on that, which is the point of debunking skeptics who keep stating it is a fact that it absolutely is influencing all of the climate events we are seeing taking place. They don't even know at what threshold ionization occurs that would permit cloud seeding to form. Even Kirkby the head of the CLOUD study at CERN stated that those particles are far too small to serve as seeds for clouds and considering the test was in a confined space with parameters that are not representative of conditions that can be considered enough to make such an assertion as fact, they (the usual subjects) do a disservice to science. And I quote from CERN, "At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step." It is good that they are doing these tests and hopefully we will also learn more about the origins of these cosmic rays.The point of this however is once again seeing how the same skeptics latch onto any type of scientific atmospheric testing in trying to twist it to suit their own agenda on climate which speaks volumes to me. Personally, I think cosmic rays do have an effect on cloud behavior to some degree, but I don't see a proportion near enough to be the forcing behind the temperature changes and climate events we are now seeing. And Dessler's findings on ocean heat are then just as valid if not moreso and can be traced to positive feedback loops taking place in our climate system.

    • 1 year ago
  • JanforGore
  • thedirtman
    • -1
      thedirtman  
    • IceKat:

      Maybe you can help me IceKat. I'm trying to imagine how something as passive as a cloud can contribute to climate change. Clouds are areas where water vapor is more concentrated in the sky. Water vapor is everywhere, but only in the areas of clouds do they exceed a limit causing them to become visible. Because clouds affect visible light increasing clouds lowers the visible light reaching the surface.

      Since clouds form passively what is it that causing a change in the formation of clouds here? The only thing I see that could cause this is anthropogenic global warming.

    • 1 year ago
  • JanforGore
    • +1
      JanforGore  
    • Image

    • http://mediamatters.org/research/201108310023

      Fox and other conservative media claim that CERN's study of cosmic rays "concluded that it's the sun, not human activity," causing global warming. In fact, at this point the research "actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate," according to the lead author, and it certainly doesn't refute human-induced global warming.


      Findings Say "Nothing" About Effect Of Cosmic Rays On Climate

      CERN Studied Effects Of Cosmic Rays On Aerosols, Which Contribute To Clouds. From the press release about the study by CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research:

      In a paper published in the journal Nature today, the CLOUD experiment at CERN has reported its first results. The CLOUD experiment has been designed to study the effect of cosmic rays on the formation of atmospheric aerosols - tiny liquid or solid particles suspended in the atmosphere - under controlled laboratory conditions. Atmospheric aerosols are thought to be responsible for a large fraction of the seeds that form cloud droplets. Understanding the process of aerosol formation is therefore important for understanding the climate.

      The CLOUD results show that trace vapours assumed until now to account for aerosol formation in the lower atmosphere can explain only a tiny fraction of the observed atmospheric aerosol production. The results also show that ionisation from cosmic rays significantly enhances aerosol formation. Precise measurements such as these are important in achieving a quantitative understanding of cloud formation, and will contribute to a better assessment of the effects of clouds in climate models. [CERN, 8/25/11]

      More lies fron conservative media.

    • 1 year ago
  • IceKat
  • coolplanet
    • +1
      coolplanet  
    • IceKat:

      Please shut up and go away HotDog.
      We are trying to have an adult conversation here.
      I'm real tired of your phony science, bogus charts and complete lack of documentation.

    • 1 year ago
  • JanforGore
    • +1
      JanforGore  

    • http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128274.900-cloudmaking-another-human-eff...

      'Some physicists think galactic cosmic rays - high-energy particles originating from faraway stars - might affect cloud formation. To test their effect on aerosol nucleation, Kirkby's team fired beams similar to cosmic rays through the chamber and found it increased nucleation between 2 and 10 times. But he points out that an increase in 1 nanometre particles does not necessarily translate into the 50 nanometre CCNs needed for cloud formation.

      Other evidence shows that even if cosmic rays do affect the climate, the effect must be small. Changes in the number of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere due to changes in solar activity cannot explain global warming, as average cosmic ray intensities have been increasing since 1985 even as the world has warmed - the opposite of what should happen if cosmic rays produce climate-cooling clouds."

    • 1 year ago
  • Vic_Romano
  • JanforGore
    • +1
      JanforGore  

    • http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682611000691
      A.D. Erlykin, 1, a, , and A.W. Wolfendalea

      Received 9 June 2010; revised 28 February 2011; accepted 1 March 2011. Available online 10 March 2011.

      Abstract

      A survey is made of the evidence for and against the hypothesis that cosmic rays influence cloud cover. The analysis is made principally for the troposphere.

      It is concluded that for the troposphere there is only a very small overall value for the fraction of cloud attributable to cosmic rays (CR); if there is linearity between CR change and cloud change, the value is probably 1% for clouds below , but less overall. The apparently higher value for low cloud is an artifact.

      The contribution of CR to ‘climate change’ is quite negligible.

      Research highlights
      ►No correlation is found between cosmic ray changes and the whole cloud cover. ►Influence of cosmic rays on the cloud cover in the troposphere is at the level of 1%. ►Cosmic rays have negligible effect on the global temperature and on climate.

    • 1 year ago
  • coolplanet
    • 0
      coolplanet  
    • IceKat:

      Don't use me to back up your bullshit.
      Low clouds do reflect heat back to space but don't reduce hydrocarbons.
      High clouds trap heat in the atmosphere, exasorbating warming.
      We are seeing many more stratospheric clouds for several reasons.
      1. Forests form low Cumulus cloud cover from evapotranspiration. As forests are cut and burned
      clouds rise higher.
      2. Contrails from airplanes, and industrial aerosols, form high cirriform clouds which trap in the heat.
      This is called the Greenhouse Effect, an accepted scientific fact since the 1880s.
      Kindergarden is dismisses.

    • 1 year ago
  • coolplanet
  • squarethecircle
    • 0
      squarethecircle  

    • They have to cover up the weather manipulation with some excuse for those paying attention to the radar and weather patterns going haywire around the globe.

    • 1 year ago
  • JanforGore
  • JanforGore
  • Gravity_Man
  • coolplanet
    • +1
      coolplanet  
    • Gravity_Man:

      "And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations." ~Revelation 22:2
      Imagine that. Not God, not Jesus, but the leaves of the tree.
      Looks like John was a tree hugger.

    • 1 year ago
  • Gravity_Man
  • jackshin
  • coolplanet
more from Tech:
from the community

top videos