It’s Not CO2! Six New Studies Affirm Clouds Dominate Our Climate
Six new studies confirm clouds play ‘Central Role’ in Earth’s climate, contradicting the consensus greenhouse gas theory.
Polar ice melt, Earth’s radiation budget, sea surface temperatures, water circulation, and climate variability are all “controlled” or “crucially regulated” by clouds.
“Surface melting on Antarctic Peninsula ice shelves can influence ice shelf mass balance, and consequently sea level rise.
“We show that summertime cloud phase on the Larsen C ice shelf on the Antarctic Peninsula strongly influences the amount of radiation received at the surface and can determine whether or not melting occurs.”
“Clouds are one of the most important factors determining the radiation budget. In other words, all surface solar irradiances (SSI), atmospheric absorptions (AA), and reflection irradiances (RI) at TOA can be different according to the presence of clouds in the atmosphere….
“Clouds in all- (or overcast-) sky atmosphere diminish surface solar irradiances (SSI) from 218.1 Wm−2 to 156.9 Wm−2 (or 85.8 Wm−2) and enhance atmospheric absorptions (AA) from 61.5 Wm−2 to 86.3 Wm−2 (or 128.2 Wm−2). Clouds also enhance the reflected irradiances (RI) at the TOA from 65.6 Wm−2 to 102.0 Wm−2 (or 131.2 Wm−2) for all- (or overcast-) skies. As a result, the all- (or overcast-) sky shortwave (SW) cloud forcing (CF) is −61.2 Wm−2 (or −132.3 Wm−2) at the surface, AA is 24.8 Wm−2 (or 66.7 Wm−2) in the atmosphere and RI is 36.4 Wm−2 (or 65.6 Wm−2) at the TOA, respectively.”
“Cloud radiative effects (CREs) are known to play a central role in governing the long-term mean distribution of sea-surface temperatures (SSTs). Very recent work suggests that CREs may also play a role in governing the variability of SSTs in the context of the El Niño/Southern Oscillation.”
“Clouds crucially regulate atmospheric energy balance, water circulation, and Earth’s climate system with multiple spatiotemporal scales (Boucher et al. 2013). Fundamental conundrums on clouds, the coupling of clouds with atmospheric circulation, and climate interactions have remained unsolved and have been identified as considerable challenges in climate research (Bony et al. 2015).
“One of the largest uncertainties amongst these challenges is the vertical property of clouds and their radiative effects (Li et al. 2015). Vertical variation of clouds can affect the vertical distribution of atmospheric radiative heating, surface energy balance, and general circulation by changing the vertical structure of radiative warming and cooling rates (Johansson et al. 2015; Pan et al. 2017). Quantifying the vertical distribution of cloud radiative forcing and their impacts on atmospheric circulation and regional climate has become critical.”
“Toward this goal, here we analyze the radiation at the top of the atmosphere and propose a measure of the DCC [diurnal cloud cycle] radiative effect (DCCRE) as the difference between the total radiative fluxes with the full cloud cycle and its uniformly distributed cloud counterpart.
“When applied to the frequency of cloud occurrence, DCCRE is linked to the covariance between DCC and cloud radiative effects. Satellite observations show that the daily cloud cycle is strongly linked to pacific decadal oscillation (PDO) and climate hiatus, revealing its potential role in controlling climate variability.”
“Our research supports the idea that clouds and albedo, which ultimately determine the SW radiation, are variables of the utmost importance for current climate change, in agreement with previous research about the changes in stratocumulus or energy imbalance in the last four decades for example. An increase in cloud coverage of 0.1 would, on average, lead to a 7{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} increase in spectrally integrated global average reflectance of shortwave radiation.”
“When reaching the Earth, part of the incoming solar radiation is reflected off clouds and the surface as shortwave radiation (SW). Changes in cloud distribution or the surface albedo affect this flux and change the energy balance.
“In the last four decades, changes in cloud distribution in low-level clouds such as subtropical stratocumulus have been of great importance since they have the ability to reflect large amounts of radiation back to space but do not reduce significantly the outgoing terrestrial radiation. … [S]hortwave radiation is the main driver in the dynamics and plays a major role in the energy balance by affecting the longwave radiation field.”
“The existence of reflective surfaces such as clouds or the ground determines directly the amount of SW radiation and, thus, the available energy for being absorbed and reemitted as LW. … A plausible hypothesis to explain the changes in SW radiation is that cloud amount and properties have changed in the last decades.”
h/t Rúnar O.
Read more at No Tricks Zone
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
E woodrow
| #
I keep getting annoying pop ups on my desktop from your sight and they won’t go
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
We have been experiencing what appears to be coordinated attacks on the site. We are working to put a stop to this. Our apologies for the inconvenience.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Kenneth,
Thank you very much for drawing these six 2020 studies to our attentions. But here is an earlier study to which readers of PSI made no comments. (https://principia-scientific.com/record-temperature-result-of-cloud-revised-updated/). Hopefully, they will be more attentive now to these six more recent studies.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Marcel
| #
What a weird conclusion. Interesting studies and they allow for more precise modelling, but it’s not at all clear how you reach the conclusion that CO2 does not impact the climate. In fact, cloud reduction is linked to CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Marcel,
If one goes to (https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/dataplot.html) where the data is measured and reported (graphically) every minute, one can see the rapid responses of several measured radiations which can only be explained by cloud because there is no way that the atmospheric content of carbon dioxide has been observed to change that rapidly.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
geran
| #
Marcel, the “It’s not CO2!” was probably just to tweak Warmists. The article didn’t really address the fact that it’s not CO2. The author likely assumed everyone already knew that.
Reply
chris
| #
Well lets hear the theory, how does this work. I have been waiting for someone to be able to state a clear theory of greenhouse gases causing climate change. So how is cloud reduction linked to co2 when clearly there has been rising co2 and increased cloud formation? The solar scientists are doing real science in this area, greenhouse gas theory is a hoax, unless you have something credible to offer.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Marcel:
In fact, cloud reduction is linked to CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
JMcG:
This is just a lie.
James McGinn / Genius
Greenhouse Goofiness
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Greenhouse-Goofiness-edrn8n
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
The term “linked” is usually leftist speak for: we associated X to Y using mere rhetoric, i.e. logical fallacies.
Reply
Blais
| #
en quoi a-t-on démontré la moindre corrélation entre taux de CO2 et fréquences et volumes des nuages en diverses altitudes ou latitudes.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Models serve two function in the atmospheric sciences:
1) To convince the public that oneself and/or paradigm understands the physics of the atmosphere.
2) To conceal the fact that oneself and/or paradigm really doesn’t understand the physics of the atmosphere.
The ‘Missing Link’ of Meteorology’s Theory of Storms
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
The NOAA record at https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/2013-state-climate-humidity compares the average humidity for the period 1979 to 2003 with that at 2013, and concludes “the specific humidity—the amount of water vapor–was well above average over land and ocean”.
This is consistent with a rising sea surface temperature and a rising CO2 level in the atmosphere. Ironically, it is the slightly hotter ocean that is driving the world to a cooler future.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Robert,
You concluded: “Ironically, it is the slightly hotter ocean that is driving the world to a cooler future.”
I agree with your reasoning based upon the observed ocean warming. For I agree with your unstated reasoned relationship between “the specific humidity—the amount of water vapor–was well above average over land and ocean” and increased general cloudiness.
For I believe you accept that solubility of carbon dioxide decrease with the ocean temperatures which naturally increases the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere. Do I have this right?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Yes Jerry,
You raise another interesting irony regarding CO2. This is because CO2 is very soluble in atmospheric water vapour, and forms a solution with a molar mass of around 46.3 g/mol at a pH between 5.0 and 5.6. This compares with pure water vapour which has a molar mass of 18 g/mol and a pH of 7.0. The heavier compound falls more rapidly as rain. (This is contrary to AGW advice that CO2 last a long time in the atmosphere.) So the more CO2 there is in the atmosphere with an elevated moisture content, the more rain clouds will form.
Hotter sea water adds higher energy content to the system, making it more active. This eventually results in ice/snow depositing at high altitudes, leading to higher albedo effects, and lower land temperatures, resulting in a global cooling event.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Robert,
And I had not thought of the albedo effect of snow during the late fall, winter, and early spring seasons in the mid-latitudes of the northern hemisphere’s continents, which mid-latitudes hardly exist in the southern hemisphere’s continents.
There are several unquestionable factors which effect that which we call climate that are seldom considered. Like the 18-19 year cycle of where the moon rises and sets during each of its well observed and known phase cycle after which to more of two more of these 18-19 year cycles begin occurring on almost the same day of the year.
And I have to ask: Have you considered what the tidal effect of the moon might be within a polar circle during its polar winter?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Yea Jerry, the albedo effect mostly applies to the northern hemisphere. I have no opinion on whether the Moon plays a part in global cooling, but suspect it is mute.
Reply
Jonas
| #
I think it is obvious from Ceres/Erbe that clouds reduce earth´s radiation losses. Instead of 400 W/m2 it seems to be about 100-200 W/m2 if clouds are present. That is roughly the so called “green house effect”. Clouds can explain all of the “green house effect”.
Another issue is that north/south of 60 degree latitude seems to be very cloudy. Between 10 degre latitude up to 60 is not very cloudy. This means that sunny areas are rather cloud free, while “not so sunny areas” are cloud covered. Areas with a net energy inflow are open, while ares with a net energy loss are cloud covered.
One thing I would like to know more about is the distribution between day and night. Is it more clouds during nighttime? If so, it would significantly contribute to earth´s energy budget.
The studies I have seen focus on the radiation budget under the assumption that sun is shining (try to estimate losses due to reflection compared to savings due to blocking of thermal radiation from earth). That analysis is rather meaningless for nightime conditions. Then clouds are “energy saving”. Same thing for the location. Clouds in the far north/south are energy saving.
I think a very important question is where are the clouds ? and when ?
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Jonas,
I have no idea what “Ceres/Erbe” might be. Perhaps you can correct my ignorance.
I agree totally with “a very important question is where are the clouds ? and when ?”. Have you looked at the two links I have shared? There is a third question: what is a cloud’s type (classification)? Thin, thick, scattered, broken, overcast?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
tom0mason
| #
From https://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/faq-page/ceres-faq#t67n105
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi TomO,
The knight in shining armor comes to my rescue. And I ask Jonas why he didn’t enlighten me as I asked. So it seems that “Ceres/Erbe” is the USA government scientists admission that the the GHE of carbon dioxide is a wrong idea and that clouds are the thermostat that attempts to control the Earth’s energy balance system. Which system has been and still is being disrupted by huge, random, geothermal events during its (the Earth) history.
So let us stop referring to the GHE of carbon dioxide because the influence of clouds is a completely different mechanism.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi TomO and Readers,
I urge you go to (https://follow.mosaic-expedition.org/) and view today’s picture (enlarge it as much as possible). There are several interesting things to see and ponder their significance. But I draw attention to the greater albedo of the unmelted snow and the lesser albedo of its melted surface which is not yet a smooth, solid ice surface. And, of course, there are no continuous ice floes into which to freeze the Polarstern. Note the ‘sharp’ boundary between the open ocean and the ‘packed’ small ice floes. And ask: Why aren’t some of these small ice floes being moved by the centrifugal effect of the rotating earth to become floating,isolated ‘icebergs’?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Rickk,
Here is more of the same to which you can comment–Duh! Which critical photographic evidence I have been missing for years.
Decades ago I had several telephone conversations with Robert Cess, who was in charge of NASA’a measurement of the Earth’s albebo from their satellites. Which measurement forced the conclusion that water surfaces have a very low small albedo. And in this photo to which I directed attention we see the photographic evidence of this measurement.
And because of something that Cess stated I saw that the albedo of a liquid water surface could not be measured from space and tried to explain this to Cess without any success.
I do not have another photo to call to your attention but Richard Feynman liked to tell stories and I briefly quote from one of his longer stories ‘O Americano, Outra Vez!’ found in “Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!”.The topic is polarized light.
“Then I said, “Have you ever heard of Brewster’s Angle?” “Yes sir! Brewster’s Anglle is the angle at which light light reflected from a medium with an index of refraction is completely polariized.” “And which way is the light polarized when its reflected?” “The light is polarized perpendicular to the plane of reflection, sir.” Even now I have to think about it; they knew it cold! They even knew the tangent of the angle equals the index!” “I said, “Well?” “Still nothing. They had just told me that light is reflected from a medium with an index, such as the bay outside, was polarized, they had even told me which way it was polarized.” “I said, “Look at the bay outside, through the polaroid. Now, turn the polaroid.” “Ooh, it’s polarized!!” they said.”
Now look at the photo to which I drew a readers attention. We see no reflected light from the liquid water’s surface. Why? The sun is at the back of the photographer as evidenced by the high albedo of sunlight being scattered from the unmelted snow surface. A photographer common does not take pictures toward the sun because it common knowledge that the sun and any reflected light well be terribly over exposed.
So,Rickk, can you imagine what would have been seen if the photographer had taken a photo earlier as the Polarstern approached the ice floes from the open sea?
Have a good day, Jerry.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Rickk,
Follow MOASiC has another photo of ice floes and open water for 5/11/2020 But this one was taken toward the sun because black shadows can be seen. However, it was taken in more downward direction as there is no horizon in the photo and the open water is not near as dark since the camera can now ‘see’ reflected solar is not near as black as the shadow is.
While the focus of the photo is the whale, I draw attention to the lower left corner where I can clearly see (if I enlarge the photo as much as possible) blue snow and blue light being reflected from the smooth water surface at the base of the blue snow pillar. Hence, in this photo there are observed phenomena which first must be seen before they can be explained. But we do not need to explain what is seen to make it an observed fact that might be possibly explained.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Rickk
| #
Two words… Duh!
Reply
Moffin
| #
Your enunciation is coming on fine Rickk
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Moffin,
You have just taught me a new word–enuniciation. Had to look it up in a dictionary. I came to PSI this morning thinking about the word–subtle.
For a friend had questioned my consideration of the influence of the Centrifugal Effect that I was proposing.
And I had finally seen something very obvious about the influence of the Centrifugal Effect in the Arctic Ocean. I just referred to Nansen’s Fram and the Polarstern which were frozen into an ice floe to drift toward toward the North Pole. Go to (https://follow.mosaic-expedition.org/) and consider Nansen’s pictures of the Fram and the ice with the pictures of the Polarstern and the ice.
I challenge anyone to explain the obvious difference of what is seen without a consideration of the Centrifugal Effect. It’s that simple if one only looks.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Kenneth,
I finally scanned the six articles to which you referred. Should have done so earlier because I consider there are two basic problems: the common practice of averaging of temperature data for a period longer than an hour and the common practice of using computers to do ‘experiments’. A computer experiment is no different than the thought experiments used by the ancient Greek philosophers to conclude too many absolutely wrong scientific ideas. For a computer only does what it is programmed to do. ‘
Next, Louis Elzevir, the publisher of ‘Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences’ (Galileo Galilei) in his preface to the reader wrote (as translated to English by Crew and de Salvio): “For, according to the common saying, sight can teach more and with greater certainty in a single day than can precept even though repeated a thousand times; or as another says, intuitive knowledge keeps pace with accurate definition.” Note ‘a single day’ and accurate definition which means one should observe (consider) all that is known about the system (such as the Arctic Ocean and its surrounding continents and islands) being studied.
At (https://follow.mosaic-expedition.org/) I read: “An observation of Capella taken in the afternoon would seem to show that we are in any case not farther north than 80o11’ and this after almost four days’ south wind. Whatever can be the meaning of this? Is there dead-water under the ice keeping it from going either forward or backward?” (Nansen from his log of his 1893-1894 attempt to drift, in his ship (Fram) frozen in the Arctic Ocean’s ice floes, to the North Pole.)
The Fram was only a little north of 80oN at this time. I see what Nansen was evidently not considering was that the Centrifugal Effect, of the rotating Earth, was being countered (balanced) by the effect of the south wind upon the Fram and the ice floe in which it was frozen. And I have read no comment from the planners of the Mosaic Expedition about how lucky they were to be able to initially freeze the Polarstern in an ice floe a little poleward of 85oN where the centrifugal effect is only one-fourth of that at 80oN.
The existence of the Centrifugal Effect cannot be questioned and if it has been ignored and is being ignored, the science of much of the expedition’s scientific studies is dead in the water. And I must ask what other known fundamental phenomena might be being ignored (overlooked)?
At the same time I see naturalists, who cannot bring the nature they study into the laboratory, consider the many, many little factors of the natural systems they study and conclude that these systems are therefore very complex as they possibly overlook such a fundamental factor as the Centrifugal Effect. So I consider these modern naturalists have not considered (and pondered) the example that Isaac Newton gave them on the last page of his famous book. “In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phaenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction. Thus it was that the impenetrability, the mobility, and the impulsive force of the bodies, and the laws of motion and of gravitation, were discovered. And to us it is enough that gravity does really exist, and act according to the laws we have explained, and abundantly serves to account for all the motions of the celestial bodies, and of our sea.” (as translate to English by Motte).
As to the motions of our sea we know that Newton is referring to the tides of our seas and we know that these tides are observed to be very complex because there are many known perturbations that perturb the fundamental motion of some semi-diurnal tides (the challenging phenomenon to explain) into observed diurnal tides (an easy phenomenon to explain but for the observation of semi-diurnal tides).
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
CD Marshall
| #
Anyone want to answer what level of photon is required to evaporate ocean water? I had someone claiming 15 microns can evaporate ocean water, I found that difficult to believe. His claim was that CO2 reflects photons to the ocean that evaporates the ocean water and increases humidity.
Is that possible?
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi CD,
Evaporation is how water loses heat and the rate of evaporation depends on the heat content, not the energy being added. Evaporation continues to occur at night when no energy is being added.
You are dealing with an idiot and it is a waste of time. Anybody that believes that something can reflect off two surfaces and have more energy than it originally possessed knows nothing of physics and will learn nothing.They will seize on anything, no matter how preposterous, to justify their beliefs and cannot accept that the possibility exists that they could be wrong.
Herb
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi CD,
Any matter evaporates (as this process is defined) because of the motion of a tiny body (atom or molecule) from from a liquid due to its extremely rapid random linear motions of the tiny body which escapes from the surface of the liquid. Which average (there is a distribution of the speeds of this linear motions) magnitude of this linear motion is proportional to the liquid’s temperature. This understanding is termed the kinetic theory of gases and based upon certain observed properties of gases.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
CD Marshall
| #
Hi Jerry,
Photons don’t have Kinetic Energy (unless I missed something?) which is why I was confused with this fellow’s claims, only if the photon is absorbed could it have any chance of effecting the ocean water and a 15 micron photon carries the potential energy of 0.0827 eV which (as far as I understand) does not have the energy to evaporate water. Hence my thorough confusion.
Herb,
Thank you, this person claims to be a 37 year retired engineer which is why I wondered if he knew something I didn’t.
So thank you both of you.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi CD,
I ask: Where would I find a ‘photon’ which was not moving?
In “What Do You Care What Other People ThinK?” Richard Feynman wrote about a question his Father asked him. “I understand that when an atom makes a transition from one state to another, it emits a particle of light called a photon.” “That’s right,” I [Feynman] said.” He says, “Is the photon in the atom ahead of time?” “No, there’s no photon beforehand.” “Well,” he says, “where does it come from, then? How does it come out?”
You can go to Feynman’s book and read Feynman’s attempted ‘quantum mechanical’ answer. After which Feynman wrote: “He was not satisfied with me in that respect. I was never able to explain any of the things that he didn’t understand. So he was unsuccessful: he sent me to all these universities in order to find out those things, and he never did find out.”
It seems to me that Richard seems to have forgotten, even to him, that there is no logical to fundamental quantum mechanical ideas. For how can an electron, a particle, behave as its light (energy), and a photon (energy) behave as its a particle? This is not logical by the usual definition of the word–logic.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
CD Marshall
| #
Hi Jerry,
“This is not logical by the usual definition of the word–logic.”
Yet that is the actual science so our interpretation is in error. That is the “growing pains” of science it is easier to learn something new you didn’t know than to re-learn something you knew wrong. I can understand and I feel for science and the fine line between ego (doubt and confidence are both a side of ego) and discovery.
In chemistry you do an experiment if it works it is proved, the experiment is the evidence no matter the outcome.
In theoretical physics it’s a guessing game sometimes you hit and sometimes you miss.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi CD,
Do not understand: “In chemistry you do an experiment if it works it is proved, the experiment is the evidence no matter the outcome.”
Maybe I should but I do not know if you have an academic background and if you do, I do not know what it might be. I do know that a lot of ‘engineers’ write posting and comments here. Unless engineers are chemical engineers it is unlikely they have taken any chemistry course beyond a year of introductory chemistry. Unless scientists are a chemistry majors or a life-science majors, it is unlikely they have taken any chemistry beyond a year of introductory chemistry and a year of organic-biochemistry.
Because of what I know I did not learn as a undergraduate chemistry major, I went to graduate school because I knew I did not have a sufficient understanding of fundamental chemistry (and science) to teach high school students chemistry and physics (required minor for a chemistry major).
Finally, in a graduate theoretical physics course, I learned that the only thing that can be proven by the practice of SCIENCE is a wrong idea.
Richard Feynman, in the book, to which I have just referred, concluded the book with a public address he had given at the 1955 autumn meeting of the National Academy of Sciences. It seems you maybe haven’t read it and I advise every PSI reader to read it and the preface that he had written to explain it’s important significance still in 1989.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
CD Marshall
| #
Hi Jerry,
Brilliant minds often overthink simplicity.
For an example, add bleach and ammonia together you create chloramines, that is the confirmed evidence of the mixture. That experiment proves one way of creating chloramines.
Trying to prove a black hole by experiment at this point in science is impossible.
Reply