Remember me
▼ Content

Clouds and temperature


Clouds and temperature01-01-2018 20:15
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(79)
This is one of the pivotal questions on the GHE, as well as on the concept of GW. How do clouds affect climate?

Now better than theorizing on the subject, we could just take a look on empirical data. What are the average temperatures given the degree of cloudiness? I simply ran a program answering this question, based on about 500 stations from the US reporting both temperature (of course) AND sky condition.


(CLR - clear sky, FEW - few clouds, SCT - scattered, BKN - broken, OVC - overcast, about 5,5 mio records in 2016)

The pattern is quite specific. The lowest temperatures are indeed related to overcast scenarios, with a substantial margin. The second lowest temperatures however are with clear skies, while the highest temperatures prevail with average cloudiness. So have clouds a cooling, or a heating effect? That seems impossible to tell.

Then of course, there are some things we need to consider.
1. Rainfall. With moderate, and even more with high temperatures, rainfall will lead to a sharp drop in temperatures. The rain comes from high above, where temperatures are low, and when it falls onto the surface it will be chilling both air and soil. Once the soil is moist, there will be another chilling effect due to evaporation.
Rainfall however is strongly correlated to overcast scenarios. So the relatively low temperatures with strong cloudiness do not per se reflect a chilling effect of clouds themselves.
2. There is a significant number of dry and hot places in the sample, where clear skies are prevalent. They influence the average result in the way, that clear sky scenarios appear warmer than they were otherwise.
3. Air pressure. High air pressure elevates surface temperatures simply by compressing air via the adiabatic lapse rate. The opposite is true for low pressure systems. Again high pressure is correlated with clear skies, low pressure with clouds. The effects may be small, but nonetheless exist.

Taking all these factors into account, not only clouds do not lower temperatures, rather they seem to have the opposite effect. But with clouds having a neutral to warming role to play in earths climate, we need to have another look at the energy balance.



Note that according to this, clouds would reflect 23% of solar radiation, which equals about 79W/m2 (= 23%*342, a figure I have determined independently before). On the amount of terrestrial infrared reflected by clouds the graph says nothing, it would not even exist. Rather that would be part of "back radiation", "re-emitted" by the atmosphere. Not even making a difference between reflection and re-emissions seems a way odd and stupid.
However there is another major mistake, by putting surface emissions to 126% of 342 = 397W/m2. As surface emissivity is only 0.92 (rather than 1) that is over 30W/m2 too much.

Anyhow, as the empiric data suggest, clouds are reflecting no less terrestrial infrared than solar radiation. So that figure will be in 23%+ region, 79W/m2+ respectively. We could try to correct the model in the respect, along with lowering surface emissions from 116 to 107%. Also the 12% of direct to space emissions are far too low.

Or we take a step back and look at the bigger picture. The GHE amounts to about 155W/m2. 30/m2 of that originate from the exaggerated surface emissivity, and another 79W/m2+ from the negligence of clouds reflecting terrestrial infrared. Both factors do account for the biggest share of the "GHE".
02-01-2018 23:39
Wake
★★★★★
(2944)
I think it more complex than that. For instance - most large cities are cited near waterways or the ocean. And under these conditions you can have either very cold or fairly warm conditions as the water carries heat into the area and the cloud cover tends to reflect the heat back down to the ground. This can be overridden by cold fronts or warm fronts but the interactions are so complex that we have a great deal of trouble estimating condition even 5 days in advance.

What's more there are various types of partial cloud cover. You can have low altitude partial cover that shades the land or in a warm front slows the conductive heat exchange. Middle altitude clouds usually shade the land but in the winter they can also slow heat exchange. High altitude clouds invariably are ice and reflect incoming sunlight.

I think that you have to add the daily temperature into your model in some manner that will distinguish what the effects of conduction are.

Think of heat lost from the Earth as: Incoming heat from the Sun radiates into the absorption bands of O2 and N2. Outgoing heat energy in the form of low IR radiation is captured mostly by H2O.

The result of this is that radiant energy which moves at the speed of light is converted to conductive energy which moves at the speed of the density of the atmosphere and it's ability to conduct the heat energy upwards.

This suggests that there is no such thing as a "greenhouse effect" and that it most accurately should be described as a blanketing effect.
03-01-2018 12:12
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1002)
1, You are using only day time highs.

2, If it is a high pressure clear winter's day it will be cold. This is due to the angle of incidence of the sunshine. Not lack of cloud only.

3, Meteorology is more complex than this. Do not apply the computer to make poor data and poor hypothesis look good.
03-01-2018 17:41
Wake
★★★★★
(2944)
Tim the plumber wrote:
1, You are using only day time highs.

2, If it is a high pressure clear winter's day it will be cold. This is due to the angle of incidence of the sunshine. Not lack of cloud only.

3, Meteorology is more complex than this. Do not apply the computer to make poor data and poor hypothesis look good.


I think a perfect example of what we've been talking about is the latest weather report for the San Francisco bay area. For three days they've been tracking and predicting coming rain. Presently the rain is between 6 and 12 hours later than predicted from just yesterday.

These are the people who are telling us what the weather is going to be like in 2030.
03-01-2018 22:12
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(79)
Well I have made one mistake after all. Looking at the data in detail, I discovered that both CLR and (most of all) OVC scenarios were much more common during winter time, for what so reason ever. In order to filter this bias I averaged the results for each month, and only then calculated the total annual average.

As a result the whole curve flattens a bit, with OVC scenarios gaining about 2°C. This outcome is also much better in line with the effects I described before (most of all rainfall).



With regard to the feedback I think the basic idea has not yet transpired. For instance "You are using only day time highs"?! No, not at all. Rather I have included every single measurement (at least hourly intervals) over two years (about 11 mio. records!)
03-01-2018 22:30
Wake
★★★★★
(2944)
Leitwolf wrote:
Well I have made one mistake after all. Looking at the data in detail, I discovered that both CLR and (most of all) OVC scenarios were much more common during winter time, for what so reason ever. In order to filter this bias I averaged the results for each month, and only then calculated the total annual average.

As a result the whole curve flattens a bit, with OVC scenarios gaining about 2°C. This outcome is also much better in line with the effects I described before (most of all rainfall).



With regard to the feedback I think the basic idea has not yet transpired. For instance "You are using only day time highs"?! No, not at all. Rather I have included every single measurement (at least hourly intervals) over two years (about 11 mio. records!)


What you've ended up with is a long term average temperature which you have divided into sky conditions.

It seems to me that since temperature and clouds are not closely connected save at the extremes you are only averaging the yearly temperatures and not closely connecting them with sky conditions. What do you think?

And how do you propose that this means much?

I think that the problem with you hypothesis vs. the NASA energy budget is that they have directly measured the reflections from the clouds, the atmosphere, the oceans and the land.
Edited on 03-01-2018 22:33
03-01-2018 23:11
L8112
★☆☆☆☆
(75)
What you've ended up with sky connecting the land. What do you have divided into sky conditions. What you've ended up with you propose that since temperatures and the oceans and the reflections from the clouds are only averaging them with you think?

And how do you are only averaging them with sky conditions from the land. What do you have directly measured the problem with you propose that they have directly measured the atmosphere, the reflections from the problem with is a long term average temperature
Edited on 03-01-2018 23:47
04-01-2018 01:44
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4672)
Wake wrote:
I think it more complex than that. For instance - most large cities are cited near waterways or the ocean. And under these conditions you can have either very cold or fairly warm conditions as the water carries heat into the area and the cloud cover tends to reflect the heat back down to the ground.

You can't reflect heat. You can't heat a warmer surface using a colder gas or vapor either.
Wake wrote:
What's more there are various types of partial cloud cover. You can have low altitude partial cover that shades the land or in a warm front slows the conductive heat exchange.

You can't slow heat.
Wake wrote:
Middle altitude clouds usually shade the land but in the winter they can also slow heat exchange.

You can't slow heat.
Wake wrote:
High altitude clouds invariably are ice and reflect incoming sunlight.

All clouds both reflect AND absorb sunlight.
Wake wrote:
I think that you have to add the daily temperature into your model in some manner that will distinguish what the effects of conduction are.

It is not possible to determine the effects of clouds on climate. You can't isolate their effect (if any).
Wake wrote:
Think of heat lost from the Earth as: Incoming heat from the Sun radiates into the absorption bands of O2 and N2.

WRONG. The Sun emits frequencies all across the electromagnetic spectrum. MOST of the Sun's energy striking the earth is in the form of infrared energy.
Wake wrote:
Outgoing heat energy in the form of low IR radiation is captured mostly by H2O.

So is incoming IR. That's primarily what heats the Earth in the first place. Any cloud absorbing infrared light and converting that to thermal energy is simply part of how the Sun heats the Earth, and how the surface is cooled by heating clouds. Of course, the majority of infrared sunlight heats the surface directly.
Wake wrote:
The result of this is that radiant energy which moves at the speed of light is converted to conductive energy

There is no such thing as 'conductive' energy.
Wake wrote:
which moves at the speed of the density of the atmosphere

The density of the atmosphere is not a speed.
Wake wrote:
and it's ability to conduct the heat energy upwards.

Clouds conduct thermal energy better than dry air. It also takes longer to heat and cool them than dry air.
Wake wrote:
This suggests that there is no such thing as a "greenhouse effect" and that it most accurately should be described as a blanketing effect.

It is neither, for neither exists.


The Parrot Killer
04-01-2018 01:46
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4672)
Leitwolf wrote:
Well I have made one mistake after all. Looking at the data in detail, I discovered that both CLR and (most of all) OVC scenarios were much more common during winter time, for what so reason ever. In order to filter this bias I averaged the results for each month, and only then calculated the total annual average.

As a result the whole curve flattens a bit, with OVC scenarios gaining about 2°C. This outcome is also much better in line with the effects I described before (most of all rainfall).



With regard to the feedback I think the basic idea has not yet transpired. For instance "You are using only day time highs"?! No, not at all. Rather I have included every single measurement (at least hourly intervals) over two years (about 11 mio. records!)


The graph is essentially random numbers. It is not possible to determine the effect clouds have on the atmosphere, if any. It is not possible to isolate the effect of a cloud over the same area under identical conditions, since the presence of visible moisture or not is not an identical condition.


The Parrot Killer
04-01-2018 02:48
L8112
★☆☆☆☆
(75)
It is not possible to isolate the same area under identical conditions, since the atmosphere, if any. It is not an identical conditions, since the effect of a cloud over the presence of visible to determine the effect of a clouds have on the presence of visible moisture or not possible moisture or not an identical condition. The graph is essentially random numbers.
05-01-2018 07:10
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(79)
Now this is ****ing amazing! I know I am talking to idiots who will no way understand the significance of my work, but yet the idiocy here makes a bit shameless to put out news early.

The things just evolved he way they did, and I did document it here. Now in the latest evolutionary move I had to add quite a lot of code to filter not just seasonal, but also regional patterns. There are yet some minor issues with the data, but yet the results are strong, extremely strong.




The curve has smoothed a lot. Now it is almost symmetric. Clear skies are just as "cold" as all overcast skies, suggesting a completely neutral role of clouds. Of course, we know better, for the named reasons.

Overcast scenarios are a lot colder due to rainfall, which is true to a lesser extend for BKN and even SCT scenarios. Bearing this in mind, there is no other solution than to accept the fact, that it is the warmer, the more clouds there are. In other words, clouds ARE heating the planet.

This little piece of evidence breaks the spine of the GH theory for good.
05-01-2018 08:46
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4672)
Leitwolf wrote:
Now this is ****ing amazing! I know I am talking to idiots who will no way understand the significance of my work, but yet the idiocy here makes a bit shameless to put out news early.

The things just evolved he way they did, and I did document it here. Now in the latest evolutionary move I had to add quite a lot of code to filter not just seasonal, but also regional patterns. There are yet some minor issues with the data, but yet the results are strong, extremely strong.




The curve has smoothed a lot. Now it is almost symmetric. Clear skies are just as "cold" as all overcast skies, suggesting a completely neutral role of clouds. Of course, we know better, for the named reasons.

Overcast scenarios are a lot colder due to rainfall, which is true to a lesser extend for BKN and even SCT scenarios. Bearing this in mind, there is no other solution than to accept the fact, that it is the warmer, the more clouds there are. In other words, clouds ARE heating the planet.

This little piece of evidence breaks the spine of the GH theory for good.


Aren't you forgetting the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

You can't heat a warmer thing with a colder thing.


The Parrot Killer
05-01-2018 17:24
Wake
★★★★★
(2944)
Leitwolf wrote:
Now this is ****ing amazing! I know I am talking to idiots who will no way understand the significance of my work, but yet the idiocy here makes a bit shameless to put out news early.

The things just evolved he way they did, and I did document it here. Now in the latest evolutionary move I had to add quite a lot of code to filter not just seasonal, but also regional patterns. There are yet some minor issues with the data, but yet the results are strong, extremely strong.




The curve has smoothed a lot. Now it is almost symmetric. Clear skies are just as "cold" as all overcast skies, suggesting a completely neutral role of clouds. Of course, we know better, for the named reasons.

Overcast scenarios are a lot colder due to rainfall, which is true to a lesser extend for BKN and even SCT scenarios. Bearing this in mind, there is no other solution than to accept the fact, that it is the warmer, the more clouds there are. In other words, clouds ARE heating the planet.

This little piece of evidence breaks the spine of the GH theory for good.


Tell you what, since you believe that you have a piece of hard science, why don't you write a paper and present it to Nature or Science? Or do you believe your chances are better with a bunch of people that don't know anything about science? I asked you some questions. Why didn't you answer them and instead started with "I know I am talking to idiots who will no way understand the significance of my work"?
Edited on 05-01-2018 17:27
05-01-2018 18:55
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4672)
Wake wrote:
Leitwolf wrote:
Now this is ****ing amazing! I know I am talking to idiots who will no way understand the significance of my work, but yet the idiocy here makes a bit shameless to put out news early.

The things just evolved he way they did, and I did document it here. Now in the latest evolutionary move I had to add quite a lot of code to filter not just seasonal, but also regional patterns. There are yet some minor issues with the data, but yet the results are strong, extremely strong.




The curve has smoothed a lot. Now it is almost symmetric. Clear skies are just as "cold" as all overcast skies, suggesting a completely neutral role of clouds. Of course, we know better, for the named reasons.

Overcast scenarios are a lot colder due to rainfall, which is true to a lesser extend for BKN and even SCT scenarios. Bearing this in mind, there is no other solution than to accept the fact, that it is the warmer, the more clouds there are. In other words, clouds ARE heating the planet.

This little piece of evidence breaks the spine of the GH theory for good.


Tell you what, since you believe that you have a piece of hard science, why don't you write a paper and present it to Nature or Science? Or do you believe your chances are better with a bunch of people that don't know anything about science? I asked you some questions. Why didn't you answer them and instead started with "I know I am talking to idiots who will no way understand the significance of my work"?

Science isn't 'hard' or 'easy'. It simply is. Science is just a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature.


The Parrot Killer
05-01-2018 23:07
Wake
★★★★★
(2944)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Leitwolf wrote:
Now this is ****ing amazing! I know I am talking to idiots who will no way understand the significance of my work, but yet the idiocy here makes a bit shameless to put out news early.

The things just evolved he way they did, and I did document it here. Now in the latest evolutionary move I had to add quite a lot of code to filter not just seasonal, but also regional patterns. There are yet some minor issues with the data, but yet the results are strong, extremely strong.




The curve has smoothed a lot. Now it is almost symmetric. Clear skies are just as "cold" as all overcast skies, suggesting a completely neutral role of clouds. Of course, we know better, for the named reasons.

Overcast scenarios are a lot colder due to rainfall, which is true to a lesser extend for BKN and even SCT scenarios. Bearing this in mind, there is no other solution than to accept the fact, that it is the warmer, the more clouds there are. In other words, clouds ARE heating the planet.

This little piece of evidence breaks the spine of the GH theory for good.


Tell you what, since you believe that you have a piece of hard science, why don't you write a paper and present it to Nature or Science? Or do you believe your chances are better with a bunch of people that don't know anything about science? I asked you some questions. Why didn't you answer them and instead started with "I know I am talking to idiots who will no way understand the significance of my work"?

Science isn't 'hard' or 'easy'. It simply is. Science is just a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature.


HAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH

Every word you've typed for the last six months at least could just as easily come from the mouth of a parrot that you so admire.
06-01-2018 00:13
Wake
★★★★★
(2944)
Leitwolf wrote:



Note that according to this, clouds would reflect 23% of solar radiation, which equals about 79W/m2 (= 23%*342, a figure I have determined independently before). On the amount of terrestrial infrared reflected by clouds the graph says nothing, it would not even exist. Rather that would be part of "back radiation", "re-emitted" by the atmosphere. Not even making a difference between reflection and re-emissions seems a way odd and stupid.
However there is another major mistake, by putting surface emissions to 126% of 342 = 397W/m2. As surface emissivity is only 0.92 (rather than 1) that is over 30W/m2 too much.

Anyhow, as the empiric data suggest, clouds are reflecting no less terrestrial infrared than solar radiation. So that figure will be in 23%+ region, 79W/m2+ respectively. We could try to correct the model in the respect, along with lowering surface emissions from 116 to 107%. Also the 12% of direct to space emissions are far too low.

Or we take a step back and look at the bigger picture. The GHE amounts to about 155W/m2. 30/m2 of that originate from the exaggerated surface emissivity, and another 79W/m2+ from the negligence of clouds reflecting terrestrial infrared. Both factors do account for the biggest share of the "GHE".


I would like you to think of this: If all of the energy that enters the atmosphere ends up leaving how do you account for all of the energy expended to grow plants? Since this is NOT reduced to waste heat (well immediately anyway) how can you explain coal and petroleum deposits?

At one time these "Earth's Energy Budgets" used to account for this but recently that has disappeared. While not a whole lot of energy goes into this it is of measurable levels and used to account for between 1 and 2% of the total energy beamed upon the Earth.
06-01-2018 00:27
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4672)
Wake wrote:
Leitwolf wrote:



Note that according to this, clouds would reflect 23% of solar radiation, which equals about 79W/m2 (= 23%*342, a figure I have determined independently before). On the amount of terrestrial infrared reflected by clouds the graph says nothing, it would not even exist. Rather that would be part of "back radiation", "re-emitted" by the atmosphere. Not even making a difference between reflection and re-emissions seems a way odd and stupid.
However there is another major mistake, by putting surface emissions to 126% of 342 = 397W/m2. As surface emissivity is only 0.92 (rather than 1) that is over 30W/m2 too much.

Anyhow, as the empiric data suggest, clouds are reflecting no less terrestrial infrared than solar radiation. So that figure will be in 23%+ region, 79W/m2+ respectively. We could try to correct the model in the respect, along with lowering surface emissions from 116 to 107%. Also the 12% of direct to space emissions are far too low.

Or we take a step back and look at the bigger picture. The GHE amounts to about 155W/m2. 30/m2 of that originate from the exaggerated surface emissivity, and another 79W/m2+ from the negligence of clouds reflecting terrestrial infrared. Both factors do account for the biggest share of the "GHE".


I would like you to think of this: If all of the energy that enters the atmosphere ends up leaving how do you account for all of the energy expended to grow plants?

Simple. Plants do not grow by thermal energy. They grow by chemical reactions. That is lost again by other plants that die.
Wake wrote:
Since this is NOT reduced to waste heat (well immediately anyway) how can you explain coal and petroleum deposits?

Plants do not grow by thermal energy.

Coal is carbon, a chemical element. It might not even come from plants. Oil doesn't come from plants.
Wake wrote:
At one time these "Earth's Energy Budgets" used to account for this but recently that has disappeared.

Because the 'energy budget' is primarily about thermal energy retention.
Wake wrote:
While not a whole lot of energy goes into this it is of measurable levels and used to account for between 1 and 2% of the total energy beamed upon the Earth.

If you want to discuss the effect of absorption that does NOT result in thermal energy, then you are not talking about heat anymore.

Light is not heat unless it's absorption results in an increase in temperature (or thermal energy).


The Parrot Killer
06-01-2018 00:36
Wake
★★★★★
(2944)
Into the Night wrote: Such mindless drivel that I can't bare to repeat it.


Is there even one thing that you could stretch your imagination to think about? Even ONE?
06-01-2018 04:54
litesong
★★★★★
(2160)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time (plus 1) threatener wake-me-up" wiffed: one thing.... to think about?
Think about "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time (plus 1) threatener wake-me-up" being an old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time (plus 1) threatener.
07-01-2018 05:46
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(79)
I had to check a lot of details hereto. I just wanted to make sure, that some flaw in the data or my c code was not producing any garbage. In fact I found some minor issues there and there, but nothing would cause a relevant change in the result.
Then I also filtered the data by latitude. As US stations do not represent tropical areas, a restriction to a maximum latitude of 35° would at least point a finger to which direction things might be going. Interestingly the heating effect of clouds only grew stronger, though just a little bit.

What you need to imagine is this, as I can not quantify the effect of rain chill. Adding (or rather subtracting) the effect of rain chill, the chart might look something like this (keep in mind, that rain will be associated to cloudiness):



Now rain as such is not part of the radial balance of the atmosphere. Clouds are however. And of course, clouds are the one main competitor to GHGs. So the apologetic policy must be about denying that nemisis to their theory.

This is being done in multiple ways. First clouds provide the largest share of earths albedo. If it was not for that, you would never get to 255 or 254K as a "black body temperature" for earth. Rather that would be 274K. Next, although clouds served their cause with regard to the albedo effect, that part is being diminished. Now they do not reflect like 79W/m2 (which is probably the only correct figure in the chart postet above) of solar radiation, but only about 44W/m2, as the IPCC states.
Finally the GHE of clouds (I know the term is wrong) will then be traded below that 44W/m2 figure, somewhere between 24 and 31W/m2. That would mean clouds not only had a cooling effect overall, but also make only a tiny contribution to the total GHE.

Reality differs from that. Getting the figures right, their albedo effect is about 79W/m2, as indicated above. Their net effect, and that is where the empirical data come into play, is positive. They doubtlessly heat the planet, rather than cooling it. So their "GHE" is above 79W/m2.

With clouds providing over 79W/m2, and with correcting emissivity by at least 30W/m2, the total GHE of about 155W/m2 vanishes. 155-79(+)-30 only leaves us with <46W7m2. It will be far less than this anyhow, But it certainly means that the GHE can not be any larger than 10°C, theoretically, as a maximum. Practically the question must be, if it even exists, and if so, it will be of marginal character.
07-01-2018 07:14
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4672)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Such mindless drivel that I can't bare to repeat it.


Is there even one thing that you could stretch your imagination to think about? Even ONE?


Whatsa matter? My answers are too irritating for you? And as usual your comeback is just insults.


The Parrot Killer
07-01-2018 07:16
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4672)
Leitwolf wrote:
I had to check a lot of details hereto. I just wanted to make sure, that some flaw in the data or my c code was not producing any garbage. In fact I found some minor issues there and there, but nothing would cause a relevant change in the result.
Then I also filtered the data by latitude. As US stations do not represent tropical areas, a restriction to a maximum latitude of 35° would at least point a finger to which direction things might be going. Interestingly the heating effect of clouds only grew stronger, though just a little bit.

What you need to imagine is this, as I can not quantify the effect of rain chill. Adding (or rather subtracting) the effect of rain chill, the chart might look something like this (keep in mind, that rain will be associated to cloudiness):



Now rain as such is not part of the radial balance of the atmosphere. Clouds are however. And of course, clouds are the one main competitor to GHGs. So the apologetic policy must be about denying that nemisis to their theory.

This is being done in multiple ways. First clouds provide the largest share of earths albedo. If it was not for that, you would never get to 255 or 254K as a "black body temperature" for earth. Rather that would be 274K. Next, although clouds served their cause with regard to the albedo effect, that part is being diminished. Now they do not reflect like 79W/m2 (which is probably the only correct figure in the chart postet above) of solar radiation, but only about 44W/m2, as the IPCC states.
Finally the GHE of clouds (I know the term is wrong) will then be traded below that 44W/m2 figure, somewhere between 24 and 31W/m2. That would mean clouds not only had a cooling effect overall, but also make only a tiny contribution to the total GHE.

Reality differs from that. Getting the figures right, their albedo effect is about 79W/m2, as indicated above. Their net effect, and that is where the empirical data come into play, is positive. They doubtlessly heat the planet, rather than cooling it. So their "GHE" is above 79W/m2.

With clouds providing over 79W/m2, and with correcting emissivity by at least 30W/m2, the total GHE of about 155W/m2 vanishes. 155-79(+)-30 only leaves us with <46W7m2. It will be far less than this anyhow, But it certainly means that the GHE can not be any larger than 10°C, theoretically, as a maximum. Practically the question must be, if it even exists, and if so, it will be of marginal character.


More random data. How many times are you going to 'adjust' this until you come up with exactly what you expect it to be?

BTW, you don't know the albedo of Earth. It's not possible to measure it.

No cloud, vapor, or gas can warm the Earth.


The Parrot Killer
07-01-2018 17:14
Wake
★★★★★
(2944)
Leitwolf wrote:
I had to check a lot of details hereto. I just wanted to make sure, that some flaw in the data or my c code was not producing any garbage. In fact I found some minor issues there and there, but nothing would cause a relevant change in the result.
Then I also filtered the data by latitude. As US stations do not represent tropical areas, a restriction to a maximum latitude of 35° would at least point a finger to which direction things might be going. Interestingly the heating effect of clouds only grew stronger, though just a little bit.

What you need to imagine is this, as I can not quantify the effect of rain chill. Adding (or rather subtracting) the effect of rain chill, the chart might look something like this (keep in mind, that rain will be associated to cloudiness):



Now rain as such is not part of the radial balance of the atmosphere. Clouds are however. And of course, clouds are the one main competitor to GHGs. So the apologetic policy must be about denying that nemisis to their theory.

This is being done in multiple ways. First clouds provide the largest share of earths albedo. If it was not for that, you would never get to 255 or 254K as a "black body temperature" for earth. Rather that would be 274K. Next, although clouds served their cause with regard to the albedo effect, that part is being diminished. Now they do not reflect like 79W/m2 (which is probably the only correct figure in the chart posted above) of solar radiation, but only about 44W/m2, as the IPCC states.
Finally the GHE of clouds (I know the term is wrong) will then be traded below that 44W/m2 figure, somewhere between 24 and 31W/m2. That would mean clouds not only had a cooling effect overall, but also make only a tiny contribution to the total GHE.

Reality differs from that. Getting the figures right, their albedo effect is about 79W/m2, as indicated above. Their net effect, and that is where the empirical data come into play, is positive. They doubtlessly heat the planet, rather than cooling it. So their "GHE" is above 79W/m2.

With clouds providing over 79W/m2, and with correcting emissivity by at least 30W/m2, the total GHE of about 155W/m2 vanishes. 155-79(+)-30 only leaves us with <46W7m2. It will be far less than this anyhow, But it certainly means that the GHE can not be any larger than 10°C, theoretically, as a maximum. Practically the question must be, if it even exists, and if so, it will be of marginal character.


I'm still struggling with what you are trying to show. Remember, the effects of high level full overcast is different from low level full overcast. And your charted implications appear to be treating all clouds whether partial or full the same.

For instance, your chart shows that no clouds are the coolest temperatures. Since this allows more sunlight to reach the ground wouldn't you think that should be close to neutral with a low level partial cloudiness and warmer than high level partial cloudiness which is an excellent reflector.

I think I'm missing the point you're trying to make.
07-01-2018 21:44
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4672)
Wake wrote:
Leitwolf wrote:
I had to check a lot of details hereto. I just wanted to make sure, that some flaw in the data or my c code was not producing any garbage. In fact I found some minor issues there and there, but nothing would cause a relevant change in the result.
Then I also filtered the data by latitude. As US stations do not represent tropical areas, a restriction to a maximum latitude of 35° would at least point a finger to which direction things might be going. Interestingly the heating effect of clouds only grew stronger, though just a little bit.

What you need to imagine is this, as I can not quantify the effect of rain chill. Adding (or rather subtracting) the effect of rain chill, the chart might look something like this (keep in mind, that rain will be associated to cloudiness):



Now rain as such is not part of the radial balance of the atmosphere. Clouds are however. And of course, clouds are the one main competitor to GHGs. So the apologetic policy must be about denying that nemisis to their theory.

This is being done in multiple ways. First clouds provide the largest share of earths albedo. If it was not for that, you would never get to 255 or 254K as a "black body temperature" for earth. Rather that would be 274K. Next, although clouds served their cause with regard to the albedo effect, that part is being diminished. Now they do not reflect like 79W/m2 (which is probably the only correct figure in the chart posted above) of solar radiation, but only about 44W/m2, as the IPCC states.
Finally the GHE of clouds (I know the term is wrong) will then be traded below that 44W/m2 figure, somewhere between 24 and 31W/m2. That would mean clouds not only had a cooling effect overall, but also make only a tiny contribution to the total GHE.

Reality differs from that. Getting the figures right, their albedo effect is about 79W/m2, as indicated above. Their net effect, and that is where the empirical data come into play, is positive. They doubtlessly heat the planet, rather than cooling it. So their "GHE" is above 79W/m2.

With clouds providing over 79W/m2, and with correcting emissivity by at least 30W/m2, the total GHE of about 155W/m2 vanishes. 155-79(+)-30 only leaves us with <46W7m2. It will be far less than this anyhow, But it certainly means that the GHE can not be any larger than 10°C, theoretically, as a maximum. Practically the question must be, if it even exists, and if so, it will be of marginal character.


I'm still struggling with what you are trying to show.



It's really very simple. He is trying to show HIS random numbers are better than YOUR random numbers.


The Parrot Killer




Join the debate Clouds and temperature:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Real Temperature Measurement of Earth2116-12-2017 02:26
Average Global Temperature of Ocean3918-11-2017 01:19
Temperature variation may be the key3627-09-2017 00:20
World Population and Annual Global temperature Since 19501026-09-2017 01:32
Measuring Mean Global Temperature.3222-09-2017 11:23
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Will Arctic summers be ice-free in this century?

Yes

No

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact