Nice video on cloud forcing

Leitwolf wrote:
I looked up the temperature record for this place, which was about 12°C on that day on average. However the video was taken in the morning, so they had to be below that average, likely <10°C.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5LovP3WN4M

The video itself is not at all about climate science or so, but just meant to show off a high quality FLIR cam. I looked that up too, and it costs well beyond 20.000 Dollars. Yet it teaches a lot on climate, or should I say the GHE, and what is totally wrong with it.

The opaque clouds here easily have 5°C, which means they will shine as much radiation downward as the surface would emit upward. The FLIR cam of course does not measure temperature, but LWIR radiation, regardless of the source. So it could be emitted or reflected, we do not know.

But with clouds like these sending that much radiation downward, essentially as much as the surface emits, we can make an assessment on total cloud forcing, by simply assuming an average cloud coverage. If the sky was covered by 30%, we might assume 390W/m2 * 0.3 = 117W/m2 of cloud forcing.

Now that is just guessing, but any reasonable percentage for average cloud cover, will give you a massive result for cloud forcing. But that observation stands in stark contrast to the GHE as it is usually understood. The IPCC for instance says cloud forcing was only 30W/m2, out of a total GHE of 150W/m2. Clouds then would account for only 20% of the GHE. But that is impossibly true.

For the reasons named, cloud forcing will easily be in the 100W/m2+ region, which means it constitutes for most of the "GHE", rather than any "GHGs". Next the GHE is not quite that large in the first place, as surface emissivity is somewhat smaller than 1. Realistically emissivity is about 0.92, which at given temperatures means 360W/m2 (rather than 390) vs. 240W/m2 of solar input. So the GHE is just 120W/m2 rather than 150W/m2.

Cloud forcing does account for almost all of the 120W/m2, which destroys the GHE theory completely.