Clouds are warming Earth, not (so much) GHGs

Into the Night wrote:
There is no such thing as 'net flow' of heat.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
There is no such thing as 'net flow' of heat.

This is false. You made it up!

Into the Night wrote:There is no such thing as a 'net flow' of heat. YOU made THAT up.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:There is no such thing as a 'net flow' of heat. YOU made THAT up.

Nope I just learned about it. From text books. (not your oral tradition of a guy on the street).

I got for NET FLOW: TWELVE REFERENCES CITED

ITN/IBD: nothing

Into the Night wrote:
There is no such thing as 'net heat flow'. RDCF.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
There is no such thing as 'net heat flow'. RDCF.

You love to get cute and switch the terms around.

tmiddles wrote:
HEAT is the RESULT of the NET FLOW of THERMAL ENERGY.
[quote]tmiddles wrote:
THERMAL ENERGY does have a NET FLOW, which is called HEAT when it's not in equilibrium.

Leitwolf wrote:
Well, sorry to keep you waiting

Actually I am not really into the discussion on this board, because, well, it is way too stupid. Rather I am abusing this board as a log to document some evolutionary moments of my research. Well...

Leitwolf wrote:
Why do the records show that positive correlation between clouds and temperature?

Leitwolf wrote:
Graph 3:

Leitwolf wrote: Actually I am not really into the discussion on this board, because, well, it is way too stupid.

Leitwolf wrote:Why do the records show that positive correlation between clouds and temperature?

I believe that you should see a correlation between colder air flowing into a region and a decrease in the average temperature for that region.

I believe that you should see a correlation between warmer air flowing into a region and an increase in the average temperature for that region.

I firmly believe that if colder air brings clouds into a region then you will see a correlation between increased clouds and colder temperatures in that region.

I firmly believe that if warmer air brings clouds into a region then you will see a correlation between increased clouds and warmer temperatures in that region.

Leitwolf wrote:...the discussion on this board...is way too stupid....using this board as a log to document ...my research....

Leitwolf wrote:
As named before, an Earth that is actually warmed by clouds has little scope for explicit GHGs and whole theory of a GHG induced GHE is largely jeopardized by the facts named here.

Of course, as named before, we have that nasty little issue of rain bias, which both affects temperatures as well as humidity. As a probe to reduce this bias we start with all records included and then drop off those records with rain. Since rain, once it has fallen, has lasting effects we do not stop there and progessively increase the records we omit. Graph 2 shows the consecutive number of records dropped and how that affects average temperatures given cloud situation.

tmiddles wrote:

Leitwolf wrote:...the discussion on this board...is way too stupid....using this board as a log to document ...my research....

That is an excellent use of what remains a highly ranked board on google and I really enjoy your posts. And "way too stupid" has had a shocking influence on world events so ignore it at your peril! : )

Leitwolf wrote:
As named before, an Earth that is actually warmed by clouds has little scope for explicit GHGs and whole theory of a GHG induced GHE is largely jeopardized by the facts named here.

So what I understand is you're saying that if you keep things apples to apples: about the same humidity, no rain, comparing clear to cloudy it's much warmer when cloudy. Why would this call the GHE into question? Isn't it a GHE? I didn't understand "little scope", or maybe I do.

In my attempt to summarize the going theory:GHE effect theory topic
Clouds would seem to be ignored. So are you saying they are the dominant factor and therefore the transitional theory, which ignores them, is grossly overstating the rest of it?

Leitwolf wrote:
As named before, an Earth that is actually warmed by clouds has little scope for explicit GHGs and whole theory of a GHG induced GHE is largely jeopardized by the facts named here.

Leitwolf wrote:

Leitwolf wrote:
As named before, an Earth that is actually warmed by clouds has little scope for explicit GHGs and whole theory of a GHG induced GHE is largely jeopardized by the facts named here.

So what I understand is you're saying that if you keep things apples to apples: about the same humidity, no rain, comparing clear to cloudy it's much warmer when cloudy. Why would this call the GHE into question? Isn't it a GHE? I didn't understand "little scope", or maybe I do.

In my attempt to summarize the going theory:GHE effect theory topic
Clouds would seem to be ignored. So are you saying they are the dominant factor and therefore the transitional theory, which ignores them, is grossly overstating the rest of it?

What one considers to be a "GHE" is of course a matter of definition, but there are a lot of issues.
1. Actual greenhouses do not have a greenhouse effect as such. They heat up largely due to eliminating convection with windows shut, just like a car in the sun. The atmosphere does not and can not work that way.
2. The concept of a GHE by "back radiation" will not work either, for reasons named above.
3. There is a mechanism that actually works (Photosphere, adiabatic lapse rate..), but calling this a GHE is very odd. Yet we stick with this terminology.
4. Then the implicit idea of the GHE is there were GHGs which explicitly heat up a planet, which would otherwise be much colder. Clouds do not really fit this concept, because a) it is (wrongly) believed they would cool the planet over all (more negative than positive forcing), which by definition would make them an anti-greenhouse factor. And b) even if we accept the opposite is true, clouds just marginally have a stronger positive than negative forcing, and both are interconnected. Calling this a "GHE" is difficult.

Let us remember what the GHG induced GHE theory is based on: clouds would reflect about 70W/m2 of solar radiation (included in total albedo), but would not retain any LWIR going out. That would only be done by GHGs. Occasionally it would be conceded that clouds indeed reduce LWIR emissions, but they would assign a ridiculously low figure, like 31W/m2 (IPCC 1.AR) and yet forget about it right away and still claim GHGs were exclusively responsible..

But with clouds actually warming the planet in total, their positive forcing must outweigh their negative forcing of about 70W/m2. Let us assume some 90W/m2. This shoves off 90W/m2 of a GHE of only 150W/m2. If we furthermore allow for real surface emissivity he have to deduct another 35W/m2, leaving just a remainder of about 25W/m2 that can be attributed to GHGs. That is very little.

Leitwolf wrote:
Ok, I guess this is another interesting detail. I just developed procedures to read out and categorize the altitude of reported clouds. It is a piece of information that I omitted so far for simplicity, but finally I was way too curious. I was surprised to learn there actually are some records reporting clouds well above 12.000ft. However, the policy is not to do so, and so the amount of data is quite thin in this regard. Anyhow..

More important is the basic problem, that we believe (not just me) that clouds will have more positive forcing the higher up they are. Due this the ceiling of 12.000ft will necessarily make clouds look colder than they are. Or to be more accurate, it makes cloudless skies look warmer than they are. I mean an OVC sky is an OVC sky, regardless how far the clouds may reach up. CLR skies however can actually be OVC above 12.000ft, and yet be reported as CLR. The logic suggests, that these high clouds come with very high temperatures and thus strongly distort the statistic.

For that reason reading both reported altitude of clouds in OVC scenarios and plotting them against average temperatures should give some revealing answers.

Chart1 gives the data for the total sample (2000 stations 2016 + 2017). Note: data quality is only good up to 12(.000ft). Above that only few data points show a small, but reasonable sample size (like 15, 20, 25..), which is indicated by grey scale.

As we can see, the higher up the reported cloud cover is, the higher the temperature, confirming what has been said before. However we may have a strong latitude bias. The warmer it is, the higher the troposphere and thus clouds may reach higher as well. For this reason Chart2 only shows stations located at <35° latitude.

And finally Chart3 restricts the analysis to tropical stations only.

As we can see, all charts show a strong positive correlation between cloud altitude and temperature, confirming that clouds indeed show even more warming at higher altitudes. Given that these data generally omit high altitude clouds, with few exceptions only, we definitely have a strong bias undererstimating the total warming by clouds.

Chart1:

HarveyH55 wrote:As temperatures rise, more water, and more cooling.

Leitwolf wrote:
2. The concept of a GHE by "back radiation" will not work either, for reasons named above.

Leitwolf wrote:
...GHE theory is ...clouds would ...would not retain any LWIR going out...

Leitwolf wrote:...with clouds actually warming the planet...a remainder of about 25W/m2 that can be attributed to GHGs. That is very little.

Leitwolf wrote:
...clouds indeed show even more warming at higher altitudes.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Have you considered wind?

tmiddles wrote: By that logic wouldn't areas of the globe with a lot of rain fall be consistently cooler than those without a lot of rain fall?

tmiddles wrote: Yet that is not the case.

tmiddles wrote: Water and water vapor allow thermal energy to move, they don't destroy it. So having thermal energy moving around in the atmosphere with the aid of water vapor doesn't mean that the Earth will be cooled overall.

tmiddles wrote: So I'm following that this is the very interesting part. The more clouds do the less there is for CO2 to do.

tmiddles wrote:

Leitwolf wrote:
2. The concept of a GHE by "back radiation" will not work either, for reasons named above.

Apologies I missed that bit, and it certainly is worth a bit of elaboration since "back radiation" is a hot issue.

tmiddles wrote:

Leitwolf wrote:
...GHE theory is ...clouds would ...would not retain any LWIR going out...

What?? I was under the impression clouds are water vapor and that water vapor is the #1 greenhouse gas.

tmiddles wrote:

Leitwolf wrote:...with clouds actually warming the planet...a remainder of about 25W/m2 that can be attributed to GHGs. That is very little.

So I'm following that this is the very interesting part. The more clouds do the less there is for CO2 to do. Looking at Earth from space you see a lot of clouds. I don't understand how they factor so little into the equation so this is compelling.

tmiddles wrote:

Leitwolf wrote:
...clouds indeed show even more warming at higher altitudes.

So why would that be? I swear I read everything and it mostly makes sense I'm just missing why higher clouds would cause more warming than low ones.

tmiddles wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Have you considered wind?

If another factor like wind was independent of the cloud variable then in the long run (with enough samples) it would be factored out. The thing that could cause a false conclusion is if they correlate for some reason. But Leitwolf is all over removing possible other factors (like latitude for example).

So I'm following that this is the very interesting part. The more clouds do the less there is for CO2 to do. Looking at Earth from space you see a lot of clouds. I don't understand how they factor so little into the equation so this is compelling.

So why would that be? I swear I read everything and it mostly makes sense I'm just missing why higher clouds would cause more warming than low ones.

Leitwolf wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUFOuoD3aHw

The latter one is basically correct and also does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

IBdaMann wrote:
So you are saying that areas of the globe with a lot of rainfall have their thermal energy moved away ...

Leitwolf wrote:...the adiabatic lapse rate...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUFOuoD3aHw

Leitwolf wrote:The latter one is basically correct and also does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Leitwolf wrote:the higher the cloud, the more it raises the photosphere. Period.

IBdaMann wrote:
... the video. He's wrong. 1) ...a religious sermon. 2) Tthe earth's and the moon's average temp...No human does. 4) pretending the atmosphere is a second heat source 5) ...warmizombies 6) ...There are no points in which the temperature increases as you increase in altitude. 7)...It is a Church sermon

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
So you are saying that areas of the globe with a lot of rainfall have their thermal energy moved away ...

Wha?

Equator = Direct sun, Poles = glancing blow. So the equator is hotter. Now the equator also has a lot of rain so the two certainly don't correlate.
http://www.enviropedia.org.uk/Climate/Rainfall_Patterns.php
"The highest rainfall totals occur near the equator in the tropics,"

Now while all that rain may be DUE to the higher temperatures it's safe to say the rain does not actual cool off the tropics too successfully.

Leitwolf wrote:...the adiabatic lapse rate...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUFOuoD3aHw

Really great video! But as you say it does actually include both theories and points out that there is no violation of the 2nd LTD with back radiation.

Leitwolf wrote:The latter one is basically correct and also does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

You imply that back radiance DOES violate the 2nd LTD. Are you saying you think radiance from a cooler object cannot be absorbed by a warmer one? That's certainly not something to skip over.
See at 6:05 as he explains that Back Radiation "...by this mechanism you can actually make the surface of the Earth heat up much more...we haven't broken any laws of physics to do this, various people will say that this breaks the 2nd LTD it really doesn't, you can see all the heat flow here it's always heat is flowing from hotter things to cooler things..."

Leitwolf wrote:the higher the cloud, the more it raises the photosphere. Period.

So in thinking on that I'm wondering is isn't it really the amount of matter available to exchange thermal energy freely that lies below the photosphere that matters? Of course for Earth the density of the atmosphere isn't going to change but you can compare Earth to Venus. So a higher cloud helps "envelope" more gas below the photosphere so there's more thermal storage?

My understanding of the photosphere is is the leap off point for radiance to space. So anything below it is playing hot potato.

IBdaMann wrote:
... the video. He's wrong. 1) ...a religious sermon. 2) Tthe earth's and the moon's average temp...No human does. 4) pretending the atmosphere is a second heat source 5) ...warmizombies 6) ...There are no points in which the temperature increases as you increase in altitude. 7)...It is a Church sermon

Well it's a Church sermon succesfully gobling up your tax money and ruling over you so get a better argument against it.

Pretending we don't know that the Earth is warmer than the Moon is a waste of time so have at it. Radiance is not heat, it isn't even thermal energy, it's light, so saying that radiance is raining down from the gases above us is NOT saying it's a heat source. First of all "Heat source" would have to mean those gases gave more than they took, since heat is the NET FLOW of thermal energy, and they don't. They simply throw a fraction of what they get back.

Into the Night wrote:
...There is no such thing as 'net heat flow'.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
...There is no such thing as 'net heat flow'.

No there is NET FLOW OF THERMAL ENERGY which is what HEAT is. Stop being dishonest by rewording what I said. Who exactly are you quoting there?

"heat is the NET FLOW of thermal energy, " is what I said. Get it right.

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
...There is no such thing as 'net heat flow'.

No there is NET FLOW OF THERMAL ENERGY which is what HEAT is. Stop being dishonest by rewording what I said. Who exactly are you quoting there?

"heat is the NET FLOW of thermal energy, " is what I said. Get it right.

No such thing as 'net flow of heat'.

RDCF. RQAA.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
...There is no such thing as 'net heat flow'.

No there is NET FLOW OF THERMAL ENERGY which is what HEAT is. Stop being dishonest by rewording what I said. Who exactly are you quoting there?

"heat is the NET FLOW of thermal energy, " is what I said. Get it right.

No such thing as 'net flow of heat'.

RDCF. RQAA.

You are quoting yourself.

I said "NET FLOW OF THERMAL ENERGY"

Into the Night wrote:
The flow of thermal energy is called 'heat'. There is no such thing as 'net flow' of heat.

tmiddles wrote: the heat I'm generating is 100 watts.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
The flow of thermal energy is called 'heat'. There is no such thing as 'net flow' of heat.

The ABSOLUTELY IS a NET FLOW OF THERMAL ENERGY though. Heat is the difference.

tmiddles wrote:
So if I'm in a room and I give up 700 watts and absorb only 600 watts, the net flow of thermal energy is 100 watts out of my body. I am a heat source to the room and the heat I'm generating is 100 watts.

Into the Night wrote:
Redefinition fallacy (heat<->thermal energy, power<->thermal energy).

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
The flow of thermal energy is called 'heat'. There is no such thing as 'net flow' of heat.

The ABSOLUTELY IS a NET FLOW OF THERMAL ENERGY though. Heat is the difference.

Redefinition fallacy (heat<->thermal energy). RDCF. There is no such thing as 'net heat'.
.