Remember me
▼ Content

Clouds are warming Earth, not (so much) GHGs



Page 2 of 2<12
06-11-2019 23:32
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1384)
Into the Night wrote:
There is no such thing as 'net flow' of heat.

This is false. You made it up!

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
Edited on 06-11-2019 23:32
06-11-2019 23:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9807)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
There is no such thing as 'net flow' of heat.

This is false. You made it up!


No, I did not make it up. There is no such thing as a 'net flow' of heat. YOU made THAT up. Inversion fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
07-11-2019 04:18
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1384)
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

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
07-11-2019 08:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9807)
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


There is no such thing as 'net heat flow'. RDCF.


The Parrot Killer
08-11-2019 12:50
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1384)
Into the Night wrote:
There is no such thing as 'net heat flow'. RDCF.

You love to get cute and switch the terms around. HEAT is the RESULT of the NET FLOW of THERMAL ENERGY. THERMAL ENERGY does have a NET FLOW, which is called HEAT when it's not in equilibrium.


"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
08-11-2019 19:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9807)
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.

No, that would be you. That's why you are in multiple paradoxes. RDCF.
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.

Nope. There is no such thing as 'net flow'.


The Parrot Killer
09-11-2019 17:07
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(96)
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...

Why do the records show that positive correlation between clouds and temperature? Of course that is exactly what is to be expected, since clouds must be warming in theory. But still, correlation does not mean causation, and one could deny both the theory as well as the empiric evidence.

The most logical objection would be to say that clouds are positively correlated to humidity (or vapor) and thus the named positive correlation in temperature was actually due to the co-correlated vapor, rather than clouds themselves. To check this, we should probably have a look at humidity too.

Indeed cloudiness and humidity are positively correlated. The more clouds there are, the higher relative humidity (Graph 1).

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.

As we can see, temperatures progessively increase with cloudy scenarios as the rain chill bias is getting reduced. However the strongest impact comes from the first two records.

With clear skies it is a little different. Even though "CLR" is by far the coldest cloud condition to start with, eliminating rainy records (of which there are not many) shows a minimal increase in temperature with the original rain event, but then temperatures drop even further. So there are actually two things going against each other. As with the other series eliminating rain events has the strongest effect with records one and two. Then however the elimination of "hidden" or simply unreported cloudiness (due to the 12.000ft ceiling) purifies the data and shows that real "CLR" skies are statistically even colder.

How about rel. humidity as a proxy for the concentration of assumed super-GHG vapor? Unsurprisingly cloudiness and humidity are positively correlated. CLR skies show average humidity of 73.5%, while OVC has an average 83%. So one could argue it were actually not clouds increasing surface temperatures, but rather the correlated vapor. At the same time we know that rain will increase rel. humidity, and again rain is correlated to clouds as well.

Graph 3 finally should answer most of these questions. By eliminating rainy records humidity drops off sharply. While the complete data set shows a difference of 10 percentage points between CLR and OVC, this delta shrinks to about 3 percentage points only excluding the rain bias.

This little delta in vapor however is not sufficient to explain the significantly warmer temperatures we see with clouds over clear skies (Note that GHGs have "diminishing returns" with regard to their "greenhouse forcing". For example, if we assumed vapor would cause a "GHE" of 20K, a 5% increase would not yield another 1K in temperature, but rather a meagre 0.1-0.2K). Thus we can rule out vapor as a cause and have to conclude it are indeed clouds themselves responsible for the positive cloud/temperature correlation.

With low, tropical clouds warming the planet (the kind that was supposed to have the strongest negative forcing!), we actually see just the tip of the iceberg. Even though I do not try to quantify the magnitude of positive global cloud forcing, it is obvious it will be even larger both in higher altitudes and latitudes.

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.

PS. Sorry for the plain vanilla Excel charts. I did not take the time to decorate them..
Attached image:

09-11-2019 17:08
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(96)
Graph 2:
Attached image:

09-11-2019 17:08
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(96)
Graph 3:
Attached image:

09-11-2019 20:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9807)
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...

All this means is that you are not here to discuss anything. You are here to preach your religion.
Leitwolf wrote:
Why do the records show that positive correlation between clouds and temperature?

They don't. You are leaping to conclusions. That's a fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
09-11-2019 20:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9807)
Leitwolf wrote:
Graph 3:


All of your graphs are based on random numbers. You are not able to see what the temperature at any location would have been had the clouds not been there under the same conditions.

You are also reversing cause and effect. Are you measuring the effect of clouds, or the conditions in the air that are conducive to cloud formation?


The Parrot Killer
09-11-2019 20:37
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5011)
Leitwolf wrote: Actually I am not really into the discussion on this board, because, well, it is way too stupid.

It wouldn't be if you wouldn't make it such.

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

If you could somehow learn that "correlation" is not "causation" then you might be able to discern what is the cause and what is the effect without getting the two reversed.

I have a theory. Tell me what you think.

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.


Do you agree or disagree?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate Clouds are warming Earth, not (so much) GHGs:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Experts reveal that clouds have moderated warming triggered by climate change1006-11-2019 23:54
High CO2 levels can destabilize marine layer clouds106-03-2019 22:01
High carbon dioxide could suppress cooling clouds, climate change model warns127-02-2019 20:54
Clouds and temperature3601-02-2018 20:48
Clouds and nocturnal cooling2801-05-2017 01:23
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact