Remember me
▼ Content

Clouds are warming Earth, not (so much) GHGs


Clouds are warming Earth, not (so much) GHGs15-08-2019 19:19
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(91)
This is sweet.

Ok, already posted this basic chart showing the observed temperature correlation between (reported) cloud condition and temperature from tropical NOAA stations. The data show there is NO NEGATIVE correlation at all, suggesting low clouds in the tropics have no cooling effect.

Furthermore I was speculating there must be a rain chill bias in the data, masking an otherwise (strong) positive correlation between low tropical clouds and temperatures.

Defining this rain chill bias precisely is beyond my means. However what I could do is a simple approach to outline the basic tendency. So what happens if we just skip all the records reporting some rain event and the upcoming reporting there after.

As we can see this is making cloudy conditions even warmer (as expected) and makes clear conditions rather cooler (surprisingly, probably some seasonal bias). As imperfect this approach may be, it clearly shows an overall positive correlation between low tropical clouds and observed temperature, right in the empiric data.

So if even low tropical clouds are warming (and they are supposed to have the strongest negative (or cooling) effect, we can definitely say clouds are warming the planet.

With clouds warming the planet, rather than GHGs, the GHE is definitely falsified by empiric evidence.
Attached image:


Edited on 15-08-2019 19:20
15-08-2019 19:21
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(91)
And here is the second chart..
Attached image:

15-08-2019 19:44
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
Leitwolf wrote: And here is the second chart..

I have a theory.

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.

I don't have any valid datasets handy so I don't expect many to accept my theory on face value right away but I'm working on fine-tuning my theory to, hope beyond hope, one-day compete with James'__ theory.


.


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
15-08-2019 23:25
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
Leitwolf wrote:
So if even low tropical clouds are warming (and they are supposed to have the strongest negative (or cooling) effect, we can definitely say clouds are warming the planet.

With clouds warming the planet, rather than GHGs, the GHE is definitely falsified by empiric evidence.


I believe water vapor at 0-4%, as compared to CO2 at 0.04%, is the dominant gas in absorbing infrared. Clouds are water vapor right?

But I'm fuzzy on this whole post cause don't clouds make shade : ) yes I know that sounds dumb but I'm putting it out there.

Also the emissivity/absorptivity of clouds is generally lower.

If I'm not mistaken your post is about a contradiction with what is claimed? Where are the claims that are being contradicted?
16-08-2019 01:20
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1346)
I really am not getting the charts. I live in Florida, and it really seems to work the opposite. The summer months are termed 'rainy' season, hurricane season. During the day, the land warms up, air over the gulf of mexico (west), and over the Atlantic Ocean (east), pick up a lot of water vapor. In the afternoon/evening, pretty much every day, the water saturated air from the gulf, and from the Atlantic move inland. Where these two water saturated masses of air collide, we get rain, usually torrential rain (doesn't last long). We also get some severe weather, strong thunderstorms (lightning capital of the world), occasionally tornadoes. It gets hot during the day mid 90s, into triple digits. With the clouds rolling in, the rain, the temperature drops considerably, sweet relief, sort of. Humidity still makes it sweaty. Thermometer reads about 10 degrees lower, than the day time high, before the storms.

Even with out the rain or storms, there is most definitely a temperature difference, when isolated clouds block the sun, like stepping into a shady place. Warms right back up, after it passes too. I've never been inclined to make any measurements, to find out precisely how much cooler it actually is during the brief cloud passing. Usually, more focused on using that time to move my dog to the next shady place down the sidewalk, before the sun comes back out. Dog never really understood what I was doing, seldom cooperated much.
16-08-2019 04:18
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(91)
Well, the data are the data and they do not lie. Neither do I.

People have multiple issues with understanding clouds. Let me name a few..

1. People confuse temperature with radiation. If you are lying in the sun and a small clouds covers the sun for a moment, you feel like it is getting colder right away. However, no thermometer could measure any drop in temperature, for the period is far too short. What you feel is the absence of solar radiation on your skin, not a drop in environmental temperature.

2. This is almost a joke, but very true. People usually can only imagine the impact of clouds on a hot summer day. Reality has it, that we have nights as well and 3 more seasons. A little hint: aren't clear nights known to be cold?

3. People do not even understand the GHE as a concept, and believe it was a matter of radiation balance. This is fundamentally wrong and all it tells eventually, is that radiation will be balanced. It is like assuming as the balance sheet is balanced everything is fine, despite a cooperation is close to bankruptcy.

The more radiation, the hotter it is, and the hotter is, the more radiation. Just like the egg-chicken problem, it can not explain why a certain temperature/radiation level even exists. It is tautology.

The correct approach always will include the adiabatic lapse rate. With that you can picture a very consistent and also well accepted GHE, I mean accepted by apologetics. GHG then will simply move the photosphere (from LWIR is effectively emitted) higher up the atmosphere, which leads to higher temperatures below due to the adiabatic lapse rate. Just listen to Prof Merrifield in this video..

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

Note: this GHE concept does not require any "back radiation", or radiation balance, as both are totally irrelevant.

4. Despite this concept being fundamentally right, it should become obvious how clouds can only warm the planet, as they push up the photosphere very effectively, much more effectively btw. than GHG could. With this theoretic foundation in mind I had to look up the empiric data, because I had a very good idea on what I would find. And indeed the empiric data are totally in line with the theory.
16-08-2019 04:43
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
tmiddles wrote:I believe water vapor at 0-4%, as compared to CO2 at 0.04%, is the dominant gas in absorbing infrared.

... and you know this begs the question "so what ?"

tmiddles wrote: Clouds are water vapor right?

I sense a discussion with Into the Night is forthcoming.

tmiddles wrote:Also the emissivity/absorptivity of clouds is generally lower.

... which, of course, begs the question "so what ?"


.


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
16-08-2019 04:47
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
IBdaMann wrote:
"so what ?"
.


I was checking my own understanding that's what : D

Leitwolf wrote:
People have multiple issues with understanding clouds.


Leitwolf really excellent post. Totally see how my "sense" of things can be way off.

I still have to really dig into everything you presented including the video.
16-08-2019 11:15
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
Leitwolf wrote:
What you feel is the absence of solar radiation on your skin, not a drop in environmental temperature.
hint: aren't clear nights known to be cold?


Excellent points clear nights are a lot colder. It's odd to think of clouds as warm.

Leitwolf wrote: radiation balance. ...It is like assuming as the balance sheet is balanced everything is fine, despite a corporation is close to bankruptcy.


OK I think I'm following but don't love that analogy as it implies a tipping point death spiral instead of a "new normal".
You mean that there is a false reassurance in things being thermodynamically balanced since things are always thermodynamically balanced that is a given? What is important is where things balance out right?

Leitwolf wrote:
The more radiation, the hotter it is, and the hotter is, the more radiation. .... It is tautology.


And it sounds like you're saying radiation is being created when it's put that way. It invites confusion and a charge that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is being violated.

Leitwolf wrote:
The correct approach always will include the adiabatic lapse rate. With that you can picture a very consistent and also well accepted GHE, ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUFOuoD3aHw


Watched the video and understand the "adiabatic lapse rate" being the drop going up or increase going down per km. So the video really just describes a conventional greenhouse effect from AN atmosphere. He very briefly mentions the "controversial" bit of the "anthropogenic global warming".

I also love the bit about noticing pressurize air being hot for a bicycle pump.

Leitwolf wrote:
Note: this GHE concept does not require any "back radiation", or radiation balance, as both are totally irrelevant.


But what I think got totally confused/missed was air pressure. He sort of implies that more greenhouse gases would make for a higher level at which radiance can finally escape but he doesn't address that you could have more greenhouse gases/water vapor with very little change to the mass of the atmosphere.

I'm pretty sure that burning hydro carbons to generate CO2, based on the chemistry, actually makes the atmosphere less massive. While he wasn't getting into that it's an obvious assumption from his presentation that "adding CO2" would raise the adiabatic level. However my natural assumption from his description was that the mass of the atmosphere was the most important part of that whole system.

The video really makes the point that as gas expands it cools. This would be a function of mass/volume right? Yet the effect greenhouse gasses might NOT have on mass is not address by him. (my confusion/doubt being very influenced by the Huffman research from the earlier Venus thread where he finds it's all about air pressure: Huffman arguments in Venus thread)

Leitwolf wrote:clouds can only warm the planet, as they push up the photosphere


OK I'm pretty sure clouds weren't in the video. I'm not following this last bit.
Edited on 16-08-2019 11:20
16-08-2019 11:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
Since it is not possible to determine what the temperature would have been had the cloud not been there in the first place, you are leaping to a conclusion with insufficient data.
16-08-2019 11:38
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
Into the Night wrote:insufficient data.


You mean in concluding that clouds make it warmer?

Isn't this stuff they can do in a lab? (serious question, it's been frustrating me)
16-08-2019 11:39
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
tmiddles wrote:
Leitwolf wrote:
So if even low tropical clouds are warming (and they are supposed to have the strongest negative (or cooling) effect, we can definitely say clouds are warming the planet.

With clouds warming the planet, rather than GHGs, the GHE is definitely falsified by empiric evidence.


I believe water vapor at 0-4%, as compared to CO2 at 0.04%, is the dominant gas in absorbing infrared. Clouds are water vapor right?

No. Clouds are liquid water, not vapor. They may even be ice.
Clouds of liquid water have a definite 'edge' to them. Clouds of ice have a somewhat indistinct 'edge' (such as cirrus clouds) or the anvil of a thunderstorm.
tmiddles wrote:
But I'm fuzzy on this whole post cause don't clouds make shade : ) yes I know that sounds dumb but I'm putting it out there.

They may actually eliminate shade since they may scatter light They also reduce the total available light striking the surface beneath them since a cloud is absorbing some of that energy.
tmiddles wrote:
Also the emissivity/absorptivity of clouds is generally lower.

The emissivity of a cloud is unknown.


The Parrot Killer
16-08-2019 15:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:insufficient data.


You mean in concluding that clouds make it warmer?

Isn't this stuff they can do in a lab? (serious question, it's been frustrating me)


We have no idea if clouds have any affect at all. There is no way to see what the temperature would have been if the cloud had not been there.

There is no way to recreate the weather in the atmosphere in a lab. The Earth is the only lab there is. We can't just move clouds around at will.

Cloudy days can be quite cold. If you'll recall winter, they tend to have more cloudy days. Cloudy days can be quite warm. The hazy overcast days can be quite common, especially in some areas.

Warmer air can hold more water vapor than colder air, but clouds will not condense until the air cools enough to cause that to happen. How close is that to happening? That's what the dew point you see in the weather reports is all about. Another way of expressing the dew point is as a percentage (humidity). A cloud will only form at 100% humidity. In other words, a cloud will form when the amount of water vapor in the air is at the highest it can reach at that temperature. 50% humidity in air at 50 deg F is a different amount of water vapor in the air than 50% humidity in air at 70 deg F.

These graphs don't show anything, because they are assuming conditions in the air only change because of the cloud cover from one day to the next. In other words, they are looking at the result as the cause.


The Parrot Killer
16-08-2019 15:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
tmiddles wrote: You mean in concluding that clouds make it warmer?


You are being manipulated. Are you smart enough to tell the difference between "cause" and "effect"?

Do clouds cause warmer temperatures or do warmer temperatures cause clouds?

Do clouds cause cooler temperatures or do cooler temperatures cause clouds?

From my previous post:

IBDaMann wrote:I have a theory.

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.



What do you think of my theory? Does it have any weaknesses? ... any logical chinks in the armor?

Yes, they can simulate all this in a lab.


.


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
16-08-2019 16:05
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
Leitwolf wrote:
Well, the data are the data

What data?
Leitwolf wrote:
and they do not lie.

There is no data.
Leitwolf wrote:
Neither do I.

Yes you do. You are lying to yourself. You are also lying that there is data.
Leitwolf wrote:
People have multiple issues with understanding clouds. Let me name a few..

I already know your religion, but it is only a sect of the Church of Global Warming. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.
Leitwolf wrote:
1. People confuse temperature with radiation.

In this example, this would be you.
Leitwolf wrote:
If you are lying in the sun and a small clouds covers the sun for a moment, you feel like it is getting colder right away.

That is because your skin is getting colder right away.
Leitwolf wrote:
However, no thermometer could measure any drop in temperature, for the period is far too short.

Thermometers have not set time delay. A fast reacting thermometer WILL record a drop in the temperature of your skin.
Leitwolf wrote:
What you feel is the absence of solar radiation on your skin, not a drop in environmental temperature.

Environmental temperature is not the temperature of your skin. Without the sunlight, you skin will tend toward the environmental temperature, which is cooler.
Leitwolf wrote:
2. This is almost a joke, but very true. People usually can only imagine the impact of clouds on a hot summer day. Reality has it, that we have nights as well and 3 more seasons. A little hint: aren't clear nights known to be cold?

No. Clear nights can be quite warm and they can be quite cold.
Leitwolf wrote:
3. People do not even understand the GHE as a concept, and believe it was a matter of radiation balance. This is fundamentally wrong and all it tells eventually, is that radiation will be balanced. It is like assuming as the balance sheet is balanced everything is fine, despite a cooperation is close to bankruptcy.

There is no money involved, I assure you. The weather simply does what it does. No one has to pay it.
Leitwolf wrote:
The more radiation, the hotter it is,

WRONG. ONLY the radiation that is absorbed AND converted to thermal energy makes things hotter. Not all light is converted into thermal energy upon absorption. It may be converted into chemical energy, such as photosynthesis, or the electrochemical reaction that makes your own retinas work.
Leitwolf wrote:
and the hotter is, the more radiation.

This is true only for blackbody radiance. It is not the only way to create light.
Leitwolf wrote:
Just like the egg-chicken problem, it can not explain why a certain temperature/radiation level even exists. It is tautology.

No. It is the effect of mass, which is essentially a thermal inertia.
Leitwolf wrote:
The correct approach always will include the adiabatic lapse rate.

WRONG. There are quite commonly places in the atmosphere that cool at a rate greater than the adiabatic lapse rate. We had one pass over us last night. It put out golf ball sized hail. In Seattle, the lapse rate is often much less than adiabatic, and often can even form temperature inversions, especially in summer. Any particulates, haze, etc. can get trapped at low levels this way and make it quite difficult to see. Fly above it though (usually on 3-5000 ft), and it's clear skies.
Leitwolf wrote:
With that you can picture a very consistent and also well accepted GHE,

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.
Leitwolf wrote:
I mean accepted by apologetics. GHG then will simply move the photosphere (from LWIR is effectively emitted) higher up the atmosphere, which leads to higher temperatures below due to the adiabatic lapse rate. Just listen to Prof Merrifield in this video..
...deleted Holy Video...

No need. Any professor, 'scientist', or anyone else that denies the 2nd law of thermodynamics is no one to bother listening to.

* You can't decrease entropy in any system

Leitwolf wrote:
Note: this GHE concept does not require any "back radiation", or radiation balance, as both are totally irrelevant.


* You can't decrease entropy in any system.
Leitwolf wrote:
4. Despite this concept being fundamentally right, it should become obvious how clouds can only warm the planet,


* You can't decrease entropy in any system.
Leitwolf wrote:
as they push up the photosphere very effectively, much more effectively btw. than GHG could. With this theoretic foundation in mind I had to look up the empiric data,

There is no data.
* You can't decrease entropy in any system.
Leitwolf wrote:
because I had a very good idea on what I would find.

Of course you do. You deliberately search out crap published by your particular sect of the Church of Global Warming.
Leitwolf wrote:
And indeed the empiric data are totally in line with the theory.

There is no data. No theory of science can conflict with any other theory of science (external consistency check).

* You can't decrease entropy in any system.
* You can't create energy out of nothing.
* You can't destroy energy into nothing.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 16-08-2019 16:06




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 change328-03-2019 01:34
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