tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post8454583184594543073..comments2024-03-11T04:54:26.827-07:00Comments on THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Paper shows climate models underestimate cooling effect from clouds by a factor of 4Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-48045549080029130502011-07-10T16:53:24.118-07:002011-07-10T16:53:24.118-07:00I'm sticking with the original title, awkward ...I'm sticking with the original title, awkward as it may be. <br /><br />The paper clearly states that climate models consider the feedback from clouds to be negligible - i.e. essentially zero - whereas observations confirm that it is indeed a negative feedback (cooling) that is "suppressed ... by a factor of four."<br /><br />This paper was published almost 1 1/2 years ago. Where is the outrage from the climate "science" community that the models do not reflect reality (data)? Once again, it is non-existent, because to do so would challenge the alleged "consensus" and funding trough.<br /><br />Not only are climate scientists not embarrassed about this major oversight, they don't bother to do a very simple tweak on CO2 sensitivity to make the models at least appear to agree with the data:<br /><br />http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/05/most-widely-used-climate-computer-model.html<br /><br />Agree with you as to thermodynamic equilibrium, however, the models say LESS energy will be emitted to cause global warming, whereas satellite observations again show the opposite:<br /><br />http://trainradio.blogspot.com/2011/07/professor-richard-lindzen-on-global.htmlMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-29429378663232132742011-07-10T11:33:06.076-07:002011-07-10T11:33:06.076-07:00It is confusing to read as I think in the title it...It is confusing to read as I think in the title it should be 'overestimate' rather than 'underestimate'. My interpretation is : <br /><br />Climate models are overestimating the cooling effects [albedo] from low level clouds compared to actual satellite observations, leaving this 'missing' heat to be supplied by the CO2 effect. If the error is corrected it will reduce the the need for warming from CO2. <br /><br />The fact that the models have not been updated despite the availability of satellite data [i.e. Reality] suggests a deliberate policy.<br /><br />Earth is in thermodynamic equilibrium in that as much energy is emitted as it receives from the Sun. Any warming or cooling is thus controlled by the albedo of Earth, which varies between 30% and 35%. The main cause of the change in albedo are clouds, which makes this a critical flaw in the models.<br /><br />[Albedo is the amount of light reflected back in to space without being absorbed.]Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-66539122837239847972011-07-08T13:08:23.508-07:002011-07-08T13:08:23.508-07:00"date with the oven" -please
"we s..."date with the oven" -please<br /><br />"we should not be suggesting" - you might write to the author of the paper to tell him why he shouldn't have come to the conclusions he has published and which were directly quoted in this post. BTW, the paper is based on comparing observations to the models.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-66341135730721198382011-07-08T09:40:31.209-07:002011-07-08T09:40:31.209-07:00What is surprising is that there is - after 30 yea...What is surprising is that there is - after 30 years of satellites - still no good record (I know of) of global (or even US mainland) cloud amount, optical depth or reflectance data that would permit an understanding of the variation of these factors and their impact on ground temperatures.<br /><br />This paper is good for questioning the "consensus", but really, it is another model in a time when we desperately need observation. We should not, in this great debate, still be "suggesting" that such an important aspect of climate as low-level clouds could have a feedback that is 4X that used by the IPCC. Such a difference, as noted, takes a non-issue into a buffer-to-suppressor issue. All the while satellites are whipping 'round the globe, telling us all about our date with the oven.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com