Not exact matches
In a recent study, for instance, well - respected climate models were shown to have completely opposing estimates for the overall
effect of the
clouds and smoke in the southeast Atlantic: Some
found net warming, whereas others
found cooling.
They
found a small correlation between cosmic rays and global temperatures occurring every 22 years; however, the changing cosmic ray rate lagged behind the change in temperatures by between one and two years, suggesting that the cause
of the temperature rise might not be attributable to cosmic rays and
cloud formation, but could be caused by the direct
effects of the sun.
Erik Svendsen, who studied the health
effects of the Graniteville chlorine
cloud, said researchers knew they would
find pulmonary and other health problems in people exposed.
In
effect reprising his role from Peter Weir's 2003 swashbuckler «Master and Commander», the ever - reliable Bettany plays Darwin as a kindly fusspot who discovers that his austere view
of death as an essential cog in the machinery
of natural selection has the potential to outrage those who
find consolation in an afterlife
of clouds, angels and spiritual exoneration.
While on the subject: Could I ask your take on Erlykin et al. 2011, in particular their
finding that any
effect of cosmic radiation is limited to 1 %
of cloud cover, and their estimate that any temperature increase due to such a mechanism over the past 50 years
of barely changing CR is limited to 0.002 °C?
-- Harrison et Stephenson 2006 over UK from 1947
found a small and non-linear
effect of GCR on
clouds (day - to - day, so also sensitive to minimum - to - maximum mean variations).
The paper he wrote together with Friis - Christensen in which he
found a correlation between solar activity and
clouds had a «slight» flaw: it ignored that the period
of the study coincided with a big El Nino, and that large scale changes in ocean surface temperature are going to have an
effect on
cloud formation.
Taking into account the obscuring
effects of high
cloud, it was
found that thick low
clouds decreased by more than 20 % in the eastern tropical Pacific... In contrast, most increase in low
cloud amount due to doubled CO2 simulated by the NCAR and GFDL models occurs in the subtropical subsidence regimes associated with a strong atmospheric stability.»
Francis & Hunter
found that the downward long - wave radiation associated with a retreating sea - ice extent is more important (a stronger
effect) than
cloud modulation
of SW also associated with the sea - ice extent.
This, even though over the Indian Ocean basin Ramanathan's team
found that sooty brown
clouds enhance heating by half
of CO2's claimed
effect, not masking it by half as had previously been thought.
With a straightforward scheme for allocating overlaps, we
find that water vapor is the dominant contributor (∼ 50 %
of the
effect), followed by
clouds (∼ 25 %) and then CO2 with ∼ 20 %.
Contrary to the analysis
of a majority
of studies, his
found that for the past decade, variations in
clouds seemed more a cause
of warming than an
effect.
In summary the
findings to date indicate that the
effect of cosmic rays on
cloud formation is small compared to the large variations in natural biogenic aerosol emissions.
We
find that water vapor is the dominant substance — responsible for about 50 %
of the absorption, with
clouds responsible for about 25 % — and CO2 responsible for 20 %
of the
effect.
They also do some idealized calculations
of cloud effects which I
found interesting.
Taking into account the obscuring
effects of high
cloud, it was
found that thick low
clouds decreased by more than 20 % in the eastern tropical Pacific...» (emphasis mine)
It is
found that these errors are very large, exceeding 800 W m - 2 at many non-radiation time steps due to ignoring the
effects of clouds....»
Svenmark's GCRs have been mentioned, but despite Kirkby claiming that the CERN /
CLOUD experiment had NO implications for the GCR hypothesis
of causing climate
effects, I think the sentence in the abstract ---» We
find that ion - induced binary nucleation
of H2SO4 — H2O can occur in the mid-troposphere but is negligible in the boundary layer.»
«We
found that aerosol indirect
effect on deep convective
cloud systems could lead to enhanced regional convergence and a strong top -
of - atmosphere warming.»
A few years ago, Pierce and Adams modeled the potential
cloud forming
effect of cosmic rays and
found it wanting by more than an order
of magnitude, even when the most favourable assumptions possible were made.
«On the monthly timescale,
clouds were
found to have a warming
effect on the surface
of the Antarctic continent for every month
of the year, which means that the longwave
effect of clouds is larger than the shortwave
effect of clouds for every month.
They
found that changes in atmospheric ionization during the 11 - year solar cycle, and the resulting variations in aerosol formation, produced a globally asymmetric radiative forcing with a net
cloud albedo
effect of − 0.05 W m − 2.
With a straightforward scheme for allocating overlaps, we
find that water vapour is the dominant contributor (∼ 50 %
of the
effect), followed by
clouds (∼ 25 %) and then CO2 with ∼ 20 %.
We
find that the major
effects of clouds on radiation change are linked to known physical processes that are quite consistently simulated by models.
Motivated by
findings that major components
of so - called
cloud «feedbacks» are best understood as rapid responses to CO2 forcing (Gregory and Webb in J Clim 21:58 — 71, 2008), the top
of atmosphere (TOA) radiative
effects from forcing, and the subsequent responses to global surface temperature changes from all «atmospheric feedbacks» (water vapour, lapse rate, surface albedo, «surface temperature» and
cloud) are examined in detail in a General Circulation Model.
We
find that the net
effects of cloud masking and
cloud PRP on atmospheric absorption are both substantial.
Since the less than positive feedback
of clouds in the tropics appears to be the reason that the tropical troposphere hot spot signature
of WMGHG warming is missing which implies that the water vapor and
cloud feedbacks that are supposed to produce 2/3
of the GHG
effect warming are not following the game plan, Spencer et al., by averaging ever damn thing they would
find that might possibly show the tropical troposphere hot spot, are basically telling Trenberth and Dessler, «told ya so!»
A recent study used NASA satellite observations to test the skill
of climate models in simulating this
cloud - type transition, and
found that high sensitivity models simulate it more accurately, while low sensitivity models tend to overemphasize its climate cooling
effect.
As with many things the IPCC claims, I
find the actions they attribute to it unscientific and a misjudgement
of cause and
effect, as with the
effect of clouds.
Berkeley Lab researchers Dev Millstein and Surabi Menon
found that atmospheric feedback — such as changes in
cloud cover or precipitation — does have an important
effect, resulting in different amounts
of cooling in different cities, but that cool roofs and pavements are still beneficial for combating global warming.
The
findings also show the
effect of reduced airborne particulates from burning coal, which may decrease the
cloud cover that cools the earth, probably has less
of an impact on climate through indirect cooling than originally projected.
In
effect, HHJ McMullen
finds that the tribunal allowed their disapproval
of the behaviour
of Miss Nixon to
cloud their conclusions, based on their
findings of fact.