Latest News (hidethedecline)
The Weather Drives the Climate. |
| Posted by Frank Lansner (frank) on 2nd December, 2010 |
Birger Wedendahl,
Cand.Scient. geography.
wedendahl@hotmail.com
The Weather Drives the Climate.
Danish and International Climate Experts Agree that Clouds and not CO2 Govern the Climate.
“Climate Forecast” for The Pacific and The Atlantic Ocean:
Clear and calm at dawn. Light morning winds, clouding up towards noon. In the afternoon, increasing clouds and winds with a chance of showers and thunderstorms as the storms develop. Clearing around or after sunset, with an occasional thunderstorm after dark. Progressive clearing until dawn. (Willis Eshenbach, The climate thermostat)
Clouds and “The Faint Sun Paradox”.
Professor of geology, Minik Rosing, Natural Museum of Denmark, has recently published an article: “No Climate Paradox under the Faint Early Sun” Nature 464 744-747 in which he discusses The Faint Sun Paradox. In his research paper Professor Rosing et al. debunks CO2 as an all time greenhouse gas. Studying very old rocks and minerals he proves that CO2 levels never exceeded 1000 ppm.
Professor Rosing explains that the temperatures in the Tropics were at the same level as today because the cloud cover was thinner than today.. In the seventies Carl Sagan explained how a faint sun with only 75% power of today insolation, because of enormous amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (30%), could warm the Earth to a level that compares with the warming of today.
( Richard Lindzen has proved that even high levels of CO2 could not result in a strong greenhouse effect because the effect decreases logarithmic with the concentration of CO2.)
Rosing is in line with a lot of Danish climate experts ( Professor of Physical Geography, Ole Humlum, Senior Scientist at DTU Space Jens Olaf Pepke Pedersen, Director of Danish National Space Center Eigil Friis Christensen and Professor Director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at DTU Space Henrik Svensmark) as well as international experts (Dr.Roy Spencer, Professor Richard Lindzen, Dr.John Christy) who all agree that clouds are a much stronger factor controlling climate than CO2.
On a global scale you only have minor climate change.
In a way it makes no sense to talk about Global Climate Change. Climate in its original version is about regional differences in temperature, precipitation, wind and weather so to speak. Climate change is primarily closely connected to higher latitudes where we have ice ages coming and going. Surprisingly while we had ice age in the Scandinavian Countries 12 degrees colder than now, temperatures around Equator during the same period were only 1-2 degrees Celsius colder than today. Foraminifera found in seafloor drillings prove this. One might wonder why the climate has been this stable despite volcanic eruptions, meteors and orbital changes (Milankovitch). It is therefore a Must to find out what mechanism can explain the “steady state” of the climate. For as long as 80 million. years in Cretaceous the climate was very stable.
Clouds have an enormous effect on climate.
Even small changes in cloud cover have a significant impact on the Earth Energy Balance. A reduction in cloud cover with as little as 1% equals doubling the actual concentration of CO2.
The formation of clouds is the greatest Joker in our understanding of human induced global warming. Essex and Mc Kitric (Taken by Storm,2002) compare the effects of clouds on climate with the key of a motorcar. It is an on/ off thing and not to be compared with a calorimeter which slowly warms and cools in a laboratory. The Albedo Effect explains why volcanism and meteor impact has resulted in mass extinction and potentially can do it again.
Climate Research, Cloud Theory and Climate Battle.
Richard Lindzen is the man behind the so called Iris Hypothesis.
According to Lindzen warming results in a reduction of the Cirrus clouds thereby cooling the Earth.
Cirrus clouds are very cold on the top which means they radiate only a small amount of energy to space.
Dr.Roy Spencer talks about internally forced natural climate variation. He focuses on the lower clouds which have a cooling effect (Altostrato and Altocumulus).They cover vast areas. Their surfaces are warmer on the top, radiating a lot of energy into space. According to Spencer changes in cloud cover caused by PDO (El Nino-La Nina) explains 75% of the warming taking place this century.
Svensmark et al. explain cloud forming by cosmic rays. Cosmic rays from space governed by magnetic fields from the sun ionises aerosols . They are thereby transformed into effective condensation nuclei facilitating the formation of clouds and precipitation.
Willis Eshenbach has reinvented the Thermostat Hypothesis.
Willis Eschenbach describes himself as an autodidact amateur climatologist or climate cowboy.
He has made an outstanding and easily understandable description of the theory on www.wattsupwiththat.com and made a speech at the latest Heartland Conference www.heartland.org . The Warmists might think this is disqualifying by itself, but nevertheless the theory is very convincing and not controversial at all.
Willis focuses on the ITCZ. The Inter Tropical Convergence Zone is the vast area where the trade winds meet over Equator following the Suns/Earths movements year round. On their way to ITCZ the winds collect a lot of water vapour. Low density caused by warming from the sea surface makes the air convect and water vapour starts condensing and accelerates the convection even further. A lot of cumulus and cumulonimbus clouds are formed. The process involves an extreme negative feedback.

Fig 1. Willis, wattsupwiththat.com
Cumulonimbus: Negative Feedback.
According to Willis www.wattsupwiththat.com feed back processes are:
a. Reflection from both the top and the sides of the great cloud.
b. Vertical convection with speeds of 200km/hour transports heat to the top where it is radiated to space.
c. Sea surface evaporates as wind speeds up and spray is in the air. Evaporation costs a lot of energy. This energy is latent energy which in the condensation process fuels and accelerates the convection.
d. The waves reflect more energy.
e. Falling rain cools the sea.
f. Dry sinking air on the sides of the cell increases evaporation
g. The clear sky at night time enforces outgoing long wave radiation.
Fig2. Willis Wattsupwiththat.com
From 10.00 to 11.30 am the cloud formation raises the Albedo from 0.30 to 0.38 decreasing the insolation by 60watt/m2. For more information read the full article.
Conclusion:
Climate change in the short and long perspective:
1. Hundreds of years: PDO, sea currents and cloud formation explains internally forced chaotic climate variability.
2. Thousands of years: Orbital changes explains glacials and interglacials at high latitudes caused by changes in solar radiation ; Milankovitch Cycles. At lower latitudes ITCZ thermostat reigns.
3. Millions of years: ITCZ thermostat and reduced cloud formation compensate a faint sun.
A New Paradigm
If clouds control the weather and the climate and also outperform a minor effect from human induced CO then it is nothing less than a new paradigm which will revolutionise our view on fossil fuels.
Hopefully, it will give poor countries access to cheap energy which is as important for their prosperous future as it was a complete fundament for our own industrialisation and civilisation. May it happen!
Last changed: 2nd December, 2010 at 21:29:30
BackComments
| the effect decreases logarithmic with the concentration of CO2.” | By Unknown on 7th December, 2010 at 23:43:55 |
| Birger. Dear unknown Without any amplification, no negative or positive feedback. If you increase co2 concentration from 280ppm to 560ppm the temperature will rise 1 degree celcius. If you increase from 280ppm to 1020ppm it will rise "only" 2 degrees. If you increase from 280ppm to 2040ppm it will rise "only" 3 degrees. |
|
| The 2 to 3 times amplification effect of CO2 should be explored and falsified. | By Unknown on 7th December, 2010 at 23:35:20 |
| Birger Wedendahl Dear unknown! Climatology is "wicked science". This means that you cannot falsify the AGW hypothesis. The hypothesis that CO2 by 90% is responsible for more than half of the temperature increase since 1970 is not a scientific one. Because we know very little about cloud formation and ocean currents we cannot separate natural variability from AGW. It has not been possible to empirically verify any amplification effect of co2. So far we do not have a scientific method to monitor global mean temperature. "Why global mean temperature is not a scientific......" This means that it is impossible to discuss warming and cooling at a global level within a range of 0,1 degree celsius. |
|
| Plase explain | By Unknown on 7th December, 2010 at 21:20:21 |
| You have made reference to: “Richard Lindzen has proved that even high levels of CO2 could not result in a strong greenhouse effect because the effect decreases logarithmic with the concentration of CO2.” This makes no sense. Please explain. The logarithm is an increasing concave function. This follows from: If f(x)=ln(x) then f´(x)=1/x and f´´(x)=-1/(x^2). |
|
| Hi unknown :-) | By Frank Lansner on 7th December, 2010 at 18:17:57 |
| It so happens that the next article coming up is yet another way to validate the large supposed positive feedback. The article will come up 8 dec on hidethedecline.eu and at Joanne Novas site. Thanks for commenting on Birgers article!! K.R. Frank Lansner |
|
| Cloud vs GHG | By Unknown on 7th December, 2010 at 08:17:25 |
| As much as I agree with your critisism of the AGW hypothesis there is actually not many revolutionary findings in your article. The AGW hypothesis states the forcing of CO2 to be 25-50% of the total driving the temperature. A 75% dependence on clouds still leaves the AGW hypothesis rather unthreatened. The focus should be on the feedback of the climate system. The 2 to 3 times amplification effect of CO2 should be explored and falsified. | |
Add Comment


