This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

Is the Science Really Settled?

Whilst looking for something else I came across this piece on Cloud Climatology on the NASA GISS website. As one of the premier research institutes in this field they don’t seem to think we know enough. Here are some quotes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
•Clouds cool Earth's surface by reflecting incoming sunlight.
•Clouds warm Earth's surface by absorbing heat emitted from the surface and re-radiating it back down toward the surface.
•Clouds warm or cool Earth's atmosphere by absorbing heat emitted from the surface and radiating it to space.
•Clouds warm and dry Earth's atmosphere and supply water to the surface by forming precipitation.
•Clouds are themselves created by the motions of the atmosphere that are caused by the warming or cooling of radiation and precipitation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Right now, we do not know how important the cloud-radiative or cloud-precipitation effects are and cannot predict possible climate changes accurately.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When contemporary models are given information about Earth's present condition — the size, shape and topography of the continents; the composition of the atmosphere; the amount of sunlight striking the globe — they create artificial climates that mathematically resemble the real one: their temperatures and winds are accurate to within about 5%, but their clouds and rainfall are only accurate to within about 25-35%. Such models can also accurately forecast the temperatures and winds of the weather many days ahead when given information about current conditions.
Unfortunately, such a margin of error is much too large for making a reliable forecast about climate changes, such as the global warming will result from increasing abundances of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. A doubling in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), predicted to take place in the next 50 to 100 years, is expected to change the radiation balance at the surface by only about 2 percent. Yet according to current climate models, such a small change could raise global mean surface temperatures by between 2-5°C (4-9°F), with potentially dramatic consequences. If a 2 percent change is that important, then a climate model to be useful must be accurate to something like 0.25%. Thus today's models must be improved by about a hundredfold in accuracy, a very challenging task. To develop a much better understanding of clouds, radiation and precipitation, as well as many other climate processes, we need much better observations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1974 an international conference of investigators in Stockholm highlighted the need for greater understanding of clouds as one of the two biggest obstacles to further progress in climate research. The second was inadequate knowledge of ocean currents. Recent comparisons of the predictions made by various computer climate models show that the problem has not gone away. In some models, for instance, clouds decrease the net greenhouse effect, whereas in others they intensify it.
https://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/role.html#COMP_MODS
 
The summary of those points is that we have no idea if the current series of climate models is accurate and the potential errors are much bigger than the potential changes. Nice to know what our policy makers are basing their policies on ?
Best regards
Roger

Parents

  • Roger Bryant:
    Whilst looking for something else I came across this piece on Cloud Climatology on the NASA GISS website. As one of the premier research institutes in this field they don’t seem to think we know enough. Here are some quotes:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    •Clouds cool Earth's surface by reflecting incoming sunlight.
    •Clouds warm Earth's surface by absorbing heat emitted from the surface and re-radiating it back down toward the surface.
    •Clouds warm or cool Earth's atmosphere by absorbing heat emitted from the surface and radiating it to space.
    •Clouds warm and dry Earth's atmosphere and supply water to the surface by forming precipitation.
    •Clouds are themselves created by the motions of the atmosphere that are caused by the warming or cooling of radiation and precipitation.

    . . .
    Best regards
    Roger

     




     

    I'd like to simplify thing a bit to the level of schoolboy physics. (Does anyone remember Leslie's cube?)

    • Light things reflect radiant heat well and absorb and radiate it badly.

    • Dark things reflect radiant heat badly and absorb and radiate it well.


    Clouds are essentially light things. The dark clouds we occasionally see are really thick clouds where the base is in shadow and looks dark against the light sky above. So to examine these quotes individually:

    •Clouds cool Earth's surface by reflecting incoming sunlight.

    Agreed. That is why it can be swelteringly hot on a cloudless day.

    •Clouds warm Earth's surface by absorbing heat emitted from the surface and re-radiating it back down toward the surface.

    I have a different take on this. Clouds are poor at absorbing and radiating heat. They are good at reflecting heat radiated from the Earth's surface. That is why a cloudy night is warmer than a cloudless one.

    •Clouds warm or cool Earth's atmosphere by absorbing heat emitted from the surface and radiating it to space.

    I can't make sense of this. It seems to contradict the previous quote.

    •Clouds warm and dry Earth's atmosphere and supply water to the surface by forming precipitation.
    •Clouds are themselves created by the motions of the atmosphere that are caused by the warming or cooling of radiation and precipitation.

    This is rather confusing. It seems a bit like saying that what goes round comes round.


    Overall I would sum this up as good conclusion but poor explanation. I have every confidence in NASA's scientists, but some "dumbing-down" has been going on here.


    On my visits to the USA I have visited the Kennedy Space Center more than once. At the popular Visitor Center things are demonstrated to appeal to the general public and put in simple and understandable terms. Measurements are usually given in imperial units, to appeal to the traditional American citizen. A visit to the Research and Education Center shows a very different approach and things are demonstrated on a much higher scientific level. One is left in no doubt that NASA does its measurements primarily in SI units.


    In my career I have had much experience in expressing concepts in simple terms to suit the audience, but I would always avoid saying things that are just not true. One of the risks we face is that those responsible for decisions for our future could respond to the simpler explanation and pay less regard to the vital complexities.
Reply

  • Roger Bryant:
    Whilst looking for something else I came across this piece on Cloud Climatology on the NASA GISS website. As one of the premier research institutes in this field they don’t seem to think we know enough. Here are some quotes:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    •Clouds cool Earth's surface by reflecting incoming sunlight.
    •Clouds warm Earth's surface by absorbing heat emitted from the surface and re-radiating it back down toward the surface.
    •Clouds warm or cool Earth's atmosphere by absorbing heat emitted from the surface and radiating it to space.
    •Clouds warm and dry Earth's atmosphere and supply water to the surface by forming precipitation.
    •Clouds are themselves created by the motions of the atmosphere that are caused by the warming or cooling of radiation and precipitation.

    . . .
    Best regards
    Roger

     




     

    I'd like to simplify thing a bit to the level of schoolboy physics. (Does anyone remember Leslie's cube?)

    • Light things reflect radiant heat well and absorb and radiate it badly.

    • Dark things reflect radiant heat badly and absorb and radiate it well.


    Clouds are essentially light things. The dark clouds we occasionally see are really thick clouds where the base is in shadow and looks dark against the light sky above. So to examine these quotes individually:

    •Clouds cool Earth's surface by reflecting incoming sunlight.

    Agreed. That is why it can be swelteringly hot on a cloudless day.

    •Clouds warm Earth's surface by absorbing heat emitted from the surface and re-radiating it back down toward the surface.

    I have a different take on this. Clouds are poor at absorbing and radiating heat. They are good at reflecting heat radiated from the Earth's surface. That is why a cloudy night is warmer than a cloudless one.

    •Clouds warm or cool Earth's atmosphere by absorbing heat emitted from the surface and radiating it to space.

    I can't make sense of this. It seems to contradict the previous quote.

    •Clouds warm and dry Earth's atmosphere and supply water to the surface by forming precipitation.
    •Clouds are themselves created by the motions of the atmosphere that are caused by the warming or cooling of radiation and precipitation.

    This is rather confusing. It seems a bit like saying that what goes round comes round.


    Overall I would sum this up as good conclusion but poor explanation. I have every confidence in NASA's scientists, but some "dumbing-down" has been going on here.


    On my visits to the USA I have visited the Kennedy Space Center more than once. At the popular Visitor Center things are demonstrated to appeal to the general public and put in simple and understandable terms. Measurements are usually given in imperial units, to appeal to the traditional American citizen. A visit to the Research and Education Center shows a very different approach and things are demonstrated on a much higher scientific level. One is left in no doubt that NASA does its measurements primarily in SI units.


    In my career I have had much experience in expressing concepts in simple terms to suit the audience, but I would always avoid saying things that are just not true. One of the risks we face is that those responsible for decisions for our future could respond to the simpler explanation and pay less regard to the vital complexities.
Children
No Data