Cloud Behavior May Be Producing Negative Global Temperature Feedback

A new study in Geophysical Research Letters using satellite data suggests that clouds are becoming lower which has implications for global temperature trends. ScienceDaily reports: 

Scientists at the University of Auckland in New Zealand analyzed the first 10 years of global cloud-top height measurements (from March 2000 to February 2010) from the Multi-angle Imaging SpectroRadiometer (MISR) instrument on NASA's Terra spacecraft. The study, published recently in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, revealed an overall trend of decreasing cloud height. Global average cloud height declined by around one percent over the decade, or by around 100 to 130 feet (30 to 40 meters). Most of the reduction was due to fewer clouds occurring at very high altitudes.

Lead researcher Roger Davies said that while the record is too short to be definitive, it provides a hint that something quite important might be going on. Longer-term monitoring will be required to determine the significance of the observation for global temperatures.

A consistent reduction in cloud height would allow Earth to cool to space more efficiently, reducing the surface temperature of the planet and potentially slowing the effects of global warming. This may represent a "negative feedback" mechanism -- a change caused by global warming that works to counteract it. "We don't know exactly what causes the cloud heights to lower," says Davies. "But it must be due to a change in the circulation patterns that give rise to cloud formation at high altitude."

NASA's Terra spacecraft is scheduled to continue gathering data through the remainder of this decade. Scientists will continue to monitor the MISR data closely to see if this trend continues.

I can't resist: The science is settled! 

OK, that being said: The fact that cloud heights are dropping does suggest that adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere is having an effect on the parts of the climate system. However, I am curious if the computer climate models have taken this particular feedback (and its magnitude) into account? Will update when I find out. 

Note: This is the sort of policy relevant study on which I do report. 

Comments

[robc]

Ronald,

This is policy relevant? Has anyone proposed low cloud trains?

[As long as gravity is a theory]

...we can ignore the consequences of jumping off buildings.

And as long as AGW is just a theory, we can ignore the consequences of shitting in our nest, the one and only home planet on which we can survive.

Cuz, ya know, the science isn't settled.

[derp]

de derpity derp

[Fibertarian Sentimentality...]

...for kindergarten playground "arguments?" Or are you that advanced?

I didn't note any words, just grunts.

[Fat Indian]

Grunts? Similar I suspect to the grunts you make jamming Twinkies in your mouth hole while typing away at Vivisimo.

[Tonio]

Any response only serves to reinforce its behavior.

[Soviet Political Officer Tonio]

Please shun the ENEMY of the city-STATE!

You will be rewarded, comrades!

[Grant M]

rewarded with ice cream!

[Dave Anthony]

And their current models can't accurately predict future trends, either short-term or long-term, so no, the science is NOT settled.

[Actually, it does predict.]

I've heard your bullshit before, Dave.

Stages of Denial
2. We don't know why it's happening
(b.)Prediction is impossible
? We can't even predict the weather next week
? Chaotic systems are not predictable

How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming A Grist Special Series
http://grist.org/series/skeptics/

[white griefer idiot]

So just ignore the fact that all the models completely failed over the last decade. Look over there, a pony!

[o3]

stand aside WI.

which science isnt settled dave?

cause geologic sciance establishes 6 iceages & 6 melts the last just 12,000 yrs ago.

so are you saying that never happened...or that it cannot happen again?

[WTF]

cause geologic sciance establishes 6 iceages & 6 melts the last just 12,000 yrs ago.

So how do you know the current climate isn't just part of the natural cycle?

[o3]

i dont, which is why i accept climate change. >conservation used to be conservative (go figure huh) ala teddy until big energy bought-off the gop.

[WTF]

So then you agree all this nonsense about how we must bankrupt ourselves to do something about the climate is idiotic. Cool.

[o3]

im not on the other extreme either

[sloopyinca]

big energy bought-off the gop.

[citation please]

[Suki]

It is obvious that climate change kills jobs. Just look at the empty city hulks ringing what was once the Great Troughs. Global warming filled them with water, killed bazillions, destroyed families and lives! The Great Lakes need to be emptied so America can be great again.

[toxic]

Well, I guess the question is whether we are actually shitting in our nest, and if so, how much shit are we shitting? And then, what to do about it?

50 years from now I doubt people will be driving ICE's around. Not because of global warming, but for the same reason that we aren't using steam engines. Given the follow through you see from stuff like the Kyoto treaty, I have serious doubts that the political control method can really work. To me, it's probably better to just make it so that people can do what they want to do without emitting C02. What saved the whales was fossil fuels replacing whale oil, not people deciding to conserve them.

I dunno. But as a general rule a predictive model should be more accurate about what will happen soon rather than what will happen later. If the near future is wrong, it's likely that its 50 year prediction will be even further off.

[Barry D]

And what if we can eat our own shit?

http://www.dailytech.com/Japan.....e21932.htm

[Fat Indian]

Then me and my brother won't need to work in the [AGRICULTURal-CitY STATe] in order to eat.
We will be free to GAMBOL in circles to our hearts content.

[cw]

Yep, because we can test AGW just like we can test the theory of gravity.

*facepalm*

[yy]

My neighbor just met a bisexual man on ---datebi*cOMit's where for men and women looking
for bisexual and bi-curious individuals to meet in a friendly and comfortable environment.
It's a nice place for the people who have the same sexual orientation.

[Joe M]

I'm not entirely getting why lower cloud tops would help the Earth cool more efficiently. It seems like higher cloud tops would bounce light and heat back out before they penetrated and warmed more of the lower atmosphere.

[Tonio]

Perhaps so, but lower cloud tops equals thinner cloud layers which makes it easier for the heat that's already made it through the atmosphere to get back out.

[Matto]

Wouldn't lower cloud tops indicate lower tropopause height which in turn would be mean lower temperatures?

[Neu Mejican]

From the article:

If sustained, such a decrease would indicate a
significant measure of negative cloud feedback to global
warming, as lower cloud heights reduce the effective altitude
of emission of radiation to space with a corresponding cooling
effect on equilibrium surface temperature.

[ClubMedSux]

Unfortunately I can't track down the actual paper, but according to the article the reason for the lower average cloud height is "fewer clouds occurring at very high altitudes." In other words, the cloud tops aren't physically dropping in elevation; there are fewer clouds overall, so naturally if you're averaging cloud tops that are roughly the same height with some zeros mixed in, the average comes out lower. High clouds produce a net warming, so it logically follows that if you're getting fewer high clouds, it allows the globe to cool more efficiently.

[Matto]

Makes sense, thanks.

[Sam Grove]

High clouds tend to be transmissive of light energy, including UV, but are more reflective of thermal radiation.

Lower clouds tend to be dense and more reflective of solar energy.

[Tango Mike]

In the troposphere, the lower part of the atmosphere where the clouds reside, temperature decreases with height. The higher the cloud tops are, the colder they are. Infra-red radiation to space depends very strongly (T^4) on temperature, so the colder cloud tops radiate away far less heat. The other important parameter is optical thickness, which determines the clouds' absorption. There's a delicate balance between the two that determines whether the net cloud feedback is positive or negative. Switching the sign of the feedback just may have profound impact on model results. This is a very poorly understood input to the climate models. Last I read up on it (it's been a long while), whether cloud feedback was positive or negative in the real atmosphere was undetermined. Doesn't stop them from putting it in a model, though. That's one of the reasons I'm skeptical.

[Tango Mike]

And don't even ask about sub-grid scale parameterization.

[Tango Mike]

How this plays out is very tricky. High clouds tend to be thin as there's less water at 20,000'. That lets in lots of visible solar light. They also are colder so they radiate away heat at a lower rate. This tends to make high clouds warm the atmosphere.

Low clouds tend to be much thicker as there is more water in the lower troposphere. Thus they tend to reflect away much more visible solar light than high clouds. Their cloud tops, however, are much warmer, so they radiate away much more heat than high clouds. Thus low clouds tend to cool the atmosphere.

Nothing is easy.

[Old Soldier]

So global warming causes fog? We never has it before?

[Zeb]

No. That has nothing to do with this at all. Average cloud height is getting lower because of fewer high clouds, not because of clouds being closer to the ground.
Stupid, ignorant arguments like this really don't help skeptics be taken more seriously.

[o3]

i am surprise ron not get denier memo either like animals & ice pack.

[WTF]

Can anyone translate this?

[Rich]

soy ron de la sorpresa no conseguir a nota del negador cualquier animales semejantes & paquete de hielo.

[Paul]

It was certainly Greek to me, so I tried the english -> greek google translate. Shit, can't give you results because Reason's squirrels only allow english. So my question, how did 03 get his post in?

[Fatty Bolger]

Sorry, my Herp Derp is not quite fluent, but he seems to be expressing surprise that Ron has not been overly influenced by AGW skepticism.

[o3]

^cigar!

[Loki]

I don't speak moron, sorry.

[yonemoto]

The fact that cloud heights are dropping is consistent with a model that adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere is having an effect on the parts of the climate system.

There could be other reasons for cloud level dropping. Urbanization, agricultural pattern changes, tectonic plate movement, etc.

[yonemoto]

I meant to indicate that I had changed ron's phrasing from "suggests" to "is consistent"

[Ron Bailey]

y: plate tectonics?

[yonemoto]

it was a joke. on the other hand, the weather gets really wonky when you have one giant supercontinent and one giant superoocean.

[Barry D]

It gets really, really wonky when you throw in batcontinent, spiderocean, etc.

[Barry D]

Also, there are long-term cycles we know nothing about. Clouds don't leave signatures we can easily follow, like old seabeds.

Who knows what cloud altitudes do, over time?

[WTF]

Exactly. Ten years is not enough to draw any conclusions about anything as we have no idea what ling term cycles and trends may be. It could just be part of a normal cycle that has nothing to do with CO2. Or it could be related to solar output fluctuations, etc.

[robc]

Ive been saying for a while now for people to get back to me once they've got 10000 years of satellite data. Until them, Im not interested.

[Paul]

Ive been saying for a while now for people to get back to me once they've got 10000 years of satellite data. Until them, Im not interested.

But frogs are boiling!

[Barry D]

The frogs often sautee. The limeys usually just boil stuff.

[Barry D]

BTW I went skiing the other day, and there was a heavy snowstorm. Usually, that means very low visibility at the top of the lifts there, as the clouds typically sit below the top of the mountain. But visibility was great, and the clouds were another 1000 feet above the peaks. So we got constantly-fresh powder, but excellent visibility!

I take that as proof that clouds are actually rising in altitude. Hell, it's about as meaningful a sample as a 10-year sample, and I even have some idea of the baseline!

[Zeb]

The 10 year sample can tell you a lot more about the last 10 years than one day's observation at one location. And I don't think that the authors of the study are claiming otherwise.

[Barry D]

'This may represent a "negative feedback" mechanism -- a change caused by global warming that works to counteract it. "'

Sounds like there's a whole lot more to their claim, than simply that what data they have suggest that clouds have occurred at lower mean altitudes over 10 years.

[Zeb]

Was that from the actual study, or just the quoted article about the study?

[Zeb]

People speculate about the meaning of research all the time. Such speculation has no bearing on the legitimacy of the actual research. From this post, it sounds like the researchers are making it quite clear that their speculations about causes or effects of the observed changes are merely speculations and that more data is needed.

[Barry D]

Did I say that their research was not legitimate?

My point was that 10 years of data, out of several billion years of atmospheric variations, is only marginally more significant than a day's data. So any conclusions, other than, "Hmmm. We should measure more," are premature.

[Tman]

Note: This is the sort of policy relevant study on which I do report.

Lighten up Francis. You're the one with the column, write what you want. We may not agree with it or wish you would write something else, but who gives a fuck what we think anyways?

Now go do... that voodoo... that YOU do... SO WELL...!

[Lando]

Cloud heights are dropping! They told me they fixed it! I trusted them to fix it! It's not my fault!

[Sudden]

So ELF and the rest of the chicken little enviros were correct: the sky is literally falling.

[Jessie]

The ELF have been unjustly labelled a "terrorist organization" despite the fact that they never killed or hurt a single person. See the oscar nominated documentary "If a Tree Falls"

[Jessie]

The real terrorists are the corporations, especially fossil fuel interests who continue to destroy the atmosphere and misinform the public to protect their profits!

[Shorter Jessie]

Herp Derp!

[Shorter Jessie]

derp

[Shortest Jessie]

There will be no justice until we are all living in a cave rubbing sticks together the way Gaia intended it to be.

[WTF]

^Not exactly shortest, but succinct.

[Joe M]

As long as the sticks are from trees that died of natural causes.

[Barry D]

So you're saying that, had the people in the World Trade Center all escaped to safety before the buildings collapsed, Al Qaeda wouldn't be a terrorist organization?

[Jessie]

Al Qaeda was trying to kill as many people as possible. ELF wasn't trying to kill anyone, in fact made arrangements to prevent any harm.

[Barry D]

ELF has only carried out one attack?

Uh, yeah.

[WTF]

ELF

[WTF]

Awesome - trying to post a link to ELF's myriad attacks gets marked as spam but white idiot posts nonsense all fucking day.

[skr]

Right those Hummer dealers were sleeping well at night during the ELF pyroperiod.

[Rich]

I am curious if the computer climate models have taken this particular feedback (and its magnitude) into account?

A more important question is whether the economic forecasting models have taken this particular feedback (and its magnitude) into account.

/sarc

Carry on, Ron!

[ClubMedSux]

I've been out of the atmospheric modeling game for almost a decade now, but my understanding is that cloud feedback (like, is it even positive or negative) is still the biggest weak link in long-range climate forecasting.

[Matto]

Agree, see Spencer v Dessler last year.

Of course the editor of the journal that published Spencer's paper had to resign afterwards and issued an apology to Kevin Trenberth (I wish I was making this up).

[Sudden]

Lead researcher Roger Davies said that while the record is too short to be definitive, it provides a hint that something quite important might be going on. Longer-term monitoring will be required to determine the significance of the observation for global temperatures.

Translation: Moar Grantz Pleez!1!!!!1!!

[mad libertarian guy]

^^THIS^^

[Barry D]

"Longer-term monitoring" meaning, "at least until Roger Davies' pension kicks in.

[Zeb]

So? It sounds like interesting research.

[sloopyinca]

If it's so interesting, they should be able to get a private entity to sponsor it. You know, like not my tax dollars.

[Zeb]

What if it's New Zealanders' tax dollars?

I totally agree about the funding sources, but people seem to be suggesting that it has anything to do with the validity of the study.

[Barry D]

I'm sure that both New Zealanders will be bloody ropeable if you take their money for this.

[Zombie Jimbo]

What really pisses me off about the whole AGW policy debacle isn't the rent seeking by the world political class. Foolish to not expect that. It is the suppression of experiments or data reduction programs that should have given us good answers ten years ago.

The "Science is settled" apparatchiks have denigrated or out and out blocked experiments on the influence of cosmic rays on cloud formation, or anything that might show that negative feedback loops may exist.

In addition, the climate record data is so muddled by bad data handling and improper corrections due to measuring station changes, that it may be necessary to take another 20 years of data to be sure of whats happening.

I really do want to know what is happening. I guess for now, the best way to approach the issue is to see if the people who say AGW is a threat are acting as you would expect if it really was a threat.

[Professor Phil Jones]

Why would I want to give my data to you? All you want to do is find something wrong with it.

[Climate researcher]

Clouds! We never thought of that! (smacks forehead)

[Brett L]

Well, you did predict that they would be a postive forcing based on no data at all. So don't get all snippy when someone takes data and says your models might be wrong in their handling of this.

[sloopyinca]

I've got a question: if computer models are saying that lower cloud levels are causing change in temperature data from computer models, how the fuck do the models know that cloud levels have actually dropped over a long stretch of time (you know, the climate vs weather argument)?

Or, how the fuck can a computer model predict that the cloud levels have actually dropped? How can they predict those theoretical drops (all they have to go on) has caused changes in temperature readings? And they use these two hypotheticals to determine that hypothetically, man-made greenhouse gases are causing "x".

I just don't understand how these psuedoscientists can get a dime of funding or credibility without a shred of actual evidence.

[R C Dean]

When you say what the grant-writers want to hear, the need for evidence diminishes dramatically.

[sarcasmic]

Exactly.

The job of climate "scientists" is to give the politicians who secure the grants something to wave around as they demand more power.

[Neu Mejican]

When you say what the grant-writers want to hear, the need for evidence diminishes dramatically.

Is this pontificating based on your long experience with scientific grant writing?

[Jeffersonian]

^^ This.

When it boils down to it, the models these climate scientists are using are, at very best, SWAGs as regards the real climate. They truly don't have an idea of what really is going on.

[Barry D]

Playing with the numbers is a valid scientific activity. But it's just playing with the numbers, and lying about that fact is NOT a valid scientific activity.

[sloopyinca]

Maybe I didn't put that clearly, because the whole thing is a giant goat-fuck.

But for the life of me, I cannot see how these people have any credibility. They design programs (they won't share) that reach predetermined conclusions, using only massaged data (from the present) and computer-modeled data from the past (that their dubious programs spit out), and we're supposed to nod and agree when they say they want to redistribute our wealth and take a huge slice of it for their efforts.

Oh, especially when all of their conclusions are at odds with the millions of years of earth's climatological history, IRT cooling and warming.

[Brett L]

This kind of stuff (cloud behavior studies, sun activity/temp correlations) actually are science. The models that have been made of global temperature assume certain parameters should operate in certain tolerances in certain ways. Pretty much everyone does that if they can't find data and need a model. What they seem resistant to is incorporating new data into models. Which is strange given how poor the predictive values of their current models are.

[Barry D]

I have always used "goatfuck" as a single word. Maybe that's my Germanic heritage, though.

[R C Dean]

Throw in some umlauts.

Umlauts make everything well, all Teutonicy and metal.

[db]

Ladies and Gentlemen! Give it up for our opening act: G?atf?ck!

Now!
On your feet!
Or on your knees!
The amazing Blue ?yster Cult!

[Barry D]

WTF? I tried to post something like this, and the software kicked back "Not in English Script."

[Bobarian]

I always thought "goatfuck" was a scottish thing; that's what the kilts are for.

[sloopyinca]

I always thought that was for sheep. As were their Wellingtons.

[mad libertarian guy]

Kennings FTW!

[sloopyinca]

Oh, and say what you want about Yinzers in general or the Pirates specifically. All I know is, Team President Frank Coonelly can put down some IC Lite's!!!

[WTF]

So, even wealthy Yinzers are drunks. Shocked, I am.

[Fist of Etiquette]

You helm that team and see if you don't need to put more than a few away every now and then.

[mad libertarian guy]

The fact that cloud heights are dropping does suggest that adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere is having an effect on the parts of the climate system.

Only if you already believe that adding greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere is having the specific effect of raising global temperatures. To suggest that lowering cloud heights is a response to that is nothing more than confirmation bias.

Could it not be that the earth is counteracting its own temperature fluctuations that occur naturally over time and that this is a way the system deals with those fluctuations?

[SugarFree]

Ron,

There is a simple way you can vastly improve the environment. Ban this moron and comment thread quality will skyrocket. It adds nothing, and only serves to drive the obsessions of a clearly unbalanced individual. Maybe banning it will help it recognize it's time to get the help it so desperately needs.

As long as gravity is a theory|2.23.12 @ 1:00PM|

Fibertarian Sentimentality...|2.23.12 @ 1:16PM|

Soviet Political Officer Tonio|2.23.12 @ 1:18PM|

-

Cue the "Boo-hoo, you're all a bunch of meanies."

[Episiarch]

You're an authoritarian, SugarFraud!!! GARGLE BLARG DURR

[SugarFree]

Curses! How did you know my secret identity?!? Hiss!

[Warty]

Email me.

[SugarFree]

No. You email me first! Waa!

[Warty]

SHOOT THE MOON I REPEAT SHOOT THE MOON

[Episiarch]

Your pancreas told me, that two-timing organ from hell! ARRGGHH GARRR DUHHHHHH

[SugarFree]

The dissolution of the SugarFree Body Corporate! NOOOOOOOOOO!

Traitor organ purge commencing!

[Joe M]

Axis of Glib in full effect.

[JW]

It's only at about 40%.

[yonemoto]

SugarFree Body Corporate[Corporate]

FIFY.

[yonemoto]

shit, I forgot to all caps it

[yonemoto]

shit, I forgot to all caps it

[Warty]

I"M STILL HERE!!!!!!

[Joshua Corning]

Ban this moron

What?

We are banning sarcastic commentors now?

Oh wait i guess you mean only sarcastic commentors that disagree with you...

also damn you Sugerfree for making me defend someone I hate.

[SugarFree]

That's White Indian. If you want to defend what he does to this board, go right ahead. All I see is the possibility to tune out a load of useless static.

You read a story posted on a weekend lately?

[Warty]

No, dude, it's all our fault. Something something clique something something unsubstantive something something narcissists.

Email me.

[o3]

something like primitive-anarcho eh?

[Joshua Corning]

I did notice that I can't post more then 900 words now...

That related at all?

Also the comments of weekend stories have always resembled a DMZ.

[SugarFree]

Yes, the 900 word and no in-line photographs limitations were imposed in the wake of two different instances of someone (gee, I wonder who it could be?) posting John's real name and accusing him of being a child molester.

[sloopyinca]

Wait, what the fuck?

I go ride roller coasters for the weekend and I miss the insanity getting bumped up to 11?

[SugarFree]

Yesterday's Morning Links, and some thread the night before.

They can't permaban, so proxies or some sort of anonymizer is in use.

[WTF]

posting John's real name and accusing him of being a child molester.

SERIOUSLY? That's taking the crazy to a whole new level.

[sloopyinca]

He does work for DHS, you know.

I keed! I keed!

[sloopyinca]

Well, he does work for Homeland Security, so it's not unheard of.

I keed! I keed!

[sloopyinca]

Now the spam filter is after me! Fucking trolls fucking up our fucking threads.

Fuck!

[Joshua Corning]

posting John's real name and accusing him of being a child molester.

Sounds like John has a pissed off ex.

By the way my real name is Joshua Corning...

[Jessie]

At first I thought this website was only for Obama hating right wingers but I see it's also for anti-science climate change deniers too. I guess there isn't a difference between the two.

[JW]

MUST. STAY. IN. BOX.

[mad libertarian guy]

It's easy when your entire worldview is filtered through "NOT TEAM BLUE MEANS YOU BE TEAM RED!" lenses.

[sarcasmic]

It must be cold and damp under the bridge.

[Warty]

I love this new sockpuppet. She's like Orrin, but with punctuation.

[Fatty Bolger]

+1

[Nipplemancer]

Orrin is too retarded to be a sockpuppet.

[Zombie Jimbo]

Dress it up with some feminist schtick, please. Yesterdays trolling had potential. This, not so much

[Jessie]

Feminist schtick? LOL, is that the best you can do?

I wouldn't exactly call 8 years of education "schtick". I would call it "educated" or "properly informed" something most of the people here are obviously not.

[Alack]

So if I have 8 years of education that lead me to opposing views, am I also "educated" and "properly informed", or do I become an ignorant, micro-aggressing misogynist who blindly supports the patriarchy?

[Zombie Jimbo]

8 years of education takes you to junior high. That explains it.

[Jessie]

University education, jackass.

[JW]

"Seven years of college down the drain. Might as well join the fucking Peace Corps."

[Tonio]

Well, hon, in all fairness you were vague about it.

[Ice Nine]

And not just a little gratuitous.

[X]

math is hard

[WTF]

Yeah, 8 years of wymyns studies must make for an awesome education. Not like all that sciency male stuff.

[Jessie]

A devastating critique. My doctorate in SJS will be completely worthless because it's not math.

Wow, male privilege informing your perception much?

[WTF]

feminazi translator:

Male Privilege = Facts, Logic, Science

[sloopyinca]

Doctorate in Stevens Johnson Syndrome? Yeah, it probably will be worthless.

Protip: if the designation for your area of study (i.e.: ME, EE, BA) does not show up on the first 10 pages of a Google search, it's probably a useless degree.

[WTF]

She'll end up an OWSer with 8 years of student loan debt and a job paying $28K a year.

[sloopyinca]

What's all this "job" nonsense? Don't get carried away.

[Loki]

She'll end up an OWSer with 8 years of student loan debt and a job paying $28K a year.

End up?

[WTF]

You have a doctorate in Stevens Johnson Syndrome?

[WTF]

Sloopy on the quick Google. (But I did provide a linky!)

[Dave]

I see you're still at the age where you think folks give a crap about your schooling. cute.

[mad libertarian guy]

It will be worthless in every place except your university echo chamber.

[sloopyinca]

University education, jackass.

Do I smell a Canuck or a Limey? We cay college education here in the states, dumbass.

[Jessie]

Social Justice Studies.

[R C Dean]

Of course.

Why, we were just marvelling at the coin social justice engineers pull down. There's never enough of them around; they can pretty much name their own price.

[Jessie]

Well some people get an education to make the world a fairer, cleaner, better place to live not just for the almighty dollar.

[Grant M]

-100 for using the phrase "almighty dollar"

[skr]

Wow, all those years of university education and you never got past "zero sum game". I think you should sue.

[sloopyinca]

I want to make the world a better place as well, so there! Of course, I want to do this for myself, my Banjos, my kids and the ones I love first.

And unlike our new friend here, I don't want to hold a gun to anyone else's head to accomplish it.

And that's the difference between me and you in a nutshell, Jessie.

[sloopyinca]

Sweet! A doctorate in grief. What classes do you take?
SJS401: White man's privilege
SJS412: White man's privilege
SJS502: White man's privilege
SJS512: White man's privilege
SJS601: Thesis: How the white man has privilege
DLSJS: Thesis: How the white man has privilege (part 2)

Sweet degree, dingleberry. Now get back to your Starbucks orientation, please. Those people are paying you to make lattes, not to troll the internets.

[Jessie]

HA HA HA. For your information SJS412 is Post-Colonial Eco-Feminism.

[sloopyinca]

You say to-may-to
I say to-mah-to

Actually, I'm gonna call bullshit on this one and ask for a citation. Just give a link to the university website where you took this class, because I'm not finding shit on google.

[Jessie]

*Announcement*

At this time I regret to inform you that I will be retiring the character of "Jessie" and withdrawing her from circulation. She was created on a whim yesterday after reading the Jezebel "President Dreamypants" post but I have now brought to "full retard" levels and thus feel it time to stop.

I also regret any undue stress I may have caused to anyone and hope that most found her to be as entertaining as I found the hilarious responses to her were.

Best Regards,
anonymous

[sloopyinca]

Damn you, Jimbo! Damn you to hell!

[WTF]

Damn, you got me.

[Zombie Jimbo]

I enjoyed it. Thanks

[Dylboz]

I'm relieved. I lurk a little easier now.

[Fat Indian]

Now that's some first class trollin! Well done!

[Dylboz]

This cannot actually be serious.

[Tonio]

Unconscious self-parody FTW! Forget what I said about Myers' site, Jessie. We need you here for the lulz.

[Banjos]

Honey, stop feeding the sock puppet troll. We have errands to run today.

[Zombie Jimbo]

Starbucks? I thought she was working at the lemon grove? When she applied for the job the foreman asked if she had any experience picking lemons. She said she just spent 8 years studying Social Justice and she voted for Obama. He hired her on the spot.

[Tonio]

Jessie, degrees in victim-mongering are not well-respected here. They'd love you over at Pharyngula; they hate libertarians, too.

[toxic]

How does social justice studies make you an expert on climate change exactly?

(BTW going to college for 8 years only makes you an expert on the thing you got your major in. With a degree in social justice studies, my guess is your expertise is pretty much limited to deciphering post-modern neo-marxist academic papers.)

[toxic]

How does social justice studies make you an expert on climate change exactly?

(BTW going to college for 8 years only makes you an expert on the thing you got your major in. With a degree in social justice studies, my guess is your expertise is pretty much limited to deciphering post-modern neo-marxist academic papers.)

[tarran]

Jessie,

I want you to know that there are many of us who secretly support you.

[tarran]

And yes, I can't get the song out of my head.

[Ice Nine]

Damn, I was so hoping she would stay awhile.

[Alack]

Writing an article about a scientific study that posits that GW could have natural negative feedback mechanisms is anti-science?

Good to know

[Joshua Corning]

a scientific study that posits that GW could have natural negative feedback mechanisms

Actually the study does not do that.

It posits that lower clouds could cool the atmosphere....the study provided no proof as to the mechanism of why those clouds are lowering...greenhouse gases or otherwise.

Why is it so hard for people avoid that trap?

Hell the scientist even come right out and says it:

"We don't know exactly what causes the cloud heights to lower,"

WTF?!?! Ho do you miss that?

[Matto]

*sigh* Don't you get it? The null hypothesis has been inverted. The onus is now to prove that CAGW is NOT happening.

[Joshua Corning]

Is it impossible to hate Obama and not be a right winger?

Perhaps it is possible...only it is impossible for an Obama lover to imagine that.

[Jose Rodriguez]

Meh. C'mon leftists, you can do better than this "Jessie" beeatch. At least "she's" got the nutjob liberal lingo down.

[Joshua Corning]

The fact that cloud heights are dropping does suggest that adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere is having an effect on the parts of the climate system.

What the fuck?!?!

There is evidence that changes in clouds cool the atmosphere...what evidence is there that changes in clouds is caused by co2?

Oh yeah...fucking none.

In fact the scientist even said as much!!!

"We don't know exactly what causes the cloud heights to lower,"

How does "we don't know" translate into 'suggest' global warming causes it?

[sarcasmic]

Dude, you forgot to beg the question.

Human activity, especially the changing of the makeup of the atmosphere, must have an effect because it must.

Therefore any observed change must have been caused by human activity, because human activity must be causing change.

Circular logic is circular.

[Zeb]

Well, human activity no doubt does have an effect. Everything does. The problem is that we have no idea how much of an effect or what the world climate would look like without human activity.

[Barry D]

Exactly.

[mad libertarian guy]

It's all about confirmation bias.

According to AGW clergymen, since we already "know" that AGW is real, any effort the earth makes that results in any form of cooling shows that it is reacting to AGW.

Easy Peesy.

[Joshua Corning]

Dude, I am bitching about Ron here and his crazy shit...not the crazy shit of alarmist climate scientists.

In Ron's case he is just dead wrong rather then being ideologically dead wrong and dead wrong.

[mad libertarian guy]

I agree. But Bailey is a true believer, and even if not one of the clergymen, definitely one of the roving missionaries trying to convert the heathens.

He ALREADY believes that AGW is absolute fact which has therefore lead him to the conclusion that the lowering of clouds is a physical manifestation of AGW, and nothing else could possibly have caused it.

[Ron Bailey]

JC: He also said: "But it must be due to a change in the circulation patterns that give rise to cloud formation at high altitude."

I note that there is evidence for changed circulation patterns which are reproduced in some climate models, which, in turn, suggests an anthropogenic contribution to the changes.

[Joshua Corning]

I note that there is evidence for changed circulation patterns which are reproduced in some climate models

You mean climate models that do not take into account the cooling effect of lower clouds?

Pretty thin gruel there Ron.

which, in turn, suggests an anthropogenic contribution to the changes.

You mean heat??? You mean it gets hot and circulation changes and clouds lower?? or do you mean only human type heat changes the circulation? and if the earth warmed from non-human causes there would be no changes to circulation patterns??

And if not, and the changes would look the same in either case how the fuck can you attribute it to one and not the other?!?!

There is no 'suggests' here Ron.

You have gone off the deep end.

[Barry D]

Have to concur with Joshua Corning.

"Suggests" does not mean "could conceivably be consistent with a scenario where...".

[Barry D]

(Admittedly, climate scientists do appear to use the term "suggest" to mean something different from the dictionary definition. Perhaps "suggest" is climate science jargon, and I misunderstand.)

[Barry D]

In climate science jargon, I suppose that when McQueary saw Sandusky in the shower with the boy, both naked, that "suggested" that the boy had some mud on him and needed to be washed.

I did not know that the top brass at Penn State were fired for being climate scientists. THAT was the REAL scandal!

[Neu Mejican]

Tangential, but it seems Joshua should be circumspect when declaring others unable to think about or read a piece of science.

He has demonstrated difficulty with the most basic tasks involve on previous occasions. Even reading a basic table seems difficult for him.

http://reason.com/blog/2011/11.....nt_2613591

See his comment below as well. Even the basic facts being discussed seem difficult for him to keep track of.

He spends a lot of time and energy on this topic (certainly more than I), but I am not sure if he has gained much understanding of the issues.

[Joshua Corning]

Your link you provide is a question about Ron's Source.

joshua corning|11.4.11 @ 1:31PM|#

Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.14 C per decade

Where the hell are you getting this number?

Cuz it sure as hell is not on Spencer's website that i can find.

I was not questioning the number.

In fact i was hoping it was being generated by someone whom i could ask what the trend was for the past 10 years of temperature plateauing...in fact if you follow the thread you will see i ask that very question and get an answer.

Your 'gotcha' link is pretty tame there New Mex.

[tarran]

BTW, If anyone wants entertainment, the Fakegate scandal is continuing to mind its merry way.

Anthony Watts has got a nice running commentary of the collapse of Peter Gleick.

The best part, Desmog blog is claiming that they have proved the forged document to be authentic. Way to staple your testicles to the Titanic, guys.

Actually, I am reminded of that line uttered by Lucy in an old Peanuts cartoon.

Q: "Why do climbers rope themselves together?"
Lucy: "So if one falls, they all fall! Dummy!"

[Auric Demonocles]

Stop using -gate for any scandal.

[R C Dean]

What about GleickisalyingforgingscumbagGate?

Still no?

[Auric Demonocles]

Only if a scumbagGate is some new noun I haven't heard of, or the scandal is that he is a gate for scumbags.

[Warty]

Mitchell: Watergategate? Isn't it just Watergate?
Webb: No, that would mean it was just about water. No, it was a scandal or "gate" ? add the suffix '-gate', that's what you do with a scandal ? involving the Watergate Hotel. So it was called the Watergate scandal, or Watergategate.

[Joshua Corning]

I like how the faked document has cut and pasted sentences from the real documents....and the only person in possession of the real documents before they were all released was Gleick...

Gee I wonder who wrote the fake document?!?!

Anyway the claim that the fake document is real is insane. I would think the heartland institute would know how much the Koch brothers were donating and would know that they were donating for work on health issues and not work on climate change issues....you know rather then getting it completely wrong.

I also like how Gleik was fingered by Steve Mosher before he confessed...and he deduced it was Gleik from the writing style and timing of the fake document.

http://www.theatlantic.com/bus.....es/253395/

[Nigerian Climate Scientist]

I wrote professor Gleik a sincere pledge. I had been given those documents by a friend of mine is currently holding $100 million dollars that belongs to my family in escrow. The documents were given to me as security to for the $100 million, which are being held for tax purposes and because of government persecution of my family.

I sent the documents to Professor Gliek after he agreed to keep them safe for me and return them to the escrow holder after I had received my family's $100 million dollars. And in return I was to deposit $10,000 into his bank account.

That Professor Gliek has made these documents public and has yet to give me his bank account number is very disturbing. Please help me if you can retrieve my family's fortune by sending me your bank account.

Thank you and God bless.

[Matto]

+1 for superior comment craftsmanship

[Matto]

I read a comment by somebody on a blog theorizing that DeSmog was doubling down on the claim because of the inevitable libel case that will happen. Apparently its harder for the plaintiff to prove libel if the defendant "genuinely believed" what they were saying was true.

[Joshua Corning]

nah

DeSmog will always double down on defending the indefensible when it comes to its position on climate change.

Hack website will act like a hack website...no threat of lawsuit is needed.

[Matto]

Fair enough.

[tarran]

Actually, it's the other way around, the courts are less harsh to people who act quickly to mitigate damages.

If Desmog had said that they believed the documents were genuine, but were taking them down out of an abundance of caution, they would cover all their bases and go a long way towards establishing a defense that there was a lack of malice.

It's like SCO vs. IBM all over again.

[R C Dean]

Apparently its harder for the plaintiff to prove libel if the defendant "genuinely believed" what they were saying was true.

I'd be surprised. You can sue a newspaper for libel, after all, and I don't see how a newspaper can genuinely believe anything.

[EDG reppin' LBC]

At first I thought you were an Obama gargling left winger but I see you're also for quasi-science climate change adherents too. I guess there isn't a difference between the two.

You are new here, so try to make the best of your experience. Please try to contribute something more to these comment threads. For instance, you could explain why the computer models mentioned in this article are rigorous and accurate? Perhaps you could offer a link to another article or study that has similar methods and valid conclusions?

If none of those options work for you Jessie, at least you could link to a Youtube video of a song that is relevant to the article, either by band name, song title, or thematically.

[sloopyinca]

This is for Jessie!

BTW, should be down tomorrow night, EDG.

[EDG reppin' LBC]

Cool. Let's go drinking.

Fuck Michigan!

[sloopyinca]

I'll e-mail you tomorrow when I'm on my way in. Gotta go to Anaheim first, then HB.

[Tonio]

Jessie, many of us (not all) have no trouble with evolution, etc.

Are you sure you wouldn't be happier at over at Pharyngula? They regularly have love feasts with Jezebel and Feministing...

[Terra Spacecraft]

The Multi-angle Imaging SpectroRadiometer is a denier. I realized this as soon as we got into orbit. NASA is muzzling me.

[o3]

well just deny ur in space & take a gambol

[sarcasmic]

Global average cloud height declined by around one percent over the decade, or by around 100 to 130 feet (30 to 40 meters). Most of the reduction was due to fewer clouds occurring at very high altitudes.

IOW a change in some outliers caused a change in the mean.

Use this to argue that the median has changed.

Works great on people with no knowledge of basic statistics.

[sarcasmic]

That's like saying Warren Buffet's leaving the building causes the income of everyone else in the building to drop.

[Zeb]

No it isn't. They aren't claiming that all clouds have gotten lower. Only that the average height of all clouds is lower.

[sarcasmic]

Because of some outliers, the mean average changed.

The median, where most of the clouds are, changed very little if at all.

The implication is that most clouds are now floating a hundred or more feet lower than they did before.

[Sam Grove]

It's an odd thing to average anyhow. The influence and impact of high altitude cloud cover is different than low level clouds.
It may make sense to average their impacts, but not so much to average them this way.

[sarcasmic]

Not if your goal is to have an emotional impact on people.

The sky is falling!

Literally!

[Neu Mejican]

I believe the article is an attempt to justify a measurement technique, more than anything else. They are saying that their "H" is a useful way to look at the data.

[Mike Laursen]

re: ""We don't know exactly what causes the cloud heights to lower..."

It's an odd starting point to average a bunch of complex data and then think you have any hope of figuring out what caused the average to turn out that way. The answer lies somewhere in all the complexity that you just averaged out.

[Joshua Corning]

Global average cloud height declined by around one percent over the decade, or by around 100 to 130 feet (30 to 40 meters). Most of the reduction was due to fewer clouds occurring at very high altitudes.

Sooo a solar max in 1999 would have shielded the earth from cosmic rays causing less high altitude clouds causing the earth to heat up causing lower clouds to lower causing the earth to cool....

Yup it must be people causing it.

[Neu Mejican]

Sooo a solar max in 1999 would have shielded the earth from cosmic rays causing less high altitude clouds causing the earth to heat up causing lower clouds to lower causing the earth to cool....

For someone ranting about Ron's inference, you aren't even on the reservation here.

The "H" measured lowers when there are fewer high clouds, there is no "lowering of low clouds."

[Joshua Corning]

I was wrong and misread it.

Lower clouds are not lowering.

This is in no way is a concession about the other points in my other posts.

Less higher clouds still done not provide evidence of a human signal in recent global temperatures.

[Joni Mitchell]

I really don't know clouds at all.

[Pete]

The article says "A consistent reduction in cloud height would allow Earth to cool to space more efficiently", but surely space has no temperature since it has no matter to transfer the heat to. Rather, space itself acts like a blanket. Matter in space will have temperature since background radiation will heat it to a bout 3 deg K. See http://www.slayingtheskydragon.....is-trashed

[Zeb]

Heat radiates as IR into space.

[Pete]

Thus loosing heat in the process? Thanks Zeb.

[Pete]

probably should read thus loosing temperature in the process eh?

[Pete]

The article says "A consistent reduction in cloud height would allow Earth to cool to space more efficiently", but surely space has no temperature since it has no matter to transfer the heat to. Rather, space itself acts like a blanket. Matter in space will have temperature since background radiation will heat it to a bout 3 deg K. See http://www.slayingtheskydragon.....is-trashed

[LIzbeth Stidham]

Seems to me like Mother Nature is very unhappy about something dude.

http://www.Anon-Online.tk

[Old Mexican]

Longer-term monitoring will be required to determine the significance of the observation for global temperatures.

Nein! Nein! Ve can't vait! Ve muzt acht NOW! Schneller!

[Old Mexican]

Lead researcher Roger Davies said that while the record is too short to be definitive, it provides a hint that something quite important might be going on.

While the record is too short, the fact that the toddler likes to remove the tails from ants provides a hint to a mass murderer.

[RussellSeitz]

It appears the Heartland summary's likeliest author is not Gleick but Heartland President Joe Bast

Anthony Watts' unleashing of textual analysis software on the case seems to have backfired rather amusingly:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....97042.html

[Mike Laursen]

It's like we really didn't know clouds at all.

[????? ??????]

Thanks