Reflections On Climate Change

The popular narrative is that the earth is warming due to climate change.

We are told that the climate change is due to man-made carbon emissions.

Some dispute whether the earth is even warming.

However, let's assume that there has been some warming.

That leaves open the possibility it could be natural climatic cycles or has been influenced by humans.

One of the more interesting blog posts I wrote in the last several years involved the work Dr. John Clauser has done on the question of climate change (see that blog post below).

Clauser won the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics and raised the question of what effect clouds had on climate change.

Clauser was an avid sailor in his spare time and noticed that when he sailed on the ocean that there was a significant difference in temperatures when there were clouds in the sky versus when it was clear.

This led him to wonder what assumptions about cloud cover were used in the various models that claimed that global warming and climate change were a threat to humanity.

To his amazement, Clauser found that all of the climate models showing those future rising temperatures assumed a cloudless future. 

The models assumed there would be no clouds even though two-thirds of the earth is generally covered  by clouds on an average day.

The reason given was that the scientists did not understand the significance of cloud dynamics so they removed clouds from their climate models so as to not distort their results.

Clauser called this a massive error.

He stated "you can't have weather without clouds."

It all stands to reason that with no clouds there would be higher temperatures on earth with more sunny days.

Interestingly, a recent research paper was just released that seems to support the points Clauser was making about cloud dynamics and its effect on climate change.

Source: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ae8a67/pdf

I asked Grok to summarize the technical conclusions of this scientific paper to make it understandable to lay persons.

Since satellites started watching in 1979, scientists have noticed Earth is reflecting less sunlight than before. The biggest reason is that there are fewer bright, reflective clouds than there used to be.

Weather patterns have shifted, so some of those shiny low clouds have shrunk or moved. A smaller part comes from melting snow and ice and other surface changes.Because less sunlight is bouncing away, more of it is absorbed by the planet. That adds extra heat and makes Earth’s “energy imbalance” (more energy coming in than going out) bigger.

The paper says this cloud change is responsible for most of the extra sunlight being absorbed in recent decades.The authors also point out that when skies are clearer, the brightness of the ground and oceans matters more. They suggest that in the future we might need to think about managing how reflective Earth’s surface is (for example, through land use choices), not just focusing on greenhouse gases

.In short: fewer shiny clouds → Earth absorbs more sunshine → extra warming → and surface brightness becomes a bigger deal.

In summary, think of the earth as a large mirror. A lot of the sun's energy is reflected back into space. Cloud dynamics are a factor in this as they act as a shutter in moderating heat. On the other hand, on earth, things such as dark wet soils, forests, oceans and lakes absorb more heat while dry sand deserts or snow capped mountains reflect more of the heat away from earth.

The authors of this article on cloud dynamics support Clauser's theory that we should be looking a lot closer at cloud dynamics when climate change is concerned.

They also suggest that more focus should be put on taking account of the earth's reflective surface as well. For example, it might make more sense to not reforest bare land as it becomes less reflective.

The reason for fewer lower level clouds is blamed in part on more heat in the atmosphere that in turn is blamed on carbon emissions. 

However, it is interesting that another factor cited in reduced lower level clouds is the decrease in aerosol emissions over the last 20 years. It is also argued that cleaner air has resulted in fewer clouds due to environmental regulations.

Clouds need moisture to form. That is why it is generally cloudier over the ocean than it is over land.

Tiny, light scattering particles in aerosols and carbon emissions act as "seeds" to assist in cloud formation.  Therefore, for example, if a ocean going ship is using cleaner fuel for power than it did in the past it will produce fewer "seeds" to help carry the moisture from the sea necessary to form clouds.

All of this is further reinforced by a trend that is referred to as "Global Brightening".

Link: https://x.com/Electroversenet/status/2090891691649560717

Since the 1980's it has been observed at weather stations around the world that more solar energy is reaching the ground than it did in the 1960's and 1970's which was considered a "dimming period" due to air pollution.

As air pollution decreased due to environmental concerns the atmosphere cleared and more sunlight reached the earth's surface. 

As more sunlight got through the clearer atmosphere more solar radiation were absorbed by the earth.

The increase in surface solar radiation is calculated to be 10 times larger than the forcing from CO2 over the same period. 

It all goes to show the delicate balance that drives our climate.

Carbon emissions are blamed for a warming planet but fewer carbon emissions may also mean less cloud cover that is contributing to a warming planet due to less relectivity.

Beginning in the late 1970's the focus on air pollution has been so effective that the amount of solar radiation reaching and warming the earth is measurable.

Is it possible that the warming planet is actually due to cleaner air, reduced carbon emissions and less cloud cover?

This theory is not suggested in any narrative that is being repeated on climate change.

How ironic would it be that everything causing global warming is the opposite of what we are told?

Is the earth warming not due to carbon emissions but to less air pollution, fewer clouds and  more solar radiation reaching the earth's surface?

All of this should make it clear that there is still a lot of "science" to be learned from something we have been told is "settled".

The only thing I know for sure is that we should be wary of any "simple" explanation or narrative when it comes to explaining a multi-faceted and complex topic like our climate.

My original blog post on Dr. Clauser and the very flawed climate models that have been used to create so much hysteria and trillions of dollars in spending. follows. 

A Cloudless Future

(originally published September 14, 2023)

Wouldn't we all like to know that our future lives would be cloudless?

Every day of our lives would be sun-filled.

We would have no cloudy days.

No rain would ever fall on anyone's parade.

We would have no cares and no problems to deal with.

It would be an ideal life in every way.

With respect to our weather and climate, if there were no cloudy and rainy days it is easy to see it would be a lot warmer.

I play a lot of golf in many types of weather during the year.

One thing that is very clear is that there is a big difference in temperatures when the sun is out compared to when it is behind some cloud cover.

In the summer, if the sun slips behind a cloud it makes it feel 5-10 degrees cooler immediately.

In the spring and fall, a cool day can become very comfortable when the sun is unhindered by any clouds.

However, if the sun disappears in cloud cover you better be prepared to put that jacket on as the chill is immediate.

Would it surprise you to know that all of the famous climate models that are being used to predict rising future temperatures assume that there will be no clouds in the future?

In other words, despite the fact that clouds have been a mainstay in our weather and climate since the beginning of time on earth, the models that are being used assume the future will be cloudless.

Is it any wonder you could show a global temperature increase of a couple degrees in a climate model if you assumed a cloudless future compared to a world in which clouds cover a portion of the earth every day?

For example, here is the first image of earth taken last year (May, 2022) by the  Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite-T (GOES-T) (later renamed GOES18) weather satellite after it first became operational. This satellite is positioned 22,236 miles above earth to monitor weather patterns, storms, fog and wildfires in the Western Hemisphere.

Do you see any clouds?

Dr. John Clauser who won the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics has recently questioned climate research quality and contends that U.S. climate policies are misguided because they are based on a flawed underlying assumption---a cloudless future.

Mr. Clauser said he believes he has identified a significant oversight in prevailing climate models.

"I believe I have the missing piece of the puzzle that has been left out in virtually all of these computer programs," he stated. "And that is the effect of clouds."

While many theories of anthropogenic climate change focus primarily on the impact of human-produced CO2, Mr. Clauser argues that these models overlook the significance of cloud dynamics.

He referenced the 2003 National Academy report, which, he said, "totally admitted" its lack of understanding about clouds, and made "a whole series of mistaken statements regarding the effects of clouds."

Drawing attention to Al Gore's film, "The Inconvenient Truth," Mr. Clauser noted, "[Mr. Gore] insists on talking about a cloud-free earth ... That's a totally artificial Earth." According to Mr. Clauser, this cloudless portrayal of the earth reflects the approach taken by many in the climate science community.

"That's a totally artificial Earth. It is a totally artificial case for using a model, and this is pretty much what the IPCC and others use—a cloud free earth."

Mr. Clauser pointed out that satellite images consistently show wide variances in cloud cover, which can span anywhere from five to 95 percent of the Earth's surface.

"The cloud cover fraction fluctuates quite dramatically on daily weekly timescales. We call this weather. You can't have weather without clouds.

This is not a small error.

These models are the basis by which it is claimed that climate change is an existential threat to humanity.

It is the argument for why all fossil fuels should be banned.

Joe Biden says that not even nuclear war is a greater threat to human existence than what those climate models show.

Source: https://twitter.com/business/status/1700926785611772341

Trillions of dollars of spending are being proposed to combat a problem that may only exist in the imagination of the climate modelers who have chosen to not consider the effects of cloud cover on the earth and its temperature.

Clauser sees it as a colossal misuse of resources and waste of time and money.

Mr. Clauser criticized U.S. government efforts to reduce CO2 and methane as a colossal misuse of resources better allocated for humanitarian endeavors. Such initiatives, he argues, "should be stopped immediately."

"[It's] a total waste of money and time and effort. It is strangling industry," he said.

But Mr. Clauser is not holding his breath.

"My suspicion is what I am saying here will be totally ignored because people don't like being told that they've made big mistakes of this magnitude," he said.

Another Nobel laureate and 1,600 other science professionals have recently signed a declaration with Clauser declaring that there is no "climate emergency" and that climate change science is not conclusive.

So much for the "consensus of scientists" narrative.

So much for Joe Biden calling those who disagree with the climate change narrative as "lying dog faced pony soldiers".

A couple Nobel laureates and 1,600 scientists are "lying dog-faced pony soldiers"?

Could it possibly be the reverse?

Does anyone believe that Biden has the slightest idea about how the models being used to support the climate change narrative have been developed?

In addition, there is no one on earth that can find the John Wayne movie that Biden refers to when he used the "lying dog faced pony solders" line.

This report contains research of those who have attempted to confirm Biden's explanation. They could not.

The president has used the alleged movie line "lying dog-faced pony soldier" multiple times in the past to indicate that someone is lying through their teeth or the person is dishonest. However, the quote has baffled many social media users as it doesn’t exist.

A cloudless future?

That is not going to occur. You can count on that.

However, Joe Biden's mind (and future in politics) gets cloudier with every passing day.