Study shows clouds don't cause climate change

Sep 06, 2011

Clouds only amplify climate change, says a Texas A&M University professor in a study that rebuts recent claims that clouds are actually the root cause of climate change.

Andrew Dessler, a Texas A&M atmospheric sciences professor considered one of the nation's experts on climate variations, says decades of data support the mainstream and long-held view that are primarily acting as a so-called "feedback" that amplifies warming from human activity. His work is published today in the American Geophysical Union's peer-reviewed journal Geophysical Research Letters.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.

Dessler studied El Niño and La Niña cycles over the past 10 years and calculated the Earth's "energy budget" over this time. El Nino and La Nina are cyclical events, roughly every five years, when waters in the central Pacific Ocean tend to get warmer or colder. These changes have a huge impact on much of the world's weather systems for months or even years.

Dessler found that clouds played a very small role in initiating these climate variations — in agreement, he says, with mainstream climate science and in direct opposition to some previous claims.

"The bottom line is that clouds have not replaced humans as the cause of the recent warming the Earth is experiencing," Dessler says.

Texas is currently in one of the worst droughts in the state's history, and most scientists believe it is a direct result of La Niña conditions that have lingered in the Pacific Ocean for many months.

Dessler adds, "Over a century, however, clouds can indeed play an important role amplifying ."

"I hope my analysis puts an end to this claim that clouds are causing climate change," he adds.

Explore further: Image: Cal Madow mountain range, Somalia

Provided by Texas A&M University

3.8 /5 (13 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Tree rings tell a 1,100-year history of El Nino

May 06, 2011

El Niño and its partner La Niña, the warm and cold phases in the eastern half of the tropical Pacific, play havoc with climate worldwide. Predicting El Niño events more than several months ahead ...

Ancient El Nino clue to future floods

May 26, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Dramatic climate swings behind both last year's Pakistan flooding and this year’s Queensland floods in Australia are likely to continue as the world gets warmer, scientists predict.

Recommended for you

Scientists stalk coastal killer

4 hours ago

For much of Wednesday, a small group of volunteers and researchers walked in and out of the surf testing a new form of surveillance on the biggest killer of beach swimmers - rip currents.

Fires in Central Africa During July 2014

18 hours ago

Hundreds of fires covered central Africa in mid-July 2014, as the annual fire season continues across the region. Multiple red hotspots, which indicate areas of increased temperatures, are heavily sprinkled ...

NASA's HS3 mission spotlight: The HIRAD instrument

Jul 24, 2014

The Hurricane Imaging Radiometer, known as HIRAD, will fly aboard one of two unmanned Global Hawk aircraft during NASA's Hurricane Severe Storm Sentinel or HS3 mission from Wallops beginning August 26 through ...

User comments : 42

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

omatumr
1.6 / 5 (25) Sep 06, 2011
Sorry, but CERN scientists were right: Cosmic rays probably from the pulsar at the solar core produce ionization that causes nucleation of water droplets and formation of clouds,

Climate change has occurred, and will continue to occur, because that is the natural direction of the forces that control this area - the Sun, the Earth, and our very lives [0-9].

It is time to face reality and abandon unscientific dogma that divides us ! [Obama yields on smog rule in face of GOP demands]

www.physorg.com/n...rds.html

1. www.omatumr.com/a...enon.pdf
2. www.omatumr.com/a...nces.pdf
3. www.omatumr.com/lpsc.prn.pdf
4. www.omatumr.com/a...tnuc.pdf
5. www.springerlink....6685079/
6. http://arxiv.org/.../0501441
7. http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704
8. http://journalofc...102.html
9. http://arxiv.org/...2.1499v1
0. http://dl.dropbox...5079.pdf
Vendicar_Decarian
2.8 / 5 (21) Sep 06, 2011
Because as we all know, cosmic rays blast through 400,000 miles of dense hydrogen plasma and strike only the sunlight side of the earth.

Wow, OmaTard, you gots it all worked out real pretty like.

Get thee to a Psycho pharmacologist while there is still time.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.6 / 5 (19) Sep 06, 2011
I liked the part where it is claimed that Spencer fraudulently used a combination of climate models that maximized a discrepancy that he claimed showed climate models to be wrong rather than using a representative sample that showed a completely different result.

Spencer is clearly now engaged in scientific Fraud for the purpose of furthering the ideology of his Libertarian employers.

deatopmg
3.1 / 5 (21) Sep 06, 2011
How interesting that Dressler's report only took 6 weeks to be vetted thru the peer sic review system for publication whereas the normal average time is close to a year and up to 2 yrs for anything outside the climatologist's dogma.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.2 / 5 (23) Sep 06, 2011

"How interesting that Dressler's report only took 6 weeks" - DeaTard

Ya... It's all part of the conspiracy to keep denialists stupid.
Noumenon
4.3 / 5 (62) Sep 06, 2011
Quotes from Vendicar_Decarian *

"12 more American terrorists were murdered in Iraq this weekend. More will soon follow them into death. The more dead americans in Iraq the better." - Vendicar_Decarian

"The world needs more dead americans in Afghanastan & Iraq" - Vendicar_Decarian

"[regarding above quote by Vendicar] As true today as the day it was written." - Vendicar_Decarian

"Killing Bush now top priority of all Loyal Democrats" - Vendicar_Decarian

"Military action [Afghanistan ] has been nothing but state terrorism by the U.S. against those nations." - Vendicar_Decarian

"While America has been busy murdering civilians in Afghanistan, the criminal genius behind the 911 attacks has been laughing his ass off in Pakistan." - Vendicar_Decarian

*AKA "Scott Douglas", "Scott Nudds", "VD Scotty", and "VD Nudds", internet troll extraordinaire.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.4 / 5 (20) Sep 06, 2011
Where were those Iraqi WMD again NoumenTard?

Refresh my memory.
omatumr
1.9 / 5 (18) Sep 06, 2011
Our world is in grave danger from instability induced by unscientific dogma that:

a.) Obama and other world leaders believed to represent scientific fact, and

b.) The public recognized as absolute bunkum, rot, BS!

The only solution is for leaders of the scientific community to address, and leaders of the news media to report their views on, experimental observations that were hidden, avoided or manipulated for the past four decades [1].

The public deserves to know the diversity of opinions about the natural direction of forces that control the Sun, Earths climate, and our very lives.

1. Neutron repulsion, The APEIRON Journal, in press (2011)
http://arxiv.org/...2.1499v1

Leaders of news media and the scientific community cannot escape facing reality, no matter how powerful the combined forces of their allies.

Regretfully,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
Vendicar_Decarian
2.7 / 5 (19) Sep 06, 2011
"Astronomy will never advance until astronomers realize that they can not see stars." - Omatard

"Our world is in grave danger from instability induced by unscientific dogma,,," - OmaTard
omatumr
2.3 / 5 (16) Sep 06, 2011
Quotes from Vendicar_Decarian *

"12 more American terrorists were murdered in Iraq this weekend. More will soon follow them into death. The more dead americans in Iraq the better." - Vendicar_Decarian

VD illustrates the dangerous state of our present society.

"The world needs more dead americans in Afghanastan & Iraq" - Vendicar_Decarian

"[regarding above quote by Vendicar] As true today as the day it was written." - Vendicar_Decarian

"Killing Bush now top priority of all Loyal Democrats" - Vendicar_Decarian

"Military action [Afghanistan ] has been nothing but state terrorism by the U.S. against those nations." - Vendicar_Decarian

"While America has been busy murdering civilians in Afghanistan, the criminal genius behind the 911 attacks has been laughing his ass off in Pakistan." - Vendicar_Decarian

*AKA "Scott Douglas", "Scott Nudds", "VD Scotty", and "VD Nudds", internet troll extraordinaire.


These quotes illustrate the dangerous state of our present society.
Noumenon
4.3 / 5 (55) Sep 06, 2011
Where were those Iraqi WMD again NoumenTard?

Refresh my memory.


Dug from a rat hole and then hung.

Read my posts here for elaboration.
http://www.physor...nce.html

Vendicar_Decarian
2.3 / 5 (16) Sep 06, 2011
You know NoumenTard.... I know a very beautiful Christian Iraqi girl.

She absolutely hates America. Why do you think that is?

Now back to the original question...

Where were those Iraqi WMD?

Refresh my memory.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.2 / 5 (14) Sep 06, 2011
"These quotes illustrate the dangerous state of our present society." - OmaTard

They do indeed.

Noumenon
4.3 / 5 (55) Sep 06, 2011
As I've said, I already addressed that question above and in the PhysOrg link above.
jamesrm
2 / 5 (8) Sep 06, 2011
Blowmenoften said
"As I've said, I already addressed that question above and in the PhysOrg link above."

No your sock-puppet was so full of your man-starch it justy crumbled in your hand
jonnyboy
2 / 5 (12) Sep 06, 2011
"These quotes illustrate the dangerous state of our present society." - OmaTard

They do indeed.

Vendicar, have you stopped molesting little boys yet?
Vendicar_Decarian
2.7 / 5 (16) Sep 06, 2011
"Vendicar, have you stopped molesting little boys yet?" - jonnyboy

While I am flattered that a boy such as yourself is interested in me as a new and special adult friend, I am concerned for your welfare.

I am curious however. Given that you are a cast member of the back door follies, how do you explain your chronically soiled underpants to your mother?
Vendicar_Decarian
2.3 / 5 (15) Sep 06, 2011
"As I've said, I already addressed that question above and in the PhysOrg link above." - NoumenTard

You say many things, and like your current statement, few of the things you say are true.

Where were those WMD again NumenTard?

Refresh my memory.
ted208
2.5 / 5 (16) Sep 06, 2011
As Usual the warmist article is a is a last desperate attempt to corrupt real science. Kind of like Vendicar_Decarian Tards crap postings.
Noumenon
4.3 / 5 (55) Sep 06, 2011
"As I've said, I already addressed that question above and in the PhysOrg link above." - NoumenTard

You say many things, and like your current statement, few of the things you say are true.

Where were those WMD again NumenTard?

Refresh my memory.


Dug from a rat hole and then hung from a rope.

You must have short term memory. I explained in pure logical terms in the other thread why "no WMD's in Iraq" doesn't matter, I won't rehash here.
Caliban
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 06, 2011


...
"no WMD's in Iraq doesn't matter, I won't rehash here."
...

---huh?!
Well, I'll be damned. All this time I was of the understanding that that was, for all intents and purposes, the ENTIRE justification for this "War" being prosecuted.

I guess it's true- you learn something new every day.

Unless you are noumenon.

GSwift7
3.9 / 5 (8) Sep 07, 2011
a study that rebuts recent claims that clouds are actually the root cause of climate change


That isn't what the previous study said. I've read it, and if I had to give a nutshell summary, I'd say that it said the root cause is hard to determine. It could be co2 or it could be something else. They were saying that the observational data is hard to interpret. They simply said that the noise in the data masks the signal claimed by climate models. I'm not saying they are right, or wrong, or whether the above article is wright or wrong. I'm just clarifying the error in the above caption. I'll be happy to provide quotes to the source if needed.

It should be noted that the above paper was prepared, peer reviewed and published in a month. That's highly irregular in scientific journals. That doesn't mean they are wrong, but it certainly raises the alarm bells that it should be reviewed with carefull scrutiny. The article it attempts to rebuke is skeptical, so it also raises alarm
GSwift7
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 07, 2011
This is actually a big story in the battle of climate change politics/science. All the big names are actively in play on this one.

The fact that the most political/activist people on each side are engaged so fully on this issue indicates to me that one of them is lying about it. I'll hold judgement to decide which side is true. They both have peer reviewed papers at this time.

I wonder why the above paper wasn't submitted in the same journal as the paper they are attempting to refute. The "normal" process would be for them to submit at rebuttal in that same journal and then for the original authors to replay in turn. That's the established process, I think.
GSwift7
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 07, 2011
is it noteworthy that this site didn't cover the release of the paper puportedly refuted here? It was a news story big enough to be covered by the mainstream media, but not mentioned here. This site only publishes the stories they want to publish, based on their editorial biases. I prefer to judge for myself.

If the Braswell paper is to be refuted, then the above paper isn't sufficient. I CAN see deficiencies in the Brasswell paper, but the above story has missed the mark in thier rush to publish.

BTW, all the off-topic stuff needs to be moved to private messages. You are just distracting from the real issues. Is that on purpose?
jsdarkdestruction
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 07, 2011
"These quotes illustrate the dangerous state of our present society." - OmaTard

They do indeed.

Vendicar, have you stopped molesting little boys yet?

UM, its oliver who is the convicted sex offender for molesting his children....
bluehigh
2.6 / 5 (8) Sep 07, 2011
Vendicar, have you stopped molesting little boys yet?


Vendi, my admiration to you for not responding in outrage. Heated arguments and polarized views get aired and (mostly) tolerated here but that is a step too far.

jonnyboy, you should apologize.
intech
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 07, 2011
I am sorry to post this relevant link here in between school boy arguments but this link below is very interesting ( more interesting than the abuse being portrayed on this thread )
http://www.geocra...ange.pdf
And if the Texas A&M University are accepting that Clouds amplify Climate change then... they are accepting the report made here by Tim Patterson and if they are accepting this then they are accepting that water vapour is the No1 Greenhouse gas and that CO2 is not a Major player in climate change.
Enjoy the read.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Sep 07, 2011
hereas the normal average time is close to a year and up to 2 yrs for anything outside

Hate to burst your bubble but the speed of peer review very much depends on the quality of the paper. If there are major issues that need to be fixed then that process can take a long time. If a paper is pretty well written and there are no objections as to methodology, data and sources then a peer review can be over in a matter of days.

Reviewers are not charged with reimplementing/recalculating the results of a paper (they usually can't because they mostly don't have access to the original data nor the tools to do the checking).

Reviewers are charged with reading through it and seeing that it meets all formal and scientific criteria (which mostly comes down to: Did the paper address all issues, is it original, did it use the right statistical methods, are the conclusions supportable by the data cited, ... )
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (2) Sep 07, 2011
The way this works is:

A reviewer (and a few others in the field) get the anonymized paper along with a bunch of checklist questions. You read through the paper, do your checking, add your comments and that's it (that is: if the paper is perfect the first time around)

There are people who have already written a few papers. They know how to write one that will pass muster more likely than not on the first try.

If minor or major revisions are requested then the paper goes back to the editor (and from hereon back to the author). Now the author can do a revision, addressing all issues and comments, and the paper then goes through another round of review.

This is repeated until all reviewers pass the paper (or the editor considers the remaining issues so minor as not to initiate further rounds).

Depending on the number of rounds and the speed with which the reviewers return the paper this can be done very quickly (though reviewers usually are given 2 months or so to do their thing)
GSwift7
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 07, 2011
The time limit for reviews in Geophysical Research Letters is 14 days. This is a special part of the Journal, designed for short quick responses.

I the case of this particular Journal, their rapid turnaround time usually results in around 13 weeks from submission to publication. Here's a quote from them:

for 50% of accepted papers, an average time from submission to publication of 13.5 weeks.


Peer review is only part of the process, which usually takes 36 days.

For the past 3 years we have maintained an efficient
review process, with a median time to first decision of 36 days


Here's the source:

http://www.agu.or...rial.pdf

So, the rapid publication of the above article, especially since it contains a large amount of technical analysis is very unusual. Not very good peer review either. Why didn't they ask for diagnostics on the regression, for example. What is the CI?
Vendicar_Decarian
2.9 / 5 (10) Sep 07, 2011
"Vendi, my admiration to you for not responding in outrage. " - BlueHigh

This is the way Republicans operate. I get death threats at least once a year from them. Have been getting them for the last 30 years.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.8 / 5 (11) Sep 07, 2011
What is really laughable about the Fraud Paper that Spencer managed to get published, is that his "model" doesn't even conserve energy.

Spencer has no credibility left. He is a Lying Libertarian Propagandist. Nothing more.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 07, 2011
Funny - this article appears today in the WSJ:

"But a few physicists weren't worrying about Al Gore in the 1990s. They were theorizing about another possible factor in climate change: charged subatomic particles from outer space, or "cosmic rays," whose atmospheric levels appear to rise and fall with the weakness or strength of solar winds that deflect them from the earth. These shifts might significantly impact the type and quantity of clouds covering the earth, providing a clue to one of the least-understood but most important questions about climate. Heavenly bodies might be driving long-term weather trends.

"In 1997 he decided that "the best way to settle it would be to use the CERN particle beam as an artificial source of cosmic rays and reconstruct an artificial atmosphere in the lab." He predicted to reporters at the time that, based on Mr. Svensmark's paper, the theory would "probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole" of 20th-century warming."
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Sep 07, 2011
"Mr. Kirkby's CERN experiment was finally approved in 2006 and has been under way since 2009. So far, it has not proved Mr. Svensmark wrong. "The result simply leaves open the possibility that cosmic rays could influence the climate," stresses Mr. Kirkby, quick to tamp down any interpretation that would make for a good headline."
http://online.wsj...news_wsj

-Dont shoot me Im just a Messenger.
GSwift7
4 / 5 (4) Sep 07, 2011
FYI, Dr Spencer has posted an intial public response over at wattsupwiththat. If you are going to hold an opinion on it, then take the time to hear both sides. I took the time to go read the comments from Trenberth in regard to S&B 2011. It's important to understand both sides of the debate if you really want to hold an opinion about it. Here's a link to Spencer's editorial:

http://wattsupwit...1-study/

He says that he plans to submit a paper to GRL in response to Dessler 2011. I notice that he does not address the ENSO issue in his response. The claim that Dessler made a math error is interesting. I'm also curious about what McIntyr's response will be.
GSwift7
4 / 5 (4) Sep 07, 2011
Keep in mind that this is just the most recent chapter in the debate between Spencer and Dessler. There have been a total of four papers over the past couple years, two from each Dr.

SB 2011 made it onto Slashdot but didn't get reported here. Isn't that strange?
TJ TOCCO
1 / 5 (1) Sep 08, 2011
My theory is That the moon is what created the ice age, and killed off all of the dinosaurs. There is a impact creator on the surface of the moon as to where it collided with earth. Some two hundred and forty-five million years ago. And the other one in a south American a town which is located in the creator. If aligned they match up perfectly with one and other. When the land on the earth was joined together in one big land mass or continent called Pangaea. The earth was hit by moon size meteor which broke up the Pangaea. Now after the water levels start to rise and the earth starts to move backward to the true vertical state when the dinosaurs ruled the planet. The earth will be once again all one continues temperature all the year long. That is why the dinosaurs lived such a long time because, it was a plush green planet. The moon is drifting anyway from the earths gravitational pull each and every year and that is why we are going through a warming trend.
GSwift7
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 09, 2011
Dessler has agreed to a few corrections in response to comments from Spencer. He didn't give specifics, so we'll have to wait and see what changes, and if it alters the conclusions at all. I do know for sure that his mis-quote of what Spencer was saying is going to be removed and corrected. They (Spencer and Dessler) are still talking about the math issues and trying to agree on a common way to treat the terms in the central equation for the heat budget. Dessler has admitted to at least some of the errors Spencer pointed out in his initial response. Again, we'll have to wait and see what eventually gets published.

I still stand by my earlier criticizm of the quality of peer review on this one. It could have been better.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 11, 2011
"My theory is That the moon is what created the ice age" - Tocco

How can cheese make cold? And if it can then why isn't it used in refrigeration on the space station?

Vendicar_Decarian
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 11, 2011
"Keep in mind that this is just the most recent chapter in the debate between Spencer and Dessler." - GSwift

There is no debate. Spencer is a fraud and his model doesn't even conserve energy.

Spencer is in the same class of "scientists" as those who believe in Perpetual motion and Free Energy.

Vendicar_Decarian
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 11, 2011
"Dr Spencer has posted an intial public response over at wattsupwiththat" - Duckie

Spencer posts in public because he knows that any response he makes in the scientific literature will be panned as the Fraud it would have to be to defend his latest publication.

Sin_Amos
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 12, 2011
"Study shows clouds don't cause climate change"--Yeah, because this is obvious as hell. What a waste of a study and an article. Global warming is caused by a virus known as homo sapiens. De End.