Study shows clouds don't cause climate change
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 clouds 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 climate change."
"I hope my analysis puts an end to this claim that clouds are causing climate change," he adds.
Provided by Texas A&M University
-
From lemons to lemonade: Reaction uses carbon dioxide to make carbon-based semiconductor,
32 comments
-
Thioridazine kills cancer stem cells in human while avoiding toxic side-effects of conventional cancer treatments,
3 comments
-
SpaceX private rocket blasts off for space station (Update),
42 comments
-
Climate scientists say they have solved riddle of rising sea,
31 comments
-
SpaceX capsule has 'new car' smell, astronauts say (Update),
2 comments
-
Hypothetical desert earth
13 hours ago
-
More human population = greater mass?
May 25, 2012
-
Conversion from aircraft bearing to normal degrees
May 23, 2012
-
Interpretation/Analysis of the Lab results(HEPA filter)
May 22, 2012
-
Has anyone here attended the The Urbino Summer School in Paleoclimatology?
May 22, 2012
-
Earthquakes: Mag 6 N. Italy and Mag 5.6 W. Bulgaria
May 21, 2012
- More from Physics Forums - Earth
More news stories
Sophisticated simulations predict future warming
The chances of our planet being hit by a global warming of 3 degrees Celsius by 2050 is as likely as it being hit by an increase of 1.4 degrees, new research shows. Presented in the journal Nature Geoscience, the British study ...
Space & Earth / Earth Sciences
May 22, 2012 |
4.4 / 5 (9) |
51
Kyoto Protocol architect 'frustrated' by climate dialogue
UN climate talks are going nowhere, as politicians dither or bicker while the pace of warming dangerously speeds up, one of the architects of the Kyoto Protocol told AFP.
May 23, 2012 |
3.7 / 5 (7) |
39
Aliens don't want to eat us, says former SETI director
Alien life probably isn’t interested in having us for dinner, enslaving us or laying eggs in our bellies, according to a recent statement by former SETI director Jill Tarter.
Space & Earth / Space Exploration
May 25, 2012 |
4.4 / 5 (13) |
37
Dragon arrives at space station in historic 1st (Update 2)
The privately bankrolled Dragon capsule made a historic arrival at the International Space Station on Friday, triumphantly captured by astronauts wielding a giant robot arm.
Space & Earth / Space Exploration
May 25, 2012 |
5 / 5 (10) |
19
What's the big deal about private space launches?
(AP) -- The first private spaceship is headed to the International Space Station. Some questions and answers about the cargo mission by Space Exploration Technologies, known as SpaceX:
Space & Earth / Space Exploration
May 22, 2012 |
5 / 5 (6) |
32
Nvidia trumpets Tegra 3 phone design wins for 2012
(Phys.org) -- Nvidia’s competitive war paint has a name, Tegra 3. On the heels of Nvidia announcements about lowering costs of its Tegra 3 processors and Nvidia-enabled tablets running Android Ice Cream ...
Browser wars flare in mobile space
The browser wars are heating up again, but this time the fight is for dominance of the mobile Internet.
Scientist: Evolution debate will soon be history
(AP) -- Richard Leakey predicts skepticism over evolution will soon be history. Not that the avowed atheist has any doubts himself.
Dell tablet leak: 10.1-inch display, two-battery choice
(Phys.org) -- Headline after headline talks about vendors’ tablets in the wings as likely number-one contenders for the iPad. Such claims have justifiably been taken with a grain of salt, considering ...
Keep food safety in mind this memorial day weekend
(HealthDay) -- Picnics, parades and cookouts are as much a part of Memorial Day weekend as tributes to the United States' war veterans.
Social welfare cuts ultimately come with heavy price, researchers say
(Phys.org) -- Slashing government funding for Medicaid, food stamps and other programs that serve the poor – while politically popular with some lawmakers and many conservatives – may do more harm ...
Sep 06, 2011
Rank: 1.7 / 5 (23)
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
Sep 06, 2011
Rank: 2.7 / 5 (20)
Wow, OmaTard, you gots it all worked out real pretty like.
Get thee to a Psycho pharmacologist while there is still time.
Sep 06, 2011
Rank: 2.4 / 5 (18)
Spencer is clearly now engaged in scientific Fraud for the purpose of furthering the ideology of his Libertarian employers.
Sep 06, 2011
Rank: 3.3 / 5 (19)
Sep 06, 2011
Rank: 2 / 5 (22)
"How interesting that Dressler's report only took 6 weeks" - DeaTard
Ya... It's all part of the conspiracy to keep denialists stupid.
Sep 06, 2011
Rank: 4.1 / 5 (42)
"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.
Sep 06, 2011
Rank: 2.3 / 5 (19)
Refresh my memory.
Sep 06, 2011
Rank: 2 / 5 (17)
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
Sep 06, 2011
Rank: 2.6 / 5 (18)
"Our world is in grave danger from instability induced by unscientific dogma,,," - OmaTard
Sep 06, 2011
Rank: 2.4 / 5 (14)
These quotes illustrate the dangerous state of our present society.
Sep 06, 2011
Rank: 4.2 / 5 (35)
Dug from a rat hole and then hung.
Read my posts here for elaboration.
http://www.physor...nce.html
Sep 06, 2011
Rank: 2.1 / 5 (15)
She absolutely hates America. Why do you think that is?
Now back to the original question...
Where were those Iraqi WMD?
Refresh my memory.
Sep 06, 2011
Rank: 2 / 5 (13)
They do indeed.
Sep 06, 2011
Rank: 4.1 / 5 (35)
Sep 06, 2011
Rank: 2.1 / 5 (7)
"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
Sep 06, 2011
Rank: 2.1 / 5 (11)
Sep 06, 2011
Rank: 2.5 / 5 (15)
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?
Sep 06, 2011
Rank: 2.1 / 5 (14)
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.
Sep 06, 2011
Rank: 2.7 / 5 (14)
Sep 06, 2011
Rank: 4.1 / 5 (35)
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.
Sep 06, 2011
Rank: 3.3 / 5 (7)
......
---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.
Sep 07, 2011
Rank: 4.2 / 5 (6)
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
Sep 07, 2011
Rank: 4.2 / 5 (5)
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.
Sep 07, 2011
Rank: 4.2 / 5 (5)
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?
Sep 07, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (4)
Sep 07, 2011
Rank: 3.2 / 5 (6)
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.
Sep 07, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (6)
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.
Sep 07, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
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, ... )
Sep 07, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (1)
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)
Sep 07, 2011
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
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:
Peer review is only part of the process, which usually takes 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?
Sep 07, 2011
Rank: 2.7 / 5 (9)
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.
Sep 07, 2011
Rank: 2.6 / 5 (10)
Spencer has no credibility left. He is a Lying Libertarian Propagandist. Nothing more.
Sep 07, 2011
Rank: 4 / 5 (4)
"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."
Sep 07, 2011
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
http://online.wsj...news_wsj
-Dont shoot me Im just a Messenger.
Sep 07, 2011
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
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.
Sep 07, 2011
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
SB 2011 made it onto Slashdot but didn't get reported here. Isn't that strange?
Sep 08, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Sep 09, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
I still stand by my earlier criticizm of the quality of peer review on this one. It could have been better.
Sep 11, 2011
Rank: 2 / 5 (4)
How can cheese make cold? And if it can then why isn't it used in refrigeration on the space station?
Sep 11, 2011
Rank: 2.3 / 5 (6)
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.
Sep 11, 2011
Rank: 2.3 / 5 (6)
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.
Sep 12, 2011
Rank: 3.4 / 5 (5)