Här kommer en mycket intressant artikel som kommer att publiceras i ”Journal of Climate” av Dr. Roy W. Spencer och William Braswell (The University of Alabama in Huntsville).
Vad det hela handlar är hur dessa avgudade klimatmodeller som hela Global Warming Hysterin bygger på tolkar molnbildning och hur molnen påverkas av temperaturförändringar till följd av den CO2 som människor åstadkommer.
Dessa klimatmodeller har FÖRUTSATT att temperaturförändringar har orsakat molnförändringar (positive feedback- destabilizing processes).
Dessa nya rön visar att det INTE ALLS ÄR SÅ ENKELT UTAN ATT DET KAN VARA TVÄRTOM! (negative feedback – stabilizing processes).
Dvs. klimatmodellerna har det hela bakvänt och därigenom ” this can ultimately lead to overestimates of how sensitive Earth’s climate is to our greenhouse gas emissions.”
Surprise! Surprise! Detta felaktiga antaganden av klimatmodellerna leder till en överskattning av jordens känslighet för ”greenhouse gases”.
Och på dessa lösa boliner så vill våra kära politiker ruinera oss!
Se även mina inlägg: Honest Statement Of Current Capability In Climate Forecasts, Tropical Water Vapor and Cloud Feedbacks in Climate Models, Basic Greenhouse Equations ”Totally Wrong” – ytterligare ett anförande från konferensen i New York, Hey, Nobel Prize Winners, Answer Me This, The Sloppy Science of Global Warming!, IPCC models are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view!, But the forecasts, especially for regional climate change, are immensely uncertain!, There will be no more warming for the foreseeable future. ROBUSTNESS AND UNCERTAINTIES OF CLIMATE CHANGE PREDICTIONS, Has the IPCC inflated the feedback factor?, Climate change confirmed but global warming is cancelled, Why multiple climate model agreement is not that exciting!, Open letter to IPCC to renounce its current policy!, Average Day By Day Variations Of The Global And Hemispheric Average Lower Tropospheric Temperatures, Scientists Reveal Presence Of Ocean Current ‘Stripes’, Cold in the tropical troposphere but it should be warming if Global Warming ”theories” are correct!, Assessment of the reliability of climate predictions based on comparisons with historical time series, Mera om Klimat modellernas falsarium, Klimatmodellernas falsarium, Klimatmodellernas skojeri – Fel på 100 - 300%!
Artikeln finns här:
Has Global Warming Research Misinterpreted Cloud Behavior?
Climate experts agree that the seriousness of manmade global warming depends greatly upon how clouds in the climate system respond to the small warming tendency from the extra carbon dioxide mankind produces. Researchers have traditionally assumed that temperature changes have caused clouds to change, but now there is reason to think that the cause-effect relationship is not so simple, and could even be reversed
To figure that out, climate researchers usually examine natural, year-to-year fluctuations in clouds and temperature to estimate how clouds will respond to humanity¹s production of greenhouse gases.
When researchers observe natural changes in clouds and temperature, they have traditionally assumed that the temperature change caused the clouds to change, and not the other way around. To the extent that the cloud changes actually cause temperature change, this can ultimately lead to overestimates of how sensitive Earth’s climate is to our greenhouse gas emissions.
This seemingly simple mix-up between cause and effect is the basis of a new paper that will appear in the ”Journal of Climate.” The paper¹s lead author, Dr. Roy W. Spencer, a principal research scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville, believes the work is the first step in demonstrating why climate models produce too much global warming.
Spencer and his co-author, principal research scientist William (Danny) Braswell, used a simple climate model to demonstrate that something as seemingly innocuous as daily random variations in cloud cover can cause year-to-year variation in ocean temperature that looks like — but isn’t — ”positive cloud feedback,” a warmth-magnifying process that exists in all major climate models.
”Our paper is an important step toward validating a gut instinct that many meteorologists like myself have had over the years,” said Spencer, ”that the climate system is dominated by stabilizing processes, rather than destabilizing processes — that is, negative feedback rather than positive feedback.”
The paper doesn’t disprove the theory that global warming is manmade.
Instead, it offers an alternative explanation for what we see in the climate system which has the potential for greatly reducing estimates of mankind’s impact on Earth’s climate.
”Since the cloud changes could conceivably be caused by known long-term modes of climate variability — such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, or El Nino and La Nina — some, or even most, of the global warming seen in the last century could simply be due to natural fluctuations in the climate system,” Spencer said.
While the paper’s two peer reviewers, both climate model experts, agreed that the issue is a legitimate one, Spencer knows the new paper will be controversial, with some claiming that the impact of the mix-up between cause and effect will be small.
”But we really won’t know until much more work is done,” Spencer said.
”Unfortunately, so far we have been unable to figure out a way to separate cause and effect when observing natural climate variability. That’s why most climate experts don’t like to think in terms of causality, and instead just examine how clouds and temperature vary together.
”Our work has convinced me that cause and effect really do matter. If we get the causation wrong, it can greatly impact our interpretation of what nature has been trying to tell us. Unfortunately, in the process it also makes the whole global warming problem much more difficult to figure out.”
Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>