Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

confused scientists

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • confused scientists


    A cloudy view of cloudiness

    Moving satellites may have caused falling measurements of cloud cover.
    Katharine Sanderson


    Satellite evidence that cloud levels are decreasing could just be pie in the sky. The trend might simply be a result of where the satellites are positioned.

    Data from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) have shown that cloud levels have decreased by up to 4% over the past 20 years. Clouds increase the Earth's ability to reflect sunlight back into space, cooling the planet. So reduced cloud cover has been linked to global warming.

    But Amato Evan at the University of Wisconsin at Madison and his colleagues have taken a closer look at the ISCCP data. Cloud cover decreases abruptly when satellites are moved, the team reports in Geophysical Research Letters1.

    As more satellites were launched from the mid 1980s through the 1990s, each satellite could narrow its field of view, looking straight down rather than at an angle. And when observed straight on, clouds appear less cloudy.

    Evan claims that change of view explains the large drop in cloudiness over the past 20 years that the ISCCP data suggest. And to infer any global trends from these data is a mistake.

    "It's not getting less cloudy on Earth," he says. "It looks like it is [from the ISCCP data] but it's not."

    Moving around

    William Russow of the City College of New York and head of the ISCCP's global processing centre, admits that moving the satellites probably has an effect.

    But, he says that Evan's team has not actually measured the size of that effect, and has overstated its case. "Although there is an effect, one cannot draw such a sweeping conclusion," he says.

    Climate researcher Martin Wild at the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science in Zurich, Switzerland, uses data like that collected by the ISCCP to study changes in the amount of sunlight at the Earth's surface. Pollution, which reflects sunlight, is thought to mask the warming effects of greenhouse gases.

    Clouds are one of the most important influences on global temperatures, Wild says, and tracking their fates is important to judge models of climate change.

    If Evan is right, then all the trends that depend on these data sets would be questionable. "It's worrisome — we have a large uncertainty in our knowledge over the past 10 or 20 years," says Wild. "If these data have problems, our knowledge has problems."
    ....

  • #2
    This suprises not one little bit.

    Until they can get basic data like clouds right, and this has to make one suspect their other data, they're talking out of their collective arses when it comes to predicting anything past next Tuesday much less 20 years from now.
    Dr. Mordrid
    ----------------------------
    An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.

    I carry a gun because I can't throw a rock 1,250 fps

    Comment


    • #3
      It is only the ISCCP that have been saying this. Most other sources have not substantiated their findings. E.g. from here:
      Résumé / Abstract
      The frequency of cloud detection and the frequency with which these clouds are found in the upper troposphere have been extracted from NOAA High Resolution Infrared Radiometer Sounder (HIRS) polar-orbiting satellite data from 1979 to 2001. The HIRS/2 sensor was flown on nine satellites from the Television Infrared Observation Satellite-Next Generation (TIROS-N) through NOAA-14, forming a 22-yr record. Carbon dioxide slicing was used to infer cloud amount and height. Trends in cloud cover and high-cloud frequency were found to be small in these data. High clouds show a small but statistically significant increase in the Tropics and the Northern Hemisphere. The HIRS analysis contrasts with the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP), which shows a decrease in both total cloud cover and high clouds during most of this period.
      Averaged atmospheric absolute humidity levels in both hemispheres at all altitudes have not changed significantly, other than is normal because of physical cycling. The IPCC have placed more reliance on the NIRS data than on the ISCCP data.
      Brian (the devil incarnate)

      Comment


      • #4
        So Brian, are you saying the the 'scaremongering environmetalists" of the IPCC did not use ISCCP data in their analysis and that as a result of that, the findings of Mr. Evan do not falsify IPCC's models?
        Join MURCs Distributed Computing effort for Rosetta@Home and help fight Alzheimers, Cancer, Mad Cow disease and rising oil prices.
        [...]the pervading principle and abiding test of good breeding is the requirement of a substantial and patent waste of time. - Veblen

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Umfriend View Post
          So Brian, are you saying the the 'scaremongering environmetalists" of the IPCC did not use ISCCP data in their analysis and that as a result of that, the findings of Mr. Evan do not falsify IPCC's models?
          Difficult to be categorical, without specific knowledge which has not yet been released (due in April) but I know the IPCC look at everything that is relevant. However, from what little I do know, they have mentioned in their published data that heavy precipitation events over land have increased in frequency and amplitude, particularly in the N. hemisphere. This is part of the expected negative feedback cycle, keeping the average global annual atmospheric water vapour level ± constant, even though the oceanic evaporation is increasing. This is quite a complex part of the equation, because oceanic evaporation rates vary widely according to about 15 different variables. If you look at p.20 of the Summary for Policymakers, you will see exactly where the different models agree and disagree, regarding precipitation, closely related to cloud formation.

          To answer your question more directly, this year's assessment does not, like in the past, use just two or three models but many more. Regarding cloud albedo, which is what the ISCCP satellites measure:
          ... an indirect cloud albedo forcing of -0.7 [-1.8 to -0.3] W/m². These forcings are now better understood than at the time of the TAR [previous report] due to improved in situ, satellite and ground based measurements and more comprehensive modelling ...
          In other words, they no longer rely on a single source of satellite data. I interpret this as meaning that any single source of data is unlikely to make a major difference to the overall results.
          Brian (the devil incarnate)

          Comment


          • #6
            From a Dutch comedy duo (parafrased):
            "So what exactly is your problem with intellectuals?"
            "Well, I do not have a problem with them per se, it is just that only they understand each other".

            Why can't I ever get a simple answer.....
            Join MURCs Distributed Computing effort for Rosetta@Home and help fight Alzheimers, Cancer, Mad Cow disease and rising oil prices.
            [...]the pervading principle and abiding test of good breeding is the requirement of a substantial and patent waste of time. - Veblen

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Umfriend View Post
              ...

              Why can't I ever get a simple answer.....

              Here is a simple answer: "peatmoss"

              Was that useful?
              Chuck
              秋音的爸爸

              Comment


              • #8
                Almost as useful as '42'.
                Join MURCs Distributed Computing effort for Rosetta@Home and help fight Alzheimers, Cancer, Mad Cow disease and rising oil prices.
                [...]the pervading principle and abiding test of good breeding is the requirement of a substantial and patent waste of time. - Veblen

                Comment

                Working...
                X