The reporting of the data is correct. The finding that it is not consistent with surface observation of clouds is not supported by either theory - as in the Ping Zhu reference (not satellites but models of cloud formation in relation to SST - which I don't think I 'muffed') or in COAD observations in the northeast Pacific (one of the most important areas for these observations) by Amy Clements and colleagues. A decadal cloud/sst relationship. Warm SST = less low level cloud and vice versa.
On Nov 10, 11:24 pm, Eric Swanson <[email protected]> wrote: > Robert, I responded to your reference. In your comment, you ignored > the caveat at the end of the quoted section. I was not "picking a > paragraph", but was pointing out the conclusions of the authors of > section you quoted were actually wrong and were are issuing BS? If > you think those conclusions were actually BS, why did you cherry pick > the section for a reference? > > Besides, you muffed the reference to the satellite analysis. Here it > is for those interested: > > P. Zhu, J. J. Hack, J. T. Kiehl, and C. S. Bretherton, Climate > sensitivity of tropical and subtropical marine low cloud amount to > ENSO and global warming due to doubled CO2, J. Geophys. Res., 112, > D17108, doi:10.1029/2006JD008174, 2007 > > I was also responding to your assertion that I think climate isn't > variable, which I clearly do not. > > E. S. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Robert I Ellison wrote: > > > My note here is that there is a consensus on why cloud cover is > > influenced by SST - and the biggest factor in variable sea surface > > temperature is ENSO. > > > 'In summary, although there is independent evidence for decadal > > changes in TOA radiative fluxes over the last two decades, the > > evidence is equivocal. Changes in the planetary and tropical TOA > > radiative fluxes are consistent with independent global ocean heat- > > storage data, and are expected to be dominated by changes in cloud > > radiative forcing. To the extent that they are real, they may simply > > reflect natural low-frequency variability of the climate system.' > > >http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-4-4-1.html > > > Really - just picking a paragraph on some supposed inconsistency of > > satellite and surface observations is BS. Anything that doesn't fit > > the preconceived notions isn't real? > > > Cheers > > Robert- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change. Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
