Clouds Warm Things Up

Satellite data put hard numbers on key player in climate

December 10, 2010 RSS Feed Print

By Alexandra Witze, Science News

Over the past decade, during short-term climate changes, clouds trapped heat in the Earth’s atmosphere and warmed the planet, a new study suggests.

The work is the most detailed look at how clouds affect climate—one of the biggest scientific unknowns in how much global warming to expect (SN: 12/4/10, p. 24). Some researchers have suggested that clouds might cool the planet, but the study supports the opposite idea, that clouds make things toastier.

“This is really the first quantitative test of the total cloud feedback in climate models,” says Andrew Dessler, an atmospheric scientist at Texas A&M University in College Station. “The results suggest that our understanding of the cloud feedback, and the simulation of the cloud feedback by models, is actually quite good.”

Dessler’s paper appears in the December 10 issue of Science.

Only about a third of the roughly 3 degree Celsius warming expected over the next century will come directly from heat-trapping greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, says Dessler. The rest comes from a variety of feedbacks, or processes that act to amplify the solar heating. Climate scientists understand almost all of these feedbacks very well, except for clouds.

That’s because clouds can both cool the planet, by reflecting sunlight back into space, and warm it, by absorbing heat reradiating from the Earth’s surface and preventing the heat from escaping. Researchers haven’t been able to figure out which of these effects is more important overall.

To tackle the question, Dessler used an instrument on NASA’s Terra satellite to track global radiation coming into and leaving Earth’s atmosphere between March 2000 and February 2010.

By subtracting complicating factors like the amount of atmospheric water vapor and how reflective the Earth’s surface was, Dessler was left with the effects of changing cloud cover. And although the data could potentially be interpreted as clouds showing a mild cooling effect, the best explanation, he says, is that clouds amplify whatever warming might be going on.

Running several computer models over the same period also produced a positive feedback, an indication that the climate simulations deal with cloud effects relatively well.

“It’s very encouraging to see analysis of observations placing some greater constraints on estimates of the magnitude of cloud feedback,” says Dennis Hartmann, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Washington in Seattle.

The biggest source of planetary climate change during the decade studied was the El Niño Southern Oscillation, a climate pattern that can temporarily raise temperatures by several tenths of a degree Celsius. More work is needed, says Hartmann, to understand how clouds will behave during long-term changes like the global warming expected from greenhouse gases.

But having some numbers on cloud feedback is better than having no numbers at all, says Dessler. He next plans to look more closely at how clouds are distributed around the globe, and how the feedback might vary locally.

---

 Follow U.S. News Science on Twitter.

Tags:
global warming,
environment,
satellites

Reader Comments Read all comments (2)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

The study is flawed.

So feedback just amplifies or creates energy out of nothing does it?

Learn some physics you fraud.

As to satellite detectors measuring radiation going out. Did you account for the fact that Jupiter and Venus were getting closer to Earth and thus converting stored potential energy to kinetic energy and heat? Did you account for the fact that the gravity and gravity changes over time can be converted to magnetic field energy and radiated kinetic energy? You can NOT do a radiated E/M energy balance by detector without accouting for all the forms that energy comes in. Your so-called radiated energy detector does NOT measure gravity & mag fields, THe so called energy balance is NOT a balance of TOYAL energy, it only balances E/M energy and ignores the rest of the world & how it converts energy from one form to another. - like a pendulum.

What about all the energy that gets stored as wood growth? or potential energy storage or release due to varying gravity?

Your study is just not valid. It is vastly incomplete.

As for the 3 degrees that comes from CO2 increases. WHERE does the energy come from? If the world is at equilibrium, and the GHE is at equilibrium 33C, which means that ALL the energy coming in is absorbrd with leftover GHGs in teh air, then where does the extra energy come from to supply the photons that are required to be absorbed in order to get more Greenhouse effect warming? Adding more GHGs just adds more excess to the excess already in the air. They do NOT absorb any more photons because all the photons are already being absorbed to create the 33C effect.

As for El Nino/La Nina warming- WHERE does the energy come from? It does NOT just spontanteously generate itself.

LEARN SOME PHYSICS.

John Dodds of CA 2:48PM December 10, 2010

You remaining Climate Change Believers are hurting the Planet Earth and it’s people by dividing environmentalism and dragging progressivism down with it.

-Meanwhile, the UN had allowed carbon trading to trump 3rd world fresh water relief, starvation rescue and 3rd world education for just over 25 years of climate control instead of population control.

The news editors are the real one’s responsible for the CO2 mistake.

Meme Mine 2:24PM December 10, 2010

National Science Foundation

NSF

Science of Spatial Learning

Center seeks to transform teaching practices.

Studying Carbon in Rivers

Researcher explores physical, chemical and biological interactions.

Challenge: Quantum Computers

CAREER awardee focuses on what they can and cannot do.

advertisement

Science Discoveries

Science Discoveries

iTunes icon RSS icon

advertisement