New paper on cloud effects in AGW...no bueno

[woodgeek]

The biggest uncertainty with AGW forecasts revolve around the possible changes to cloud formation and precipitation.

If higher temps in the new climate resulted in more clouds, the energy they reflect would provide negative feedback and moderate the warming. If the more clouds resulted in more precipitation, then maybe the biosphere and agriculture would get a boost.

A recent study suggests otherwise on the first point:
http://grist.org/news/cloud-shortage-will-push-temperatures-higher-as-climate-warms/

A roundup of earlier drought predictions can be found here:
http://earlywarn.blogspot.com/2010/10/future-of-drought-series.html

 

[semipro]

These latest revelations just reinforce my understanding of how complex climate systems are.
Not only do clouds play heavily in global climate but man-made sources of clouds do to. This was observed when aircraft were grounded after Sept. 11 and the amount of solar radiation making its way to the earth's surface increased measurably. The same contrails that contribute greenhouse gases to the atmosphere also block the suns rays.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

 

[EatenByLimestone]

These latest revelations reinforce my belief that the research isn't done by scientists.

 

[jebatty]

You can believe what you want, but beliefs never make anything different from what it actually is. If what you call "red" actually is red but I "believe" it is green, then I'm headed for a nasty collision at the intersection which likely will literally shatter my belief. The next time you have a vicious bacterial infection, I doubt you would believe a witch doctor with a wisp of smoke will make you well; but you likely will trust a powerful antibiotic to do the job, an antibiotic made possible by science research.

Climate systems are extremely complex, but I trust trained scientists over the long haul to better understand those systems than I trust non-scientists. On a more basic level, the earth's complex ecosystems evolved over 1,000's of years and have been relatively stable for about the last 10-20,000 years. It is only in the last 100 or so years that humans have added new material elements of complexity to those ecosystems: pollution of all sorts (carbon, mercury, heavy metals, antibiotic residue, chemicals, nitrates, etc.), extinction and/or alteration of species resulting from that pollution, massive alterations of the landscape affecting all living things, and more.

Science research is an attempt to learn what the effects of the added complexity may be: continuing stability or unstable systems, and if unstable what the consequences and eventual outcome may be. Perfect, no. But adding any new elements to a previously stable system will have an effect on that system, and time will determine whether the system can absorb the new elements without destabilizing or whether the system will destabilize until a new stability is organized. You and I can choose to do nothing and eat, drink and be merry regardless of the consequences of our behavior, if any; or modify our behavior with the goal of a more healthy, stable outcome for living things.

 

[EatenByLimestone]

I am a trained scientist. If I went back to the people who paid for my work every year saying I screwed up and needed more money I wouldn't have a job for very long.