IPCC&CLouds

A Sustainable Oregon	Is Accomplished by
Equal opportunity for all Oregonians	Putting average citizens first in all government actions
Maximize Oregonian's standard of living	Government encourages, rather than inhibits competition
Maximum access to plentiful jobs	Government that welcomes all non polluting industries
Fast and low cost transportation that is self financing	Ending government discrimination against cars.
Maximum opportunity for jobs creation	Limit regulations to those for safety and fraud prevention
Government based on sound principles and science	Outreach to ordinary people not special interests

Conflict of Interest?

Inconvenient Accuracy

Klein and Hartmann (1993) showed an empirical correlation between mean boundary layer cloud cover and lower-tropospheric stability (defined in their study as the difference of 700-hPa and near-surface potential temperature). When imposed in simple two-box models of the tropical climate (Miller 1997; Clement and Seager 1999; Larson et al. 1999) or into some GCMs’ parameterizations of boundary layer cloud amount [e.g., in the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) Community Climate System Model verion 3 (CCSM3)], this empirical correlation leads to a substantial increase in low cloud cover in a warmer climate driven by the larger stratification of warmer moist adiabats across the Tropics, and produces a strong negative feedback.

The observed relationship between low-level cloud amount and a particular measure of lower tropospheric stability (Klein and Hartmann, 1993), which has been used in some simple climate models and in some GCMs’ parametrizations of boundary layer cloud amount (e.g., CCSM3, FGOALS), led to the suggestion that a global climate warming might be associated with an increased low-level cloud cover, which would produce a negative cloud feedback (e.g., Miller, 1997; Zhang, 2004).

The next sentence was identical other than trivial wordsmithing. Bony et al 2006 had stated that the "empirical" Klein and Hartmann (1993) correlation "leads" to a substantial increase in low cloud cover, which resulted in a "strong negative" cloud feedback. Again IPCC watered this down: "leads to" became a "suggestion" that it "might be" associated with a "negative cloud feedback" - the term "strong" being dropped by IPCC.

Bony et al said that boundary layer clouds had "strongly negative CRF" (Cloud Radiative Forcing), which IPCC watered down to "strong impact". I guess that the idea of "strongly negative" feedback was too salacious for the IPCC audience.

Boundary layer clouds have a strongly negative CRF (Harrison et al. 1990; Hartmann et al. 1992) and cover a very large fraction of the area of the Tropics (e.g., Norris 1998b).

Boundary-layer clouds have a strong impact on the net radiation budget (e.g., Harrison et al., 1990; Hartmann et al., 1992) and cover a large fraction of the global ocean (e.g., Norris, 1998a,b).

IPCC Caught Distorting a Peer Reviewed Paper;

Downplays Possible Natural Cause of Warming

From: ClimateAudit.com (The web site that exposed the hockey stick mistakes)

Read the full story at ClimateAudit.com