In 2021 a paper was published using CERES data to examine the various energy flows that are causing global warming. Updating to 2024, the analysis forecasts continued accelerating warming.
There’s been an interesting discussion of your substack post on the Healthy Planet Action Coalition (www.healthyplanetaction.org) list of about 230 natural and social scientists, climate activists, entrepreneurs and policy folks (let me know if you’re interested in joining!), and I was wondering if I understood you correctly in the following post?
" Cloud structure and brightness changes are conceivable since the net flux for cloudy areas is rising faster than the cloud area fraction. The values are negative since cloudy areas exert a cooling effect due to the high shortwave reflection. In 2000 cloudy areas exerted a net cooling effect of -8.4w/m2 but this has reduced to -7.3w/m2 by 2024, despite the increase in outgoing long wave radiation. This is an extremely rapid rise of 15% compared to the clear sky net flux rise of 5.5%."
It thus appears that the reduction in cloudiness (wherever this has happened) is less of a factor than changes in "cloud structure and brightness" (which appears to be a bigger factor than "cloud warming" caused increases in outgoing LW per the citation above and also this earlier in the piece:
" Clouds are dimming partly due to structural changes believed to be a natural feedback to increased warming and also as a result of reduced aerosol pollution from coal burning, and shipping fuel legislation"
So it seems that "cloud structure and brightness" (due to loss of sulfate aerosols and cloud warming causing a loss of brightening) is a bigger warming factor than the offsetting LW cooling (due to loss of cloud fraction - also partly from loss of sulfate aerosols - resulting in more outgoing LW, and increased LW radiation from increased cloud warming) - if I'm getting this right!
Thanks for your interest in the post. I would be interested in joining the Healthy Planet Action Coalition. I’d be interested in reading the discussion.
Cloud feedback seems to be a major uncertainty. It’s a large error bar in the IPCC AR6 feedback section, ranging from slightly negative to very positive. Some papers are starting to come out, but I think it’s an evolving picture.
I was referencing Hansen’s new paper which refers to cloud structural changes, but it does seem as though the radiation of SW and LW is being affected. He is suggesting strong aerosol effects by focussing on the North Pacific, others are taking a global view.
I don’t pretend to have the answers, it’s just interesting that the changes in radiation don’t seem to match the changes in cloud area fraction. This is what suggests structural change of some sort.
It may be that the geographic distribution of clouds has an effect. This has been noted again from satellite observation.
I hope that helps, and thanks again for reaching out.
Thanks Tom! These sound like good points to me. Can you give me your email so that I can add (or invite) you to the HPAC listserv?
Best,
Ron
rpbaiman@gmail.com
Hi Tom,
There’s been an interesting discussion of your substack post on the Healthy Planet Action Coalition (www.healthyplanetaction.org) list of about 230 natural and social scientists, climate activists, entrepreneurs and policy folks (let me know if you’re interested in joining!), and I was wondering if I understood you correctly in the following post?
Your response would be most appreciated!
Best,
Ron
---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Ron Baiman <rpbaiman@gmail.com> Date: Mon, Mar 3, 2025 at 2:52 PM Subject: Re: [HPAC] A breakdown of the trends within the Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) To: Tom Goreau <goreau@globalcoral.org> Cc: Chris Vivian <chris.vivian2@btinternet.com>, 'Chris Vivian' via Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC) <healthy-planet-action-coalition@googlegroups.com>
Dear Tom, Chris, et al.,
Trying to unpack this statement:
" Cloud structure and brightness changes are conceivable since the net flux for cloudy areas is rising faster than the cloud area fraction. The values are negative since cloudy areas exert a cooling effect due to the high shortwave reflection. In 2000 cloudy areas exerted a net cooling effect of -8.4w/m2 but this has reduced to -7.3w/m2 by 2024, despite the increase in outgoing long wave radiation. This is an extremely rapid rise of 15% compared to the clear sky net flux rise of 5.5%."
It thus appears that the reduction in cloudiness (wherever this has happened) is less of a factor than changes in "cloud structure and brightness" (which appears to be a bigger factor than "cloud warming" caused increases in outgoing LW per the citation above and also this earlier in the piece:
" Clouds are dimming partly due to structural changes believed to be a natural feedback to increased warming and also as a result of reduced aerosol pollution from coal burning, and shipping fuel legislation"
So it seems that "cloud structure and brightness" (due to loss of sulfate aerosols and cloud warming causing a loss of brightening) is a bigger warming factor than the offsetting LW cooling (due to loss of cloud fraction - also partly from loss of sulfate aerosols - resulting in more outgoing LW, and increased LW radiation from increased cloud warming) - if I'm getting this right!
Best,
Ron
Hi Ron,
Thanks for your interest in the post. I would be interested in joining the Healthy Planet Action Coalition. I’d be interested in reading the discussion.
Cloud feedback seems to be a major uncertainty. It’s a large error bar in the IPCC AR6 feedback section, ranging from slightly negative to very positive. Some papers are starting to come out, but I think it’s an evolving picture.
I was referencing Hansen’s new paper which refers to cloud structural changes, but it does seem as though the radiation of SW and LW is being affected. He is suggesting strong aerosol effects by focussing on the North Pacific, others are taking a global view.
I don’t pretend to have the answers, it’s just interesting that the changes in radiation don’t seem to match the changes in cloud area fraction. This is what suggests structural change of some sort.
It may be that the geographic distribution of clouds has an effect. This has been noted again from satellite observation.
I hope that helps, and thanks again for reaching out.
Tom