Alarm over global warming is sounding more and more like the Y2K computer scare. The climate so far has failed to deliver on the hype. Growing skepticism is making carbon taxes a hard sell. And now this:
This article addresses new satellite and modeling evidence that previous satellite diagnoses of high climate sensitivity–which directly translate into predictions of dangerous levels of global warming–contain a large spurious bias. It is shown that those exaggerated estimates were the result of faulty assumptions regarding clouds when analyzing variations in average global temperature and average reflected sunlight off of the Earth.
Specifically, it has been assumed (explicitly or implicitly) that, for global averages on time scales of three months or more, temperature variations cause clouds to change, but that cloud variations do not cause temperature to change. But when properly filtered, the satellite data reveal evidence of cloud variations indeed causing temperature changes, and that this source of natural climate variability biases the estimate of climate sensitivity in the direction of a very sensitive climate system.
The new interpretation suggests a very low sensitivity. If the new sensitivity estimate is accurate, it would suggest only 0.5 deg. C of manmade warming by the year 2100. The new sensitivity estimate also suggests that warming over the last century can not be explained by human greenhouse gas emissions alone, but instead might require a mostly natural explanation.
The role of clouds has been a little cloudy but now the clouds might be clearing on this issue. For the entire article read here:http://www.weatherquestions.com/Climate-Sensitivity-Holy-Grail.htm