Talk:Cloud feedback

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cloud Feedback[edit]

In the article it claims "clouds emit infrared radiation back to the surface, and so exert a warming effect". Is there a reliable source for this? Intuitively one must question the statement's validity, aren't cloudy days generally cooler than sunny ones?--Damorbel (talk) 19:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't cloudy nights generally warmer than clear ones? -Atmoz (talk) 19:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Any intro textbook will do -- Ahrens, Aguado and Burt, etc. Your statement mixes up short- and long-wave radiation. A better example is that cloudy nights don't cool off as much as clear ones. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that the main heat input is during the day, is an invalid argument to introduce clear nightime, you should only compare like with like. You are surely aware that cloudy nights are generally colder than cloudy days, even if cloudy nights are not so cold as clear ones. I do not have links to your authors, can you provide a reliable source please?--Damorbel (talk) 20:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's cited in the text of the article. It's in Aguado and Burt. It's in Ahrens. And if books aren't good enough for you, it's also in Ramanathan (1987) (among many other papers). -Atmoz (talk) 21:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it is a misunderstanding but I wasn't referring to the radiation budget as in your link Ramanathan (1987). You do not need a satellite to observe the effect I am referring to, it is simple common experience and discussion of it should have a place in the article, don't you think? --Damorbel (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That article addresses your initial post. It is a reliable source that says that "clouds emit infrared radiation back to the surface, and so exert a warming effect". As is the paper cited in the article, as are the two books linked above. If you have a point, make it quickly or I'll assume you're just trolling again. -Atmoz (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are persistant! The point is that the presence of cloud reduces the temperature at the surface which is common experience and fact. If you confuse this fact with trolling which I understand is a term of abuse, then may I ask just what contribution you are making? You do not seem to understand that the effect I am talking about is local to the surface under clouds, Ramanathan does not discuss that at all. --Damorbel (talk) 07:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes he does. Did you read the paper? -Atmoz (talk) 07:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm calling Rule 5. Everybody out of the pool. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SBH rule 5 is your rule, not a WIKI rule (Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means).

Atmoz, the reason I made this point is very clear in Ramanathan (1987), look at Fig.1 there you will find sky radiation "327" while the Sun is only "169", now can you show readers just where Ramanathan explains how this leads to the every day experience that cloudy days are cooler than sunny ones?--Damorbel (talk) 15:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section on aerosols (readability aspects)[edit]

Hi User:InformationToKnowledge: regarding the section on aerosols that you had moved to here, have you noticed that it has a very low reading ease score? Are you familiar with the readability tool that you can add to the list of tools. If you use that tool, you'll see that almost the entire section is bright red (meaning it's difficult to understand). If you have time, could you improve on that please (I am assuming, but am not sure, that this is text that you wrote yourself)?

Also, is the amount of space dedicated to aerosols now in this article well balanced compared to the other content? Or should we beef up any of the other content (or use excerpts if the same content is elsewhere). EMsmile (talk) 12:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, I originally wrote that for global dimming and then moved that section over here in a bit of a hurry, trying to live up to the feedback I received during the GA review of that article. It could certainly be improved to flow better and fit better with the rest of the article. Some of this content might also be better off reintegrated back to global dimming (or even elsewhere, like ship tracks), but I'm not entirely sure. I would ask @Femke for help with deciding what can stay here and what should go elsewhere, but I fear her long Covid may get in the way again.
In general, I would say this particular article is in a fairly poor state. Lots 20-30 year old references and sentences that emphasize the worst of old Wikipedia scientific writing, being full of complex words while saying very little actionable. Phrasing like Water vapor in the subtropical upper troposphere has been linked to the convection of water vapor and ice. Changes in subtropical humidity could provide a negative feedback that decreases the amount of water vapor which in turn would act to mediate global climate transitions, all cited to a 1998 study of dubious modern-day relevance. The excerpts too, aren't overly relevant, and the newest references tend to be on the more sensational side. It's yet another fairly important article that's going to take some time to fix, unfortunately. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 07:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merged "cloud forcing" article to here[edit]

I've now merged the "cloud forcing" article to here. I've put the content under "mechanisms" for now. I don't know enough about the topic to take the next steps of cleaning up, removing repetition or alike. Hoping that someone else has time and energy for this. Should be an important topic. EMsmile (talk) 07:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC) Copied from the talk page of "could forcing" so that we have it all in one place:[reply]

Interestingly, the glossary of the IPCC Six Assessment report WG 1 does not mention "cloud forcing" but does mention "cloud feedback". Is that a sign that "cloud forcing" is no longer a key term that is being used? EMsmile (talk) 23:37, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge (after a skim read - but as I know little I might be convinced otherwise) Chidgk1 (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge. While they aren't the same thing (cloud forcing is a consistent part of the climate system, and cloud feedback describes a change which is occurring to it over time), this particular article is in a very bad state (nearly all the references are from 1990s) and it has little potential for expansion. Nowadays, it's the feedback which matters the most to readers, so cleaned-up material from here would help to provide them with context on the feedback article. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 06:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer's feedback[edit]

I asked Kevin Trenberth what he thought of this article. He briefly wrote back saying "I did quickly skim it and it is a difficult unsolved issue.  The article says why: all the complexity of albedo, expanse, cloud top height, etc all affect how much radiation is reflected and how much radiated in IR. The CMIP6 models had revisions and all were astray.  No model does this well yet.  A lot relates to microphysics. This paper is good: Raghuraman, S. P., Medeiros, B., & Gettelman, A. (2024). Observational quantification of tropical high cloud changes and feedbacks. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 129, e2023JD039364. https://doi.org/10.1029/2023JD039364

Maybe someone has time to look into this further some time. Would be great. EMsmile (talk) 08:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cloud_feedback&oldid=1219528894"