The Greenhouse Effect
I'm frequently asked to supply lists of studies supporting the scientific conclusions that we've understood for decades. Sometimes they challenge scientific conclusions that have stood the test of time for centuries. I thought it would be good collect my standard responses in one place. Links in the text descriptions following titles point to my posts that discuss the studies further.
Links to Sections:
I. CO2 Causes Warming
Scientists have understood that increasing CO2 causes global warming since the 19th century, but over the last decade or so, scientists have documented empirical evidence for causation from CO2 and GMST data,[1] observations at the surface, [2] observations at the top of the atmosphere,[3][4] and quantum mechanics.[5] Excepts for these studies follow the citations.
From CO2 & Temperature Data:
[1] Stips, A., Macias, D., Coughlan, C. et al. On the causal structure between CO2 and global temperature. Sci Rep 6, 21691 (2016). https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691"Using the IF concept we were able to confirm the inherent one-way causality between human activities and global warming, as during the last 150 years the increasing anthropogenic radiative forcing is driving the increasing global temperature, a result that cannot be inferred from traditional time delayed correlation or ordinary least square regression analysis. Natural forcing (solar forcing and volcanic activities) contributes only marginally to the global temperature dynamics during the last 150 years. Human influence, especially via CO2 radiative forcing, has been detected to be significant since about the 1960s. This provides an independent statistical confirmation of the results from process based modelling studies. Investigation of the temperature simulations from the CMIP5 ensemble is largely in agreement with the conclusion drawn from the observational data. However on very long time scales (800,000 years) the IF is only significant in the direction from air temperature to CO2. This supports the idea that the feedback of GHGs to temperature changes seems to be much slower than the fast response of temperature to changes in GHGs."From Surface Measurements:
[2] Feldman DR, Collins WD, Gero PJ, Torn MS, Mlawer EJ, Shippert TR. Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010. Nature. 2015;519 (7543):339‐343. doi:10.1038/nature14240.
https://escholarship.org/content/qt3428v1r6/qt3428v1r6_noSplash_b5903aebfe105b4071103e11197138f8.pdf
The time series both showstatistically significant trends of 0.2 W m−2 per decade (with respectiveuncertainties of ±0.06 W m−2 per decade and ±0.07 W m−2 per decade) and haveseasonal ranges of 0.1–0.2 W m−2. This is approximately ten per cent of thetrend in downwelling longwave radiation5,6,7. These results confirm theoreticalpredictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenicemissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediatedby temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting thesurface energy balance.From Satellite Measurements:
[3] Kramer, R. J., He, H., Soden, B. J., Oreopoulos, L., Myhre, G., Forster, P. M., & Smith, C. J. (2021). Observational evidence of increasing global radiative forcing. Geophysical Research Letters, 48, e2020GL091585. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL091585
Changes in atmospheric composition, such as increasing greenhouse gases, cause an initial radiative imbalance to the climate system, quantified as the instantaneous radiative forcing. This fundamental metric has not been directly observed globally and previous estimates have come from models. In part, this is because current space-based instruments cannot distinguish the instantaneous radiative forcing from the climate’s radiative response. We apply radiative kernels to satellite observations to disentangle these components and find all-sky instantaneous radiative forcing has increased 0.53 ± 0.11 W/m2 from 2003 to 2018, accounting for positive trends in the total planetary radiative imbalance. This increase has been due to a combination of rising concentrations of well-mixed greenhouse gases and recent reductions in aerosol emissions. These results highlight distinct fingerprints of anthropogenic activity in Earth’s changing energy budget, which we find observations can detect within 4 years.
[4] Teixeira, J., Wilson, R. C., and Thrastarson, H. Th.: Direct observational evidence from space of the effect of CO2 increase on longwave spectral radiances: the unique role of high-spectral-resolution measurements, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 6375–6383, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-6375-2024, 2024.
NASA presentation here.
This new methodology can undoubtedly be refined and its uncertainties better characterized and understood to establish its accuracy and precision more clearly. But as far as the authors are aware, this study represents the first attempt to establish a more precise experimental confirmation from space of the direct effects of CO2 on longwave spectral radiances. The results (solely based on observations) confirm that the effects of the recent atmospheric CO2 increase on longwave spectral radiances follow theoretical estimates. As such, these results confirm a critical foundation of the science of global warming.From Quantum Mechanics:
[5] Wordsworth, R., Seeley, J. T., & Shine, K. P. (2024). Fermi Resonance and the Quantum Mechanical Basis of Global Warming. The Planetary Science Journal, 5(3), 67. DOI: 10.3847/PSJ/ad226d. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/PSJ/ad226d/pdf
We have shown using mostly first-principles reasoning how the radiative forcing of CO2 emerges from the quantum mechanical properties of the CO2 molecule. This result has implications for our understanding of both contemporary global warming and the long-term evolution of Earth’s climate. There are, of course, many things that our analysis misses out. Many spectroscopic details, including anharmonic interactions, line mixing, and additional weak bands have been neglected, as have overlap with other gaseous absorbers and the radiative effects of clouds. In common with many other 1D calculations, atmospheric vertical temperature structure has been treated crudely, and 3D dynamics is neglected entirely. Given all this, it is remarkable that our analysis and others like it still allows a reasonably accurate estimate of clear-sky radiative forcing and climate sensitivity. This outcome provides further evidence, if such evidence were needed, of the rock-solid foundation of the physics of global warming and climate change.
II. CO2 Sensitivity
2.1. ECS: 2xCO2 Causes ~3 C Warming
The most thorough evaluation of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) arrived at a likely range of 2.6°C to 4.1°C.[1] A meta-analysis from 2017 shows that the value of 3°C is also a central estimate in the peer-reviewed literature, agreeing with the values estimated by the IPCC. This is reinforced by estimates of cloud feedbacks that make low estimates for ECS less likely.[3] A recent analysis, however, found that the models that do the best job of predicting global warming and changes in EEI trends are on the higher end of this estimate, especially when looking at models with strong trends of increasing absorbed solar radiation and a strong temperature response to forcings.
[2] Knutti, R., Rugenstein, M. & Hegerl, G. Beyond equilibrium climate sensitivity. Nature Geosci 10, 727–736 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo3017
[3] Paulo Ceppi, Peer Nowack. Observational evidence that cloud feedback amplifies global warming. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Jul 2021, 118 (30) e2026290118; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2026290118 https://www.pnas.org/content/118/30/e2026290118
[3] Paulo Ceppi, Peer Nowack. Observational evidence that cloud feedback amplifies global warming. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Jul 2021, 118 (30) e2026290118; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2026290118 https://www.pnas.org/content/118/30/e2026290118
We show that global cloud feedback is dominated by the sensitivity of clouds to surface temperature and tropospheric stability. Considering changes in just these two factors, we are able to constrain global cloud feedback to 0.43 0.35 Wm−2K−1 (90% confidence), implying a robustly amplifying effect of clouds on global warming and only a 0.5% chance of ECS below 2 K. We thus anticipate that our approach will enable tighter constraints on climate change projections, including its manifold socioeconomic and ecological impacts.
2.2. ESS: 2xCO2 Causes ~6 C Warming
ECS only accounts for rapid feedbacks. On longer time scales, slower feedbacks like reductions in glacial ice and the poleward movement of boreal forests continue to add warming on millennial time scales. Generally speaking, Earth System Sensitivity (ESS) is estimated to be about 2x ECS.
[2] Snyder, C. W. (2016). Evolution of global temperature over the past two million years. Nature, 538(7624), 226–228. doi:10.1038/nature19798
[3] The Cenozoic CO2 Proxy Integration Project (CenCO2PIP) Consortium, Toward a Cenozoic history of atmospheric CO2. Science 382,eadi5177(2023). DOI:10.1126/science.adi5177. Accepted version online at: https://oro.open.ac.uk/94676/1/Accepted_manuscript_combinepdf.pdf
[4] Emily J. Judd et al., A 485-million-year history of Earth’s surface temperature. Science 385,eadk3705 (2024).DOI:10.1126/science.adk3705
III. Answering Contrarian Misinformation
about the Greenhouse Effect
3.1. Studies Showing GMST Lags CO2 in Paleoclimate and in the Instrumental Record
Scientific evidence has been clear that, while warming in Antarctica is triggered by orbital forcings, CO2 increases at about the same time[2] as a feedback, and global warming follows this increase in CO2.[1] The lead-lag issue is also resolved with causative analysis.[3] There is evidence that natural cycles like ENSO affect variability in the rates at which CO2 increases, but the the overall increase in CO2 since 1850 comes from human activity. We know that CO2 leads GMST.[4][1] Shakun, J.D., Clark, P.U., He, F., Marcott, S.A., Mix, A.C., Liu, Z., Otto-Bliesner, B., Schmittner, A., and Bard, E.: Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation, Nature, 484, 49–54, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10915, 2012.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223987444_Global_Warming_Preceded_by_Increasing_Carbon_Dioxide_Concentrations_during_the_Last_Deglaciation
[2] Parrenin, F. et al. “Synchronous Change of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature During the Last Deglacial Warming.” Science 339, 1060 (2013). DOI: 10.1126/science.1226368
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d61d/0fbcb5828af1d434d1bd0282ed36e0f00d2a.pdf
[3] Stips, A., Macias, D., Coughlan, C. et al. On the causal structure between CO2 and global temperature. Sci Rep 6, 21691 (2016). https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691
[4] W. Wang, P. Ciais, R.R. Nemani, J.G. Canadell, S. Piao, S. Sitch, M.A. White, H. Hashimoto, C. Milesi, & R.B. Myneni, Variations in atmospheric CO2 growth rates coupled with tropical temperature, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 110 (32) 13061-13066, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1219683110 (2013).
3.2. Studies Showing all the Increase in CO2 above Preindustrial Levels come from Human Activity
There are at least five lines of independent evidence demonstrating that humans are responsible for virtually all the increase in atmospheric CO2 above preindustrial levels. In many ways, the issue is fully decided by evidence we about human carbon emissions since 1750. Estimates of our carbon emissions from fossil fuels and industry (FFI) and land use change (LUC) show that humans have added 720 GtC to the atmosphere, which is more carbon than was in the atmosphere in 1750 (~600 GtC or ~280 ppm). But atmospheric CO2 has only increased by 50% (~300 GtC or ~140 ppm). So human emissions have actually been large enough not only to be responsible for 100% of the increase in atmospheric CO2 but also to add ~420 GtC to the land and ocean sinks. I made a chart that summarizes this below (data from the 2024 Global Carbon Budget and CO2 concentrations from Mauna Loa and ice core data).
https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/17/965/2025/essd-17-965-2025.html
[2] Rebecca Lindsay. Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide
[3] Akira Tomizuka. Why Is Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration Higher in the Northern Hemisphere. Environmental Science 26.4 (2013): 374-387. www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/sesj/26/4/26_374/_pdf
[4] Iris Crawford and Andrew Babbin. How will future warming and CO2 emissions affect oxygen concentrations? Ask MIT Climate. https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-will-future-warming-and-co2-emissions-affect-oxygen-concentrations
[5] Graven, H., Keeling, R. F., & Rogelj, J. (2020). Changes to carbon isotopes in atmospheric CO2 over the industrial era and into the future. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 34, e2019GB006170. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GB006170
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2019GB006170
[6] Watson, A.J., Schuster, U., Shutler, J.D. et al. Revised estimates of ocean-atmosphere CO2 flux are consistent with ocean carbon inventory. Nat Commun 11, 4422 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18203-3
[6] Watson, A.J., Schuster, U., Shutler, J.D. et al. Revised estimates of ocean-atmosphere CO2 flux are consistent with ocean carbon inventory. Nat Commun 11, 4422 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18203-3
3.3. Studies Demonstrating that Solar Variability Does Not Explain Global Warming
There is a steady trickle of papers, mostly published in pay-to-play journals, that argue that the changes in Solar activity, or total solar irradiance (TS), is responsible for current warming. A good number of them are written by Willie Soon (and his friends at Ceres) or Zharkova. None of these papers are convincing, all are full of errors, and some have been retracted.
.png)
[1] Benestad R. E. 2006 Solar Activity and Earth's Climate (Chichester: Springer/Praxis)
[2] Benestad, R. E. (2015). The debate about solar activity and climate change. Eathʼs Climate Response to a Changing Sun (Les Elis: EDP Sci.).
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1051/978-2-7598-1849-5.c008/pdf?licenseType=open-access
[3] Benestad, R. E., and G. A. Schmidt (2009), Solar trends and global warming, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D14101, doi:10.1029/2008JD011639.
[4] Rasmus Benestad, "How large were the past changes in the sun?"
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/author/rasmus/
[5] Mark T. Richardson and Rasmus E. Benestad 2022 Res. Astron. Astrophys. 22 125008
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1674-4527/ac981c
[6] Kopp. "Historical Total Solar Irradiance Reconstruction, Time Series." https://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/data/historical_tsi/
[7] Lean, J. L. (2018). Estimating solar irradiance since 850 CE. Earth and Space Science, 5, 133– 149. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017EA000357
[2] Benestad, R. E. (2015). The debate about solar activity and climate change. Eathʼs Climate Response to a Changing Sun (Les Elis: EDP Sci.).
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1051/978-2-7598-1849-5.c008/pdf?licenseType=open-access
[3] Benestad, R. E., and G. A. Schmidt (2009), Solar trends and global warming, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D14101, doi:10.1029/2008JD011639.
[4] Rasmus Benestad, "How large were the past changes in the sun?"
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/author/rasmus/
[5] Mark T. Richardson and Rasmus E. Benestad 2022 Res. Astron. Astrophys. 22 125008
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1674-4527/ac981c
[6] Kopp. "Historical Total Solar Irradiance Reconstruction, Time Series." https://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/data/historical_tsi/
[7] Lean, J. L. (2018). Estimating solar irradiance since 850 CE. Earth and Space Science, 5, 133– 149. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017EA000357
3.4. Studies Demonstrating that Cosmic Rays Do Not Explain Global Warming
There are some attempts at blaming the Sun via the seeding of clouds from cosmic rays. This was a serious hypothesis, and so it was taken seriously and extensively investigated. But there simply no evidence that this is having a significant impact on global temperatures.
[1] Agee, E. M., K. Kiefer, and E. Cornett, 2012: Relationship of Lower-Troposphere Cloud Cover and Cosmic Rays: An Updated Perspective. J. Climate, 25, 1057–1060, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00169.1.
https://www.pik-potsdam.de/en/news/latest-news/archive-news/2004-2005/pm_Shaviv_Veizer_e.html
[3] Rasmus E Benestad 2013 Environ. Res. Lett. 8 035049. DOI 10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/035049. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/035049
[5] Erlykin, A.D., Sloan, T. & Wolfendale, A.W. A review of the relevance of the ‘CLOUD’ results and other recent observations to the possible effect of cosmic rays on the terrestrial climate. Meteorol Atmos Phys 121, 137–142 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00703-013-0260-x
[4] Eimear M. Dunne et al. ,Global atmospheric particle formation from CERN CLOUD measurements. Science354,1119-1124(2016). DOI:10.1126/science.aaf2649
[7] Laken, Benjamin A., Enric PallĂ©, JaÅ¡a ÄŒalogović and Eimear M. Dunne. A cosmic ray-climate link and cloud observations. J. Space Weather Space Clim., 2 (2012) A18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1051/swsc/2012018
[8] Pierce, J. R., and P. J. Adams (2009), Can cosmic rays affect cloud condensation nuclei by altering new particle formation rates? Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L09820, doi:10.1029/2009GL037946.
doi: 10.1130/1052-5173(2004)014<4:CAAPDO>2.0.CO;2.
https://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/14/3/pdf/i1052-5173-14-3-4.pdf
[11] Sloan, T and Wolfendale, A W. "Cosmic Rays and Global Warming." AIP Conference Proceedings, vol. 972, no. 1, Jan. 2008. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2870330
[12] T. Sloan, A.W. Wolfendale, Cosmic rays and climate change over the past 1000 million years, New Astronomy, Volume 25, 2013, Pages 45-49, ISSN 1384-1076, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newast.2013.03.008.
3.5 Studies Investigating the Tropospheric Hotspot
You sometimes see people saying that the since a tropospheric "hotspot" is not detected by satellite data, a major prediction of climate science regarding a fingerprint of greenhouse gas warming has not materialized. But as I've discussed in another post, much of the issue here has to do with uncertainties with satellite measurements, and the hotspot has been detected.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228630146_Warming_maximum_in_the_tropical_upper_troposphere_deduced_from_thermal_winds
[2] Steven C Sherwood and Nidhi Nishant (2015) Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUKv2). Environ. Res. Lett. 10 054007.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054007/meta
3.6 Reliability of Ice Core CO2
[1] Oeschger, Hans. (1995) Letters to the Editor. "Z. JAWOROWSKI: Ancient Atmosphere - Validity of Ice Records ESPR 1 (3): 161–171 (1994)." ESPR-Environ. Sci. & Pollut. Res. 2 (1): 60-61.
https://web.archive.org/web/20070927024724/http://www.scientificjournals.com/sj/espr/Pdf/aId/7394
[2] Alley RB. Reliability of ice-core science: historical insights. Journal of Glaciology. 2010;56(200):1095-1103. doi:10.3189/002214311796406130
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-glaciology/article/reliability-of-icecore-science-historical-insights/92910C4F70F7D55B05484DADD5C45236
[3] Meijer, Harro A.J. Comment on 180 Years of Atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods. Energy & Environment Vol. 18(2), 2007.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1260/0958-305X.18.5.635
[4] Keeling, Ralph F. Comment on 180 Years of Atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods. Energy & Environment Vol. 18(2), 2007.
[5] Steig. Sources of uncertainty in ice core data: A contribution to the Workshop on Reducing and Representing Uncertainties in High-Resolution Proxy Data. International Centre for Theoretical Physics, Trieste, Italy, June 9 - 11, 2008.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/ice-cores.pdf
[6] Ahn J, Headly M, Wahlen M, Brook EJ, Mayewski PA, Taylor KC. CO2 diffusion in polar ice: observations from naturally formed CO2 spikes in the Siple Dome (Antarctica) ice core. Journal of Glaciology. 2008;54(187):685-695. doi:10.3189/002214308786570764
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-glaciology/article/co2-diffusion-in-polar-ice-observations-from-naturally-formed-co2-spikes-in-the-siple-dome-antarctica-ice-core/8C8638D9EC90AEA53B90B3DE70E594C0
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-glaciology/article/reliability-of-icecore-science-historical-insights/92910C4F70F7D55B05484DADD5C45236
[3] Meijer, Harro A.J. Comment on 180 Years of Atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods. Energy & Environment Vol. 18(2), 2007.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1260/0958-305X.18.5.635
[4] Keeling, Ralph F. Comment on 180 Years of Atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods. Energy & Environment Vol. 18(2), 2007.
[5] Steig. Sources of uncertainty in ice core data: A contribution to the Workshop on Reducing and Representing Uncertainties in High-Resolution Proxy Data. International Centre for Theoretical Physics, Trieste, Italy, June 9 - 11, 2008.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/ice-cores.pdf
[6] Ahn J, Headly M, Wahlen M, Brook EJ, Mayewski PA, Taylor KC. CO2 diffusion in polar ice: observations from naturally formed CO2 spikes in the Siple Dome (Antarctica) ice core. Journal of Glaciology. 2008;54(187):685-695. doi:10.3189/002214308786570764
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-glaciology/article/co2-diffusion-in-polar-ice-observations-from-naturally-formed-co2-spikes-in-the-siple-dome-antarctica-ice-core/8C8638D9EC90AEA53B90B3DE70E594C0
3.7 The Iris Hypothesis
[1] Lin, B., B. A. Wielicki, L. H. Chambers, Y. Hu, and K. Xu, 2002: The Iris Hypothesis: A Negative or Positive Cloud Feedback?. J. Climate, 15, 3–7, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2002)015<0003:TIHANO>2.0.CO;2.Using the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) satellite measurements over tropical oceans, this study evaluates the iris hypothesis recently proposed by Lindzen et al. that tropical upper-tropospheric anvils act as a strong negative feedback in the global climate system. The modeled radiative fluxes of Lindzen et al. are replaced by the Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) directly observed broadband radiation fields. The observations show that the clouds have much higher albedos and moderately larger longwave fluxes than those assumed by Lindzen et al. As a result, decreases in these clouds would cause a significant but weak positive feedback to the climate system, instead of providing a strong negative feedback.
[2] Paulo Ceppi, Peer Nowack. Observational evidence that cloud feedback amplifies global warming. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Jul 2021, 118 (30) e2026290118; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2026290118 https://www.pnas.org/content/118/30/e2026290118
We show that global cloud feedback is dominated by the sensitivity of clouds to surface temperature and tropospheric stability. Considering changes in just these two factors, we are able to constrain global cloud feedback to 0.43 0.35 Wm−2K−1 (90% confidence), implying a robustly amplifying effect of clouds on global warming and only a 0.5% chance of ECS below 2 K. We thus anticipate that our approach will enable tighter constraints on climate change projections, including its manifold socioeconomic and ecological impacts.[3] Ito, M., & Masunaga, H. (2022). Process-level assessment of the iris effect over tropical oceans. Geophysical Research Letters, 49, e2022GL097997. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022GL097997
The iris hypothesis suggests a cloud feedback mechanism that a reduction in the tropical anvil cloud fraction (CF) in a warmer climate may act to mitigate the warming by enhanced outgoing longwave radiation. Two different physical processes, one involving precipitation efficiency and the other focusing on upper-tropospheric stability, have been argued in the literature to be responsible for the iris effect. In this study, A-Train observations and reanalysis data are analyzed to assess these two processes. Major findings are as follows: (a) the anvil CF changes evidently with upper-tropospheric stability as expected from the stability iris theory, (b) precipitation efficiency is unlikely to have control on the anvil CF but is related to mid- and low-level CFs, and (c) the day and nighttime cloud radiative effects are expected to largely cancel out when integrated over a diurnal cycle, suggesting a neutral cloud feedback.
[4] Lin Chambers and Bing Lin, "Test of the Iris Hypothesis Using Ceres SSF Data." https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/documents/STM/2002-01/pdf/Lin%20ceres_rep_iris.pdf
Comments
Post a Comment