Estimates of Earth’s climate sensitivity are uncertain, largely because of uncertainty in the long-term cloud feedback. I estimated the magnitude of the cloud feedback in response to short-term climate variations by analyzing the top-of-atmosphere radiation budget from March 2000 to February 2010. Over this period, the short-term cloud feedback had a magnitude of 0.54 ± 0.74 (2?) watts per square meter per kelvin, meaning that it is likely positive. A small negative feedback is possible
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6010/1523.short
In other words, his study is a waste of paper.
Wow – does it really take 7 months of review time to accept a paper in Science these days ?
Only if Science is holding it for a special timed release.
18 months or longer if bucks the AGW dogma.
This is just another example of all the previous reports released by Dressler. For the most part he gets the entire situation backwards because warming causes more clouds. A lack of clouds allows more energy into the weather system which increases evaporation and produces more clouds.
Talking about warming joke, I wrote about IPCC and Pachauri cartoons, http://funwithgovernment.blogspot.com/2010/12/weekend-fun-4-ipcc-and-pachauri.html
Left click Gore’s picture. Gores face looks eerily similar to that of manatee that is dying from the cold.
Al gets award for manbearpig.
http://www.missourah.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/algore_nobel_manbearpig.png
Oh yeah, climatology “statistics”. Since when is 2 sigma (67% of the range) what counts? Riiiight, +/- 1.0 would make the slope of 0.5 even less “significant”.
Not only did they redefine the peer-review process, they are establishing a new approach to statistical analysis….and not an accurate one.