OT to this thread but another case for curious climate science reviews, perhaps. Editor Hargreaves on contentious review process:

Editor comments on “odd behavior” of critical reviewer of Masters (2012)

Interactive comment on “On the determination of
the global cloud feedback from satellite
measurements” by T. Masters

J. C. Hargreaves (Editor)

Received and published: 7 August 2012

[emphasis added]

After the first reviews, the peer review process at ESD Discussions is not published
online until the paper is finally accepted or rejected for ESD. I would like to see the
review process made more open, as this contentious paper elicted some odd behaviour
from some of those involved, which made the editing task quite difficult.
So – for this paper we had 3 rounds of Major Revision in total. Finally I decided that
despite continued calls to reject the paper, one reviewer had not provided the incisive
criticism which would compel rejection. The other two reviewers accepted the paper.
Although I am by no means a specialist in the subject of cloud feedback, I think the
manuscript makes some valuable points, and I finally decided to accept the revised
version for ESD.

It may not be possible yet to judge cloud feedbacks overall. I wonder if anyone here has noticed this article from last summer, which argues that the data currently available do not rule out either positive or negative overall feedbacks from clouds…. i.e., as with a lot of the paleo proxy debates, it may be that the data available to date do not resolve the key issues (a provisional conclusion which may appeal to many who are not already “team” players: [my previous comment disappeared, I hope there is no duplication]

On the determination of the global cloud feedback from satellite measurements, by T. Masters of UCLA

published 23 August 2012

Earth Syst. Dynam., 3, 97–107, 2012
doi:10.5194/esd-3-97-2012

“Overall, there is little correlation between the changes in the 1CRF and surface temperatures on these timescales, suggesting that the net effect of clouds varies during this time period quite apart from global temperature changes. Given the large uncertainties generated from this method, the limited data over this period are insufficient to rule out either the positive feedback present in most climate models or a strong negative cloud feedback.”

I wonder if anyone here has noticed this article from last summer, which seems to argue that the data currently available do not rule out either positive or negative overall feedbacks from clouds…. i.e., as with a lot of the paleo proxy debates, it may be that the data available to date do not resolve the key issues (a provisional conclusion which may appeal to many who are not already “team” players:

On the determination of the global cloud feedback from satellite measurements, by T. Masters of UCLA

published 23 August 2012

Earth Syst. Dynam., 3, 97–107, 2012
http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/3/97/2012/
doi:10.5194/esd-3-97-2012

“Overall, there is little correlation between the changes in the 1CRF and surface temperatures on these timescales, suggesting that the net effect of clouds varies during this time period quite apart from global temperature changes. Given the large uncertainties generated from this method, the limited data over this period are insufficient to rule out either the positive feedback present in most climate models or a strong negative cloud feedback.”

And clouds at night act as a blanket. (Well they act as a blanket during the day too but the reflection of sunlight is more important).

In any case if we are looking at clouds as energy reflectors shouldn’t that be a consideration? i.e. Only clouds on the sunny side (up?) affect energy input. And clouds at noon are more important than clouds at sunset.

Temperature is no doubt an important PARAMETER, but the whole idea of an INTENSIVE variable being a forcing or a bona fide feedback in any physical system lacks any physical foundation. The commonplace misapplication of Stefan-Boltzman to convert all temperatures to EXTENSIVE variables doesn’t change the basic issue.