Wrong Again …

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

Like anyone else, I’m not fond of being wrong, particularly very publicly wrong. However, that’s the price of science, and sometimes you have to go through being wrong to get to being right. Case in point? My last post. In that post I looked at what is known as “net cloud radiative forcing”, and how it changed with surface temperature. Net cloud forcing is defined as the amount of downwelling upwelling longwave radiation (ULR, or “greenhouse radiation”) produced by the cloud, minus the amount of solar energy reflected by the cloud (upwelling shortwave radiation, or USR). If net cloud forcing is negative, it cools the earth below.

I found out that indeed, as temperature goes up, the net cloud radiation goes down, meaning the clouds have a greater cooling effect. I posted it, and asked for people to poke holes in it.

What could be wrong with that? Well, I forgot a very simple thing, and none of the commenters noticed either. The error was this. Net cloud forcing is cloud DLR ULR minus shortwave reflected by that same cloud. But what I forgot is that reflected shortwave is the cloud albedo times the total insolation (downwelling solar shortwave radiation).

The catch, as you probably have noticed, is this. If the cloud doesn’t change at all and the total insolation rises, the net cloud forcing will become more and more negative. The upwelling reflected solar is the cloud albedo times the insolation. As insolation rises,  more and more sunshine is reflected, so the net cloud forcing goes down. That’s just math.

The problem is that as insolation rises, temperatures also rise. So by showing net cloud forcing goes down with increasing temperature, all I have done is to show that net cloud forcing goes down with increasing insolation … and duh, the math proves that.

However, recognizing that as the problem also gave me the solution. This is to express the net cloud forcing, not as a number of watts per square metre, but as a percentage of the insolation. That way, I could cancel out the effect of the insolation, and extract the information about the clouds themselves. Figure 1 shows the results of that analysis.

Figure 1. Net Cloud Forcing (W/m2) as a percentage of gridcell insolation (W/m2), monthly averages from 1985-1989. Average percentage results shown above each map are area-averaged. Missing data shown in gray. Cloud forcing data from ERBE, insolation data from NASA.

This is an interesting result, for a variety of reasons.

First, it is quite detailed, which gives me confidence in the geographical accuracy of my calculations. For example, the cooling effect of the thunderstorms in the Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) is clearly visible in the Pacific as a horizontal blue line slightly above the equator, and can be seen in the Atlantic Ocean as well. The ITCZ is the great band of equatorial thunderstorms around the planet that drive the Hadley circulation. Remember that the majority of the  energy entering the climate system is doing so in the Tropics. Because of that, a few percent change in the equatorial net cloud forcing represents lots and lots of watts per square meter.

Second, the differing responses of the clouds over the land versus clouds over the ocean are also clearly displayed. In general, land clouds warm more/cool less than ocean clouds. In addition, you can see that while the clouds rarely warm the NH ocean, they have a large warming effect on the SH ocean.

Third, and most significant, look at the timing of the seasonal changes. Take December as an example. In the Northern Hemisphere this is winter, the coldest time of year, and the clouds are having a net warming effect. In the Southern Hemisphere summer, on the other hand, clouds are cooling the surface. But by June, the situation is reversed, with the clouds having a strong cooling effect in the warm North, while warming up the winter in the South. (Note that the NH warming effect is somewhat masked by the fact that there are large areas of missing data over the land in the NH winter, shown as gray areas. The effect of this on the global average is unknown. However, by using a combination of gridcells which are adjacent temporally and gridcells which are adjacent spatially, it should be possible to do an intelligent infill of the missing areas and at least come to a more accurate estimate of the net effect. So many paths to investigate … so little time.)

I have hypothesized elsewhere that the earth has a governor which works to maintain a constant temperature. One of the features of a governor is that it cannot be simple fixed linear feedback. By that, I mean it must act in two directions—it must act to warm the earth when it is cold, and to cool the earth when it is warm. This is different from linear negative feedback, which only works to cool things down, or linear positive feedback, which only works to warm things up. A governor has to swing both ways.

Figure 1 clearly shows that, as I have been saying for some time, including both the longwave and shortwave effects clouds act strongly to warm the earth when it is cold (red areas in Figure 1) and to cool the earth when it is warm (blue areas in Figure 1). In addition, as I have also said (without much evidence until now to substantiate my claim), the ITCZ has a large net cooling effect.

So that’s where I am up to right now in my investigation of the ERBE data. Always more to learn, I’ll continue to report my results as they happen, the story of the ERBE data is far from over. I’ll be in and out of contact for a bit, I’m around today but I’m hitchhiking up to Oregon tomorrow for a friend’s bachelor party, so don’t think I’m ignoring you if I don’t answer for a bit.

w.

PS – there are some interesting results that I’ll post when I have time. These involve looking at the phase diagrams for cloud forcing, temperature, and insolation. Having the insolation available allows the phase of both the temperature and the forcing to be compared to what is actually the underlying driving mechanism, the insolation.

Regarding temperature and insolation, the ERBE data shows what is well known, that the temperature changes lag the insolation changes by about two months in the Southern Hemisphere, and by one month in the Northern Hemisphere. This is because of the thermal inertia of the planet (it takes time to warm or cool), along with the greater thermal inertia of the greater percentage of ocean in the south.

The interesting part is this: the phase diagram shows that there is no lag at all for the changes in the clouds. They change right in step with the insolation, in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres.

This means, of course, that the clouds move first, and the temperature follows.

I’ll post those phase diagrams when I have some time.

[UPDATE: The phase diagrams, as mentioned. First, Figure 2 shows the temperature versus the insolation:

Figure 2. Insolation vs absolute temperature, from the equator to 65 N/S. The poles are not included because the ERBE cloud data only covers 65 N/S. This does not affect the phase diagrams. Black line shows no lag, gold line shows one month lag, red line shows two months lag between maximum insolation and maximum temperature. Numbers after month names show months of lag.

Since the driving signal (insolation) peaks in June and December, those months will be in the corners when the two cycles are aligned. In the Northern Hemisphere (upper panel), December is in the lower left corner with a lag of 1 month (gold line).

The Southern Hemisphere is half a cycle out of phase, so December is maximum insolation in the upper right corner. This occurs with a lag of two months (red line).

This verifies that temperatures lag insolation by a month in the Northern Hemisphere (the warmest time is not end June, when the insolation peaks) and two month in the southern hemisphere.

However, the situation is different with the clouds, as Figure 3 shows.

Figure 2. Insolation vs cloud forcing %, from the equator to 65 N/S. The poles are not included because the ERBE cloud data only covers 65 N/S. I suspect that the odd shape is a consequence of the missing gridcell data in the ERBE dataset, but that is a guess.

For the cloud forcing in both Hemispheres, there is no lag with regards to the insolation.

w.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
235 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
wsbriggs
October 11, 2011 3:17 pm

Great post as usual, even better when you improve the product. Is June really positive in the forcing? 2.3 where every other month is negative?

October 11, 2011 3:28 pm

Willis, I need a picture for the first part of the post. brain freeze.

October 11, 2011 3:36 pm

Of course it leads to the question of what causes a certain temperature to be ideal?
In other words, if water (in the form of clouds obviously) moderates temperatures, what causes it to keep temperatures for the most part mostly stable? Is there sweet temperatures so to speak that the Earth cycles through as the system can not maintain a certain temperature? (ice ages for instance..) and if so, this leads to further implications and necessity into studying the hydrological cycle in much more detail.
I have said it before, but we live on a water planet and our temperature has much more to do with this influence then anything else. Clouds not excluded of course.

Brian H
October 11, 2011 3:43 pm

My gob is suitably smacked. Dead obvious, but very powerful.

DirkH
October 11, 2011 3:46 pm

“This is different from simple negative feedback, which only works to cool things down, or positive feedback, which only works to warm things up.”
Willis, that’s wrong. Positive feedback is defined as amplifying the input stimulus; negative feedback is defined as dampening it (except for negative feedback with a gain > 1 which lands you in increasing oscillations but that’s another story).
Your governor is a classic nonlinear negative feedback. Please look at OpAmp circuitry and how positive and negative feedbacks work there.
[REPLY – I know how OpAmps work, I’m a ham radio operator from the old school, the problem is in my writing. By “simple” I mean linear, which is the kind of feedback envisioned in the current climate paradigm. I’ll change the head post to reflect that. – w.]

Hoser
October 11, 2011 4:00 pm

Perhaps a reason you didn’t get anyone to seriously examine your argument was you have no equations available to start chewing on. And if there is no data to run through them, well, we just have to take your word for it – tentatively. If you are serious about getting feedback, it might be worthwhile to provide a link to say an Excel spreadsheet. That will let us play with what you are looking at. It’s just like posting the software used in the model. Right?
Hope that helps.

Ken Methven
October 11, 2011 4:09 pm

Willis,
I hope some “real” scientists are paying attention to your work. You always make sense, have a consistent approach, and don’t allow the obvious conclusion to become prematurely induced into the questions you ask. What it is, is what it is, let it be, without funding.
Ken

Katio1505
October 11, 2011 4:09 pm

If Willis’ and Svensmark’s cloud theories can be cobbled together, perhaps there will be progress on our understanding of the climate system

Durr
October 11, 2011 4:11 pm

Once again we have proof that our side is more interested in the truth than being right the first time.
Bravo, WIllis. This is the real scientific process at work.

John Baltutis
October 11, 2011 4:19 pm

Typo in last part of paragraph:

I have hypothesized elsewhere that the earth has a governor which works to maintain a constant temperature. One of the features of a governor is that it cannot be simple feedback. By that, I mean it much act in two directions…

Should read By that, I mean it must act in two directions…

October 11, 2011 4:46 pm

yep willis
“Well, I forgot a very simple thing, and none of the commenters noticed either. The error was this. Net cloud forcing is cloud DLR minus shortwave reflected by that same cloud. But what I forgot is that reflected shortwave is the cloud albedo times the total insolation (downwelling solar shortwave radiation).
The catch, as you probably have noticed, is this. If the cloud doesn’t change at all and the total insolation rises, the net cloud forcing will become more and more negative. The upwelling reflected solar is the cloud albedo times the insolation. As insolation rises, more and more sunshine is reflected, so the net cloud forcing goes down. That’s just math.”
that was the thing I needed to visualize

davidmhoffer
October 11, 2011 4:48 pm

Willis;
Clouds warm the surface when it is cold, and they cool the surface when it is hot>>>
Thanks! I’ve been saying that for years! Of course my evidence was all anecdotal, but the conclusion seems pretty logical. Since clouds resist the movement of energy in both directions, their net effect has little choice but to be related to which side of them (top or bottom) is getting more energy. Hot days being a result of more “in coming” than “out going” it seems logical that they would have a cooling effect and vice versa. I’ve said many times that for those of us who grew up in a temperate climate, blue sky in January means bitter cold and blue sky in July means blazing hot.
The one piece that I don’t understand is how you concluded that:
“This means, of course, that the clouds move first, and the temperature follows…”
If the data that you have shows that the clouds move in lock step with insolation, is that a possible consequence of insufficient granularity in the data? I’m trying to envision the physical process that would result in this. If the insolation rises, it has to heat SOMETHING in order to cause increased cloud cover, does it not? I think it a given that the clouds cannot anticipate the increase in insolation, so the increase in cloud cover has to be a response to something caused by the insolation?

Layne Blanchard
October 11, 2011 4:56 pm

I found it peculiar that temp records for the 1930s showed not only record numbers of (all time) highs, but (if I recall correctly) a large number of (all time) low records. It seemed to be a period of extremes, after which, the trend changed direction, and global temps declined into the late 70’s. If clouds are a buffer, reducing them might subject us to greater extremes.

Bill Illis
October 11, 2011 5:00 pm

Cloud forcing is often defined simply as the radiation budget when clouds are present. Reflected shortwave increases 53 watts/m2 and downwelling longwave increases 32 watts/m2 (there are some different estimates of these two numbers and likely to be differences in the seasons and by latitude).
While your method is more pure, the radiation values are usually given in All-Sky and Clear-Sky so it relatively easy to separate out the Cloudy-Sky conditions and, hence, the net cloud forcing. One doesn’t have to get into Albedos. Cloud Albedos might be interesting however.

Steve
October 11, 2011 5:02 pm

Willis,
With your regards to your engine & governor theory, have you had any thoughts on ozone holes being some sort of ‘choke’ mechanism? I’m just a dumb mechanic but in regards to the ozone hole now forming over the north pole as opposed to the south, do you think this coulb be significant to the NH being warmer than the SH when we had cool times while we had an ozone hole down under during this time?

October 11, 2011 5:10 pm

Willis, do you have a mean surface pressure map you can over lay the cloud forcing on? It might be interesting.

NetDr
October 11, 2011 5:17 pm

Willis wrote
“This is different from linear negative feedback, which only works to cool things down, or linear positive feedback, which only works to warm things up. A governor has to swing both ways.”
**************
That doesn’t seem right to me. If defined as all of physics define it a negative feedback opposes the change in temperature up or down. A source of warming like more Insolation is opposed by more cooling clouds. A source of cooling is opposed by warming.
A positive feedback aids any warming or aids cooling if there is any.
I understand that climate science defines negative feedback relative to the Boltzmann no feedback value but that shouldn’t change the overall operation. The overall feedback is strongly negative feedback I believe it is by a factor of T^4.

Rob Dekker
October 11, 2011 6:08 pm

Willis,
Thank you for the adjustments you made, however, there are still some unclarities about what you are actually calculating here. Here is the first :
Net cloud forcing is defined as the amount of downwelling longwave radiation (DLR, or “greenhouse radiation”) produced by the cloud, minus the amount of solar energy reflected by the cloud (upwelling shortwave radiation, or USR).
This does not sound right. With “DLR produced by the cloud” do you mean the DIFFERENCE between DLR for the cloud MINUS DLR of clear sky ? If so, can you adjust the formula’s ?
And with “downwelling longwave” do you mean the IR radiated downward (from the cloud back to the surface) ?

Dave Worley
October 11, 2011 6:12 pm

I once worked in an office with the amusing motto: “We fix our mistakes.”
Hint: I never worked for Mann or Hansen.

davidmhoffer
October 11, 2011 6:14 pm

Willis;
The way I make sense of it is that the clouds respond on a minute-to-minute basis to the daily fluctuations in temperature. This is different from the slow warming and cooling of the seasons. But like I said, I’m just reporting. I don’t think it’s a granularity issue, the matchup on the phase diagram is good.>>>
For the record, not questioning what you are reporting 😉
A lag of even a minute or so would make sense to me. Perfectly in tandem…that’s an awful fast cause and effect!
That said, let’s go with “in tandem” for the moment. We’ve got at least some evidence that GCR’s affect cloud cover, which raises the question in my mind as to what frequencies of solar flux (and/or solar wind?) might exist that promote cloud formation. If that were the case, would not cloud cover rise and fall in tandem with insolation (assuming that frequence X rises and falls with insolation over all)? If that were the case, then cloud cover could well change not only in tandem with insolation, but even in advance of temperature change?

1 2 3 10