Last year I posted an analysis of satellite observations of the 2007-08 global cooling event, showing evidence that it was due to a natural increase in low cloud cover. Here I will look at the bigger picture of what how the satellite-observed variations in Earth’s radiative budget compare to that expected from increasing carbon dioxide. Is there something that we can say about the relative roles of nature versus humanity based upon the evidence?
What we will find is evidence consistent with natural cloud variations being the dominant source of climate variability since 2000.
CERES Observations of Global Energy Budget Changes
The following graph shows the variations in the Earth’s global-average radiative energy balance as measured by the CERES instrument on NASA’s Terra satellite. These are variations in the imbalance between absorbed sunlight and emitted infrared radiation, the most fundamental quantity associated with global warming or global cooling. Also show (in red) are theoretically calculated changes in radiative forcing from increasing carbon dioxide as measured at Mauna Loa.
Since there is some uncertainty in the absolute accuracy of the CERES measurements, where one puts the zero line is also somewhat uncertain. Therefore, it’s the variations since 2000 which are believed to be pretty accurate, and the exact dividing line between Earth gaining energy and Earth losing energy is uncertain. Significantly, all of the downward trend is in the reflected sunlight portion, not the infrared portion of the variations. We similarly can not reference where the zero line should be for the CO2 forcing, but the reasons for this are more complex and I will not address them here.
In order to compare the variations in the CO2 forcing (in red) to the satellite observations, we need to account for the fact that the satellite observes forcing and feedback intermingled together. So, let’s remove a couple of estimates of feedback from the satellite measurements to do a more direct comparison.
Inferred Forcing Assuming High Climate Sensitivity (IPCC View)
Conceptually, the variations in the Earth’s radiative imbalance are a mixture of forcing (e.g. increasing CO2; clouds causing temperature changes), and feedback (e.g. temperature changes causing cloud changes). We can estimate the forcing part by subtracting out the feedback part.
First, let’s assume that the IPCC is correct that climate sensitivity is pretty high. In the following chart I have subtracted out an estimate of the feedback portion of the CERES measurements based upon the IPCC 20-model average feedback parameter of 1.4 W m-2 K-1 times the satellite AMSU-measured tropospheric temperature variations
As can be seen, the long-term trend in the CERES measurements is much larger than can be accounted for by increasing carbon dioxide alone, which is presumably buried somewhere in the satellite-measured signal. In fact, the satellite observed trend is in the reflected sunlight portion, not the infrared as we would expect for increasing CO2 (not shown).
Inferred Forcing Assuming Low Climate Sensitivity (”Skeptical” View)
There has been some published evidence (our 2007 GRL paper, Lindzen & Choi’s 2009 paper) to suggest the climate system is quite insensitive. Based upon that evidence, if we assume a net feedback parameter of 6 W m-2 K-1 is operating during this period of time, then removing that feedback signal using AMSU channel 5 yields the following history of radiative forcing:
As can be seen, the relative size of the natural forcings become larger since more forcing is required to cause the same temperature changes when the feedback fighting it is strong. Remember, the NET feedback (including the direct increase in emitted IR) is always acting against the forcing…it is the restoring force for the climate system.
What this Might Mean for Global Warming
The main point I am making here is that, no matter whether you assume the climate system is sensitive or insensitive, our best satellite measurements suggest that the climate system is perfectly capable of causing internally-generated radiative forcing larger than the “external” forcing due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. Low cloud variations are the most likely source of this internal radiative forcing. It should be remembered that the satellite data are actually measured, whereas the CO2 forcing (red lines in the above graphs) is so small that it can only be computed theoretically.
The satellite observed trend toward less energy loss (or, if you prefer, more energy gain) is interesting since there was no net warming observed during this time. How could this be? Well, the satellite observed trend must be due to forcing only since there was no warming or cooling trend during this period for feedback to act upon. And the lack of warming from this substantial trend in the forcing suggests an insensitive climate system.
If one additionally entertains the possibility that there is still considerable “warming still in the pipeline” left from increasing CO2, as NASA’s Jim Hansen claims, then the need for some natural cooling mechanism to offset and thus produce no net warming becomes even stronger. Either that, or the climate system is so insensitive to increasing CO2 that there is essentially no warming left in the pipeline to be realized. (The less sensitive the climate system, the faster it reaches equilibrium when forced with a radiative imbalance.)
Any way you look at it, the evidence for internally-forced climate change is pretty clear. Based upon this satellite evidence alone, I do not see how the IPCC can continue to ignore internally-forced variations in the climate system. The evidence for its existence is there for all to see, and in my opinion, the IPCC’s lack of diagnostic skill in this matter verges on scientific malpractice.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
David L. Hagen (13:02:43) :
From Climate Change Reconsidered
They should reconsider instead their credentials…it’s too late now, justice draws nearer…
“The satellite observed trend toward less energy loss (or, if you prefer, more energy gain) is interesting since there was no net warming observed during this time.”
OK now I’m really confused. The earth is gaining energy but getting colder. That does not compute. With all due respect Dr. Spencer, Lindzen and Choi’s paper was easier to follow.
KDK (12:53:14) :
KDK, I believe this is one of the main claims of Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr. He is critical of the climate models that attributes almost all of the blame for global warming to CO2. He argues that the way humans use the land (deforestation, asphalting, dams, etc) is just one of many other forcings that affect global temperatures. I just did a little research in his website for a specific paper I read a while a go but couldn’t locate it. Nevertheless, if you visit his blog you’ll see that land use issue is featured prominently.
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/
Frankly, his arguments make a lot more sense and more persuasive for the case of AGW. I’d consider him to be a pro-AGW scientist. But because he does not toe the line with the AGW dogma that all the blame for global warming is CO2 related, he is considered as a ‘denialist’ by the climate science establishment.
“Jasper Kirkby, a British experimental particle physicist currently with CERN, Switzerland presents a lecture in which cosmic rays show a strong correlation with global temperature over short and long time periods. He is currently involved in research on their effects on clouds at CERN…”
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073
Thank you Eric Smith for leading me towards this. From my amateur readings, it seems the IPCC has entered the climate change debate with a clear purpose, and without understanding the physics of climate change. I have been waiting for more details to come from the CLOUD experiment, and hope that their results clarify the basic mechanisms of cosmic ray/cloud interaction.
David,
If the conditions have changed from mostly heating the northern hemisphere to mostly heating the southern the situation will be exactly that because it takes much more energy to heat all that ocean down there.
The scientific approach in this thread looks carefull and forthright to me.
Joe Romm has just announced this is an anti-science blog. Joe romm is financed by convicted felon George Soros according to a post over there. Climate progress.
I really don’t accept the influence of CO2 in small traces as having much impact.
REPLY: Romm’s be labeling WUWT that way for quite some time, nothing new. It’s his MO to rant like that. – Anthony
BTW, I don’t think it’s sunk in with some here yet. According to Spencer the downward trend (or higher radiation retention) is due to less reflected sunlight. That means fewer clouds over the period, not more. I would say it looks like el nino and la nina have far more effect on clouds than cosmic rays.
And far far far more effect than CO2 which we can actually forget because we can’t really find it among the red red noise.
Also, Lubos Motl discovered that Gisstemp IS basically ENSO with a two month delay and a bit of longer accumulation (forgot the techy term). Bob Tisdale has shown that the tropical heat moves mostly to the northern hemisphere in his wonderful latitude plots.
The main climate driver of this planet of ours is the tropical oceans.
Eat that, Hansen.
Vincent (10:08:48) :
“and in my opinion, the IPCC’s lack of diagnostic skill in this matter verges on scientific malpractice.”
Scientific malpractice! That is a very strong statement from a scientist who is very nuanced with his words.
I think the correct term is realistic… The simple truth of the matter is that when there is doubt, express it and when all the facts seem in you then say as far as we know, because the only true certainty is that by locking into a statement of… this is the truth you curtail people from looking further.
Malpractice comes from saying the world should spend trillions on a potential issue that may occur… perhaps. To, if you don’t act you WILL condemn the world.
I have a very basic question which I’m sure someone can explain.
The IPCC “sensitivity” of 1.4W/m^2K suggests that a 1’C rise due to doubling CO2 to a “first order forcing” leads, with feedback to an extra rise of 1.4’C so a total of 2.4’C (or is it 1.4×1 = 1.4’C?).
I.e. the IPCC has positive feedback.
Dr. Spencer then says, “evidence suggests that the climate is quite insensitive.. assume 6W/m^2K..”
So that implies, for a 1’C rise due to CO2 first order forcing, that we will get a total of 7’C temperature increase.
Obviously he doesn’t mean that. But I can’t work out what he does mean. Can someone please enlighten me?
sHx (13:59:23) :
The other thing that Dr. Pielke espouses is that all these changes need to be looked at, at no greater then a regional scale. He has a big problem with the concept of a “Global” temperature. That really gets him in trouble with the IPCC and the AGW crowd: No excuse for the big power grab and a world government.
When you read Dr. Pielkes statements and papers he makes a lot of sense and it easely passe the common sense and smell tests. One study he did with Dr. Christy in California’s Imperial Valley is a prime example. People changed a desert area into a farming area through irrigation. Now anyone that has spent time in a desert knows they typically get very cold, very quickly at night. When you change that enviroment through irrigation you have done two things.
1. The new farm area doens’t cool as much at night, thus gives you a higher Tmin over what it used to be.
2. You now have put more water vapor into the atmosphere in that area through evaporation. When most people think of Desert they think heat, what they should think about is precipitation.
Now depending on the local conditions and air patterns that could mean more rain/snow in areas that don’t need it and also increase clouds in other areas.
Now most people start with the old “thats weather not climate argument”, however when that has now lasted over 30 years it is climate by their own definition.
That is just one example and of course people conviently over look what happened in the 1930’s and the Dust Bowl, which again was due to farming techniques. Dust from the midwest made it all the way accross the continent to the Atlantic Ocean, how did that effect the enviroment and that happened for many years.
@ur momisugly KDK (12:53:14) :
First, an important scientific consideration. When observing the warmth coming from your house in the absence of sunlight, is there anything in the house generating heat? Central heating, hot water tank, electrical devices, living or decaying bodies, anything?
Mankind’s assorted architectural follies do generate considerable heat. The mega-city Tokyo generates its own weather by the massive column of heated air rising from it. For what is important in this discussion, we do tend to have dark surfaces that convert sunlight to heat.
But so do forests, with evergreens doing so year-round. Rain forests can be self-cooling, they soak up sunlight and use it to to create so much water vapor that it leads to localized forming of clouds, from which will often come rain. Concerning surfaces, with nature’s preference for dark green foliage that soaks up as much energy as possible, mankind’s contribution to warmth in the world seems far smaller than nature’s, for both on land and considering the entire planet, negligible, since what would be considered is the difference between man’s surfaces and what nature would have in their place.
With our surfaces and building materials, what is mostly noticed is the retained heat. When the sun goes down the green leafy things quickly cool off, with the ground right at the surface soon following. Our thick substances like concrete and asphalt take longer to cool. But after the sun comes up, they stay cool for awhile and take some time to warm up. Thus a moderating effect is noticed, averaging out the warmth and the cold.
Surrounded by these materials, outdoors we feel that the nights are warmer. Then go to bed. In the morning we notice the immediate warmth of sunlight, and tend to ignore our cold materials. You will notice if the heating isn’t working and the house is cold, but who checks if the exterior of their house and their driveway are cold? We just leave our heated caves and go out to enjoy the sun. Thus a good chunk of the perceived added warming is an illusion.
‘It should be remembered that the satellite data are actually measured, whereas the CO2 forcing (red lines in the above graphs) is so small that it can only be computed theoretically.’
Bingo.
scienceofdoom (14:50:36) :
You need to look just prior to where he mentions that energy amoiunt to where he reference’s his GRL paper. What is in his paper you can also find on his website and I believe was in another post here at WUWT not that long ago. Here is the pertinent part from his website:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/satellite-and-climate-model-evidence/
People should read that article I linked above to better understand his post here, since the numbers are based on his paper that shows net negative Cloud feedback (IE: Low level clouds blocking incomming energy and reflecting it back into space).
@KDK
I think the covering of the world with roads and buildings will have a limited effect. The colour of roads is generally black, which does not help. The effect is, however, limited, and in no way cumulative. Cities tend to be a few C warmer than rural areas, but that does not increase over time (assuming the city remains the same). This tells us that the heat balance is not changing, ie as much energy is transmitted as absorbed, as I see it in my limited understanding.
As for bricks and road storing heat, so do rocks, and the process is identical. Again, it does not create any additional ‘warming’ any more than oceans do. Water does the same as rock, but to a greater extent I believe. All that means is the heat takes more time to re-radiate instead of being re-radiated immediately (or reflected). No change in net warming occurs, as I understand it, though.
Apologies for my loose usage of the term ‘heat’, BTW.
The Hansen Pipeline: Inertial Momentum
Since the Earth was warming for 20 years, it has a warming momentum.
When the cooling ends, there will be no cooling momentum but returns to the warming momentum.
Why would there be a warming momentum but not a cooling momentum?
Because Hansen believes that a cooling phase will only counteract his beloved AGW C02 forcing. The system cannot go to a lower (cooler) state. It can only vary on the line demarked by subtracting the cooling from the C02 forcing.
If the system departs further from it’s current 10-year line and established a new and steeper decline, then Hansen is very wrong.
There are signs that it may be doing exactly what Hansen is implying it won’t do. Well, let’s have the latest data tossed onto those charts above.
Additional: I think the Hansen line of CO2 forcing-cooling extends from mid 2002 (after lagtime and reaching new equilibrium) to Dec 2007, but then appears to depart south once again.
Really would like to see the charts updated to Dec.2009.
To Scienceofdoom:
It gets all wiggy because you track every number back to who said it, when, and in what context. I”m not an expert but I do know that:
IPCC refers to CO2 doubling as resulting in an extra 3.7 watts per m2 which would result in a direct temp increase of about 1 degree, but with positive feedback mostly from increased water vapor wold result in 2 to 4 degrees. If you figure 3 for an average, that’s triple, so about a 7.4 watt positive feedback less what ever negative feedbacks they subtracted from that… to get to…6?
BUT… read deep into the report and…
The actual increase SO FAR is only measured at 38%. The total of all greenhouse gases is currently (from memory here) 1.7 watts and I think CO2 was most of that so 1.4 sounds about right.
BUT… if you think through the math, since the current increase is 38%, but it started at 0, the effective average contribution since 1900 would be 0.85 watts across all contributors, perhaps 0.7 for co2.
Actual temp change according to IPCC for that period 1.1 degrees.
What I believe was meant by Pielke is that he thinks it takes a total of about 6 w/m2 to achieve a 1 degree change because of negative feedbacks not considered while IPCC is claiming it was done with only about 1 watt.
Kind of offtopic (but it climate forcing relevant, and Miskolczi mention cosmoclimatology – changes in cloud cover – in his last study).
Miskolczi primer, by Dianna Cotter:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2010m1d12-Hungarian-Physicist-Dr-Ferenc-Miskolczi-proves-CO2-emissions-irrelevant-in-Earths-Climate
Sorry, OT and already asked on an older post.
PLEASE HELP.
Can someone please help me with analyzing (subtext rebutting) David Archer’s Book, The Big Thaw. I finally have a chance to reach someone with influence but I won’t have any cred without it. I don’t want to buy the book, it will be out-of-date “science” and I am assuming propanda as well, and even if I did buy it I can’t do this alone.
Thanks.
Air Vent readers, you will see this at Jeff’s site. Originally I thought here would cover it – when I posted at previous thread – but now I have to try everywhere.
Or, does anyone know kind of an info site for people like me?
Clouds are water vapor. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Ah… Ummmm…. And… no, ahhh…
Oh forget it.
Global warming? Now this is what we chould really be worried about.
“A mystery object from space whizzed close by Earth today but scientists are somewhat stumped by what it was.
The fast-moving entity only measured between 33 and 50 feet wide so would not have caused devastation had it hit the planet.”
Daily Mail – 13th January 2010
the IPCC’s lack of diagnostic skill in this matter verges on scientific malpractice.”
What this august organisation lacks in diagnostic skill it more than makes up in cunning!
A cunning that keeps it on the gravy train tracks, thank you Casey O’Pachauri, because it appeals to the baser instincts and self-loathings of MSM stalwarts such as JR and those to whom his brand of vitriol has a magnetic attraction.
That hoary old axiom, the science is settled, now needs laid to rest. The precautionary principle wrt CAGW was, with hindsight, an insurance premium too far.
Let’s get the survivors on Haiti sorted to the best of our abilities first. Forget the expensive brochurist tokenism that fills our screens nightly. It’s time to sort out the real problems, it’s time to make the non-issues get to the back of the line!
Excellent article! My only minor concern is that “force” is not the correct word for internal natural oscillations here on earth. In an analogy with a pendulum, I think of a force as the external gravitation and the resulting movement due to the force as a velocity. In the climate the external force is sun. However, our planet is spinning and wobbling with regular changes in tilt and axis. This may lead to ocean cycles that may cover a wide range of timescales, from years and decades to centuries and millennia. The ocean cycles are the velocities. Sure, an ocean cycle may alter the climate dramatically, but it is not a force as such, it is a natural oscillation.
kadaka (11:43:40) :
“So is the Earth’s climate a pendulum or a gyroscope? Does it swing between the extremes while trying to slow down to a lower energy state and finally end up at rest, while different things keep nudging and whacking it? Or does it have its own position that it firmly wants to maintain, pushing back against any force that tries to move it, with very strong forces able to push it into a different preferred position?”
The lunar declination swings North / South moving tropical air masses containing heat and moisture, along with it into the mid-latitudes on a 27.32 day period. This is the most powerful thermal transport mechanism at work in the atmosphere, and drives most of the basic patterns in the weather, the rest are due to turbulence caused by the topographic forcing, of the flow around mountains.
The pattern of movement is pendulum like, fast across the equator and slow at the culmination, giving rise to the surges in cyclonic weather patterns like we see today (Maximum South lunar declination was on the 12th) and we are seeing a secondary tidal bulge being produced in the USA today. Due to the topographical forcing of the Rocky mountains, acting as the lower half of a venturi to the zonal wind from the west, the lunar tidal forces act as the tripping bias in a N/S fluiditics switch.
When the declinational tides bias the flow south we have the flow patterns we have seen for the past couple weeks, Canadian air masses hugging the East slope of the Rockies, sweeping down into the southern plains, with the resultant cold farther South than is expected.
Now as the Moon is Maximum South and returning toward the equator on the 19th of January 2010, the secondary tidal bulge generated is forcing the switch to flop toward the swift intrusion of more tropical air into the evacuated great plains, producing a January thaw for the next couple days.
Heat being brought into the mid-latitudes by this surge will be better radiated out into space, than from the equator, as well as pushing the heat into the soils and melt water of the receding snow cover, which will also be radiated off into space during the night.
Because the pattern is one that shifts from small to large total declinational angular movement relative to the equator over an 18.6 year Mn period the turbulence patterns generated, that take the form of weather, will evolve through a long wave pattern of 18.6 years as the angle swings from minimum to maximum back to minimum.
Most research into looking for patterns in the weather limit the search period to 5 to 10 years, so these driving forces in the weather that end up being the “Hard to find natural variability” that is (overlooked) is the pump mechanism behind the pulstile surges in cool / warm phases, shifting the decade long phases of the ocean basins.
As the 27.32 day periods over base period of 18.6 years is not an even number of years, months or any of the other base periods used by the weather service to chop up data to average for reports, it has been over looked. With the initiation of the peer review process in the 50’s the funding was cut for any further studies.
Now we have problems with researchers trying to figure out the main signal in the weather / climate from looking at the random noise, that would be left after you remove the Lunar tidal signal, while it is still in the data. It’s like trying to hear the rattle of loose screws in a 500 watt 12″ bass speaker while at full volume.
I have created a natural analog weather forecast for the next four years based on the Lunar tidal reoccurring patterns, as a demonstration of the repeatability of the base patterns. Daily maps posted till end of 2013 on website http://www.aerology.com/national.aspx
Richard Holle
Concordia Kansas
Please stop! I’ve been trying for the last several months to put together a “talk” for my retired “professionals” club (PROBUS). No sooner than it’s finished more excellent data (or revelations) appear. I understand Sysiphus better by the day.
I’ve decided medication is the only solution for my WUWT and links addiction.
Thank you Dr Spencer, although I feel I know you ALL by Christian names.