Examining Trenberth's 'The heat will come back to haunt us sooner or later' statement

My Wild Assed Guess would be that all these ocean gyres are working like massive but slow moving heat engines transporting the heat down, like an upside down thunderstorm that Willis showed transports heat upwards out of the atmosphere.
For extra WAGness, I’m going to say that they work on sixty to seventy year cycles, and are the cause of PDO/AMO shifts.

Guilty culprit
The Moon
Tidal heating, strong enough to make liquid water on Europa!

ClimateWatcher says:
September 27, 2010 at 11:10 am
This is really:
(1-albedo) * S / 4 = (sigma * T^4) CO2 + (sigma * T^4) H20 + (sigma * T^4) clouds + (sigma * T^4) everything else
This reminds me of the equation for the probability of extra-terrestrial life – in Michael Crichton’s essay about aliens and global warming posted recently on WUWT (flippant title but serious message) – a set of completely unknown variables, magnifying each-other’s uncertainties.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/09/aliens-cause-global-warming-a-caltech-lecture-by-michael-crichton/

There is a potential way to explain the missing heat. AGW may have been caused by a process not involving CO2 and which switched off in 2003. By now you must think I’m mad! Bear with me…….
How did I conclude this? On NASA websites there’s a false explanation of high cloud albedo [ http://terra.nasa.gov/FactSheets/Aerosols/ ], ‘higher [up to 90%] reflection from the greater surface area of smaller droplets in polluted clouds’. You don’t get reflection and Mie scattering [by a thick slab cloud] can’t give >0.5 albedo.
So where does the missing 0.4 come from? You can get very high albedo for clouds like cumulonimbus but these tend to have very dark interiors when raining. High albedo/low internal scattering suggests a second optical process, shielding the cloud interior. I’ve worked out the likely theory, an artefact of Mie scattering.
Consider a non-absorbing slab cloud, 0.7 albedo. 30% diffuse exits the base, the same from the top, 40%, is geometrical, probably a central cone. If pollution causes albedo to drop to 0.6, the energy from the base increases by a third, substantial AGW.
So, what evidence is there? Here’s ocean heat capacity: http://i45.tinypic.com/2u73syr.jpg ; notice fast heating in the late 1990s and cessation in 2003 when global warming stopped. These data do not follow the Keeling curve for CO2. Consider this though: http://www.physorg.com/news105192948.html
’”The conventional thinking is that brown clouds have masked as much as 50 percent of global warming by greenhouse gases through so-called global dimming,” said Ramanathan. “While this is true globally, this study reveals that over southern and eastern Asia, the soot particles in the brown clouds are in fact amplifying the atmospheric warming trend caused by greenhouse gases by as much as 50 percent.”’
I’m suggesting the real AGW mechanism has been via modification of the optical properties of clouds, particularly over the tropical oceans as industrial globalisation surged and by 2003 it saturated. If true, this reduces the impact of CO2.
There’s one question left. Why does NASA put out false optical physics? ‘Cloud albedo effect’ cooling in Figure 2.4 of AR4 is 44% of present median AGW. Without it, the predictions of temperature rise are far too high. Yet the effect can’t be proved: looks to me as if the claim is propaganda to bolster up the IPCC’s unjustified claims of high future AGW from CO2: it could be very low indeed.

Stephen Wilde says: “A vague model is better than no model.”
I think the phrase is “vacant” … or perhaps you mean anorexic?

“””””” Quotation Cut and pasted verbatim from above:-
Theo Goodwin says:
September 27, 2010 at 3:32 pm
George E. Smith writes:
Begin quotation:
How many tiomes do I have to do this.
There’s not much to understanding the behavior of clouds.
…
Not stated in their paper; but conjectured by me; is that a 7% increase in total global precipitation is very likely to be accompanied by an increase (7% would be my WAG) in total gobal cloud cover (are/optical density/persistence time).
End quotation:
Until you have completed your work of conjecture, selected the correct one, and substantiated it. “”””””
The above cut and pasted verbatime from above. My comments follow.
Theo This is posted entirely to explain it to you.
I asked the question; how many times do I have to do this; namely, point out the quite recent and very important paper in SCIENCE by Frank Wentz (RSS Santa Rosa CA.) et al reporting on actual satellite measurements; real physical experimental observations of important water cycle physical phenomena.
To that paper I addded my own CONJECTURE, that one could reasonably infer that an increase in clouds would accompany an increase in precipitation. THAT’S IT. The work on that conjecture was completed with the sfirst stating of it here at WUWT. I DO NOT have to do another thing.
Fermat noted a CONJECTURE in his note book; that the equation (of the form) x^n +y^n =a^n has NO integer solutions of x and y for ANY n greater than 2. As far as I know he never ever said another word about it to anyone; certainlky never offered any proof.
That is what CONJECTURE is; and I’m not offering ANY proof of mine.
I will however offer a corollary CONJECTURE :-
Any of the fifth grader kids on “Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader? ” would take one look at my first conjecture; and say that of course it was quite obvious; and not in need of ANY proof.
Secondly; you tell me I should work on my conjecture and select the correct one; which is pretty easy; since there is only one conjecture to consider; and then substantiate it.
And as I just now stated for those not familiar with the word “conjecture”, a conjecture is a statement offered without proof; which is available for anyone who for reasons known best to them, want to either prove or attempt to prove; or to falsify or attempt to falsify. Or it is available for all to ignore.
And as I said there was only one conjecture; so the choice of which is tivial.
Now you might have somehow inferred that I was suggesting a choice of three different explanations; namely:-
are(a), or perhaps optical density, or maybe persistence time; (of the cloud).
No I wasn’t suggesting a choice; I would venture that those same fifth graders; would immediately grasp the concept that clouds could be increased in coverage area; or perhaps in Optical light blocking density; or increased time for which the cloud persists; or most likely some combination of all three of those variables since there is no physical reason to believe that one or two of those variables would have to remain a constant; but the overall result would be equivalent to a 7% increase in the precipitation capabilities of that cloud cover.
That was my conjecture Theo; and I posted it here again for the upmpteenth time because earlier YOU had posted this; which several others have referred to:-
“cut and pasted from above” “”””” Theo Goodwin says:
September 27, 2010 at 12:37 pm
Dennis Nikols writes:
“Perhaps the heat is being stored, perhaps not. I strongly suspect Pielkel is correct and most has been sent back to space.”
Isn’t this the obvious point to begin investigation? Roy Spencer’s book, The Global Warming Blunder, argues that the key to “forcings” is the behavior of clouds. There is no set of hypotheses which provide anything approaching a useful understanding of clouds, as Spencer explains. What is most likely is that the excess heat is being reflected by clouds. What is most needed at this time in climate science is a scientific understanding of the behavior of clouds. “””””
“””” What is most needed at this time in climate science is a scientific understanding of the behavior of clouds. “””””
Repeated for clarity.
And I simply replied to the effect that there already was sufficient scientific understanding of clouds.
Clouds ALWAYS reduce the amount of solar spectrum incident sunlight which reaches the surface of the earth.
No other understanding of clouds is necessary to understand that the earth must inexorably cool down if the amount of sunlight that is allowed to reach the surface is reduced over climatically significant time scales.
If you know of a Physical process, which can cause an increased total global cloud coverage to allow even more sunlight; as in solar sepctrum incoming radiated energy, reach the surface of the earth; or if you know of a physical process whereby reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the earth’s surface, will cause the surface to get even hotter than it is; then I am sure that I and many other readers are all eager to hear your explanation.

“”””” Julian Braggins says:
September 28, 2010 at 3:37 am
George E. Smith says:
September 27, 2010 at 2:08 pm
“There is no physical mechanism whereby an INCREASE in total global clouds over any climatically meaningful time scale can result in more solar spectrum photons reaching the surface; and they have to reach the surface to be able to do anything for us or to us.”
I am just trying to reconcile these two statements, my math and physics are near nonexistent but I like to have a clear mental picture, hoping you can clear this up.
“The argument from the AGW fraudsters is that O2 and N2 are “IR inactive”, or in other words that these two gases are transparent to infra-red. But it must be remembered that all substances with a temperature above 0 K emit IR at light speed. In order to maintain a certain temperature above 0 K a substance must acquire energy at the same rate as it loses it. Therefore there can be no substances which are transparent to IR. To claim anything to the contrary is an outrageous and deliberate fraud”.
Taken from
http://www.spinonthat.com/CO2_files/The_Diurnal_Bulge_and_the_Fallacies_of_the_Greenhouse_Effect.html “””””
Julian; when I see a post such as yours (cited here); I do consider it to be a serious request for explanation or elucidation if you will; and not just an idle troll.
So here goes.
So read that sentence of mine that you quoted; and which is referenced here carefully.
It references “solar spectrum photons”. OK you say your math and physics are near non-existent. Not to worry; matters not a jot. Those words are a fancy way of saying SUNLIGHT. You know what sunlight is; experience it nearly every day. Scientifically it consists of photons having various energies that empower our whole planet. Those photons range from the Ultraviolet corresponding to light waves with about 1/4 of a micron wavelength; through the visible light range encompassing about 0.4 microns to 0.8 microns wavelengths, and then on through the near infrared from about 1 to 4 microns wavelengths that our skin detects as “heat”. Now the suns range actually goes beyond that range specially in the longer wavelengths almost to as long as we can perceive with instruments. But 98% of the suns energy is emitted int eh range of 0.25 microns to 4.0 microns, and only 1% beyond each end. That is what sunlight is, and the peak (brightest) occurs at about 0.5 microns in the green region.
Now I am laboring this point for a specific reason. When that sunlight bounces off your chrome hubcaps, or your bird bath water surface; or the oceans, clouds, snowfields (it reflects) it REMAINS SUNLIGHT. now some surfaces such as green plants absorb some parts of the sunlight and reflect others which is why they look green since they don’t absorb the green; but what they reflect is what came in originally as sunlight. It’s like you picking through the tomatoes in the store, and accepting some and rejecting others for blemishes or whatever. What you reject is still a tomato.
What reflects off clouds, the oceans, trees, rocks snow and ice; you name it; is still SUNLIGHT. Some parts may have been extracted which will change the color; but nothing has been added.
ALL of the incoming sunlight, solar energy that reflects off some surface and heads of back out into space, we gather together under one heading which we call “Albedo”, which is a fancy name for the average reflectance of the planet. It is about 35% of all incoming sunlight that is reflected off something; mostly clouds which are bright white from above.
When you see the word Albedo used it refers ONLY to original sunlight input from the sun that is reflected back out into space. NOTHING else is added.
Now cloud tops reflect about 80% of the sun’s rays that strike them; and they reflect it in a highly diffuse scattered form. The clouds which are water or ice also absorb some parts of the sunlight (solar spectrum photons), so they don’t reach the ground; and more clouds reflect and block more sunlight; how easy is that ? And I mentioned the climatic time scale to clarify that we are talking about a climate change; increase in cloudiness; not last night’s weather; so I mean a cloud increase that will persist for years or decades (all over the globe).
Now in order to get more clouds; you have to have more water vapor in the atmosphere; which comes from increased evaporation from the ocean due to surface warming.
Now water vapor also absorbs some sunlight just like clouds do, and it starts absorbing about 0.76 microns which is a very deep red. Probably old farts like me can’t see that red any more but we used to see it, and the water vapor can absorb quite a bit of the suns rays from about that red out to about the 4 microns region and there is only 1% left beyond that.
So if that sunlight too can absorb incoming solar spectrum photons (sunlight), that is also solar energy which does not reach the ground. And it is sunlight that reaches the ground or more likely the ocean that is the real solar energy that maintains the Temperature of this planet. Block more sunlight from the surface with more clouds, and it must get colder on the ground. As I have said many times; Nobody ever observed it to warm up in the shadow zone, when a cloud passes in front of the sun; it ALWAYS cools down.
So note; so far we have only talked about sunlight energy; nothing else. That is all that my postulate relates to.
So now to your second piece which you asked about.
They are talking about an entirely different subject; namely the Infra Red; which is loosely thought of as being those electromagnetic radiation waves (or photons) having wavelengths between about 1.0 and 100 microns; which is much longer (and lower energy) than the visible sunlight, although we noted above that the sunlight does contain some useful energy in that 1 to 4 micron range. Actually the sun keeps on emitting energy at wavelengths or frequencies all the way out to radio waves or you could also detect them on your stereo system if you had a good enough one and a good antenna (very big one).
But the IR that this article is referring to is the long wave infrared radiation that is emitted from the earth’s surface as a result of its temperature of about 15 deg C or 288 Kelvins (average). Such radiation is also emitted from the atmosphere itself because of its temperature.
You should Google or Wiki “Black Body Radiation” to learn something about it. Simply stated, BB radiation is a theoretical type of radiation that is emitted from a body which is capable of totally absorbing any and all electromagnetic radiation energy that falls on it. It is theoretically important because we can calculate with very high confidence exactly how much radiation at any wavelength it will emit, and it depends only on the Temperature of the body and nothing else. And it is practically important because the sun radiates solar energy in a very much black body like fashion corresponding to an emission temperature of roughly 6,000 Kelvins.
One property of BB radiation is that the product of the Temperature, and the peak wavelength of the spectrum (brightest “light”) is a constant; and for the sun at 6,000K, the peak wavelength is about 0.5 microns, so the Product of the two is 3,000 Micron Kelvins (roughly) which we call the Wien Constant, since it embodies Wien’s Displacement Law; which is the law that says BB radiation has that temperature times peak Wavelength constant.
So the earth’s surface at say 300 K; which is about 27 deg C which is about 80 deg F must have from Wien’s law a 10 micron peak emission wavelength since it is 1/20th the temperature of the sun so it must be 20 times the sun’s 0.5 micron peak. Actually for the 288 K it is about 10.1 micron peak; and we can expect to find about 98% of the total emitted energy from the earth surface lying between 1/2 and 8 times that peak wavelength which is 5.0 to 80 microns range. Now CO2 molecules absorb in the 15 micron region, actually in a band from about 13.5 to 16.5 microns; so it is on the downward slope of the tail of the thermal radiation emitted from the surface. It also absorbs in the 4 micron region; which is at the tail end of the sun’s spectrum but a bit too far beyond the short end of the earth surface emissions. The short wavelength drop off is much more sudden than the long wavelength tail. So these are the emissions which come from the earth and also from the atmosphere since at least at the lower altitudes is in a somewhat similar Temperature range as the surface (roughly).
The ordinary gases of the atmosphere, may indeed be “transparent” to the IR but CO2 (and H2O) is not and the energy that is captured by these so-called Green House Gases, is ultimately transferred to those ordinary gases in molecular collisions. So even if the N2 and O2 themselves are transparent; the CO2 is not, and because it is a trace gas it is almost certain to soon encounter an N2 or O2 molecule and eventually lose that captured energy to those molecules; and that is how the air gets heated (one of the ways).
But the important thing to keep in mind is that this long wave infra red LWIR is 20 times the wavelength of the sunlight spectrum (solar photons), so the constituents of the atmosphere and everything else react quite differently to that radiation.
But remember that the cloud effect that I related above applies ONLY to the original incoming sunlight. How clouds react to the LWIR is a totally different (and important) issue.
I’m NOT an expert on LWIR absorption and emission from the atmospheric gases and clouds; I know a little about it; enough to get myself in a jam from time to time; but there are others here who know a whole lot more than I do.
So I’m here to learn too.
Hopefully, some of that above is of use to you.[typos fixed . . G you are typing way fast]

phlogiston said:
“Stephen – for the solar and atmospheric part of your model you have Lief Svaalgard to contend with, and for the oceanic – Bob Tisdale. Get it past those two and the rest is plain sailing.”
Too true, but are they right ?
There’s been a lot of material coming to the fore from the real world and other commentators to suggest they might not be.
I think I only need to be persistent and patient and then observations of the real world will either stuff me or them 🙂

Stephen Wilde says:
September 28, 2010 at 12:55 pm
It works best on a multicentennial basis. Given the paucity of the right data I agree that that presents a falsification problem.
However there are short term events that could help such as:
The jets shifting back poleward for a couple of years without either a more active sun or a positive set of ocean cycles.
The stratosphere resuming it’s cooling trend despite a quiet sun.
Albedo starting to fall again whilst the jets remain equatorward.
Tropospheric warming resuming without globally net positive ocean cycles (not just the PDO)
The polar oscillations turning positive for a year or two whilst the sun remains inactive.
=====================================
Hi Stephen,
Would you be so kind as to provide some good links/studies to these short term events you posted above?
Thanks, and cheers.
-Chris

“savethesharks says:
September 28, 2010 at 8:24 pm ”
Chris, perhaps I should have been clearer.
Those ‘short term events’ were just meant as imagined examples of events that would cause my hypothesis some difficulty.
My real point is that so far as I know none of them have ever happened, so no links are available.
However the opposites appear to occur consistently hence the creation of my hypothesis. Details to that effect are common knowledge.

George E. Smith says:
September 28, 2010 at 11:31 am , a long and comprehensive explanation to my query, for which I thank you very much, and feel honoured by the time you must have spent on it.
I found the following paper today that may interest you, on the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere that concludes that further CO2 will not heat it and may cool it.
http://mc-computing.com/qs/Global_Warming/EPA_Comments/TheGreenhouseEffect.doc
Thank you again, Julian