As most readers know, clouds are still poorly understood and under-represented in climate models. This new research may help.

From: DOE/Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Effect of cloud-scattered sunlight on earth’s energy balance depends on wavelength of light
Accounting for wavelength effects will likely improve climate models
RICHLAND, Wash. — Atmospheric scientists trying to pin down how clouds curb the amount of sunlight available to warm the earth have found that it depends on the wavelength of sunlight being measured. This unexpected result will help researchers improve how they portray clouds in climate models.
Additionally, the researchers found that sunlight scattered by clouds — the reason why beachgoers can get sunburned on overcast days — is an important component of cloud contributions to the earth’s energy balance. Capturing such contributions will increase the accuracy of climate models, the team from the Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory reported in Geophysical Research Letters earlier this month.
“The amount of the sun’s energy that reaches the earth’s surface is the main driver of the earth’s temperature. Clouds are one of the least understood aspects of climate change. They can block the sun, but light can also bounce off one cloud into another cloud’s shadow and increase the solar energy hitting earth,” said PNNL atmospheric scientist Evgueni Kassianov.
White clouds
Clouds both cool down and warm up the earth’s surface. They cool the earth by reflecting some sunlight up into outer space, and they warm it by bouncing some sunlight down to the surface. Overall, most clouds have a net cooling effect, but atmospheric scientists need to accurately measure when they cool and warm to produce better climate models that incorporate clouds faithfully.
But it’s a hard number to get. Fair-weather clouds are big puffy white objects that bounce a lot of light around. They can make the sky around them look brighter when they’re there, but they float about and reform constantly. Cloud droplets and aerosol particles in the sky — tiny bits of dirt and water in the air that cause haziness — scatter light in three dimensions, even into cloud shadows.
To determine the net cloud effect, researchers need two numbers. First they need to measure the total amount of sunlight in a cloudy sky. Then they need to determine how bright that sky would be without the clouds, imagining that same sky to be blue and cloudless, when aerosols are in charge of a sky’s brightness. The difference between those numbers is the net cloud effect.
Rainbow energy
Researchers have traditionally estimated the net cloud effect by measuring a broad spectrum of sunlight that makes it to the earth’s surface, from ultraviolet to infrared. But clouds are white — that’s because the large water droplets within them scatter light of all colors almost equally in the visible spectrum, the part of the electromagnetic spectrum that includes the colors of the rainbow.
On the other hand, aerosols — both within clouds and in the open sky — bounce different-colored light unequally. Broadband measurements that fail to distinguish color differences might be covering up important details, the researchers thought.
Instead of taking one broadband measurement that covers everything from ultraviolet to infrared, Kassianov and crew wanted to determine how individual wavelengths contribute to the net cloud effect. To do so, the team used an instrument that can measure brightness at four different wavelengths of color — violet, green, orange, red — and two of infrared.
In addition, this instrument, a spectral radiometer at DOE’s Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Climate Research Facility located on the southern Great Plains in Oklahoma, allowed the team to calculate what the brightness would be if the day sported a cloudless, blue sky. The spectral measurements taken by the radiometer can be converted into the amount and properties of aerosols. Then aerosol properties can be used to calculate clear blue sky brightness.
Clouds Gone Wild

Comparing measured values for cloudy sky to the calculated values for clear sky, the researchers found that, on average, puffy fair-weather clouds cool down the earth’s surface by several percent on a summer day. Although clouds cool overall, two components that the researchers looked at — from direct and scattered sunlight — had opposite effects.
The direct component accounts for the shade provided by clouds and cools the earth. The second component accounts for the sunlight scattered between and under clouds, which makes the sky brighter, warming the earth.
“The sunlight scattered by clouds can heat the surface,” said Kassianov. “We all know that we can still get sunburned on cloudy days. This explains why.”
In the Oklahoma summer, the scattered-light effect measured by the researchers could be quite large. For example, if a cloud passed over the instrument, the measured cloudy sky brightness exceeded calculated clear sky value by up to 30 percent. Kassianov attributes that large difference to scattered sunlight being “caught on tape” by the radiometer.
“Sunlight scattered by three-dimensional, irregular clouds is responsible for the observed large difference. The one-dimensional cloud simulations currently used in large-scale climate models don’t capture this diffuse light,” said Kassianov.
Aerosols’ Day in the Sky
The team also found that the effect changed depending on the measured visible-spectrum wavelength, and whether the light was direct or scattered.
With direct light, the cooling caused by clouds was weakest on the violet end of the spectrum and strongest at infrared. With scattered light, warming caused by clouds was also weakest at violet and the strongest at infrared. Overall, the least cooling and warming occurred at violet, and the most cooling and warming occurred at infrared.
Because large droplets in clouds scatter sunlight almost uniformly across the spectrum, the clouds themselves can’t be the reason why different wavelengths contribute differently to the net cloud effect. Compared to cloud droplets, aerosols are more than 100 times smaller and scatter wavelengths differently. These results suggest that aerosols — which not only cause haziness but contribute to cloud formation as well — are responsible for the wavelength differences, something researchers need to be aware of as they study clouds in the sky.
“If you want to study how aerosols and clouds interact,” said Kassianov, “you need to look in the region of the spectrum where aerosol effects are significant. If you want to fish, you go where the fish are biting.”
This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science.
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is a Department of Energy Office of Science national laboratory where interdisciplinary teams advance science and technology and deliver solutions to America’s most intractable problems in energy, national security and the environment. PNNL employs 4,900 staff, has an annual budget of nearly $1.1 billion, and has been managed by Ohio-based Battelle since the lab’s inception in 1965. Follow PNNL on Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter.
Reference: Kassianov E., Barnard J., Berg L.K., Long C.N., and C. Flynn, Shortwave Spectral Radiative Forcing of Cumulus Clouds from Surface Observations, Geophys Res Lett, April 2, 2011, DOI 10.1029/2010GL046282 (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2010GL046282.shtml).
Abstract:
The spectral changes of the shortwave total, direct and diffuse cloud radiative forcing (CRF) at surface are examined for the first time using spectrally resolved all-sky flux observations and clear-sky fluxes. The latter are computed applying a physically based approach, which accounts for the spectral changes of aerosol optical properties and surface albedo. Application of this approach to 13 summertime days with single-layer continental cumuli demonstrates: (i) the substantial contribution of the diffuse component to the total CRF, (ii) the well-defined spectral variations of total CRF in the visible spectral region, and (iii) the strong statistical relationship between spectral (500 nm) and shortwave broadband values of total CRF. Our results suggest that the framework based on the visible narrowband fluxes can provide important radiative quantities for rigorous evaluation of radiative transfer parameterizations and also can be applied for estimation of the shortwave broadband CRF.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Huh? How can you “increase the accuracy” of something which has no accuracy to begin with? If they increase it 1000%, it will still have zero predictive value.
I am so TIRED of pseudoscience. I only want real science.
At least the results of the study on wavelengths is actual data and actual science.
So, in other words, it’s back to the basics. No one really understands even one of the simplest factors in our energy balance.
Kind of makes Trenberth’s simplistic picture look pretty stupid.
This seems to be a step in the right direction, but one wonders why it took them so long to get around to taking it. Instrumentation to do broad spectrum sweeps of the radiation involved has been around for quite awhile. like maybe 15 years or more.
I’m concerned that after all the new studies on the properties of clouds are done, it will be determined that they are too complex to model. So the modelers will just use the value “42” for clouds as a simplification and off we go down the rabbit hole… again.
Interesting,
now we need to study the effect on the completely different cloud formations produced at other latitudes.
Whoa, who knew?
But at least NOW the science is settled, right?
Right?
It’s a shame they didn’t test at UV frequencies too.
Atmospheric scientists trying to pin down how clouds curb the amount of sunlight available to warm the earth have found that it depends on the wavelength of sunlight being measured. This unexpected result will help researchers improve how they portray clouds in climate models.
How can this be “unexpected”? This is well understood physics surely?
It is encouraging that at least some real science with data is being published in peer review journals. However I wonder how useful 6 points across a spectrum might be in describing the reality and how can “a number” (presumeably derived from an average of some sort) be employed in a mathematical model to characterize a chaotic system such as cloud effects on climate?
They are still using models /sarc… At least they might be slightly more realistic ones – but who can tell :-)?
The fact that CO2 and H2O absorb different wavelengths of light has been known for a while now. Did they just now figure out that clouds are actually water vapor?
Imagine if they measured sunlight at weather stations … and they found out there was 10 % more bright sunshine than in 1900. And that the up and down pattern matched the global temperature record.
http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jmsj/86/1/57/_pdf
“Overall, most clouds have a net cooling effect, but atmospheric scientists need to accurately measure when they cool and warm to produce better climate models that incorporate clouds faithfully.”
Translated: we have to find a way in which clouds can be assumed to still have a positive feedback in GCM’s so the IPCC can maintain a projection of significant warming
BTW – I have NEVER been sunburnt on a cloudy day, I assume that must only happen to people with very pale skin?!
Any photographer worthy of the name, whether amateur or professional, could tell you that the spectal balance of natural light varies with conditions. So, why is any of this such a total surprise to the scientists who are finally starting to notice this sort of thing? Perhaps if they were to stop discounting anything told to them by someone without the magic three letters following their name things would improve. Lots of time in classes but no trace of any common sense. God help us all if this is the best we can get.
These people should get outdoors more often, play golf or go sailing, and all their questions will be answered. My unscientific observation is that any cloud, type or amount, will reduce the temp during the day. Also, I have yet to see any cloud increase the output of my solar panels but if I could get a grant I would be willing to do some research to prove the obvious.
stumpy says: ” ‘Overall, most clouds have a net cooling effect, but atmospheric scientists need to accurately measure when they cool and warm to produce better climate models that incorporate clouds faithfully.’ Translated: we have to find a way in which clouds can be assumed to still have a positive feedback in GCM’s so the IPCC can maintain a projection of significant warming.
Yeah, it looks like that to me, too.
BTW – I have NEVER been sunburnt on a cloudy day, I assume that must only happen to people with very pale skin?!
Actually, as I recall it, you can get sunburnt on an overcast day. I’ve never heard of anybody being burnt on a cloudy day. The mechanism would be completely different.
From the post: “Clouds both cool down and warm up the earth’s surface. They cool the earth by reflecting some sunlight up into outer space, and they warm it by bouncing some sunlight down to the surface. “
Hogwash. The net effect of clouds is clearly cooling. If the clouds weren’t there, 100% of the solar radiation would hit the surface. Essentially all the sunlight hitting the top of the clouds goes back into space. Only a small portion of the edge of the clouds might reflect a little sunlight to ground. /sarc on: Clouds are about as smooth and shiny as mashed potatoes. That’s why so many heliostats are made of mashed potatoes. /sarc off
Oh come on ! UVB (wavelength 315-280 nm) can cause sunburn on exposed skin, but this is entirely different and significantly less than IR heating the ground.
How could an argument like this pass the censors ?
So the sun heats the Earth and water vapour regulates our temperature, silly me I thought CO2 heated the Earth. What ever will science think of next, what ever it is they will try and confuse me.
I anticipate that it will be found that there is little difference in any of the parameters averaged globally over time save for total cloud quantities. The purpose of the research will be to try and establish the net energy budget effect for any given quantity of global cloud as a starting point for assessing the likely scale of the energy budget effect from a change in such quantity.
The question then is as to what most affects total cloud quantities because that directly affects global albedo and the amount of solar energy available at the surface to be absorbed by the oceans.
There are currently three suggested candidates:
i) Lindzen’s ‘iris’ theory
ii) Svensmark’s cosmic ray theory
iii) My suggestion that what matters most is the length of the air mass boundaries and/or the latitudinal positioning of the main cloud bands which separate the main air circulation systems. Generally more meridional jets and/or more equatorward jets will result in higher global cloud quantities and higher global albedo.
Stumpy, you have obviously never spent any time on a Southern California beach on a foggy day. From painful experience, I can assure you that it happens.
Getting sunburnt on overcast days can happen as your body does not feel any ‘heat’ from UV, and, as a result you spend more time exposed and this can result in sunburn. This becomes a problem as the latitude decreases and two hours before and after noon, in Australia UV indexes are issued.
BOM has a good summary
Are they completely mad? Clouds can never have a net warming effect on a sunny day, because of albedo. The only real question is this: When the earth is viewed from space on the sunny side of the planet, is the net reflected light greater or smaller than it would be if illuminated without the clouds?
White clouds are almost invariably brighter than the earth or water underneath. More light energy reflected up means less delivered down to the surface, out of a total conserved energy budget in the incoming light. You can’t “win” by bouncing some light “under the clouds” as long as a lot more light is being reflected right back up out of the atmosphere before it ever reaches the earth.
I do agree that studying the effect of clouds on the Earth’s energy budget is strongly advised, because as greenhouse gases go they are the most important one by orders of magnitude and are a highly variable and chaotic one with multiple factors driving their formation and effect. Clouds at night often trap heat; clouds in the daytime are almost invariably cooling. Clouds in the polar zones are often net warming; clouds in the temperate through tropical zones are net cooling. Clouds release heat into the air as they rain, and the rainwater cools the ground it falls on as it evaporates. All of this occurs in a complex pattern of global circulation, and under a variable sun that causes major fluctuations in the flux of e.g. solar wind and galactic cosmic rays (which may or may not directly influence the rate of cloud formation, adding yet another nonlinear and highly complex feedback loop affecting heating or cooling).
So I applaud the desire to understand clouds and climate better, but if anyone is actually trying to argue that straight up white fluffy little clouds like the ones in the photograph above could ever produce net warming, they are batshit crazy. All you have to do is count the “energy” as seen above in the pixels of the picture. The dark ones are the ground — that’s where light is mostly being absorbed, which is why the ground is dark. The white fluffy clouds are where the RGB values for the pixels are all peaked, because most of the visible light is being reflected by the clouds! This energy does not, actually, loop around or somehow get “focused” by multiple reflections to deliver more energy to the ground than would get there on a perfectly clear, sunny day.
rgb
quote
[A] UK project – funded by NCAS, the Natural Environment Research Council (Nerc) and the UK Met Office – is one part of an international three-year project called VOCALS, which is exploring how complex interactions between clouds, oceans and land affect the world’s climate.
unquote
the results from that should be interesting.
Re the above article, they are perhaps also addressing something only mildly related to GW, but give some support to one of those ‘no it doesn’t!’ responses to things we are told.
You know sunrays round clouds? People say, ‘oh, it’s just the light from the sun shining through’. I don’t think it is, I think it’s reflected light from the cloud tops shining through gaps and round edges. I’ve even dusted off my A level trig and found that the light origin seems to be at about the right height.
If I’m right I’d like the effect to be called ‘the Julian Flood sunray effect’. If I’m wrong, of course, I’d like everyone to forget I said anything….
JF
It’s clouds’ illusions I recall,
I really don’t know clouds at all…
– Joni Mitchell
Best,
Frank
I allways assumed (…yes I know ass u me…) that the GCM’s took the aerosol size distribution into account when they considered cloud scattering. It is basic undergrad level spectroscopy that scattering is a function of wavelength and aerodynamic diameter, that also has big implications for directional scattering. I am staggered that this is not the case. However at least they will now be looking at it using the proper fundamentals.
It is great to see that clouds are finally being considered in the effect on our climate, but as many astute readers have noticed some glaring problems with this article.
1. Clouds warming??? You must be joking. They really need to get out more. The only way clouds will “appear” to warm is by preventing re-radiated earth heat from escaping.
2. Getting sunburnt on cloudy days is from UV penetrating the clouds. I have even been sunburnt on a day with drizzly rain. I’d say that was impirical evidence, woul’d you?
3. And finally I’d just like to commend the other RGB on his “batshit crazy” comment. Just too funny!!!!
Accounting for wavelength effects will likely improve climate models.
Oh good Lord! They have to qualify that statement with “likely?” Are they saying that the modelers may or may not shape up? Or, more likely, the models are completely hopeless and no amount of added accuracy will make the slightest difference.