Reposted from Dr. Roger Pielke Sr’s blog
New Paper “On the Misdiagnosis Of Surface Temperature Feedbacks From Variations In Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance” By Spencer and Braswell 2011
There is a new paper published which raises further questions on the robustness of multi-decadal global climate predictions. It is
Spencer, R.W.; Braswell, W.D. On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance. Remote Sens. 2011, 3, 1603-1613.
The University of Alabama has issues a news release on it which reads [h/t to Phillip Gentry]
Climate models get energy balance wrong, make too hot forecasts of global warming
HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (July 26, 2011) — Data from NASA’s Terra satellite shows that when the climate warms, Earth’s atmosphere is apparently more efficient at releasing energy to space than models used to forecast climate change have been programmed to “believe.”
The result is climate forecasts that are warming substantially faster than the atmosphere, says Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.
The previously unexplained differences between model-based forecasts of rapid global warming and meteorological data showing a slower rate of warming have been the source of often contentious debate and controversy for more than two decades.
In research published this week in the journal “Remote Sensing” http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf, Spencer and UA Huntsville’s Dr. Danny Braswell compared what a half dozen climate models say the atmosphere should do to satellite data showing what the atmosphere actually did during the 18 months before and after warming events between 2000 and 2011.
“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”
Not only does the atmosphere release more energy than previously thought, it starts releasing it earlier in a warming cycle. The models forecast that the climate should continue to absorb solar energy until a warming event peaks. Instead, the satellite data shows the climate system starting to shed energy more than three months before the typical warming event reaches its peak.
“At the peak, satellites show energy being lost while climate models show energy still being gained,” Spencer said.
This is the first time scientists have looked at radiative balances during the months before and after these transient temperature peaks.
Applied to long-term climate change, the research might indicate that the climate is less sensitive to warming due to increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere than climate modelers have theorized. A major underpinning of global warming theory is that the slight warming caused by enhanced greenhouse gases should change cloud cover in ways that cause additional warming, which would be a positive feedback cycle.
Instead, the natural ebb and flow of clouds, solar radiation, heat rising from the oceans and a myriad of other factors added to the different time lags in which they impact the atmosphere might make it impossible to isolate or accurately identify which piece of Earth’s changing climate is feedback from manmade greenhouse gases.
“There are simply too many variables to reliably gauge the right number for that,” Spencer said. “The main finding from this research is that there is no solution to the problem of measuring atmospheric feedback, due mostly to our inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in our observations.”
For this experiment, the UA Huntsville team used surface temperature data gathered by the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Great Britain. The radiant energy data was collected by the Clouds and Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) instruments aboard NASA’s Terra satellite.
The six climate models were chosen from those used by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The UA Huntsville team used the three models programmed using the greatest sensitivity to radiative forcing and the three that programmed in the least sensitivity.
==============================================================
Dr. Spencer has a pdf available. He discussed the findings here.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
B.Klein says: “[Yatta-yatta-yatta].”
I never read comments that are all in caps or extend past two screens. Sorry.
So the Earth’s atmosphere is more like a giant layer of pingpong balls. The pingpong balls move with the energy being re-reradiated by the surface.
If you increase the re-radiated energy, the balls move faster.
If you increase the # of balls without increasing the energy, the balls move slower.
If you increase both, you have more balls moving faster.
The atmosphere is very efficient at sucking the energy off the planet, which drifts in cold, dead space on one side, and a blazing fusion ball on the other. If it weren’t for the density of atmosphere plus the ocean energy silos we currently have now, we’d go cyrogenic at night and burn to a crisp by day.
Well, fortunately, we have an atmosphere and stabilizing oceans.
Just hope the incoming downwell radiation doesn’t suffer a lapse of rate. That efficient atmosphere will shed the excess ocean silo energy until equilibrium is reached.
It’s 8:33 PM PDT. Do you know where your W/M^2 are?
Great work. Enormous contribution. The satellite research continues to be very important.
Error correction. Now reads: The University of Alabama has issues a news release on it which reads [h/t to Phillip Gentry]
Should issues be issued?
The pdf links aren’t working at present. They are all timing out. The Blog link works. In addition, do you have a link to the U of Alabama site, where the info is posted? Thank you.
Hans at July 26, 2011 at 2:09 pm
provided a link to a paper by Dr. Noor van Andel which discusses Maximum Entropy Production (MEP) as it relates to Miskolczi theory. The link does not work likely due to the ‘s in the file name. I uploaded the file without the ‘s in the file name at
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/Note_on_Miskolczi_theory_25-05-2010.pdf
In section 4.2.1 Dr. van Andel writes, “The fluxes at this EU/SU =0.507 set point are controlled in order that the conversion of F0 into OLR proceeds with the lowest surface temperature possible, i.e. with the highest entropy production, as with all thermal dissipation. We find maximal entropy production [MEP] in all thermal dissipation processes”.
Stanb999 says:
AGW is non-sense and violates basic physics, because you have been misinformed about VERY basic physics makes you wrong.
With all due respect, Stanb999, there is some very basic physics about which you have been misinformed.
1. A molecule in a lower state can’t excite one at a higher state to a higher state. Do you disagree with this?
This statement is fuzzy, so it is hard to know what you mean. Could you define what “states” you are talking about and what it means for them to be “excited”?
If you mean “energy states of orbiting electrons” then you are wrong. A molecule in a low energy state could emit a photon. If that photon has the right energy, could be absorbed by an atom that is already in an excited state to move it up to a higher yet energy state.
If you simple mean molecules of a cool gas cannot add energy to a molecule of a warmer gas, then this is also wrong, because of the distribution of energies will mean that the high energy particles in the cool gas will have more energy than the low energy particles in the warm gas.
2. More collisions cause atrophy.
Did you mean “entropy” ? Once a system is in equilibrium, then more collisions will not change the entropy, so more collisions would not necessarily increase entropy.
Or perhaps you mean that collisions cause energy to “waste away”?
The “energy” we are discussing is heat and as stated above heat can’t move from cold to warm. Heat is the measured result of excited molecules.
This is a very vague (and not especially correct) definition of heat. “Heat” in thermodynamics refers to energy in motion. Heat could be “the measured result of the interaction of molecules.” More generally, heat is the net flow of energy between two systems. Energy can and does move from cool systems to warm systems, but there is always more energy moving the other way.
An “energetic” particle moving from a cool molecule to a warm one will diminish the energy of the more energetic one.
Any photon that is emitted by a any particle (warm or cool) that is then absorbed by any other particle (warm, or cool) will remove energy of the first particle and raise the energy of he second. The actual temperatures of the two are immaterial.
So an “energetic” photon moving from a cool molecule to a warm one will INCREASE the energy of the more energetic one.
You have two bowling balls. One moving at 100 KPH and one moving at 50 KPH (in the same direction for illustration). What GW is suggesting that when the 100 KPH ball runs into the ball going 50 KPH the energy is transfered from the 50 KPH ball to the 100 KPH ball making a total of 150KPH of traveling energy.. Then “energy” retained in the balls is the same as it was prior due to it’s continued existence. When in reality both balls are now traveling at the same speed. So the two molecules are the same “temperature” AKA. 75KPH. You lost speed so you lost energy. Dithering about where the energy from the ball going 50KPH ended up is moot. Down, up, or sideways.
In the situation described above (assuming the two bowling balls are traveling along the same line and the collision is elastic), then physics predicts that the faster ball will slow to 50 KPH and the slow ball will speed up to 100 KPH (ie they exchange speeds). So both the answer you incorrectly attribute to “GW” and the “correct” answer you provided are wrong. The only way for the bowling balls to both go 75 KPH is to have a completely inelastic collision (ie stick together). But such a collision does not happen for bowling balls or for colliding molecules.
And “dithering” about where the energy goes IS NOT moot. Conservation of energy is a key foundation of all of science (including climate science). Knowing where energy goes is always valuable and important.
**************************************************************************
In fact, you could in a sense say that the original post is “dithering” about energy. The observed energy balance and the modeled energy balances do not match. The difference is not large in absolute terms, but is large enough to have large implications. The climate may not be as sensitive to changes as had been thought, which is an important concept to understand for climate change discussions.
B.Klein says: July 26, 2011 at 3:20 pm
“As Dr. Nahle has again proved that the “greenhouse gas effect does not exist … “
The post is very long, but let me point on one key error. Dr. Nahle describes an experiment to see if CO2 absorbs IR from sunlight. The problem is that he does not distinguish between different wavelengths IR. GHGs absorb primarily “thermal IR” (with wavelengths greater than a few microns. The sun, on the other hand, emits an insignificant fraction of its energy at these wavelengths. Thus a balloon filled with CO2 or other GHGs would not not be expected to absorb an appreciable amount the solar radiation.
Ironically, he PROVED a point of GH effect as he was trying to disprove it! Solar energy can easily pass thru the gases to get to the surface, while thermal IR from the ground gets blocked!)
Stanb999;
much as I agree with you that the warmist position tries to double-count heat energy, please stop trying to post physics comments. You really haven’t clue 1 what you’re talking about. Therm 2 is a law of net bulk flows, and does not pertain to the fate of a particular photon or molecule.
July 24th, 2011 it was 86 deg. F at 6 PM but darker buildings were 99 degrees warmer at 185. Solar interaction with absorbent building exteriors is causing the problem and we are responding to the symptoms with massive energy waste. Air conditioning is refrigeration and requires a big electrical load.
Heat rises and the generated heat mixes atmospherically contributing to climate change. Here is what it looks like in infrared. http://www.thermoguy.com/blog/index.php?itemid=73
The same is happening in every city, every province, state and country.
Good to see some of the regulars (e.g. Brian H, Tim Folkerts) pointing out errors in others’ posts. My respect for this site just went up.
Andrew you waffled on all those questions. Hpw very CRU like of you.
Stanb999.
You obviously didnt read the link. And i’m afraid with your physics acumen we would not have let you design any systems to protect this great country. Sorry, I have no time for people who deny the very physics we depend upon day in and day out. have a nice day.
Spencer and Braswell (SB11) must be right here. All matter above absolute zero emits long wave radiation. The warmer the temperature the more radiation it emits. There is no known physics that can delay emission. SB11 says that the ocean/atmosphere starts emitting more radiation as soon as it warms up. The climate models have no increase in emission until after the warming event is over and the system starts to cool down again. That must be wrong. If there was 100% cloud cover that might be true but not with so many holes in the cloud cover. But, there again, no surprise there. Positive feedback (from water vapor) only appears to work at the limit cases of 0% or 100% cloud cover.
@steven mosher says:
July 27, 2011 at 12:27 am
“You obviously didnt read the link………Sorry, I have no time for people who deny the very physics we depend upon day in and day out.”
———————————————————————
I did – thank you for your time
Steven Mosher (july 26, 2011 at 4:00pm)
It’s not so simple at all. Reflection of non-visible radiation is non-existent with clouds. Co2 shrouding planes (in flight) as a defense mechanism? Where and when is that taking place? If you shroud a plane in CO2 (which is impossible) that pilot will be toast. If you want to talk propagation then talk to someone like me who has nearly four decades of practical radio, but you may not like it. Nearly invisible planes have nothing to do with IR or CO2.
” In an atmosphere with more IR opaque gases, the altitude at which the planet re-radiates to space is raised.” Really, and what observed proof is there? What is a “higher colder temperature”? If an object is in the process of heating or cooling there is no energy balance.
A space blanket is essentially a non permeable barrier for entrapment of air. When you put a blanket of any kind around you the result is reduced air exchange. The same thing that happens in a real greenhouse. What really happens is that the human body heats the small pocket of air via thermalization. You and all other warmers seem to think that reflection is backradiation, which it isn’t. And if you think radiation is all that then cut one or two 6 inch slits in your space blanket and see how long you stay warm.
The temperature we experience at the surface is due solely to the very high absorbing power of water vapor to the sun’s IR as CO2 is a feeble absorber when compared to water vapor.
@Mosher: “the gases in the atmosphere (…) are opaque to IR”.
That’s BS. CO2 isn’t remotely opaque to IR. Any individual CO2 molecule is only opaque to one specific frequency or IR radiation, depending on its specific orientation and excitation at the time. Multiple CO2 molecules at different orientations and excitations absorb a somewhat wider band of IR radiation, but it is still a tiny proportion of the whole bandwidth of IR being emitted by planet earth.
Both authors are established scientists with PhDs. The paper was peer reviewed. That modellers assumption of zero emission until the peak temperature has occurred is clearly completely without scientific foundation. Temperatures were taken from established data sets accepted by the warmists. Yet I doubt whether this interesting paper will have any impact on the mainstream IPCC or the politicians it feeds. Eyes will be covered, ears will be plugged, CO2 will still be designated as a pollutant Wind farms will continue to spread over the countryside and industry in the developed world will be further screwed. So very sad.
The reason AGW is BS is clearer if you look at that energuy chart. It is obvious from that chart that most of the enrgy reaches the land and sea. This energy doesn’t penetrate far into the land and sea because it is visible light and IR energy which has little penetrative power. So the land and sea is more energised than the atmosphere, which is only receiving about 20% of the energy and that is distributed throughout the atmosphere. Now at this point Stanb999 is roughly correct, despite his sarcastic detractors. Whilst individual molecules may impart energy hither and thither, the lwas of thermodynamics tell us that on average the energy of molecules within one body will transfer only to a cooler body and not vice versa. So if the atmosphere has less energy than land and sea then the energy of land and sea must transfer to the atmosphere, on average, and not the other way around. How does it do that? Well partly through re-radiation of the energy but also due to something conveniently missed out of the chart – conduction and convection. The land and sea will conduct energy to the bottom layer of the atmosphere which will then convect the heat up to cooler layers in a continuous cycle. This is what drives “weather” and therefore “climate” – the continuous cycling of energy absorbed by land and sea from the sun, then conducted into the lower atmosphere and causing convection with clouds forming and condensing. CO2 really can’t play much of a part in what happens below the cloud layer. That would be like suggesting a pressure cooker would work better if you suspended some glossy red balls from its lid to reflect some of the IR back to the stew. Everything interesting about life on earth happens below the cloud layer where CO2 has little impact.
Re Peter @2.34, Im not so sure that this will be ignored. It is a direct refutation of Dessler’s recent paper and cant be dismissed so easily. What is nice about it is that it actually supports Dessler’s conclusions if the reference point is at zero lag. So unless there is something fundamentally in error, it will be seriously looked at.
steven mosher says:
July 27, 2011 at 12:27 am
Stanb999.
You obviously didnt read the link. And i’m afraid with your physics acumen we would not have let you design any systems to protect this great country. Sorry, I have no time for people who deny the very physics we depend upon day in and day out. have a nice day.
Kind sir,
With your physics we have in fact solved the energy crisis. Instead of dithering with coal fired power plants we can have CO2 powered ones. Yahoo!
Heat can NEVER be exchanged in such a way that a cold body warms a hot one. Will never happen in real life. Tho, one can do it on paper. Just like perpetual motion.
Ryan says:
July 27, 2011 at 2:15 am
@Mosher: “the gases in the atmosphere (…) are opaque to IR”.
That’s BS. CO2 isn’t remotely opaque to IR. Any individual CO2 molecule is only opaque to one specific frequency or IR radiation, depending on its specific orientation and excitation at the time. Multiple CO2 molecules at different orientations and excitations absorb a somewhat wider band of IR radiation, but it is still a tiny proportion of the whole bandwidth of IR being emitted by planet earth.
——-
Yes, it is a tiny proportion, but it is not zero. IPCC say it results in 3C warning per doubling of CO2. Spencer and others say about 1C. But none of them seriously say the effect does not exist.
Paul Penrose says:
July 26, 2011 at 5:40 pm
John B, you did not understand Jeremy’s argument at all. The wamists theories assert that positive feedbacks dominate the system, however they don’t explain how it will stop. Running things to their logical conclusion results in all the CO2 being driven out of the oceans and into the atmosphere where it will stay. There is no mechanism to return things to “normal” because of the positive feedbacks. In engineering speak the system is “unstable”. Since the earth’s climate has not swung to this extreme over the last billion years or so, it is highly unlikely that positive feedbacks dominate. It’s much more likely that negative feedbacks dominate since we know that such systems are inherently stable, like the climate.
————————-
Warmists don’t say that at all! Here is an explanation of how positive feedbacks start and then stop. I know skepticalscience isn’t best liked around here, but as you are saying “warmists theories assert”, I think it is appropriate here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/positive-feedback-runaway-warming-basic.htm
@steven mosher says July 26, 2011 at 4:31 pm
“…Have you ever used a space blanket? that thin silvery stuff, reflects IR back at you. You cool less rapidly. You still, over time, will chill. But less rapidly than you would without that re radiation. you feel warmer because you are losing heat via radiation less rapidly than you would if the blanket were not there. the blanket doesnt “hold” heat. It reflects radiation and you lose heat less rapidly. eg you are warmer than you would have been otherwise.
nothing magical….”
//////////////////////////////////////////
Steve,
I have seen you make these comments (and remarks on how igloos keep you warm) many times, but I consider your comments to be an over simplification and only partly correct. Materailly, the blanket and the igloo do not work simply by radiation.
First and foremost in the case of the igloo (and this is also true of the blanket) it shields one from windchill. Second, (and this is probably the first order factor with the blanket) is that it traps air which is heated by conduction and convection. It is this air that insulates the ‘injured’ person and keeps them warm additionally reducing loss of heat through evaporation.
Consider your blanket. Lets assume that it is like a toilet roll, 1m diameter and 2 m tall. The ‘injured’ person stands inside the roll. The blanket is stiil effective but far less effective than when simply wrapped around the ‘injured’ person because convection carries away heat being radiated by the injured person. The blanket does not trap the heat because it is an open roll.
Now consider the blanket as like a toilet roll but this time with a 5m diameter. The ‘injured’ person stands in the centre of the roll but this time the blanket is completely ineffective. The same anmount of reradiation (reflected radiation) whatever you want to call it is supplied by the blanket but now this ‘energy’ is incapable of keeping the ‘injured’ person warm In this example, radiation fails.
In most instances (in the absence of a tuned frequency that excites particular atoms) radiation is a weak form of energy transfer and other forms of heat transfer (conduction, convection, evaporation) are far stronger. In the real world, these other factors dominate in the workings of our atmosphere.
Steven, with respect to my recent post, I meant to call you Steven (not Steve). Sorry for the typo.
Ryan says:
July 27, 2011 at 2:48 am
The reason AGW is BS is clearer if you look at that energy chart. It is obvious from that chart that most of the energy reaches the land and sea. This energy doesn’t penetrate far into the land and sea because it is visible light and IR energy which has little penetrative power. So the land and sea is more energized than the atmosphere, which is only receiving about 20% of the energy and that is distributed throughout the atmosphere. Now at this point Stanb999 is roughly correct, despite his sarcastic detractors. Whilst individual molecules may impart energy hither and thither, the lwas of thermodynamics tell us that on average the energy of molecules within one body will transfer only to a cooler body and not vice versa. So if the atmosphere has less energy than land and sea then the energy of land and sea must transfer to the atmosphere, on average, and not the other way around. How does it do that? Well partly through re-radiation of the energy but also due to something conveniently missed out of the chart – conduction and convection. The land and sea will conduct energy to the bottom layer of the atmosphere which will then convect the heat up to cooler layers in a continuous cycle. This is what drives “weather” and therefore “climate” – the continuous cycling of energy absorbed by land and sea from the sun, then conducted into the lower atmosphere and causing convection with clouds forming and condensing. CO2 really can’t play much of a part in what happens below the cloud layer. That would be like suggesting a pressure cooker would work better if you suspended some glossy red balls from its lid to reflect some of the IR back to the stew. Everything interesting about life on earth happens below the cloud layer where CO2 has little impact.
—————————————————————————————————————————
Now taking the same step into the upper atmosphere…
Thermodynamics is simple in the regard to Mass. If an object is of little mass it can’t “hold”, transfer, or dissipate a lot of heat. 1 ft cube of cast iron v/s a 1 ft cube of marshmallow. Any heat in excess of it’s total capacity would pass through and “heat” what is “beyond” it. Kinda how a torch works with a piece of plate steel. GHG theory suggests that only the thickness of the steel plate makes a difference. This is just as false. If the torch flame zone is heated further due to “retained”, reflected, or transitory heat. The base of the steel will heat faster and burn through at a faster rate. Does one really need to point out such non-sense? It’s not as if the earth is incapable of transmitting heat to space.
Further to Stanb999 comments at: July 27, 2011 at 3:02 am wherein he comments upon what
steven mosher says:July 27, 2011 at 12:27 am
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
There are many people who question whether in the real world in which we live in, CO2 plays any significant role in producing current temperaturess. There are other, who accpet the 1deg C per of warming per doubling ofCO2but do not acce4pt the additional positive feedbacks and therefore consider that temperature rise will be limited to 1degC.
Of those that remain unconvinced as to whether in the real world, doubling CO2 will result in any significant increase in temperature, for the main part do not dispute (i) that all bodies above absolute zero radiate (ii) that CO2 (and other GHGs) absorb IR at certain bandwidths, and (iii) that CO2 (and other GHGs) re-emit/re-radiate in all directions the formaerly absorbed IR. The laboratory experiment on that is not in question. What is in question and this is on which no experiment has been conducted, what is the effect of this in the real world when other forms of energy transfer (often much more powerful eg., convection, evaporatiion, changes in latent heat through phase changes of water etc) are at work. Added to this, is the probability that DWLWIR is not absorbed by the oceans and does not in any way heat the oceans.
No one doubts that hot jet engines or say a BBQ has an IR signature which can be seen and measured a long way from the source. But does this mean that the IR being radiated can do sensible work? Take the BBQ for example. Heat is being radiated in all directions. In particular exactly the same amount of heat is being radiated upwards as is being radiated to the side of the BBQ. We all know that you can cook your food, 9 inches to a foot above the hot coals, but cannot cook food 9 inches to a foot to the side of the BBQ. Why is this? The answer is that IR radiation is weak and convection drowns it. Convection carries the hot air column that has been heated by the IR being radiated from the surface of the coals upwards so that when you are cooking the food above the BBQ, the food will cook by convected heat. As regards, the IR being radiated sideways, convection carries the hot air generated from this upwards and away before it reaches the food such that there is insufficient hot air being ‘fanned’ sideways to cook the food and IR in itself is insufficient.
According to the Trenberth energy diagram, more ‘energy’ is being received from DWLIR than by solar radiance. IF this DWLWIR had sensible energy, the worlds energy problems would be solved. Why bother with solar which only works during the day (and on sunny days at that) when you can have DWLWIR which works 24 hours a day come cloud, rain or shine?
If DWLWIR had any ability to do work, someone would have designed a machine that could tap into that energy source. Or at any rate, there would be significant research programs into this, since whoever can tap this source of energy would become a billionaire (it would make Exxon, BP, Chevron etc largely redundant and would mean that the West would no longer be beholden to the Middle East for their energy needs) . However, as far as I am aware, no one is researching into this. This tells you that specialist physicists do not consider that there is any energy in the DWLWIR. There is nothing to be extracted.
If I was interviewing Paul Nurse, this would probably be my first question to him. If there is all this DWLWIR and if this DWLWIR has any ability to do work (ie., to warm in some way an object that is warmer than it), why are we not tapping this limitless and universally available source of power? I would love to know his answer.
When the dust is settled, in 20 or 30 years time, I suspect that this DWLWIR either does not exist as set out in the Trenberth diagram, or that if it does exist it is simply a signature incapable of doing any work (in which I include warming the atmosphere), In effect, ‘just pie in the sky’. .