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.
Tim Folkerts says: July 27, 2011 at 11:55 am
//////////////////////////////////
I take it that your reply was meant rather light heartedly, rather than as a serious comment since no doubt you will have appreciated from my previous comments that i have no problem with (i) 5800K solar radiation being able to warm an object at a temperature cooler than that; (ii) 3K or 250K or 290K radiation being able to cool something that is at a temperature hotter than those temperatures.. What I do have a problem with, is whether something which is at say 280K can warm the air or ground that is at 300K.
The solar oven deals with (i) which I have not been joining issue with. The solar fridge deals with (ii) which once again, I have not been joining issue with. You say “This is not exactly what you were proposing, but here is one experiment that shows the reality of DWLWIR heating/cooling.” That summary would appear incorrect; the article/experiment shows solar heating, and DWLWIR cooing.
Neither the solar oven nor solar fridge deals with the third point namely whether the DWLWIR in which we are basking in which is said on average to be more than the solar energy being received can be used to do some real work. .
Smokey says:
July 27, 2011 at 10:51 am
Dave Springer,
Interesting post on protein folding, thanks. I wouldn’t compare computer models of the climate with protein folding, though, but rather with something like the stock market. Better yet, with a much simpler universe, say, a specific commodity like wheat, where the variables are mostly known. With Google Earth the prospective crop can be accurately determined, and the demand estimated based on prior years and population growth.
But even with that information available, there is no computer model extant that can predict the future wheat price accurately enough to make a financial killing. If there was the programmer would corner the market in short order. Yet the alarmist crowd hangs their hat on computer climate models, which have been shown to be consistently wrong. The climate is much more complex than a simple commodity.
Empirical evidence along with the null hypothesis is the gold standard of the scientific method – not computer climate models, which are based on many unkown factors, and programmed by people with a vested interest in the outcome.
————————
Smokey, climate is not like the stock market. The stock market reacts instantly to new information. As soon as, say, the weather that will effect this year’s wheat harvest is known, prices jump immediately to take account of that information. Same for interest rate changes and anything else that affects prices. That is why the only sure way to make money on the stock market is to know the news and act on it before it becomes public – i.e. insider trading, which is illegal. Physical systems, including climate, simply don’t work that way. Forcings take time to have an effect and the effects can be modelled. The difference is not one of complexity but in the totally different nature of the beasts.
Settle down, John B. It’s an analogy, and a better one than comparing a model predicting protein folding with climate models. If a model can’t accurately predict the price of a commodity, whether it’s wheat or silver of oil, then no model can accurately predict the climate, which has more variables. And in fact, not one of the multi-million dollar GCMs correctly predicted the past 14 years of flat to declining temperatures. They were all wrong.
And your efficient market hypothesis has plenty of skeptics. The stock price of companies often trends far above, and far below the company’s intrinsic value, sometimes for years at a time. That’s not very efficient stock pricing, is it?
John B says:
July 27, 2011 at 12:52 pm
No, of course you can’t. There just isn’t enough energy coming back down. There is energy, i.e. the greenhouse effect is real, but it is not enough to use as a power source. Who on Earth ever said it was?
———————————————-
Then the question is how is it going to heat the oceans and land areas?
Simply it can’t.
Smokey says:
July 27, 2011 at 1:56 pm
Settle down, John B. It’s an analogy, and a better one than comparing a model predicting protein folding with climate models. If a model can’t accurately predict the price of a commodity, whether it’s wheat or silver of oil, then no model can accurately predict the climate, which has more variables. And in fact, not one of the multi-million dollar GCMs correctly predicted the past 14 years of flat to declining temperatures. They were all wrong.
And your efficient market hypothesis has plenty of skeptics. The stock price of companies often trends far above, and far below the company’s intrinsic value, sometimes for years at a time. That’s not very efficient stock pricing, is it?
—————————-
But it is a poor analogy. And your following sentence, “If a model can’t accurately predict the price of a commodity, whether it’s wheat or silver of oil, then no model can accurately predict the climate, which has more variables” is a non sequitur. It is not the number of variables that prevents predicting the stock market. It is the fact that even if you know 100% that, say, a poor harvest will push up the price of grain, as soon as it becomes known that the harvest will be poor, the price jumps before you can take advantage of that knowledge.
Stanb999 says:
July 27, 2011 at 1:58 pm
John B says:
July 27, 2011 at 12:52 pm
No, of course you can’t. There just isn’t enough energy coming back down. There is energy, i.e. the greenhouse effect is real, but it is not enough to use as a power source. Who on Earth ever said it was?
———————————————-
Then the question is how is it going to heat the oceans and land areas?
Simply it can’t.
———————-
Simply, it can! It may be only a small amount of heat, but it is *extra* heat, on top of what is arriving from the Sun. So it has an incremental effect. Why is that so hard to understand?
John B,
Your opinions are not even up to broken clock standards.☺
Dave Springer,
I think I have a simple experiment to test your hypothesis that thermal IR does not raise the temperature of water — aim a CO2 laser at some water. The laser operates around 10 um, so it is very similar to the wavelengths of DWLWIR. It should he relatively easy to adjust parameters like depth of the water or W/m^2 of the laser. You could add is some artificial wave motion. Then it would be easy to see if the temperature of the water changes in response to the laser.
Medical CO2 lasers output ~ 20 W, which would be ideal; there are also industrial versions that tend to be higher power. Unfortunately I don’t have access to a suitable laser. But it should be an easy experiment with the right equipment.
I saw a couple videos of lasers being used to boil water. Unfortunately, the set-up was not clear enough to know exactly what was happening (eg what was the wavelength of the laser? what was the power of the laser? was the laser heating the water or the glass? was the water getting heated throughout or jsut at the surface?).
Smokey says:
July 27, 2011 at 1:56 pm
“And in fact, not one of the multi-million dollar GCMs correctly predicted the past 14 years of flat to declining temperatures.”
I’d say that is a failure of the models and the errant assumptions built in, rather than an indication that the climate system is incapable of being modeled..
John B says:
July 27, 2011 at 1:02 pm
“But even with that information available, there is no computer model extant that can predict the future wheat price accurately enough to make a financial killing. “
They can, and they did, before everyone got in the game and squashed the differential between reality and expectation down to where it is difficult to do anymore. I knew one of the “rocket scientists” who went to Wall Street in the late 80’s and did it.
@John B says: July 27, 2011 at 12:52 pm
/////////////////////////////
Noted and yet Trenberth would have one believe that this has energy of some 333 w per sq. m compared to only 161 w per sq m for solar (absorbed) or if you include the 23 w per sq m reflected, the 184 w per sq m of solar received by the earth. WUWT?
Bart,
I’ve subscribed to Forbes for 35 years and to The Economist for close to thirty, and I don’t recall ever reading about a computer program that beat the market enough to make the programmer fabulously wealthy. Got a link? I’d like to read about it.
John B says:
July 27, 2011 at 2:09 pm
Simply, it can! It may be only a small amount of heat, but it is *extra* heat, on top of what is arriving from the Sun. So it has an incremental effect. Why is that so hard to understand?
——————————————————–
0 + .000000000000000000000000000000001 = in the real world still = 0
1. You see not only do you need to prove the “energy” exists. It’s not in contention. Tho you choose to muddy waters about it. On and on in fact. All I said was it is tiny. Now you agree!
Next
2. You need to prove it can do something. Cause heating of the ground! Not likely
See we are at point 2. same as the point of my third? post on this story. You seem to have forgotten the post or must have missed it. The fact that even if the atmosphere was several degrees hotter. It wouldn’t contain the heat energy to heat the ground or ocean. Your postulating a tiny amount of energy potential from a trace gas can have energy available that can do more than that. Take a gander at the image of the earth at the top of the page.. The thin skin will heat what is below it. Sure on paper. Not in the real world. Good luck with it!
Later….
3. The insulation now in place. Will the greater temperature diminished returns…
Basically the need to prove that the ground now “hotter” doesn’t simply radiate more and offset any difference. Good luck with this as well.
Other than at a few skeptical blogs, where has this debate taken place??
The one thing AGW advocates have been consistent throughout, has been their refusal to debate. Consensus became their argument and they locked it in by refusing debate. MSM happily ignored proper skepticism favoring political socialistic leanings. GK
Smokey – every large financial firm employs armies of quants to forecast all manner of economic and market variables. As you might expect, they don’t generally share their methods widely. You can get a little insight starting here.
Tim Folkerts (july 27, 2011 at 11:03am)
“CO2 absorbs solar IR poorly because solar IR is mostly shorter than 3 um, while CO2 absorbs IR mostly at wavelengths above 3 um. Solar IR is mostly shorter than 3um. Is it now? Another prerequisite for Agw? The solar IR in fact reaches its maximum in the 2um – 4um area. Now what does the true spectrum of the sun look like. Does it look like the blackbody spectrum that warmers like to wear on their sleeve? Or is it a different looking curve?
Your kidding me right? You refer me to Ira juicetruck Glickstein whose first line is “Solar “light” radiation in = Earth “heat” radiation to Space out! Well, where’s the reference to IR. Then look under the graphic which says Solar “light” energy in is equal to Earth “heat” energy out, which is most certainly not true. All greenhouse explanations harp on the same thing — shortwave in, longwave out and completely ignore IR.
The 10%uv, 44.8% visible and 45.2% IR are the percentages measured at the SURFACE. So what are the numbers just outside the atmosphere? The total is supposed to be 1366w/m2. If you can’t come up with any I can. ” The sun’s power indeed lies almost equally in the IR and the visible. The wattages are nearly the same but like I have been saying the calorific power or ability to heat is weak compared to the non visible portion. A watt is Not a watt (contrary to Ira’s belief).
I’d be careful with that “seems like”. Many things aren’t what they seem to be including Agw physics (if thats what you call it). Scattering was not even a point I was making. There’s no fish of any kind involved (lol). If I was to make a point I would be referring to refraction not scattering.
“The rest (both visible and IR) gets absorbed and heats the surface.” Yes, but do they do so equally? What’s up with the blocking thing? Do you mean blocking like in football?
What a non surprise. The founding work in atmospheric radiation done by Walt Elsasser from Harvard would have come to the same conclusion. CO2’s radiation has an insignificant effect and is dwarfed in the earth atmospheric system by the hydrological cycle and the effects from water vapor. If you add more CO2, you cool the troposphere and limit water vapor’s optical depth, negating the effects of CO2. Take away the water vapor with the little CO2 and limited absorbing bandwidth there is and watch the earth become a frozen tundra at mid and high latitude.
Climate models became a frivolous application of science the day these clowns tried to say they have or can successfully model the climate system of the earth. They are now just a political tool being used to tax and regulate the bejesus out of every citizen with an income.
Brian W says (July 27, 2011 at 3:27 pm): “The 10%uv, 44.8% visible and 45.2% IR are the percentages measured at the SURFACE. So what are the numbers just outside the atmosphere?”
Wiki has a nice illustration of the solar spectrum at the top of earth’s atmosphere and at sea level showing absorption regions for H2O, CO2, O2, and O3:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png
John B says: July 27, 2011 at 12:52 pm
“No, of course you can’t. There just isn’t enough energy coming back down. There is energy, i.e. the greenhouse effect is real, but it is not enough to use as a power source. Who on Earth ever said it was?”
I would say that differently. There is indeed a LOT of energy coming down from the atmosphere to the surface (~ 325 W/m^2) — in fact it is more than the energy coming directly from the sun to the surface (~ 170 W/m^2). (And no, that does not violate conservation of energy.)
The problem is that the energy from the atmosphere is diffuse and “low quality”. It is thermal energy at a temperature below that of the ground, so it cannot be fed into a heat energy to produce work. It is already coming from every direction, so a mirror or lens cannot focus it to make it more concentrated (the way sunlight can be focused with a magnifying glass to burn wood).
Dave Springer (july 27, 2011 at 12:15)
“Beginning on page 323. Figure 100” Uh, nice try Davy figure 100 is on page 405. So you think you are funny trying to send me on an 82 page wild goose chase. Do you think I would call you on this stuff if I hadn’t already studied this particular work as well as his short companion piece “On Radiation”. The accuracy of the dates of course is entirely irrelevant in this case and I was simply giving you a hard time.
HOWEVER, I did find this basketball court sized experiment: page 335-336, under; Absorption in Free Air, Fig. 92. “The whole arrangement was surrounded by a hoarding, the space within which was divided into compartments by sheets of tin, and these spaces were stuffed loosely with paper or horse-hair. These precautions, which required time to be learned, were necessary to prevent the formation of local air-currents, and also to intercept the irregular action of the external air. The effect to be measured here is very small, and hence the necessity of removing all causes of disturbance which could possibly interfere with its clearness and purity. Yes sir, basketball court sized!
On your last point, “He used an adjustable aperture….”. Since when does a galvanometer have an aperture?
Bart,
Thanks for the links. But I wanted confirmation showing that an individual has produced a stock market model that made him fabulously wealthy, by accurately and consistently predicting future market actions. I think if that had been done, people would still be writing about it. You say you knew such a person. Got a link?
Brian W says: July 27, 2011 at 3:27 pm
“The solar IR in fact reaches its maximum in the 2um – 4um area.”
<bNot even close! 90% of the suns energy is below 1.6 um (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law), so there is ~ 5% of the sun's energy in the range you quoted.
Or use Wein's law to show that the peak is very close to 500 nm = 0.5 um.
"Now what does the true spectrum of the sun look like. Does it look like the blackbody spectrum that warmers like to wear on their sleeve? Or is it a different looking curve?
I guess I will have to be proud ro be called a “warmer” if they believe correct physics like the spectrum of the sun is (to a good approximation) a blackbody curve with a temperature of ~ 5770 K. The sun’s spectrum drops a bit below the BB curve for wavelengths around 100-300 nm, but above 300 nm the fit is really quite good.
See http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2000/09/05/sunspectrum_resources/spectrumgif.gif
All greenhouse explanations harp on the same thing — shortwave in, longwave out and completely ignore IR.
In this context, “shortwave” would be anything up to ~ 4 um, ie the wavelengths the sun emits. THIS INCLUDES IR in the range of 0.7 – 4 um
And “longwave” is ~ 4 -100 um, which is ENTIRELY IR. How can you say that IR is ignored???
The 10%uv, 44.8% visible and 45.2% IR are the percentages measured at the SURFACE.
I suspect those are actually the numbers at the TOP of the atmosphere (“TOA”). For one thing, only 10% of the energy at the top is UV, and most of the gets blocked before it reaches the ground. Here is a graph showing the TOA and surface solar spectra. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Solar_Spectrum.png While I can believe the TOA spectrum has 10% UV, I seriously doubt the surface spectrum is 10% UV.
Perhaps you have a reference that supports your 10% surface UV claim?
“The wattages are nearly the same but like I have been saying the calorific power …”
Could you give a mathematical definition of “calorific power” that shows how to calculate it in some specific conditions?
TF: “The rest (both visible and IR) gets absorbed and heats the surface.”
BW: Yes, but do they do so equally?
Well, different surfaces will certainly reflect different amounts of different wavelengths. But we were specifically discussing photons that did indeed get absorbed. If a surface absorbs 100 J of blue light or 100 J of red light or 100 J of IR, the result is always 23.9 cal of thermal energy gained by the surface.
What’s up with the blocking thing? Do you mean blocking like in football?
No, I clearly meant “the precise movement and positioning of actors on a stage in order to facilitate the performance of a play, ballet, film or opera”. /sarc
Smokey says:
July 27, 2011 at 7:38 pm
“But I wanted confirmation showing that an individual has produced a stock market model that made him fabulously wealthy, by accurately and consistently predicting future market actions.”
It doesn’t have to be terrifically accurate, and only more consistent than not. That’s the way they make money in Vegas and the insurance industry. But, you gotta’ have the capital reserves. Like Steve Martin’s advice on how to be a millionaire and never pay taxes – first step: get a million dollars.
“Got a link?”
No, I don’t. And, I lost touch with the fellow I knew back in the early 90’s. But, my understanding is that it is much harder now that everyone is in the game, because when everyone trades on the same cue, it creates feedback which fundamentally changes the dynamics of the market.
Look at it this way: if you had such a system, would you advertise it?
Related to the paper of dr. Spencer a Dutch study concludes that the upper ocean’s missing heat of the last 10 years was partly radiated to space, partly went into the deep ocean. You can find the results here: http://www.knmi.nl/cms/content/99641/tracing_the_upper_oceans_missing_heat
Their outlook is that the upper ocean will heat up again in the coming years.
Well, observations indicate that the sea level rise increase is less than predicted by the IPCC models, so that would indicate that the majority of the heat was radiated into space, which would fit more closely with dr. Spencer’s results.
I notice lots of stuff on this thread now about clouds and positive feebacks.
Try holding a bowl of water above your head and look at how much light gets reflected back into space. All those H20 molecules all squashed together and they don’t seem to be stopping much do they? Why’s that then?
Could it be something to do with the fact that atoms aren’t billiard balls and light isn’t made up of photons? Could it be that electro-magnetic waves of lights are travelling right through the atoms?
Anyway, here is old blighty we have some nice thick clouds above us but some of the light is getting through and some not. Why’s that? H20 is only blocking the light through when its steam or in clouds. Turns out you need droplets of H20 to block light – sheets or pools of H20 won’t do it and neither will gaseous vapours.
How any of this can be related to CO2 is anybody’s guess. It isn’t clear how H20 forming droplets of condensed water of given size leading to blocking of light can be connected to CO2. All the observations suggest that this process is relatively stable regardless of local perturbations and is only impacted by the level of incoming energy from the Sun.
Brian W;
You appear to be distinguishing IR and LW radiation. What is this marvelous distinction?
Richard Varney;
There is much unanimous evidence photons do not interfere with or affect each other, regardless of intensity or direction. So it’s in your court to prove, or even provide a smidgeon of evidence, that they do.
Oh, and radiation from a cold body does not cool a warm one. That is such a bizarre idea one hardly knows how to respond. Are those nega-photons it’s emitting?