Cloud Radiation Forcing in the TAO Dataset

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

This is the third in a series ( Part 1Part 2 ) of occasional posts regarding my somewhat peripatetic analysis of the data from the TAO moored buoys in the Western Pacific. I’m doing construction work these days, and so in between pounding nails into the frame of a building I continue to pound on the TAO dataset. I noticed that a few of the buoys collect data on both shortwave (solar) radiation and longwave (infrared or greenhouse) radiation at two-minute intervals. For a data junkie like myself, two-minute intervals is heaven. I decided to look at the data from one of those buoys, one located on the Equator. at 165° East.

Figure 1. Location of the buoy (red square) which recorded the data used in this study. Solid blue squares show which of all the buoys have the two-minute data. DATA SOURCE

It was a fascinating wander through the data, and I found that it strongly supports my contention, which is that the net effect of clouds in the tropics is one of strong cooling (negative feedback).

To start with, I looked (as always) at a number of the individual records. I began with the shortwave records. Here is a typical day’s record of the sun hitting the buoy, taken at two-minute intervals:

Figure 2. A typical day showing the effect of clouds on the incoming solar (shortwave) radiation.

In Figure 2 we can see that when clouds come over the sun, there is an immediate and large reduction in the incoming solar energy. On the other hand, Figure 3 shows that clouds have the opposite effect on the downwelling longwave radiation (DLR, also called downwelling infrared or “greenhouse” radiation). Clouds increase the DLR. Clouds are black-body absorbers for longwave radiation. After they absorb the radiation coming up from the ground, they radiate about half of it back towards the ground, while the other half is radiated upwards  The effect is very perceptible on a cold winter night. Clear nights are the coldest, the radiation from the ground is freer to escape to space. With clouds the nights are warmer, because clouds increase the DLR. Figure 3 shows a typical 24 hour record, showing periods of increased DLR when clouds pass over the buoy sensors.

Figure 3. A typical day showing the effect of clouds on the downwelling longwave radiation (DLR).

Once again we see the sudden changes in the radiation when the clouds pass overhead. In the longwave case, however, the changes are in the other direction. Clouds cause an increase in the DLR.

So, here was my plan of attack. Consider the solar (shortwave) data, a typical day of which is shown in Figure 2. I averaged the data for every 2-minute interval over the 24 hours, to give me the average changes in solar radiation on a typical day, clouds and all. This is shown in gray in Figure 4.

Then, in addition to averaging the data for each time of day, I also took the highest value for that time of day. This maximum value gives me the strength of the solar radiation when the sky is as clear as it gets. Figure 4 shows those two curves, one for the maximum solar clear-sky conditions, and the second one the all-sky values.

Figure 4. The clear-sky (blue line) and all-sky (gray line) solar radiation for all days of the record (2214 days). 

As expected, the clouds cut down the amount of solar radiation by a large amount. On a 24-hour basis, the reduction in solar radiation is about 210 watts per square metre.

However, that’s just the shortwave radiation. Figure 5 shows the comparable figures for the longwave radiation at the same scale, with the difference discussed above that the clear-sky numbers are the minimum rather than the maximum values.

Figure 5. The clear-sky (blue line) and all-sky (gray line) downwelling longwave radiation (DLR) for all days of the record.

As you can see, the longwave doesn’t vary much from clouds. Looking at Figure 3, there’s only about a 40 W/m2 difference between cloud and no cloud conditions, and we find the same in the averages, a difference of 36 W/m2 on a 24-hour basis between the clear-sky and all-sky conditions.

DISCUSSION

At this location, clouds strongly cool the surface via reflection of solar radiation (- 210 W/m2) and only weakly warm the surface through increased downwelling longwave radiation (+ 36 W/m2). The net effect of clouds on radiation at this location, therefore, is a strong cooling of – 174 W/m2.

This likely slightly overstates the radiation contribution of the clouds. This is because, although unraveling the effect on shortwave is simple, the effect on longwave is more complex. In addition to the clouds, the water vapor itself affects the downwelling longwave radiation. However, we can get an idea of the size of this effect by looking at the daily variation of longwave with and without clouds in more detail. Figure 6 shows the same data as in Figure 5, except the scale is different.

Figure 6. As in Figure 5 but with a different scale, the clear-sky (blue line) and all-sky (gray line) solar radiation for all days of the record.

Note that the minimum (clear-sky) DLR varies by about 10 W/m2 during the 24 hours of the day. Presumably, this variation is from changes in water vapor. (The data is there in the TAO dataset to confirm or falsify that presumption, another challenge for the endless list. So many musicians … so little time …). Curiously, the effect of the clouds is to reduce the underlying variations in the DLR.

This warming due to water vapor, of course, reduces the warming effect of the clouds by about half the swings, or 5 W/m2, to something on the order of 30 W/m2.

Finally, to the perplexing question of the so-called “cloud feedback”. Here’s the problem, a long-time issue of mine, the question of averages. Averages conceal as much as they reveal. For example, suppose we know that the average cloud cover for one 24 hour period was forty percent, and for the next 24 hours it was fifty percent. Since there were more clouds, would we expect less net radiation?

The difficulty is, the value and even the sign of the change in radiation is determined by the time of day when the clouds are present. At night, increasing clouds warm the planet, while during the day, increasing clouds have the opposite effect. Unfortunately, when we take a daily average of cloud cover, that information is lost. This means that averages, even daily averages, must be treated with great caution. For example, the average cloud cover could stay exactly the same, say 40%, but if the timing of the clouds shifts, the net radiation can vary greatly. How greatly? Figure 7 show the change in net radiation caused by clouds.

Figure 7. Net cloud forcing (all-sky minus clear-sky). Net night-time forcing is positive (average 36 W/m2), showing the warming effect.

In this location, the clouds are most common at the time they reduce the net radiation the most (mid-day to evening). At night, when they have a warming effect, the clouds die away. This temporal dependence is lost if we use a daily average.

So I’m not sure that some kind of 24-hour average feedback value is going to tell us a lot. I need to think about this question some more. I’ll likely look next at splitting the dataset in two, warm dawns versus cool dawns, as I did before. This should reveal something about the cloud feedback question … although I’m not sure what.

In any case, the net cloud radiative forcing in this area is strongly negative, and we know that increasing cloud coverage and earlier time of cloud onset are functions of temperature. So my expectation is that I’ll find that the average cloud feedback (whatever that means) to be strongly negative as well … but in the meantime, my day job is calling.

A final note. This is a calculation of the variation in incoming radiation. As such, we are looking at the throttle of the huge heat engine which is the climate. This throttle controls the incoming energy that enters the system. As shown in Figure 7, in the tropics it routinely varies the incoming energy by up to half a kilowatt … but it’s just the throttle. It cools the surface by cutting down incoming fuel.

The other parts of the system are the tropical thunderstorms, which further cool the surface in a host of other ways detailed elsewhere. So the analysis above, which is strictly about radiation, actually underestimates the cooling effect of tropical clouds on surface temperature.

All the best, please don’t bother questioning my motives, I sometimes bite back when bitten, or I’ll simply ignore your post. I’m just a fool like you, trying to figure this all out. I don’t have time to respond to every question and statement. Your odds of getting a reply go way up if you are supportive, on topic, provide citations, and stick to the science. And yes, I know I don’t always practice that, I’m learning too …

w.

PS — Here’s a final bonus chart and digression. Figure 8 shows the average of the actual, observed, measured variation in total downwelling radiation of both types, solar (also called shortwave) radiation and longwave (also called infrared or “greenhouse”) radiation.

Figure 8. Changes in average total forcing (solar plus longwave) over the 24 hours of the day.

Here’s the digression. I find it useful to divide forcings into three kinds, “first order”, “second order”, and “third order”. Variations in first order forcings have an effect greater than 10% of the average forcing of the system. For the system above, this would be something with an effect greater than about seventy W/m2. Figure 7 shows that the cooling from clouds is a first order forcing during the daytime.

Variations in second order forcings have an effect between 1% and 10% of the average. For Figure 8 that would be between say seven and seventy W/m2. They are smaller, but too big to be ignored in a serious analysis. With an average value of 36 W/m2, the warming from night-time clouds is an example of a second order forcing.

Finally, variations from third order forcings are less than 1%, or less than about seven W/m2 for this system. These can often be ignored. As an example of why a third order forcing can be ignored in an overall analysis, I have overlaid the Total Radiation (red line in Figure 8) with what total radiation would look like with an additional 7 W/m2 of radiation from some hypothetical CO2 increase (black line in Figure 8). This seven watts is about 1% of the 670 W/m2 average energy flowing through the system. The lines are one pixel wide, and you can scarcely see the difference.

Which is why I say that the natural governing mechanisms that have controlled the tropical temperatures for millions of years will have no problem adjusting for a change in CO2 forcing. Compared to the temperature-controlled cloud forcing, which averages more than one hundred and fifty W/m2, the CO2 change is trivial.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

183 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mac the Knife
September 15, 2011 5:54 pm

Willis,
You are “the gift that keeps on giving”! Excellent analysis, presented in an easily digestible style!
One comment and one question:
Comment: You may have a typo at
“Consider the solar (shortwave) data, a typical day of which is shown in Figure 1.”
Did you mean Figure 2?
Question: In your ‘bonus Figure 8, you applied a 7 watts/meter2 of hypothetical radiation addition from CO2, to illustrate it may be a tertiary and negligible contributor. What source (or sources) were the basis for this hypothetical 7w/m2 CO2 contribution?
Thank You for an excellent contribution! This is really interesting and fundamental work!!!

Bob in Castlemaine
September 15, 2011 6:00 pm

Great post Willis, very clearly explained.
Your day job no doubt allows time for your unstructured creative thought processes.

KingOchaos
September 15, 2011 6:38 pm

Interesting stuff Willi’s.
Just one point in you analysis of back radiation from clouds, from the surface you will only see what is coming back through the atmospheric window directly from the clouds/in wavelengths that the atmosphere is transparent to. But it would also be blocking and re radiating in more opaque wavelengths, but these will be absorbed higher up in the atmosphere above the surface.
So i think it would be a difficult task to infer the insulating effects of clouds purely from surface measurements… cloud altitude, humidity/ the variable path length would effect it.
But interesting stuff, the diurnal variation in clouds/ or trend in them, is certainly an interesting area of inquiry.

September 15, 2011 6:40 pm

Willis,
Nice post! Your averaging problem……yes, it is very much dependent upon the time of day. But, you have a wonderful bell curve right in front of you in which you can use to solve half the problem. I think, but don’t know, that the curve would depend very much on latitude and time of year, but that, too, may be averaged. The question then would be, do some places typically have more clouds during different times of the day and when would it occur? It may be difficult to answer, but, it may not. Meteorologists often inundate us with seemingly obscure data. Perhaps they track that sort of stuff in a manner that can be interpreted. I’d ask Anthony.
To the forcing/feedback…… whatever. It is a feedback that alters forcing and changes the dynamics of our climate, which, causes it to be a forcing. It is simply a matter of believing H2O’s natural state. Was it a cloud first or part of a body of water? I’m not big on labels. But, what if all water started as a solid? Is then the oceans a feedback? What if it was all clouds and then snowed?
As to your response about CO2 and pressure, and just because its fun, does the ideal gas law come in to play there anywhere? 😉
Thanks again,
James

Mark
September 15, 2011 6:53 pm

Willis, in your reply to “Man in a barrel” about the John Eggerts post, you state:
“That citation argues that the atmosphere is saturated for CO2, because you can’t get blacker than black”. Which kinda makes sense … until you think about it.
“What it ignores is the effect of altitude. The “blackness” of any given layer varies linearly with pressure altitude. Half the pressure, half the molecules to absorb, half the “blackness”. In those upper altitude “gray” regions is where additional CO2 has an effect.”
If nearly all of the LW-IR is absorbed within 100 m of the surface, how does it matter what happens at high altitude or the top of the atmosphere? I fail to see how the “re-radiation” argument works. Wouldn’t collisions with other molecules near the ground affect the re-radiation? If the difference is that increased CO2 raises the altitude where the radiation finally “escapes to space”, and therefore the temperature at high altitude increases, how does that heat get back to the surface? If re-radiation is really occurring, how come UV that is absorbed by ozone not get re-radiated and passed through the ozone layer and reach the surface? I would appreciate any direction on how this works.
The rest of your series is wonderfully written. I can’t do the math but it looks like an interesting application of chaos theory. The concept of meta-stable strange attractors for the climate seems to match the historical record of rapid transitions between ice ages and inter-glacial temperatures with fairly stable temperatures between the transitions. Have you considered engaging a chaos theory specialist to assist? I look forward to additional posts!

gnomish
September 15, 2011 6:56 pm

Bill Illis says:
September 15, 2011 at 5:42 pm
“Now if you check the temperature levels (in a Stefan Boltzmann sense), you’ll find they make no sense at all compared to the net radiation levels at any given time.
The temperature increases by a tiny fraction of a single W/m2 during the sunshine day and decreases by a tiny fraction of a single W/m2 during the no sunshine night. (Noting that a Watt equals 1 joule/second and one heck of website host as well).”
that is because temperature and heat are not the same thing – you can not convert degrees to watts.
also, a phase change releases releases or sequesters lots of heat with no temperature change.
Watts, of course, is inimitable. Long may he reign.

Mac the Knife
September 15, 2011 7:16 pm

Willis,
One more question:
Are the data plots in Figures 2 and 3 derived from data recorded by the same buoy on the same day?
Thanks Again!

George E. Smith
September 15, 2011 7:26 pm

“”””” Once again we see the sudden changes in the radiation when the clouds pass overhead. In the longwave case, however, the changes are in the other direction. Clouds cause an increase in the DLR. “””””
And by inference those same clouds would also be increasing the LWIR to space, since as you say, half of the cloud absorbed radiation is re-emitted to space, so the cloud which you say is an efficient black body absorber (and emitter) whereas the atmosphere is not.

dp
September 15, 2011 8:18 pm

Willis – what would the effect of sea surface wave action be on the sensors and what would a churning sea vs a glassy sea look like in the data?

T.A.
September 15, 2011 8:56 pm

Willis,
You said, “I know (from the maxima and minima) what the clear-sky values are, and from the means (averages) I know what the all-sky values are. The difference has to be the clouds …”
Would you kindly explain more specifically how you go from the maxima and minima to determining when there is cloud cover? Are you making assumptions, or is your conclusion based on measurement or observation of actual cloud cover?
I am not disputing your work, just want to be clear on what the evidence is. Thanks.

R. Gates
September 15, 2011 8:58 pm

Interesting as usual Willis. This comment however, may be a bit of an oversimplification:
“After they absorb the radiation coming up from the ground, they radiate about half of it back towards the ground, while the other half is radiated upwards.”
How did you compute this percentage? And even if correct (50% seems way too high), it doesn’t of course mean that 50% is lost to space. LW radiation, striking a greenhouse gas molecule, which of course is not static, but moving and tumbling rapidly, would tend to be re-radiated on average in a spherical pattern, such that 50% would be too high of a percentage to be transmitted directly upward, in fact, a very small percentage would actually be transmitted directly upward, as there would be lots more angles of transmission that are possible short of directly upward . And of course, even any LW radiation going directly upward could then be absorbed and re-transimtted by another greenhouse molecule, etc, such that the LW radiation that does actually go upward from the tops of clouds is not equal to the top of the atmosphere (TOA) LW actually transmitted into space, and is in fact, far less.
The other observation I would have is that the area along the equator, while receiving the most direct insolation, is not of course indicative of the way clouds and radiation interact in other areas further from the equator. As everyone is aware, there are those large regions of descending air on the north or south sides of the Hadley cells where convection is obviously not the rule, but rather a different kind of cloud dynamics exist. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Omega-500-july-era40-1979.png
These regions, while not receiving as the same intensity of SW, actually cover a larger area of the earth both north and south of the equator, so some analysis of the balances of SW and LW in relation to clouds would be necessary in those larger areas. Finally of course, while not receiving but a minor portion of the total SW radiation striking earth, the role of clouds in the Arctic environment also needs to be considered, such as found in this study:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/search/publications/5724/
But your posts are always enjoyable!

anna v
September 15, 2011 9:27 pm

Willis Eschenbach says:
September 15, 2011 at 8:33 pm
” Willis – what would the effect of sea surface wave action be on the sensors and what would a churning sea vs a glassy sea look like in the data?”
Good question, dp. I don’t have a clue … but I figure the scientists who designed, built, and installed the sucker thought about it, and they chose and designed the instrument packages accordingly.

It would be interesting seeing wavy days versus quiet days. The fractal effect, waves can increase a lot the surface available for absorbing and radiating and evaporating surface.

Septic Matthew
September 15, 2011 9:32 pm

Willis, you wrote: This is why I’m not real comfortable with the idea of “cloud feedback”. I’m still wrestling with that concept, along with the question of whether clouds are a forcing or a feedback. I’d have to answer “both”, but I’m not sure of that …
To me, that is the only sensible evaluation of the evidence right now. My earlier question was sort of just wishing … .

September 15, 2011 10:49 pm

R. Gates says:
September 15, 2011 at 8:58 pm
Interesting as usual Willis. This comment however, may be a bit of an oversimplification:
“After they absorb the radiation coming up from the ground, they radiate about half of it back towards the ground, while the other half is radiated upwards.”
How did you compute this percentage? And even if correct (50% seems way too high), it doesn’t of course mean that 50% is lost to space.
===================================================
Gates, of course, I can’t speak for Willis, but yes, the 50% is too high. Given the multi-directional release, and the spherical nature of the earth, I’m guessing only 40% or so heads back towards the earth. Obviously, it depends upon the height of the molecule. As to the other part about not being lost to space……. I think it is, at least the majority of it is……… Given the multi-directional absorption and consequent emission, and the point that Willis earlier made about pressure and density, there should be less molecules to absorb going upwards, and more to absorb going down. As established earlier, then, more would be emitted upwards than downwards. So, more than 50% gets lost to space.

Richard111
September 16, 2011 12:03 am

Willis Eschenbach says:
September 15, 2011 at 10:59 pm
” If for some time around noon when there are no clouds the shortwave is 1400 W/m2, and on an average day at the same time the shortwave is 900 W/m2, then it is clear that the effect of the addition of clouds is a reflection of half a kilowatt per square metre back to space.”
Thanks for for this. It makes the data on this site easier to understand.
http://www.milfordweather.org.uk/solar.php
Since it NEVER reaches 1400 W/m2 I assume is because the location is at 51N. Sun simply too low in the midday sky. We’ve been getting a lot of cloud this year it seems.

AusieDan
September 16, 2011 12:04 am

Willis – congratulations on this and your earlier posts in ths series.
I have a question which I fear discloses my ignorance, but here goes:
If the average 24 hour temperature does not vary very much, I would expect that the difference between SW and LW radiation would be a sine wave, more or less, over 24 hours, centered on zero.
Can you comment or straighten me out when you have a chance?
Regards.

AusieDan
September 16, 2011 12:47 am

Willis,
Having now re-read your two earlier posts and thought more about the charts in this one,
I’m feeling quite foolish.
I see now that the incoming heat is greater than the outgoing and that the balance is transferred via wind and ocean to higher latitudes.
Now two (probably even more stupid) questions arise:
1. Why is just enough heat moved up latitude (north and south) to keep equitorial temperate constant?
2. Why do the poles hold some net heat and not pass them into space, during years when the global temperature is rising (the reverse during ice ages)?
You are saying in effect that the equator acts as a very good airconditioner but that the poles can’t control their temperatures very well.
Have I grasped it and if so, why is it thus?
What drives the climate?
(Easy question).

Stephen Wilde
September 16, 2011 12:56 am

In order to deal with the ‘problem’ that global cloudiness decreased during the warming spell/period of more active sun it is necessary to recognise three things:
i) That a reduction in cloudiness during a period of more active sun introduces a positive system feedback by allowing more solar shortwave into the oceans.
ii) Something else has to happen to negate that positive feedback from cloud reduction.
ii) We have observed a consequent poleward shift of the climate zones with more poleward/zonal jets. That is what alters the rate of energy transfer from surface to space and that is the negative feedback. Its power comes from the water cycle and the energy transfer capabilities of the phase changes of water.
Shifting the air circulation systems latitudinally has two contradictory effects:
i) Altering energy flow into the oceans by moving the cloud bands latitudinally
ii) Altering the speed with which energy is transferred from surface to space by moving the climate zones latitudinally.
The first is a positive feedback and the second is a negative feedback and the second always limits the first with the climate price to be paid for the necessary adjustment being a change in the relative sizes and positions of all the permanent climate zones. The sign of i) and ii) can each be reversed, thus:
i) A reduction in cloudiness for a warming effect will be countered by a poleward shift increasing energy flow to space
ii) An increase in cloudiness for a cooling effect will be countered by an equatorward shift decreasing energy flow to space.
Note that it is NOT a zero sum process because the natural flow of energy from warm Earth to cold space is dominant so whereas scenario i) will limit warming of the system very effectively scenario ii) will only restrain cooling for a short while because if energy doesn’t get into the system in the first place slowing down the energy flow to space is only a short term solution.
That is all that climate change amounts to. Anything that tries to warm or cool the system is countered by a change in the rate of energy transfer to space which alters the relative sizes and positions of the permanent climate zones. All observed climate changes fit that description.
The underlying equilibrium is set by atmospheric pressure which in turn sets the energy cost of evaporation by fixing the amount of energy required to achieve the phase change of water from liquid to vapour.
Much more detail here:
http://www.irishweatheronline.com/news/environment/climate-news/wilde-weather/setting-and-maintaining-of-earth%E2%80%99s-equilibrium-temperature/18931.html
as regards the setting of the basic equilibrium temperature and here:
http://www.irishweatheronline.com/news/environment/climate-news/wilde-weather/feature-how-the-sun-could-control-earths-temperature/290.html
as to how the solar changes seek to alter the equilibrium temperature (but largerly fail as per the so called ‘faint sun’ paradox).