Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Like anyone else, I’m not fond of being wrong, particularly very publicly wrong. However, that’s the price of science, and sometimes you have to go through being wrong to get to being right. Case in point? My last post. In that post I looked at what is known as “net cloud radiative forcing”, and how it changed with surface temperature. Net cloud forcing is defined as the amount of downwelling upwelling longwave radiation (ULR, or “greenhouse radiation”) produced by the cloud, minus the amount of solar energy reflected by the cloud (upwelling shortwave radiation, or USR). If net cloud forcing is negative, it cools the earth below.
I found out that indeed, as temperature goes up, the net cloud radiation goes down, meaning the clouds have a greater cooling effect. I posted it, and asked for people to poke holes in it.
What could be wrong with that? Well, I forgot a very simple thing, and none of the commenters noticed either. The error was this. Net cloud forcing is cloud DLR ULR minus shortwave reflected by that same cloud. But what I forgot is that reflected shortwave is the cloud albedo times the total insolation (downwelling solar shortwave radiation).
The catch, as you probably have noticed, is this. If the cloud doesn’t change at all and the total insolation rises, the net cloud forcing will become more and more negative. The upwelling reflected solar is the cloud albedo times the insolation. As insolation rises, more and more sunshine is reflected, so the net cloud forcing goes down. That’s just math.
The problem is that as insolation rises, temperatures also rise. So by showing net cloud forcing goes down with increasing temperature, all I have done is to show that net cloud forcing goes down with increasing insolation … and duh, the math proves that.
However, recognizing that as the problem also gave me the solution. This is to express the net cloud forcing, not as a number of watts per square metre, but as a percentage of the insolation. That way, I could cancel out the effect of the insolation, and extract the information about the clouds themselves. Figure 1 shows the results of that analysis.
Figure 1. Net Cloud Forcing (W/m2) as a percentage of gridcell insolation (W/m2), monthly averages from 1985-1989. Average percentage results shown above each map are area-averaged. Missing data shown in gray. Cloud forcing data from ERBE, insolation data from NASA.
This is an interesting result, for a variety of reasons.
First, it is quite detailed, which gives me confidence in the geographical accuracy of my calculations. For example, the cooling effect of the thunderstorms in the Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) is clearly visible in the Pacific as a horizontal blue line slightly above the equator, and can be seen in the Atlantic Ocean as well. The ITCZ is the great band of equatorial thunderstorms around the planet that drive the Hadley circulation. Remember that the majority of the energy entering the climate system is doing so in the Tropics. Because of that, a few percent change in the equatorial net cloud forcing represents lots and lots of watts per square meter.
Second, the differing responses of the clouds over the land versus clouds over the ocean are also clearly displayed. In general, land clouds warm more/cool less than ocean clouds. In addition, you can see that while the clouds rarely warm the NH ocean, they have a large warming effect on the SH ocean.
Third, and most significant, look at the timing of the seasonal changes. Take December as an example. In the Northern Hemisphere this is winter, the coldest time of year, and the clouds are having a net warming effect. In the Southern Hemisphere summer, on the other hand, clouds are cooling the surface. But by June, the situation is reversed, with the clouds having a strong cooling effect in the warm North, while warming up the winter in the South. (Note that the NH warming effect is somewhat masked by the fact that there are large areas of missing data over the land in the NH winter, shown as gray areas. The effect of this on the global average is unknown. However, by using a combination of gridcells which are adjacent temporally and gridcells which are adjacent spatially, it should be possible to do an intelligent infill of the missing areas and at least come to a more accurate estimate of the net effect. So many paths to investigate … so little time.)
I have hypothesized elsewhere that the earth has a governor which works to maintain a constant temperature. One of the features of a governor is that it cannot be simple fixed linear feedback. By that, I mean it must act in two directions—it must act to warm the earth when it is cold, and to cool the earth when it is warm. This is different from linear negative feedback, which only works to cool things down, or linear positive feedback, which only works to warm things up. A governor has to swing both ways.
Figure 1 clearly shows that, as I have been saying for some time, including both the longwave and shortwave effects clouds act strongly to warm the earth when it is cold (red areas in Figure 1) and to cool the earth when it is warm (blue areas in Figure 1). In addition, as I have also said (without much evidence until now to substantiate my claim), the ITCZ has a large net cooling effect.
So that’s where I am up to right now in my investigation of the ERBE data. Always more to learn, I’ll continue to report my results as they happen, the story of the ERBE data is far from over. I’ll be in and out of contact for a bit, I’m around today but I’m hitchhiking up to Oregon tomorrow for a friend’s bachelor party, so don’t think I’m ignoring you if I don’t answer for a bit.
w.
PS – there are some interesting results that I’ll post when I have time. These involve looking at the phase diagrams for cloud forcing, temperature, and insolation. Having the insolation available allows the phase of both the temperature and the forcing to be compared to what is actually the underlying driving mechanism, the insolation.
Regarding temperature and insolation, the ERBE data shows what is well known, that the temperature changes lag the insolation changes by about two months in the Southern Hemisphere, and by one month in the Northern Hemisphere. This is because of the thermal inertia of the planet (it takes time to warm or cool), along with the greater thermal inertia of the greater percentage of ocean in the south.
The interesting part is this: the phase diagram shows that there is no lag at all for the changes in the clouds. They change right in step with the insolation, in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres.
This means, of course, that the clouds move first, and the temperature follows.
I’ll post those phase diagrams when I have some time.
[UPDATE: The phase diagrams, as mentioned. First, Figure 2 shows the temperature versus the insolation:
Figure 2. Insolation vs absolute temperature, from the equator to 65 N/S. The poles are not included because the ERBE cloud data only covers 65 N/S. This does not affect the phase diagrams. Black line shows no lag, gold line shows one month lag, red line shows two months lag between maximum insolation and maximum temperature. Numbers after month names show months of lag.
Since the driving signal (insolation) peaks in June and December, those months will be in the corners when the two cycles are aligned. In the Northern Hemisphere (upper panel), December is in the lower left corner with a lag of 1 month (gold line).
The Southern Hemisphere is half a cycle out of phase, so December is maximum insolation in the upper right corner. This occurs with a lag of two months (red line).
This verifies that temperatures lag insolation by a month in the Northern Hemisphere (the warmest time is not end June, when the insolation peaks) and two month in the southern hemisphere.
However, the situation is different with the clouds, as Figure 3 shows.
Figure 2. Insolation vs cloud forcing %, from the equator to 65 N/S. The poles are not included because the ERBE cloud data only covers 65 N/S. I suspect that the odd shape is a consequence of the missing gridcell data in the ERBE dataset, but that is a guess.
For the cloud forcing in both Hemispheres, there is no lag with regards to the insolation.
w.

So you don’t know the basics of what you post on? Who is surprised.
“Hitch-hiking to Oregon”? What, no oil-industry corporate jet with beautiful half-clad stewardi to lave your fevered brow?
me,
Run along back to Skeptical Pseudo-Science with your lowlife ad-homs.
Thank you for the post Willis: not only technically very interesting but a good demonstration of how science is supposed to be done. I look forward to the phase diagrams.
Phase diagrams added to the head post. Enjoy.
w.
Hm. Since the upper atmosphere and cloud H2O is the first to intercept insolation, perhaps it gets “first cut” at causing system response. Especially since H2O is so much more efficient at such interception than other substances under consideration.
As I said in the previous post comments, “A very significant discovery”.
But one that begs the question, ‘What does cause observed climate change (LIA, MWP), if cloud feedback is near instantaneous?’
It must be factors that affect the phase change from water vapor to water (droplets), ie cloud formation.
me says:
October 11, 2011 at 6:51 pm
As far as I know, this is an original analysis of the ERBE data which has never been done before. So … nobody knows the basics of it. In fact, I posted my previous ideas and invited people to find flaws in it … including you. That’s how science works, it advances by finding each other’s mistakes.
Did you find the hidden flaw in it, my unpleasant friend? Did one of the commenters or lurkers find the flaw? Who did find that flaw?
Well, I not only did the original analysis, I found the flaw. And I reported the flaw. You seem to think that’s a problem. I see it as the way that scientific understanding proceeds.
Who doesn’t know the basics here?
w.
Rob Dekker says:
October 11, 2011 at 6:08 pm (Edit)
Cloud DLR, as the name suggests, is the radiation which is going downwards from the cloud to warm the ground below. It is not minus anything, so the formulas (AFAIK) are correct.
w.
“This means, of course, that the clouds move first, and the temperature follows…”
The temperature might well follow, but would not the rate of following depend on the thermal inertia of the material being affected? I’m finding it hard to visualise general models where there are temperature lags that can vary from near-instant to several years. I’m not disagreeing with the general analysis you give, just being cautious about how far to extend it.
An ignorant question that has bothered me for a long time. In the Tropics where I grew up, a cloud in front of the sun gave instant cool, I have never been inside the Arctic or Antarctic circles. Have you ever seen whether sudden cloud cover there leads to warming or cooling on the ground? (Again, this is about extending the model.)
Very interesting post!
If your assertion is correct (which I happen to think is very highly likely) that clouds act as a governor and warm when the earth is cold and cool when the earth is warm, then that would imply that during ice age periods something changes which modifies the limits of the governor.
If the new equilibrium temperature is lower (during an ice age), then the warming does not kick in as soon or as effectively and the cooling is stronger or more persistent or some similar change that has the effect of changing the set point of the “cloud thermostat”
Changes in absolute humidity, or available cloud seeding nuclei, cloud brightness or atmospheric optical thickness, (dust dimming) or some other essential factor that determines when and where clouds form must change to move the set point to a new lower setting.
Perhaps considering what could change that set point will point you to other interesting elements of how your thermostat works and what might change to trigger a cooling period or a warming cycle.
Lack of cloud cooling when it was warm might also explain hot spells like the dust bowl, but the real question would be what changed to modify cloudiness in that time period and that area?
I am glad that you have disaggregated by month, latitude and longitude.
This is making me crazy – clouds don’t warm squat any more than a blanket warms you. You warm the blanket, that reduces the rate of heat loss from you to the room you are in.
“…negative feedback is defined as dampening it…”
That’s only if the clouds bring rain, I suppose.
“”””” kH says:
October 11, 2011 at 3:46 pm
“This is different from simple negative feedback, which only works to cool things down, or positive feedback, which only works to warm things up.”
Willis, that’s wrong. Positive feedback is defined as amplifying the input stimulus; negative feedback is defined as dampening it (except for negative feedback with a gain > 1 which lands you in increasing oscillations but that’s another story). “””””
Well sorry; with negative feedback, you can have any gain you want from zero to infinity.
It is only with positive feedback that you can’t exceed one without oscillation occurring.
That said, many purported “negative” feedback systems do oscillate; but only because the designer forgot to check to see that there were no circumstances, in which the feedback could become positive, while the gain exceeds unity.
This usually results from propagation delays, in either the forward amplification channel, or in the feedback path. Thermal time constant effects are a very common source of accidental positive feedback oscillation. Gee do climate systems involve any thermal delays ?
Great post. Although I don’t comment a lot here, I have what seems an obvious question to me:
Where are there meteorology/climatology students, or post-grads, or PhDs, in the research/academic/real world, that could team with Willis in order to answers these questions/provide data or resources/, etc. to help solve these issues?
. . is this too much to ask . . ?
Willis: NCF = Cloud DLR -Cloud USR
where NCF is net cloud forcing, DSR is downwelling longwave radiation, and USR is upwelling shortwave radiation.
typo? DLR is downwelling longwave radiation?
[REPLY: Typo. Thanks. -w.]
It looks like you need at least one more refinement, namely day vs. night. Then the nonlinear relationship of cloud NCF% to insolation might show something.
Clouds are an important part of the governor. The most important ingredient of which is water vapor. The temperature, vapor pressure point of water is the thermostat that determines dew point and therefor cloud formation and dispersal at altitude / latitude. The more moisture in the atmosphere, the greater effectiveness of clouds on the energy in and out. pg
dp says:
October 11, 2011 at 8:11 pm
dp, as with the previous thread, this is not the place to discuss the “I don’t think clouds can warm anything” claim. If this is “making you crazy”, then why on earth don’t you go somewhere else? It’s a big internet, go find someone who wants to discuss whether clouds can warm the earth. I don’t. I’ve been out at night in the winter, I know they can warm from personal experience. Go talk to someone who thinks the issue is in question.
Because here, I’m discussing where the observational measurements show the clouds are warming and where they show the clouds are cooling. We’re past “can clouds warm”, we’ve moved on to “where is the warming located”.
As in the previous thread, I won’t hesitate to trim the thread to keep at least a semblance of focus on the topic.
Best to you, you are welcome to stay, but not to try to overturn the boat.
w.
Willis, I see that many of your commenters are confused about the difference between cloud forcing and cloud feedback.
What you are showing (even though your definition is wrong) is clouds forcing : the cooling effect of the planet because of the existence of clouds.
Ramanathan et al 1989 used ERBE to show that cloud forcing is negative (in the range of -18 W/m^2. That is the ‘cooling’ effect of clouds on the planet, and numerous other papers have confirmed that. Clouds cool the planet by some 18 W/m^2,
This does NOT mean that cloud feedback is negative. For feedback, you have to show that cloud forcing CHANGES if the planet gets warmer, and quantify how much.
So what you are showing has been known for 22 years (using the same ERBE data you use), and tells NOTHING about cloud feedback. (so any assertions that this data shows that clouds are a “thermostat” or so are simply incorrect).
Thanks Willis. I like your approach.
This is one of those posts that I am going to have to read a couple of times.
Martin Clauss;
Where are there meteorology/climatology students, or post-grads, or PhDs, in the research/academic/real world, that could team with Willis in order to answers these questions/provide data or resources/, etc. to help solve these issues? >>>
They are awaiting written permission from Trenberth confirming they won’t have to resign their positions, give up their research grants, or return their degrees if they get involved. Kellog’s declined comment.
Rob Dekker says:
October 11, 2011 at 8:52 pm
Thanks, Rob. I know that Ramanathan showed that the net cloud forcing is negative. I also agree, that that says nothing about feedback.
What I have shown is something different. My analysis shows a governor rather than a simple linear feedback. I have shown that when the planet gets colder, cloud forcing increases, and that when the planet gets warmer, clouds act to cool it.
And that, I would submit, has not been “known for 22 years”. As far as I know, Ramanathan didn’t say anything about that. I could be wrong, things get written and lost or overlooked, but it’s certainly not a part of the current mainstream climate paradigm.
w.
What is “Insolation” as you use the term?
Willis – when clouds “warm the earth”, where does the heat come from? (hint for the impatient: Trick question – clouds are passive). Clouds prevent the earth from cooling as fast as it would if there were no clouds. Clouds have no ability to create energy, therefore heat. It is just slightly beyond a semantic difference. Sun: Source of energy. Clouds: insulator.
Let’s continue.