Wrong Again …

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.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
235 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bill Illis
October 12, 2011 5:51 pm

Dave Springer says:
October 12, 2011 at 2:22 pm
Bill Illis says:
October 12, 2011 at 11:34 am
“Now throw in a Low Cloud Layer. A completely different picture. Now it looks like a perfect Blackbody radiating at 20C. That is clearly going to warm / slow-down long-wave radiation escape from the surface (particularly in the atmospheric windows). Low Cloud completely overwhelms the GHG absorption bands.”
Not so fast, Bill. What it does is changes the lapse rate so that radiative emission is happening at a higher altitude. Whether it slows down surface cooling, or rather how much,. depends on the surface.
—————————
The extra energy slowed-down / held-in with this Low Cloud Cover is about 60 watts/m2. A massive number. But the solar short-wave reflectance of the same cloud would be in the order of -80 watts/m2.
So, during the day, the Low Cloud cools off the surface but, at night it will keep it warmer than it would have been (compared to if the Cloud dissappeared at sunset). Overall, however, the surface is cooler by net -20 watts/m2.
Doubling CO2, of course, would not change the above numbers at all since the long-wave slowed down / held-in below the cloud deck is unaffected by the presence of CO2. Short-wave solar energy reflected is also the same.
The question is, when temperatures increase, does cloud increase or decrease?; does it become thicker or thinner? The numbers are so big, a small change in the cloud response / feedback could completely overwhelm any extra GHG forcing. It is a make-or-break factor.
And we do not really know what the answer to this question is. No climate science paper has even come close to answering the question. No dataset has been used properly to date in order to answer that important question. No climate model can approximate cloud response / feedback properly.
Hence, Willis trying to demonstrate what really happens in the real atmosphere. I think he is really on the right track here. But it is hard because the data is not easy to work with.

davidmhoffer
October 12, 2011 5:54 pm

Dave Springer;
You’re beginning to bore me, dopey.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age
Read and learn.>>>
Well I’m gob smacked. Call me dopey and throw a link at me. That certainly speaks nicely for both your maturity and your knowledge level. That all you got?

davidmhoffer
October 12, 2011 5:59 pm

Dave Springer;
You defending him saying he’s smarter than you are makes me think of a couple of 5-year olds agreeing about the top of speed of Santa’s Sleigh and how much hay the reindeer that pull it must be fed each day.>>>
Well given your devastating rebuttal you provided to my challenge to explain the tipping point you claim is settled science, I believe your retorted by calling me “dopey”. Seems 5 year old’s are about your speed.

davidmhoffer
October 12, 2011 6:17 pm

[SNIP: I said no debate about whether DLR can warm water. I’ll keep repeating it, and snipping it. -w.]

Septic Matthew
October 12, 2011 7:24 pm

GabrielHBay: In my ignorance I would strongly suspect that any cloud warmer than the surface (ok maybe not over snow or ice surface) would most likely evaporate and disappear?
Best left at that, I guess.

J.H.
October 12, 2011 7:25 pm

If you have a cloudless, moonless dark night…. You are walking up the garden path to the front door and can’t see a thing….. The toes are telling the brain to take it easy man!
Do the same thing on a cloudy, moonless night….. and you can see quite well as the cloudshine from the town lights up the place very well……
So clouds re-radiate light…. Including IR.
I have no drama in understanding that clouds warm the surface quite markedly by re-radiated IR…… or illuminate my garden path on cloudy nights via the cloudshine of the town lights.

Septic Matthew
October 12, 2011 8:03 pm

Dave Springer: Water releases a tremendous amount of energy when it changes phase from vapor to liquid. About a thousand BTU’s per pound actually and it releases all the energy without changing temperature. It takes about a thousand BTUs to turn one pound of water at 212F into one pound of steam at 212F. One BTU is the amount of energy required to raise the temperature of one pound of water one degree F.
So the clouds evaporate when the surface below them is cooler?

davidmhoffer
October 12, 2011 8:18 pm

Dave Springer;
A livestock guard dog is an animal with such high integrity it would make a saint seem evil.>>>
A livestock guard dog is a dog that has been trained to do something and either does it well or doesn’t. The dog doing what it is trained to do has no bearing on the dog’s ethics. If the dog is trained to help steal livestock, does that mean it is guilty of theft? that the dog has had a breach of ethics? That the dog is evil?
Regards,
Dopey

Rob
October 13, 2011 12:02 am

davidmhoffer, Interesting concept. By your measure, Willis Eschenbach cannot be hold accountable for the abundant scientific and algebraic mistakes he made simply because he is “trained” to do so.
OK. That’s one way of looking at it.

Rob
October 13, 2011 12:28 am

Of course, if Willis is simply “trained” to mislead his audience, his integrity is still intact. But then if you may, can you please elaborate on exactly who “trained” Willis Eschenbach to make scientific and algebraic mistakes that create the appearance of cloud negative feedback, or what Willis calls the “governor” which “which works to maintain a constant temperature” ?
And if we cannot identify the entity that trained him to mislead and obfuscate scientific findings, then I’m sure that Willis himself has enough integrity to correct the mistakes and conclusions he made in this post.

Richard S Courtney
October 13, 2011 12:30 am

Rob Dekker:
Thankyou for the reply to me that you provide at October 12, 2011 at 4:29 pm. It makes clear that you are serious in your comments because your view is distorted by fixed views.
You say;
“Check how Ramanathan defines “cloud forcing” so we can tell if clouds warm or cool the planet. Then compare that to Willis’ definition.”
There is no agreed definition of “cloud forcing” and you provide no argument or explanation of why the definition provided by Ramanathan is correct and/or preferable.
I know how Ramanathan defines it so I do not need to check, but so what?
You admit Willis provides his definition and uses it. We are discussing Willis’ work and, therefore, Willis’ definition is appropriate.
Then you say;
“Of course, Willis’ conclusions are irrelevant and also contradict the findings by Ramanathan’s and all other scientific papers determining feedback or forcing from ERBE data.”
Irrelevant!? Really, then why do you bother to dispute them? In fact Willis’ conclusions are an insight into possible cloud effects on climate that may (or may not) significantly alter our understanding of climate behaviour.
And you admit that his findings “contradict the findings by Ramanathan’s and all other scientific papers determining feedback or forcing from ERBE data.”
In other words, you admit that Willis’ conclusions are very, very relevant but they offend you because they are heretical to the scriptures which you accept.
If you can find fault in Willis’ work then please state it but do not say his work must be wrong because it does not support the work of others.
Please think about what you have written and – having thought – apologise for it because your writings are an attack on the scientific method.
Richard

October 13, 2011 12:32 am

The difference in cloud feedback between winter and summer is a well known fact to all who live in zones where there are freezing winters.
In winter (when temps are permanently below freezing) – a sunny cloudless day is a bitterly cold day, cloudy days are warmer. The cloud feedback is positive (warming). In summer a sunny day can be very hot, cloudy days are cooler. The cloud feedback is negative (cooling).
The explanation, I think, is very simple: albedo. In winter the earth is covered with snow, snow has high albedo, most of the suns radiation bounces right back into space and does not warm the earth. Clouds absorb more of the radiation than snow covered earth, and irradiate part of the heat back to earth.
In summer, the earth, not covered by snow, absorbs more heat from the sun than the clouds, and heats up more, on clear days. The clouds block some of the sun’s radiation and irradiate it back to space, so what they irradiate to earth is less than what the earth would have got directly from the sun on a clear day.

Dave Springer
October 13, 2011 1:25 am

davidmhoffer says:
October 12, 2011 at 8:18 pm
“A livestock guard dog is a dog that has been trained to do something and either does it well or doesn’t.”
LGDs are born not trained. The guardian quality is instinctive. What they guard is determined by imprinting as pups. [SNIP – ugly gratuitous insult. -w.]

Dave Springer
October 13, 2011 1:39 am

Septic Matthew says:
October 12, 2011 at 8:03 pm
“So the clouds evaporate when the surface below them is cooler?”
Water evaporates all the time. Even ice. In any give group of water molecules there is a distribution where a majority fall within a certain energy band with some outliears having much more than average and some much less. The average energy of the group is the “temperature”. At any given time some number of molecules will be very close to having enough energy to vaporize and only need a bump from an adjecent molecule to push them over the edge. In this manner even ice turns directly into vapor. Solar energy accelerates this process driving a greater number of molecules over the edge.
Your question is thus nonsense as evaporation happens regardless of temperature.

Dave Springer
October 13, 2011 1:46 am

[SNIP – ugly gratuitous insult. -w.]

coldlynx
October 13, 2011 1:50 am

Rob Dekker ;
Ramanathan definition of forcing are in W/m2. Insolation is included in Ramanathan calculations only in reflected SW. Not for outgoing LW. The “reference point” Ramanathan used for LW was clear sky conditions. That make sense only if clear sky temperature are “right”. Willis divide forcing with insolation and by that get a better “reference point” for outgoing LW.

davidmhoffer
October 13, 2011 2:30 am

Rob;
davidmhoffer, Interesting concept. By your measure, Willis Eschenbach cannot be hold accountable for the abundant scientific and algebraic mistakes he made simply because he is “trained” to do so.
OK. That’s one way of looking at it.>>>
I can only assume you are making a feeble attempt at humour and are suffering under the delusion that your remark is amusing.

coldlynx
October 13, 2011 2:34 am

By not have outgoing LW as a function of insolation are Ramanathan including feedback in his definition of forcing. LW clear sky conditions are a function of feedback.
Willis have by this eliminated cloud feedback from Ramanathan classic forcing definition.
Now we all wonder how Willis will calculate feedback.

Dave Springer
October 13, 2011 3:32 am

[SNIP – Dave, despite being politely and repeatedly requested not to post about whether DLR can heat water on this thread, you continue to do so. I will continue to snip them, and I will continue to point out that this is not adult behavior. TAKE IT SOMEPLACE ELSE!! -w.]

October 13, 2011 3:39 am

Just a thought – if this governor theory works and if it is sometimes positive and sometimes negative or near zero(and you are dealing in short as opposed to long time frames) then if the governor is reset in the longer term timeframe by invoking Svensmark (more/less clouds for same inputs might you not get changes in the level of “insolation” and hence long periods of cooling and or warming.

Richard S Courtney
October 13, 2011 6:52 am

Rob:
Your post at October 13, 2011 at 12:28 am is devoid of content except for abuse, ad hom and unsubstantiated insulting assertions attacking Willis, his competence and his integrity.
Such offensive nonsense is typical of posts at (un)RealClimate or Skeptical (pseudo)Science, but it is not acceptable here because it wastes space on the page and distracts from adult conversation. WUWT is a scientific blog and your behaviour is very inappropriate here. Please desist because you are lowering the tone.
Richard
[COMMENT: Richard, I was on the road. I just got back, and going through the thread I deleted his comment. Thank you for pointing out that such behavior is unacceptable. Much appreciated. -w.]

Dave Springer
October 13, 2011 8:27 am

davidmhoffer says:
October 13, 2011 at 2:30 am
Rob;
davidmhoffer, Interesting concept. By your measure, Willis Eschenbach cannot be hold accountable for the abundant scientific and algebraic mistakes he made simply because he is “trained” to do so.
OK. That’s one way of looking at it.>>>
“I can only assume you are making a feeble attempt at humour and are suffering under the delusion that your remark is amusing.”
It’s at least as funny as faking neighbors into thinking they saw a UFO. I guess your sense of humor takes a walk when the joke is at your expense instead of you getting your jollies at the expense of others.
[SNIP: Totally uncalled for and juvenile. -REP]

Jeff D
October 13, 2011 9:00 am

Dave Springer’s last post I think is what is termed as the “hot water bottle theory”? I am not seeing where this and Willis cloud scenario have to be mutually exclusive.
Dave’s comment :
These clouds in turn will then block shortwave solar energy from warming the ocean and the lower ocean temperature will have a lower evaporation rate, the lower evaporation rate will mean fewer clouds, which will then allow more solar heating, which will then raise the evaporation rate… and so on ad infinitum where the net result is a self-regulating equilibrium point for ocean mixed layer temperature.
is pretty close to half of Willi’s research. This in particular ( self-regulating equilibrium point ) I think most laypeople would call this a “governor”.
We have the oceans as well as the clouds providing self regulation/ governing, now put on top of that the little bit of solar variability that Svenson tosses into the mix and i think it comes a dam site closer to possible working version. Well anything better than the “Team” has pushed threw peer review.
Can anyone else see why these cannot sit side by side?

Septic Matthew
October 13, 2011 9:50 am

Dave Springer: Water evaporates all the time.
You can even watch the water evaporate from the asphalt streets during a downpour, but would you say at that time that the “clouds” are evaporating? (more properly, what you can “see” is the vaporized rain recondensing, but the water does evaporate off the street surface.) This got started with the comment that clouds would evaporate at night when over cooler surface, instead of warming the surface.
I think that you are chattering on and on without admitting that you were/are wrong on the points at issue.
My grandmother used to hang clothes outside to dry even in the coldest weather. The water would freeze, but evaporate (“sublime” as they like to call it) in the cold wind, and the clothes would be dry after a while. But that’s hardly the same as saying that a “cloud” would evaporate because the ground beneath it is cooler.

davidmhoffer
October 13, 2011 10:20 am

Dave Springer;
LGDs are born not trained. The guardian quality is instinctive. What they guard is determined by imprinting as pups. As usual you pretend to knowledge about things which you haven’t the first clue>>>
Dogs are pack animals and will learn the accepted norms of behaviour from the pack. Since they accept human beings as being part of the pack, and are intensely loyal to the pack, they can be easily trained by involving them with already trained dogs, or in isolation of any other dogs at all. They can be trained to guard a lamp post if you wanted to, and they can be trained to NOT do things that they learned as pups. Training is much easier if the dog starts with a clean slate, as “untraining” them is a more difficult, but by no means impossible, task.
So regardless of the guard behaviour having been learned from being raised with trained dogs, or from being trained via some other method, the dog still behaves “as trained” and as a member of the pack it belongs to, including humans.
Had you any experience herding thousands of free range cattle and working with a variety of dogs some of which you trained yourself, or had the task of “untraining” a dog onsomething it learned as a pup, then YOU would know what you are talking about.