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.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
235 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
davidmhoffer
October 13, 2011 10:30 am

Dave Springer;
It’s at least as funny as faking neighbors into thinking they saw a UFO.>>>
No, that was ACTUALLY funny, and it served a valuable purpose, which was to demonstrate to the local media that very simple things could be easily mistaken by casual observers who failed to investigate their observations and simply jumped to conclusions, which were then reported by the media who ACCEPTED those conclusions and REPORTED on them was a far more likely explanation for UFO sightings than alien visitors.
The suggestion that Willis has been “trained” to make mathematical mistakes was simply insulting to Willis, and the suggestion that dogs can be trained to do various things quite apart from their ethics somehow makes that accusation against Willis (or anyone else) in any way logical is neither logical nor funny.

davidmhoffer
October 13, 2011 10:38 am

Dave Springer;
So what happens isn’t an ocean temperature that is warmer than it would be otherwise due to DLR. What happens is a layer of warm clouds where there would otherwise be cold clear dry air.>>>
As I explained in another comment, and processes such as rain, wind, wave action that cause active mixing at the surface as a consequence result in a portion of the water that would otherwise have evaporated instead being mixed with cooler water below, thus absorbing some portion of the DLR.
In addition, the water that does evaporate does not instantly ascend to cloud level, it comes into existance as water vapour exactly at the surface layer of the water. This allows for transfer of energy via conduction. Further, the water vapour being an extremely powerful GHG, the faster it forms, the more upward bound LW it absorbs and re-radiates, a portion of which would then be returned downward that would otherwise have escaped upward. This results in increased DLR back to the water surface, where some portion of it may once again be absorbed by the othwer processes described.

graphicconception
October 13, 2011 2:58 pm

I think we are all sharing the same view of “feedback” and this is hampering our understanding. For instance, this link describes negative feedback as being like a governor: http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CD8QFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.control-systems-principles.co.uk%2Fwhitepapers%2Fengine-speed-control.pdf&rct=j&q=feedback%20governor%20theory%20&ei=lFaXTpiDF4Ki8QPA3djGBQ&usg=AFQjCNGIjc3DUX0cdFfaUkd7xDhOitJ7ZA
So I can’t agree with Willis’s statement that it is a governor not a feedback.
Also, I do not agree with this [quote from Jacob -w.]: “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).”
If the forcing function is cooling but the clouds are warming then that is negative feedback, not positive. That is, the clouds are opposing the original effect so the feedback is negative. If the clouds were to enhance the original effect then that would be positive feedback.
This is probably because I trained as an engineer and covered some control theory along the way.
I also struggle with “touchy feely” types who regard negative feedback as bad and positive feedback as good!

graphicconception
October 13, 2011 3:01 pm

Sorry, it’s late here:
“I think we are all sharing the same view …”
should, of course, have been
“I think we are not all sharing the same view …”

davidmhoffer
October 13, 2011 3:54 pm

graphicconception;
If the forcing function is cooling but the clouds are warming then that is negative feedback, not positive.>>>
Well you’re right, but in the context of climate discussion the reference is in most cases meant to be the net effect on earth surface. A cloud would reduce the amount of insolation that arrives at earth surface, but increase the amount of longwave radiance absorbed from earth and re-radiated back. In that context, is the NET effect of the cloud increased energy flux at earth surface, or decreased? +ve or -ve?
I agree with Willis and others who say it is positive at low insolation and negative at high insolation, and from that perspective the terminology seems apt.

October 13, 2011 4:06 pm

graphicconception,
You are, of course, correct about the loose use of the terms “positive” vs. “negative” feedback.
The clouds have, in all cases, a warming effect and a cooling effect, both, together. In winter, over snow covered ground, their cooling effect (reflection of radiation to space) is less than the cooling effect of the snow covered ground, so they have a net warming effect. In summer – it’s the other way round.
I wish to differ from the opinion of warmists (like say, Dessler) who emphatically stress that clouds are a “feedback” and not a “forcing”. If “forcing” means a modification of the energy balance between Earth and outer space then clouds do modify this balance through their albedo, which is different from the earth’s albedo. I think Dr Spencer is right. The clouds’ influence isn’t merely local – that is – transferring heat from one part of the globe to another. They influence the transfer of heat from the sun to earth through blocking and reflection (relative to earth), and from the earth back to outer space through blocking of IR radiation from earth. These two quantities cannot be equal, and the difference is the forcing – whether positive – more heat trapped on earth – or negative – more heat reflected back to space.

Rob
October 13, 2011 11:11 pm

Richard S Courtney 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.

[SNIP – ugly gratuitous insult]
Willis definition of cloud forcing is “the amount of downwelling longwave radiation (DLR, or “greenhouse radiation”) produced by the cloud, minus the amount of solar energy reflected by the cloud (upwelling shortwave radiation, or USR)”.
However, the DATA that he shows is from ERBE. And ERBE does not measure “downwelling longwave radiation”. It measure “space-bound” longwave radiation. So if Willis’ definition is “appropriate” as you suggest, then he uses the wrong data to make his point. And if his definition is wrong, then the data is fine, but then the conclusions don’t match with his definition of cloud forcing.
Also, the ERBE data page that Willis refers to shows the plots with “cloud forcing” that Willis bases his figure 1 on. However, this data page uses Ramanathan et al’s definition of cloud forcing, and NOT Willis Eschenbach’s definition.
And that’s only the first big mistake in this post. The second one is where he confuses forcing with feedback (oops, I mean “governor”). As Dr. Spencer and Bart Verheggen pointed out, it is confusing (but crucial) to get the difference right, and Anthony corrected his mistakes, but Eschenbach remains silent.
[SNIP – ugly gratuitous insult]

Spector
October 13, 2011 11:54 pm

Out-Welling vs. Up-Welling
If we are talking about longwave infra red radiation measured in watts per square meter, I wonder if out-welling radiation might be a more important parameter.
As an example, if one were in a well-insulated room that had a constant temperature, one would see the same amount of down-welling radiation coming from the ceiling as up-welling radiation coming from the floor. In fact, you would see the same amount of radiation coming from every surface in the room in W/m², no matter what the albedo of that surface might be.
Suppose the ceiling were cooler than the floor. Then the down-welling energy from the ceiling would be less than the up-welling radiation from the floor. Thus, there must be a net energy flow from the floor to the ceiling. I would call that energy being transferred up from the floor to be ‘out-welling’ energy and it would be the up-welling energy from the floor minus the down-welling energy coming down from the ceiling.
One might define the minimum of the up-welling and down-welling radiation flow at any point to be the locally trapped energy at any level, assuming that we are only considering vertical energy flows. It would be a little more complex if we were interested in lateral energy flow as well.
As long as all we are talking about is energy flow (power) per unit surface area, the fine structure of absorption spectra is insignificant. It may well be that the increasing out-welling energy with altitude is due to the progressive generation of more photons that can leak around the strong absorption bands.
Just a thought.

Dave Springer
October 14, 2011 6:09 am

[SNIP – take your claims about DLR not being able to heat the ocean elsewhere. -w.]

Dave Springer
October 14, 2011 6:17 am

[SNIP – no DLR. w.]

Dave Springer
October 14, 2011 6:41 am

[SNIP – ugly gratuitous insult. w.]

Dave Springer
October 14, 2011 6:46 am

[SNIP – ugly gratuitous insult. w.]

Dave Springer
October 14, 2011 7:13 am

[SNIP: Really, Dave? A rant about dogs and dog behavior on a thread discussing cloud forcing? TAKE THIS OFF TOPIC NONSENSE SOMEWHERE ELSE!!! w.]

Dave Springer
October 14, 2011 7:52 am

[SNIP: Totally uncalled for and juvenile. -REP]
Depending on how you assess and value humor. I thought some humor was called for. Humor is very often juvenile in nature so that’s immaterial. Go back and snip Hoffer telling me I might lose a few teeth for some slight he perceived me saying to him which is what started this in the first place. Where I come from violence of that sort is juvenile behavior and isn’t tolerated among civil adults. But I guess it’s okay here since it wasn’t snipped?
[REPLY: Dave, it wasn’t funny. Sometimes stuff gets by us, but threats of violence are not acceptable at WUWT and if one got by, I apologize. It would be good if you and the other Dave could put aside the acrimonious parts and argue the merits. -REP]

gnomish
October 14, 2011 9:04 am

being right should be satisfaction enough, dave s.
no need to defend the unassailable.
btw- water vapor need not rise by convection as it’s much lighter than the other atmospheric gases.
another note- there is an important distinction to be drawn between ‘reradiation’ and ‘reflection’.
clouds reflect sw and visible emr. they also reflect ir to some extent – depending on angle of incidence to the droplet. NOT all light coming from a cloud is due to emissivity.

davidmhoffer
October 14, 2011 10:23 am

[SNIP: Dave and David, stop this nonsense. People are starting to stare. w.]

Brian H
Reply to  davidmhoffer
October 14, 2011 10:51 am

[SNIP- What is it with dogs? THIS IS ABOUT CLIMATE SCIENCE, NOT YOUR DAMN POOCHES AND HOW THEY BEHAVE!! w.]

davidmhoffer
October 14, 2011 10:32 am

Dave Springer;
Go back and snip Hoffer telling me I might lose a few teeth for some slight he perceived me saying to him which is what started this in the first place.>>>
For the record, I made no such threat. Go back and read precisely what I said in response to your accusation that I mutilated dead animals, and then read my comments afterward clarifying what I said.
Mods ~ I’m not interested in rehashing that discussion but I won’t allow false accusations to stand either.
[REPLY: You are both valued commenters. Let’s try and keep it civil and on-topic. OK? -REP]

gnomish
October 14, 2011 10:40 am

“The water experiences a temperature increase prior to evaporation during which it may transfer energy via conductance. Once evaporated, the water molecules still exist in immediate contact with the water surface ”
there is no physics that requires water to experience a temperature increase prior to evaporation.
in plain truth, evaporation removes heat and lowers temperature. as a consequence, throughout the process of evaporation, the source water must be continuously declining in temperature unless additional heat is provided.
once evaporated, the water gas rises and is immediately replaced by much denser stuff – air – and is no longer in direct contact with the surface.
and not everything about heat transfer is covered by radiation physics. it can’t be stretched that far. in a gas, the heat is shared by collision. that’s why a thermometer works at all. (a real thermometer)

davidmhoffer
October 14, 2011 11:06 am

[SNIP- No Dogs Allowed, Nor Discussion Thereof. Take It Elsewhere. w.]

Spector
October 14, 2011 1:08 pm

Convection Dynamics –
In the troposphere, the normal rate at which temperature decreases with altitude, the ‘Environmental Lapse Rate’ is 6.49 deg C per kilometer up. This applies in a normal uniform atmosphere. The actual temperature profile may exhibit discontinuities when warm and cold fronts are in contact.
Rising, dry air cools at an adiabatic (without adding or losing energy) rate of 9.8 deg C per kilometer up. This is called the “Dry Adiabatic Lapse Rate.’ With this you can calculate how high a warmer than usual air mass at ground level will rise before it cools to the same temperature as the surrounding air. This is because it will cool at a rate of 3.31 degrees per kilometer *with respect* to the surrounding air. For example, an air mass that is 5 deg C warmer than the normal surrounding air will rise 5/3.31 or 1.51 kilometers unless something special happens.
One such something special is condensation. Condensing air only cools at a rate of 5 deg C per kilometer, the so-called ‘Wet Adiabatic Lapse Rate’ do to the added heat of condensation. In this case the condensing air will actually warm with respect to the surrounding air at a rate of 1.49 degrees C per kilometer up. Thus, once condensation sets in, this air parcel will rise until it runs out of water vapor to condense or until it reaches a level of warmer air.
Note that descending dry air will tend to warm at 9.8 deg C per kilometer down. Thus the -55 deg C air at the tropopause level, 15 km up, would warm 147 deg to 92 deg C if sucked adiabatically down to the surface. Thus, the extra heat must be radiated off planet before that air can return to the surface as part of the normal convection cycle.

Septic Matthew
October 14, 2011 2:26 pm

Spector: Condensing air only cools at a rate of 5 deg C per kilometer, the so-called ‘Wet Adiabatic Lapse Rate’ do to the added heat of condensation.
For that quote, and the dry adiabatic lapse rate that you mention, over what time spans do these coolings and warmings occur?
Surely (?) these rates (per kilometer) do not apply to the thermals and thunder clouds that climb high over the Midwestern Plains in the summer.

Spector
October 14, 2011 4:43 pm

RE: Septic Matthew: (October 14, 2011 at 2:26 pm)
“For that quote, and the dry adiabatic lapse rate that you mention, over what time spans do these coolings and warmings occur?”
These numbers apply to air masses that change altitude due to buoyancy or some other cause that does not add extra heat to the rising (or descending) air. It is a consequence of how temperature, volume, and pressure of a gas are related if no extra heat is added, with the single exception being the heat of condensation.
From the Wikipedia
Environmental Lapse Rate
“The environmental lapse rate (ELR), is the rate of decrease of temperature with altitude in the stationary atmosphere at a given time and location. As an average, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) defines an international standard atmosphere (ISA) with a temperature lapse rate of 6.49 K(°C)/1,000 m…”
Dry Adiabatic Lapse Rate
“The dry adiabatic lapse rate (DALR) is the rate of temperature decrease with height for a parcel of dry or unsaturated air rising under adiabatic conditions. … Since the parcel does work but gains no heat, it loses internal energy so that its temperature decreases. The rate of temperature decrease is 9.8 °C per 1,000 m”
Saturated [Wet] Adiabatic Lapse Rate
“When the air is saturated with water vapor (at its dew point), the moist adiabatic lapse rate (MALR) or saturated adiabatic lapse rate (SALR) applies. This lapse rate varies strongly with temperature. A typical value is around 5 °C/km”

I see I have missed the notation on the temperature dependence factor of the SALR. It may be necessary to look into evaluating the complex formula given to see how much that might be.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate#Environmental_lapse_rate

Septic Matthew
October 14, 2011 6:40 pm

Spector: is the rate of decrease of temperature with altitude in the stationary atmosphere at a given time and location
What can we say about the situation I mentioned when the atmosphere is not stationary — anything?

Richard S Courtney
October 14, 2011 6:42 pm

Rob:
I am grateful that you have attempted to make a logical argument in your post at October 13, 2011 at 11:11 pm. The attempt is a significant improvement on your earlier posts above, but your assertion that I am “getting a bit silly” is not substantiated (although this may be correct as my years advance) and your concluding paragraph is yet more of your ad hom against Willis.
In your attempt at logical argument you say:
“Willis definition of cloud forcing is “the amount of downwelling longwave radiation (DLR, or “greenhouse radiation”) produced by the cloud, minus the amount of solar energy reflected by the cloud (upwelling shortwave radiation, or USR)”.
However, the DATA that he shows is from ERBE. And ERBE does not measure “downwelling longwave radiation”. It measure “space-bound” longwave radiation. So if Willis’ definition is “appropriate” as you suggest, then he uses the wrong data to make his point. And if his definition is wrong, then the data is fine, but then the conclusions don’t match with his definition of cloud forcing.”
Say what?
Willis actually says;
“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.”
Please explain why you think that is wrong.
And your failure to understand the difference between feedback and governor behaviour is not a fault of Willis.
You seem to think personal insults are an alternative to rational argument. They are not.
Richard

Spector
October 15, 2011 1:19 am

RE: Septic Matthew: (October 14, 2011 at 6:40 pm)
“What can we say about the situation I mentioned when the atmosphere is not stationary — anything?”
That depends on the degree that it is not stationary. The value quoted usually remains more or less true if little vertical motion is going on overhead. The temperature decrease rate of 6.49 deg C per km up is a typical average in the troposphere only. The Weather Service launches weather balloons to measure the actual variation. The following is a link to an hourly virtual (computer modeled or interpolated, I presume) profile of the atmosphere above the Sand Point Naval Air Station at Seattle, WA.
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/cgi-bin/latest.cgi?profiler.spt
I believe the diagonal lines represent the standard lapse rate.
If there is a layer of warm air overhead, one usually sees the normal lapse rate from the surface and then the temperature rises as we go through the mixing or inversion layer and then finally it begins to drop once again at the standard lapse rate.