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.

[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]
I laughed as I wrote it. Therefore it was funny to someone and your assertion is rendered false. It may not have been funny to you but no one died and made you the ultimate judge of funny for everyone else.
[SNIP Now children, no food fights. w.]
[SNIP No dogs either. w.]
[SNIP- You care about dogs. I care about dogs. Go care elsewhere. w.]
[SNIP Nobody cares if you were insulted. Nobody cares if Hoffer was insulted. You to need to find a room and fight it out? This is not the room. w.]
[SNIP Food fight, Hoffer vs Springer, 3 rounds. w.]
[SNIP Food fight, Hoffer vs. the Other Dave, 3 rounds. Booooring … w.]
As soon as two experts disagree, all bets are off.
Spector: The value quoted usually remains more or less true if little vertical motion is going on overhead….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.
I would conjecture that between 8am and 7pm, between the Spring Equinox and The Fall Equinox, between the Appalachian and Rocky Mountains, the model value is never within 10% of the actual value anywhere. I would also conjecture that the same is true of the North Atlantic and North Pacific in the same latitudes as the Contiguous US.
The models used for estimating the Climate Sensitivity are inaccurate and full of cavities. 10% here, 10% there, 10% everywhere, the errors accumulate in the models, rendering them too inaccurate to be relied upon for anything..
Brian, which two experts are you talking about ? Eschenbach has been silent ever since the mistakes in his post were pointed out.
Rob says:
October 16, 2011 at 1:43 am
So, you are suggesting that he has gone silent due to being caught out in mistakes? Perhaps, just perhap s, it could be because of the below.
Rob says:
October 13, 2011 at 11:11 pm
First, you will note that I have snipped your nastiness. Cut it out, it just makes people point and laugh.
Second, you claim that the cloud LW numbers in the ERBE data is upwelling LW, not downwelling LW.
However, the ERBE data has three columns of cloud radiation data, entitled SW CLOUD FORCING, LW CLOUD FORCING, and NET CLOUD FORCING. Net cloud forcing is the value of the LW cloud forcing minus the value of the SW cloud forcing. Do the math to confirm this, it’s the central point.
Now, if the direction of the LW forcing were upwards as you claim, the net cloud forcing would be the value of the LW cloud forcing plus the value of the SW cloud forcing. It would have to be of LW plus SW, because the SW cloud forcing is upwelling (reflected sunlight going away from the earth). If the LW is also upwelling, their net forcing would be have to be the sum of the two. Since it is not, we have to assume the LW is downwelling.
Q.E.D.
You also say:
I have said it many times, but I guess you didn’t get the memo. If you disagree with something that I have written, QUOTE IT. Your statement that I am confusing “forcing with feedback (oops I mean “governor”)” is totally devoid of content. By that I mean I haven’t a clue what it is that you are objecting to, or where I (not Anthony, but I) been corrected by Dr. Roy and Bart, or how I confused a governor with forcing. What you have given us is nothing but a content free attack plus some name-dropping about what Bart said to Anthony …
If you want to get traction here, quote my exact words that you are objecting to, and cite your claims.
w.
Legatus says:
October 16, 2011 at 7:33 pm
Thanks, Legatus. I just got back in from a vastly entertaining Oregon hitchhiking trip, and I find the two Daves butting chests and exchanging dire and non-dire threats, and Rob is all about insulting me. Anyways, my answer to Rob is above, and I snipped most of the Battle of the Daves. The beat goes on.
w.
graphicconception says:
October 13, 2011 at 2:58 pm
Thanks, graphic. What that link describes is how a governor uses negative feedback to control the speed of an engine. Please note that the governor and the negative feedback are very different things.
I just want to note that the quote objected to was from Jacob, not from me.
If that has happened on this thread, quote it. If not, why should I care what some anonymous person believes?
w.
Willis Eschenbach First, you will note that I have snipped your nastiness. Cut it out, it just makes people point and laugh.
Yes, I noticed that you snipped not just mine, but quite a few comments that were approved by WUWT moderators, many of which were questioning your scientific integrity and competence. I also noticed that you snipped my concluding remarks, which were actually quotes from one of your own previous post, when you were accusing climate scientists of “egregious and repeated scientific malfeasance”, even before you actually address the critisism to the mistakes you made in this post.
Second, you claim that the cloud LW numbers in the ERBE data is upwelling LW, not downwelling LW.
However, the ERBE data has three columns of cloud radiation data, entitled SW CLOUD FORCING, LW CLOUD FORCING, and NET CLOUD FORCING. Net cloud forcing is the value of the LW cloud forcing minus the value of the SW cloud forcing. Do the math to confirm this, it’s the central point.
Now, if the direction of the LW forcing were upwards as you claim, the net cloud forcing would be the value of the LW cloud forcing plus the value of the SW cloud forcing. It would have to be of LW plus SW, because the SW cloud forcing is upwelling (reflected sunlight going away from the earth). If the LW is also upwelling, their net forcing would be have to be the sum of the two. Since it is not, we have to assume the LW is downwelling.
Q.E.D.
Let me try this again : First of all, ERBE is an instrument aboard a satellite (above the atmosphere). It observes three forms of radiation : (1) direct insolation from the sun (2) “upwelling” SW (shortwave) radiation (reflected by planet Earth) and (3) “upwelling” LW emitted by planet Earth.
It is INCAPABLE of measuring the “downwelling” LW that you propose in your definition of cloud forcing.
Now please let us know where you found these “three columns” that supposedly show the SW, LW and NET cloud forcing. I bet that these are CALCULATED numbers, using a FORMULA. Then, please show us which formula they used to calculate these cloud forcing numbers from the ERBE observations, and compare that to YOUR formula of cloud forcing. You will find that there is no “downwelling LW” in that formula, and thus your definition of cloud forcing is incompatible with the ERBE data that you use to make your point.
This is only the first egregious mistake in your post, and as I suggested before, it would show integrity if you could simply acknowledge this mistake and correct it, so we can move on to the second fundamental error in your post.
Willis Eschenbach First, you will note that I have snipped your nastiness. Cut it out, it just makes people point and laugh.
Yes, I noticed that you snipped quite a few comments that were approved by WUWT moderators. I also noticed that you snipped my concluding remarks (which were actually exact words used by you in one of your own previous post, when you were accusing climate scientists of “egregious and repeated scientific malfeasance”) even before you address the criticism to the mistakes made in this post.
Second, you claim that the cloud LW numbers in the ERBE data is upwelling LW, not downwelling LW.
However, the ERBE data has three columns of cloud radiation data, entitled SW CLOUD FORCING, LW CLOUD FORCING, and NET CLOUD FORCING. Net cloud forcing is the value of the LW cloud forcing minus the value of the SW cloud forcing. Do the math to confirm this, it’s the central point.
Now, if the direction of the LW forcing were upwards as you claim, the net cloud forcing would be the value of the LW cloud forcing plus the value of the SW cloud forcing. It would have to be of LW plus SW, because the SW cloud forcing is upwelling (reflected sunlight going away from the earth). If the LW is also upwelling, their net forcing would be have to be the sum of the two. Since it is not, we have to assume the LW is downwelling.
Q.E.D.
First of all, ERBE is an instrument aboard a satellite (above the atmosphere). It observes three forms of radiation : (1) direct insolation from the sun (2) “upwelling” SW (shortwave) radiation (reflected by planet Earth) and (3) “upwelling” LW emitted by planet Earth.
It is INCAPABLE of measuring the “downwelling” LW that you propose.
Now please let us know where you found these “three columns” that supposedly show the SW, LW and NET cloud forcing. I bet that these are CALCULATED numbers, using a FORMULA. Then, please show us which formula they used to calculate these cloud forcing numbers in the three columns, and compare that to your formula of cloud forcing. You will find that there is no “downwelling LW” in that formula, and thus your definition of cloud forcing is incompatible with the ERBE data that you use to make your point.
This is only the first egregious mistake in your post, and as I suggested before, it would show integrity if you could simply acknowledge this mistake and correct it, so we can move on to the second fundamental error in your post.
P.S. Re-posting with some punctual mistakes corrected, since the first post may have been accidentally deleted :
http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/6561/wuwtoct18aa2011.jpg
http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/4254/wuwtoct18bb2011.jpg
Rob Dekker says:
October 18, 2011 at 2:30 am
Rob, I told you before I’d snip off-topic comments. Now you want to bitch because I snipped your off-topic comment? If you don’t like it, start your own blog, or, gosh, wait, there is another solution! I have it! You could just dial back on the off-topic comments.
And yes, I did snip some of the things that the moderators didn’t. That’s why it’s called “my thread”. I get to judge what’s off-topic, and not usually but occasionally, my judgement is different from that of the moderators. Get used to it, that won’t change.
Finally, I don’t snip on-topic science, nor do any of the moderators. Stick to that and you’ll never get bothered.
First, I already posted where I got the ERBE data I used. And I’m not going to hold your johnson just so you can urinate on me. Look it up yourself.
Second, you have not answered the question. If both the LW and SW radiation are going in the same direction as you claim, then why is the NET column one minus the other? If what you say were true, it would have to be the sum of both … but it’s not.
Integrity? Say what? Sorry, I take my instruction in integrity from people who actually have it. I also admit my mistakes when I see them, I’m known on the web as one of the climate bloggers who do that. But we’re not to that point yet, you haven’t explained why NET is LW minus SW.
w.
Willis you haven’t explained why NET is LW minus SW
Where did you find that NET is LW minus SW ?
In his latest comment, Willis stated Net cloud forcing is the value of the LW cloud forcing minus the value of the SW cloud forcing
And earier, in your post you state : Net cloud forcing is defined as 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).
You are not making this easy for us Willis. Are you saying that “LW cloud forcing” is the same as “the amount of downwelling longwave radiation”, and that “SW cloud forcing” is the same as “upwelling shortwave radiation, or USR” ?
RE: Septic Matthew says: (October 15, 2011 at 10:10 am)
“Spector: . . . The models used for estimating the Climate Sensitivity are inaccurate and full of cavities. 10% here, 10% there, 10% everywhere, the errors accumulate in the models, rendering them too inaccurate to be relied upon for anything.”
I have made no statement about models and climate sensitivity, just general principles of nature that apply on average but not in every case. A person can drown in a river that has an average depth of three feet.
In general, the temperature of the lower atmosphere cools at a rate of about 6.5 degrees C per kilometer of altitude increase until the transition region between the troposphere and the stratosphere is reached. This lapse rate is something of a compromise between dry air that cools at 9.8 degrees C per kilometer as it rises without heat exchange and wet condensing air that only cools at 5 degrees C per kilometer due to the added heat of condensation.
A rising column of dry air should cool adiabatically (without heat exchange or mixing) at a rate of 9.8 degrees C per kilometer. Only warmer, less dense air rises, thus when this rising column of air, or ‘thermal,’ reaches the altitude where it has cooled to the same temperature as the overall surrounding air, it must stop rising because cooling air cannot rise above warmer air (unless it is rising so fast as to be carried higher by its own momentum.) In clear dry weather, one must assume that all thermals reach their maximum altitude before they cool below their condensation temperatures. Otherwise, I think we would, at least, see ‘puffy’ clouds at the top of each thermal.
Thunderstorms would not be possible unless continued warming from the heat of condensation allowed a parcel of air to rise ever higher until it had squeezed out every last drop of moisture.
The image below shows the typical temperature profile of the atmosphere from Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit website. As you can see, the slope of the temperature curve below 10 km is about 6.5 deg C per km.
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/vert_temp.gif
Willis, in the Post you said: “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.”, which is fair enough working with monthly data.
However, by using graphical interpolation and some iteration ( i.e., trial and error) I deduced that in the N. Hem. the lag varies from ~1.05 Mo in midwinter to ~1.25 Mo in midsummer. In the S. Hem. the lag is ~1.65 throughout all seasons. The lag lines are distinctly non linear, particularly in the N. Hem..
From these lag lines, rates of temperature change were estimated, again graphically, as follows:
W/m^2 / Deg. C. Deg. C / W/m^2
N. Hem. Summer 15.7 0.064
Winter 21.5 0.047
S. Hem. Summer 48.8 0.021
Winter 65.0 0.015
These results show up the huge difference between southern and northern hemispheres, due to the imbalance of land surface vs. ocean. In the N. Hem. between lat. 40 deg. & 65 deg. there is about 65% land, and in the S. Hem. between lat.-40 deg. & -65 deg. there is about 95% ocean.
Incidentally, I note a difference in the range of insolation used on the X axis from max. summer to min. winter in southern and northern hemispheres: ~230 to 460 in the north but ~235 to 480 in the south. Would barely affect the above, but it looks odd.
Results look better this way:-
From these lag lines, rates of temperature change were estimated, again graphically, as follows:
—————————-W/m^2 / Deg. C.—Deg. C / W/m^2
—– N. Hem. Summer——-15.7—————-0.064
—————–Winter——— 21.5—————-0.047
—– S. Hem. Summer—— 48.8—————-0.021
—————–Winter——— 65.0—————-0.015
Willis said First, I already posted where I got the ERBE data I used. And I’m not going to hold your johnson just so you can urinate on me. Look it up yourself.
I did, Willis. And you know, the funny thing is that the ERBE data you linked to does not show “three columns”, and it does not show “downwelling LW” radiation either. Weird, huh ? It’s almost like you made things like that up as you went along.
Willis said I also admit my mistakes when I see them
Please let me know which mistake you don’t “see” yet. Is it that you don’t see that you contradict yourself on how you defined cloud forcing (my post of October 19, 2011 at 1:22 am) or is it that you don’t see that ERBE is simply not capable of measuring “downwelling LW” radiation ?
Damnation, that is frustrating. I was sure that I had checked on that data and that the net was the LW minus SW … it must have been another dataset. So you are totally correct, Rob, and I was totally wrong. My bad.
However, it was a very fortuitous mistake, in that otherwise, I wouldn’t have tried the procedure. Because the curious question is why my procedure (subtract the SW from the LW) revealed a host of expected features such as the cooling of the ITCZ by the clouds there.
After thinking about it, it seems likely that the ULR is proportional to the DLR, which is why the procedure reveals real features of the cloudscape. This makes sense, because of two opposing tendencies. One is the wet adiabatic lapse rate, which would suggest that the top of the cloud is cooler than the bottom.
For half the 24 hours, however, the cloud is being warmed from above by the sun, while the bottom is shaded from the sun. As a result, this would tend to oppose the lapse rate and keep the top and bottom nearer to the same temperature.
In any case, even neglecting solar warming, if a cloud is a kilometer thick, the wet adiabatic lapse rate suggests a cloud top about 5° cooler than the base. If the base is around the freezing level, this would be an increase in radiation of about 7% from the top (316 W/m2) to the base (293 W/m2, blackboy assumed, proportions do not change with graybody assumption).
As a result, what I have is a good method for estimating the net cloud forcing, with an error of ten percent or so … and more to the point, it is still showing warming in the winter and cooling in the summer.
I can see I need to think about all this. In any case, my thanks for your perseverance in showing me my error, I trusted my memory. My mistake.
w.
[UPDATE: see below]
Well, as it turns out, I had checked on the ERBE data, and I was right. The reason that the “Net” is the total of the two is that the SW cloud forcing is already listed as negative (e.g. “-43.56 W/m2”), while the LW was listed as positive (e.g. “37.48 W/m2”). This has the same effect as subtracting the absolute value of the SW from the LW (e.g. “-6.08 W/m2). Figures from the cell at 33.75N 128.75E for January.
So my original statement is unaltered. The LW and the SW must be going in different directions, since they have different signs. Otherwise … what’s your explanation why one is positive and one is negative?
w.
Rob, I also find this:
Radiative and Convective Driving of Tropical High Clouds