The Hockey Schtick brings this to our attention. It seems Dr. Roy Spencer was prescient with his observation:
“The most obvious way for warming to be caused naturally is for small, natural fluctuations in the circulation patterns of the atmosphere and ocean to result in a 1% or 2% decrease in global cloud cover. Clouds are the Earth’s sunshade, and if cloud cover changes for any reason, you have global warming — or global cooling.”
Readers might also recall that evidence has been found for Spencer’s 1-2% cloud fluctuation. Even the National Science Foundation recognizes the role of clouds is uncertain: NSF Releases Online, Multimedia Package Titled, “Clouds: The Wild Card of Climate Change”
WUWT readers may recall the recent paper by Suckling and Smith covered at WUWT: New paper: climate models short on ‘physics required for realistic simulation of the Earth system’
In the Suckling and Smith paper it was concluded that the models they reviewed just don’t have the physical processes of the dynamic and complex Earth captured yet. This paper by de Szoeke et al. published in the Journal of Climate finds that climate models grossly underestimate cooling of the Earth’s surface due to clouds by approximately 50%
According to the authors, “Coupled model intercomparison project (CMIP3) simulations of the climate of the 20th century show 40±20 W m−2 too little net cloud radiative cooling at the surface. Simulated clouds have correct radiative forcing when present, but models have ~50% too few clouds.“
Let that 40 watts/ square meter sink in a moment.
The 40 watts/ square meter underestimate of cooling from clouds is more than 10 times the alleged warming from a doubling of CO2 concentrations, which is said to be 3.7 watts/square meter according to the IPCC (AR4 Section 2.3.1)
So the cloud error in models is an order of magnitude greater than the forcing effect of Co2 claimed by the IPCC. That’s no small potatoes. The de Szoeke et al. paper also speaks to what Willis Eschenbach has been saying about clouds in the tropics.
Here is the paper:
Abstract:
Widespread stratocumulus clouds were observed on 9 transects from 7 research cruises to the southeastern tropical Pacific Ocean along 20°S, 75°-85°W in October-November 2001-2008. The nine transects sample a unique combination of synoptic and interannual variability affecting the clouds; their ensemble diagnoses longitude-vertical sections of the atmosphere, diurnal cycles of cloud properties and drizzle statistics, and the effect of stratocumulus clouds on surface radiation. Mean cloud fraction was 0.88 and 67% of 10-minute overhead cloud fraction observations were overcast. Clouds cleared in the afternoon (15 h local) to a minimum of fraction of 0.7. Precipitation radar found strong drizzle with reflectivity above 40 dBZ.
Cloud base heights rise with longitude from 1.0 km at 75°W to 1.2 km at 85°W in the mean, but the slope varies from cruise to cruise. Cloud base-lifting condensation level (CB-LCL) displacement, a measure of decoupling, increases westward. At night CB-LCL is 0-200 m, and increases 400 m from dawn to 16 h local time, before collapsing in the evening.
Despite zonal gradients in boundary layer and cloud vertical structure, surface radiation and cloud radiative forcing are relatively uniform in longitude. When present, clouds reduce solar radiation by 160 W m−2 and radiate 70 W m−2 more downward longwave radiation than clear skies. Coupled model intercomparison project (CMIP3) simulations of the climate of the 20th century show 40±20 W m−2 too little net cloud radiative cooling at the surface. Simulated clouds have correct radiative forcing when present, but models have ~50% too few clouds.
===============================================================
Given this order of magnitude blunder on clouds, it seems like an opportune time to plug Dr. Spencer’s book where he pointed out the 1-2% cloud forcing issue. Click to review and/or buy at Amazon.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I have seen nothing in the models that deals with Dr. William Gray’s criticisms. The models do not handle the evaporative cooling associated with increased LWIR. It is this conversion of radiation energy to water vapor which then gets transported to the upper atmosphere that appears to be missing. The planet is covered by water and it is not just the oceans. We have lakes, ponds, rivers, puddles, dew, rain-soaked ground, ice, etc.. The 3.7 w/m2 is largely transformed into a slight increase in convective water vapor. The net result is slightly more rain and perhaps a small residual warming of .1 to .2 C per CO2 doubling.
When the models get this right they will need to reduce aerosol effect which is the other factor they have wrong in a major way. Of course, once this is done the future catastrophe will disappear so I’m not looking for any funding to be targeted to investigate these problems.
Steve Mosher says:
“When the models are improved they will complain that the models are being fixed.”
That’s absurd. Improved models would reflect the reality that CAGW is implausible. I doubt anyone here would complain about that.
In reply to: Nick Stokes says: November 29, 2013 at 1:22 pm “Let that 40 watts/ square meter sink in a moment.” But with a little bit of thought. They are talking about a specific area. 20 °S and 10 ° of longitude. Just 7 cruises – we don’t know what time of year. And the 40 W/m2 is an instantaneous variation in surface radiation balance. It isn’t loss to the planet, else we’d certainly have an ice age. There may be some extra albedo. But overall, the difference would mostly add to the large component of SW thermalized in the air rather than at the surface. “When present, clouds reduce solar radiation by 160 W m-2 and radiate 70 W m-2 more downward longwave radiation than clear skies.” This is an odd statement, when you think about it. Clouds come in all shapes and sizes. Insolation varies a lot during the year. But no distribution quoted?
William:
The observational evidence (there must be a physical explanation for all observations, as we all believe in physics not magic 101) is that there has been almost no warming except for warming at high latitudes (see Bob Tisdale’s graph and the paper on latitudinal analysis of the temperature anomaly predicted vs observed). The observational evidence of high latitude warming has been incorrectly called ‘polar’ amplification with the implication that some magic fairy amplifies CO2 warming in the polar regions. The Realclimate blog fails to point out that the same magic fairy apparently inhibits the CO2 warming in all regions of the planet except for high latitude regions so what is observed is not ‘polar’ amplification. Also it should be noted that there is now observed cooling of high latitude regions which indicate the phenomena is reversible which is rules out CO2 as the little warming lights using Gore’s analogue are always on if there is long wave radiation emitted to space.
The crafty magic fairy also inhibits CO2 warming in the tropical troposphere at around 8km above the surface of the planet which is the region of the planet that according to the GCMs should experience the most amount of warming on the planet. (The CO2 mechanism in the lower troposphere is almost saturated according the models due to overlap of the water emission radiation bands and the CO2. Higher the troposphere there is less water so the CO2 warming should be more. The increased warming the higher regions of the troposphere would then warm the surface of the planet by increased long wave radiation.) The complete lack of warming expect in the high latitude regions is a paradox, as is the lack of warming the tropical troposphere at 8km.
Now as CO2 is eventually distributed in the atmosphere and the CO2 forcing is by theory proportional to long wave radiation that is emitted off to space, the lack of warming of the tropical troposphere and the complete lack of warming except for the high latitude regions requires a new mechanism that inhibits the CO2 mechanism higher in the atmosphere but not lower in the atmosphere. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the laws of physics are correct, the problem is there is something different in the upper troposphere that is being missed in the radiation calculations. Support for this assertion is paleo climatic data that shows the planet has been significantly warmer than current for millions than years when CO2 levels where close to current and has been cold (ice sheets) for millions of years when CO2 levels where two to three times current (the lack of correlation of CO2 and temperature paradox).
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/figure-72.png
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf
“These effects do not have the signature associated with CO2 climate forcing. (William: This observation indicates something is fundamental incorrect with the IPCC models, likely negative feedback in the tropics due to increased or decreased planetary cloud cover to resist forcing). However, the data show a small underlying positive trend that is consistent with CO2 climate forcing with no-feedback. (William: This indicates a significant portion of the 20th century warming has due to something rather than CO2 forcing.)”
“These conclusions are contrary to the IPCC [2007] statement: “[M]ost of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/16/about-that-missing-hot-spot/
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
I think the modelers need to focus on cloud-affected albedo equatorially outwards to the 45th parallel, maybe a bit beyond. Why? Because beyond that limit I think oceanic currents of warmed or cold water affect land temperature and ice trends, not clouds. The angle of the Sun just isn’t that great. Within the band of interest, clouds will determine the amount of solar IR penetrating into the oceans, thus significantly changing the amount of heat stored and eventually sent poleward. On the other hand it would be interesting to determine any affects outside this important equatorial band. I think extra-tropical clouds bring about noisy weather variation and the equatorial band drives decadal trends.
Leon0112 says:
November 30, 2013 at 3:51 am
Mosher seems to consistently argue that the “science is not settled” and scientists are working constantly to improve their models and understanding. At least that is my understanding of his comments.
If so, good on him.
======================================================
Well shucks !!
I’ll bet that 97 % of the skeptics agree that the science isn’t settled either.
As far as the “scientists” that are constantly improving their models and understanding, it ain’t working.
Maybe they are spending more time trying to get research grants and funding.
If you have followed this issue for anytime, you would know that it’s been suggested numerous times that the people doing the modeling have their input wrong, yet, they don’t change it.
Well, basically should models not first model based on the known albedo of the Earth?
http://www.bbso.njit.edu/science_may28.html
1. With certainty, increasing CO2 has been increasing plant growth/vegetation productivity on the planet.
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/study-finds-plant-growth-surges-as-co2-levels-rise-16094
“In the end, they teased out the carbon dioxide fertilization effect from all other influences and calculated that this could account for an 11 percent increase in global foliage since 1982.”
2. With certainty, plant transpiration contributes massive amount of water vapor to the global atmosphere.
http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycletranspiration.html
“Studies have revealed that about 10 percent of the moisture found in the atmosphere is released by plants through transpiration.During a growing season, a leaf will transpire many times more water than its own weight. An acre of corn gives off about 3,000-4,000 gallons (11,400-15,100 liters) of water each day, and a large oak tree can transpire 40,000 gallons (151,000 liters) per year”
3. Massive amounts of ground water for irrigation and other needs is increasing soil moisture as well as evaporation. This also increases plant transpiration(combined as evapotranspiration from the soil/plant combination)
http://www.waterworld.com/articles/wwi/print/volume-25/issue-5/groundwater-development-flow-modeling/groundwater-depletion-linked-to-rising.html
“Large-scale groundwater extraction for irrigation, drinking water or industry has resulted in an annual rise in sea levels of approximately 0.8mm – this works out at one quarter of total annual sea-level rise”
4. Additional moisture contributions from the sources above are effecting the global climate. A powerful example on a small scale is the micro climate of the US Cornbelt during the growing season.
http://www.weather.com/outlook/weather-news/news/articles/evapotranspiration-corn-belt-humidity_2011-07-13
“Moreover, evapotranspiration is the gift that keeps on giving too. The high dew point values that evapotranspiration helps to produce are also one of the ingredients that fuels the development of thunderstorms. Those thunderstorms then go on to produce very heavy rainfall which consequently creates high soil moisture content and lush vegetation. The cycle repeats”
https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/opinion/4997/corn-and-climate-sweaty-topic
“Computer models also take vegetation into account. As used by the National Weather Service, the Weather Research and Forecasting model—which divides the United States land area into rectangles roughly 7.5 miles (12 kilometers) on each side—incorporates daily satellite data on the greenness of the landscape within each rectangle (though not on specific plant types). The model then assesses how much water will enter the atmosphere via the vegetation in each grid box. Forecasters can adjust the resulting model guidance based on their knowledge of local planting patterns and crop behavior.”
5. The contribution of evapotranspiration(including ground water) on a planetary scale to atmospheric water vapor is enormous. This clearly would lead to more clouds.
6. To dial much of this into climate models, one would first have to fully acknowledge and give appropriate weighting to the enormous increase in vegetation on our planet from the benefits of CO2 fertilization.
I realize that H2O is a greenhouse gas and the theory behind that. However, in the real world, using just the above, the contribution is one that increases clouds and acts as a negative feedback. Note for example, that an air mass in the Cornbelt in July with dew points boosted 5 degrees from tightly packed corn plants, will have have a much lower LCL(lifting condensation level) so cumulus clouds will develop much earlier in the day……..cutting off sunshine sooner, starting thunderstorms earlier. This same process is taking place globally, though not to that extreme in most locations and does not always have that result(in a dry air mass).
I wonder how many people reading this post (aside from NIck Stokes) understood that the de Szoeke paper, published a year ago, was referring to a small area off the coast of South America along the Andes in October / November? It would not have been hard to write the post in a way that made that clear. Instead, editorial statements like this
give the false impression the paper was making a general statement that wasn’t confined to a particular location and time of year.
Wayne Delbeke says:
November 29, 2013 at 8:17 pm
@ur momisugly Mosher.
Uh … the Models are “fixed”.
===========
Had my dog “fixed” and he can not produce anything valid either.
To clarify my thoughts about drivers of trends versus noise. The equatorial band of clouds allows or reflects various amounts of solar IR into the oceans. Because of the obvious long term variations seen in oceanic/atmospheric teleconnection conditions in this band and the amount of irradiance available to it as a straight-on hit to the ocean surface exposed to this IR in this band, it makes sense that long term trends world wide can be traced back to this important band. Outside of that band we have noisy jet stream weather systems that add noisy data to the underlying trend.
It would be of interest to me to de-aggregate the data in this way and build models that are similarly de-aggregated to cut down on weather noise when we want to project a world trend, or focus on the noise when we want to project the weather.
Pippen Fool says, in response to my statement that…
“…in reality, it is ∆T that causes ∆CO2.”
I can conclusively show that statement is correct: See here. But Pippen, as usual, is making a simple [and wrong] assertion:
“Wow. You are living in your own little imaginary bubble land. Enjoy yourself and be happy.”
Ah, but the bubble is Pippen’s world. He refuses to admit that ∆T causes ∆CO2, when every empirical measurement validates that cause and effect relationship.
While there is no cause and effect showing that changes in CO2 are the cause of changes in temperature.
We’re discussing scientific facts here, Pippen, not your crazy Belief system. Unless you can produce scientific facts showing that changes in CO2 cause changes in global temperature, you lose the debate. Simple as that, no? If that conclusion is wrong, point out the error.
Leo: what are you suggesting? That this site would misrepresent a study’s findings?
Increased water vapour leading to more convective uplift is a major part of the negative system response to more IR in the atmosphere.
Any ‘extra’ IR left over after the hydrological cycle has done its work is dealt with by air parcel expansion at levels off the ground.
The resulting changes in density along the lapse rate slope change convection rates further to eliminate any such ‘extra’ IR for, overall, a full negative system response.
All we could see would be a miniscule change in air circulation too small to separate from solar and oceanic variations.
Models fail because they are modeling an idea, not scientific principles. The GCMs exist only to encourage the belief that something catastrophic can happen with regard to climate. That encouragement does not come from nature, so models are required. Unlike nature, models are compliant.
@claimsguy
What do you think that Leo is suggesting?
Stephen Wilde says:
“Increased water vapour leading to more convective uplift is a major part of the negative system response to more IR in the atmosphere.
Any ‘extra’ IR left over after the hydrological cycle has done its work is dealt with by air parcel expansion at levels off the ground.
The resulting changes in density along the lapse rate slope change convection rates further to eliminate any such ‘extra’ IR for, overall, a full negative system response.
All we could see would be a miniscule change in air circulation too small to separate from solar and oceanic variations”
I respectfully and strongly disagree based on personal observations of the effects on diurnal clouds in the United States Midwest/Cornbelt as an operational meteorologist the past 32 years.
@dp says:”Models fail because they are modeling an idea, not scientific principles. ”
I think this is not strictly true: I believe the models ARE modeling actual physics, at least to some degree. In any model of a complex system there are almost always simplifications: we use easier calculations when we think they won’t hurt, we make assumptions that certain factors will not interact, and we leave things out that we a priori think are not likely to affect the outcome.
Of course, this list I just gave opens the door to significant potential for error, especially with highly nonlinear systems.
In sum, a model can be based on scientific principles, yet still produce horrifically wrong results.
Clouds really make a conundrum don’t they? Water expands as it warms and expansion of a ‘gas’ causes cooling doesn’t it?Maybe that’s why clouds and ice are visible?You know, like change from translucent to opague?Water forms a visible crystalline structure when subjected to certain conditions?Clouds are formed in response to warming temp.? ice formed because of expansion?Atmosphere at altitude is….very cold, lift water molecules that high into the cold and the expansion becomes two fold or exponential(expanding from warmth and expanding from cold at the same time.Yeah .try modeling that–i can see why some modelers left that out, if they included that then we probably wouldn’t be discussing this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phase_diagram_of_water.svg
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-altitude-temperature-d_461.html
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/humid-air-ideal-gas-d_677.html
Who knows .i could be wrong or incomplete in my ‘comment science’ view
Thanks for the interesting articles and comments.
a missing reference link from my comment:
http://www.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/physics-terms/expansion-info.htm
thanks
Anthony,
Taken a few days for this.
If there isn’t a lot of difference between the models for long range and the models for weather and they don’t do clouds well
How the hell do the weather side do rain then?
You would think after 30 odd years of improvement, climate models would be well past the Model “T” range.
Nick Stokes says:
“You have no idea how they are programmed. No such assumption is made.”
On the contrary it is totally implicit.
The moment delta CO2 enters on the right hand side of any global warming equation and delta T on the left, you are implicitly making an assumption that no matter how small, CO2 influences temperature.
And the only question playing with the parameters can resolve, is ‘by how much’.
And as long as CO2 and temperature move upwards, the answer will always be ‘well rather a lot actually’.
If CO2 is NOT introduced on the right hand side of a model there is no AGW IN the model, full stop.
This is the heart of the fraud.
1/. Think of a quantity that is definitely and almost unequivocally man made.
2/. Find a presumed deleterious effect whose time series approximates to the same pattern
3/. Find a relevant theory (and these are a dime a dozen) to give a plausible linkage
4/. Introduce a multiplicative parameterisation to match the curve slopes (lambda)
5/. Project the model to give scary future effects.
6/. Misdirect the boffins (bullshit baffles brains) with discussions about the value of lambda (climate sensitivity) but never let them see the twin sleights of hand that made lambda a positive feedback factor rather than an independent variable, or let them question the inherent assumption in the model itself that deleterious effect is a function of whatever human activity you want to play politcs with, at all….
It is in the end all a load of COCC….
http://www.clarewind.org.uk/events-1.php?event=39
Mike Maguire says:
November 30, 2013 at 4:52 pm
Could you provide more detail please.
Those diurnal changes are solar induced so my description of the relative insignificance of any effect from GHGs remains correct.
Stephen you say: “Those diurnal changes are solar induced so my description of the relative insignificance of any effect from GHGs remains correct.”
How Stephen? Are you thinking along the lines of your expanded/retracted size of the troposphere due to solar change impacts at the stratosphere? A very weak argument. State your mechanism.
stephen,
A reduction in cloud height allows for more efficient cooling to space. Cumulus clouds forming from additional low level moisture have a cooling effect(high albedo of shortwave/solar radiation as you mentioned but also more effective longwave radiation) vs high level clouds that have a warming effect.
http://scitechdaily.com/earths-clouds-are-getting-lower-may-be-in-response-to-global-warming/
Researchers analyzed NASA satellite data from 2000 – 2010 and found that the global average cloud height declined by around one percent over the decade, or by around 100 to 130 feet.
Related to this, Richard Lindsen suggested that in a warming climate, convective clouds will increase in coverage in the tropics. The increased compensating subsidence causes warming and drying in the upper troposphere which allows more longwave radiation to escape to space.
“Does the Earth Have an Adaptive Infrared Iris?”
http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/adinfriris.pdf