BOMBSHELL: Study shows greenhouse gas induced warming dropped for the past 14 years

Paper finds a decrease of IR radiation from greenhouse gases over past 14 years, contradicts expected increase – cloudiness blamed for difference.

A paper published in the Journal of Climate finds from 800,000 observations a significant decrease in longwave infrared radiation from increasing greenhouse gases over the 14 year period 1996-2010 in the US Great Plains. CO2 levels increased ~7% over this period and according to AGW theory, downwelling IR should have instead increased over this period.

According to the authors, 

“The AERI data record demonstrates that the downwelling infrared radiance is decreasing over this 14-yr period in the winter, summer, and autumn seasons but it is increasing in the spring; these trends are statistically significant and are primarily due to long-term change in the cloudiness above the site.”

The findings contradict the main tenet of AGW theory which states increasing greenhouse gases including the primary greenhouse gas water vapor and clouds will cause an increase of downwelling longwave infrared “back-radiation.”

The paper also finds a negative trend in precipitable water vapor, as do other global datasets, again the opposite of predictions of AGW theory that warming allegedly from CO2 will increase precipitable water vapor in the atmosphere to allegedly amplify warming by 3-5 times. Is the unexpected decrease in water vapor the cause of the decrease in downwelling IR?

Global datasets also show an increase of outgoing longwave IR radiation to space from greenhouse gases over the past 62 years, again in contradiction to the predictions of AGW theory.

Gero, P. Jonathan, David D. Turner, 2011: Long-Term Trends in Downwelling Spectral Infrared Radiance over the U.S. Southern Great Plains. J. Climate, 24, 4831–4843.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/2011JCLI4210.1

Long-Term Trends in Downwelling Spectral Infrared Radiance over the U.S. Southern Great Plains

P. Jonathan Gero

Space Science and Engineering Center, University of Wisconsin—Madison, Madison, Wisconsin

David D. Turner

NOAA/National Severe Storms Laboratory, Norman, Oklahoma, and Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Wisconsin—Madison, Madison, Wisconsin

Abstract

A trend analysis was applied to a 14-yr time series of downwelling spectral infrared radiance observations from the Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer (AERI) located at the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Program (ARM) site in the U.S. Southern Great Plains. The highly accurate calibration of the AERI instrument, performed every 10 min, ensures that any statistically significant trend in the observed data over this time can be attributed to changes in the atmospheric properties and composition, and not to changes in the sensitivity or responsivity of the instrument. The measured infrared spectra, numbering more than 800 000, were classified as clear-sky, thin cloud, and thick cloud scenes using a neural network method. The AERI data record demonstrates that the downwelling infrared radiance is decreasing over this 14-yr period in the winter, summer, and autumn seasons but it is increasing in the spring; these trends are statistically significant and are primarily due to long-term change in the cloudiness above the site. The AERI data also show many statistically significant trends on annual, seasonal, and diurnal time scales, with different trend signatures identified in the separate scene classifications. Given the decadal time span of the dataset, effects from natural variability should be considered in drawing broader conclusions. Nevertheless, this dataset has high value owing to the ability to infer possible mechanisms for any trends from the observations themselves and to test the performance of climate models.

via the Hockeyschtick with thanks

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
sleepingbear dunes

How many ways can AGW predictions be proven wrong. Let me count the ways.
This appears to be one of the most significant findings in a long time. Anticipating the criticisms, what are the holes or weaknesses in the study?

dccowboy

“DENIER”!!!
There, I’ve dealt with this inconvenient research in the most scientific manner possible.

The truth is out there!

bones

It would be very interesting to compare with the previous 14 – 15 year period; especially the strong El Nino year, 1998. But at last we are getting solid data that hits the climate models where it hurts.

pokerguy

The mere fact that the paper was published strikes me as important as its findings. I’m not a scientist…I’m not even all the bright…so I might well have missed it, but I don’t see any of the usual pro forma obeisances to the CAGW party line. .
I really like this part: “Nevertheless, this dataset has high value owing to the ability to infer possible mechanisms for any trends from the observations themselves and to test the performance of climate models.”

William McClenney

Enjoy the interglacial, while it lasts……..

More clouds from more condensation nuclei thanks to reduced solar magnetism, or from some other terrestrial or cosmic cause?

Truthseeker

“Greenhouse” gases (CO2) up, “Greenhouse” warming down … hmmm. Maybe, just maybe there is a fundamental problem with using sheets of glass or plastic enclosing a space as an analogy for a free flowing gas of a planetary atmosphere …
Maybe …

these trends are statistically significant and are primarily due to long-term change in the cloudiness above the site
So this has nothing to do with CO2. CO2 is out of the loop. And I submit that CO2 doesn’t do squat.

Theo Goodwin

So, AGW becomes ZombieAGW? Or is it AGWZombie? The first ever theory that is living dead.

ossqss

Ouch!
That is difficult to homoogenize away..

Newly Retired Engineer

Note that AGW is NOT a theory. It is, at best, merely an hypothesis – the AGW proponents have never allowed their hypothesis to be subjected to falsification, nor have their analyses been verified, nor their codes validated. The scientific method has not yet been applied, at least by them.

Rob

None of the Global Warming models have ever been able to accurately account for changes and feedbacks in cloud cover. Nature, not man controls. We presume to know far too much.

Severian

What? Sounds like negative feedbacks…the deuce you say!

One site.

H Grouse

I’m impressed.
This 14 year study shows that over the measuring instrument there is a statistical increase in clouds.
..
Too bad they didn’t locate the instrument in a desert where there would be less clouds.

Troll claiming that the study is just “regional” and therefor meaningless in 3…2….1….

Bob

Steven Mosher says:
August 5, 2014 at 4:52 pm
One site.
OK Steven, point out a site where IR has increased.

Too late. Mosh already there.

This is hardly a bombshell. The paper was published in 2011.
But it doesn’t contradict any main tenets. It states explicitly that the result is due to a change in cloudiness. And since they measured cloudiness, that is not speculation.
REPLY: So because it is from 2011 and was only noticed today, that makes it not significant for you? Oh wait, I forgot, nothing fits the racehorse equation for significance except the latest pony scores.
http://twitter.com/hockeyschtick1/status/496793476168953857
Show something to counter it, then you’ll have an argument. Otherwise, meh. – Anthony

Alec aka Daffy Duck

I saw this earlier this summer:
Entering the Era of 30+ Year Satellite Cloud Climatologies: A North American Case Study
Michael J. Foster* and Andrew Heidinger
“A loss of ~4.2% total cloudiness is observed between 1982 and 2012 over a North American domain centered over the contiguous United States….”
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00068.1

cnxtim

What is truly astounding is just how little (ZERO?) all these thousands of so-called climate scientists have achieved whilst spending billions of dollars of other peoples money.
When you think of what astonishing work the likes of Newton, Tesla, Florey and other pioneers achieved mostly alone and with virtually nothing in the way of resources …… the mind boggles at these truly pathetic AGW losers…

PaulH

Whew! It’s a good thing the science was settled years ago.
/snark

Alec aka Daffy Duck says:
August 5, 2014 at 5:05 pm
I saw this earlier this summer:
Entering the Era of 30+ Year Satellite Cloud Climatologies: A North American Case Study
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
And yet the GCM’s still have no predictive value? Are they using the wrong control knob?

Steve Oregon

Boy when it rains ………it pours bad news for the Team of Wholesale Liars.
Over the last week or so there’s been many discussions and indications which point to one common gargantuan fact.
That never was there any science showing any capability of human’s relative infinitesimal contribution to the atmosphere to impact anything climate whatsoever.
All things back up that cold blooded certain reality.
All of the layers of piled up fallacious Climate Surmising has produced nothing but
a purposefully mendacious political mission.
The enormity of the unscrupulousness of it all will forever mark history with a dark and dirty patina of institutionalized fraud.

jeanparisot

One site is better than a thousand models – lets get it replicated and see what we get.

Jimbo

The findings contradict the main tenet of AGW theory which states increasing greenhouse gases including the primary greenhouse gas water vapor and clouds will cause an increase of downwelling longwave infrared “back-radiation.”…………………….
The paper also finds a negative trend in precipitable water vapor, as do other global datasets, again the opposite of predictions of AGW theory that warming allegedly from CO2 will increase precipitable water vapor in the atmosphere to allegedly amplify warming by 3-5 times.

It all rested on positive feedback. Poooof! Observations trumps hypothesis (NOT THEORY) every time. Go cry in your cornflakes, it’s nearly over.

Jimbo

Negative feedback. That crappy idea they like to ignore is the reason why we are still here!

Steven Mosher says:
August 5, 2014 at 4:52 pm
One site.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Did any of the climate models predict this particular regional result? Any?

Presumably regional cloud patterns change as the climate changes, so the study doesn’t appear strong enough to say much about AGW. On the other hand, if the findings were the opposite of those actually made, I’m sure this study would be viewed as a pinnacle of warmist science. 😉

Jimbo says:
August 5, 2014 at 5:17 pm
Without the positive feedback from more water vapor assumed in the GCMs, catastrophic man-made global warming or climate change does indeed go poof! The most its advocates could then hope for would be the ~1 K warming from doubling 280 ppm found in the lab. I suspect that in the real world climate sensitivity would be even less than that and possibly even a cooling in some environments or under certain conditions.

H Grouse

Jimbo says:
August 5, 2014 at 5:17 pm

“will cause an increase of downwelling longwave infrared “back-radiation.”

Isn’t it true, that a regular old fashioned cloud will block out the longwave infrared emitted from the sun if the cloud happens to get in between the sun and the instrument?

2011, How was this paper addressed in the last IPCC roll up?

mjc

” Jimbo says:
August 5, 2014 at 5:17 pm
It all rested on positive feedback. Poooof! Observations trumps hypothesis (NOT THEORY) every time. Go cry in your cornflakes, it’s nearly over.”
You’re really willing to bump it up to hypothesis?
Because, where I stand, it may make it to conjecture. Slapping on an agenda doesn’t move something up the scale.

James Strom

The paper Alec cites above seems to be in conflict with the headline paper, as it shows a decrease in clouds. I assume that the headline paper is ascribing the decline in IR to an increase in clouds (“long-term change in the cloudiness”), and I’m puzzled that the lead paper also shows a decrease in at least one form of water vapor. This needs untangling, at least for me.

INteresting! This one CAME from WordPress, not WUWT (I get notifications).
I guess this may be the turning point. UP next – Global Cooling from CO2.

H Grouse says:
August 5, 2014 at 4:53 pm
..
Too bad they didn’t locate the instrument in a desert where there would be less clouds.

The Great Plains are sometimes called the Great American Desert. Desert is relative. Defined by average annual rainfall. And while they do not rival the Atacama, the amount is still relatively low.
So they actually did do it in a desert. Just ask any of the survivors of the dust bowl.

H Grouse says:
August 5, 2014 at 5:25 pm
Depends on the wavelength of the downwelling IR. Some incoming solar IR energies are blocked by clouds & some aren’t.

Jimbo

Is this the same site Mosh? It seems as if this observation was seen before.

December 17, 2013
AGW Falsified: NOAA Long Wave Radiation Data Incompatible with the Theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming
ANTHROPOGENIC Global Warming (AGW) theory claims the earth is warming because rising CO2 is like a blanket, reducing Earth’s energy loss to space. However, data from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) shows that at least for the last 30 years, Earth’s energy loss to space has been rising. The last 30 years of NOAA data is not compatible with the theory of AGW. It would appear that either 30 years of NOAA data is wrong or the theory of AGW is flawed. This is Michael Hammer’s conclusion following analysis of the official outgoing long wave radiation (OLR) data.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2013/12/agw-falsified-noaa-long-wave-radiation-data-incompatible-with-the-theory-of-anthropogenic-global-warming-2/

I’m just an average guy, is this as important as it seems to me or am I readign into it incorrectly?

H Grouse

To Jimbo , sturgishooper, philjourdan, et. al
…..
“But now they only block the sun
They rain and snow on everyone
So many things I would have done
But clouds got in my way”
(Thank you Joni)

@H Grouse – thank you for sharing the source of your science. She is a great singer. Not so much on the science side however. We do not know if you are a good singer.

philjourdan says:
August 5, 2014 at 5:33 pm
The Great Plains aren’t technically a desert, ie with less than eight inches of precipitation a year. The long grass prairie actually gets quite a lot of rain, hence its abundant unirrigated corn & bean crops. The short grass prairie & high plains get less, but still more than a desert.
The relevant site is in Lamont, OK, with average annual rainfall around 34 inches, maybe more.

I believe I did state that the name is a colloquialism and not an actual scientific designation. And OK is usually not thought of when discussing the “great plains”. The exact definition varies by those using the term.

Nick Stokes says:
August 5, 2014 at 5:01 pm
“……………But it doesn’t contradict any main tenets. It states explicitly that the result is due to a change in cloudiness. And since they measured cloudiness, that is not speculation.”
=============================================================================
You must be kidding I mean this has to be joke, right? Come on Nick, A main tenet of global warming theory is that all or at least the vast majority of Feedbacks are positive. If clouds are a negative feedback then that has smashes a major tenet.

Bill Illis

If reduced cloud cover is responsible, then that is what the theory predicts.
Its just that low clouds produce more sunlight reflection/albedo (reduced downwelling solar) than they provide for increased downwelling longwave, so there can still be an increase in overall downwelling radiation with reduced low cloud cover.
Net cloud radiation forcing is -21 W/m2 with about -51 W/m2 reflected solar/albedo versus +30 W/m2 in increased downwelling long-wave.
The theory predicts a change in these numbers of +0.70 W/m2 per 1.0C increase in temperatures (or a change from -21.0 W/m2 to -20.3 W/m2 per 1.0C increase.

Willybamboo

Mosh says its just one site. What else could he say? He’s trapped in the corner, there is no way out. He’s a desperate man.

Tom Trevor says:
August 5, 2014 at 5:42 pm
Even more destructive would be a negative feedback from water vapor. By destructive, I mean, totally destroying in detail, smashing, obliterating, annihilating and wiping off the face of the earth, plowing salt into the site of its prior existence, the repeatedly falsified, intentional lie of catastrophic man-made global warming.

RobertInAz

Steve Mosher’s cryptic comment “one site” deserves amplification. More sites would be better. In a larger sense, the key dynamics are over the ocean. There are many reasons why the IR response to increased CO2 over oceans would be different.
To summarize:
1. One location
2. The main event is the ocean dynamics
3. Even for land dynamics, the results are difficult to generalize because we cannot model the clouds.
All this said, if the result had gone the other way, it would be trumpeted by alarmists as proof positive of catastrophic climate change. It would not have been. Had the result shown increased down-welling IR, it would only have been a slight confirmation of a point on which most of us agree. increased CO2 has an impact on IR.

Douglas Proctor

Moshey bOy – Only takes one negative case to disprove a hypothesis

davidmhoffer says: August 5, 2014 at 5:23 pm
“Did any of the climate models predict this particular regional result? Any?”

The paper attributes the reduction primarily to cloud reduction, and the drop in clear-sky radiance to a reduction in humidity. And yes, the AR4 projects reduced precipitation for Oklahoma.
REPLY: Precipitation is not the same as precipitable water vapor Nick. Models suggest an increase in water vapor. – Anthony

Claude Harvey

Seems to me this finding takes us back to where I began in all this many years ago, to the fairly old “sunspot – solar wind – cosmic ray – cloud formation” theory. As the theory goes: Fewer sunspots equals less solar wind equals more cosmic rays equals more cloud cover equals cooler temperatures. I would have thought the CERN bubble chamber experimental outcome would have maintained focus on this theory. So why is any of this “new news”?