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
davidmhoffer says: August 6, 2014 at 12:19 pm
“Set/Kristian=Ignore”
Unwise. You could learn a lot from his explanation of the impossibility of getting work from DWLWIR at August 6, 2014 at 11:26 am.
Nick – he gets a few things right and a whole lot wrong. I’m not going to untangle the mess for the upteenth time. Been there, done that, on other threads, a waste of my time.
davidmhoffer says, August 6, 2014 at 12:19 pm:
“It [‘atmospheric back radiation’] isn’t heat or work, it is an energy flux. We can measure it, we can measure the heat it creates and we can measure the work it does.”
Wow. Just wow. I’m shaking my head in disbelief here. This is not even funny. This is just sad. A grown up (and – I would expect – a well-educated) man uttering these words in earnest and with a seemingly straight face (well, I can’t actually see it, so one could at least hope he’s just joking around).
Well, goodbye then, David. I’ll leave you to your little bubble world.
Read that quote, people. Just read those words. Take them in. And understand what kind of entrenched, ingrained, warped ideas we’re up against here.
Sturgishooper Bob has written copiously on the ENSO SOI and Pacific climate shift etc.
Like you, I too would like to see a clear presentation of his views on ultimate causes because of his familiarity with the basic data.
Dr Norman Page says:
August 6, 2014 at 1:01 pm
I know he has, but I’ve missed his conclusions as to ultimate causes. I’ve paid attention when people have asked for it, but as I said, have seen only his view about proximate causes for ENSO swings, which are short-term, essentially weather phenomena. The strength and frequency of El Ninos and La Ninas over decades, centuries and millennia would be climatic signals.
There are more El Ninos during warming periods and more El Ninas during cooling times.
These wind,temperature and pressure patterns are the result of the net energy flow into the intra -tropical Pacific ocean – atmosphere interface. This looks like it is the main planetary thermostat.
The energy flow varies depending on the net effect of 2 main groups of factors
a)Orbital factors mainly the relationship between Obliquity and time of year in each hemisphere of the perihelion of the Precession.
b) The modulation of a) by variations in solar “activity” mainly through the cosmic ray flux, the variation in EUV and the variations in TSI
The combined effect of a and b raises causes changes in SST and the pressure patterns and also changes in the daily timing of cloud cover and of the number of tropical cyclones. Trenberth says these latter produce a substantial negative feed back which has not been incorporated into the climate models See Fig 2
at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
Its all very simple really so long as you don’t try to model it numerically.
Dr Norman Page says:
August 6, 2014 at 2:05 pm
Agree with everything up to but not including “Trenberth”.
Sturgishooper. Did you actually look at Fig.2 ?. It is from one of his powerpoint presentations. Looks good to me- but surprising coming from him. Could actually possibly be the key thermostat for the whole deal.
More on solar-ENSO connections:
Indian monsoons, ENSO & solar cycles:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1063520310000266
Landscheidt on solar activity controlling El Niño and La Niña, perhaps op cit on this blog, open reviewed, not “peer”:
http://www.john-daly.com/sun-enso/sun-enso.htm
Dr Norman Page says:
August 6, 2014 at 2:24 pm
Great that he’s backing and filling, trying to cover his tracks, but nothing can save the GCMs as presently rigged, IMO. Have to scrap them and wait for better fundamental understanding of the climate system, which requires both more good data and better analysis. Adding ad hoc epicycles isn’t going to save the CO2-based enterprise.
If it were up to me, I’d fire both Kevin and Gavin and close down their gangs, as too compromised ever to be trusted again.
My two cents’ worth, if that.
David 12:19pm, Nick 12:38pm, Kristian 12:46pm: “…understand what kind of entrenched, ingrained, warped ideas we’re up against here.”
The most confusing twist is Kristian’s ingrained use of the word “heat”. For David & Nick – if you want to have a conversation with Kristian, insert the word “energy” each time Kristian uses the term “heat”. They both have the same units & heat went out of basic science long ago due its lack of existence in nature. Energy exists. This process (though tedious) will instantly point out when Kristian gets confused. Some examples:
1) Kristian 11:26am: “What does the First Law say? ΔU = Q – W. The change in internal energy of a system equals the heat transferred to it minus the work done by it.”
The intrepid reader is forced substitute “energy” for “heat” to check if this is good science and once that is done confusion is eliminated, Kristian then does make sense – here:
What does the First Law say? ΔU = Q – W. The change in internal energy of a system equals the energy transferred to it minus the work done by it.
OK, got it.
******
2) Kristian 11:26am: “DWLWIR isn’t ‘heat’”
Again, substituting existing energy for non-existing heat in this becomes:
DWLWIR isn’t ‘energy’
OOPS, here Kristian’s confusion becomes immediately apparent & one can insert comment try and show Kristian DWLWIR really IS energy radiating from the atm. gas constituents. The net flow is the one increasing universe entropy.
******
3) Kristian: “Heat ONLY and ALWAYS spontaneously (in nature) move from higher to lower temperature. This is the Second Law.”
Parses to:
Energy ONLY and ALWAYS spontaneously (in nature) move from higher to lower temperature. This is the Second Law.
OOPS, Kristian confusion apparent again. Energy moves two way in 1st law & many ways in Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution, universe entropy increase shows the one way in net reality per 2LOT.
******
Kristian – Once again, please drop the word “heat” from your narrative if you want to communicate effectively – “heat” term adds only confusion for your readers & doesn’t exist anymore; you have demonstrated an inability to make sense using “heat” term to at least David & I. More than likely others too. Many would benefit from this discipline. (Don’t even mention OHC… & pray my tags work.)
Trick says:
August 6, 2014 at 2:38 pm
+1
The fundamental precept of AGW/C^3 is this: Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased from around 290 ppm to 400 ppm over the past 150 years. There are no known natural explanations for this, therefore it must be due to industrialized mankind. Because increasing CO2 concentrations cause the climate to heat up, desperate measures are needed. What I refer to as the dog ate my homework theory, “Oh, where did my homework go? Only logical explanation is the dog must of ate it.”
While dredging the internet I came upon this explanation for natural causes that explains it all without mankind’s pitiful 3% contribution in brief, but fascinating paper.
http://www.fauxscienceslayer.com/pdf/missing_geothermal_flux.pdf
Thank you all. Lots of fun stuff to read here.
Regarding the regional vs global criticism. IMHO climate is by definition decadal or centennial in time scale, and global in scope. However, the actual weather that makes up climate is a highly dynamic, cyclical self-correcting process involving massive redistribution of energy, massive active transport of energy, is highly regional, and actively changes over seconds, minutes, hours, days and years. Each of the “variables” being discussed (H2O in all its phases, CO2 concentration, temperature, pressure, wind velocity, solar irradiance, outgoing IR) for both land, and sea, at different elevations/latitudes . . . each of these variables vary by HUGE amounts during the time interval we call “weather”. During these short time periods, NOT ONE of the variables causes a positive feedback, “run-away” condition even though the magnitude of their actual values greatly exceeds the small change in “average” values over decades. So at what time scale do the laws of physics that govern the interraction between these variables suddenly no longer apply. If positive feedback can not be demonstrated to cause catastrophic runaway “weather”, why are we supposed to believe these same variables will cause runaway catastrophic climate?
Storms are regional. There is no such thing as an “average” global storm. Weather is regional. There is no such thing as global “average” weather. Weather varies from location to location and is completely governed by short time factors – NOT decadal average variation. Since storms actively transport energy horizontally across the globe, actively block incoming energy, and actively transport and dump varying amounts of excess energy to outer space, IMHO the static linear equations that have been concocted to attempt to describe “climate” at any point in time are absolutely meaningless! They are neither historically indicative, nor beneficially predictive of anything meaningful.
DonV says:
August 6, 2014 at 3:05 pm
IMO climate can be and is also regional, as in “the climate of Africa differs from that of Europe”. Indeed, this connotation was the original meaning of the term, from the Greek for “slope” or “zone”.
Now in Injia’s sunny clime,
Where I used to spend my time
A-servin’ of ‘Er Majesty the Queen,
Of all them blackfaced crew
The finest man I knew
Was our regimental bhisti, Gunga Din.
Here is the conclusion of my latest post at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
“As to the future, the object of forecasting is to provide practical guidance for policy makers. The rate, amplitude and timing of climate change varies substantially from region to region so that, after accounting for the long term quasi-millennial periodicity, I would then estimate the modulation of this trend by providing multi-decadal climate forecasts for specific regions. This would be accomplished with particular reference to the phase relationships of the major oceanic and atmospheric systems PDO AMO, NAO, ENSO etc, a la Aleo and Easterbrook linked to in section 2.4 above. The earth has been subdivided into tectonic plates. It would be useful to have, as a guide to adaptation to climate change, multi-decadal regional forecasts for the following suggested climate plates, which are in reality closely linked to global geography.
1 North America and Western Europe.
2 Russia
3 China
4 India and SE Asia
5 Australasia and Indonesia
6 South America
7 N Africa
8 Sub Saharan Africa
9 The Arctic
10 The Antarctic
11 The intra tropical Pacific Ocean. Detailed analysis of the energy exchanges and processes at the ocean /atmosphere interface in this area is especially vital because its energy budget provides the key to the earth’s thermostat
Trick says, August 6, 2014 at 2:38 pm:
Sigh. Trick, my reply to you on Monckton’s ‘central climate fallacy’ post:
“It’s been well-established for a long time that you haven’t got the slightest clue what HEAT is and represents in physics. This comment of yours simply acts to underline this recognition.
‘Heat’, trick. Not electromagnetic energy. ‘Heat.’”
It is by not getting ‘heat’ – or refusing to use it – that you let yourself getting confused. Because then all energy is the same and give the same effects. Then all energy is equally available to do work and all energy can heat in all directions. That’s when absurd ideas like ‘back radiation heating’ is allowed to develop.
Only once you understand the difference between ‘heat’ and ‘EM energy’ are you fully equipped to see through all the AGW nonsense.
The palpable phenomenon called ‘Heat’ in physics is a very specific thing. One thing and one thing only. It should in itself be a very simple concept to relate to. Because it brings about an effect that can be sensed (detected) directly.
Still it has a tendency to confound people and the term is therefore misapplied in many fields, and especially in everyday life. Speaking of ‘heat content’, ‘heat capacity’ or ‘latent heat’, all pretty well-established terms in their own right, even in science, even in physics itself, actually only contributes to further confusing the matter. Giving the impression that heat is something that moves spontaneously not only from hot to cold, but also from cold to hot, and that the two opposing ‘heats’ somehow make up a ‘net heat’ between them is frankly a misapplication bordering on the bizarre, considering how crystal clear and well-known the actual physical definition of ‘heat’ really is. There simply should be no room for such confusion.
Here is one pretty standard example of HEAT defined, from “Fundamentals of Thermodynamics” by Borgnakke & Sonntag (2009):
“If a block of hot copper is placed in a beaker of cold water, we know from experience that the block of copper cools down and the water warms up until the copper and water reach the same temperature. What causes this decrease in the temperature of the copper and the increase in the temperature of the water? We say that it is the result of the transfer of energy from the copper block to the water. It is from such a transfer of energy that we arrive at a definition of heat.
Heat is defined as the form of energy that is transferred across the boundary of a system at a given temperature to another system (or the surroundings) at a lower temperature by virtue of the temperature difference between the two systems. That is, heat is transferred from the system at the higher temperature to the system at the lower temperature, and the heat transfer occurs solely because of the temperature difference between the two systems.”
“Heat, like work, is a form of energy transfer to or from a system. Therefore, the units for heat, and for any other form of energy as well, are the same as the units for work, or at least are directly proportional to them. In the International System the unit for heat (energy) is the joule.”
(My emphasis.)
Further on the subject, from the hyperphysics site, pointing to the directives of the well-known physicist Mark Zemansky:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/heat.html
“The First Law identifies both heat and work as methods of energy transfer which can bring about a change in the internal energy of a system. After that, neither the words work or heat have any usefulness in describing the final state of the system – we can speak only of the internal energy of the system.”
(Again my emphasis.)
The same page also stresses:
“(…) the interchangeability of heat and work as agents for adding energy to a system (…)”
(Yup, my emphasis.)
Taken together and in other words: ‘Heat’ (Q) is, like ‘work’ (W ), energy transferred from one system or region to another, directly changing the ‘internal energy’ (U), and thus the temperature, of those systems/regions. And the energy transferred as ‘heat’ ONLY moves spontaneously from hot to cold, as a direct result of the temperature difference.
This clear-cut and unambiguous definition provides us with a very neat distinguishing tool.
What energy falls under the ‘heat’ distinction? And what energy does not? What energy directly causes an observable change in a body’s temperature? And what energy does not?
The warmer body from</em< which heat (Q) moves, loses internal energy (U) and therefore cools. The cooler body to which heat (Q) moves, gains internal energy (U) and therefore warms.
Trick displays an impressive stubbornness in his insistence on staying ignorant on all this, thus also staying forever confused …
Trick says, August 6, 2014 at 2:38 pm:
“3) Kristian: “Heat ONLY and ALWAYS spontaneously (in nature) move from higher to lower temperature. This is the Second Law.”
Parses to:
Energy ONLY and ALWAYS spontaneously (in nature) move from higher to lower temperature. This is the Second Law.
OOPS, Kristian confusion apparent again. Energy moves two way in 1st law & many ways in Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution, universe entropy increase shows the one way in net reality per 2LOT.”
A perfect example of why you can’t just trade ‘HEAT’ with ‘ENERGY’, Trick. You only confuse yourself (and poor David). All heat is energy. All energy is NOT heat. Simple as that. You need to understand that. You need to keep them separate.
I start to feel more and more like a 1st grade teacher. This is not hard, folks. There is nothing mysterious or novel about any of this. It is common knowledge. Or at least it used to be. Before the ‘climate confusion brigade’ came to town.
IIRC, but haven’t checked, a post here covered these papers on the AMO and solar cycles:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/05/new-paper-finds-natural-variability-of.html
R. G. Brown IIRC had a lot to say about North Carolinian climate. Could be wrong.
I am not sure what, if anything this paper says about AGW.
First, I got curious what other measurements like this may have been made at other locations and googlescholared a little bit. I found one paper, Raddatz, et al, “All-sky downwelling longwave radiation and atomospheric column water vapour and temperature over the western maritime arctic,” Atmosphere-Ocean, 2012, 10.1080/07055900.2012.760441. They report shipborne measurements from 2007 through 2009 measuring broadband downwelling IR from 4 to 50 microns and other instruments to measure water vapor density and temperature profiles, ice and cloud backscatter and cloud base height. (It is paywalled so you need a subscription to see the full paper unfortunately.) In any event, they present results, in their figure 2 displaying a fairly good looking log fit of the all sky downwelling IR to measured precipitable water and a slightly less good linear fit of downwelling IR to mean column temperature. The relationships did not explicitly incorporate time trends in any way. The downwelling IR was simply presented as a function of precipitable water and temperature at the time of observation, resolved hourly. I found I could reproduce the logarithmic behavior of IR downwelling with water vapor (in figure 2a) simply by using the Clausius-Clapeyron equation for vapor pressure (i.e. and volatility) of water as a function of temperature (and assuming it gets to equilibrium – not true but maybe close) to get the column water vapor content and multiplying by the integrated Planck function output in the IR band as a function of temperature, treating the water vapor column as a black body with surface roughly proportional to the amount of water. The integrated Planck output alone is roughly linear in temperature over the range measured, which reproduces the other figure (2b) in Raddatz, et al. In any event temperature, and through it water vapor content seemed to explain most of the variance and even simple calculations seem to get ballpark fit slope parameters. CO2 was neither measured nor involved in any significant way, except for the outside community argument about whether CO2 concentration may influence temperature by other means. There are issues with cloud cover, ice clouds, etc, but I ignored those.
So now looking at Gero and Turner, I wondered if the trends seen in the downwelling IR might be explained simply by temperature (and via that the water vapor column) trends at the site used, Lamont, OK and not so much with Worldwide Global Warming. Well the NCDC didn’t have enough data for Lamont, but it does for Enid, which is close and I got that data. I only did a cursory look at the mean monthly temperatures for the period from 1996 to 2008 (this whole thing is just a side interest after all). I simply averaged the mean monthly temps over the three months of spring and the three months of autumn for each of the years and plotted the result as a function of year. Well, those values do show a positive trend for spring and a negative trend for autumn. That suggests to me that the trends seen in the downwelling IR may be more due to the local trends in temperature at that site, and less to do with any global trends, involving CO2 or not. (I admit I stopped at spring and autumn and didn’t fool with summer or winter data. Also, I did not look at any real precipitable water data for Enid since I have already spent too much time on this.) In any event, the downwelling IR data in Gero and Turner seems plausibly related to local conditions and trends that may or may not directly involve CO2 or AGW.
So, it appears to me that the trends reported in GT in the downwelling IR have little to say about AGW one way or another unless one can use AGW to derive the downward and upward seasonal temperature trends in Oklahoma. I did not do any calculation of whether the downwelling IR could somehow contribute enough energy to CAUSE the temperature trends, which then result in the observed water columns etc. The physics views causality working the other way in this case. I presume the former case gets into arguments about forcings and feedbacks.
Kristian 3:30pm – Many authors do use the word “heat” correctly & can be understood. Read a paper on Ocean Heat Content. Substituting (parsing) “energy” for “heat” and you will find correct use of “heat” in the paper. No befuddlement. You however show befuddlement time and again. Here 3:38pm:
“All heat is energy. All energy is NOT heat.”
Parsing this shows befuddlement: All joules are joules. All joules are NOT joules.
Out.
Please correct me if wrong, but IIRC thermodynamics and thermochemistry, heat is the energy transferred from a warmer to a cooler object. Saying warm and cold leads to the murky intersections of temperature, heat and energy. Again IIRC, temperature is proportional to the average energy per atom or molecule in an object or mass measured, while heat is proportional to the total energy of all atoms in the object or mass.
Is this understanding of thermodynamics outdated? If so, I hope it’s not more corruption of science to help explain the magical transfer of heat from the atmosphere to the oceanic depths, where it can’t be measured or the temperature of those layers be taken, without having first to pass through the upper layers of seawater, with their various halo- and thermoclines.
…”
And the energy transferred as ‘heat’ ONLY moves spontaneously from hot to cold, as a direct result of the temperature difference.
…”
How does one body “know” or “sense” that it is somehow at a higher (lower) temperature than the other body?
Let’s just go through one thing at a time. First the PDO, explained by our own Bob Tisdale but with plenty of links to sources. There is nothing I can add as I think Bob has nailed it and accurately reports the science surrounding this statistical measure.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/28/misunderstandings-about-the-pacific-decadal-oscillation/