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
F. Ross: That reminds me of the aggie physics dissertation based on the thermos bottle. The observed data is that a thermos bottle keeps cold things cold, and keeps warm things hot. The aggie dissertation proposal was to determine how it knows what to do.
@F.A.H.
Yeah, good one. 😉
Implicit in my previous question is: how does body A (or B) somehow “know” that it is the transferee or the transferor of “heat”?
The question is mooted with “net flow”.
Now let’s quickly dispense with the Gleissberg “cycle” and its connection to temperature trends. Taken from the following link:
http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2013-1/
“…the Gleissberg cycle is not a cycle in the strict periodic sense but rather a modulation of the cycle envelope with a varying timescale of 60–120 years…”
Not exactly something that can be matched to temperature variations. It only takes one episode of a mismatch between sunspot number trends and temperature trends and there are several.
Pamela Gray says:
August 6, 2014 at 5:04 pm
IMO Lubos et al are right and Bob is wrong on the issues Motl raised. Also his links from 2002 have been superceded by many studies since then, some of which I linked.
Linking to a WUWT blog post without showing how you imagine it supports your faith that there is no solar signal is literally pointless. Let’s see the peer reviewed papers, which you asked me to provide, which I did, which you imagine support your baseless claim.
IMO Bob has not said what he thinks causes climate change in the Pacific or oceans in general. I have read his thought on what drives the weather events in the ENSO, namely El Nino, La Nina and La Nada. But whether right or wrong, that’s meteorology, not climatology.
As I’ve commented before, I would very much appreciate Bob stating his view on possible forcings if any behind the intrinsic weather events of the ENSO and climatic phenomena like the PDO and AMO.
Labeling weather patterns “intrinsic” explains little about the weather and nothing at all about the climate. Because a weather pattern might be intrinsic (eg to an oscillation) doesn’t mean that the sun (or any other possible forcing, if such there be) has no affect upon climate. The longer term (decadal, centennial, millennial and longer) averages of the traits of these oscillations are climatic, not meteorological. As noted, the warm phase PDO produces more El Ninos, and the it appears that the warmer the PDO overall, the more and stronger El Ninos, such that some (but not I) find evidence that El Nino conditions were essentially constant during the warm Pliocene, before closure of the Panama Isthmus.
So what causes the climatic changes marked by differences in observed SST and the amplitude and frequency of oscillations in oceanic circulations?
That’s the question that must be answered to support your baseless assertion that the sun has no effect upon climate. So far you have failed utterly to do so, or even to cite a single peer reviewed paper in support of your unfounded contention, while I keep showing you more and more in support of my position.
Please respond to this and the other questions I’ve asked. I’ve answered all yours, and you haven’t been able to show anything wrong with anything I’ve argued or the evidence upon which the discussion has been based so far.
Thanks.
For those who want a look at a Gleissberg “cycle” envelope modulating over time, just use your eyeballs on this graph and you can see it.
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-Reconstruction-2014.png
Pamela Gray says:
August 6, 2014 at 5:36 pm
Clearly you haven’t read my linked paper(s) showing that longer term solar cycles do appear in the record and arguing how they modulate climate. Your link in any case is far from the dismissive position you originally took, namely that the latest work is that there is no such thing, whether modulation or cycle itself. In fact, it’s a cyclical modulation and you’ve yet to produce a single shred of evidence supporting your baseless assertion that it doesn’t exist.
Feynman is right that science is the belief that the experts are wrong, but you have to be able to show them wrong to practice science, which so far you’re failed to do at every turn.
Hey, but at least you’re learning.
Sturgis, given that the PDO is a statistical analysis, it cannot “drive” anything, and especially El Nino/La Nina events. Indeed, they have already occurred since the PDO is taken from existing data.
Pamela Gray says:
August 6, 2014 at 5:44 pm
My whole point is that the sun is the driver. How did you miss that? Are you intentionally trying to misunderstand, or did I express myself so badly?
The PDO is first and foremost an observation, first made with respect to fisheries, that on about a 30 year basis warm water switches sides of the Pacific. Statistical analysis of its phases derives from that scientific fact.
The question which you for whatever reason steadfastly refuse to answer or even confront is what accounts for the primary climatic variability reflected in the PDO (a climate phenomenon, unlike the weather events of the ENSO) and more importantly in the longer term changes associated with it and the AMO, among other climate-length oscillators, the duration, amplitude and frequency of which vary on climatic time scales.
I’ve provided study after study from just the past few years showing that solar cycles at the very least are well correlated with these climatic shifts. You to support your position, not so much. That is, nothing at all.
Regarding Earth’s global temperature series, solar cycles are properly viewed as an approximate 11 and 22 year process that does indeed affect Top of the Atmosphere measures (in terms of the approx. 11 year cycle) but alas can only be calculated, not observed in terms of our global temperature data series, its effect being buried as it is in the noise.
There just isn’t any other credible evidence of solar processes (data or mechanism) driving our temperature trends up or down in the time span we are concerned with. The present peer reviewed papers in the literature that say there is a relationship are plagued with out-of-date solar data and lack of a mechanism that is credible.
This blog has been through long discussions about this issue and has been the site of many discussions about solar indices that fail to measure up in terms of a robust correlation. If you want to be brought up to date, read through them. It makes no sense to wash, rinse, and repeat.
Regarding the Gleissberg issue, it is unfortunate that it is called a cycle. Its title leads to confusion about what it is. Do not make the mistake of equating it with true solar cycles. Our resident solar scientist has had much to say about it. His web site is worth a visit to get yourself educated on solar cycle data and information.
http://www.leif.org/research/
That said, which side of the Pacific Basin the warm water is on does in fact in a sense “drive” weather and climatic events. It certainly affects them. Your misunderstanding of the PDO appears to derive from your conception of Bob’s work, rightly or wrongly.
But the key question is what drives the observed climatic changes in the oceans, the air and on land (possibly even beneath the crust). In so far as there is a main driver of this hydrosphere/atmosphere/lithosphere interaction, the best evidence is that it’s the sun and other cosmic influences such as GCRs, as modulated by the sun and the earth’s orbital and rotational mechanics, among other modulators.
So far nothing you have said has shown the evidence and reason toward this conclusion invalid, nor have you said or presented anything in support of your belief to the contrary.
Pamela Check my comment at 2:05pm above. Bob explains only the definitions and temporal and spatial relations between the PDO and ENSO indices. I don’t believe he says anything about the ultimate drivers that were discussed in my comment.
Pamela Gray says:
August 6, 2014 at 6:03 pm
Again, linking to Leif does nothing. Cite a specific paper and show how you imagine it supports your view.
At least you’ve learned that Gleissberg is valid, regardless of how you want to label the phenomenon. I don’t need to “educate myself” on Leif’s site, since I’ve already read his most important links. You have simply drawn the wrong conclusions from them. In some cases, so has he, as has been amply demonstrated on this blog repeatedly.
You’re still just asserting no solar influence on the time scales we’re discussing without producing a single shred of evidence or line of argument to support this baseless assertion.
You’re losing ever more badly, but, as I said, at least you’re learning a little bit in spite of yourself.
Dr Norman Page says:
August 6, 2014 at 6:06 pm
You are correct, as I’ve already noted. Unless we have both missed something, but I don’t think we have.
Bob’s analysis, while IMO worthy, is more descriptive than explanatory. IMO he focuses too much on the weather events of ENSO while giving short shrift to the climatic phenomena of the PDO and AMO. Those weather events when averaged go into climatic analysis, of course.
Pamela . When climate forecasting, the most important thing is to know where we are relative to the quasi-millennial solar cycle .For the data and discussion see Figs 5 -12 in section 2 at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
You might like to compare Lockwood’s views re the modern solar maximum with Leif’s.
Lockwood’s position makes much more sense.
Judith’s blog has been busy discussing this very issue. While I ponder over the similarities between the stadium wave and Tisdale’s discharge/recharge speculations (both centered on intrinsic processes) I leave it to Sturgis to consider intrinsic natural variability within the outer boundaries of climate by visiting that blog. Very educational and fresh off the printing press.
I speculate that one day we may see the science community extend beyond the limiting dichotomy of “weather” and “climate”, to “weather”, “weather variability”, “weather pattern oscillation”, “climate”, and “climate change”, leaving the term “catastrophic climate change” to those events that serve to severely decrease global flora and fauna.
http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/09/disentangling-forced-from-intrinsic-climate-variability/
Dr Norman Page says:
August 6, 2014 at 6:36 pm
I concur. Leif’s solar expertise is massive, but his conclusions regarding climate IMO not always most convincing.
Pamela Gray says:
August 6, 2014 at 6:03 pm
Please draw back from the opinions you have formed from reading contributors here like Bob, Willis & even Leif. Maybe you have formed your own opinion about solar activity, but it sounds to me as if you’ve been unduly influenced by opponents of “cyclomania”, whose supporters merely look at the best data & see the same fluctuations in the Holocene as in prior interglacials, & indeed within glacials by an order of magnitude greater.
The best explanation is the sun, & no observations or analyses to date have dispositively found otherwise.
The PDO clearly influences the ENSO, since during the decades when warm water is in the EastPac, El Niños are more common, & when in the WestPac, La Niñas dominate at strongly statistically significant differences. The PDO & AMO are climate; ENSO is weather, as has been pointed out.
But that doesn’t make the PDO the primary “driver” of climate. It is an intermediary force, affecting both climate & weather, depending upon which side of the NorPac is warmer or cooler. It also influences the Arctic Ocean via Bering Strait.
The issue is what “drives” the PDO, AMO & other comparable climatic phenomena. IMO it’s primarily the sun, but with a variety of terrestrial & celestial modulating factors & influences in turn modulated by solar radiance & magnetism. Among the terrestrial factors are plate tectonics on scales of tens of millions & millions of years & orbital mechanics on the time frame of hundreds of thousands & myriads of years.
When does a hypothesis become a theory? if and only if there is sufficient observed, measurable, and verified data to support the hypothesis. CO2 has been increasing steadily, and the hypothesis is that global warming will follow suit. Hmmmm..Houston, we have a problem…the earth’s temperature seems to be flat-lining these past two decades but the CO2 is still rising. Me thinks the hypothesis is false…period. The AGW computer phenoms and minions should spend some of their OWN money to develop their super program that can predict clouds in your coffee…once accomplished, then come humor me with your pontifications about knowing how this atmoshere really works…truth is, you are out of your league…the Earth’s atmoshere is way too complex for your present models. Stop the scare mongering. It’s going to be OK.
To paraphrase Kevin Lynch a pertinent question is: “When does a hypothesis become a theory?” The answer is: “if and only if there are sufficient independent observed events for statistical significance AND the observed relative frequencies of the outcomes of these events match the predicted relative frequencies.”
Pamela Gray says:
August 6, 2014 at 6:43 pm
Wyatt et al was a nice try at climatic immaculate conception, but like so many PhD theses hasn’t passed muster.
Sorry, but the AMO is indeed “externally forced”, not created by “intrinsic” global, teleconnected stadium wave:
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140225/ncomms4323/full/ncomms4323.html
As should have been clear, the variations in the AMO over just the Holocene are far too great for it to arise simply by planetary sloshing. As during glacials but obviously to a much lesser extent, it’s subject to meltwater pulses from the land and sea ice around its margins (themselves largely under solar control), as well as general solar and regional volcanic influences, sitting as the North Atlantic does astride the Mid-Atlantic Ridge & studded with volcanic islands, not to mention the region’s role in the thermohaline circulation.
Any sloshing from the far distant equatorial Pacific would pale in comparison with such mighty forces.
Dr Norman Page says:
August 6, 2014 at 6:36 pm
IMO, you, D’Aleo, Easterbrook & Spencer are on the right track:
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/the_real_climate_drivers_ocean_and_solar_cycles_amplified_by_levels_of_volc/
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmyweb.wwu.edu%2Fdbunny%2Fpdfs%2Faleo-easterbrook_ch5Relationship-multidecadal-global-temps-to-oceanic-oscillations.pdf&ei=O-biU876FsPxoASrhYLACQ&usg=AFQjCNGZ3HO3Z9M8zcM-wv3HrUVk32ItAA&sig2=IT5qJqn4OmY5QJ2DspeFdQ&bvm=bv.72676100,d.cGU
http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-background-articles/the-pacific-decadal-oscillation/
PDO & clouds:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/global-warming-as-a-natural-response/
The seminal PDO paper:
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~mantua/abst.PDO.html
A Pacific interdecadal climate oscillation with impacts on salmon production
by Nathan J. Mantua, Steven R. Hare, Yuan Zhang, John M. Wallace, and Robert C. Francis
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, June, 1997 (Vol 78, pp. 1069-1079)
Abstract
Evidence gleaned from the instrumental record of climate data identifies a robust, recurring pattern of ocean-atmosphere climate variability centered over the mid-latitude Pacific basin. Over the past century, the amplitude of this climate pattern has varied irregularly at interannual-to-interdecadal time scales. There is evidence of reversals in the prevailing polarity of the oscillation occurring around 1925, 1947, and 1977; the last two reversals correspond with dramatic shifts in salmon production regimes in the North Pacific Ocean. This climate pattern also affects coastal sea and continental surface air temperatures, as well as streamflow in major west coast river systems, from Alaska to California.
My thoughts:
The Dr and the Sturgis may talk amongst themselves. Neither have yet to show me anything of substance related to a robust correlation with current solar data (after being corrected for group weighting, etc) nor have they provided anything at all related to a plausible calculable mechanism. We have one for TSI. If they propose a different solar mechanism, do the math.
Both refuse to consider natural intrinsic variability which carries with it easily demonstrated sufficient energy (absorbed by our oceans and waiting for transfer to air) imbalances necessary to force land temps up, keep them stable, and bring them down over decades of time (for example as we see in a series of energy belching El Nino’s with few strong and long energy absorbing La Nina’s to bring us back down again, or the reverse). The link examines the calculations for absorbed energy.
http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/152458/
Get to know Walker and Hadley atmospheric Cells that call the equatorial band home. The Walker Cell is the atmospheric sister to what the El Nino areas are doing in the ocean. And the Hadley Cells are the bridge to subtropical movements. A very cool system that works to keep us warm. Or can also freeze us to death. Please note I excuse volcanic activity, though in my opinion has its own long term affects if sufficiently powerful enough and placed within the equatorial band to act as a shutter to solar energy. Even then, it too is intrinsic, IE part of the Earth. It just has a mind of its own.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CEwQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aoml.noaa.gov%2Fphod%2Fdocs%2Fwang_clivar.pdf&ei=9eviU6GbMYz-yQSH0YLQCw&usg=AFQjCNHv-khntqle5hEVyvBA0tlzPd5jKw&sig2=zGvkholhOIymFc0WasIJjQ&bvm=bv.72676100,d.aWw
Regarding Judith’s speculation that the AMO drives this system, I would have to disagree. The equatorial ocean band is the most efficient absorbing band for solar energy (because of the direct hit). But it is also plagued with clouds. Clouds are the shutters that open or close the equatorial band to solar energy. When clouds are banked up against the West Pacific, the shutters open and solar energy penetrates to warm the water column (normal to La Nina conditions). When they spread out towards the East Pacific, the shutters close and the ocean surface begins to evaporate (El Nino conditions). The degree of increase/attenuation of solar energy as Watts/m2 can be calculated. I speculate that ocean circulation eventually carries warmed or cooled waters to the Atlantic (and elsewhere of course). When combined with the Atlantic’s own El Nino oscillation in-phase, the waters in the Atlantic are either substantially cooled or substantially warmed. Eventually, but over many decades, things return to “normal” sea sawing instead of these climbs up a ladder or down a slide. Until the precarious balance gets out of balance again.
The entire leaky imbalanced interglacial system is prevented from permanent runaway anything because of the rather steady supply of solar energy we are blessed with. It’s just that sometimes the Earth decides to run out of gas from time to time and we get cold. Eventually the cold dry air leads to clear sky conditions and our gas tank refills.
As for La Nina’s, I prefer them in spite of the colder weather on the West Coast of the US. Why? The Earth is filling up its gas tank.
I have a thought about our CO2 pump as well. In my next comment. After a long day at work, it may not happen till whenever.
Slc writes “Why are you referring to a scientific study as bait?”
I’m not. You should look for Mosher’s first comment in this thread and then my replies to understand the context.
Unless you’re a die hard follower of Climate Change you may still not understand but lets just say that to the comment “one site”, the obvious counter argument is “one tree” and you should look at Climate Audit for references to YAD061 if you want more information. Its actually fascinating.
Sturgis: The bridge and influence of ENSO events on the AMO.
“Within the ENSO band (2–7yr periods) the total contribution of MEI to unsmoothed AMOI variability is 79%. Cross correlation suggests that the MEI leads expression of the ENSO signature in the AMOI by six months, consistent with the mechanism of an atmospheric bridge.”
Translated: The Multivariate ENSO Index shows significant contribution to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation Index and has a lead time of 6 months before it shows up in the AMO index. An atmospheric bridge [such as the Hadley Cell?] is a likely mechanism.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CGMQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ocean-sci.net%2F9%2F535%2F2013%2Fos-9-535-2013.pdf&ei=mO7iU-eJJY-UyASRjoDYDg&usg=AFQjCNG-SDeyd-mE1Ov-U4d2_oEiinUiRA&sig2=PddwZ10T5PBOVQQIpvfOMg&bvm=bv.72676100,d.aWw
Milo, I don’t doubt the PDO is an index describing the location of warm and cool pools of water and that corresponds robustly to other indices. But I cannot see how it could drive ENSO El Nino’s or La Nina oscillations. Its entire calculation is based on events that have already occurred.