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
Pamela Gray says:
August 5, 2014 at 8:25 pm
More hilarity!
Please show me sources demonstrating that the 22 and 11 year solar cycles are “outdated”. That’s a real knee-slapper.
The peer reviewed, often cited paper I presented doesn’t cite those cycles “in passing”. It shows that they explain the deposition of the observed layers. Did you read the whole paper? I can produce lots of others to the same effect.
So far you’ve got nothing, zero, zip, nada, peer reviewed or otherwise, to support your baseless assertion of no solar influence on climate.
Your understanding of ocean cycles isn’t even elementary. It’s cartoonish and laughably juvenile. The PDO, reported by a fisheries biologist in 1997, isn’t an ENSO process. The ENSO, PDO, AMO and other oceanic oscillations are all interrelated and ultimately driven by solar activity, modulated by other parameters, perhaps to include undersea seismic activity, itself partially in response to the solar-induced oscillations. What do you suppose causes the observed multi-decadal oscillations in the first place?
How dare you tell me to Google vague references, when I provided the peer-reviewed paper you asked for? Let’s see the Rocky Mountain elk reference, and whatever point you imagine you can make with it in support of your unwarranted assertions. If it shows a PDO influence, big whoop! That wouldn’t surprise me at all. The PDO reflects solar activity, among other influences. It seems I’ve forgotten more about the PDO than you apparently have ever known. Show where and how any of your alleged references justify the conclusion that “it’s not the sun”. You haven’t done so because you can’t.
When are you finally going to make the case you should have in your first comment on the subject? You can’t get away with a totally unsupported assertion. I showed you mine. Let’s see yours. Put up or shut up. And you have the nerve to consider yourself a scientist.
To TimTheToolMan
Mosher is a drive by shooter and only deserves the same. Hypocrite and future RICO are descriptive.
Tim
Yes, they all are, but they don’t derail threads. Pat’s postings have become almost an institution here–and they’re valuable / newsworthy. They’re like the ribbon news feed at the bottom of a TV broadcast. I hope he’ll be given latitude to keep on posting, under a creative exception license.
And while you’re at it, kindly reply to my question about what you imagine causes the glacial/interglacial cycles if not Milankovitch Cycles, insolation modulated by Earth’s orbital parameters. I replied to your request. When are you `) going to do what you should have in the first place to support your zany, anti-scientific opinion, and 2) do me the courtesy of responding to my question, as I did to yours?
OK, now I’m conflicted. Does this mean that we should keep pumpin’ out CO2 to prevent global warming, or continue our expensive and futile efforts to reduce CO2 levels to prevent a coming ice age? Soooo confused!
dynam01:
What we should do, in my opinion, is fire the folks who led us into a line of research that provides no basis for making public policy and hire folks who will lead us into a line of research that will.
Should we keep pumpin’ out CO2? Currently there is not a scientific basis for answering this question.
Leigh says:
August 5, 2014 at 8:02 pm
I now see a few people beat me to the ‘one tree’ reply… I wonder what the reply will be?
______________
I think that I shall never see
a tree as important as YAD 063
sturgishooper says:
August 5, 2014 at 8:46 pm
Pamela,
Here’s a June 2014 paper on a late Holocene (from 4700 to 70 years ago) record of solar influence on the Asian monsoon, to go with the MIS 11 paper I already cited. I could provide them for other interglacials, too, but I’m still waiting for even one peer reviewed paper from you showing no solar influence on climate.
http://www.nature.com/srep/2014/140604/srep05159/full/srep05159.html
How much humiliation can you endure before finally making an effort to support your baseless assertion and answer my question about Milankovitch Cycles?
sturgishooper says:
August 5, 2014 at 8:58 pm
How about a 2012 paper finding a strong solar influence on Late Miocene lake sediments, with among other conclusions the fact that “a single-proxy-analysis, as often performed on Holocene records, should be considered cautiously as it might fail to capture the full range of solar cycles”.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3617729/
Still waiting for your first paper. Sorry if I can’t go with your gut. Wouldn’t even if you hadn’t asked for my peer reviewed evidence of solar influences on climate.
Looking over posts for the last few months, it looks like we need a “Geiger” counter. 😉
CORRECTION
Alan Robertson says:
August 5, 2014 at 8:55 pm
Leigh says:
August 5, 2014 at 8:02 pm
I now see a few people beat me to the ‘one tree’ reply… I wonder what the reply will be?
______________
I think that I shall never seea tree as important as YAD 063
Everybody who cares about a sustainable future for our children will stand shoulder to shoulder and demand climate justice. Our people are standing at the front lines because of environmental racism. It’s about jobs.
/s <— yes, that's a sarc tag
sturgishooper says:
August 5, 2014 at 8:58 pm
Pamela,
More on solar cyclical influence on Asian climate and the ENSO, from June 2013, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50453/abstract
Solar cycle modulation of the ENSO impact on the winter climate of East Asia
Qun Zhou1,
Wen Chen1,* and
Wen Zhou2
This study examines how the East Asian winter climate response to the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) varies with the 11-year solar cycle. The results indicate that the ENSO and East Asian climate relationship is robust and significant during winters with low solar (LS) activity, with evident warming in the lower troposphere over East Asia, which can be closely linked to the decreased pressure gradient between the cold Eurasian continent and the warm Pacific. Moreover, during the LS and El Niño winters, there is a typical rainfall response in Southeast Asia, with wet conditions over South China and dry conditions over the Philippines, Borneo, Celebes, and Sulawesi, which can be explained by the anticyclone over the western North Pacific (WNP). However, during high solar activity winters, both the surface temperature and rainfall anomalies are much less closely associated with the ENSO. The possible mechanism for this solar modulation of the ENSO-related East Asian climate anomalies may be the change in the tropospheric circulation with the ENSO in both tropical and extratropical regions. Particularly, in the LS cases, an anomalous WNP anticyclone is intensified and a noticeable cyclone occupies northern Northeast Asia, resulting from the changing location and strength of the large-scale Walker circulation induced by the more pronounced sea surface temperature anomalies associated with the ENSO. Further investigation with long historic data confirms that the relationship between the ENSO and the East Asian winter climate anomalies depends on the phases of 11 year solar cycle, with enhanced East Asian climate variation during the LS winters.
Tell me when you’ve had enough. Still waiting for your first peer reviewed paper supporting your assertion of no solar influence on climate in general and ENSO or other oceanic oscillations in particular.
Alan Robertson says:
August 5, 2014 at 9:09 pm
That’s some funny poetry, there.
see http://www.theeuroprobe.org 2012 – 015
John Eggert says:
August 5, 2014 at 8:30 pm
KevinK wrote:
August 5, 2014 at 7:59 pm
>>but as an engineer I
… As an engineer, I’m embarrassed that an engineer said that.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
And just to throw a Yamal on the fire, I am just a little sad about the tone of some of the discussion given the code of ethics engineers are supposed to adhere to. (yeah I know, not supposed to end a sentence with a preposition, but I just are an engingear two, to? too?/three.*)
*Usage note
The often heard but misleading “rule” that a sentence should not end with a preposition is transferred from Latin, where it is an accurate description of practice. But English grammar is different from Latin grammar, and the rule does not fit English. In speech, the final preposition is normal and idiomatic, especially in questions: What are we waiting for?
I am a Civil Engineer but that doesn’t make me civil, but we all should try to be, even in court. Well, especially in court. 😉
Wayne Delbeke says:
August 5, 2014 at 9:37 pm
*Usage note
The often heard but misleading “rule” that a sentence should not end with a preposition is transferred from Latin, where it is an accurate description of practice. But English grammar is different from Latin grammar, and the rule does not fit English. In speech, the final preposition is normal and idiomatic, especially in questions: What are we waiting for?
_______________
Are you saying that those who insist on not ending a sentence with a preposition are up screwing?
You know what this means? CO2 HOLE!
Cloudiness decreased during the late 20th century warming period (more zonal jets) and started to increase again around 2000 (more meridional jets) as this paper points out.
The total amount of evaporation globally is related to the speed of convective overturning in the atmosphere as a whole. Faster overturning draws more vapour from the oceans so if precipitable water vapour is declining that suggests that convective overturning is slowing down.
I have suggested elsewhere that more GHGs would result in slower convective overturning due to the loss of energy direct to space from within the atmosphere which causes less kinetic energy to be returned to the surface in adiabatic descent than was removed from the surface in adiabatic ascent.
AGW theory requires faster convective overturning from a warmer surface doesn’t it ?
Miscolczi’s observation of water vapour declining as CO2 increases would fit the findings of this paper.
However, I think the whole scenario is solar induced unless someone can find a way of getting CO2 to significantly affect jet stream behaviour.
The issue of jet stream behaviour is aslo a problem for the Svensmark cosmic ray hypothesis because to get changes in zonality / meridionality requires more than just changes in the amount of cloud condensation nuclei.
For that, one must also change the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles so that the jets and climate zones can slide to and fro latitudinally beneath the tropopause.
Furhermore, as they point out, this paper associates increased cloudiness with decreased DWIR yet AGW theory tries to tell us that clouds increase DWIR.
Radiative Physics ™
OK, Pamela, it’s 10 PM Pacific Daylight Time. Time’s up. Just as I told you you would, you lose, 5-0. One paper lamely and ludicrously responded to, three papers and one question not answered at all.
You should not imagine that reading posts and comments on this blog, however valuable it may be and is, qualifies you to comment on climatology. It also appears that whatever scientific background you might have has also failed you in grappling with this complex subject. Hope your students aren’t as short-changed as your pathetic performance here suggests they must be. If so, they have a good case for pedagogical malpractice.
You may notice, also, that stratospheric cooling–a strong prediction of standard GHG warming theory–appears to be pretty much in remission concurrent with the “pause”. Check the UAH satellite data.
This, along with the findings in the J. Clim. paper, ought to be scaring the hell out of Ben Santer, Mike Mann, and their spawn.
Alan Robertson says:
August 5, 2014 at 9:45 pm
Wayne Delbeke says:
August 5, 2014 at 9:37 pm
++++++++++++++++++++++
😉 zzzzzzzz
Matthew R Marler (quoting Kristian)
Why aren’t we seeing ‘back radiation’ power plants all over the world?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Because photo voltaics have an efficiency approaching zero in that frequency range.
Pat Michaels says:
August 5, 2014 at 10:11 pm
My guess is that Mann is most afraid of the law suit he himself started. Hoist on his own petard would be a fitting end.
He and the others probably also fear the end of federal largesse in coming years. Uncle Sugar should ask for his pig slops back from the fat feeders at the trough.
Matthew R Marler says: August 5, 2014 at 8:24 pm
“Is it possible that increased CO2 has caused increased cloudiness AND decreased precipitable water?”
They attribute the DWLW drop to reduced cloudiness.
“Overall, there are more clear-sky scenes and fewer thick cloud scenes in the winter, summer, and autumn, thus leading to a negative all-sky radiance trend, whereas the opposite is true in the spring.”
The results are compelling. Why isn’t there an attempt to replicate them elsewhere? Can we crowdfund a research grant to continue this work?