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
Sooner or later we will visit this site and read about a paper that later turns out to have been the “last straw”.
It’d be an interesting exercise for the WUWT community to play the “tenth man” on this one and poke holes in the paper.
I think you mean the next glaciation. I make the same mistake sometimes too. Here is a Letter To Nature from way back in the day. Ya see, these CAGW folks predict / project everything. It is a religion and not science at all. I mistakenly called it a hypothesis, please accept my humble apologies.
Is this the same who is the co-founder of the blog Real Climate?
bones wrote
August 5, 2014 at 4:28 pm
……But at last we are getting solid data that hits the climate models where it hurt
True.
Problem is that the models pure existens show gigantic holes in the education systems around the world. Too many students must have been given “passport” to higher studies in too many subjects without elementary knowledge in each subject’s schoolbooks. Not in one country but in many the basic knowledge seems at best to have passed in via one ear and out the other without being understood by the pupil/student.
In other words – many scholars and students of course haven’t understood Archimedes principle nor have they learnt Photosynthesis
As I see it this is a big problem shown when the models of AWG-believers are falling down.
At this point the only falsifying evidence that AGW alarmists will accept is Hawaii turning into an glacier. For years.
Or a iceball.
M Simon says: August 5, 2014 at 6:09 pm
“And Oklahoma is what % of the lower 48? What % of the Earth landmass. What % of the Earth’s surface?”
________________
Oklahoma is the center of the whirled.
“Steven Mosher says:
August 5, 2014 at 4:52 pm”
Tim says: @ur momisugly August 5, 2014 at 7:07 pm beat me to it. Indeed, one tree!
Steven Mosher says:
August 5, 2014 at 4:52 pm
One site.
But a lot of sky.
Nick Stokes says:
August 5, 2014 at 5:01 pm
This is hardly a bombshell. The paper was published in 2011.
So what? An even more significant climate paper in 1963 has still no been read or understood by the majority of climate scientists:
http://www.astro.puc.cl/~rparra/tools/PAPERS/lorenz1962.pdf
and BTW, DNF63 by Lorenz is a nuclear bombshell. For those who have eyes to see.
Steven Mosher says:
August 5, 2014 at 4:52 pm
One site.
=================
I think what Mosher actually meant to type was, “Oh shite.”….
I’m just sayin’……
This is an absolutely devastating blow to the CAGW cargo cult, as its entire premise is predicated up on the wrongful assumption that CO2’s teeny tiny 3.7 watts/M^2 of forcing per CO2 doubling will mysteriously create a mythical “runaway feedback loop”, involving water vapor, which simply isn’t shown to be occurring in any way, shape or form, and this paper is further evidence of CAGW’s complete lack of efficacy.
Skeptics hypothesize that CO2’s teeny tiny 3.7 watts/M^2 of forcing can only has a GROSS long-term, warming potential of around 1.1C, which is basically halved by the NEGATIVE feedback effects of ocean evaporation and increased cloud cover, which CO2’s teeny tiny 3.7 watts/M^2 forcing would induce, which would then reduce CO’2 NET global warming effect to around 0.5C.
The skeptics’ hypothesis is reflected in this Gero & Turner et al paper, which shows the negative feedback of increased cloud cover is actually reducing downwelling LWIR…
I can’t believe this paper was even allowed to be published… I’m just waiting for the CAGW grant whores to pounce on the editorial staff of The Journal of Climate, and ask for their resignations…
How dare these editors allow the truth to be seen?!!! It’s,…. It’s…. sacrilegious! utter blasphemy!!! Heads must rolllllll……..
Pat Michaels says:
August 5, 2014 at 10:11 pm
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.
====
And the only downward “trend” over the satellite record was not a trend but two step changes clearly attributable to volcanic events.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=902
NCAR recognise the step nature of the changes, recognise the lack of “trend” since 1995 but stop short of saying what this implies about AGW. I suppose they value their careers.
http://www.acd.ucar.edu/Research/Highlight/stratosphere.shtml
Since stratospheric cooling is the counter part of lower climate warming it implies that the OMG warming at the end of the 20th c. was not “accelerating” AGW but largely due to volcanoes.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=988
Yes, after the initial, temporary cooling the long term effect of those two events was surface warming. About 0.1K per event. ie 0.1K/ decade or 1K/century.
Subtract that and your wild extrapolations outside the data will change beyond recognition.
That is probably why NCAR are not spelling it out. However, to be fair, they are clearly stating the step nature of the changes and the lack of change since. Up to others to fill in the dots.
…..
So at this ”one site”, I suppose that CO2 didn’t mix with the atmosphere above this Lamont, Oklahoma site. CO2 must have stayed at about 360 ppm, (from 1996) or even fell to 350 ppm at or above this site, rather than increasing to approximately 385 ppm (in 2010) as the rest of the world atmosphere shows.
From the CO2 page WUWT Ref: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/figures/co2_mm_obs.png
Begs the simplistic question “Do Increased CO2 levels Reduce Cloud Formation” – I wonder if anyone is doing, or has done, any research on the formation of clouds at different CO2 levels. It would be interesting to see if the rate of formation of water droplet nuclei is affected by different CO2 levels and if for some reason higher CO2 levels inhibit this.
I suspect this would also need to involve testing with various levels of the gas molecules which are involved with their formation to understand what if any interaction there may be between them and CO2 in this process.
As a question : Does the fact that down-welling IR is less than expected show that the formulae and any assumptions behind them for calculating the rate of down-welling IR from GHGs are flawed ?
” Does the fact that down-welling IR ….”
Infra-red radiation does “well” in any direction, it radiates. Hence the name 😉
That’s strange because I measure the greatest sky radiation when it’s cloudy. This time of the year clear skies are around -20°C and cloudy skies are around +15°C?
Very interesting paper! Personally, I doubt that feedbacks can be diagnosed on our limited understanding of climate – and the non-linear, chaotic nature of climate – whether it be the positive feedbacks touted by climate scientists or negative feedbacks suggested by sceptics.
I suspect the cloud cover variation seen here is natural variability in the hydrological cycle. But what people (especially climate scientists, it seems) forget is that cloud cover is fractal (also known as “long-term persistence”). What does this mean? It means that the natural variability from cloud does not “average out”. This 14-year trend in cloud cover is nothing – if we could make these measurements for a hundred years, a thousand years, a million years, even longer, we would see trends like this over these much longer periods, and be unable to ascribe causality (because they are sensitive to initial conditions).
And as anyone over the age of about 8 can tell you, cloud cover has a huge impact on air temperatures.
In the discussion on long-term persistence at climatedialogue.org, I deliberately chose cloud cover as a prime example of something that exhibits unpredictable fractal behaviour with huge impact on temperatures. (Note even though the discussion was after the paper cited above, I was not aware of this paper until now). In this context, this paper does not surprise me at all.
Well clouds don’t reflect the “upwelling LWIR”, which could be say 80% diffuse reflectance.
Instead they ABSORB the UWLWIR, and then re-radiate an isotropic LWIR, so no more than 50% can downwell.
It’s tuff when a liquid-solid GHG (H2O) doesn’t give positive feedback like it’s “supposed” to.
Oooh, nearly forgot. Second important observation.
What does “statistically significant” mean in this context? What’s the null, what is the expected variability of cloud cover? AR(1)? 1/f? Exactly the same problems as trying to identify “statistical significance” in global air temperatures – since nobody has really pinned down what natural variability is, nobody knows how to test for statistical significance.
“””””…..Kelvin Vaughan says:
August 6, 2014 at 1:02 am
That’s strange because I measure the greatest sky radiation when it’s cloudy. This time of the year clear skies are around -20°C and cloudy skies are around +15°C?…….”””””
Come now Kevin.
So -20 deg C GIVES YOU clear skies, and +15 deg . C GIVES YOU clouds. There’s a lot more evaporation, at +15, than at -20.
So you are seeing exactly what you are supposed to see.
Temperatures drive the clouds. Clouds DO NOT drive the Temperatures.
Is this a ‘respected’ journal? I don’t know what is what when it comes to such journals.
Nick Stokes
Scientists find it difficult to change tack once they have established a plausible hypothesis and in the case of AGW which has meant greater esteem and funding for the industry. Whatever the truth of this 2011 study there appears to be some close analogies to those scientists who refuse to believe in observations and evidence ‘on the ground’ in past ages.
This item concerns the scientific establishment refusing to believe that meteorites fell from the skies
—– —–
‘In the afternoon of Sept 13 1768 a meteorite fell at Luce in France. The French academy of science, then the foremost scientific body in the world, sent a commission which received the unanimous testimony of numerous eye witnesses and were given the ‘rock’ itself. But the commission concluded it did not fall. The statement of one of the witnesses was actually altered to make it fit the explanation that the rock was merely a terrestrial body which had been struck by lightning.
A further example of obscurantism was to come. On July 24 1790 a shower of meteorites fell in Southwest France burying themselves in the earth. Some 300 written statements by witnesses were sent to scientific bodies and journals and pieces of the stones were produced. Still official science would not reverse its ipse dixit that ‘stones do not fall from the sky.’ Charles P Olivier said;
“In the face of all this evidence we have an example of stupidity and bigotry, exhibited by the foremost body of scientists of the day -men who doubtless considered themselves, and were so considered by others, the most advanced and modern of their time, which for all ages should stand as a warning to any man who feels that he can give a final verdict upon a matter outside his immediate experience.”
They are words which any scientist would do well to ponder when confronted with evidence running counter to long cherished opinions. ‘
——- ——–
tonyb
Nick Stokes says:
August 5, 2014 at 5:01 pm
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.
————————————————————————————————————————————-
So that would strongly suggest that clouds are a negative feedback, no?
Also, the fact that this was published into obscurity in 2011 speaks volumes about “the science”. In what other discipline would such a contrary finding have been effectively ignored, not even given the potential publicity of a rebuttal?
Matt says:
August 6, 2014 at 1:20 am
Is this a ‘respected’ journal? I don’t know what is what when it comes to such journals.
Matt, the truth is still the truth even if spray painted on a wall. How about checking the reported facts instead of your inverted ‘appeal to authority’ argument?
The other tim writes “Mosher is a drive by shooter and only deserves the same.”
Perhaps he can be credited as being a good fisherman in this instance?
He had the right bait.