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
Kelvin Vaughan says: August 6, 2014 at 1:02 am
“That’s strange because I measure the greatest sky radiation when it’s cloudy”
Yes. People here seem to miss that the paper is attributing the drop in DWLWIR to reduced cloudiness (and humidity).
Joe says: August 6, 2014 at 1:35 am
“So that would strongly suggest that clouds are a negative feedback, no?”
No. The effect of AGW at this site is to reduce cloudiness, but the global average may well increase. But most people who think of clouds and feedback think first of the competing effect of albedo.
CAGW per IPCC: RIP
Clouds.
OK.
Next!
Hoist with his own petard. A petard is a bomb.
100 models agree with Mosher but it just takes 1 fact to prove him wrong!
davidmhoffer says, August 5, 2014 at 10:14 pm:
“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.”
Hehe. Yeah. That’s the reason.
Nick Stokes says:
{i}
No. Radiative theory says that total downwelling IR is due to the combined effect of the various GHGs. H2O is the most prevalent. In this case, its reduction exceeded the effect of CO2 increase. {/i}
Thanks Nick, the clue i needed. Clouds set an upper limit on the DWLWR.
It is very clear then, no pun intended, a doubling of CO2 provides 3.7 watts at zero % humidity decreasing as the moisture level increases, until it provides 0 watts under cloudy skies.
That would also explain why there is no tropospheric hot spot.
CO2 only warms under cold, dry conditions, limited by humidity levels.
Oh my, I think we need to increase the CO2 levels as quickly as possible.
The sound of the flailing and flapping it pretty awesome, like a fish on land. The mighty shark, with all it’s nation-gobbling ability, has been landed. Now end it!
I was told in 3rd grade that there is a link between “increased water vapor” and clouds
TimTheToolMan on August 6, 2014 at 2:53 am
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.
———————-
Why are you referring to a scientific study as bait?
Is the unexpected decrease in water vapor the cause of the decrease in downwelling IR?
=================
only unexpected if you ignore partial pressure of gas law. add CO2 to the atmosphere and H2O will be reduced. basic chemistry. adding CO2 increases mass of atmosphere, increasing pressure, reducing the ability of water to evaporate, reducing water vapor until mass and pressure of atmosphere returns to equilibrium.
This started as a snarky comment, but once I learned that the paper is from 2011 it no longer is. Has anything happened to Gero and Turner’s funding sources since they published? Someone should ask them while this topic is still fresh here.
Added thought to above comment: For example, if their result is as interesting as it would appear, one would think their funding would have been increased so that they could run additional studies at different sites, or that others would have gotten funding so as to test their results at other sites.
Kristian;
Hehe. Yeah. That’s the reason.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There’s enough kinetic energy stored in ocean currents to drives the world;s economy. Why don’t we use that? Because it isn’t practical to harvest the energy, that’s why. There’s enough energy in lightning strikes all over the world to provide energy for many major cities. Why don’t we use that? Because it isn’t practical to harvest the energy. There’s enough kinetic energy stored in the moon as it orbits the earth to run the world’s economy for centuries. Why don’t we use that? Because it isn’t practical to harvest the energy.
All of which you would know if you had the first clue about physics, but you would prefer to continue commenting in this forum and proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that you not only don’t understand the physics, you don’t WANT to understand the physics. You just want to rant on as if you do.
What was the temperature anomaly data for same location and over same time period? Increasing temps, decreasing temps or stable temps?
Nick: “And since they measured cloudiness, that is not speculation.”
They measured IR, not cloudiness.
Mosher or Stokes,
I am a simple man. Please humor me.
If the relatively tiny share of the greenhouse effect, human CO2 emissions, cannot be scientifically measured or shown to have caused any initial warming of the planet or the theorized subsequent increase in water vapor needed for the bulk of AGW, how is AGW not complete crap?
You haven’t many choices for answers.
You can accept the size of the human contribution and attempt to provide something more than conjecture to explain how such an infinitesimal portion can alter our climate.
Or you can dispute the size/percent/proportion of human contribution and provide accurate and reliable data that shows a larger contribution.
Or you can evade the question.
Or you can change the subject.
Or you can talk about the tonnage of fossil fuel emissions in worrisome tones while ignoring the proportion it represents.
“human greenhouse gas contributions add up to about 0.28% of the greenhouse effect”.http://www.geocraft.com/WVFoss…
Only ~3.75% of atmospheric CO2 is man-made from burning of fossil fuels.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot….
Water vapor has declined.
http://www.climate4you.com/Gre…
John Eggert says:
August 5, 2014 at 8:30 pm
KevinK wrote:
August 5, 2014 at 7:59 pm
>>…As an engineer, I’m embarrassed that an engineer said that.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
you may want to be more concerned with myopia than embarrassment. I am sure you could explain the physics of using a pair of pliers to crack a walnut. The issue is making wild claims as to how the globe is affected the same way as the walnut is.
Put another way, it is not about the engineering, physics, geology, co2, vapor, Solar, etc. it is about the relationships between all those things, in which we understand little in terms of global climate. When we say the physics settles it, or the science is settled, it only serves to keep us ignorant.
phlogiston says:
August 6, 2014 at 12:10 am
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.
____________________
So what if he showed that it’s mathematically impossible for modelers to make accurate long range predictions, that just means they have to try harder to prove him wrong. GRANTS!
This paper is entirely in keeping with the decline in solar activity as seen in the neutron count and the consequent long term cooling forecasts made at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
Sturgis, your responses are certainly less than acceptable scientific debate. Respond appropriately. It is none of my concern if you have not read my comments on this blog, including linking to hundreds of papers on intrinsic weather pattern variations with both short and long term affects. Furthermore, the PDO is a description of a set of pools of water in the NH pacific that is a result of and extrapolated from ENSO data. It’s trends are not driven by solar variations such as UV or SSN variations, nor does it follow 11 or 22 year cycles. In addition, you need to update your information on the supposed Gleissberg Cycle. Are you saying it is a real cycle?
Regarding Milankovitch Cycles, I am well aware of that influence as an intrinsic driver due to Earth’s orbital/rotational wobbles. Do you know which wobble is primarily responsible for the Milankovitch Cycle?
And I remind you once again, respond appropriately. Your ad hominem response was out of line and nearly libelous.
My father went to college in the late 1950’s. He was taught that greenhouses trapped heat because the glass was transparent to the light coming in but blocked the heat from coming out. We now know greenhouses trap heat through convection. But it was once believe otherwise.
In regards to the stability of the earth’s climate “governor”: Ayn Rand was once asked if the order in the universe was proof of God’s existence. She replied: “What do you think a DISORDERED universe looks like?”
The cAGW crowd believe in an UNSTABLE climate system. It’s obvious that that is false.
Nick Stokes: They attribute the DWLW drop to reduced cloudiness.
I got that. It does not answer my question: Could the reduced cloudiness and reduced precipitable H2O have been caused by increased CO2?
“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.”
Seems to me that the downwelling longwave infrared radiation is going to hit EXACTLY the same resistance going DOWN as it encountered going UP, with the result that on a clear sky night NONE of it reaches the ground. A cloud, on the other hand, could essentially reflect (or re-radiate) infrared back to ground through CO2 not dense enough to stop it.