Guest essay by Leland Park
Global warming theories propose positive feedbacks to explain magnified greenhouse effects that might trigger catastrophic warming. Naturally, any clues in temperature observations that might indicate feedback would be of great interest to climate science.
It turns out that climate feedback is very real, large and negative.
Climate Cause and Effect.
The concept of feedbacks presupposes a dynamic system in which cause and effect are linked through a consistent timing relationship. Thus, evidence of climate operating as a system, if it exists, should be found in comparing a cause of climate behavior with its effects. It is well known that solar energy is a dominant factor in the climate. Thus, the timing relationship between solar levels and temperatures might provide insight into climate cause and effect timing.
Figure 1 is a seasonal timeline of US average daily highs (Tmax) for US HCN stations at 36 degrees North Latitude. On that graph is an overlay of the daylight hours for same latitude, where the amount of daylight serves as a rough proxy for the pattern of solar level changes. (The two vertical scales are not adjusted for proportionality.)
Figure 1 Patterns of Daylight and Tmax for US HCN Stations at 36 No Latitude.
Several interesting observations can be made from this figure;
o the patterns of daylight hours and temperatures are both sinusoidal,
o Temperatures lag solar levels by about a month throughout the year,
o winter to summer temperature changes in excess of 40 deg F are entirely normal,
o this seasonal pattern is a consistent, recurring feature of climate behavior,
Though climate is often thought of as chaotic, it is readily apparent that the historical, repetitive pattern of cause (solar level) and effect (temperature change) means this pattern is not accidental. In fact, the cause and effect nature linking the two functions is a systematic behavior known as stimulus-response in control systems. Since this seasonal pattern actually repeats every year, the huge lag is actually a characteristic of climate behavior. In systems terms, this lag, from cause to effect, constitutes negative feedback.
Stimulus-Response Precision
As a systematic behavior we are interested in the consistency of the stimulus-response behavior. Most aspects of climate behavior exhibit variation over time, it is of interest to examine the statistical behavior associated with the seasonal patterns. Unfortunately, the ideal solar function used in Figure 1 cannot be used to match up with short term temperature variations. However, the statistical pattern of temperatures through the seasonal changes may provide insight into climate operation under change.
Figure 2 is a composite of the histograms for four selected months representing the solstice and equinox periods. Because of the climate lag, the solstice and equinox periods fall in the months of January, April, June and October. Variations in Tmax were calculated for individual stations by reference to station historical averages before inclusion into the histogram counts.
The statistical patterns for each month are nominally symmetrical about those historical averages so they correlate with the Tmax function in Figure 1. The results of these calculations is presented in Figure 2 where the mean of the distributions (and the monthly Tmax average) is represented by the 0 axis. While we do not have measured solar levels for comparison, it is clear that the climate is following the solar pattern with remarkable precision.
Figure 2 Tmax Variation Statistics for Selected Months
There are many factors that can produce variations in the seasonal Tmax. Among these are variations (by time and location) in the albedo, cloud cover, water vapor and ocean and atmospheric circulations. Despite the many reasons for variation, the climate follows the seasonal pattern closely even though the solar level is undergoing continuous change. In fact there is at least a 90 deg F round trip from winter to summer that is entirely normal at this latitude.
Figure 2 is, thus, an excellent illustration of the dynamic stability in the climate system. A passive system could not deliver the demonstrated seasonal tracking precision in following the solar stimulus. In short, the climate is behaving as if it is an active control system. More precisely, Figures 1 and 2 illustrate behavior that is consistent with that of a linear control system subjected to a sinusoidal stimulus.
Naturally, the temperature data alone is inadequate for explaining all of the effects. It should be sufficient, however, to establish that the dynamics are not “out of control”..
The Lag is Produced by Retarding Heat Changes.
During the January to July phase, the effect of the negative feedback is to retard temperature increases despite the increasing solar levels (Figure 1). Conversely, from July on, the negative feedback retards the loss in temperatures despite the waning solar levels. So the effect of the negative feedback is to retard, or delay, the effects of the solar level changes, whether increasing or decreasing.
So the cause of the temperature lag is something in the climate that can retard both heat gains and losses across the entire continent. Although atmospheric lag contributes, the daily lag of about 4 hours is far too small to account for the seasonal lag.
It is possible to surmise major characteristics of the cause of the lag. These are; 1) high relative heat capacity, 2) very large total heat capacity and 3) global impact. Those characteristics can only be met by the water in the oceans. In effect, the ocean contains such enormous amounts of water (high relative heat capacity) that they represent a vast thermal reservoir for heat absorption and subsequent release as the seasonal solar changes require.
In addition to its high heat capacity, water has special thermal properties that provide a critical link between the oceans and global climate. For example, as the sun heats the ocean a portion of the surface is evaporated carrying a large amount of heat energy into the atmosphere to be globally circulated. The relationship between water and the climate is far too complex for elaboration here, but it is clearly critical to the global climate.
Implications for Climate When Feedback is Negative.
A system with a large negative feedback is inherently stable in its operation. In this case, climate behavior is operating as if it is a linear control system where the stimulus is sinusoidal. That is, the climate will dutifully follow the solar stimulus but with a persistent delay (lag). Not only is it responding to the solar stimulus, it is responding with great precision, despite the approximately 90 deg F seasonal round trip in ambient temperatures over the year.
In fact, a system with this much lag would be quite stable with respect to minor perturbations. Inducing such a system to a permanent change in equilibrium conditions would not cause catastrophic instability. Instead the system would slowly seek a new equilibrium operating condition. For a major change in equilibrium conditions, however, a correspondingly large change in the system fundamentals would be required as well as considerable time for the change to take effect. Suffice it to say that minor changes in atmospheric trace gases would not be likely to force an equilibrium change in the system.
Implications for Climate Science.
US HCN data was mined for the graphs used in this analysis and the illustrative graphs. However, awareness of the climate lag and its approximate size could have been gleaned from an ordinary calendar. The seasonal pattern of solar level changes is well known and the solstice and equinox points are often marked on the calendars. Furthermore, calendars and almanacs have long noted that the warmest and coldest temperatures lag the solstice points.
Climate science should have begun to understand that the climate is stable when they found it necessary to continuously adjust temperature measurements to maintain the fiction that the earth is warming. If ever there was an excuse for “adjusting” field measurements, making continuing adjustments demonstrates that climate science has knowingly perpetrated a fraud.
The negative feedback between solar levels and temperatures has always existed – but never noticed, officially. I, for one, will be interested to learn how quickly climate science can adapt CO2 theory to explain away its implications.
“Climate science should have begun to understand that the climate is stable when they found it necessary to continuously adjust temperature measurements to maintain the fiction that the earth is warming. If ever there was an excuse for “adjusting” field measurements, making continuing adjustments demonstrates that climate science has knowingly perpetrated a fraud.”
Some fraud, we adjusted the temperatures cooler.
Park has a nice, simple model. I do not have enough math to make any critcism, but it looks very good.
This is nonsense. The author has confused a time delay with negative feedback. The two are completely different since you can have a delayed positive feedback or a delayed negative feedback.
Anyone with a pair of eyeballs and enough intelligence to understand the term ‘enthalpy’ can simply log on to a site showing infra red satellite imagery of the equatorial oceans and see a rather LARGE negative feedback happening in real time!
From a feedback perspective, the lag is caused by the effects of re-radiating heat from the surface, which acts as a heat sink — a sink that gets hotter than the surrounding air, and continues to get hotter faster as solar radiation increases. This absorbed heat (in excess of the air around the sensor) is still being released. This causes Tmax to lag SolMax.
It therefore follows that if the surface area around the sensor is paved or built up, that amplifies the natural effects that are occurring already (both warming and cooling). This will not only be manifested in an amplified offset, it will result in an amplified trend as well, because the delta (sic) between the sink and the surrounding air increase as it warms.
The sensor is still doing its job accurately, but the site is no longer representative of the natural surrounding terrain. The result is that a poorly sited sensor will show a spuriously large trend be it either cooling or warming.
Conclusion: Recent warming trends are real, but have been exaggerated by poor siting. And one will have to suck it in and either adjust for that or else drop the badly sited stations (the latter of which USHCN can afford, but GHCN, not so much).
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/indian/movies/m5irn/m5irnjava.html
CO2 is a triatomic molecule and as such possess no internal heat source and thus is incapable of heating anything.
It is time that WUWT stops pandering to those who ‘BELIEVE’ that CO2 is anything but good for all life on this planet. It is time to cut the chord. The green house effect was coined from ignorance. There is no greenhouse effect! All atmospheric gases act similarly in that they are all capable of cooling matter that is warmer and warming matter that is cooler. The second LAW of thermodynamics is alive and well.
Heat from the sun and Gravity are responsible for a positive temperature gradient in concert with increased air density that de-facto requires air molecules closer to the earth to move faster. This increased momentum of these air molecules is measured as temperature; as more energy impinges on the instrument used to measure temperature. That is real world temperature-measurement of useful heat.
There are none, and there will never be, an example of a `runaway greenhouse effect.`
Life is good. CO2 is good.
It is time to move on. There are glass houses. There are no green-house gasses.
The nature is full of negative feedbacks because it is a self-regulating system. If there were positive feedbacks, any system on the earth would go out of control. In the end there is always a negative feedback also in the case of climate system. If the temperature would start to increase strongly, it would increase evaporation from the ocean. This would increase the cloudiness, which has a strong negative effect on the surface temperature (about 0.1 K/cloudiness-%), because the albedo would increase.
Those researchers in favor of man-made global warming had to create the concept of positive water feedback because it doubles the warming effects of GH gases. In practice this effect is included into the climate sensitivity parameter (CSP) and into its official value of 0.5 K/(W/m2). By multiplying with this value the RF of the doubled concentration of CO2 (3.71 W(/m2)), the official transient climate sensitivity TCS = 0.5 * 3.71 = 1.85 K. This is the basic reason, why IPCC has to maintain the official CSP value as it is. Otherwise the whole construction of scary future temperature increases would collapse. The correct value of the CSP assuming the constant water content in the atmosphere is 0.27 K/(W/m2).
Those in favour of positive water feedback say that actually it is not used in numerous climate models (GCM) but it is a feature coming out from the system utilizing physical relationships. If this is the case, then these models are wrongly constructed. A simple sight test shows that there is no positive water feedback because it means that the relative humidity (RH) would stay constant in the changing climate conditions. The RH measurement since 1948 show that there is no constant RH trend at any level in the atmosphere.
Perhaps they should look at the molar heat capacity of so2.
1. The Earth is at perihelion (closest to the Sun) in early January, and yet the Earth’s average temperature is lowest then. The obvious reason is that most of the land masses are in the Northern Hemisphere, and the northern lands are covered in highly reflective snow and ice (due to the tilt of the Earth meaning that the Sun is lowest in the sky). The higher surface albedo then means the least Sunlight is absorbed, even though the distance is smallest.
2.(a) Perhaps the 200% positive feedback quoted in the literature (for example, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity ) came from the fact that water vapour is twice as important as CO2 in the atmospheric greenhouse effect (this fact comes from the infrared spectra obtained by satellites looking down on the Earth). So a 1 degree temperature rise on doubling CO2, combined with a 200% positive feedback, results in the literature’s quoted 3 degree rise.
(b) The fatal flaw in this reasoning is that doubling CO2 does not double water vapour. Increasing temperature from 15.0 to 15.6 degrees Celsius increases saturated water vapour from 12.788 to 13.290 mm Hg (see The Handbook of Chemistry and Physics), an increase by a factor of 1.039, or by 3.9%. Multiplying by a weighting factor of 2 (because water vapour is twice as important a greenhouse gas as CO2) would increase this only to 8%, not 200%. This factor of 8% increase would also apply at 50% relative humidity instead of 100%.
(c) Similar calculations starting from 40.0, 30.0, 20.0, 10.0, 0.0, and -10.0 degrees Celsius show increases by only 3.2%, 3.5%, 3.8%, 4.1%, 4.5%, and 4.9% (supercooled water) or 5.5% (ice), respectively. The % increase is roughly constant at 4% because saturated vapour pressure is roughly an exponential function of absolute temperature (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clausius-Clapeyron_relation , where it says a temperature increase of 1 degree results in a 7% vapour pressure increase). [For an exponential relation, exp[K(T+0.6)] = exp(KT).exp(0.6K) = constant.exp(KT) for any relevant temperature T, since K is a constant, and therefore 0.6K and exp(0.6K) would both be constants.]
3. It is easy to show that a 1% increase in cloud cover (e.g. due to increased water vapour condensation) would result in a negative feedback (due to increased albedo relative to the cloudless solid and liquid Earth) that would be as great, or greater than the small 8% positive feedback due to increased absorption by increased water vapour. This negative cloud feedback becomes even greater than in my previous Comments if we use an albedo of 0.04 for cloudless ocean, and 0.12 for cloudless land (compared to the overall 0.18 for cloudless surface and 0.37 for clouds I derived earlier from the updated Kiehl & Trenberth energy budget diagram available at https://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/12/10/an-update-to-kiehl-and-trenberth-1997 – these overall albedo values of mine include snow-covered areas of the solid surface).
Therefore the net feedback of water vapour and cloud feedback is most likely negative, not positive, so the literature is all wrong about the magnitude of the enhanced greenhouse effect (climate sensitivity). And because there are saturation effects (diminishing returns) on increasing CO2, I estimate that as CO2 increases from the present 400 to 600 ppmv, the IPCC prediction of future warming is likely to be 8 times too large. Hence the theory of CAGW is all wrong, and ought to be dumped in the dustbin of science.
4.(a) Even the 1 degree not including feedbacks, considered “settled science”, is too high. At 288.2 K and emissivity 0.98, the Stefan-Boltzmann law gives 383.34 W/m^2 emitted. If a “radiative forcing” of 3.7 W/m^2 due to doubling CO2 is added (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing ), a new total of 387.04 W/m^2 must be emitted for energy balance. Using the Stefan-Boltzmann law backwards, this corresponds at emissivity 0.98 to a new temperature of 288.893 K. The surface of the Earth must then be 288.893 – 288.2 = 0.693 degrees warmer for the temperature sensitivity, not 1 degree.
(b) The MODTRAN spectrum in the Wikipedia article on Radiative forcing states a radiative forcing of 3.39 W/m^2, about 8.4% smaller than the IPCC’s 3.7 W/m^2, and this lower value would mean that the literature value of 1 degree should be 0.63 degrees (and with net negative feedback, an even lower climate sensitivity).
5.(a) The MODTRAN spectrum, which I assume to be accurately computed, nevertheless shows a staggering blunder in the literature re all spectra obtained by satellites (or balloons at high altitude) looking downward on the Earth’s surface. These spectra are called “emission” spectra by Grant Petty in his very good book “A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation, Second edition” [note that the title assumes that the atmosphere radiates] and by Jack Barrett at his otherwise excellent website http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/ . Any competent chemist can tell at a glance, however, that these spectra are essentially absorption spectra, not emission spectra, with a little CO2 emission from the stratosphere (powered by incoming Solar UV and visible radiation absorbed by ozone) truncating the downward CO2 absorption ditch with “220 K” emission which is not Planck black body, but only at CO2 resonant frequencies.
(b) This lack of comprehension by the “experts” clearly shows up in their truncation of the horizontal Wavenumber axis at 1600 or 1700 cm^-1 (because “emission” is essentially zero at higher wavenumbers). But the Planck black body spectrum at 288.2 K extends well beyond, to about 2400 cm^-1; the net “emission” appears to be zero because the bond-bending water vapour band extends to 2200 cm^-1 and beyond, and water vapour lines are saturated, showing almost complete absorption of infrared (IR) beyond 1500 cm^-1. In order to see the entire water vapour absorption band from 1200 to 2200 cm^-1, see Fig. 3 at http://smsc.cnes.fr/documentation/IASI/Publications/ClerbauxACP2009.pdf .
(c) As I have previously written, the gases N2, O2 and Ar that make up 99.9% of dry air cannot and do not emit any infrared (IR), so there is no “atmospheric radiation”, black body or otherwise, from these gases. Yes, there is IR back-radiation from CO2 and water vapour molecules, but essentially these photons are equivalent to photons originally emitted from the solid and liquid surfaces of the Earth, and reflected back, after a delay (due to the lifetime of the excited states emitting the photons). And the IR emission from CO2 and ozone to outer space from the 220 K layer in the stratosphere amounts to about 19 W/m^2 (as calculated from the spectrum looking down on a 210 K Thunderstorm Anvil in Petty’s book), nowhere near the 240 W/m^2 required for energy balance. The rest of the required 240 W/m^2 is that portion of the 383.34 W/m^2 emitted from a 288.2 K (15 Celsius) Earth’s surface that is NOT absorbed by CO2 and water vapour molecules in the troposphere. [The absorbed power/m^2 ends up as increased translational and rotational energy of all the gas molecules in the troposphere; i.e. the troposphere warms up, the greenhouse effect, compared to an atmosphere without greenhouse gases.]
(d) So much for the “settled science” of the literature.
“It is possible to surmise major characteristics of the cause of the lag. These are; 1) high relative heat capacity, 2) very large total heat capacity”
What you are describing here is more of heat capacity variety as you noted.
These operate on a millisecond, hourly, daily, monthly and seasonal basis.
Just think of the ground/soil itself. It is absorbing up to 99.7% (nobody really knows) of the solar energy during the sunshine hours and then slowly releasing that at night.
If you turn everything around to a joules/second basis (solar photons/second basis) the numbers are truly weird. In the middle of the day, up to 960 joules/second/m2 can be coming in from the Sun, but the air temperature is only changing by 0.008 joules/second/m2. Where is the 959.992 joules/second/m2 going?
At night, 000.001 joules/second/m2 is coming in but the air temperature cools off as if 0.005 joules/second is being emitted back to the upper layers of the atmosphere.
Nobody has really measured how much is being absorbed directly by the land surface molecules on a per second basis versus how much is being emitted directly back to space in the daytime.
But this is exactly what is physically happening. Photons are flying around everywhere all the time and being absorbed and emitted by surface/air molecules every picosecond. Everything is happening at quantum mechanics speeds and the speed of light. In the middle of the day, 2,897,651,675,218,830,000,000 photons of solar energy are coming in from the Sun per second per m2, yet only 24,147,298,521,136,200 photons are showing up in the air temperature.
Climate science ignores all these issues (which is actually the real fundamental physics).
A stable system possesses sufficient phase and gain margin, i.e. a gain sufficiently smaller than 1 and a phase sufficiently short of 180 degrees.
Begs the question, Is there intelligent life in Climatology?
The Good Enough for Government thinking, that accepted an unprecedented positive feedback as the dominant climate forcing..
While such a feedback would have already exterminated most of life on earth.
The remarkable continuity of life speaks for itself.
One would have thought.. Oh never mind not during mass hysteria and social decay when feelings trump logic.
The very success of the CAGW meme is proof that far too many, so called educated, people did no thinking.
1. The Earth is at perihelion (closest to the Sun) in early January, and yet the average temperature is then the lowest. The obvious reason is that most of the land masses are in the Northern Hemisphere, and there is more highly reflective snow and ice covering the Earth’s surface, due to the tilt of the Earth which means the Sun is at a lower altitude in the North. The higher albedo means less of the incoming Solar radiation is absorbed, so temperatures are lowest, despite the close approach. The lag in heating is due to the need to melt some of the snow in Spring, which is a phase change (heat is absorbed without change in temperature) which also changes the albedo.
2.(a) The climate sensitivity in the literature is 1 degree (not counting feedbacks), with an assumed extra 2 degrees (200%) due to positive feedback. [See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity ]
(b) Perhaps this 200% positive feedback is derived from the fact that water vapor is twice as important a greenhouse gas as CO2 [this comes from the infrared (IR) spectra obtained by satellites looking down on the Earth].
(c) The fatal flaw in this assumption is that doubling CO2 does not double water vapor. Increasing temperature from 15.0 to 15.6 degrees Celsius increases saturated water vapor from 12.788 to 13.290 mm Hg, an increase by a factor of 1.039, or by 3.9% (see the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics). Multiplying by a weighting factor of 2 (because water vapor is twice as important a greenhouse gas as CO2) would increase this only to 8%, not 200%. This factor of 8% increase would also apply at 50% relative humidity instead of 100%.
(d) Similar calculations starting from 40.0, 30.0, 20.0, 10.0, 0.0, and -10 degrees Celsius show increases by only 3.2%, 3.5%, 3.8%, 4.1%, 4.5% and 4.9% (supercooled water) or 5.5% (ice), respectively. The % increase is roughly constant because saturated vapor pressure is roughly an exponential function of temperature (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clausius-Clapeyron_relation , which says that a 1 degree increase in temperature results in a 7% increase in vapor pressure). For an exponential relation, exp[K(T+0.6)] = exp(KT).exp(0.6K) = constant.exp(KT) for any T, since K is a constant (and therefore 0.6K and exp(0.6K) would both be constants).
3. From the updated Kiehl & Trenberth energy budget diagram available at https://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/12/10/an-update-to-kiehl-and-trenberth-1997 , and the TOA infrared (IR) flux of 260 W/m^2 from a 288.2 K cloudless Earth’s surface (as shown in the MODTRAN spectrum available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing , compared to 240 W/m^2 overall for energy balance), the Bond albedo for the cloudless surface is 0.18 (this includes snow-covered surfaces) and for clouds is 0.37. For a cloud cover of 62%, it is easy to show that even a 1% change of the Earth’s total surface from cloudless to clouded will result in a negative feedback which will swamp the 8% positive feedback due to increased water vapor (which is a gas, not to be confused with clouds which are made of macroscopic liquid droplets or ice crystals). Thus there is likely to be a net negative feedback, not a 200% positive feedback.
4. Even the 1 degree warming on doubling CO2 (not including feedbacks) is too large. At 288.2 K and emissivity 0.98, the Stefan-Boltzmann law gives an emission of 383.34 W/m^2. Adding a “radiative forcing” of 3.7 W/m^2 on doubling CO2 gives a new total of 387.04 W/m^2 which must be emitted for energy balance. Using the Stefan-Boltzmann law backwards, this corresponds at emissivity 0.98 to a new temperature of 288.893 K. This gives 288.893 – 288.2 = 0.693 degrees for the temperature sensitivity (not including feedbacks), not 1 degree. The MODTRAN spectrum in the Radiative_forcing Wikipedia article shows a TOA (Top Of the Atmosphere) radiative flux difference of 3.39 W/m^2 on doubling CO2 from 300 to 600 ppmv, so if this value is used instread of 3.7 W/m^2, the temperature sensitivity (not including feedbacks) would be only 0.63 degrees, and even lower when a net negative feedback is included. Because of saturation effects (diminishing returns on increasing CO2), the IPCC prediction of future warming as CO2 increases from the present 400 ppmv to 600 ppmv is a factor of 8 too large. This explains the “hiatus” in global temperatures for the last 15-18 years, even as CO2 has continued to increase, for the CO2 enhanced greenhouse effect (including water vapor and cloud feedbacks) is only a very minor component of the climate. Therefore all the fears of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change have been unfounded.
5.(a) As for the “settled science” of the physics of the atmosphere, even the spectra have been staggeringly misinterpreted by the “experts”, like Grant Petty in his very good book “A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation, Second Edition” and Jack Barrett at this excellent website http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/ .
They have merely repeated the literature interpretation of the spectra as “emission” spectra (consider that Petty’s book title includes “Atmospheric Radiation”, i.e. “emission”). Any competent chemist can tell at a glance that most of the spectra are “absorption” spectra, with the truncation of the downward CO2 absorption ditch by a “220 K” CO2 emission from the stratosphere powered by incoming Solar UV and visible radiation absorbed by ozone (this heating by ozone explains the temperature inversion in the stratosphere). For the difference between emission and absorption spectra, see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_spectrum and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraunhofer_lines and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_line .
(b) To understand the blunder in the literature, you don’t even have to know the reason for the details of the spectra. Consider that Petty’s Figs. or the spectrum available as Fig. 3 at http://climateaudit.org/?p=2572 (very well modelled by the MODTRAN computed spectrum) truncate the horizontal Wavenumber axis at around 1600 cm^-1 (which is sensible if we interpret the “emission” going to zero at higher wavenumbers). But the Planck black body emission of a 288.2 K Earth’s surface is not zero at 1600 cm^-1, but extends to 2200 cm^-1. The drop to zero detected by the satellite sensor is due to almost complete 100% absorption of those frequencies due to the R-branch of the water vapor bond-bending spectrum. To see the full water vapor spectrum to 2100 cm^-1, see Fig. 3 at
http://smsc.cnes.fr/documentation/IASI/Publications/ClerbauxACP2009.pdf .
You will note the very wide absorption band for water vapor bond-bending, from 1200 to 2100 cm^-1, with the “band origin” notch of decreased absorption at 1595 cm^-1 (which sometimes appears as a non-zero “emission” in some spectra).
(c) As I have written previously, the main molecules N2, O2 and Ar that make up 99.9% of dry air cannot and do not emit any significant infrared (IR), black body or otherwise, since the molecules are non-polar (do not possess an electric dipole moment). This is easily seen in the “window” at 900 cm^-1, for a spectrometer looking upward at nighttime sees zero emission from the entire thickness of the atmosphere. By Kirchhoff’s Law, a good emitter is also a good absorber, and vice versa, so N2, O2 and Ar cannot absorb infrared (IR) photons either. They do gain energy during radiationless collisions with vibrationally excited CO2 and water vapor molecules formed after they have absorbed some of the IR emitted from the solid and liquid Earth. Since N2, O2 and Ar outnumber CO2 by a factor of 2500:1, most of the energy absorbed as heat ends up as enthalpy (heat content) of these non-emitting molecules (the heat capacity at constant pressure for N2, O2 and linear CO2 is 7k/2 per molecule, where k is Boltzmann’s constant; Cp for Ar is only 5k/2 per molecule.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_capacity ).
What could be a big negative impact on the NH is if the Polar jet splits into two during the summer months. This is what is going to happen over the northern Atlantic during the first half of next week. lt will be interesting to see what effect it has both in the Arctic and across the North Atlantic. Am expecting it will bring below average temps across much of this area.
Oh Dear!
“The initial 1912-1928 data” that is the “Mean Sea Level Datum 1929” that took nearly 50 years to rename as the National Geodetic Vertical Datum 1929 by act of Congress and unfortunately is still widely used, in Alaska, amongst others, as the National (vertical) Datum!
The NGVD 29 is NOT mean sea level nor any kind of physical level! It is just … wrong and demonstrated by the National Geodetic Survey in the network re-adjustment that began in 1982 and finished as GPS survey instruments became available.
The situation is more grave that I ever suspected.
In climate science, a negative feedback is a one degree Kelvin change in surface temperature in response to TOA radiative forcing of greater than 3.3 W/m^2. A positive feedback is less than 3.3 W/m^2. No feedback corresponds to 1.1 K per doubling of CO2. Independently Lindzen and Spencer found a strong negative feedback of 6 W/m^2 in their analyses of satellite data. It means TCR must be less than 1.1 K per doubling of CO2
I agree that highly positive feedbacks are unlikely. This explanation however, doesn’t hold water.
Peak temperature happens after peak insolation for the simple reason that while insolation may have started to fall from the peak, it is still higher than the equilibrium temperature of that place on earth for a time, so the earth there continues to warm even though insolation is falling, and will continue to warm until insolation drops below that equilibrium temperature. So, peak temps lag peak insolation and this has nothing to do with any feedback at all. Min temps lag min insolation for precisely the same reason. Once min insolation starts to rise, it is still below the equilibrium temperature of the earth at that time, so it continues to cool.
I’m in agreement with Germinio and Nick Stokes upthread, and (I think) Joe Born. The author’s observations are of a simple lag, not a feedback.
The link between lag and feedback is more complicated than you imply, as is clear if you think about what positive feedback might look like.
The lag is not due to feedback, but is the consequence of a time constant. The lag would be present whether the net feedback appears positive or negative, although Bode’s control theory was misapplied to climate analysis, so the very idea that control theory feedback analysis even applies to the climate system is incorrect.
It takes time for the planet to respond to a change. Once a peak in the stimulus occurs, the planet still needs to warm to catch up with the stimulus. It’s not until the input power drops below the level required to sustain the current temperature that the temperature starts to drop. The reverse happens at the minimum where the temperature doesn’t start to rise until the stimulus rises above the level needed to sustain the current temperature.
When you model the planet as the DE Pi = Po + dE/dt, where Pi is the input power, Po is the power leaving the planet and E is the energy stored by planet, time constants trivially arise. Since the surface temperature, T is a function of E and Po is a funciton of T (Po = e*o*T^t), this equation becomes the same form as the LTI describing an RC circuit which is the very genesis of the concept of a time constant. This equation can be re-written as Po = E/tau + dE/dt, where tau is an arbitrary amount of time such that the equation becomes true, in which case, tau is the time constant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_constant
The only tangible difference is that tau is a decreasing function of temperature making the dependence of Po on E more complicated then in the case of an RC circuit and gives the appearance of net negative feedback.
“Since this seasonal pattern actually repeats every year, the huge lag is actually a characteristic of climate behavior. In systems terms, this lag, from cause to effect, constitutes negative feedback.”
It would help greatly if you understood meteorology.
The primary reason for lagged temp response behind the sun is the uptake of heat into the oceans.
The UK for instance starts spring/early summer with the lowest SST’s around its shores and over the N Atlantic too. This causes air advected over the country to be cooler relative to late summer and the addition of TSI into necessarily gives lower max temps. It is NOT a feedback in any way (globally) it is merely the differential temporal transport through a complex climate system of which the ocean comprises BY FAR the most dominant factor.
A negative feed-back by definition has an attenuating effect on the process CAUSED BY the process.
It is not occurring here.
BTW: this last w/e the country enjoyed a very warm spell for the time of year.
Why?
Because the advected airmass came via an (almost) entirely land trajectory.
No cooling ocean.
By calling it a “negative feed-back” you are essentially say that because it’s getting warmer that is causing it to warm more slowly.
NO.
Additionally when it comes to temp response in continental interiors. The upper air mass is cooler during spring/early summer than later and although the land will readily warm via increased TSI input, that heat is convected into a cooler air-mass (producing eg April showers). This has a knock on (if you like a local feed-back) of additionally cooling the surface temps (but that is NOT the dominant effect).
You have it correct here…..
“In effect, the ocean contains such enormous amounts of water (high relative heat capacity) that they represent a vast thermal reservoir for heat absorption and subsequent release as the seasonal solar changes require.”
However as stated above it is NOT a feed-back.
IOW: you have accurately described the climate systems response to seasonal change of absorbed TSI …. and ascribed to it the term “negative feedback”.
It is not.
It is a lag.
Nothing more.
Nothing less.
In systems terms, this lag, from cause to effect, constitutes negative feedback”
Huh? Sounds like nonsense to me. Lag, from cause to effect, in physical systems, indicates *inertia*, not feedback.
I was prepared to save this article based on the title. But soon realized it is not worth much at all. I agree that the heat capacity of the ocean far exceeds that of the atmosphere and the land. But surely we have learned from borehole studies that land has a non-negligible heat capacity.
In some places in the northern US and southern Canada, the land freezes in winter to a depth of one meter (40 inches). This would cause a substantial lag in seasonal ambient temperature relative to insolation. But it’s not what we regard as a feedback.
The following would be classed as negative feedback. Insolation causes evaporation of water from land and sea surfaces. The water vapor rises and forms clouds, some of which reflect back into space part of incoming short wave radiation. In this process, some clouds contribute to Earth’s albedo denoted by A in the formula
Ri = Rt / 4 * (1-A)
where Rt is total radiation falling upon the Earth seen as a disc (about 1360 Wm-2 ) and Rt/4 is about 340 Wm-2 averaged over the Earth’s entire surface.
Earth’s albedo A is known to vary. (Pallé et al. 2009)
If total incoming solar radiation is 341.4 Wm-2 and albedo A is 0.30, the net incoming radiation is 239 Wm-2 (values for illustration). If albedo changes by +/-1% (to 0.297 or 0.303), then net incoming changes by +/-0.003, to 0.697 or 0.703, giving 238.0 Wm-2 or 240.0 Wm-2.
This means that a one per cent change in albedo would result in a change in incoming radiative energy of +/-1 Wm-2. To produce the level of increase in energy imbalance estimated from ocean heat content (OHC) as reported by Hansen and updated to 0.5 Wm-2 in 2012 (Loeb et al. 2012), would be equivalent to a net decline in albedo of 0.5%. (Not a statement that a decline in albedo is or was the cause.)
Thus a decrease in albedo of 0.5% could produce a positive increase in net radiative imbalance (warming)equal to what NASA scientists have observed. (Not a statement that a decline in albedo is or was the cause.)
If, as Kevin Trenberth has asserted, the warming should have been greater according to AGW theory, then we might ask ‘What could account for the missing heat?’
Consider the possibility that CO2 does tend to warm the Earth and thus increases cloud cover and thus increases albedo. This would tend to cool the Earth because more incoming short wave radiation would be reflected back into space
That is an illustration of negative feedback and that might account for the missing warming. The climate system has an imperfect thermostat that cancels part of the tendency for CO2 to warm the planet by increasing cloud formation and thus albedo.
Svensmark and others point out that cloud formation does not work unless there are sufficient particles in the atmosphere to act as condensation nuclei. Opponents claim that his explanation is wrong because galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) cannot form such nuclei. The experiment at CERN was set up to test the physics.
In my opinion, the CERN experiment successfully demonstrated that GCRs can promote the formation of cloud condensation nuclei. Note my wording. GCRs are not themselves the condensation nuclei, but rather act upon substances in the atmosphere to cause clumping to a critical size to form condensation nuclei and cloud formation in supersaturated air.
To what extent GCRs actually do promote cloud formation, increased albedo, and negative feedback is still controversial.(KIRKBY, 2007.)
There it is, on the table. The concepts are easy to understand. The main issues with AGW is cloud and water vapor feedbacks.
Furthermore, there is a huge gap in the AGW consensus in regard to clouds. By now, everybody knows the IPCC’s spaghetti graphic that shows that the leading models (GCMs) have not converged for over 20 years. Those who have compared the models tell us that the main cause of the differences in the model outputs is the treatment of clouds.
PALLÉ, E.; GOODE, P. R.; MONTAÑÉS-RODRÍGUEZ, P. Interannual variations in Earth’s reflectance 1999-2007. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 2009, 114.D10 URL: .http://www.leif.org/EOS/Earthshine_Palle_2008.pdf
Hansen, James, et al. “Earth’s energy imbalance and implications.”Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 11.24 (2011): 13421-13449.
Loeb, Norman G., et al. “Observed changes in top-of-the-atmosphere radiation and upper-ocean heating consistent within uncertainty.” Nature Geoscience 5.2 (2012): 110-113.
KIRKBY, Jasper. Cosmic rays and climate. Surveys in Geophysics, 2007, 28.5-6: 333-375.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0804.1938.pdf
http://www.hephy.at/user/mjeitler/LECTURES/Astroparticles/CLOUD_experiment_cern_colloquium_kirkby.pdf
Video:
Why do we keep doing this? Misleading headlines that get us reading are a staple of tabloid journalism and should have no place here. The actual article has no real connection with feedbacks and little useful analysis, and as a result the comments have been all over the place…
There are compelling, though circumstantial, reasons to believe that feedbacks of a ‘restoring moment’ type do occur through the WV system and I’ve been waiting a long time now for a proper discussion of this.
If you follow the argument to its logical conclusion, El Nino should be impossible…
Peter