This is not a topic that I follow, but I was intrigued by some comments in a poster by Penner and Andronova, both leaders in their field, and spent some time at this poster. The abstract stated:
A transient change in the balance between the incoming and outgoing radiation is an important indicator of the changing Earth’s climate. In this paper we use available data from satellites (1980 to present) and ground measurements (1995 to present) to reconstruct the long-term evolution of the energy budget of the tropical atmosphere (20S-20N). We compare the estimate of the radiative budget with the corresponding estimates obtained from model simulations from the AR4 database. We show that in spite of the dramatic increase in the model’s ability to simulate past and recent temperature change, the models show different sensitivities to the Mt. Pinatubo eruption and do not agree with observations of the overall radiative balance tendencies over 1980-2000.
First, they spliced and interpolated the available instrumental records for outgoing longwave radiation and shortwave radiation at the TOA in the tropiocs (20S-20N) (ERBE, CERES).
They then examined trends at TOA reporting:
They reported that Pinatubo is represented well in “some” models, but that the El Nino-La Nina effect is poorly represented, as they miss the decrease in reflected radiation.
They report that the total (diffused plus direct) solar radiation 1994-2006 from the World Radiation Data Center shows an overall positive trend of ~1.5 wm-2, which they say is consistent with the small negative trend in outgoing SW at the TOA, since less reflection would mean that more radiation would reach the surface, noting in particular that the total increase can be attributed to the Australia-Fiji area.
Their conclusions are that:
While I noted at the top that I’m not familiar with the issues in this area in detail, these results seemed interesting in that they seem to reconcile the failure of the tropical troposphere to warm at a greater pace than the tropical surface. I presume that the decreased reflectiveness of the tropical atmosphere is unrelated to GHGs but might have something to do with aerosols or clouds or both. This also doesn’t contradict prior masking of GHG effects by aerosol effects.
However, the changes described here by Penner and Andronova are large ones and they seem like the sort of thing that should be got right by models being used for policy.
Climate Audit 
39 Comments
The Pinatubo Perturbation is a fine test, indeed. Not in the budget, though.
===========================
Is not the cloud feedback the well known and advertised weak link of all climate models and relates to the limited spatial resolution of the models compared to the cloud dimensions? From a layperson’s perspective, I would think that the models could plug in some kind of parameterization for clouds that would give a one time adjustment for some general cloud condition, but might not be easily adjustable for changes in cloud cover.
I am so glad that this stuff is coming out. This is how science should be done. Keep publicizing this.
Click to access climatemodel.pdf
Re Pinatubo: Steve, Kim
Do either of you have a sensitivity estimate from the Pinatubo natural experiment? I have some notes on this from Bill Hyde (then at Duke; now Toronto) but they’re not accessible at present.
Kim, are you JEG & J. Curry’s colleague at GA Tech?
Steve, sounds like lotsa fun at AGU. Been a long time sinc I made that scene…
Cheers — Pete Tillman, a bit envious
“When confronted by a difficult problem, you can solve it more easily
by reducing it to the question, “How would the Lone Ranger handle this?” –Dilbert
No, P, I am double underline, lowercase, kim, among the ignorant and foolish laity.
JEG deigned to allow me to comment anon at his blog about human frailty.
========================================
over 25 years, starting from 1985, the Earths system gained about ~2 wm-2, due primarily to the decrease in SD (~3 wm-2) in comparison with a smaller increase in the outgoing LW (~1 wm-2), thus defining an overall brightening of the Earth system as seen from space;
What is SD?
Steve: SW
MattN, if the gloves don’t fit, you must acquit.
============================
Here.
# 5 :
Kim, are you JEG & J. Currys colleague at GA Tech?
[Steve: snip – a simple no will suffice]
Steve : i wonder if the models that got closer to the observed post-Pinatubo sensitivity are those that simulate the most realistic ENSO. Do you remember which ones they were from the poster ? Though it is taboo in an IPCC context to say that some models are better than others, it’s an open secret that a few of them fly consistently above the rest (particularly for tropical dynamics).
#10. There was no information. They had a hand-out that I kept, but it doesn’t say which models did well or poorly at individual details.
It did say, as noted above, that none of the models simulated the overall brightening of the Earth system. Again, I am not claiming knowledge of the details, merely trying to report. What would account for the failure of the models to simulate the brightening? (and the effect is not small – 2 wm-2 is more than half of doubled CO2 and showed up in only 20 years, a 20 year period of increased temperatures.
If this is correct;
http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/projects/browse_fc.html
there must be quite a lot the models have not captured.
Just about 0 W/m2 gained after 1984 (NET TOA).
I’m having a little trouble following some of the text:
In the context of an AGW fingerprint (or non-AGW fingerprint), I’m looking to see whether their conclusions suggest that the models under/over estimate cloud feedback, or whether the models under/over estimate convection.
I am confused by your terminology. Generally if the atmosphere is more transparent that would mean the Earth is less reflective, less bright, more absorbing of solar energy., higher temperature, higher albedo…
It’s not “my” terminology. I’m quoting from the paper. The authors are at U of Michigan.
An interesting related paper
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/304/5675/1299
Steve, here is a link to an article about how the Earth’s albedo has varied over the last couple of decades. It would be interesting to see if there is a correlation between the albedo data, as taken from measuring the variation in reflected earth shine to the presentation that you talk about here.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2007/10/17/earths-albedo-tells-a-interesting-story/
RE 10. JEG, you’re a tom waits fan?
Someday a bum could break into song ( i liked your tale about SF bums)
With a wacky visual twist. the melody that puts me up a tree.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKrLRcQMXaQ&feature=related
#17 :
Yes Steven, i happen to think Mr Waits is the greatest songwriter of his generation. Are you a fan too ? Hey, may be we can agree on something…
Regarding the tale of SF bums with surprising knowledge of dendroclimatology at breakfast, i told it to a friend and he said : “Are you sure it wasn’t [name] after a long night of drinking ?”
[name] = insert name of long-bearded dendroclimatologist here.
One for the dendros…. I’m sure some readers will appreciate.
RE 18. Yes JEG, I’ve been a huge Waits fan since 1980. I post Wait’s stuff here ocassionally
for STAFFAN our friend in Sweden who doesnt get out of the house much ( just kidding STAFFAN)
Glad you enjoyed your time in SF with our dendro enlightened bums.
I had my ass handed to me in a speed chess game on market street one day by a guy
who made Waits look like a princton preppy.
If you look at Figures S8.5 and S8.7 in the Chapter 8 Supplemental Information of the WG1 section of the AR4, you’ll see that the GCMs used by the IPCC to make its predictions are many W/m^2 wrong in both reflected SW and outgoing LW TOA predictions.
The information about the lack of consilience between the observations and the predictions made by the models is present in the AR4, but the IPCC officially ignores that in the SPM and even in the WG1 Technical Summary. In those sections, the IPCC claims >90% certainty that GHGs are responsible for warming global climate, whereas the discussion of error in WG1 Chapter 8 makes it very clear there is no such certainty to be had.
Re $ 4 MattN Australia wins
I lifted the Table IIa from you reference
This compares the results from 22 models of the temperature change with altitude to the tropopause. I wanted to see how well the Australian CSIRO performed.
Here is the Table –
Australia’s results are remarkably close to the mean. Australia is number 15 of the stations. Starting from lowest altitude and going upwards in altitude, with results in millidegrees centigrade per decade, Australia VS mean is
Aust Mean
163 156
213 198
174 166
181 177
199 191
204 203
226 227
271 272
Then the figures start to diverge a little more.
307 314
200 320
255 307
166 268
53 78
The last digit in these columns is one part in a million of a degree C/decade.
As a person with a general understanding of measurements and of climate model variability (see standard deviation given in the table), I would suspect that others would find this ppm correspondence fascinating. Indeed, if I were an examiner, I would ask for the raw data and the calculations to be explained in detail. Then, if all checked out, I’d say “Well done, chaps, you are as good as the ROW”.
Apparently, NASA shutdown their Earthshine program after 2004 for the measurement of the Earth’s albedo. I have the scientific quality equipment needed, so I am stepping in, to continue this important program.
From my location in Minnesota, I am able to measure the albedo over the Pacific ocean between America and Australia. For full global coverage, other dedicated volunteers in Australia and Europe will need to be organized.
With my 10 inch diameter telescope, a astronomy quality DSLR (Canon 350D) camera and a spectrometer, I already have what is needed for scientific measurements. Over the last two months, I have been obtaining outstanding images of the Moon’s Earthshine, which is now being archived for future analysis.
Currently, I am in the process of calibrating my telescope and camera against known stars, to measure the spectral response of the system. Using the known magitude of many stars, I am also insuring that I can accurately calibrate the intensity of the light being measured.
Why NASA quit monitoring the albeto of the Earth after 2004 is beyond me, but this is an important measurement.
Mosh #19: I’ve been following Waits since the late 70s. At one time I could do a pretty good impression:
“Small Change got rained on by his own .38,
And nobody flinched down by the arcade . . .”
I read an interview with him once. He was asked who had influenced him, whose music he liked. He said, “Everyone I like is either dead or not feeling very well.”
Steve
Do you have any links to the closing of this program?
Thanks
#24 and 25:
This is a subject that I am very interested in and I have been trying to obtain every source of information about this topic of research that I can find.
From the Big Bear observatory, where NASA’s Earthshine program was being conducted, all data seems to end after 2004. If they are still doing this research, then it has not been updated recently.
http://www.bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/espaper/earthshine_proposal.html
I hope to use everything that they have learned in an effort to calibrate my own data. If anyone has more information about this subject, please let me know.
However, if an amateur astronomer with scientific quality equipment can continue this research, then I am more than happy to step in and do my part.
Steve H.
Thank you.
Steve H:
I’m not sure why Anthony Watts hasn’t checked in here, but he had a mention of more recent work at Big Bear on his blog last month or Oct. My memory is rotten, but I *think* some is still going on, or perhaps it is going to be resumed. Drop Anthony an email at surfacestations.org/ and see what he knows.
re 23 theduke
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lX1qpcDchD4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zP1TC21QsnA&feature=related
Here’s the post from Anthony’s site about “earthshine” at BSSO
He had emailed the PI, not sure what he got back.
Re # 21 Sherrington
Correcting a mistake. WRONG
Corrected (et seq) The last digit in these columns approaches one part in a million of a degree ABSOLUTE/decade.
Re 11 :
“What would account for the failure of the models to simulate the brightening? ”
I wish i knew. I’m really not the person to ask, have stayed away from GCMs for a long time..
” (and the effect is not small – 2 wm-2 is more than half of doubled CO2 and showed up in only 20 years, a 20 year period of increased temperatures).”
The number is have in head for 2xCO2 is around 4 W.m-2.
2 W.m-2 is close to the current climate forcing (1.8 W.m-2 i saw on one of Jim Hansen’s graph in 2005, mas o menos), with aerosols partially offsetting GHG. So yes, that would be a very big signal…
Estimating clouds make me think if this: cloud busting
free yourself! Bingo.
Seriously, does anyone have clear theory of cloud formation and the attentant brightening or
lack thereof? I suspect it’s a big unknown. That’s ok as long as the uncertainity is reflected in the
projections.
GCM uncertainty is brought out only when it is essential to refute papers by denialists like Christy et al. After that, it goes back in Pandora’s black box.
RE 33. that was an astounding wasnt it. Now gavin wants to use GCM runs to counter
Ross’s paper.. See that thread on RC ( I’m out of the penalty box again)
Get this: Look at a bunch of GCM runs to see if Ross is right. He didnt even think
of the inplications of doing multiple tests, didnt think what it meant that GCMs runs did not match
reality, doesnt even consider the fact that Ross’ theory ( UHI infection is true) is the most easily
maintained theory…
Arrgg. Dumb fat and stupid is no way to go through life.
DMS
Now gavin wants to use GCM runs to counter Rosss paper…
I think it’s almost undeniable that the GCMs are tuned to match the global temperature record; if not by explicitly adjusting the parameters, then implicitly, by rejecting models that fail to match the record. A recent thread discussed the inverse relation in different models between total 20th century anthropogenic forcing and climate sensitivity, which is evidence of such tuning.
If, as Ross McKitrick’s paper claims, the temperature record is faulty, then the GCMs are tuned to produce incorrect results. That undermines whatever value the model output might otherwise have in deciding the issue. It also suggests that the reliability of the GCMs projections is limited by the accuracy of the surface temperature record. (The GCMs might also be tuned to the satellite record, but that seems inconsistent with the poor match discussed in Christy’s recent paper, and with the insistent claim by climate scientists that the surface record is more reliable.)
Noted straw man vandal Eli Rabbet has no response for it. Got into a long argument with him over on Motl’s blog. I think McKitrick’s paper has struck a chord even among the group thinkers over at RC.
Concerning Raypierre’s comment:
“…as Tom would happily tell you, the Middle Ages were not as generally warm as the present.
One observant RC reader remarked:
“Why would he be happy about such a fact, and is he really? Where does this kind of emotional involvement in paleoclimate reconstructions come from? I mean, one could also be happy about the Middle Ages having been warmer than the present, couldnt one? Maybe even happier than Tom?”
The folks at RC just don’t want to believe that we may not have a serious problem after all. I mean, who wants to be suddenly unneeded and unemployed?
RE: #36 – “When did China start pumping out large quantities of sulphuric acid?”
Although there was low level industry prior to WW2, the real surge began after. Mao was somewhat mimicking Stalin and focussed on heavy industrial development, steel mills, etc. By the 70s, the basic infrastructure for an East Asian Ruhr (or actually, a set of Ruhr’s) was essentially in place. Then came the more advanced industries, starting at the component level and working higher and higher in the food chain. It is now essentially at a 21st century Euro American level, albeit, with far fewer environmental controls (if any). Still huge piles of coal everywhere – powering everything from small furnaces and on site generation plants of mom an pop sub sub sub tier suppliers to 20 stack major power plants and brand new steel mills. A necklace of Ruhrs, with Puget Sounds, (old) Detroits, and Silicon Valleys layered on top.