Models get cloud feedback wrong, but *only* by 70W/m2 (that’s 19 times larger than the CO2 effect)

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/08/models-get-cloud-feedback-wrong-but-only-by-70wm2-thats-19-times-larger-than-the-co2-effect/

Yet another paper shows that the climate models have flaws, described as “gross” “severe” and “disturbing”. The direct effect of doubling CO2 is theoretically 3.7W per square meter. The feedbacks supposedly are 2 -3 times as strong (according to the IPCC). But some scientists are trying to figure out those feedbacks with models which have flaws in the order of 70W per square meter. (How do we find that signal in noise that’s up to 19 times larger?)

Remember climate science is settled: like gravity and a round earth. (Really?)

Miller et al 2012 [abstract] [PDF] find that some models predict clouds to have a net shortwave radiative effect near zero, but observations show it is 70W per square meter.

REFERENCES

Miller, M., Ghate, V., Zahn, R., (2012)

The Radiation Budget of the West African Sahel and its Controls: A Perspective from Observations and Global Climate Models.

in press Journal of Climate [abstract] [PDF]

Thread header here Andy:-

http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2012/08/ava-is-very-cute/#comment-109760

“Amy’s birth was a “terminating event” in terms of positive feedback from the hormone oxytocin”

It’s all about feedbacks

KR, if you had been paying attention you would have seen that the topic of Dessler 2012 had been broached at #30 but OK, let’s have a look at it here.

Your D12 quote:-

“….the climate was stabilized by a strongly negative temperature feedback“

So in this first instance of the D12 system, the initial process is “climate” and one of the feedbacks is temperature. What exactly is “climate”? We can infer from D12

…..whose climate is also dominated by internal climate variability. These results will then compared to feedbacks in simulations of long-term warming in order to assess how these feedbacks differ from those in response to internal variability.

In this first instance, the initial process is “internal variability” and temperature is a feedback against internal variability.

Next from your quote:-

climate variations were also amplified by a strong positive water vapor feedback

So now in this second instance of the D12 system, the initial process is “climate variations” and one of the feedbacks is water vapour. What exactly are “climate variations” in the D12 system?

…over this time, the dominant climate variations were from the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO)

In this second instance, the initial process is dominantly “ENSO” and water vapour is a feedback against ENSO (dominantly)

Those two quotes were from the D12 Abstract so now let’s move on to the Introduction:-

Feedbacks change the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) net energy balance in response to a change in surface temperature,

In this third instance of the D12 system, the initial process is “surface temperature” and the feedbacks are:-

…the parameters of interest for feedbacks (particularly atmospheric water vapor, temperature, and clouds)

Apparently, in this third instance of the D12 system, “temperature” is a feedback against the initial process “surface temperature”.

The necessity for climate science to accommodate a bogus positive feedback from water vapour in their “contemporary” feedback system (contrary to the classical negative feedback – see Brehmer paper #30) has resulted in poor Dessler tying himself (and the unwary) in knots.

Needless to say – in view of the three instances – Dessler does not define nor does he diagram his feedback system because it is internally inconsistent.

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/08/moore/#comment-1106418

Hilary Ostrov has a good post contrasting Patrick Moore with Richard Muller

https://hro001.wordpress.com/2012/08/12/a-tale-of-two-converts-richard-muller-patrick-moore/

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/08/moore/#more-23281

Perhaps the tide is turning.

In his Sydney Morning Herald and Stuff Opinion articles, there’s a system diagram absent that is shown in the same article reprinted at JoNova. The “contemporary” system diagram David presents (proven incorrect by Carl Brehmer) is here:-

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/evans-david/climate-models-feedbacks-600.gif

The JoNova post source of the diagram is here:-

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/08/david-evans-climate-change-science-is-a-load-of-hot-air-and-warmists-are-wrong/

Of that diagram David says:-

n the theory of manmade climate change, two thirds of the predicted warming comes from changes in humidity and clouds, and only one third comes directly from the extra carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

The theory assumes that humidity and clouds amplify the warming directly due to CO2 by a factor of three: extra CO2 warms the ocean surface, causing more evaporation and extra humidity. Water vapor, or humidity, is the main greenhouse gas, so this causes even more surface warming.

Not many people know that. It is the most important feature of the debate, and goes a long way to explaining why warmists and skeptics both insist they are right.

The warmists are correct that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and it causes warming, that CO2 levels have been rising, and that it has been warming.

Serious skeptics agree with all that, but point out that it does not prove that something else isn’t causing most of the warming.

[...]

There is no observational evidence for this amplification, but it is nonetheless built into all the models. Skeptics point out that if the extra humidity simply forms extra clouds then there would be no amplification.

Actually “serious skeptics” go a step further. What David has not picked up is that not only is there no water vapour amplification but “contemporary” climate science reverses the sign of the classical negative water vapour feedback to make water vapour a positive feedback.

Of the classical => contemporary feedback transition Carl Brehmer says:-

If we mislabel a negative feedback and call it positive feedback, we might be led to believe that the addition of humidity to a climate system will destabilize it!

We (I at least) have much to thank Carl Brehmer for. Back story at Tallblokes Talkshop:-

Carl Brehmer: Fact trumps theory with the greenhouse effect: A case study

http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/05/16/carl-brehmer-fact-trumps-theory-with-the-greenhouse-effect-a-case-study/

Baa, I’ve emailed Jo, challenging David to define Dessler’s system as per what can be inferred from D12 Abstract and Intro, also asking if David finds that if Dessler departs from classical convention that a Nova/Evans post will eventuate.

I see a two part sequence:

1) derive Desslers system from D12 (not easy because you end up with two different configurations depending on Abstract or Intro).

2) having done 1) to then assemble the system as it SHOULD be by classical convention with correct initial process and appropriate feedback attribution parameters with correct signs and compare to 1). This is best shown in system diagram form I think.

Brehmers experiments show that water vapour is a negative feedback against temperature so that Dessler has a water vapour feedback sign opposite to classical convention. Brehmer explains this thus:-

Departing from this classical scientific definition of “feedback” contemporary literature defines positive water vapor feedback one-dimensionally and implies that positive water vapor feedback always results in a warmer temperatures and when you see a counter argument that asserts that water vapor feedback is negative the term is also used one-dimensionally and implies that negative water vapor feedback always results in a
cooler temperatures. Again, positive feedback will only result in a warmer temperatures and negative feedback will only result in a cooler temperatures if the basal temperature is already trending warmer as it does every day from sunrise to mid afternoon. If the basal temperature is trending cooler as it does predictably and repeatedly every night then positive feedback would make the temperature even cooler and a negative feedback would result in a warmer temperature at the end of the night.

It seems to me that Dessler’s branch of science has designed for themselves a hybrid and very flexible feedback system unconstrained by classical convention, examples from physiology, electronics, or other non-climate nature etc that bends and morphs depending on what the message or bias is to be conveyed and written into contemporary literature as some kind of authority that can be cited.

Until I’m proved wrong – I don’t buy it.