Introduction. The role of water vapor and cloud cover in assessing the long-term warming of the
earth
is complex, both with respect to observation (data gathering) and modeling. A schematic identifying the processes by which
water vapor and clouds can affect the energy balance at the earth’s surface is
shown below.
Processes
involved in the global rate of absorbing or radiating energy due to clouds and
water vapor. Units are given in watts
per square meter (W m-2), where 1 watt is a unit of power, i.e. a
unit describing the rate of energy gain or loss per second. The numbers given in the graphic represent
the result of measurements and modeled calculation by the authors for March
2000 to May 2004.
Darker yellow downward arrows, left, show incoming power per
meter squared for visible solar light. Paler yellow arrows, right, show outgoing power
per meter squared due to heat (infrared) radiation, as well as heat radiation
from the atmosphere back to the earth’s surface due to the greenhouse effect
from CO2, water vapor and clouds.
Evapotranspiration (center) combines bulk evaporation and transport of
water from the ground to the air by the transpiration of green plants. Latent heat (cloud in center) is explained in
this post http://warmgloblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/ice-water-and-water-vapor.html.
Source: Trenberth and
coworkers, BAMS March 2009, pp. 311-323; http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/TFK_bams09.pdf
For sunlight
reaching the earth, the sun's energy (visible light) is re-emitted as heat
(infrared) energy. Water vapor is transparent to visible sunlight
(just as is CO2), but water vapor and clouds act as greenhouse elements with respect
to heat energy (also just as does CO2). As shown in the diagram, a)
clouds directly reflect a portion of the visible light from the sun back into
space, and b) clouds as well as atmospheric water vapor exert a greenhouse
effect on heat (infrared) radiation originating at the earth’s surface. This greenhouse effect absorbs a large
portion of the heat and re-emits it in all directions, shown in the diagram as
continuing on out into space and returning to the earth’s surface as heat.
At the very bottom
of the diagram, the net total result of the all the positive and negative
contributions to the energy balance is shown as 0.9 W m-2, a small
net warming effect. It is important to
see from this diagram that since this final result is a very small number
arrived at by adding and subtracting very large numbers, any small error in the
inputs will have a disproportionately large effect on the final result, and
could easily turn a positive energy balance into a negative balance. For example, even the reported outcome for the global average is the result
of a cooling of 15.6 W m-2
for land (about 30% of the earth's surface) and a warming of 6.9 W m-2 for the oceans (about 70% of the surface).
The New York
Times recently published a
report
discussing scientists’ current understanding of the role of clouds in the long-term
increase in the global average temperature.
This involves new enhanced measurement methods as well as refined inputs
into global climate models (GCMs; also general circulation models). As noted above, clouds can contribute both to
more cooling (reflection of incoming sunlight), and to warming (because clouds
and water vapor contribute a greenhouse effect based on the heat (infrared) radiation leaving the earth’s
surface). According to the report, the
broad conclusion of the great majority of scientists is that, in balance, a neutral
or positive contribution to the overall global temperature dominates. (Clouds are only one of many factors
accounted for in GCMs.)
Background. Climate
scientists have reached a broad consensus that our planet is warming. By
measuring the long-term average temperature at stations all around the globe, as
well as by satellite in recent decades, they find that the global temperature
is increasing, starting with the industrial revolution. Scientists attribute
this warming to carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, that results from burning the
fossil fuels that power global industrialization, as well as to other
greenhouse gases produced industrially. These gases act to trap part of the
heat radiation released by sunlight striking the surface of the earth that
would otherwise escape into space. CO2 has been a component of the
earth's atmosphere for millions of years. Yet its concentration has increased
abruptly since the industrial revolution began due to mankind's burning of
fossil fuels to provide energy. The
greenhouse effect that it exerts on the planet's climate has been enhanced as a
result.
Of the CO2
that enters the atmosphere, a portion is absorbed by green plants as they grow
(but is released as they die and decay), and a portion is absorbed into the
waters of the oceans. The majority stays in the atmosphere for at least 100
years, or longer, as there is no additional mechanism that removes it. Before
the industrial revolution the CO2 cycle was in equilibrium; the gas
produced by animals and decaying vegetation was absorbed by the oceans and
growing plants. But the carbon contained in fossil fuels is not recycled back
to the geological reservoirs that the fuels came from. This carbon follows a
one-way route from underground reservoirs to new, additional atmospheric CO2
once burned to supply energy.
Water is a greenhouse substance. Water also exerts a greenhouse effect, whether as water vapor (i.e., a gas) or a liquid (including droplets in clouds and fog). In this regard, atmospheric water differs in many ways from CO2. Its vapor concentration in air is much higher than that of CO2; at "room temperature" the capacity of water in air is about 25 parts per thousand (25,000 parts per million) whereas currently the content of CO2 is about 390 parts per million. For this reason, the greenhouse effect from atmospheric water is much stronger than that of atmospheric CO2. Without the greenhouse effect of water, ambient temperatures on the earth would be far below freezing. Second, locally the actual water vapor content can be anywhere from 0 to 100% of the upper limit (the relative humidity). Globally the long-term cycle of water between water vapor, clouds and fog, rain and snow, glaciers and groundwater, and the oceans remains at equilibrium, in the absence of global warming. But thirdly, the capacity of air to hold water vapor (as the gas) increases by about 7% per degree C (3.9% per degree F). Thus as the long-term global average temperature rises because of the CO2 greenhouse effect, the overall intensity of the global water cycle will grow.
The water cycle,
including all the components mentioned above, is included in global climate
models. The role played by clouds in various GCMs is modeled with different
parameters. As shown in the graphic, some of the sunlight directly striking
clouds, especially low clouds (cumulus) and middle, layered clouds (stratus),
from space is reflected back into space as unaltered visible light. This
reflected light never reaches the earth and does not contribute to the
greenhouse effect. The highest (cirrus) clouds, however, are high enough to be
formed of ice microcrystals rather than droplets of liquid water. It is
believed that cirrus clouds permit most sunlight to pass through to the earth,
in contrast to the behavior of lower clouds, while still retaining the ability
to act as greenhouse elements, retaining a portion of the heat energy of
re-emitted light.
Skeptics: Clouds
will help cool the planet.
The New York Times article devoted considerable emphasis to the views of
certain scientist skeptics, especially the meteorologist Richard S. Lindzen of
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, affirming that clouds will
contribute a cooling effect as the global temperature rises. Dr. Lindzen has studied climate for more than
five decades. According to the Times, he
believes that cirrus clouds, especially over the tropics, will serve as an
“iris” (i.e. the portion of the mammalian eye, or of a camera, that regulates
how much light reaches the retina, or the film) as the earth warms. Warmer atmospheric temperatures, in his view,
will lead to a thinning of cirrus clouds that will permit more heat (infrared)
radiation to escape into space. This
negative effect on retention of heat will reduce the overall warming of the
planet.
The Times reports
that these views have been warmly received by politicians and others, such as the
Heartland Institute, who are skeptical of the role of CO2 and other
greenhouse gases in the long-term warming of the planet. According to the Times “most mainstream
researchers consider Dr. Lindzen’s theory discredited”. As an example, an article in 2009 by
Trenberth and Fassulo
, states “Many papers refute the negative feedback
and iris hypothesis of Lindzen et al. [2001]”, citing as examples Hartmann and Michelsen,
2002, “No evidence for iris”, Bull. Am.
Meteorol. Soc., 83, 249–254; Randall et al., 2007, “Climate models and their evaluation”, in Climate
Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the
Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
edited by S. Solomon et al., pp. 590– 662, Cambridge Univ. Press, New York; and
evidence for a slight positive feedback by Lin et al., 2002, “The iris
hypothesis: A negative or positive cloud feedback?”, J. Clim., 15, 3–7.
The Times further
reports that a paper published by Dr. Lindzen in 2009 included errors in data
analysis that were identified by other scientists and subsequently affirmed by him. In addition, a more recent manuscript was
criticized by peer reviewers for a “prestigious American journal” and was
rejected for publication. This is
significant (see this earlier post
on this blog), since review by anonymous peers ensures that analysis and
conclusions expressed are supported by the data (usually peer review does not
assess the accuracy or validity of the data themselves). Conversely, contemporary authors of journal
articles thank their peer reviewers for offering constructive suggestions that improve
the final form of the paper (for examples see Science 27 April 2012: Vol. 336
no. 6080 pp. 455-458, DOI: 10.1126/science.1212222 (see Acknowledgements); and Science 27 April 2012: Vol. 336 no. 6080 pp. 462-466;
DOI: 10.1126/science.1218389 (see Acknowledgements)).
Other articles
also assess cloud feedbacks. NASA discussed
(accessed May 5, 2012 ) long-term warming of the earth. In addition to forecasting significant
warming by the end of this century, this article states climate feedbacks could
more than double predicted warming, including feedbacks “due to snow and ice,
water vapor, clouds, and the carbon cycle.”
As the air warms, the ability of air to hold water vapor increases, as
noted earlier. As described above,
clouds have both positive (greenhouse effect) and negative (reflection of
sunlight) feedback effects on warming.
On balance, according to NASA, “most climate models predict a slight
overall positive feedback or amplification of warming due to a reduction in low
cloud cover.”
Discussing the role of cirrus clouds in this same post, NASA points out that they emit only small amounts of radiation because of their cold temperature. Thus, being composed of (solid) water, cirrus clouds strongly absorb heat (infrared) radiation reaching them from below, and retain a significant fraction of that heat, leading to higher atmospheric temperature than would be the case if they were absent. NASA states that in a world with higher average global temperatures, the air would have more water content that leads to formation of more cirrus clouds. In this view CO2-induced greenhouse warming would be amplified by the presence of more heat-retaining cirrus clouds in the upper atmosphere.
In a different post
dated Dec. 13, 2010 ,
NASA summarized work
(accessed May 5, 2012 ) by Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M University that was scheduled to be published in the
peer-reviewed journal Science.
Dessler identified a positive feedback effect on CO2-induced
greenhouse warming arising from clouds, based on studies of data from 2000 to
2010 on low- and high-altitude clouds.
Dessler showed “that clouds amplify the warming we get from carbon
dioxide.…The cloud feedback…does amplify the warming we get from greenhouse
gases.” His work also validates the
ability of current GCMs to simulate observed cloud feedback effects reasonably
well.
Clement and coworkers
(see also a commentary
by a nonparticipating scientist) analyzed the correlation of cloud cover (low-
and mid-level clouds, excluding cirrus clouds) and sea surface temperature over
a large portion of the northeast Pacific ocean at subtropical latitudes, using
existing records, for the period 1952-2007.
In the region monitored there is a reduction in cloud cover when the sea
surface temperature is warmer and vice versa.
This indicates that clouds interact with sea surface temperature in a
way that amplifies warming. The
scientists then assessed whether existing GCMs in the archive of the worldwide
consortium of climate scientists could reproduce their findings. Only one of 18 models assessed succeeded in
reproducing their findings in response to the warming induced by the known
increase in greenhouse gases that occurred over this period.
Trenberth and Fassulo, in the article mentioned
earlier,
published in 2009, modeled the effects of the complete cloud cover from 1950 to
2100 using all models in the worldwide archive.
Although they found considerable variation among models, some yielded
projections for positive feedback effects from clouds, i.e., that increased
surface temperatures would lead to effects on the cloud cover that amplified
the increase.
Conclusions
The New York Times published an article
analyzing the effects of clouds on the warming of the planet. It devoted considerable attention to skeptics
who doubt that mankind’s activities and the
greenhouse effect have led to long-term warming, and who have subscribed to the renegade
view of Dr. Lindzen that cirrus clouds will act as an iris, releasing more heat
energy to space as the earth warms.
This post has presented background
information showing that the contributions of clouds to the global climate are
many, varied, and may be subject to considerable variability both in data
analysis and in modeling their effects in GCMs.
It is important to understand that final effects are small numbers
arrived at as the difference between large positive and negative contributions from
individual processes. Small changes in
evaluating these processes can therefore lead to large changes in the final
contribution, including changing from a net warming effect to a net cooling
effect.
© 2012 Henry Auer
I really like the content of your post... it helps me answers my subject in chemistry and physics. thanks..
ReplyDeletevapor recovery unit