" ... I decided to see how the models treat the question of how the oceans, and in particular the tropical oceans, respond to down welling radiation at the surface.
To do this, I looked at the correlation between down welling radiation and sea surface temperature (SST).
If the correlation is positive, it means that when the radiation goes up the temperature goes up.
And if the correlation is negative, when the temperature goes up, the radiation actually goes down.
... the results from five different climate models (shows) the response of the oceans to net down welling radiation at the surface.
The net solar radiation is the downwelling solar (shortwave, or “SW”) radiation less what is reflected upwards from the surface,
plus the down welling infrared radiation (longwave, or “LW”) from the clouds and the atmosphere.
This is the so-called “greenhouse radiation”
What’s improperly but inalterably called “greenhouse radiation” starts out as energy absorbed by the atmosphere—
absorbed solar energy, sensible and latent heat moved from the surface to the atmosphere, and radiation from the surface of the earth that is absorbed by the gases,
including greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere—water vapor, CO2, methane, and other minor gases.
Once the radiation and the other energy is absorbed, it warms the atmosphere.
And since anything that can absorb radiation also can emit radiation, those greenhouse gases radiate the absorbed solar, sensible, latent, and radiated heat in all directions.
This down welling radiation resulting from the atmosphere is what is known as “greenhouse radiation”.
This “greenhouse radiation”, the down welling radiation from the atmosphere, leaves the surface warmer than it would be if there were no greenhouse gases
—if there were no GHGs, the upwelling surface radiation would go straight to space and be lost.
But instead, the up welling surface radiation is absorbed by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere about half of it is returned to the surface.
(Important note: the above is all well-established science.
The down welling radiation from both the atmosphere and the clouds has been measured, not modeled or estimated, by thousands of scientists around the planet for decades.
There’s an entire network of observing sites around the US called SURFRAD, which as the name implies do nothing but measure the radiation flows,
both shortwave radiation (sunshine) and longwave radiation (thermal radiation) to and from the surface. ...
... there’s no question that such down welling radiation from the atmosphere is real and leaves the earth warmer than it would be without GHGs.
... This thread is NOT a place to debate the existence of down welling radiation from the atmosphere.
It is a place to discuss the size and nature of the effect of that radiation.
... the results from 5 different climate models, showing the correlation between down welling “greenhouse” radiation at the surface, and sea surface temperature.
... Results from five climate models involved in CMIP5, the “Climate Model Intercomparison Project”.
All of them have used the same data—
”ts”, the surface temperature;
“rlds”, longwave down welling surface radiation;
“rsds”, shortwave down welling surface radiation, and
“rsus”, shortwave up welling surface radiation.
The model results are all available from the World Climate Research Program.
There are several things of interest in these model results.
First, they vary greatly in the amount of ocean that is negatively correlated with down welling radiation.
The MIROC model at the bottom has almost no ocean with a negative correlation to radiation, while the NorESM model has a much larger area.
Second, the strongest correlation is near the poles, with correlations between 0.8 to nearly 1.0.
Third, the average correlation in the tropics is quite varied—0.22, 0.25, 0.36, 0.45, and 0.45 for the various models.
And the same is true about global average correlation.
... despite using different datasets, unlike the models they are very close in all values
... the correlation near the poles is much smaller than that shown in all of the models.
... all of them show larger amounts of negative correlation in the tropics, as well as globally, than do any of the five models.
There’s another way to look at this same data.
This is to look at a scatterplot of the gridcell surface temperatures versus the amount of net surface radiation each gridcell receives.
... for example ... the CERES radiation data versus the Reynolds SST data.
This represents the long-term relationship between down welling radiation and ocean temperature.
The ocean has had hundreds of years to adjust itself to the average amount of down welling radiation.
Note that in the warmest parts of the ocean, the correlation between the radiation and temperature goes negative—as one goes up the other goes down.
This is what we saw in the tropics ...
... my theory about emergent climate phenomena says that at the warmest ocean temperatures, the action of thunderstorms will strongly cool the sea surface … as we see in the observational plots ...
... Clouds cool the surface by blocking the sun.
They also warm the surface by absorbing up welling longwave from the surface, about half of which is radiated back to the surface.
The “net cloud radiative effect” is the sum of the warming and the cooling effects. Here’s the map of the surface net cloud radiative effect.
... My theory also says that the increase in sea surface temperatures will be slower than it would be otherwise, due to the action of a variety of emergent phenomena acting to cool the surface. And we see that as well in Figure 5 above.
So … does this establish that my theory about emergent climate phenomena is true?
Nope.
It’s more support, but its far from establishing it.
However, it does strongly suggest that emergent climate phenomena are not realistically included in the climate models." ...
Post Scriptum: I must confess that I am quite baffled by how mainstream climate scientists handle the whole subject of climate models.
... certain models are fairly close to at least some aspects of reality, while others are very far from reality.
But all of that gets ignored by the mainstream scientists.
All of the results of the different climate models are given equal weight, the group is called an “ensemble”, and a simple average of all of their output is taken to be a valid result … say what?
... I have no explanation for why the modelers deal with the models in this curious hands-off “everyone is equal” manner.
... it appears that the scientists just want to give every model a “Participation Prize” so they don’t damage any of the modelers’ precious self-esteem
… and sadly, this is what passes for “science” in the climate world."
