MIT Study Contradicts Climate Models With Observed Data

A recent study coming out of MIT may have just put into serious question the findings of several climate models with observed data.  This not only brings into question the models but also a longstanding assumption about carbon's effect on the atmosphere.

The full title of the article is "On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data" (full text) and was published in the Geophysical Research Letters, a journal published by the American Geophysical Union.  In the study Dr. Richard S. Lindzen and Dr. Yong-Sang Choi from the Program in Atmospheres, Oceans, and Climate at MIT used sea surface temperatures and measurements of the radiation emitted from the earth to determine whether the atmosphere resulted in positive feedback into the earth's temperature.

Okay, what the hell does all that mean?  Well before we get into the details we should note the basic assumption of global warming: Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, various hydrocarbons, and other substances like WATER VAPOR trap heat in our atmosphere.  If those gasses aren't properly removed from the atmosphere by greenhouse gas sinks they can build up and result in a warming trend.  A warming trend if left unabated can lead to a perturbation in the climate which can respond chaotically ala 'The Day After Tomorrow' style ice ages or 'Waterworld' style flooding of the earth.

If the above were true we could easily observe this phenomenon via geophysical concept of blackbody radiation.  If you think about it the sun is constantly shining light on some part of our planet.  That not only means the earth is constantly gaining energy but that it is also constantly radiating energy.  If it didn't we certainly wouldn't have the climate that we have today.  This radiation is emitted from the earth as either visible light reflected from the surface or as heat in the form of blackbody radiation.

Now if this radiation is less than the radiative flux from the sun that hits the earth every day than there some amount of energy being retained in the atmosphere leading to a warming trend; this is characterized as a positive feedback caused by the atmosphere.  If the radiation is more than the radiative flux hitting the opposite is true and there's some amount of energy loss; this would be the negative feedback.  As you might guess, if they're equal then the system is at its equilibrium.

Eventually equilibrium is the final state if nothing perturbs the system.  The question then follows, if surface temperatures increase slightly, what does the atmosphere do?  The longstanding assumption that most climate models is that as carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere it leads to a positive feedback that can in-turn increase temperatures; the carbon dioxide acts as a blanket on the atmosphere resulting in a higher point of equilibrium.  However, the MIT study observed otherwise.  By taking data radiative data from the ERBE (a satellite that watches the earth's levels of electromagnetic radiation including blackbody radiation) and sea surface temperatures they were able to show that when the atmosphere increases in temperature the blackbody radiation not only increases proportionally but sometimes ahead of the temperature changes leading to a negative feedback.  In laymen's terms the atmosphere might be a drafty door and not the greenhouse we've all assumed it to be.

But wait, doesn't this study also contradict the hockey stick graph and the .6 degree increase in temperatures we've been observing?  Well, not really.  All this study showed was that the atmosphere isn't trapping heat.   We have still observed a warming trend and carbon levels have increased with those changes; however as most scientists will note correlation isn't causation so the hokey stick is just that.  The earth is still warming up but it could be for any number of reasons besides atmospheric forcing.  One likely possibility is radiative flux from the sun increasing due to a long-period solar cycle.  There could also be propogated error in how we calculated previous climate shifts and/or current global temperatures.  In short, we don't know.  What this study does do is turn us away from a possible dead end path.  If we shift our attention to what's really causing global warming we may be able to find causation as opposed to the hockey-stick correlation.

The one thing we can be certain of is that carbon and the atmosphere in general have been absolved of any significant responsibility in the warming trend.  Unless this study is contradicted (and it's already been peer-reviewed), we need to start looking elsewhere for the cause of global warming.