by Judith Curry
A few things that have caught my eye this past 12(!) weeks.
Pattern Recognition Methods to Separate Forced Responses from Internal Variability in Climate Model Ensembles and Observations journals.ametsoc.org/jcli/article/3
An increase in global trends of tropical cyclone translation speed [link]
Bending the curve of terrestrial biodiversity needs: an integrated strategy [link]
A new study of ocean salinity finds substantial amplification of the global water cycle eurekalert.org/e/J7Q4 .
Scientists just discovered past ocean carbon budget estimates are twice as wrong as they thought. The CO2 sink estimate can be doubled (from 2.8 to 5.7 PgC/yr) just by varying the measurement depth rather than using a fixed depth. pnas.org/content/117/18
Clear sky urban heat island (UHI) averages from 0.85C to 1.91C across the USA. Most thermometers, esp with long term records, are in urbanized areas. Yet somehow, temp adjustments for UHI are near-zero and it is considered a “non-factor”. sciencedirect.com/science/articl
Surface temperature trend in Antarctica [link]
New paper on Arctic Amplification [link]
Mg/Ca and Sr/Ca ARE NOT CONSTANT IN THE OCEAN!! this has HUGE implications for paleoproxy dating [link]
What has caused the sea level rise and its decadal variation since 1900? In short: thermal expansion + land water storage + ice sheets and glaciers mass loss. A new study synthesizes the up-to-date observations and close the sea level budget since 1900. nature.com/articles/s4158
Using information theory to quantify the causal effect of specific ENSO phases on Pacific Northwest temperature anomalies. [link]
Nice hypothesis by Yang et al. about the ocean’s distinct role in tropical expansion. Mean circulation constrains changes in SST gradients, which influence Hadley cell width. agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.102
Relating climate sensitivity indices to projection uncertainty [link]
Missed wind patterns are throwing off climate forecasts of winds and storms and attribution studies [link]
Interesting: Earthquakes could be triggered by streams of positively charged ions ejected by explosions on the surface of the sun, according to a new study mol.im/a/8527523
A new article of ours on predictability “Is Weather Chaotic? Coexisting Chaotic and Non-Chaotic Attractors within Lorenz Models“ [link]
We quantify this using a new metric which we call the “Transient Sea Level Sensitivity” os.copernicus.org/preprints/os-2
Meridional ocean carbon transport [link]
Global methane emissions reach a record high [link]
North Atlantic anthropogenic carbon uptake is sustained by subsurface (mode/intermediate) waters in the upper limb of the overturning circulation [link]
Ancient sea levels in South Africa may offer modern analogues [link]
“Drought onset and termination in India” that has appeared in JGR-Atmospheres.agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.102
Delayed response of a global temperature response after emission mitigation [link]
US rivers and lakes are shrinking for a surprising reason: cows [link]
Uncertainty estimation in regional models of long-term GIA uplift and sea level change: an overview [link]
Deep Ocean Temperatures through Time doi.org/10.5194/cp-202
“Implications of ambiguity in Antarctic ice sheet dynamics for future coastal erosion estimates: a probabilistic assessment” [link]
“Record warming at the South Pole during the past three decades” nature.com/articles/s4155
The future of the carbon cycle in a changing climate [link]
Current and Emerging Developments in Subseasonal to Decadal Prediction [link]
New paleoclimate reconstruction of the holocene (last 12k years). While global temps are clearly higher today than any time in the past 4000 years or so, its hard to make firm claims about earlier periods given uncertainties and temporal resolution: nature.com/articles/s4159
If you’ve ever wondered about the reason for the weird warming hole in the North Atlantic, read this: nature.com/articles/s4155 We are able to show that the warming hole is driven by changes in the AMOC, the subpolar gyre and a cloud feedback.
Helpful review of the science on carbon-cycle feedbacks and “tipping points” Earth may hit as it warms. One takeaway: feedbacks like permafrost thaw or forest diebacks could add ~0.5°C extra warming by 2100 (not as much as often feared, but still a lot!) esd.copernicus.org/preprints/esd-
The role of prior assumptions in carbon budget calculations [link]
Tamsin Edwards: the Arctic heat wave [link]
Review paper on ocean acidification [link]
Ross McKitrick: The flaw in relying on worst-case scenario climate model [link]
“Simple Models of Delayed Warming in the East Pacific” nicklutsko.github.io/blog/2020/06/2
Technologies and policy
Why is it so difficult to motivate global society to implement greenhouse gas emissions reduction policies if these policies confer not only environmental but also economic benefit? One reason is near term costs. iopscience.iop.org/article/10.108
Can nanoparticles make fossil fuels cleaner? [link]
Climate change legislation around the world has avoided one years worth of emissions (around 40Gt) since 2000. [link]
New paper dramatically revises downwards global population projections to 2100 [link]
The climate fix you’ve been waiting for: rock dust? [link]
The allure and challenge of using crushed rocks to capture billions of tons of carbon dioxide from the air My story digs into chemistry and economics, along with details on the large-scale trials underway right now. [link]
Food–energy–water implications of negative emissions technologies in a +1.5 °C future @NatureClimate [link]
Negative emissions and the long history of carbon removal [link]
Bird death from turbine collisions dropped by 72% when one of three turbine blades was painted black, compared with unpainted turbines at the same wind farm. 1/3 eenews.net/stories/106371
Who should be responsible for removing CO2 from the atmosphere? | j.mp/3462d5G
About science and scientists
Scholarship suppression: theoretical perspectives and emerging trends [link]
When an empirical conclusion is likely, but morally objectionable, people say others should deviate from accuracy and believe the conclusion less. psyarxiv.com/7r5yb
Peer review, politics and pluralism [link]
NOAA hiring skeptical scientist David Legates is making many media waves.
https://wmbriggs.com/post/32598/
Legates publications are impressive:
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=vCRJYfwAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao
https://eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-09/ioap-ans090320.php
Spin is strong here, they ignore the most important impact. A net transfer of water to land. Instead they stress increase in extreme rainfalls ignoring that they are not the extremes that drive costs, injuries, and deaths.
NEWS RELEASE 9-SEP-2020
“A new study of ocean salinity finds substantial amplification of the global water cycle.” Operative word – ‘cycle,’ which is something you can get a feeling for over time by following the migration of herring, e.g., Monterey once had a thriving sardine industry, that went away with the fish (Cannery Row being symbolic of that) when anchovies replaced the sardines and, industry moved on irrespective of the fact, the sardines returned to southern California coastal waters decades ago.
As for the cause of the change, ‘climate,’ surely and concerning all such matters… “The sun is the key ingredient to climate… 99.9% of the energy on the earth that goes into the climate system comes from the sun.” ~David Legates
If you hit something with a hammer, the something vibrates. The energy was delivered by the hammer but the frequency and amplitude of the vibrations are due to natural response.
Energy comes from the sun but the climate system has internal response, natural frequency vibrations that depend on internal properties. Climate Science has been studied by looking at some correlations of the hammer strikes and internal response, but they have never looked at the internal response as natural internal cycles that sometimes are responding with the hammer motion and sometimes responding against the hammer motion. Ice Core data from Greenland and Antarctic show the warm and cold cycles have different frequencies and amplitudes. There are different masses of water and ice in the two hemispheres. Both hemispheres have temperature cycles that have the same bounds but the timing does not match. The thermostat control in both hemispheres is sea ice, the thermostat setting is the temperature that the sea ice freezes and thaws. Land ice is pushed into the oceans from the great sequestered ice sheets and glaciers and the thawing ice cools the oceans, when the supply of ice that is being dumped is adequate, the sea ice prevents the sequestering of more ice. When the supply of ice that is being dumped is not adequate, the sea ice thaws and evaporation and snowfall rebuilds the sequestered ice until sea ice forms again.
The energy comes from the sun, but abundant water, in all of its changing states, serves to regulate the response.
Without water, the sun would have much more immediate control.
The climate got colder over the past fifty million years because land increasingly blocked flow of warm tropical water currents and sent more warm water into the polar regions. Warm currents in polar regions promote snowfall and sequestering of ice. Climate gets continually colder until sea ice forms and stops the snowfall, Climate warms until the sea ice is thawed and the ice machines are turned on again. It is that simple.
This also puts a bound on sea level, when the sea ice is thawed, evaporation of polar oceans and sequestering of ice on land in cold places stops and reverses sea level rise, this has happened. Since the atomic clock was started to keep track of Length of Day, the number of leap seconds that have been added to adjust the clocks has decreased in frequency. This does mean sea level has gone down since the atomic clock was started in 1972.
Chris Rock blasts Democrats for impeaching President Trump instead of focusing on the pandemic.
We are winning. Some one should compare the primary timeline to the pandemic’s.
A spatially explicit surface urban heat island database for the United States: Characterization, uncertainties, and possible applications
“Our analysis also suggests that poor and non-white urban residents may suffer the possible adverse effects of summer SUHI without reaping the potential benefits (e.g., warmer temperatures) during winter…”
I forgot what the story was. Does the UHI exist? If it does, it’s evidence of systemic racism and white privilege.
“If it does, it’s evidence of systemic racism and white privilege.”
Everything is evidence of that, including, and even especially, lack of evidence.
It’s the old formal logic trick:
If A = .NOT. A then any subsequent proposition can be considered to be true.
While glacier melt may allow land mass to rise, what goes on beneath the ocean surface seems a lot less certain. How much does tectonic activity under the oceans affect SLR? ie. hang a bag of water, and push up in the middle from underneath. Are there any estimates / wild guesses?
Cimdave,
A decade ago I criticised those claiming to attribute a mm a year sea level change while assuming that the capacity of ocean basins could be held constant. It is just more poor science, a continuation of the minds closed to inconvenient observations. Geoff S
It does not take glacial rebound to create tectonic motion. All of the surface plates are in both horizontal and vertices motion. As I recall, the pacific plate is moving several cm per year (!) northward across the North American plate.
Assuming the ocean basins have constant geometry is grossly mistaken. We have no idea how that geometry is changing.
Don’t think this was mentioned –
https://phys.org/news/2020-09-sea-ice-triggered-age.html
Copy–
“A new study finds a trigger for the Little Ice Age that cooled Europe from the 1300s through mid-1800s, and supports surprising model results suggesting that under the right conditions sudden climate changes can occur spontaneously, without external forcing.
“The study, published in Science Advances, reports a comprehensive reconstruction of sea ice transported from the Arctic Ocean through the Fram Strait, by Greenland, and into the North Atlantic Ocean over the last 1400 years. The reconstruction suggests that the Little Ice Age–which was not a true ice age but a regional cooling centered on Europe–was triggered by an exceptionally large outflow of sea ice from the Arctic Ocean into the North Atlantic in the 1300s.”
I really like that study! “Sea ice triggered the Little Ice Age”
https://phys.org/news/2020-09-sea-ice-triggered-age.html
They wrote:
The cores included compounds produced by algae that live in sea ice, the shells of single-celled organisms that live in different water temperatures, and debris that sea ice picks up and transports over long distances. The cores were detailed enough to detect abrupt (decadal scale) changes in sea ice and ocean conditions over time.
The records indicate an abrupt increase in Arctic sea ice exported to the North Atlantic starting around 1300, peaking in midcentury, and ending abruptly in the late 1300s.
Note this!:
“and debris that sea ice picks up and transports over long distances.”
This is getting better, they almost understand.
There is not much debris in sea ice. There is debris in ice shelves and icebergs that are pushed over land and out into the oceans.
There is always more ice during an ice age. The ice piles up during the warmer times when there is actual evaporation of thawed Arctic Ocean and actual snowfall with increased ice accumulations on the great ice sheets, this supported by ice core data, the ice gets heavy and causes the ice to flow and dump more and more ice shelves and icebergs into the Arctic and that ice thaws in the salt water, chilling the water and that powers the cooling that is a little ice age.
Inspect the ice core data, the most ice accumulations are in the warmest times and it does get colder after that.
Outflow of sea ice did not cause the little ice age. The sea ice was locked in place. Outflow of ice shelves and ice bergs pushed into the oceans by the great ice sheets caused the little ice age.
Icebergs and ice shelves get pushed into the oceans when ice on Greenland is piled high with ice, after a warm period when there was more ice accumulation.
They do not know much about natural causes of ice cycles, but they may be beginning to suspect.
This ice forced the Vikings out, This was land ice that was pushed out.
They wrote: The marine cores also show a sustained, far-flung pulse of sea ice near the Norse colonies on Greenland coincident with their disappearance in the 15th century. A debate has raged over why the colonies vanished, usually agreeing only that a cooling climate pushed hard on their resilience. Miles and his colleagues would like to factor in the oceanic changes nearby: very large amounts of sea ice and cold polar waters, year after year for nearly a century.
“This massive belt of ice that comes streaming out of the Arctic—in the past and even today—goes all the way around Cape Farewell to around where these colonies were,” Miles said. He would like to look more closely into oceanic conditions along with researchers who study the social sciences in relation to climate.
It is not sea ice, the ice that cools the oceans is ice that was sequestered on Greenland during all the warmer periods and pushed into the ocean to cause the colder period. It is land ice or it could not have much debris. The whole energy balance of the climate system leaves out cooling by thawing ice.
Sequestered ice on land builds and spreads and dumps into the oceans and causes the cooling of the oceans. Sea ice cannot form until the oceans are already cold. Sea ice cannot cause an ice age, sea ice happens after it is already cold.
Reinforcing the observation that the LIA was a ‘regional’ as opposed to a global event.
“Pattern Recognition Methods to Separate Forced Responses from Internal Variability in Climate Model Ensembles and Observations https://journals.ametsoc.org/jcli/article/33/20/8693/353735/Pattern-Recognition-Methods-to-Separate-Forced…”
The internal climate variability issue in climate science identified when the climate events in question are time and geography constrained, has undone decades of work by climate scientists in areas such as event attribution science whereby localized climate events such as heat waves and forest fires could be attributed to AGW climate change and thereby to the use of fossil fuels. My guess is that this paper and papers like it are an effort to find a way out of this trap. Climate science needs the fearology of things like the Siberian heat wave and the Australian bushfires and the West Coast forest fires. Two links below:
Internal climate variability link:
https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/07/16/the-internal-variability-issue/
Event attribution analysis link
https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/06/29/diffenbaugh-2017-extreme-weather-of-climate-change/
Copy–
“Was the fire of 1988 Good or bad for Yellowstone National Park?
“The 1988 fires undeniably changed Yellowstone’s landscape, but they didn’t destroy the park. Seedlings began to appear as early as 1989 and now there are healthy and green 20-year-old trees covering the park.Aug 29, 2008”
~NPR (Remembering The 1988 Yellowstone Fires)
Now, it’s been >30 years ago… if the powers that be had known what would happen and if they’d been able to put it out before it did happen… they would have. And, if the fire happened today instead of over 30 years ago with the same consequences it would be attributed to AGW and called a disaster.
The 1988 Yellowstone fires were just part of the death and rebirth cycle. We aren’t good at stopping the cycle. Though we’ve tried. Without death we get old difficult stuff. We’ve put our forests into a nursing home and it’s expensive. And then when it’s a disaster, it’s not our fault. It’s Exxon-Mobil’s fault. Does any of this remind of our response to the pandemic? And then while our forests are in a nursing home, some scientists spend all kinds of time proving, it’s not our fault. It’s global warming. Why are they doing this?
Internal climate variability link:
https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/07/16/the-internal-variability-issue/
This is really lame. They look at fifteen years or thirty years.
A Roman or Medieval Warm period lasted several hundred years and the cold periods like the little ice age lasted several hundred years and the change from one to the other took a hundred years. There is no useful point to a fifteen or thirty year correlation.
It snows a lot more during the warm periods and the sequestered ice keeps the climate colder during the cold periods with cooling by thawing and reflecting. Look at ice core data and history.
The internal variability paper does not recommend 15 and 30 year study periods. It says that it has to be longer than 30 years.
Like Trump’s ‘1776 Commission’ to show the Left’s ‘1619 Project,’ perverts and, “has warped, distorted and defiled,” American history, we need a ‘1979 Project’ to correct the fake news and phony science of Michael Mann’s ‘hockey stick.’
Break-even year: a concept for understanding intergenerational trade-offs in climate change mitigation policy
“We show that in a commonly used climate-economy model (DICE), the break-even year is relatively far into the future—around 2080 for mitigation policy beginning in the early 2020s.”
Their target audience is not me. 2080 is never. Or has zero value. What is a dollar worth 60 years from now? A penny. Nothing will convince me otherwise. A financial scam artist might convince some people.
“…the implementation of a global carbon price is not only beneficial to the environment, but is also ‘economically optimal’…”
When the answer is wind and solar and not nuclear power it is not economically optimal. There are a whole bunch of numbers and assumptions in projecting future economically optimal. But wind and solar have proven they are not the answer. No more than hooking a stationary bicycle to a generator is.
“This result makes it explicit and understandable why an economically optimal policy can be difficult to implement in practice.”
The second two quotes don’t reconcile. A is true. A should be done. A is hard to do.
A is not true. In context, A will not be done. We are not robots. Stop wasting your time and our money. Spend your time working towards deployment of nuclear power. See if you can find some Republicans not cowering and some libertarians to help you.
The Left climate scientists are not independent. They are not all that stuff they thought they were going to be someday. Their movement has been taken over by the anti-nukers. And they ought to be ashamed of themselves. I think they’re afraid to speak out. The least energy path includes substantial nuclear power and they know that. And they let that option be cut off. And support an untenable path of wind and solar. Because they let nuclear power be taken from them. It’s not big oil’s fault. It’s their fault. And they’ll never be that ideal they thought they were going to be. And they failed us.
Big Oil will invest in anything that will keep them alive. They will buy into renewables if they must to survive. They will say they believe in man made warming if they must to survive.
Wind and Solar will cost to much, it will be less reliable, it can never be 24/7/52 hours/days/weeks a year. It would cause huge environmental harm. It has already caused huge environmental harm. We let nuclear be taken from us and now we are letting fossil fuel be taken from us. We must fight back on these fronts.
Coal can be used if it is burned hot and any bad stuff filtered from the emissions. CO2 is not bad stuff and it must be increased. Decrease in CO2 can kill us all, increase makes everything that grows do better. Some depend on the green stuff that grows and others depend on stuff that needs the green stuff.
The Arctic sea ice has a warming and not a cooling effect on the Global Energy Balance
It is true that the sea ice has a higher reflecting ability. It happens because ice and snow have higher albedo.
But at very high latitudes, where the sea ice covers the ocean there is a very poor insolation absorption.
Thus the sea ice’s higher reflecting ability doesn’t cool significantly the Earth’s surface.
On the other hand there is a physical phenomenon which has a strong influence in the cooling of Earth’s surface. This phenomenon is the differences in emissivity.
The open sea waters have emissivity ε = 0,95.
The ice has emissivity ε = 0,97.
On the other hand, the snow has a much lower emissivity ε = 0,8.
And the sea ice is a snow covered sea ice with emissivity ε = 0,8.
https://www.thermoworks.com/emissivity-table
Also we should have under consideration the physical phenomenon of the sea waters freezing-melting behavior.
Sea waters freeze at – 2,3 oC.
Sea ice melts at 0 oC.
The difference between the melting and the freezing temperatures creates a seasonal time delay in covering the arctic waters with ice sheets.
When formatting the sea ice gets thicker from the colder water’s side.
When melting the sea ice gets thinner from the warmer atmosphere’s side.
This time delay enhances the arctic waters IR emissivity and heat losses towards the space because of the open waters’ higher emissivity ε = 0,95,
compared with the snow covered ice ε = 0,8.
Needs to be mentioned that Earth’s surface emits IR radiation 24/7 all year around.
And the Arctic region insolation absorption is very poor even in the summer.
That is why Arctic sea ice has a warming and not a cooling effect on the Global Energy Balance.
On the other hand it is the open Arctic sea waters that have the cooling effect on the Global Energy Balance.
Feedback refers to the modification of a process by changes resulting from the process itself. Positive feedbacks accelerate the process, while negative feedbacks slow it down.
The Arctic sea ice has a warming and not a cooling effect on the Global Energy Balance. It is a negative feedback.
The melting Arctic sea ice, by opening the waters, slows down the Global Warming trend. This process appears to be a negative feedback.
The LIA was a long negative feedback response period. The general trend was then and is now a continuous orbital forced global warming.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
[The melting Arctic sea ice, by opening the waters, slows down the Global Warming trend. This process appears to be a negative feedback.]
So, what do you think about Arctic amplification…. has it helped to speed up global warming or slow it down?
Bob,
Here is from Wikipedia:
“Polar amplification is the phenomenon that any change in the net radiation balance (for example greenhouse intensification) tends to produce a larger change in temperature near the poles than the planetary average.”
“Polar amplification is the phenomenon that any change in the net radiation balance (…………………..) tends to produce a larger change in temperature near the poles than the planetary average.”
Earth has a very thin atmosphere without any detectable greenhouse warming effect.
What I think is that the observed Polar amplification happens due to the orbital forced global warming trend.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
You wrote: Here is from Wikipedia:
Science is not settled. Wikipedia is settled alarmism, nothing to do with science.
Here is an abstract from Wikipedia:
“Polar amplification is the phenomenon that any change in the net radiation balance (for example greenhouse intensification) tends to produce a larger change in temperature near the poles than the planetary average.”
“Polar amplification is the phenomenon that any change in the net radiation balance … tends to produce a larger change in temperature near the poles than the planetary average.”
Earth has a very thin atmosphere without any detectable greenhouse warming effect.
What I think is that the observed Polar amplification happens due to the orbital forced global warming trend.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
I browsed through your link, and this is how I would summarize your POV:
Due to orbital changes, the sun is shining a little more directly on the arctic, and a little less directly on the equator. This accounts for the Arctic amplification we are seeing.
Arctic amplification narrows the gap between Tmin and Tmax, which means the planet is less efficient at cooling itself (Stefan-Boltzmann), and warms as a result.
Is that about right?
Bob:
“Due to orbital changes, the sun is shining a little more directly on the arctic, and a little less directly on the equator. This accounts for the Arctic amplification we are seeing.”
No, it is not what I meant. What I meant is that Earth is orbiting sun in a slightly elliptical orbit.
The couple of millennia now Earth’s perihelion is close to the winter solstice of 22 Dec. As a result the Southern Ocean is closer to sun on the southern summer for some time now.
It is a 21.170 years long Milankovitch cycle.
What I did is to read the Milankovitch cycle reversed.
According to the Reversed Milankovitch cycle Earth is nearing the Reversed Milankovitch Cycle culmination period. It will last about a millennia and half and then there will be a cooling trend.
Bob:
“Arctic amplification narrows the gap between Tmin and Tmax, which means the planet is less efficient at cooling itself (Stefan-Boltzmann), and warms as a result.”
Arctic amplification narrows the gap between Tmin and Tmax – that’s right.
Earth slowly continues getting warmer. Averaged around the year Planet accumulates more energy at present phase of its orbital cycle.
Thank you for asking.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
“The couple of millennia now Earth’s perihelion is close to the winter solstice of 22 Dec. As a result the Southern Ocean is closer to sun on the southern summer for some time now.”
How does the perihelion falling on 22 Dec., compared to, say, 23 Dec., cause the Southern Ocean to be closer to the sun?
And if the Southern Ocean is closer to the sun, then the whole planet is closer to the sun, right? So what’s your point?
———-
“Arctic amplification narrows the gap between Tmin and Tmax – that’s right.
Earth slowly continues getting warmer.”
That seems to answer my initial question,
“So, what do you think about Arctic amplification…. has it helped to speed up global warming or slow it down?”
Bob:
“How does the perihelion falling on 22 Dec., compared to, say, 23 Dec., cause the Southern Ocean to be closer to the sun?
And if the Southern Ocean is closer to the sun, then the whole planet is closer to the sun, right? So what’s your point?”
You are right, I should had written not “closer to the sun”, which is wrong, but I should had written the correct, which is
“The Southern Ocean during the winter solstice is tilted towards the sun, because at that time there is a summer in the Southern Hemisphere”.
The Southern Hemisphere is covered with oceans more than the Northern Hemisphere. So the Southern Hemisphere, when it is tilted towards sun at the closest to the sun orbital position (Perihelion) is capable to accumulate more solar energy, than the Northern Hemisphere did at the same position about ten millennia ago. As a result, Earth as a whole, accumulates annually more solar energy, than Earth was accumulating about ten millennia ago.
Arctic amplification is a result of the Planet’s continuous for some millennia warming trend.
Arctic amplification narrows the gap between Tmin and Tmax – that’s right.
Earth slowly continues getting warmer. Averaged around the year Planet accumulates more energy at present phase of its orbital cycle.
This period of time Earth’s Perihelion occurs at 4th of January.
And it will take 58 years to move the Perihelion to the 5th of January.
To complete a full cycle it will take:
58 years /day * 365 days = 21.170 years
Thank you for asking.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
Interesting. Thanks for explaining.
Chris,
“On the other hand there is a physical phenomenon which has a strong influence in the cooling of Earth’s surface. This phenomenon is the differences in emissivity.“
You forgot CLOUDS. Albedo as high as 0.9 forming over oceans of Albedo as low as 0.05. Clouds are the result, a few hours to a few days later, of 7% more water vapor per degree of ocean surface warming. Clouds cover 60% of the planet over any given week, and are the primary means of reflecting incoming solar energy back into outer space.
DMacKenzie:
“Clouds cover 60% of the planet over any given week, and are the primary means of reflecting incoming solar energy back into outer space.”
Yes, that is right.
Clouds reflection is described by Albedo.
There is also a smooth spherical shape objects (planets) solar energy reflection. It is not described by Albedo.
It is described by Φ – the dimensionless solar irradiation accepting factor.
For smooth surface planets Φ =0,47
I have written about it recently here:
https://judithcurry.com/2020/09/08/part-of-the-heat-is-coming-from-beneath-our-feet/
Christos
An odd interpretation of uncertainty in climate science
https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/09/19/greenlands-future-sea-level-rise/
Wind turbine bird deaths reduced 72% when one blade is painted black
https://www.eenews.net/stories/1063712423
But that would be black-face, surely?
So that solution self-cancelled.
I’m glad we don’t live near wind turbines rotating. My wife’s vertigo experience would be terrible – it is strongly visually affected. One blade black; she would have to stay indoors,,,,
The new Scotese paper on deep ocean temperatures over the last half billion years is a great climate resource:
file:///C:/Users/PhilS/Documents/PLS_late_material/HOME/climate/deep%20ocean%20temperature%20Phanerozoic%202020.pdf
It shows us how perilously high CO2 levels and temperatures are in the historical context. They’ve never been higher. /sarc
I find it amusing to reflect on the evolution and spread of corals and other calcified marine organisms at atmospheric CO2 concentrations of many thousands ppm. I guess chemistry was different back then.
Phil, your link is to your C: drive. Can you give the link to the paper.
Oops – is it is!
Here’s the link:
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/363/6422/70/tab-pdf
Wrong again – it’s this one:
https://cp.copernicus.org/preprints/cp-2020-83/
Thanks Phil.
From the McKitrick article.
“Thus for at least 30 years, when the IPCC and others have issued emission scenario ranges, the bottom end has always been the most realistic path and the rest has been exaggerated, yet the upper end gets all the media and academic attention. RCP8.5 takes this distortion to new heights.”
Really? What is the point in having a RCP8.5 like scenario in any kind of report, if it’s not to jack up ratings, sell newspapers, increase clicks, pump up donations, get elected and advance careers? Scaring the hel* out of people is always a winner, and not just in climate science. But then, after a few generations the light bulbs come on, the cynicism increases and when a real emergency confronts society, they just shrug their shoulders.
From the abstract of this paper, whose authors include Ken Caldeira:
I’m very skeptical of global policies to force emissions reductions. Claims that reduced emissions policies will confer economic benefits are far from clear. Is short term pain going to result in long term gain? Emissions reduction looks like a problem of which technofix to use. Right now we have two neighboring countries that offer real world examples of which opposing technofix to use. France completely decarbonized their electricity with nuclear power. It’s not the cheapest, but it’s definitely the cleanest. Germany is attempting to go all renewables and it looks to me like they’ve gone to great expense for piddly gain, have the highest electricity prices in Europe and are running into a wall of diminishing returns.
The people who would be in charge of global emissions reductions, would likely end up being those who support Germany’s approach. They’d have no control over Russia and China who are building nuclear reactors. This will not be an economic benefit.
IMO, the energy source should be determined by location.
– Solar where it’s really sunny.
– Turbines where it’s really windy.
– Hydro, where there are rivers in narrow canyons (The PNW is a great example.)
– FF or nuclear where the above do not apply.
Is Germany particularly sunny or windy?
Your new paper “Is weather chaotic” by Bo-Wen Shen and Roger Pielke is important and welcome:
https://researchgate.net/profile/Bo-Wen_Shen/publication/342872964_Is_Weather_Chaotic_Coexisting_Chaotic_and_Non-Chaotic_Attractors_within_Lorenz_Models/links/5f0a502b92851c52d62cfaaa/Is-Weather-Chaotic-Coexisting-Chaotic-and-Non-Chaotic-Attractors-within-Lorenz-Models.pdf
The recognition of dissipative structures presumably means an involvement of the nonlinear thermodynamics of Ilya Prigogine? According to his paradigm the climate is an open dissipative system from which entropy is exported by dissipative structures. These include practically everything of importance in climate: clouds, atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns, storms and depressions, you name it. All operating far from equilibrium such that concepts of equilibrium sensitivity are meaningless.
Even the temperature record itself is a dissipative structure. And change is the only thing that climate can do.
https://ptolemy2.wordpress.com/2020/07/26/from-chaos-to-pattern-in-ocean-driven-climate/
https://ptolemy2.wordpress.com/2020/08/11/flicker-an-explanation-for-the-d-o-events-rapid-climate-fluctuations-of-the-last-glacial-period/
A better link (I hope):
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Bo-Wen_Shen/publication/342872964_Is_Weather_Chaotic_Coexisting_Chaotic_and_Non-Chaotic_Attractors_within_Lorenz_Models/links/5f0a502b92851c52d62cfaaa/Is-Weather-Chaotic-Coexisting-Chaotic-and-Non-Chaotic-Attractors-within-Lorenz-Models.pdf
OK find it yourself:
Shen BW, Pielke Sr RA, Zeng X, Baik JJ, Faghih-Naini S, Cui J, Atlas R, Reyes TA. Is Weather Chaotic? Coexisting Chaotic and Non-Chaotic Attractors within Lorenz Models.
The planet by fundamental physical laws tends to balance energy in and energy in maximum entropy, transient energy equilibria far from thermodynamic equilibrium. Energy out varies more than energy in as global temperature, cloud and ice cover cover, rainfall, dust and vegetation, etc. – varies in ways that can only be understood in terms of Hurst-Kolmogorov stochastic dynamics. Inevitable abrupt system change and uncertainty is the rule – but there is little doubt that humanity has a finger or two on triggers of abrupt Earth system change.
https://www.stockholmresilience.org/images/18.3110ee8c1495db74432636f/1459560224012/PB_FIG33_media_11jan2015_web2.jpg
“Get ready to be excited and hopeful about the future of our planet. Join the exclusive live stream with Gisele Bündchen, Woody Harrelson and Ian Somerhalder, plus the farmers, activists and filmmakers behind Kiss the Ground, premiering on Netflix September 22. Register now for a solution to climate change that’s right under our feet and stay tuned for exciting news and updates.” https://kissthegroundmovie.com/watchparty/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iknWWKZOUs&feature=emb_logo&ab_channel=KisstheGroundMovie
Much of Australia’s ‘climate effort’ to date has been in growing inflammable woody weeds on grazing lands – rather than using animals to rebuild soil carbon stores. The latter is fundamental to progress on a number of fronts.
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-tpZTA1P2ezc/W5rpnyOMK3I/AAAAAAAAUHU/3wxIlq73_dcHqyN6X0o47j4qxWzDcl9aACEwYBhgL/s1600/2018-09-14_084508.jpg
The big answer otherwise is to close the nuclear fuel cycle by converting more of the radioactive isotopes in nuclear fuel to energy, creating ancillary markets for desalination, process heat and transport fuels and removing small amounts of short lived, lighter fission products as waste.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/em2-fuel-cycle1.jpg
‘Pattern Recognition Methods to Separate Forced Responses from Internal Variability in Climate Model Ensembles and Observations’
Changes in the solar wind drives NAO noise and ESNO variability, they are strongly externally forced.
‘Is Weather Chaotic? Coexisting Chaotic and Non-Chaotic Attractors within Lorenz Models’
NAO/AO anomalies are discretely solar driven.
‘Interesting: Earthquakes could be triggered by streams of positively charged ions ejected by explosions on the surface of the sun, according to a new study’
Many great earthquakes occur after a week or so of very slow solar wind speeds, without any uplift in the solar wind speed.
‘The Arctic heatwave: here’s what we know’
“The sea ice would return if we could cool the climate again.”
The sea ice returns when stronger solar wind states drive positive NAO/AO conditions and a colder AMO. The meridional jet stream this summer causing the Siberian heatwave was due to low solar driving negative NAO conditions.
And the sea ice will return when stronger solar wind conditions drive a colder AMO, like in the 1970’s. The warmer AMO since 1995 is associated with the decline in the solar wind strength since then.
A new Japanese Antarctic proxy reconstruction shows that the East Antarctic ice sheet experiences a sudden and extreme thinning of about 400 m during the mid Holocene 5000 years ago. This is more than two orders of magnitude greater than any Antarctic ice volume change in the last two centuries. And it is very clear that CO2 had nothing whatsoever to do with it.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379120305023?dgcid=raven_sd_search_email
An important new Caribbean climate proxy has been discovered by German scientists researching a sink hole in Belize:
Our 8.55 m long sediment core from the bottom of the Great Blue Hole (Lighthouse Reef, Belize) provides an annually-resolved, continuous and unique south-western Caribbean climate record for the last 1885 years.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277379120305321?dgcid=raven_sd_search_email#!
https://notrickszone.com/2020/09/18/scientists-antarctica-ice-sheet-thinned-400-meters-5000-years-ago-and-natural-oceanic-cycles-drive-climate/
The new sink hole carbonate proxy confirms both millennial and decadal scale climate oscillations over the common era (last ~2000 years). For instance, dark ages cold, MWP warm, LIA cold and modern warm. Likewise shorter term AMO oscillation with 50-70 year wavelength is confirmed over the entire study period.
Edenic stasis of unchanging climate, the assumed default climate condition of the CAGW warmist-alarmist paradigm, has never happened, will never happen and probably cannot happen owing to the far from equilibrium dissipative thermodynamics of climate. It is a fiction that lives only inside the alarmist worldview.
Well said. Empirical evidence trumps model projections every time.
The solar wind influences polar geopotential height variability and surface pressure – which feeds into the physical mechanisms of circumpolar winds and currents, oceanic gyres, ocean upwelling, sea surface temperature, winds, cloud, hydrology and biology. These are feedbacks in a complex system that result in abrupt shifts in climate states. Chaotic in the sense of a small change in a control variable initiating a cascade of feedbacks and profound change in Earth systems. There are equally human fingers on Earth system triggers with unquantifiable risks.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2019/02/lam-2013-geopotential-at-polaes.png
http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/507981/1/grl52088.pdf
“The hydrologist H.E. Hurst, studying the long flow records of the Nile and other geophysical time series, was the first to observe a natural behaviour, named after him, related to multi-scale change, as well as its implications in engineering designs. Essentially, this behaviour manifests that long-term changes are much more frequent and intense than commonly perceived and, simultaneously, that the future states are much more uncertain and unpredictable on long time horizons than implied by standard approaches. Surprisingly, however, the implications of multi-scale change have not been assimilated in geophysical sciences. A change of perspective is thus needed, in which change and uncertainty are essential parts.”
Robert
Was Hurst before Mandelbrot? It was the Frenchman who discovered fractal patterns arising from nonlinear pattern formation. I think Hurst’s “multi-scale” implies fractality. I believe that “The fractal geometry of nature” was one of Mandelbrot’s titles.
Don’t neglect Kolmogorov’s work on turbulence.
“By ‘Noah Effect’ we designate the observation that extreme precipitation can be very extreme indeed, and by ‘Joseph Effect’ the finding that a long period of unusual (high or low) precipitation can be extremely long. Current models of statistical hydrology cannot account for either effect and must be superseded. As a replacement, ‘self‐similar’ models appear very promising. They account particularly well for the remarkable empirical observations of Harold Edwin Hurst. The present paper introduces and summarizes a series of investigations on self‐similar operational hydrology.” Mandelbrot and Wallis 1968 – https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/WR004i005p00909
To whom it may concern, the Southern Hemisphere oceans are cooling, linked to Atlantic interhemispheric heat piracy.
https://ptolemy2.wordpress.com/2020/09/12/widespread-signals-of-southern-hemisphere-ocean-cooling-as-well-as-the-amoc/
US rivers and lakes are shrinking for a surprising reason: cows
“It takes a lot of water to make a double-cheeseburger. One calculation puts it at 450 gallons per quarter-pounder.”
I assume there’s four ounces of water in the quarter-pounder. Where did the rest of the water go? Corn or whatever transpires. And as the cattle eat the corn, we only gain so much meat for future consumption. Where does the rest of water mass go? It’s in the atmosphere. So, the water comes from the sky, most of it returns to the sky, and we get the quarter-pounder. What am I not seeing here? I assume no irrigation from the ground which wouldn’t seem to matter or from a river. I don’t know of many ranchers irrigating from rivers in Minnesota. Minnesota has some irrigation from wells, but we are no Nebraska. So can we raise cattle in Minnesota and avoid all that? I realize there is some aquifer relationship to river levels. But in Minnesota’s case, that going to be minimal.
Tip: Use cattle instead of cows. Cows give milk. Cattle may or may not give milk. Depending on the gender they identify as.
Historical weather observations at WCROC
https://www.morningagclips.com/historical-weather-observations-at-wcroc/
Growing degree days came up over at WUWT. We are waiting for the food shortages and food riots because of global warming. It’s never too early to plan. Morris is in Western Minnesota and not a bad place to get a Physics degree.
The different plots aren’t showing problems for agriculture though increased moisture is a problem for some crops. It’s so dry around Morris, they do use some irrigation. It’s almost a Dakota, and that’s dry.
So do we listen to the Rednecks who farm? I don’t know? How much money to you want to give them? If you give them enough they’ll plant bamboo.
When someone says it’s warmer in Iowa, don’t listen to them. Growing degree days. The forecasts people care about and the ones closely related to yields. Do you think the eggheads get that?
Ragnaar
I’m guessing the increase in precipitation/irrigation explains most of the trends we see in the above article. Keeps daytime highs in check, likely explains the decline in pan evaporation (higher dew point/relative humidity).
“It’s so dry around Morris, they do use some irrigation. It’s almost a Dakota, and that’s dry.”
It’s amazing the difference between west and east of the Rockies. For example, it would take Los Angeles more than 60 summers (on average) to get as much rain as Morris usually gets in 1 summer!
Exxon knew is back thanks to the BBC
https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/09/21/computer-geek-invents-climate-model-in-1981-and-exposes-evil-exxon/
Mg/Ca and Sr/Ca ARE NOT CONSTANT IN THE OCEAN!! this has HUGE implications for paleoproxy dating [link]
……………………………
A quick scan shows most of the many authors of this paper have already published on the undoubted effects of climate change and the horrors of anthropogenic CO2. Therefore, this paper represents a major set-back of the prevailing wisdom of the converted and our confidence in it.
In essence, proxy temperatures that have been derived from ratios like seawater Mg/Ca and Sr/Ca being known at various past ages are not now to be relied upon with such certainty. From early in the history of this process, the constancy of these ratios was assumed to be adequate to measure the effects of temperature on the ratios. Now, in an important paper, we see again that climate science failed to pay enough attention to the natural condition and its natural variability. Instead, as a large group, they relied on a few early measurements, said “It will be OK, Jack” and carried on. Decades later, we learn they were wrong.
In general, too much “climate science” has paid too little attention to the natural condition and its variance. Judith Curry has written about this, time after time. Millions upon millions of $$$ have been spent as a consequence of this fundamentally poor science and this inexcusible error.
In jest, my solution would be that each guilty author wrires 1,000 times “penecontemporaneous dedelomitisation” as taught to students of geology since at least the 1950s – and learns what it means.
Similarly, natural variation of the energy of incoming sunlight has been downplayed in favour of radiative forcing by CO2 etc.
Similarly, some isotopic age determinations like U:Pb depend on certain assumptions of the original composition of the material.
Similarly, factors like the Top of Atmosphere radiation balance are beyond accurate measurement to date, so the answer involves some basic assumptions.
Similarly, sea level change depends on an untested assumption that the size and shape of the ocean basin is constant enough to allow detection of level change.
And so on. Interesting times are ahead as natural variation becomes better known. Geoff S
The responsiveness of atmospheric composition to changes in fossil fuel emissions. A reply to the KIT study of Sept 2020
https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/09/23/emission-reduction-atmospheric-co2/
Remember that recent big bird die-off in New Mexico?
It wasn’t due to warming.
Or to smoke.
It was from cold – unseasonal cold reduced insects that the birds depended on during their migration.
https://electroverse.net/dead-birds-caused-by-record-cold/
Thanks Phil.
When I first saw the news I noticed they listed several possible causes. Starvation is a logical cause of death. Bad luck for the birds and all the other species that depend on insects this year.
Is fossil fueled warming melting ice in antarctica and causing sea level rise? And can that be moderated if we cut emissions?
https://wp.me/pTN8Y-4vZ
When formatting the sea ice gets thicker from the colder water’s side.
When melting the sea ice gets thinner from the warmer atmosphere’s side.
Sea ice thaws at temperatures below zero C in the presence of salt water, The thawing sea ice and ice shelves and icebergs and ice shelves chill warm salt water tropical currents to be colder then zero to promote the cold water return to the tropics. The coldest times are when the most cold water is sent back to the tropics and that time is when sea ice prevents IR out and evaporation of the warm tropical water. The only way the water is chilled in coldest times is from thawing ice. When the polar ice is depleted there is not enough ice thawing and then the warm tropical currents remove the sea ice and then evaporation and snowfall rebuild the sequestered ice for another cooling later.
Herman,
“Sea ice thaws at temperatures below zero C in the presence of salt water”.
I think sea ice is free from salt and is thawing at zero C.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
Regarding humans removing CO2 from the atmosphere in the Anthropocene
George Carlin would call it humans interfering with nature.
Two links below:
//tambonthongchai.com/2020/09/23/emission-reduction-atmospheric-co2/
https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/09/22/things-eco-nuts-worry-about/
1. Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature calculation
Tmean.earth
So = 1.361 W/m² (So is the Solar constant)
Earth’s albedo: aearth = 0,306
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earth’s surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
(Accepted by a Smooth Hemisphere with radius r sunlight is S*Φ*π*r²(1-a), where Φ = 0,47)
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant
N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earth’s axial spin
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earth’s surface is wet. We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
Tmean.earth= [ Φ(1-a) So (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m²(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m²(150*1*1)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )¹∕ ⁴ = 287,74 K
Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
Conclusions:
The surface mean temperature equation produces remarkable results.
The calculated planets temperatures are almost identical with the measured by satellites.
Planet……….Te…………..Tmean…Tsat.mean
Mercury….439,6 K…….325,83 K…..340 K
Earth………255 K……..287,74 K…..288 K
Moon……..270,4 Κ…..221,74 Κ…..220 Κ
Mars……209,91 K……213,42 K…..210 K
The 288 K – 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.
There are only traces of greenhouse gasses.
The Earth’s atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earth’s surface.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
Review of a new climate science report from the university of exeter and the university of east anglia explaining the climate science behind the attribution of california forest fires to anthropogenic global warming.
https://wp.me/pTN8Y-4xu
This is the new Kiss the Ground Movie – available on Netflix. It’s a bit hippy dippy but gets the idea across.
https://kissthegroundmovie.com/#watchonnetflix
https://joebiden.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Logos_HQ_Rural-Americans-for-Biden_Biden-Blue-768×271.png
It’s such a shame I dropped the Netflix account. I’m missing just SO much.
Learning about precision agriculture, regenerative farming or mob grazing doesn’t require a Netflix account. Remaining boastfully ignorant because you don’t have one seems classic agnotology.
Robert
Thanks for sharing.
Have you seen this one?
https://m.imdb.com/title/tt8969332/
One of the stats in the movie is that 5% of US farmers are regenerative farmers – with an aim to make that 50% by 2050.
The latest available, validated data on emitted and reflected radiation at the top of atmosphere. Outgoing energy is where the big changes in planetary energetics are. The graph is inverted to show planetary warming as the graph goes up by convention. There is large interannual to decadal variability due to changes in ocean and atmospheric circulation. Although it is impossible to disentangle the CO2 signature from internal variability it is there. Planetary energetics is not something explicable by Stefan-Boltzmann or other simple physical law.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2020/09/net-flux.png
Changes in ocean and atmospheric circulation as shifts and regimes are commonplace. Dozens of identified ‘oscillations’ in planetary waves changing reflectance or IR emissions. My interest is Hurst stochastic dynamics and Kolmogorov turbulence was triggered in 1988 by this study.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233871224_Geomorphic_Effects_of_Alternating_Flood-_and_Drought-Dominated_Regimes_on_NSW_Coastal_Rivers
The introduction to a NAS 2002 publication – on abrupt climate change and inevitable surprises- discusses a climate analogy that explicitly deals with the lack of precision of paleodata. So both an appreciation of data limitations from an illustrious group of climate scientists – and a discussion of the theoretical framework – evolved over many decades – for chaotic internal climate system variability.
“Now imagine that you have never seen the device and that it is hidden in a box in a dark room. You have no knowledge of the hand that occasionally sets things in motion, and you are trying to figure out the system’s behavior on the basis of some old 78-rpm recordings of the muffled sounds made by the device. Plus, the recordings are badly scratched, so some of what was recorded is lost or garbled beyond recognition. If you can imagine this, you have some appreciation of the difficulties of paleoclimate research and of predicting the results of abrupt changes in the climate system.’ https://www.nap.edu/read/10136/chapter/3#13
Complaints about incorrect assumptions about data precision – or a lack of acknowledgement of change in the climate system – don’t hold water. The internal system is a network of positive and negative, interactive feedbacks involving ice, clouds, hydrosphere, atmosphere and biosphere. Pressure on the system builds until it flips and finds a new balance.
‘Hit it hard enough, and the device might do something different from anything seen before. For example, the arm of the balance might bang against the table, and the ball could bounce out of the cup and roll away.’ op. cit.
Always excited to see this curated list – it makes my day. The effort is very much appreciated.
A new study of ocean salinity finds substantial amplification of the global water cycle
As I asked before, is there enough power in the anthropogenic CO2-induced increased downwelling LWIR to power this increase in the evaporation rate of water? I think the answer is no, but I would like to see more research on the topic.
An increase in LWIR, or a decrease in SWIR (solar minima), which adds more power to the water cycle?
New paleoclimate reconstruction of the holocene (last 12k years). While global temps are clearly higher today than any time in the past 4000 years or so, its hard to make firm claims about earlier periods given uncertainties and temporal resolution
this reconstruction produces no periodic or quasi-periodic oscillations in past global mean temperatures. The generalized additive model that is fit in one of the reconstructions is not explicitly written out.
I don’t mean for those comments to sound like criticisms. Just things I noticed on first read. Their code (in R, Matlab, and Python) and data are available, though I have not tried to download and run them.
“A subsequent statement released on August 6th stated that the article would be retracted, and claimed that it “contains many misconceptions and misquotes and that together those inaccuracies, misstatements, and selective misreading of source materials strip the paper of its scientific validity.” Wang did not agree to the retraction and the AHA announced that it would be publishing a rebuttal. The editor-in-chief of JAHA, Dr. Barry London, promised that the peer review process would be reviewed in order “to prevent further missteps of this type,” and on Twitter, Dr. Kathyrn Berlacher revealed that Wang had been removed as Program Director of Electrophysiology. “We stand united,” she added, “for diversity equity and inclusion. And denounce this individual’s racist beliefs and paper.””
https://quillette.com/2020/09/22/dr-norman-c-wang-and-selective-outrage/
What Wang does that looks good is not agree to the retraction. What JAHA does that looks bad is fall back to tired meaningless phrases. The point is not better health outcomes but that you’re a racist.
I think organizations like JAHA are destroying themselves as Universities are. They have lost touch with their mission and are failing at it.
Ragnaar: https://quillette.com/2020/09/22/dr-norman-c-wang-and-selective-outrage/
What Wang does that looks good is not agree to the retraction.
Thank you for the link.
A rebuttal essay is better than a retraction.
Note the opposite reaction to Murray’s The Bell Curve, where disputants argue that apparent differences can not be due to biology. See also Intelligence, Genes and Success by Devlin, Fienberg, Resnick and Roeder.
The solar energy intensity W/m² primarily reaching the planet’s surface is what actually determines the planet’s surface temperatures.
In other words it is the distance from the sun which makes the solar energy reaching planet weaker.
It is the square inverse law: 1 /R² – where R is the distance from the sun in AU (astronomical units).
What planet’s surface is capable to do with the incoming solar energy (how effectively it is capable to hold the incoming energy) also determines the level of the surface temperatures.
One of the energy “holding” planet’s surface properties is the atmosphere greenhouse effect.
Yes, but in Earth’s case the greenhouse effect is very weak and cannot be considered as an important Earth’s surface warming factor.
Other factors influencing planet’s surface temperature are the planet’s surface reflection ability and the planet’s surface emission /accumulation ratio.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
In order for rotation speed to influence a planet’s temperature, there would need to be a lag between high noon and Tmax.
Is this something you’ve looked at?
Bob,
What Tmax?
The planet surface Tmax happens at the very moment of the highest position of the sun.
The air Tmax happens with a lag. The surroundings (the houses outside walls) Tmax happens with the lag.
The indoors Tmax also happens with a lag.
The planet’s faster rotation accounts for the Tmax to be smaller.
What happens is described with this scheme:
When planet’s rotational spin N↑ is higher (everything else equals), the surface Tmin↑↑ is much higher than surface T↓max is lower, and, consequently, the Tmean↑ (the planet’s average surface temperature) is higher too.
Tmin↑↑→T↑mean← T↓max
It happens so because of the nonlinearity of the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law.
Conclusion:
The faster planet’s rotational spin N (everything else equals) results in a warmer planet’s average surface temperature Tmean↑.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
The surface Tmax is the one I was taking about.
In order for a change in rotation speed to change the Tmax and Tmin, there would need to be a lag between Tmax and high noon.
Bob,
“If a planet surface exposed to high-noon irradiance INSTANTLY reached a corresponding peak temperature (in accordance with Stefan-Boltzmann), then it wouldn’t matter how fast the planet is rotating. Tmax would be the same whether rotation is fast or slow.”
Yes, you are right.
The syllogism I did:
Tmin↑↑→T↑mean← T↓max
It is better to rewrite it as:
T.average.night↑↑→T↑mean← T↓.average.day
Here
T↓.average.day, is the average surface temperature on the planet’s sunlit side.
T.average.night, is the average surface temperature on the planet’s dark side.
And
When planet’s rotational spin N↑ is higher (everything else equals), the surface T.average.night↑↑ rises much higher than surface T↓.average.day lessens, and, consequently, the Tmean↑ (the planet’s average surface temperature) is higher.
Thank you for noticing.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos
“When rotating faster, solar irradiated hemisphere develops a lower surface temperatures, and emits less intensively IR energy (in accordance to the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law).”
That is exactly what my analogy was trying to address….. the reason why an irradiated hemisphere is able to develop a lower surface temperature when rotation is faster…..
But you never answered the two simple questions:
– “Did the water ever come to a boil?”
– “What would the Tmax have been in the second example if there was only a 60 second lag between cold water and boiling?”
Bob,
Why do you think there should be a time lag between high noon and surface Tmax?
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
If Tmax occurs at noon, when solar irradiance is at its peak, it follows that peak emission equals peak irradiance. The two values are the same and in sync.
We know that rotation speed has no bearing on solar irradiance, so if solar irradiance and rate of surface emission are always equal, then rotation speed must also have no bearing on rate surface emission.
If no bearing on the rate of surface emission, then no bearing on surface temperature.
Sorry, that was not quite right. Let me get some coffee and see if I can do a better job of explaining.
Ok…. the above is true if we assume the surface in question is a blackbody.
Ok
Christos
Bob,
The “Ok” answer was for you to get some coffee.
For the theme it will take me a little time to answer. It will take me about an hour to prepare.
I will be back soon.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
I’ve had my coffee 😊
An analogy might be helpful.
Let’s say you place a pot of cold water on a stove top, with the element preheated to a ‘low’ setting.
And let’s say that 10 minutes later the water starts to boil (212 F).
Immediately remove the pot from the stove, and wait 10 minutes.
We can call the 10 minutes of heating and cooling a 20 minute cycle.
——-
Now, go back to the beginning…. a pot of cold water on a stovetop, the element preheated to ‘low’.
This time, take the pot off the stove after just 60 seconds. Let the water cool for another 60 seconds, then put it back on the stove.
Do this 10 times, for a total of 20 minutes.
——-
Did the water ever come to a boil?
Bob,
“If Tmax occurs at noon, when solar irradiance is at its peak, it follows that peak emission equals peak irradiance. The two values are the same and in sync.”
Planet is a sphere.
Blackbody is not considered as a sphere by definition. Blackbody is irradiated uniformly, there are NO angles of incidence on the blackbody. And blackbody instantly emits uniformly.
Planet is irradiated on the one side, blackbody doesn’t have dark side.
The planet effective temperature Te equation:
Te = [ (1-a) S / 4 σ ]¹∕ ⁴ assumes planet being as a blackbody.
It is a wrong assumption. It assumes planet having a uniform temperature Te, which is impossible.
Bob,
For the “analogy” it will take me another hour to answer.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
This was the point of my analogy –
In the first example, the stove element had already reached its peak temperature when the pot of water was placed on top, but it took the water another 10 minutes for it to reach its peak temperature. A 10 minute lag.
In the second example, the pot was always removed too soon. The water never had time to reach a boil. This is analogous to a faster rate of rotation. In this case, the faster rotation caused the water to reach a lower Tmax.
——-
Question: what would the Tmax have been in the second example if there was only a 60 second lag between cold water and boiling?
You: “And blackbody instantly emits uniformly.”
Yes, but place a blackbody with a temperature of say, – 20 C, in direct sunlight, with, say, 1000 w/m2 bearing down.
The blackbody won’t instantly emit 1000 w/m2. It time to heat up. A lag.
And It is because of this lag that rotation speed is able to change the Tmax. Per the analogy above.
Should be …. “It takes time to heat up.”
If the pot of cold water INSTANTLY reached a boil when placed on the hot stove, then the rate of ‘rotation’ would make no difference. In both examples, the water Tmax would be 212 F.
Similarly,
If a planet surface exposed to high-noon irradiance INSTANTLY reached a corresponding peak temperature (in accordance with Stefan-Boltzmann), then it wouldn’t matter how fast the planet is rotating. Tmax would be the same whether rotation is fast or slow.
Bob,
I am back.
The slow rotating planet surface (a rough thought experiment though) is analogous not to one but to two pots.
One pot is on the stove, and another pot is in the refrigerator.
Lets have a 20 minutes cycle. In 20 minutes we take the pot from the stove and put it in the refrigerator. And we take the other pot from the refrigerator and put it on the stove.
Let’s continue doing so for 2 hours.
For the faster rotating planet surface (a rough thought experiment though) analogous we shall do the same two pots thought experiment with 1 minute cycle.
Every minute we shall change pots from stove to the refrigerator.
And let’s also continue doing so for 2 hours.
After two hours we shall unite the water together from the first two pots (20 minutes cycle) in one volume.
The same we shall do with the water in the second two pots (1 minute cycle) in another volume.
What we observe is that the water in the 1 minute cycle unite volume is warmer than the water in the 20 minute cycle unite volume.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
Bob,
“If a planet surface exposed to high-noon irradiance INSTANTLY reached a corresponding peak temperature (in accordance with Stefan-Boltzmann), then it wouldn’t matter how fast the planet is rotating. Tmax would be the same whether rotation is fast or slow.”
It will take me about an hour to answer, sorry for being slow in response.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
Bob,
We have two different blackbody theory concepts.
a. The blackbody with the stable surface temperature due to its infinitive inner source (sun, stars).
b. The blackbody with no inner energy source. This blackbody’s emission temperature relays on the incoming outer irradiation only.
energy in = energy out
It means when the solar SW irradiation stops, the same very instant stops the IR emission.
This kind of blackbody does not have temperature of its own. This kind of blackbody is capable to develop surface temperature only according to the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law.
By “planet’s surface emission /accumulation ratio” term I focus our attention on the planet’s surface property to get less hot when rotating faster.
When rotating faster, solar irradiated hemisphere develops a lower surface temperatures, and emits less intensively IR energy (in accordance to the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law).
For the faster rotating planet the emission /accumulation ratio is lower, and, consequently, the planet surface accumulates more.
As a result we have a planet with a higher average surface temperature.
Earth, with a higher rotation 1 rotation /day is on average warmer than Moon which has a much slower rotational spin of 1 /29,5 rotation /day.
Moon rotates 29,5 times slower than Earth.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
Bob,
“If a planet surface exposed to high-noon irradiance INSTANTLY reached a corresponding peak temperature (in accordance with Stefan-Boltzmann), then it wouldn’t matter how fast the planet is rotating. Tmax would be the same whether rotation is fast or slow.”
Yes, you are right.
The syllogism I did:
“The planet’s faster rotation accounts for the Tmax to be smaller.
What happens is described with this scheme:
When planet’s rotational spin N↑ is higher (everything else equals), the surface Tmin↑↑ is much higher than surface T↓max is lower, and, consequently, the Tmean↑ (the planet’s average surface temperature) is higher too.
Tmin↑↑→T↑mean← T↓max
It happens so because of the nonlinearity of the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law.
Conclusion:
The faster planet’s rotational spin N (everything else equals) results in a warmer planet’s average surface temperature Tmean↑.”
It is better to rewrite it as:
T.average.night↑↑→T↑mean← T↓.average.day
Here
T↓.average.day, is the average surface temperature on the planet’s sunlit side.
T.average.night, is the average surface temperature on the planet’s dark side.
And
When planet’s rotational spin N↑ is higher (everything else equals), the surface T.average.night↑↑ rises much higher than surface T↓.average.day lessens, and, consequently, the Tmean↑ (the planet’s average surface temperature) is higher.
Thank you for noticing.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
I posted the following in the wrong spot –
You wrote, “When rotating faster, solar irradiated hemisphere develops a lower surface temperatures, and emits less intensively IR energy (in accordance to the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law).”
That is exactly what my analogy was trying to address….. the REASON why an irradiated hemisphere is able to develop a lower surface temperature when rotation is faster…..
But you never answered the two simple questions:
– “Did the water ever come to a boil?”
– “What would the Tmax have been in the second example if there was only a 60 second lag between cold water and boiling?”
Bob,
It is getting very late in Athens, Greece where I am.
I have to go now.
I’ll be back in about ten hours.
Best wishes,
Christos
Ok. No problem.
On a side note – my wife and I have considered moving to Greece and living there for awhile when we retire. A home base for exploring other parts of Europe.
Bob,
“– “Did the water ever come to a boil?”
– “What would the Tmax have been in the second example if there was only a 60 second lag between cold water and boiling?””
Here are what I think about:
1. No, it will not come to a boil.
2. Tmax = 212 F (the boiling point temperature).
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
Hi Christos,
one last comment –
We know that if the solar irradiance to.a surface increases, the surface has to warm in order for the rate is emission to keep up. And warming takes a measure of time, it cannot happen instantaneously.
A lag is not observed on the moon, though. For example, as you mentioned, peak emission on the sunlight side seems to happen at the very same moment as peak irradiance.
My hunch is that this is due to the moon’s very slow rate of rotation. The lag is too small to be easily measurable.
Another analogy:
a person walking cannot instantaneously change speed from 3 to 4 mph. Takes time. It follows that if the walker was on a treadmill, and the treadmill speed suddenly increased from 3 to for mph, there would be a brief moment when treadmill was moving faster than walker. The walker would have to scramble to catch up.
But imagine if the treadmill went from the 3 to 4 mph over the course of an hour or two? Would the treadmill ever appear to be moving faster than the walker? Not likely – they would seem to be perfectly in sync.
Hi Bob,
Yes, exactly.
And that is why the faster rotating planets (everything else equals) are on average surface temperature warmer planets.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos
(last comment, for real this time)
Here’s how I think a lag works to cool the sunlit side of a faster rotating body:
Noon
Irradiance: 1000 w/m2
Surface emission: 900 w/m2
The surface will continue to warm until energy in = energy out, but irradiance will start to fall.
1PM
Irradiance: 950 w/m2
Surface emission: 950 w/m2
The surface has reached Tmax and peak emission, but fell short of the 1000 w/m2 a slower rotator might have reached.
(Values are made up for sake of argument)
Bob,
Yes, exactly. And there is more time to accumulate the not being emitted energy.
Also something similar happens for the planet surface with a higher average specific heat cp.
When there is a higher specific heat the emission temperature is smaller.
That is why in the planet mean surface temperature equation:
Tmean.planet= [ Φ(1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
we have the product of these two terms N and cp
(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴
And the equation works remarkably for all planets and moons with satellite measured surface temperatures predicting very close estimates to those measured by satellites.
I have posted this equation in the last “week in review” just few days ago:
Christos Vournas | September 25, 2020 at 9:36 am | Reply
Bob, I am very glad you see the way the planet surface interacts with the incident solar flux.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
The global first order differential energy equation can be written as the change in heat in oceans plus the change in enthalpy is approximately equal to energy in less energy out at the top of the atmosphere (TOA). Energy in and energy out tend to reach energy equilibrium in response to fundamental physical properties. Energy out is modulated by shifting patterns of the complex and dynamic planetary system involving ice, cloud, hydrology and biology. Mathematically chaotic internal Earth system change drives the system away from energy equilibrium.
Δ(ocean heat plus work) ≈ Ein – Eout
“The earth-atmosphere energy balance is the balance between incoming energy from the Sun and outgoing energy from the Earth. Energy released from the Sun is emitted as shortwave light and ultraviolet energy. When it reaches the Earth, some is reflected back to space by clouds, some is absorbed by the atmosphere, and some is absorbed at the Earth’s surface.”
https://www.weather.gov/jetstream/energy
When energy is absorbed by land and oceans the planet warms, ice melts and water evaporates. These feedback in many ways to abrupt transitions in the state of the Earth system. The theory is simple enough to be understood by a child – the proof is in Hurst-Kolmogorov stochastic dynamics observed in Earth system data.
Pingback: SUHI tutkimuskohteena | Roskasaitti