by Judith Curry
“The field of Sun-climate relations . . . in recent years has been corrupted by unwelcome political and financial influence as climate change sceptics have seized upon putative solar effects as an excuse for inaction on anthropogenic warming” – Lockwood (2012)
“We argue that the Sun/climate debate is one of these issues where the IPCC’s “consensus” statements were prematurely achieved through the suppression of dissenting scientific opinions.” – Connolly et al. (2021)
The impact of solar variations on the climate is uncertain and subject to substantial debate. However, you would not infer from the IPCC assessment reports that there is debate or substantial uncertainty surrounding this issue.
The Sun goes through cycles of approximately 11 years (the Schwabe Cycle) in which solar activity goes up and down. Above the Earth’s atmosphere, the difference in Total Solar Irradiance (TSI, measured in Watts per square meter W/m2) between the 11-year maxima and minima is small, on the order of 0.1% of the total TSI, or about 1 W/m2. A multidecadal increase in TSI should cause global warming (all else being equal); similarly, a multidecadal decrease in TSI should cause global cooling. Researchers have speculated that multi-decadal and longer changes in solar activity could be a major driver of climate change.
Exactly how TSI has changed over time has been a challenging problem to resolve. Since 1978, we have had direct measurements of TSI from satellite. However, interpreting any multi-decadal trends in TSI requires comparisons of observations from overlapping satellites. Substantial uncertainty exists in the TSI composites during the period from 1978 to 1992. This is mostly due to the fact that the ACRIM2 solar satellite mission was delayed because of the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster in 1986 (ACRIM2 was eventually launched in late 1991). This delay prevented this record from overlapping with the ACRIM1 record that ended in July 1989. The ACRIM-gap prevents a direct cross-calibration between the two high-quality ACRIM1 and ACRIM2 TSI records. [link]
This rather arcane issue of cross-calibration of two satellite records has profound implications. There are a number of rival composite TSI datasets, disagreeing as to whether TSI increased or decreased during the period 1986-1996. Further, the satellite record of TSI is used for calibrating proxy models, so that past solar variations can be inferred from sunspots and cosmogenic isotope measurements. Velasco Herrera et al. 2015 As a result, some of the datasets for past values of TSI (since 1750) have low variability, implying very low impact of solar variations on global mean surface temperature, whereas datasets with high TSI variability can explain 50-98% of the temperature variability since preindustrial times.
The IPCC AR5 adopted the low variability solar reconstructions, without discussing this controversy. The AR5 concluded that the best estimate of radiative forcing due to TSI changes for the period 1750–2011 was 0.05 W/m2 (medium confidence). For reference, the forcing from atmospheric greenhouse gases over the same period was 2.29 W/m2. Thus, the IPCC AR5 message was that changes in solar activity are nearly negligible compared to anthropogenic ones for forcing climate change.
The IPCC AR6 acknowledges a much larger range of estimates of changes in TSI over the last several centuries, stating that the TSI between the Maunder Minimum (1645–1715) and second half of the 20th century increased by 0.7– 2.7 W/m2, a range that includes both low and high variability TSI data sets. However, the recommended forcing dataset for the CMIP6 climate model simulations used in the AR6 averages two low variability data sets (Matthes et al. 2017).
The uncertainties and debate surrounding solar variations and their impact on climate was the topic of a ClimateDialogue, a remarkable blogospheric experiment . ClimateDialogue was the result of a request by the Dutch parliament to facilitate the scientific discussions between climate experts representing the full range of views on the subject. The Dialogue on solar variations (2014) included five distinguished scientists with extensive publication records on the topic. One participant was in line with the IPCC AR5, thinking that solar variations are only a minor player in the Earth’s climate. Two participants argued for a larger and even dominant role for the Sun, and the other two emphasized uncertainties in our current understanding.
More recently, a review article was published in the journal Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics by Connolly et al. (2021). The article has 23 co-authors with a range of perspectives, but who were united by their agreement not to take the consensus approach of the IPCC. Rather, the paper emphasized where dissenting scientific opinions exist as well as identifying where there is scientific agreement. The authors found that the Sun/climate debate is an issue where the IPCC’s consensus statements were prematurely achieved through the suppression of dissenting scientific opinions.
Of direct relevance to projections of 21st century climate is whether we might expect a substantial change in solar activity. On multidecadal timescales, proxy reconstructions of solar activity reveal occasional phases of unusually high or low solar activity, which are respectively called Grand Solar Minima and Maxima (Usoskin et al., 2014). Grand solar maxima occur when several solar cycles exhibit greater than average activity for decades or centuries.
Solar activity reached unusually high levels in the second half of the twentieth century, although there is disagreement among reconstructions as to whether this maximum peaked in the 1950’s or continued into the 1990’s. It has been estimated that about 20 grand maxima have occurred over the last 11 millennia (Usoskin et al. 2007), averaging one per 500 years. During the last 11 millennia, there have been 11 grand solar minima, with intervals between them ranging from a hundred years to a few thousand years. The most recent grand minimum was the Maunder Minimum, during 1645-1715. [link]
There are several reasons to expect lower solar activity during the 21st century, relative to the 20th century. The recently completed solar cycle 24 was the smallest sunspot cycle in 100 years and the third in a trend of diminishing sunspot cycles. Solar physicists expect cycle 25 to be even smaller than Cycle 24. Further, a grand maximum is more likely to be followed by a grand minimum than by another grand maximum (Inceoglu et al., 2016). Empirically-based projections imply a new solar minimum starting in 2002–2004 and ending in 2063–2075 (Velasco Herrera et al. 2015) It has been estimated that there is an 8% chance of the Sun falling into a Grand Minimum during the next 40 years (Barnard et al. 2011). However, the depth and length of a phase of low solar activity in the 21st century is largely uncertain.
If the Sun did fall into a minimum during mid 21st century of the magnitude of the Maunder Minimum, how much cooling could we expect? Estimates from climate models and other analytical models expect the cooling to be small, ranging from 0.09 to 0.3oC (Fuelner 2010). These models assume that solar-climate interaction is limited to TSI forcing alone.
However, there is growing evidence that other aspects of solar variability amplify the TSI forcing or are independent of TSI forcing, which are referred to as solar indirect effects. Candidate processes include: solar ultraviolet changes; energetic particle precipitation; atmospheric-electric-field effect on cloud cover; cloud changes produced by solar-modulated galactic cosmic rays; large relative changes in the magnetic field; and the strength of the solar win. Solar indirect effects can be classified as ‘known unknowns.’ While these indirect effects are not included in the CMIP6 21st century projections, we can make some inferences based upon recent publications. Recent research suggest that solar indirect effects could amplify an anomaly in solar insolation by a factor of up to 3-7. Shaviv (2008), Scafetta (2013) Svensmark (2019). If such an amplification factor is included, then a surface temperature decrease of up to 1oC (or even more) from a Maunder Minimum could occur.
So, what are plausible scenarios for solar-driven global temperature changes in the 21st century? These three scenarios pretty much cover the plausible range:
- CMIP6 Reference scenario: approximately -0.1oC (Matthes et.al 2017)
- Intermediate: -0.3oC, corresponds to high Maunder minimum estimate without amplification effects (Fuelner 2010), or a weaker minimum with amplification effects
- High: -0.6oC, a low solar scenario (which is not a Maunder Minimum) with amplification by solar indirect effects Solheim
The next 20 to 30 years of observations should reveal a lot about the role of the Sun in climate.
JC reflections
The IPCC acknowledges substantial uncertainty in changes of TSI over the last centuries, stating that the TSI between the Maunder Minimum (1645–1715) and second half of the 20th century increased by 0.7– 2.7 W/m2, a range that includes both low and high variability TSI data sets. However, the recommended forcing dataset for the CMIP6 climate model simulations used in the AR6 averages two low variability data sets (Matthes et al. 2017).
The implications of such large uncertainty in TSI on equilibrium climate sensitivity and attribution of 20th century warming are ignored by the IPCC. If the high variability data sets are correct, this has substantial implications for estimates of climate sensitivity to CO2, and attribution of 20th century warming. This issue can’t continue to be swept under the rug. Other authors are not ignoring this. Here are three recent publications for discussion:
Scafetta: Testing the CMIP6GCM simulations versus surface temperature records from 1980-1990 to 2010-2020 [link]
Connolly et al: How much has the sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends? An ongoing debate [link]
Girma Orssengo: Determination of the sun-climate relationship using empirical mathematical models for climate data sets. [link]
UPDATE:
Frank Stefani: Solar and anthropogenic influences on climate: regression analysis and tentative predictions [link]
Nicely put, however I think this is incorrect as stated: “… other aspects of solar variability amplify the TSI forcing, which are referred to as solar indirect effects.”
On the contrary some of the postulated indirect effects are independent of TSI, so do not amplify it. Changes to TSI may get irrelevant to these effects.
Of course, just changed the text. Thx for spotting this
I don’t understand why Climate Etc. posts and discussion are so focused on the causes and projected amounts of global warming rather than on the impacts of global warming. It is the impacts of global warming that are relevant for justifying policies and actions, not the projected amount of global warming.
Empirical evidence (as distinct from model projections) indicates that global warming is likely to be beneficial for all impact sectors except sea level rise. The impact of sea level rise over this century is likely to be negligible – similar to or up to around twice the impact during last century.
We need to turn to focusing on projecting the impacts of global warming over this century – using empirical data.
Seriously?
What planet do you live on? It’s certainly not the planet I live on.
https://unfccc.int/news/state-of-climate-in-2021-extreme-events-and-major-impacts
That summarizes what the World Meteorological Organization has to say about it. Here’s a link to their website:
https://public.wmo.int/en
Mr, Land
Climate science has two “branches”
The predicted (imagined) future climate, with many decades of inaccurate predictions. There are no data for the future, so data are “imagined:.
The real study of present and past climates, trying to understand and explain the causes. There are data, with accuracy declining as they go back in time.
As a scientist, I imagine Ms. Curry is trained to work with real data, rather than predictions of the future climate.
Fortunately, climate science does not have to be settled to observe past actual climate change..
Climate change in the era of man made CO2 emissions has been mild, harmless and unpredictable.
When I write “unpredictable”, here’s what I mean:
The 1910 to 1940 warming did not predict the 1940 to 1975 cooling.
The 1940 to 1975 cooling did not predict the 1975 to 2920 warming.
The 1975 to 2020 warming did not predict that 2021 would be colder than 2020.
In summary, the ability of humans to predict the future, whether the future climate, or anything else, is very weak.
With one exception. Me. I correctly predicted the future climate in 1997 and have been right in every year. I’m still waiting for my Nobel Prize. This is what I predicted: “The climate will get warmer, unless it gets colder”.
The IPCC discussed impacts in a special report issued in 2014. Their conclusions were that the projected impacts were relatively mild (in comparison to activist rhetoric). Not many people refer to that report these days.
https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/
That report was for a 1.5 C temperature rise. That only happens if we cut CO2 emissions by 50% by 2030 and are carbon neutral by 2050. If all the COP-26 promises are kept, a 1.8 C temperature rise is expected.
If we keep going as we are now, you’re talking about a 5 C temperature rise or greater. The “activist rhetoric” isn’t alarmist enough.
First, IEA now estimates that if all the COP26 pledges are kept the warming will be held to 1.8 degrees, which meets the Paris Accord target.
See my https://www.cfact.org/2021/11/11/cop-26-planet-saved-now-what/
Five degrees is the ridiculous new sensitivity of some CMIP6 models. And sensitivity is not a prediction.
Second, the SR1.5 report compared the supposed damages of 1.5 degrees and 2.0 degrees of warming. The differences are indeed small, but alarmists like Greta cite that report as threatening catastrophe beyond 1.5 degrees. This is a colossal blunder.
Greta and Biden probably understand climate science equally well – that is, not at all.
Agreed. Wildly accelerated sea-level projections are merely hypothetical, and certainly implausible. Anthropogenic GHG emissions have had negligible effect on sea-level trends, and very positive effects on much more important things.
The “global” (average) sea-level trend is so slow that in many places it’s dwarfed by local factors, like vertical land motion, sedimentation & erosion.
Greta Thunberg’s hometown of Stockholm is one such place. Here’s an “interactive” graph of sea-level there. To see precise values, hover your mouse cursor over the graph traces (or touch the graph on a touch-screen):
https://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=Stockholm&boxcar=1&boxwidth=3
Here’s a “static” version of the same graph:
https://sealevel.info/050-141_Stockholm_Sweden_1889-2018_smoothed_vs_CO2_annot1.png
If sea-level “rise” accelerates (becomes less negative there), it will help with Stockholm’s dredging expense. Unfortunately for the Swedes, there’s been no significant reduction in the rate of sea-level decline there.
Some sites have seen a very slight acceleration in the rate of sea-level rise, but mostly more than ninety years ago, and not enough to be of practical significance.
The Dutch have been carefully measuring sea-level for a very long time, for obvious reasons. Their tide gage at Harlingen has one of the best long measurement records in the world. Here’s the graph:
https://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=150-021&boxcar=1&boxwidth=5
https://sealevel.info/Dutch_dike_vs_Harlingen_sea-level_trend_1880x940_v06.png
From that graph, and many others like it, it should be obvious that the attribution of sea-level rise to manmade climate change is unsupported by good evidence, and predictions of wildly accelerated sea-level rise are utter nonsense. Putting the people who make such predictions in charge of writing UN reports and setting public policy on climate and energy is as ridiculous as it would be to put flat-earther Mark Sargent in charge of the space program, or to put Joseph Mercola, Andrew Wakefield, Jon Rappoport, RFK Jr, and Mike “Health Ranger” Adams in charge of vaccinations.
Several years ago after reading the usual attempts to discredit any work that doesn’t conform to the IPCC narrative, I read as many peer reviewed papers on the solar issue as I could find. Rather than being limited to a few cranks, I was surprised to find hundreds of papers detecting correlation to climate shifts. Quantity doesn’t prove anything. But the 545 references in the Connolly paper should give some comfort that the work hasn’t been limited to a few whack jobs.
Just like everything else about AGW, drilling down, doing some research and peeling away a few layers of the onion skins, usually turns up some information that is different from the media line and the IPCC Summary for Policy Makers.
Just to be clear. I’m still agnostic about the role of the sun, but it’s too complex to be rejected outright in such a dismissive manner as has been done heretofore by the establishment.
CKid
Although the wisdom is that the sun makes little difference it is difficult to believe that something so central to life on our planet is merely a side show to a trace gas.
I remain ambivalent about the various periods such as the Maunder minimum, but there are several interesting references from history when people were far more attuned to nature than we were, which reference the sun;
Here are some edited sections from an article I wrote years ago
” This marked the precursor to the intermittent start of the Dark ages cold period, following another notable climatic epoch-that of the warm Roman optimum. (The first comment noted hereunder is eerily reflected by the quote immediately following, which heralds the start of the new cooling epoch in the middle decades of the 16th century.)
Saint Cyrian was Bishop of Carthage around 250AD.* (see Note 1) He was talking about the huge increase in Rome’s population which had caused wars against Carthage and the building of 500 towns in North Africa to satisfy the eternal city’s ever increasing needs for timber, cereal, and exotic animals for its gladiatorial contests. Here is an account of lack of sustainability and climate change caused by a variety of factors, with the hints of a decline in the warm climate that had sustained Rome now starting to work against them as it intermittently turned cooler.
‘The world has grown old and does not remain in its former vigour. It bears witness to its own decline. The rainfall and the suns warmth are both diminishing. The metals are nearly exhausted the husbandman is failing in his fields. Springs which once gushed forth liberally now barely give a trickle of water.’
Around 1560 the Rev Schaller, pastor of Strendal in the Prussian Alps wrote;
“There is no real constant sunshine neither a steady winter nor summer, the earth’s crops and produce do not ripen, are no longer as healthy as they were in bygone years. The fruitfulness of all creatures and of the world as a whole is receding, fields and grounds have tired from bearing fruits and even become impoverished, thereby giving rise to the increase of prices and famine, as is heard in towns and villages from the whining and lamenting among the farmers.”
Note 1 * The quote from St Cyrian in 250AD provided earlier would be considered ‘anecdotal,’ However, in this instance the journal ‘Science’ comes to our aid. On their website they quote Ulf Buntgen of the Swiss Federal Research Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape, who produced a study looking back on 2500 years of climate change.
He wrote ‘increased climate variability from AD250 to 600 coincided with the demise of the western Roman Empire and the turmoil of the migration period. Distinct drying in the third century paralleled a period of serious crisis in the western Roman Empire marked by barbarian invasion, political turmoil and economic dislocation in several provinces of Gaul.”
Sunspots? No sunspots? Some other natural change for unknown reasons? It is clear we do not know why we have these periods of changing climate before the enhanced CO2 era.
tonyb
Where are the Prussian Alps?
Curious George
It is in the North east of Germany
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stendal
I read it turned Protestant around 1539 very much the time of Henry 8th and the dissolution of the monasteries in England and the date at which I started my reconstruction of CET at a warm period.
1560 saw the very sharp downturn to the little Ice age and the famous painting by Breugel
tonyb
Not merely gladiatorial events. cf. Rachel Laudan
Cuisine and Empire: Cooking in World History –
A million pounds of grain, daily, arrived to feed 1st Century CE Romans.
You ask, ‘whence’? Egypt, by boat
John R T says “You ask, ‘whence’? Egypt, by boat”.
Some boat that. Corn ships of some size. But not all made the trip, or maybe just lost their anchor.
See https://biblearchaeology.org/research/contemporary-issues/3367-Benedicts-Anchor-Was-It-From-the-Shipwreck-of-the-Apostle-Paul-on-Malta
Roman warm period was a time of agrarian productivity. However those come in cycles of 980 years, and can be traced back six millennia. Time of civilisation peaks and times of collapse in between. The climatic changes were noticeable. 700ce and 1680ce were times of collapse.
melitamegalithic
Curiously, the Roman Grain ships were the central plot of a fictional story by Simon Scarrow.
https://blackwells.co.uk/bookshop/product/The-Gladiator-by-Simon-Scarrow/9780755327799
Basically due to an earthquake, the Roman Grain Ships have been washed up in Crete where they are threatened by a slave revolt whose leader knows that Rome will fall if the Grain ships fail to arrive, as rioting will ensue within three days of food failing to be doled out to the citizens of Rome.
A Rollicking good adventure story but uncomfortably close to today, for if our modern infrastructure went down-by hackers or an accident- or crops failed because of a return to colder times it is reckoned that civilisation would not last more than 3 days. Hence I suppose the popularity of “Preppers.’
tonyb
climatereason
The anchor stock is enormous. The Isis – Sarapis inscription points to Egyptian origins, even if under Roman control. ( https://biblearchaeology.org/images/archive/app_data/files/2012/9/ISIS%20%7e%20SARAPI%20ANCHOR.jpg )
Dated from other artifacts found on site, to early third century CE. That corresponds to cycle peak, a time of climatic transition. Shipping in the Med stopped around September, (they sailed only in calmer days) so for such size of ship to sink, seems things really were turning to worse.
Scaffetta destroys the UN IPCC CliSciFi CMIP6 models.
For some reason the link for my paper shows only it’s first page.
Here is the link for the whole paper:
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019EA001015
Thanks Girma, link has been fixed
Sure there is substantial variability of TSI. The question however is what causes the current almost 5 decadal warming trend, and that is most certainly not TSI. In fact there is no need to look at TSI to find the flaw in the CO2 theory. There are far more profound issues, ignored for whatsoever reasons.
The “missing part” are overlaps! What is known in the literature as “single factor removal” (SFR) and “single factor addition” (SFA) is not just true for a given concentration of absorbers, but also for any increments of them. What you should ask is, if 3.7W/m2 CO2 forcing and 1.8W/m2 WV feedback are SFA, SFR?
In fact they are SFA, and irrelevant. What you need are the SFR figures, which turn out a lot lower.
https://greenhousedefect.com/the-holy-grail-of-ecs/the-2xco2-forcing-disaster
What has been ignored is the thermal flywheel effect of the deep ocean explained by Hoffert (1980): “There has existed for some time the impression that the deep oceans of the world, by virtue of their extremely high heat capacity relative to the atmosphere, may act as a kind of thermal flywheel, providing temporary heat storage during periods of climatic change and affecting the rate of change of global surface temperatures over timescales of years to centuries”.
At any time, the globe has a given secular global warming rate dT/dy in deg C per year called the thermal flywheel effect of the deep ocean above. During the subsequent period, the globe warms by dT = dT/dy (y-yi), where y is time in year, This warming is explained without any climate forcing and can be attributed to the “thermal flywheel” effect instead of to anthropogenic greenhouse gasses. From the observed global warming data, dT/dy has a constant acceleration since the 1860s as shown in Figure 1a of my paper.
Rightfully ignored in this case..
Most of the climate anomalies we will experience this winter will be related to ozone anomalies and decreasing UV radiation.
https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/solar/mgii_composite_2.png
https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/gomemgii.html
The focus should not be on the beginning of the cycle, but on the current levels of high energy UV and galactic radiation, as these values will affect the stratospheric vortex during the winter.
https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/monitor.gif
The relationship between climatic parameters and the Earth’s magnetic field has been reported by many authors. However, the absence of a feasible mechanism accounting for this relationship has impeded progress in this research field. Based on the instrumental observations, we reveal the spatio-temporal relation ship between the key structures in the geomagnetic field, surface air temperature and pressure fields, ozone, and the specific humidity near the tropopause. As one of the probable explanations of these correlations, we suggest the following chain of the causal relations: (1) modulation of the intensity and penetration depth of energetic particles (galactic cosmic rays (GCRs)) in the Earth’s atmosphere by the geomagnetic field; (2) the distortion of the ozone density near the tropopause under the action of GCRs; (3) the change in temperature near the tropopause due to the high absorbing capacity of ozone; (4) the adjustment of the extra tropical upper tropospheric static stability and, consequently, specific humidity, to the modified tropopause temperature; and (5) the change in the surface air temperature due to the increase/decrease of the water vapor greenhouse effect.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281441974_Geomagnetic_Field_and_Climate_Causal_Relations_with_Some_Atmospheric_Variables
http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/images/charts/jpg/polar_n_z.jpg
http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/data_service/models_compass/polarnorth.html
Thermal resistance is nothing more than the vertical temperature gradient in a relatively dense atmosphere. Unfortunately, on planets with atmospheres it only acts up to a level of about 100 hPa, which in the case of Earth reaches a maximum of a dozen kilometers above the equator. Such a thin atmosphere is unable to raise the surface temperature in winter.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2021.png
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/zt_nh.gif
When the ocean levels began to rise, as it got to the new ice blocks the 39-degree salt water began melting the underside of the ice blocks. WHEN THE HEAT MELTING THE ICE BREAKING OFF THE ICE BLOCKS EQUALED THE HEAT LOST TO THE BLACK SKY THE OCEANS STOPPED GOING DOWN.
THAT IS WHERE WE ARE NOW.
IN ABOUT ANOTHER 100,000 YEARS THE ICE BLOCKS WILL BE COMPLETELY GONE, THE OCEAN WILL DROP FOR ABOUT ANOTHER 8,000 YEARS. AS THE ICE IS PUT BACK ON THE CONTINENTS.
It is all in understanding the ice cores over the last 400,000 years
Please do not shout.
Elven year solar cycle is a cycle. No changes to the climate because of it in the long run. It can however vary surface temperature and earthquake count during the cycle.
https://www.pacificengineeringpllc.com/app/download/15218185/Corrected+Version+458.pdf
“Elven year solar cycle is a cycle.”
Each 11-year solar cycle provides an additional 1.1W/m2 increase in TSI or about 0.2W/m^2 solar forcing that result in about 18% of this solar forcing stored in the deep ocean that results in the observed global warming. Like solar panels, the ocean also absorbs solar energy.
Given that the cycle time of deep ocean flow is on the order of 1,000 years per cycle I do not see this claim working.
It is an oscillation, not a cycle. Probably chaotic which means it never “averages out”. Chaotic oscillations exhibit what are called strange statistics, such that their averages also oscillate. Many climate variables are like this.
I would define it as a non-stationary quasi-periodicity, but cycle works fine in common language.
According to the 2nd principle of Thermodynamics, as “heat flows downhill the temperature scale” from the warmer mixed ocean layer to the colder deeper ocean, solar energy gets accumulated in the deeper ocean that results in the secular increase in the global mean temperature (GMT).
As opposed to a religious increase.
There has been plenty of change due to the variation in solar cycles. There has been different strength and different magnetic influence in history
North Pacific ozone accumulation intensifies during times of low solar activity. The anomaly that is already occurring will intensify in early December and significantly weaken the polar vortex in the lower stratosphere, bringing arctic air attacks to the US and Europe.
https://i.ibb.co/GvN5vqz/gfs-t100-nh-f384.png
https://i.ibb.co/GMq0cyc/gfs-z100-nh-f384.png
In late November, residents of Europe may find that winter temperatures depend on the strength and pattern of the stratospheric polar vortex.
https://i.ibb.co/dMzt8Wm/gfs-z100-nh-f24.png
https://i.ibb.co/h1hCx5Q/Screenshot-1.png
There is an apparent delay of several days before the pattern from the lower stratosphere moves into the upper troposphere.
If anyone thinks that the polar vortex will strengthen, they are sorely mistaken. The ozone blockade in the north of Pacific will strengthen again, which promises a harsh winter in eastern North America.
https://i.ibb.co/SfWNCYw/npst30.webp
The whole IPCC- UNFCCC Climate Crisis consensus is based on the fundamental gross error of ignoring a very probable long- term decline in solar activity and temperature following the Millennial Solar Activity Turning Point and activity peak which was reached in 1990/91 as shown in Figure 5.in the paper at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2021/08/c02-solar-activity-and-temperature.html
see also Figs 1 – 4
Quotes :
Net Zero threatens Sustainable Development Goals
Abstract
This paper begins by reviewing the relationship between CO2 and Millennial temperature cycles. CO2 levels follow temperature changes. CO2 is the dependent variable and there is no calculable consistent relationship between the two. The uncertainties and wide range of out-comes of model calculations of climate radiative forcing arise from the improbable basic assumption that anthropogenic CO2 is the major controller of global temperatures. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between the phases of cyclic processes of varying wavelengths and amplitudes. At all scales, including the scale of the solar planetary system, sub-sets of oscillating systems develop synchronous behaviors which then produce changing patterns of periodicities in time and space in the emergent data. Solar activity as represented by the Oulu cosmic ray count is here correlated with the Hadsst3 temperatures and is the main driver of global temperatures at Millennial scales. The Millennial pattern is projected forwards to 2037. Earth has just passed the peak of a Millennial cycle and will generally cool until 2680 – 2700. At the same time, and not merely coincidentally, the earth has now reached a new population peak which brought with it an associated covid pandemic, and global poverty and income disparity increases which threaten the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. During the last major influenza epidemic world population was 1.9 billion. It is now 7.8 billion+/. The establishment science “consensus” that a modelled future increase in CO2 levels and not this actual fourfold population increase is the main threat to human civilization is clearly untenable. The cost of the proposed rapid transition to non- fossil fuels would create an unnecessary, enormously expensive. obstacle in the way of the effort to attain a modern ecologically viable sustainable global economy. We must adapt to the most likely future changes and build back smarter when losses occur.
………………………………..
Fig.2 shows that Earth has passed the warm peak of the current Milankovitch interglacial and has been generally cooling for the last 3,300 years. The millennial cycle peaks are apparent at about 10,000, 9,000, 8,000, 7,000, 2,000, and 1,000 years before now.
Climate, and in particular precipitation, is dominated during the Holocene mainly by the Obliquity modulated by the Precession. J. H. C. Bosmans et al 2015 (21)”Obliquity forcing of low-latitude climate” shows that obliquity induced changes in the summer cross-equatorial insolation gradient explain obliquity signals in low latitude paleo climate records more usefully than the classical 65 degree north insolation curve alone. Yi Liu et al 2015 (22) in “Obliquity pacing of the western Pacific Intertropical Convergence Zone over the last 282,000 years ” ” … shows that the western Pacific ITCZ migration was influenced by combined precession and obliquity changes. The obliquity forcing could be primarily delivered by a cross-hemispherical thermal/pressure contrast, resulting from the asymmetric continental configuration between Asia and Australia in a coupled East Asian–Australian circulation system. ”
The periodicities pertinent to current estimates of future global temperature change fall into two main categories:
a) The orbital long wave Milankovitch eccentricity, obliquity and precession cycles and
b) Solar activity cycles with possibly multi-millennial, millennial, centennial and decadal time scales.
Fig.3 Northern Hemisphere 2000 year temperature reconstruction and a Millennial Temperature Turning Point. (MTTP). (23,24)
Because of the data quality, record length and methods used, the NH Christiansen et al 2012 series was selected as the “type reconstruction” to represent the NH trends. (22) The de Vries, Maunder, Sporer and Wolf minima are noted. Important volcanic cooling events are marked with a V. (23) An MTTP occurs at about 990. The cycles are asymmetric with a 700+/- year down-leg and a 300 +/- year up-leg.
Solar Activity and Temperature Correlations
Fig 4 The NRLTSI2 Solar Activity – CET Relationship 1600- Present (25,26,27)
In Figure 4 the Roth & Joos Cosmogenic Index (CI) is used as the emergent proxy for the solar activity driver of the resulting emergent global and NH temperature data.
The CI designation here integrates changes in solar magnetic field strength, TSI, EUV, IMF, Solar wind density and velocity, CMEs, proton events, the BZ sign and changes in the GCR neutron count which modulates cloud cover and thus albedo.
The effect on observed emergent behaviors i.e. global temperature trends, of the combined effect of these solar and GCR drivers will vary non-linearly depending on the particular phases of the eccentricity, obliquity and precession orbital cycles at any particular time.
Figure 4 shows an increase in CI of about 2 W/m 2 from the Maunder minimum to the 1991 activity peak. This increase, together with the other solar “activity” variations modulate the earth’s temperature and albedo via the GR flux and varying cloud cover.
The emergent temperature time series trends of the combined orbital, solar and GCR drivers also reflect turning points, changes of state and important threshold effects created by the interactions of the underlying physical processes. These exogenous forcings are also simultaneously modulated by changes in the earth’s magnetic field and length of day.
The temperature increase since the1680s is due to the up- leg in the natural solar ” activity” Millennial cycle as shown by Lean 2018 “Estimating Solar Irradiance Since 850 AD” (ibid). Figure 4 also shows the correlation between the CI driver and the Central England Seasonal Temperatures. (27). The 1650 – 1700 (Maunder), 1810 – 20 (de Vries/Dalton), and the 1890-1900 (Gleissberg) minima are obvious. The Millennial Solar Activity Turning Point (MSATP) at 1991 correlates with the Millennial Temperature Turning Point (MTTP) at 2003/4 with a 12/13 +/- year delay because of the thermal inertia of the oceans.
The CET in Figure 4 shows that this up-leg in the CET has an annual absolute temperature Millennial cycle amplitude of at least 16.5 +/- degrees C. Using the Millennial cycle lengths of Figure 3 at least that same amount of future cooling from the 2004 high is probable by the winters of 2,680-2700 +/-. These temperature changes correlate very well with the changes in energy flow from the sun shown in Figure 4 without any measurable effect of C02 levels.
Fig 5 Correlation of the last 5 Oulu neutron cycles and trends with the Hadsst3 temperature trends and the 300 mb Specific Humidity. (28,29)
The Oulu CR data shows the decrease in solar activity since the 1991/92 Millennial Solar Activity Turning Point and peak There is a significant drop to a lower solar activity base level post 2007+/-.There is a new solar activity minimum at 2009. As in Fig.4 the MSATP at 1991 correlates with the MTTP at 2003/4 with a 12/13 +/- year delay. Short term temperature spikes are colored orange and are closely correlated to El Ninos.
Thank you for entering the solar fray Dr. Curry, you’re braver than many.
Fundamentally the Sun-climate relationship hasn’t changed as man-made emissions have increased. The climate can be expressed by the 30y average ocean temperature using HadSST3, as a function of the 109y average sunspot number (v2 SN), lagged by 11 years, one solar cycle.
The climate is therefore the net effect of the last 11 solar cycles’ TSI over 120 years, acting analogously to the ocean’s response to the annual solar insolation cycle.
https://i.postimg.cc/MGpmgNzq/109y-SN-vs-30y-Had-SST3.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/2jnz7sGf/Annual-CO2-cycle-driven-by-Sun-and-Ocean.png
The question of how much has TSI changed over time is important. I think Leif Svalgaard’s model of a relatively flat solar floor over the centuries with a narrow sunspot-defined TSI range is correct, which would preclude the Hoyt/Schattan model that Soon/Connolly and others use of TSI with larger long-term changes.
Here is the Abstract of my paper at
https://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2021/08/c02-solar-activity-and-temperature.html
For the sun- temperature – climate connection see Figs 1 – 5
Abstract
This paper begins by reviewing the relationship between CO2 and Millennial temperature cycles. CO2 levels follow temperature changes. CO2 is the dependent variable and there is no calculable consistent relationship between the two. The uncertainties and wide range of out-comes of model calculations of climate radiative forcing arise from the improbable basic assumption that anthropogenic CO2 is the major controller of global temperatures. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between the phases of cyclic processes of varying wavelengths and amplitudes. At all scales, including the scale of the solar planetary system, sub-sets of oscillating systems develop synchronous behaviors which then produce changing patterns of periodicities in time and space in the emergent data. Solar activity as represented by the Oulu cosmic ray count is here correlated with the Hadsst3 temperatures and is the main driver of global temperatures at Millennial scales. The Millennial pattern is projected forwards to 2037. Earth has just passed the peak of a Millennial cycle and will generally cool until 2680 – 2700. At the same time, and not merely coincidentally, the earth has now reached a new population peak which brought with it an associated covid pandemic, and global poverty and income disparity increases which threaten the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. During the last major influenza epidemic world population was 1.9 billion. It is now 7.8 billion+/. The establishment science “consensus” that a modelled future increase in CO2 levels and not this actual fourfold population increase is the main threat to human civilization is clearly untenable. The cost of the proposed rapid transition to non- fossil fuels would create an unnecessary, enormously expensive. obstacle in the way of the effort to attain a modern ecologically viable sustainable global economy. We must adapt to the most likely future changes and build back smarter when losses occur.
The effect of C02 on temperature is immeasurably small. There is no CO2 caused climate crisis.
For other posts on this topic scroll down through
https://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
Pingback: Goodbye New York Goodbye Washington – Newsfeed Hasslefree Allsort
“A multidecadal increase in TSI should cause global warming (all else being equal); similarly, a multidecadal decrease in TSI should cause global cooling.”
All else is not equal. AMO anomalies change inversely to changes in the solar wind strength. That is the most important dynamic in the global climate system, the AMO acts as a negative feedback, self amplified by the changes in low cloud cover that it drives. The AMO is normally warmer at least during each centennial solar minimum.
The AMO was colder in the mid 1970’s and in the mid 1980’s when the solar wind was the strongest since 1964, and has been warmer with the weaker solar wind states since 1995. The solar wind was actually weakest then around the 1969 and 1979-80 sunspot cycle maxima, so the AMO was relatively warmer around those years.
Since the 1990’s the major lows in the solar wind have shifted to around a year past sunspot minimum, and is strongest around and just after sunspot maximum, giving a slightly cooler AMO around 2000-2002 and 2013-2015, despite the relatively higher TSI around sunspot maximum.
Centennial solar minima are the product of the synodic cycles of Earth-Venus versus Jupiter-Uranus, with their long term stable cycle of 1726.62 years ordering grand solar minima series at the half cycle, on average every 863 years. From 2225 BC, 1365 BC, 500 BC, 350 AD (early antique LIA), 1215 AD (LIA), and 2095 AD. The current centennial minimum is not only as short as they ever get at two solar cycles long, it has had a fortunate series of discretely solar driven warm events, rather than cold events like in the 1690’s. Such as in 2003, 2006, 2013, and 2018.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vQemMt_PNwwBKNOS7GSP7gbWDmcDBJ80UJzkqDIQ75_Sctjn89VoM5MIYHQWHkpn88cMQXkKjXznM-u/pub
You don’t need to change the total amount of heat in earth systems to change climate dramatically.
The average temperature of Earth ocean is about 3.5 C.
If Ocean were an completely uniform temperature of 3.5 C
it has huge effects upon earth’s average global surface air temperature.
And as known the Milankovitch cycles cause dramatic changes in global climate and are not change in amount of sunlight or greenhouse gases.
I can’t figure out the point of this post. It’s all over the place. Is solar irradiance the cause of climate change or is it CO2. You can’t tell from that piece.
Here are some actual facts:
1. NASA data on the impact of solar irradiance on planetary temperature
https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/189/graphic-temperature-vs-solar-activity/
Not sure why data before 1950 matters.
2. Assertions that solar irradiance can account for all the changes in climate are laughable. We have plenty of spectrographic data that says otherwise.
3. Even if it were true that solar irradiance is having a significant impact, that doesn’t mean CO2 doesn’t. As Venus proves, CO2 can have a major impact even if solar irradiance is insignificant.
4. Willie Soon is a co-author of the Connolly paper. Enough said.
Your linked graph falls a bit short, when it comes to the time scale.
Would you agree that the sun showed about two orders of magnitude higher sunspots numbers in the 20th century compared to the 17th?
(if we agree on that YOU are responsible for linking to incomplete/misleading information as it seemingly indicates constant sunspot numbers, we know better than that!)
The direct CO2 effect is quite well known and few would dispute it.
See for example:
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming/radiativeforcing.html
“The complete story is, however, not just one of radiative forcing by greenhouse gases. Other radiative forcings, albedo changes, for example, and feedbacks, especially from increasing water vapor, also occur.”
And in this context uncertainty of solar forcing becomes highly relevant, because it makes the difference between a climate alarmist or a lukewarmer (aka there is no reason to spend a lot of money on CO2 related measures until the science has a handle on the uncertainty).
The more into past you go, the worse the quality and sampling of the data(i.e. number of spots where data are being collected reliably) are. That’s why the more uncertainty in past is not such a big problem as this article makes it to be.
The thing that should be concentrated on should be current data, finding any potential problems in them and fixing them for future. There is no real fixing for measurements that weren’t done 300 years ago, and it’s largely pointless to even go there.
The point seems to be nonlinear changes in Earth system states triggered by small changes in insolation. Waiting for certainty before acting politically pragmatically and economically responsibly is to ask more of science than it can reasonably be expected to deliver.
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/109/16/5967/F3.large.jpg
https://www.pnas.org/content/109/16/5967
I have investigated this question many times, looking for a sunspot-related effect in everything from clouds to temperatures to earthquakes to sea, lake, and river levels, and many more.
I started out as a true believer, since I’d read in high school that Herschel had shown that UK wheat prices varied with the sunspots. Plus I’m a ham radio operator, so I was aware of the effect of sunspots on the ionosphere. So I thought it would be simple to find modern evidence to bear that out … imagine my surprise.
My method has been simple. I reasoned that all of the different solar related effects, such as solar winds, proton counts, cosmic rays, UV variations, heliomagnetic variations, etc., all move in good synchronicity with the sunspot changes.
As a result, if I could not find any ~ 11-year cycles in surface datasets, it would show that there is no sunspot-associated effect, whether by EUV or cosmic rays or heliomagnetism or the solar wind or whatever.
There are no less than 39 of my investigations of this question linked to here, plus this, this, and this.
To date, I have found no evidence of such a solar connection. Be aware that I am not saying that there is no such connection—you can’t prove a negative. All I can say is that I’ve looked in a lot of places, including places where people said there was a solar/climate connection, and I’ve found … well … nothing.
Let me add that I use CEEMD (complete ensemble empirical mode decomposition) rather than Fourier decomposition to look for such ~11-year cycles, because CEEMD shows whether and how such cycles strengthen, weaken, or disappear over time. I also only use datasets that are at least 5 sunspot cycles in length, because shorter datasets easily give false positive results. And I make it a practice to split any given dataset in half, to see if the putative cycles are present in both halves.
I do not use reanalysis “data”, which is not data but the output of a climate model. I don’t use it because unlike the heavily damped real earth system, anything that is input into such a computer model will very likely appear in the output … which means nothing about the real world.
I also look only at surface level datasets, because a) that’s where we live, and b) we already know we can find a signal in the ionosphere.
As a result, I’m very skeptical of any such claimed connections. I’ve analyzed too many peer-reviewed papers that have turned out to be fatally flawed to believe anything without checking it myself.
And that’s where I stand regarding solar/climate connections.
And if someone thinks such a connection exists, I’m more than happy to take a look at whatever they consider the very best study they know of. My only requirements are:
• Send me two links, one to the study you think is the very best, and one to the data as used in the study. Without the data it can’t be replicated or verified.
• No reanalysis “data”.
• Minimum of 55 years of data (5 solar cycles).
• Surface data only
• Please, no data dumps of dozens of links. There is enough published in this field to keep a man busy for three lifetimes. I’m interested in the ONE study you think is the best.
Finally, I would be overjoyed to find such a relationship. I have no axe to grind. As I said, I started out as a true believer.
My best to all,
w.
PS—Let me leave you with this from the USGS, a falsification of Herschel’s original claim about wheat yields and sunspots …
Willis,
Have you seen this:
https://scitechdaily.com/can-the-suns-11-year-cycle-explain-global-warming/
How funny. They find an 11-yr climate cycle, yet “it is not the sun.”
Thanks, Clyde. There’s no actual climate data in their study. Instead, they analyzed climate model results and reanalysis climate model results. The problem is that climate models are not heavily damped like the real climate. As a result, any variation in the inputs is very likely to show up in the outputs.
And while that demonstrates something about climate models, it says absolutely nothing about the real world.
w.
Willis,
I’m unfamiliar with the details of “reanalysis.” Are you saying that the process introduces an 11-year periodicity that is not present in the ‘raw’ data? Can you briefly explain how that comes about?
Willis for the solar activity – temperature connection check the paper linked at
5:30 pm 11/21 above. Please comment on Figs 1 – 5 . You will recognize Fig 1 as being particularly pertinent. regards Norman
Thanks, Norman. I fear your Figure 5 makes no sense. It proposes a variable lag of eleven to fifteen years between solar variation and temperature variation. It also claims that increasing solar variation leads to increasing temperature 11-15 years later … except when it doesn’t.
I have no clue what the physical phenomena underlying such a strange relationship might be.
w.
Willis,
I share your concern at not being able to find such effects as you describe. IIRC, you also had trouble finding temperature changes in measurements following some volcanic eruptions. Being of the school that says that if the models do not fit the data, the models are wrong, I am surprised that more people are not doing analyses similar to your 39 steps, so they can believe their eyes to their satisfaction. Geoff S
Willis see https://judithcurry.com/2021/11/21/solar-variations-controversy/#comment-964688
Check the 5 Figs. #1 is very illuminating . Best Regards Norman
Willis, you’ve always had the wrong assumptions to investigate this issue. As Einstein would say, a 100 articles by you won’t mean a thing.
The best thing about your comments, Javier, is that they are so specific, detailed, well cited, they identify the exact claimed error using quotations of my words, and provide solid data and logic to back up your claims.
Sigh …
w.
Willis, I have told you exactly and precisely where your problem lies. It is in your assumptions. The solar effect can be found every single solar cycle at the tropical ozone layer, where the amount of ozone increases with solar activity and temperature increases by about 1.5 K. When you look for a solar effect you look at the surface and you look for correlations with solar activity, you don’t find them and you claim no effect. You assume that is the way it should affect the climate to have an effect. But climate is more complicated than the way you think about it. Stratospheric-tropospheric coupling is the biggest surprise in atmospheric physics for the past decades. What happens in the stratosphere does not stay in the stratosphere. It has been demonstrated that weather forecast improves by taking into account the stratosphere:
The Role of the Stratosphere in Subseasonal to Seasonal Prediction: 2. Predictability Arising From Stratosphere-Troposphere Coupling
https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/25482/noaa_25482_DS1.pdf
Therefore if you wanted to elucidate the role of solar variability on climate you should not be looking at sunspot correlations to surface parameters. You have not learned from the solar-climate papers that have been published since 1987 that showed that the stratospheric effect of solar activity depends on other conditions that also affect the stratosphere, as the QBO, ENSO and volcanic eruptions. See Labitzke and van Loon papers of the late 80s.
The important thing is that everything else that affects the stratosphere, like ENSO or the QBO, tends to average to zero over a few years, but solar activity can remain elevated or depressed for decades.
But you won’t learn because you are not interested in learning, just in finding reasons to believe in what you believe, like most. To learn you would have to do a lot of reading about a lot of complicated things and study the effect of atmospheric waves on the polar vortex, and things like that. Therefore you have nothing to contribute. What you do, has already been done to extenuation for 220 years to no avail.
Joshua – everyone makes mistakes from time to time. You are the best example of that I know of.
I’ll add my two cents to Mr. E’s usual, unbiased science analyses:
While the amount of incoming solar energy does not appear to change much, assuming we are measuring the right thing, the more important questions are:
How much of that sunlight is reaching Earth’s surface though the clouds, and atmospheric aerosols? and
How are albedo changes affecting the amount of heat absorbed, including the UHI effect, dark soot on Arctic ice and snow, deforestation, etc. ?
And of course, Earth’s ability to cool itself at night, affected by changes in clouds, water vapor, CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
And last, but not least, are the measurements accurate?=
Mr. E was demonstrating the near impossible task of predicting the future.
Your beloved “climate change” is nothing more than predictions of a coming climate crisis. But you don’t get the connection. It is easy to be critical, and hard to be correct. Especially when predicting the future. I don’t make wrong predictions, using the simple strategy of never making predictions. However, today I will predict that my comment will annoy you.
Willis, I have been using the CEEMDAN version of Empirical Mode Decomposition for a while now and was glad to see your mention of CEEMD. Being empirical, no assumptions about parameters or stationarity are required. I was introduced to EMD deconstructions a few years ago in an email exchange with Tom Karl and associates at NOAA – just before Karl retired. We were discussing the periodic components in temperature series and removing it to isolate the trend. A Karl associate was using both the trend and longest period component combined as the trend and when I pointed to the error the discussion ended. The paper they were contemplating was never published or at least as far as I could determine.
Thanks, Kenneth. CEEMD is a most fascinating and insight-delivering method.
w.
Joshua, give it a rest. I’ve admitted over and over that my early estimate was very low. So what? I made an error. You’ve never done that?
Do I want to “discuss my error”? Get real! We’ve discussed it to death—you bring it up every time you see my name. That’s why I blocked you on Twitter—you’ve become a single-issue-fanatic, and after discussing it ad nauseum the first eleven times or so, that became unutterably boring.
This thread is about solar variations, a most interesting topic. How about you stop standing on tiptoe to unsuccessfully attempt to bite my ankles, and focus on solar variations like every single other person contributing here is doing?
w.
Willis –
> Joshua, give it a rest. I’ve admitted over and over that my early estimate was very low. So what? I made an error. You’ve never done that?
Do I want to “discuss my error”? Get real! We’ve discussed it to death—you bring it up every time you see my name. That’s why I blocked you on Twitter—you’ve become a single-issue-fanatic, and after discussing it ad nauseum the first eleven times or so, that became unutterably boring.
Have you stated lying now? I don’t remember you doing that before. Is it a new development?
I brought it up to ONCE on Twitter and you banned me immediately with no response.
I brought it up to you ONCE here – you responded with a lame excuse where you laughably tried to diminish your error.
Sad.
“if I could not find any ~ 11-year cycles in surface datasets, it would show that there is no sunspot-associated effect”
If you use an electric water heater, do you see a 50 or 60Hz signal in the temperature?
Willis, you continually refused to admit that CET was the coldest during the Maunder, Dalton, and Gleissberg solar minima.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/23/maunder-and-dalton-sunspot-minima/
As for the solar wind, you assumed that its variability follows the sunspot cycles, which is false.
Don’t worry about it Willis, your errors were at least interesting reads.
Joshua’s legion of errors not so much.
The Sweden obsession,
The Florida obsession
Cuomo is a covid hero,
the heroic people’s republic of China must not be questioned!,
deaths in 2020 are the fault of the president, those in 2021 are not,
masks, vaccines, and lockdowns work perfectly- that’s why case counts are highest in places with the most masks, vaccinated people, and strictest lockdowns.
The problem of accurate measurements of TSI was evident by year 2008, see Butler et al 2008 for a start.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4651614/
http://www.geoffstuff.com/toa_problem.jpg
The quantity being determined has the old problem of subtraction of 2 large numbers to obtain the small wanted number. Here, the large numbers are about 1360 units and the sought difference about 1 unit, preferably less.
The raw performance between the satellite platforms covers about 15 units as the graph here shows, so there is an adjustment process to remove this difference before starting to look for the elusive 1 unit.
As Judith notes, a great deal depends on the assumptions made when adjusting platforms to match. In measurement science of the type familiar to me, one would be most reluctant to do serious work with the finally adjusted estimate. The more cautious of my colleagues would not have used the data at all, given its uncertainty, even with its high importance. But, that was before post-modernism.
Might some readers avoid their private expositions of what the sun can do, to take a more recent look at the measurement/adjustment/uncertainty derivation processes and math? That, I think, is where the big story lies.
Geoff S
First, let me recommend to all interested parties the open review on Sun-Climate connections by Judith Lean (2017). It is fair and comprehensive from one of the leading experts on TSI changes.
https://oxfordre.com/climatescience/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228620-e-9
Second, It is obvious that any important solar effect on climate is not due to changes in TSI, that are too small. Even the detected 0.14ºC temperature change associated to the solar cycle from some of the most active solar cycles of the past centuries cannot be explained by the detected change in TSI energy. Figure 12 in the aforementioned review shows that the detected changes due to the solar cycle by reanalysis are regional, not global. It is clear that it operates very differently than CO2, that causes its greenhousing effect at any tropospheric parcel. The figure has been labeled with some of its effects from paleoclimatology and instrumental climatology, and some of them are very exotic. Christoforou & Hameed demonstrated in 1997 that the position of the Aleutian Low and Hawaiian High is modulated by solar activity, with a change of almost 700 km or 1º between high and low solar. It is clear that it is not a globally distributed minute change in TSI that causes that.
Third, It is also obvious that the IPCC and some interested parties, like Leif Svalgaard, will continue to ignore a solar effect on climate no matter the bibliography and evidence. Reason was evolutively developed to justify decisions and intuitions, not to find the truth (Jonathan Haidt, The Righteous Mind, 2012). IPCC was set to blame fossil fuels for climate change, not to find what causes climate change, and is thus a political body, not a scientific one. Trusting the IPCC for science is like trusting that governments will tell the truth to citizens.
Fourth, solar-climate research has a terrible record and fame. In a recent review about the complexity in ENSO by 34 well known experts (highly recommendable):
https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10112893
The solar modulation of ENSO does not receive a single mention despite being researched and published (even by me in this blog). It is the same with the stratosphere where a lot of reviews on the QBO don’t bother to mention that the Holton-Tan effect is modulated by solar activity. It is not only the IPCC that ignores the issue. Science (and Leif Svalgaard) have been burned twice by the Sun-climate effect, one in the 19th century, and another one in the 1970s. Fool me thrice and it is beyond shame. A career into solar-climate research is a career into irrelevancy no matter what one discovers.
Fifth, there is no scientific reason to think that solar activity in the 21st century will be very different to the 20th century. Velasco Herrera, Soon et al. machine learning method is affected by the shortness of the sunspot record. SC26 should have more activity than SC25. We are just a few years from finding that out, but solar cycles are very clear on that question. Those who have bet on a grand solar minimum have not researched them sufficiently. Solar activity will start increasing by 2035 and should reach high levels again c. 2045. Any effect from the extended solar minimum we are experiencing should be undone afterwards.
Finally I can predict that the solar effect on climate, a 220-year long scientific debate, should be elucidated in just a few years, given the rate of advances on the question despite general disinterest. We are zeroing on the causes and mechanisms, and reanalysis has been an incredibly useful tool. It appears Colin Hines was correct in his 1974 article:
A Possible Mechanism for the Production of Sun-Weather Correlations
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/31/2/1520-0469_1974_031_0589_apmftp_2_0_co_2.xml
Javier
“ IPCC was set to blame fossil fuels for climate change, not to find what causes climate change, and is thus a political body, not a scientific one. Trusting the IPCC for science is like trusting that governments will tell the truth to citizens.”
I liken it to a judge having found the defendant guilty, giving the jury instructions as to why his decision was correct.
Is solar radiation the most important determinate of planetary temperature? The answer is not always. Venus is 400 C higher than it should be, and it absorbs less radiation from the Sun than the earth does.
I don’t understand why anyone claims it’s hard to determine solar irradiance. Getting a good read on earth’s radiance requires satellites spread across the globe — not so for solar irradiance. Here’s what NASA has to say about solar irradiance:
https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/189/graphic-temperature-vs-solar-activity/
Notice that before 1960, temperature change tracks solar irradiance. After that they diverge. What happened? It wasn’t till after WWII that we ramped up our production of CO2. There is a lag between when you make a change and when you see the effect. On top of that, the earth had some capacity to absorb the additional CO2 we were producing.
If you plotted CO2 ppm on the same graph, you would see a correlation between CO2 ppm and temperature. What that tells us is that solar radiation currently is not what’s driving planetary temperature change. It could in the future, but not now.
The other thing to realize is that the effect of solar radiation and CO2 on climate is additive not complementary. The skeptic crowd would like you to believe it’s one or the other when it’s really both. If the sun suddenly put out 20% more energy, the sun would be driving climate change until this effect drove temperature high enough to balance it out. If CO2 is still increasing in the atmosphere, it would then take over as the dominant effect.
You would think the IPCC was a cabal trying to force CO2 based climate change on the world. To what end? Is this a socialist plot for world domination? That doesn’t pass the laugh test.
The IPCC takes all data gathered by climate scientists around the world and has leading experts from around the world compile that data and provide context. What climate denial scientists do is cherry-pick data or provide ridiculous “alternate” theories that they want treated the same as the work of real climate scientists. They are like creationists who want intelligent design given the same scientific credence as evolution. In their case, they want junk science treated the same as real science. They complain of a cover-up when it’s not.
Your statement was hilarious:
“The IPCC takes all data gathered by climate scientists around the world and has leading experts from around the world compile that data and provide context.”
The IPCC mainly supplies always wrong predictions of the future climate.
But you are obviously a fan.
The IPCC merely assumes virtually all climate change is man made and dangerous in the long run. They publish reports claiming virtually all climate change is man made and dangerous. This is circular reasoning and false.
The past 45 years of global warming, for example, has unknown causes, was definitely not dangerous, and was slower than the IPCC predicted.
The correlations of CO2 levels and temperature from 1900 to 1975 was completely different as man made CO2 was added to the atmosphere.
The IPCC is a political organization set up to prove climate change is man made and dangerous. So they must ignore all 4.5 billion years of natural climate change, and focus on 1975 to 2020, plus their usual always wrong predictions of the future climate. 1975 to 2020 is the only known period in those 4.5 billion years where there was a strong positive relationship of CO2 levels and the global average temperature. What planet do you live on, Brocolli? Planet brain washed?
As Venus proves, CO2 can have a major impact even if solar irradiance is insignificant.
Proves? Only if one assumes atmospheric pressure at the surface has little or no effect on the temperature there. Earth: 1 bar, Venus: 92 bar.
Atmospheric pressure has NO impact on the temperature of a planet.
Pressure at the surface of a planet is determined by the mass of the atmosphere and the force of gravity.
Planetary temperature is determined by energy balance between the sun and the planet.
If you assume the atmosphere of a planet is an ideal gas, the PV=RT. Pressure and temperature are determined as I stated above. To satisfy the relationship, V varies with P & T. V is the specific volume of the atmosphere or the inverse of atmospheric density.
Nothing has to assumed. What I just said is scientific fact.
“Do you know that solar activity changes the speed of rotation of the planet during the 11-year solar cycle”
Really? By how much? If it happens, it’s got to be very very small. How does solar energy generate a force capable of changing the rotation of a planet? Are you referring to the rotation of the earth around the sun or the actual rotation of the planet? Are you referring to the phenomena of the sun’s gravity getting weaker with time and the earth drifting away from the sun?
For once, antech is right. Currently, solar radiation is not the dominant factor causing climate change. Take Venus. Its temperature is 400 C higher than it should be and it absorbs less solar radiation than the earth. Solar radiation is not the determinate effect of temperature on Venus.
Read and learn.
Solar forcing of the semi‐annual variation of length‐of‐day
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2010GL043185
Rotation of the Earth, solar activity and cosmic ray intensity
https://angeo.copernicus.org/articles/32/761/2014/angeo-32-761-2014.pdf
What you think you know, you don’t. As an exercise calculate the amount of energy required to alter the speed of rotation of a planet with a mass 5.9 x 10^24 kg and then think how that energy can come from the small change in TSI during the 11-yr solar cycle.
It’s a stretch. It looks to me that they see some relationship in the data. Apparently, cosmic rays affect wind speed which alters the rotation of the planet.
The changes are so small, this could just be noise. It wouldn’t be the first time that someone saw a relationship where there wasn’t one. The planet rotation theory of temperature, that I just went through, is a good example.
“As an exercise calculate the amount of energy required to alter the speed of rotation of a planet with a mass 5.9 x 10^24 kg and then think how that energy can come from the small change in TSI during the 11-yr solar cycle.”
I can’t not without knowing the change in rotational speed. It could be very very small.
Secondly, I don’t believe in the cosmic ray theory of planet rotation. A force has to be generated to alter the rotation. I find the whole idea of wind production laughable. How does it control the direction of the wind produced? it would seem to be random to me.
Does this tie in with the cosmic ray theory of climate change? What’s next? Little green men firing an invisible energy ray at the earth?
So you are told something you don’t know and don’t understand and your reaction is to dismiss it out of hand. You are not trying to learn and find the truth, you are trying to confirm your bias. It is not productive to engage you in scientific discussion, like so many others.
So, you’re the only people who are capable of scientific discussion are those who see and understand your brilliance? That’s hubris on steroids.
Funny that this cosmic ray theory of rotation hasn’t caught on. Much like the climate skeptics theories on climate change. It’s that cabal of scientists again, they just don’t want to admit they missed it or there being paid to ignore it or etc., etc., etc.
It’s not that I want to confirm my biases. I don’t have any. It’s that I know junk science when I see it.
Just because someone puts something in a paper, doesn’t make it scientific fact.
The notion that currently solar radiation is the dominate factor in climate change is junk science.
Unless you can explain why and how solar activity changes the rotation speed of the planet you cannot properly say that the role of solar variability in changing the climate is small. Then you cannot say that all or most of the change has been caused by CO2. It is that simple. The hubris is on those that believe they know.
I don’t see why solar variability having an impact on the rotational speed of a planet has anything to do with climate change. I just went through a long discussion with another poster where I proved that rotational speed of a planet has no impact on planetary temperature.
I don’t believe solar variability has any effect on the rotational speed of a planet because I don’t see how that can create a force. You need a force to change the speed, unless they’ve found an exception to Newton’s laws of motion.
Can solar radiation impact climate? Of course, but not this time. CO2 is the dominate effect. The CO2 effect is additive not complementary to solar radiation.
https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/189/graphic-temperature-vs-solar-activity/
Just looking at the two papers you posted links to I find the following;
1. My graphical (in no way numeric) approximation of the changes in length of day are about 0.08 ms on average, which is pretty small. I do not know how precisely we know these numbers, but I am assuming that we do know the numbers precisely enough for this to be a significant result.
2. To match up the sunspots, etc. the authors of the first paper performed some statistical magic to make their correlation look good.
a. They turned the sunspot graph upside down (not a problem that I am aware of).
b. They picked the 4 year average for the length of day. If they made any other choice then the graphical correlation would be negligible. I am simply comparing graphical data in the second paper with the graphical data in the first. Again, this is not a numeric comparison or correlation.
c. They put a lag in the sunspot, etc. data of one year. This choice could be the time for the effect to catch up to the cause, but if I understand what they did correctly they shifted the sunspot, etc. data to the right, which is the cause lagging the effect, which makes no sense. That would be like saying that the rotation of the earth effects the sunspot number, which is nonsense.
I could be wrong, here, but given the information presented so far, I am characterizing the sunspot number affecting the length of day as non-scientific.
I’m not going to spend a lot of time on this because it’s trivial.
In order to “prove” this, somehow, someway a force has to be generated to affect the planet’s rotation. You can’t just say energy get converted into work. It’s more likely it stays heat. There has to be a process.
If you say wind is produced and that creates a force, fine. I would think that would be random — not direction specific. How would that be impacted by wind generated in other ways.
Atandb: “I could be wrong, here,”
You are. I checked myself. Downloaded LOD data. Transformed daily data into weekly data after monthly smoothing it. Subtracted the lowest weekly value for the DJF period from the highest value of the prior 16 weeks and did a 3-point smoothing on the series obtained.
The result is shown in the following figure:
https://i.imgur.com/XNaMj17.png
The Earth can reduce the length of the day by 0.5 ms more when solar activity is low than when it is high.
The solar effect on Earth’s rotation has been repeatedly found by anybody that has bothered to check it. It was reported in 1962 by Danjon, rediscovered in 1969 by Stoyko, and again in 1980 by Currie (not Curry), and since the data is available anybody can check it.
It is scientific. It is important. It is ignored.
“A Possible Mechanism for the Production of Sun-Weather Correlations”
That’s the one, solar wind variability drives NAOAO anomalies at daily-weekly scales.
“There are several reasons to expect lower solar activity during the 21st century, relative to the 20th century. The recently completed solar cycle 24 was the smallest sunspot cycle in 100 years and the third in a trend of diminishing sunspot cycles.”
“Above the Earth’s atmosphere, the difference in Total Solar Irradiance (TSI, measured in Watts per square meter W/m2) between the 11-year maxima and minima is small, on the order of 0.1% of the total TSI, or about 1 W/m2.”
–
The sun is quite a powerhouse and I find it amazing that it produces so much energy with such little variation in energy.
The “experts “on sun spots and solar cycles all seem to disagree , often widely.
The above suggests that in a time where the world temperature has gone up that sun activity has been lower than usual.
There is obviously a great disconnect between the facts and the observations.
From a purely ordinary perspective I fail to see how sunspots increasing goes with extra activity and energy.
Big black spots over the sun suggests less energy radiating at those times, not more.
TSI could definitely be an issue but where is the data showing us this steady level over the last 10 years?
If the sun output is fluctuating we should be able to see the energy outputs, not the sunspots rubbish.
So, for the record, I would state that the sun output is capable of varying by a lot more than 1W/M2 over 11 years .
Of far more importance is how and how much of the TSI actually gets to earth and where it gets to earth.
Cloud cover, cloud height, cloud movement all cause much greater variations in a day than TSI appears to do in 11 years.
Either we can put up a TSI graph and comment properly on the amount of true variation over the last 30 years, or as I suspect from reading about high and low. variability conflicts no one knows or no one is prepared to come forward.
“in a time where the world temperature has gone up that sun activity has been lower than usual.”
Expectations that surface temperature change should respond linearly to a single factor change are misguided, as temperature is multi-factorial and not the best measure of climate system internal energy.
A proper measurement of sunspots density that includes low activity years by adding the number of yearly sunspots for each cycle and dividing by the number of years the cycle had shows clearly that the 20th century had the highest solar activity since sunspots records started:
https://i.imgur.com/xw8sT8u.png
We know from cosmogenic records also that the 20th century solar activity was the highest in at least 600 years. It concides with the century with highest temperature in at least 600 years. Proving a causal relationship might not be easy, but discarding the relationship is unreasonable.
“Big black spots over the sun suggests less energy radiating at those times, not more… If the sun output is fluctuating we should be able to see the energy outputs, not the sunspots rubbish.”
This just shows how little you know of the issue you are discussing. The increase in energy comes from faculae that are associated to sunspots and produce a greater increase in emitted radiation than the decrease produced by sunspots. Sunspots are a proxy.
Perhaps you should know that UV radiation changes by c. 7% during the solar cycle. This is by no means a small change. Dismissing this significant change because it involves little energy implies that you assume that you know how climate should change. I dispute that assumption. You don’t know what is important or not for the climate system to change because it is too complex. You should ask the climate system, not tell it.
Do you know that solar activity changes the speed of rotation of the planet during the 11-year solar cycle, or that it sets the frequency of Las Niñas? This is published peer-reviewed research. You can’t dismiss it because nobody can explain how, or it doesn’t fit how you think the climate changes. How much energy requires to alter the Earth’s rotation speed? Solar variability does that.
Javier
I said “Big black spots over the sun suggests less energy radiating at those times, not more… If the sun output is fluctuating we should be able to see the energy outputs, not the sunspots rubbish.”
You said
This just shows how little you know of the issue you are discussing. The increase in energy comes from faculae that are associated to sunspots and produce a greater increase in emitted radiation than the decrease produced by sunspots. Sunspots are a proxy.
Wiki says
Luminosity decreases by as much as 0.3% on a 10-day timescale when large groups of sunspots rotate across the Earth’s view and increase by as much as 0.05% for up to 6 months due to faculae associated with large sunspot groups.[
If you wish a discussion on your favourite topic please do not distort or rubbish facts.
Takeaway. Sunspots are black, black means less radiance to earth at these times.. a simple observation.
backed up by ” Luminosity decreases by as much as 0.3% on a 10-day timescale”
That was my comment.
There is a measure of TSI and it is not sunspots. How can I state this any more clearly ?
Luminosity increases by as much as 0.05% for up to 6 months due to faculae .
Perhaps we should count faculae instead as there effects and presumed presence last longer.
Or why not go straight to the source, the Luminosity measured by satellites.
We have the data?
Why don’t we use that?
Judith?
IPC6?
Anyone?
Weaker solar wind states drive a warmer AMO.
This segues into TOA arguments and here the atmosphere gets very muddy.
If the TSI is virtually invariant then the TOA should be pretty well known.
It is where the TSI balances the total outgoing radiation and according to GHG theory should not really be affected over the course of a year by a mere 4 PPM increase in a relatively stable CO2 level.
Yet we are told that there is a radiation imbalance?
Provable by ARGO float temperatures as 90% of the extra energy is being stored in the sea.
Matching the CERES data algorithms [ not the actual data]
And that this can only be due to the CO2 affect even though it is not changing.
This begs the question of what could be putting extra energy in and causing an imbalance when it is already stable?
Certain facts are clear.
Ceres can be a rubbery and poor quality data set to use.
Roy Spencer explains in detail the lack of reproducibility of data and the effect that clouds have on diminishing the accuracy of satellite data like CERES data to the point where large swathes are are formulated by algorithms on patchy data.
ARGO is not much better, not enough stations.
The result is that although TOA can vary in height with cloud cover reducing TSI the energy out must balance the energy in. Not go off into an infinite storage loop in the oceans.
The cause of the warming or cooling of every point on earth is the amount of TSI getting through the clouds and causing energy levels to appear higher as they have to shift more energy back out.
Complex though it is there is no storage of energy.
Even when a current is said to be “hotter at depth” this is not due to storage of the heat but the TSI in needing to get out again against the backdrop of the radiation that is still coming in.
TSI is fairly level but does fluctuate a little, it must due to the plasma nature of the sun.
The degree of warming is entirely due to how much gets through the clouds The pattern of daily global temperature is indicative of the the TSI getting through every day through the effects each day of cloud cover.
You just insist on demonstrating your ignorance as much as possible.
According to you at TOA there can be no energy imbalance. I have no idea why. It must be some unknow law of physics. Therefore, the planet stores no energy. The temperature increase of the earth is caused by more energy flowing in which immediately flows out.
That is ridiculous. The ONLY way the earth’s temperature can rise is if it stores energy. How do I know? Because that’s what the First Law of Thermodynamics states. For the planet’s temperature to rise, the internal energy of the planet has to rise. It only rises when the planet absorbs energy and STORES it. The planet only absorbs energy if energy in is more than energy out. That only occurs if there is an imbalance of energy at TOA.
JJBraccili | November 22, 2021 at 12:23 pm | Reply
on demonstrating your ignorance.
” I have no idea why.”
According to you at TOA there can be no energy imbalance.
-Not me.
The definition of TOA is the level where in going radiation exactly balances out going radiation.
It must be some unknown law of physics.
No
The definition of TOA is the level where in going radiation exactly balances out going radiation.
“Therefore, the planet stores no energy.”
Explain to everyone how if energy going in equals energy going out there can be storage of energy.
“Explain to everyone how if energy going in equals energy going out there can be storage of energy.”
There can’t be. That’s why energy in can’t be equal energy out if the planet’s temperature is increasing. Energy has to be stored as internal energy for a planet’s temperature to rise. You don’t understand the First Law of Thermodynamics.
When we say that for the Planet Radiative Energy Budget
energy in = energy out
then what we refer to is the radiative energy.
Radiative energy is measured in W/m² unit.
W/m² is radiative energy intensity measure, it is not an amount of heat added to planetary surface, as you might think.
This bit of Christos explanation [only] is worth thinking about.
The energy we think is being stored in actively moving mass is not being stored. It is coming straight back out as quick as it can
As this happens we detect it and measure it
At TOA it balances.
Yes the atoms jump around.
Yes people say they are storing energy.
Are they?
No. the energy is going back out.
The mass looks agitated because that is what energy transiting through mass looks like.
Your lack of understanding of science has no bounds.
“Radiative energy is measured in W/m² unit.
W/m² is radiative energy intensity measure, it is not an amount of heat added to planetary surface, as you might think”
W is joules/sec or energy/time. It’s the amount of energy absorbed or radiated per unit of time. That’s not an “intensity” term it’s a quantity term. W is the amount of energy added or emitted from the planetary surface.
If by “intensity” you mean driving force, that would be temperature.
“This bit of Christos explanation [only] is worth thinking about.”
It’s not. What CV is trying to do is to explain away is how a planet at 288 K can be absorbing and radiating energy at 240 W/m2. He’s trying to figure out a way to divorce energy from temperature. Laughable on its face.
“The energy we think is being stored in actively moving mass is not being stored. It is coming straight back out as quick as it can
As this happens we detect it and measure it
At TOA it balances.”
No, if there is an imbalance at TOA, energy is being stored or removed from the planet. The imbalance is the radiative forcing. It exists. It’s real. Only in your world does energy have to always balance.
“The mass looks agitated because that is what energy transiting through mass looks like.”
Is that where earthquakes come from? LOL!!!
I’m not going to spend a lot of time on this because it’s trivial.
In order to “prove” this, somehow, someway a transformation has to be generated to affect the planet’s surface temperature. You can’t just say Radiative energy get converted into Heat. It’s more likely it stays Radiative energy. There has to be a process.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Heat transfer occurs by three methods — conduction, convection, and RADIATION.
Now take that and apply it to what you said and you’ll understand why what you said is stupid.
Ok JJBraccili,
quantitative measure not intensity measure !!!
Thank you JJBraccili. Your help is very much appreciated.
So the text will be corrected as:
Radiative energy is measured in W/m² unit.
W/m² is radiative energy quantitative measure, it is not an amount of heat added to planetary surface, as you might think…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
W/m2 absorbed is the energy per time per m2 absorbed. You still don’t have it right.
I have read over your many comments up-thread. You win my “funniest comments” award for the thread hands down… no real competition. Your combination of absolute certitude and utter hysteria is almost unbearably funny. Take a deep breath; humanity has both plenty of time and plenty of capacity to cool the planet… if that is ever really needed. And it is not clear it will be.
That comment of yours was funnier than anything I ever wrote, and maybe the most idiotic I’ve ever read.
Here’s what you don’t get. In the not-too-distant future, we will reach a point where nothing can be done about the problem. You must be one of those idiots who think you can just throw money at this somewhere down the line and that will solve everything. Not this time. You would need a scientific miracle to solve this problem. The chances of that are about on par with winning the lottery.
If you were choosing a way to bring about Armageddon, dumping increasing amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere would be an excellent choice.
I speak from understanding the science. You might want to try it sometime, if you’re capable.
JJBraccili
“The first law of thermodynamics states:
The change in internal energy = energy in – energy out
If the internal energy of a planet doesn’t change, the temperature of a planet can’t change. That’s about as fundamental as it gets in science.
You claim that energy in always equals energy out. If that’s true, the internal energy of planet can’t change and its temperature can’t change. Yet, you claim somehow it does. That’s about as ridiculous as it gets.”
JJBraccili, what you do here is to confuse solar flux’s W/m² with heat’s cal.
W/m² is not cal/m²…
When we say for Planet Radiative Energy Budget
energy in = energy out
then what we refer to is the radiative energy.
Radiative energy is measured in W/m² unit.
W/m² is radiative energy intensity measure, it is not an amount of heat added to planetary surface, as you might think.
The not reflected portion of the incident on the planet surface radiative energy does not get ENTIRELY absorbed AS HEAT .
What radiative energy does is to INTERACT with the surface’s matter.
The planet average surface specific heat cp and the planet rotational spin N are of the major factors in the “radiative energy – planet surface” INTERACTION PROCESS.
In planetary surface Radiative Equilibrium the entire incident solar radiative energy is re-radiated out.
1). On the spot and on the very instant the partial SW Reflection (specular and diffuse) of the incident radiative flux.
2). On the spot and on the very instant IR emission of a transformed from SW into LW fraction of the not reflected portion.
3). On the very instant and on the spot the rest of the not reflected and not IR emitted solar radiative energy gets accumulated in form of heat in the surface’s inner layers.
The amount of heat accumulated in the surface’s inner layers will later (at the night time hours), it will also be IR emitted as outgoing energy.
The amount of heat accumulated in the surface’s inner layers is what varies for planet’s variations of “the planet average surface specific heat cp and the planet rotational spin N” products.
When INTERACTING with planetary surface the energy is reflected, IR emitted and accumulated at the same time. Only a fraction of EM energy is accumulated in form of HEAT for the later IR emission.
When at nighttime hours surface does not interact with solar flux. At nighttime hours surface emits IR EM radiative energy as the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law requires. Surface’s spots emit at nighttime hours as previously warmed blackbody spots which they are then.
Conclusion:
There is not any violation of The first law of thermodynamics, when a faster rotating planet appears to be on average a warmer planet.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Where did I mention cal/m2? I never have. You have no idea what you’re talking about and you keep trying to salvage that idiotic theory of yours. Quit trying, it is unsalvageable.
You’re not qualified to school me on anything.
“What radiative energy does is to INTERACT with the surface’s matter.
The planet average surface specific heat cp and the planet rotational spin N are of the major factors in the “radiative energy – planet surface” INTERACTION PROCESS.”
Nonsense. You don’t know the difference between thermal conductivity and Cp. Cp is an inertial term. Thermal conductivity is a heat transfer term. How can anyone take you seriously when you don’t have the correct term in you equation. That’s not to mention that your equation is wrong. At zero rotational speed, a planet has a temperature of absolute zero according to you.
The rest of the post is a word salad that means nothing. You have no idea what you’re doing.
“Conclusion:
There is not any violation of The first law of thermodynamics, when a faster rotating planet appears to be on average a warmer planet.”
Your conclusion is wrong! You still haven’t explained where you get the energy to cause the earth to be at 288 K with a solar input of 240 W/m2. You have to figure out a way to produce, out of thin air, 150 W/m2. That’s a violation of the first law of thermodynamics. Spin you’re way out of that one.
As long as you continue to make up science, no one is going to take you seriously. I stopped a long time ago.
JJBraccili, where have you taken “solar input of 240 W/m2” ?
JJBraccili
“Your conclusion is wrong! You still haven’t explained where you get the energy to cause the earth to be at 288 K with a solar input of 240 W/m2. You have to figure out a way to produce, out of thin air, 150 W/m2. That’s a violation of the first law of thermodynamics. Spin you’re way out of that one.”
JJBraccili, where have you taken “solar input of 240 W/m2” ?
Solar flux on the TOP of Earth’s atmosphere is
So = 1361 W/m²
Lessened for Earth’s Albedo a= 0,306 and lessened for Earth’s smooth spherical shape Φ =0,47 the solar flux hitting Earth’s surface is:
Φ(1 – a)So = 0,47(1- 0,306)1361 W/m² = 444 W/m²
The 444 W/m² is the average of the solar lit hemisphere flux which refers to the Earth’s cross-section area perpendicular to the solar rays.
The Earth’s cross-section area is πr² m², where r is Earth’s radius.
The Total not reflected radiative energy received by Earth is:
444 W/m² *πr² m² = 444πr² W
Let’s continue:
The 444πr² W is the Earth’s the Total amount of not reflected radiative energy.
energy in = energy out = 444πr² W.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Just stop it.
In your own equation you divide solar irradiance by 4. What is that for? It’s the spherical correction. Are you going to take it out? That would screw up your already screwed up equation. Taking what you are now saying, you have only about 120 W/m2 from solar radiation to work with. That means you need to produce 270 W/m2 out of thin air.
On the laughable assumption you’re right. You now have 50 W/m2 more energy than is needed to support a 288 K planetary temperature. Your idiotic equation is now predicting the temperature of the earth is greater than 288 K. It’s still wrong.
This is getting absurd. Your theory is junk science and you need to just admit and move on. It can’t be saved.
What I have discovered is the ROTATING PLANET SPHERICAL SURFACE SOLAR IRRADIATION INTERACTING-EMITTING UNIVERSAL LAW
Jemit = 4πr²σΤmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W)
Planet Energy Budget:
Jnot.reflected = Jemit
πr²Φ*S*(1-a) = 4πr²σTmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W)
Solving for Tmean we obtain the PLANET MEAN SURFACE TEMPERATURE EQUATION:
Tmean.planet = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
What you have “discovered” is junk science. Please stop posting this nonsense over and over. It doesn’t get better with repetition.
It’s not a “universal law” if it predicts a planet’s temperature is 0 K if it’s not rotating.
The new estimate closely matches the estimate from satellite observations.
The Planet Mean Surface Temperature Equation
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
gives wonderful results
Tmean.earth = 287,74 K,
Tmean.moon = 223,35 K,
Tmean.mars = 213,21 K and
Tmean.mercury = 325,83 K
Using the new equation, the new estimate closely matches the estimate surface temperatures from satellite observations:
Tsat.mean.mercury = 340 K
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K
Tsat.mean.moon = 220 K
Tsat.mean.mars = 210 K
Planet…Te.incompl….Tmean…Tsat.mean
………….equation….equation…measured
Mercury….439,6 K…..325,83 K……340 K
It is time to abandon the old
Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ mathematical abstraction equation.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“It’s a joke. You already corrected for the spherical nature of a planet when, in your equation, you divide by four.”
I am not dividing the incident not reflected solar energy by four.
What I do is integrating the planet’s IR emission over the entire planetary surface 4πr²:
Jemit = 4πr²σΤmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W)
“What does a smooth or rough planet have to do with anything?”
What do you think it does?
The smooth planet surface has a very much intense specular reflection and the rough surface planet has not.
“Your equation is for planets without an atmosphere.”
Yes, that is right!
“You have no idea what that factor is for.”
Now I have no idea…
“I believe you gave 3 different definitions of it and none of them makes any sense.”
I was trying to make you understand…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“I am not dividing the incident not reflected solar energy by four.”
Yeah, you are. From your website:
πr²Φ*S*(1-a) = 4πr²σTmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W)
See what you did. On the left side, you multiply the solar flux by the area of a circle to get the watts. BTW that is correct because the sun radiates to the surface of a circle. On the right side, you multiply the S-B equation by the area of a sphere to get the watts. That’s correct as well because a planet radiates over its entire surface area. When you calculate Tmean you wind up dividing the area of a circle by the area of a sphere. That’s where the “4” correction in your equation comes from. It’s the area of a circle divided by the area of a sphere. That’s the spherical correction factor.
How can anyone take you seriously? You don’t even understand your own equation.
“The smooth planet surface has a very much intense specular reflection and the rough surface planet has not.”
Specular and diffuse reflection are about how radiation scatters. I suspect planets without a liquid surface would have diffuse reflection. In any event, you shouldn’t be correcting for it because albedo already takes reflection off the surface of a planet into account.
“I was trying to make you understand…”
When you give three different explanations for the same thing, what I understand is that you don’t know what you are talking about.
“Finally, I would be overjoyed to find such a relationship. ” -Willis
“Second, It is obvious that any important solar effect on climate is not due to changes in TSI, that are too small. Even the detected 0.14ºC temperature change associated to the solar cycle from some of the most active solar cycles of the past centuries cannot be explained by the detected change in TSI energy. ” -Javier
The overwhelming TSI climate influence is evident in the tropical cooling response to the drop in solar activity to the solar minimum over the past 7 solar cycles, and the tropical warming response driven by the TSI climb from the solar minimum to the next solar maximum:
https://i.postimg.cc/Njk4NZmH/ERSSTv5-and-Low-vs-High-Solar-Activity.png
https://i.postimg.cc/vT2cPTj2/ERSSTv5-and-High-vs-Low-Solar-Activity.jpg
Operating according to the solar-ocean warming threshold I first established in 2014 of 95 v2 SN, 120 sfu F10.7, and 1361,25 W/m2 SORCE 1au TSI.
The tropical warming/cooling effect of solar maximum TSI above/below the warming threshold is obvious:
https://i.postimg.cc/bvfdVKCP/Rathore-etal-Fig-1-Asymmetrical-OHC-vs-SORCE-TSI-overlay.jpg
The whole climate debate is incomplete and meaningless without involving the sun, which is the factor that supplies the Earth with energy. Carbon dioxide as a passive component, does not heat, but only delays the long-wave radiation. The sun is not a constant, because it constantly varies in intensity, therefore one cannot ignore what a constant decline or rise over decades can mean in the form of atmospheric changes. Specifically, what do wavelength changes within UV and its interference with the atmosphere of the stratosphere mean? We need to start asking ourselves, what does the reduced activity of the sun mean for almost 15 years? Sunspot activity, which is correlated with TSI, has been reduced since a few years before the minimum in 2008 until now. Without asking ourselves questions about this sun’s decline in activity and its impact in the climate system, it creates such an incomplete climate debate that it seems to be falsified.
It isn’t. The Sun is not always the dominating factor as I have pointed out in other posts. It can be, but it doesn’t have to be. Currently, the buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere is the dominant factor causing climate change.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science
That has nothing to do with what I said and everything to do with your planet rotation theory.
CO2. Really?
Global warming from 1910 to 1940 with very little C02 increase.
Global cooling from 1940 to 1975 with moderate CO2 increase.
Where are the strong positive correlations of CO2 and average temperature in those years? Should we ignore those “inconvenient” data?
What happened in the past means NOTHING!
CO2 is not always the dominate factor. The earth doesn’t have a memory. It all cause and effect.
According to NASA from 1940 – 1960 global temperature change tracked solar radiation change. After 1960 that stopped, the temperature change has been going up, and no longer tracks solar radiation. Guess what happened after WWII?
https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/189/graphic-temperature-vs-solar-activity/
https://judithcurry.com/2021/11/11/the-next-environmental-crisis/#comment-964721
JJBraccili, what you do is to confuse solar flux’s W/m² with heat’s cal.
W/m² is not cal/m²…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Bjorn: “The whole climate debate is incomplete and meaningless without involving the sun”
JJ: “It isn’t. The Sun is not always the dominating factor as I have pointed out in other posts”
So, JJ, give us a short list of planets that would stay warm without the sun?
That’s not the point. Of course, the sun is important in warming the earth. At a fixed solar irradiance, the sun will warm the earth to a fixed temperature. Minor changes in solar irradiance will cause minor fluctuations in temperature. The question is can something else come in that can drive the temperature of the planet higher regardless of the minor fluctuations of the sun. The answer is YES. That’s what greenhouse gases do.
For the last 40 years solar irradiance has not been increasing but the planet’s temperature has. That means something else is driving the temperature change. That something is CO2.
Venus is currently 400 C above the temperature it should be and is absorbing less solar radiation than the earth does. What do you think is causing that? It’s not solar irradiance.
The only known relationship of varying solar energy and temperatures I know of has rough data for incoming solar energy (sunspot counts) and only local real time temperature measurements (Central England’s three weather stations)
There was a cold period during the Maunder Minimum low sunspot counts at those weather stations. That does not add up to much evidence over the past 325 years.
Changes in clouds should have some effect on incoming energy and outgoing energy, but tiny changes in incoming solar energy do not appear to be an explanation of any climate changes over less than a multi-thousand year period. That’s assuming we are measuring the right thing with accuracy.
We know very little about stars. We do know that as stars age, they output more solar radiation. Our sun puts out about 1-2 W/m2 more energy over a century.
I don’t know what to say about albedo effects. As the earth warms, there will be more water vapor in the atmosphere and that should mean more cloud cover.
We don’t have enough satellite coverage to determine the albedo effect and how it varies. NASA has a project called RAVAN to measure that and radiative forcing. I have no idea when that project is going to be fully funded.
https://directory.eoportal.org/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/r/ravan
JJ
“ For the last 40 years solar irradiance has not been increasing but the planet’s temperature has. That means something else is driving the temperature change. That something is CO2.”
CO2? Yes, some. But don’t forget about internal variability.
From NOAA
“ Instruments have observed AMO cycles only for the last 150 years, not long enough to conclusively answer this question. However, studies of paleoclimate proxies, such as tree rings and ice cores, have shown that oscillations similar to those observed instrumentally have been occurring for at least the last millennium. This is clearly longer than modern man has been affecting climate, so the AMO is probably a natural climate oscillation. In the 20th century, the climate swings of the AMO have alternately camouflaged and exaggerated the effects of global warming, and made attribution of global warming more difficult to ascertain.”
https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/amo_faq.php
https://psl.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/gcos_wgsp/tsanalysis.pl?tstype1=91&tstype2=0&year1=&year2=&itypea=0&axistype=0&anom=0&plotstyle=0&climo1=&climo2=&y1=&y2=&y21=&y22=&length=&lag=&iall=0&iseas=0&mon1=0&mon2=11&Submit=Calculate+Results
http://www.climate4you.com/images/HadCRUT4%2050yr%20AnnualTrendSinceDecember1899.gif
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Arch_3.png
JJ
“ The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) has pronounced influences on weather and climate across the globe. ”
https://www.ess.uci.edu/~yu/PDF/Lyu-and-Yu.GRL.2017.pdf
“ Not taking the AMO into account in predictions of future warming under various forcing scenarios may run the risk of overestimating the warming for the next two to three decades, when the AMO is likely in its down phase.”
“…. and suggests that the anthropogenic global warming trends might have been overestimated by a factor of two in the second half of the 20th century”
https://www.pnas.org/content/110/6/2058
“ The onset of declining phase of AMO, the recent excess of the global sea ice area anomaly and the negative slope of global mean temperature measured by satellite from 2002 to 2015, all these indicators sign for the onset of the declining phase of the 60-year cycle. Once this cycle is subtracted from observations, the transient climate response is revised downwards consistent with latest observations, with latest evaluations based on atmospheric infrared absorption and with a general tendency of published climate sensitivity”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0012825216300277
“ Finally we show that even out to thirty years large parts of the globe (or most of the globe in MPI-GE and CMIP5) could still experience no-warming due to internal variability.”
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab7d02/meta
JJ
“ North Atlantic sea surface temperatures experience variability with a periodicity of 60–80 years that is known as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). It has a profound imprint on the global climate system that results in a number of high value societal impacts.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep40861
“ Analyzing temperature records of the Arctic meteorological stations we find that (a) the Arctic amplification (ratio of the Arctic to global temperature trends) is not a constant but varies in time on a multi-decadal time scale, (b) the Arctic warming from 1910–1940 proceeded at a significantly faster rate than the current 1970–2008 warming, and (c) the Arctic temperature changes are highly correlated with the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) suggesting the Atlantic Ocean thermohaline circulation is linked to the Arctic temperature variability on a multi-decadal time scale.”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009GL038777
Let’s talk about “natural variability.” That implies that there is temperature change that just occurs. No reason for it. That’s nonsense. To change temperature, requires energy. That energy has to come from somewhere. Temperature change does not produce energy. It indicates the energy content of whatever is being measured has changed.
There are only three sources of energy that impact the planet. Solar radiation at 120,000 TW or 240 W/m2, Geothermal at 50 TW or 0.1 W/m2, and Human production of energy at 20 TW or 0.04 W/m2
The greenhouse gas effect is recycling solar radiation. That’s about 150 W/m2. CO2’s contribution to that is about 18 W/m2. Do you see the problem with these other “natural” effects? If they come from solar radiation, they are already accounted for. If they come from the other sources, they’re too small to matter.
As I explained to someone who is hyping sunspots. What happened before we started to massively dump CO2 in the atmosphere doesn’t matter. The changes we are seeing now can’t be accounted for without CO2 being the cause.
JJ: “Venus is currently 400 C above the temperature it should be and is absorbing less solar radiation than the earth does. What do you think is causing that?”
Isn’t that like comparing apples to watermelons? Venus doesn’t even have a magnetosphere. We get that Venus has an atmosphere mostly composed of CO2; what if it were all methane? One can do what ifs all day long.
You miss the point. The point is that on Venus solar radiation is not what keeps that planet 400 deg C above where it should be. Solar radiation is not always the determinate factor.
JJ
Read my lips. It’s internal variability. You are close to embarrassing yourself by ignoring what all of climate science knows. These papers are probably only 1% of what is out there. Thrill us with your acumen. Demonstrate your learning capabilities. We have confidence you can come through. Don’t just be another unthinking clone.
The only one embarrassing themselves is you.
What you are talking about is changes in temperatures — cyclical or not — in various areas of the globe. That has NOTHING to do with climate change. Temperatures vary all over the planet because the sun does not heat the earth evenly. That has nothing to do with a permanent change in the climate of the planet. As I already told you, which you still don’t understand, moving energy from one part of the planet to another has NO impact on climate change.
JJ, so what, your point here is binary.
My point is that solar radiation is not causing the current warming.
“Currently, the buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere is the dominant factor causing climate change.”
Weaker solar wind states driving warmer ocean phases, particularly the AMO since 1995, which then reduces low cloud cover, which increases the shortwave forcing by a lot more than the rise in CO2 forcing
The O in AMO stands for oscillation. That means the effect increases and decreases. That cannot be the cause of climate change. Variations in temperature that occur across the planet do not create energy. Without an energy source that can be accumulated, climate change is not possible. These types of variations affect weather — not climate
– “These types of variations affect weather — not climate.”
Proof of ignorance.
AMO is associated to cloud anomalies as it could not be otherwise. The planet energy budget changes with the change in multidecadal oscillations.
New observational evidence for a positive cloud feedback that amplifies the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL069961
AMO displays non-stationarity. Multidecadal power in AMO increased starting in the 19th century, long before any significant increase in CO2.
Amplification of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation associated with the onset of the industrial-era warming
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep40861
You should stop repeating incorrect climate memes. There are people in this blog that are not easily fooled by you.
I just posted an article on albedo. I’m not going to repost it. Go look it up. The bottom line is that since 2000 albedo has had minimal impact on climate.
Do tell, where does the energy come from so that AMO can increase the internal energy of the earth, raise the temperature of the earth, and cause climate change? If you don’t have a source, AMO has zero impact on climate. Guess what? AMO has zero impact on climate.
If you want to know why climate scientists ignore these effects that you think are significant, that’s why.
I’m not trying to fool anybody. What I just stated is the science behind climate change. It’s not my fault you’re clueless.
Read my post on Quora about the science behind climate change:
https://www.quora.com/If-climate-change-is-a-hoax-why-do-so-many-scientists-say-its-happening?top_ans=155488291
The AMO is a solar driven oscillation, it is colder when the solar wind is stronger, and warmer when the solar wind is weaker. Of course it does not create energy, but it dominates Arctic temperature variability, and it alters the amount of solar shortwave reaching Earth’s surface, causing the largest decadal temperature variability in the global climate system. Without the indirect solar forcing variability, the AMO envelope would not exist.
To drive climate change, the energy of the planet has to be increasing. An oscillation isn’t going to do it. Neither are temperature variations across the planet.
How much albedo is affected is unknown. We don’t have really good numbers on albedo.
https://skepticalscience.com/The-albedo-effect.html
The above link shows the problem. The author came to the conclusion that the impact of changes in albedo are minimal.
What happens on the surface of the planet is noise. It has an impact on weather — not climate.
I already posted an article on the albedo effect.
All that is nice to know, but it has zero impact on climate. In order to change climate a change must occur to the internal energy of the earth. You need energy to do that.
Climate change is a two-dimensional problem. The cause of climate change is an energy imbalance where the earth absorbs more energy from the sun than it radiates into space. That increases the internal energy of the planet, raises planetary temperature, and all the other effects caused by climate change. The sun does not heat the earth evenly. That causes energy imbalances across the planet. Temperature variations, weather, and other anomalies are the result of the earth attempting to resolve these imbalances. AMO would fall under the anomaly category. That has zero impact on the climate of the planet. It’s just energy be exchanged across the planet. It cannot increase the internal energy of the earth and cannot cause climate change.
The AMO envelope causes the greatest inter-decadal global climate variability, that’s not just weather. The decline in low cloud cover increases the energy to the surface. Sunshine hours data contradicts the Earthshine data, e.g.:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/pub/data/weather/uk/climate/actualmonthly/17/Sunshine/UK.gif
As I have already stated, it doesn’t matter.
“What happens on the surface of the planet is noise. It has an impact on weather — not climate.”
It is something I may agree with…
But still:
“…buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere is the dominant factor causing climate change.”
That is definitely a joke!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
– “What happens on the surface of the planet is noise. It has an impact on weather — not climate.”
You keep showing your hubris built on a Dunning-Kruger effect. How could you possibly know that? Climate is extraordinarily complex and you are extraordinarily ignorant. What happens on the surface is either a consequence or a cause of what happens above or below (or both). Wind-driven circulation, SLP, SST, precipitation, cloud cover, zonal and meridional circulation, changes in the thermocline, upwelling and downwelling, they are all cause and consequence of each other and have the potential to affect the energy balance at the ToA.
The idea that changes that happen at one place and time are compensated by changes that happen at another place and time is completely undemonstrated.
The main obstacle to advance our knowledge of climate is the tremendous simplification of considering an homogeneous planet at a constant distant of the sun always receiving the same amount of solar radiation and in an nonexistent equilibrium only perturbed by the increase in CO2. The average temperature of the planet’s surface changes by 3.8°C during the course of the year. In the NH the annual change of surface temperature is higher than 11°C. Those changes are accompanied by changes in atmospheric water vapor content, so the greenhouse effect is also changing all the time as the most abundant GHG changes.
In general the frequency of comments in the blog is inversely proportional to the knowledge of the commenter. You clearly fit that rule.
“The idea that changes that happen at one place and time are compensated by changes that happen at another place and time is completely undemonstrated.”
It doesn’t have to be demonstrated. It’s called the First Law of Thermodynamics. Pick up a copy of “Thermodynamics for Dummies” and try to learn something. I’m sure it will be a new experience for you.
One part of climate change is very, very simple. If the earth absorbs more energy from the sun than it radiates into space, the internal energy of the planet increases, the temperature of the planet increases, and the climate changes. What happens on the surface of the planet doesn’t affect that — it responds to it.
Yes, what happens on the surface of the planet is complex and predicting what is going to happen and will it will happen requires sophisticated models. None of that impacts climate change.
That you don’t understand that, means you don’t know a damn thing.
– “Do tell, where does the energy come from so that AMO can increase the internal energy of the earth, raise the temperature of the earth, and cause climate change? If you don’t have a source, AMO has zero impact on climate. Guess what? AMO has zero impact on climate. If you want to know why climate scientists ignore these effects that you think are significant, that’s why. I’m not trying to fool anybody. What I just stated is the science behind climate change. It’s not my fault you’re clueless.”
You are an ignorant of the worst class, the one that thinks that knows. It is clear that you are not a scientist of any kind, because you cannot state something in negative like “AMO has zero impact on climate” because no amount of research could ever prove that. There is always the possibility that it has a significant impact by unknown means.
But in the case of the internal multidecadal variability (IMV), exemplified by AMO, it turns out that its effect on climate has been studied by multiple linear regression analysis and found to be very important.
Deducing Multidecadal Anthropogenic Global Warming Trends Using Multiple Regression Analysis
Zhou & Tung 2013
“What is important, but is left out of all multiple regression analysis of global warming so far, is a long-period oscillation called the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation (AMO). When the AMO index is included as a regressor (i.e., explanatory variable), the deduced multidecadal anthropogenic global warming trend is so impacted that previously deduced anthropogenic warming rates need to be substantially revised.”
The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation as a dominant factor of oceanic influence on climate
Chylek et al. 2014
“A multiple linear regression analysis of global annual mean near-surface air temperature (1900–2012) using the known radiative forcing and the El Niño–Southern Oscillation index as explanatory variables account for 89% of the observed temperature variance. When the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) index is added to the set of explanatory variables, the fraction of accounted for temperature variance increases to 94%. … An inverse structural analysis suggests that these models generally overestimate the greenhouse gases-induced warming, which is then compensated by an overestimate of anthropogenic aerosol cooling.”
Impact of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) on deriving anthropogenic warming rates from the instrumental temperature record
van der Werf & Dolman 2014
“Assuming that at least part of the AMO is of natural origin and given that it has a substantial temperature cycle and large footprint, it should be included in MLR studies as an explanatory variable. This will lower the anthropogenic temperature trend for the past 30 years compared to MLR studies neglecting the AMO”
A Review of the Role of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation in Atlantic Multidecadal Variability and Associated Climate Impacts
Zhang et al. 2019
“There is strong observational and modeling evidence that multidecadal AMOC variability is a crucial driver of the observed AMV and associated climate impacts and an important source of enhanced decadal predictability and prediction skill. … Paleoclimate evidence indicates that a similar linkage between multidecadal AMOC variability and AMV and many associated climate impacts may also have existed in the preindustrial era, that AMV has enhanced multidecadal power significantly above a red noise background, and that AMV is not primarily driven by external forcing. The role of the AMOC in AMV and associated climate impacts has been underestimated in most state-of-the-art climate models, posing significant challenges but also great opportunities for substantial future improvements in understanding and predicting AMV and associated climate impacts.”
It is clear that not all climate scientists ignore the effect of AMO or other IMV on climate. It is also clear that you ignore that.
Regarding how IMV can change the energy of the system, there is also a lot of literature on that:
Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation footprint on global high cloud cover
Vaideanu et al. 2018
Distinct Patterns of Cloud Changes Associated with Decadal Variability and Their Contribution to Observed Cloud Cover Trends
Chen et al. 2019
“In most models, the magnitude of the estimated decadal variability contribution to the observed cloud cover trends is larger than that contributed by GHG, suggesting the observed cloud cover trends are more closely related to decadal variability than to GHG-induced warming.”
Perhaps you don’t know that net cloud forcing of the radiation budget is a loss of about 13 W/m2. A 1% change in cloud forcing is thus 0.13 W/m2. This compares with a decadal increase by CO2 of about 0.2 W/m2.
We can’t be certain of small changes in cloud cover since we can’t measure them properly, so your albedo paper is just speculation.
– “What I just stated is the science behind climate change.”
You don’t know the science behind climate change. Unless you can demonstrate that AMO does not have an effect on climate, you should recognize that you were wrong about it.
The only thing you said that was correct was that we don’t have good data on the albedo effect.
Cloud cover is impacted more by water vapor in the atmosphere. I think it’s a pretty good bet that what happens over a limited geographic area is compensated for elsewhere. I assume you know that water vapor in the atmosphere is a function of atmospheric temperature, which is a function of planetary temperature, which is a function of climate change, which is a function of earth’s energy imbalance. Did I mention AOM in there? NO!
If you can’t identify how the internal energy of the earth is impacted by AOM, then this is all speculation. Saying it might affect albedo is not sufficient.
As far as I know, this has not caught on in the scientific community. That means there is no unaccounted effect that impacts climate change. That’s not “suppressing the truth.”
BTW if this is true, it would not diminish the greenhouse effect. It would add to it. Not unless you have an explanation how AOM diminishes back radiation all over the planet. Your problem is that we have spectrographic data that confirms what CO2 does. Maybe, you’d like to claim that data is fake or NASA doesn’t know how to use a spectrograph. Why not? You’ve claimed everything else.
JJ
As a predicate, remember that oceans have a memory of at least 1,000 years. One run from one study identified a period of 1736 years for a complete circulation. Whatever the period really is, ocean circulation clearly has had an impact on global temperatures over millennia.
This study identified effects of heat transport from warmer waters in the Atlantic leading up to the MWP and LIA.
“The comparison of our IRD (ice raft debris)records with other North At- lantic reconstructions of ice rafting, sea surface, and deep ocean conditions provides a better picture of the development of the LIA in the subpolar region. We postulate that the enhanced ice discharge during the MCA, due to warm conditions, decreased sea surface salinity in the Labrador Sea, which in turn reduced Labrador Sea convection and weak- ened SPG circulation. The reduction in convection in the Labrador Sea, one of the key areas of deep water formation in the North Atlantic, potentially weakened the North Atlantic circulation and decreased oceanic heat transport to the high latitudes, particularly to the Labrador Sea region. In other words, the reduced convection also diminished the arrival of warm water from the NAC to SE Greenland coasts, inducing perennial sea ice occurrence and cooling the atmosphere which promoted ice sheet growth in the Arctic. The subsequent atmospheric and oceanographic reorganization induced by external forcings, such as solar and volcanic forcing, generated extremely cold conditions in the North Atlantic during the LIA, with the development of atmospheric blocking events which boosted further cooling and harsh conditions across Europe and the Nordic Seas, and led the Norse to abandon their colonies in Greenland around AD 1400 because of their maladaptation to cold climate conditions”
https://cp.copernicus.org/articles/13/317/2017/cp-13-317-2017.pdf
JJ
More impacts over millennia
“ In this study, we present a suite of subdecadally to decadally resolved proxy records from across the subpolar North Atlantic from which we can infer changes in the formation of deep waters in the Labrador Sea and its associated gyre strength across the last 3000 years. This interval spans several important periods within European history, which have often been related to climate variability such as the warm intervals during the Roman Empire expansion (colloquially referred to the Roman Warm Period ~250 years Before Common Era (BCE)—400 years Common Era (CE)) and Medieval times (Medieval Climatic Anomaly ~900–1200 years CE) and the cold periods such as the one centred around ~2700 years Before Present (BP) known as the Iron Age Cold Epoch, the short-lived Dark Ages Cold Period (~500–750 years CE) and the Little Ice Age (~1450–1850 years CE). Studying the ocean changes over the last 3000 years at high temporal resolution thereby provides a unique opportunity to investigate the potential linkages between ocean circulation changes and European climate variability and its impacts on societies. Our new findings suggest centennial changes in the circulation of the subpolar North Atlantic, likely modulated by the input of Arctic Ocean waters to the Labrador Sea, with similar timing to climate variability recorded on land in historical and terrestrial proxy data in Europe for the last 3000 years.”
As an aside, there is voluminous literature finding warm/cold periods across the globe which coincide with the above times. Many studies are from the last decade. Climate science marches on.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-01884-8
In study released November 24, earlier Atlantification than previously believed, not in concert with existing models.
“ Controversy still remains on the relative impact of natural versus anthropogenic forcing on the North Atlantic system. However, it seems likely that the slowdown of the AMOC during the early 20th century has been caused primarily by increased export of Arctic sea ice and freshwater in the North-East Atlantic following the end of the LIA . Farther east, our results from the Fram Strait reveal an opposite scenario characterized by rapid sea ice loss and rapid Atlantification of water masses. Currently, the latest CMIP6 historical climate experiments initialized with transient forcing from PMIP4 last millennium simulations fail to reproduce the post-LIA Atlantification documented in our reconstructions.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abj2946
I read your posts. Does climate vary across the planet? Yes. Can that be the cause of climate change? NO!
Let me simplify this. Let’s draw a box around the earth and its atmosphere. Only energy passes through the box — no mass. That’s called a closed thermodynamic system. The only energy that enters the system is solar radiation. The only energy that leaves the system is the earth’s radiant energy. Let’s assume that the energy that enters the system is the same as the energy that leaves the system. The system is at steady-state.
The First Law of Thermodynamics says energy cannot be created or destroyed. Since the energy entering is the same as the energy leaving, and energy cannot be created or destroyed, that means that the amount of energy in the earth system is fixed. That sets the planetary temperature, which is also fixed.
The sun does not heat the earth evenly. That sets up mini energy imbalances across the planet. The earth attempts to get rid of those imbalances by transferring energy back and forth across the planet. In thermodynamics, those are called internal energy transfers, and they do nothing to increase the energy on the planet. They do nothing to change the temperature of the planet, and they do nothing with regards to climate change.
Weather, AOM and everything else that occurs on the planet have no impact on climate unless it impacts the energy balance of the planet at TOA. It does impact local climate (weather events), but not the climate of the entire planet.
Somebody said AOM could impact albedo. Let’s say it did. Let’s say that required energy. That energy came from somewhere else on the planet and the cloud cover there could have increased or something else happened. That’s why every event on the planet that requires energy, subtracts energy from somewhere else on the planet. Net impact is zero.
If you think of things in terms of energy — not temperature — it’s pretty easy to debunk all these alternate theories which rely on temperature changes.
JJ
I hear that Harvard has an opening in their School of Oceanography. With your total command of 8th grade equations and extensive knowledge of oceanic dynamics and circulation, I’m sure you would be a stellar addition to their faculty and would do yeoman’s work. If things don’t work out they could always have you take out the trash.
JJB:
“I assume you know that water vapor in the atmosphere is a function of atmospheric temperature, which is a function of planetary temperature, which is a function of climate change, which is a function of earth’s energy imbalance. Did I mention AOM in there? NO!”
But one needs to mention the elephant in the room to ascertain how climate change functions. Weaker solar wind states drive a warmer AMO (via the NAO/AO), which increases lower atmospheric water vapour, and reduces low cloud cover.
“But one needs to mention the elephant in the room to ascertain how climate change functions. Weaker solar wind states drive a warmer AMO (via the NAO/AO), which increases lower atmospheric water vapour, and reduces low cloud cover.”
It may be more a mouse than an elephant. You have to realize this is occurring — if it is occurring at all — over a limited geographic area. Just because something might happen, doesn’t mean it does. Don’t forget, if this has anything to do with climate change, the effect has to be significant and continually increasing.
Then there is this:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/03/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-atlantic-multidecadal-oscillation/
JJB: “— if it is occurring at all — over a limited geographic area.”
It is rather obvious when the warm phase occurs, the Arctic warms strongly, reducing sea ice extent, and drives Greenland ice sheet melt. The warm AMO phase is associated with glacial retreat from the US to the Himalayas, changes in precipitation from the US to China, a global decline in low cloud cover, increased surface wind speeds over the oceans, and even a linkage to the PDO. And there is an 8 month lagged teleconnection from El Nino episodes, to major warm pulses of the AMO.
Now what you need to understand is that the 1970’s cold AMO was forced by stronger solar wind states, and the post 1995 AMO warming by weaker solar wind states. Blaming the majority of the global warming from the 1970’s on rising CO2 forcing, will come badly unstuck when stronger solar wind states next drive a cold AMO phase.
By knowing that the AMO is always warmer during centennial solar minima, and is usually warmer once between each centennial minimum, one can calculate the long term mean AMO frequency at 54 years. Several studies suggest 55 years.
Have you read this?:
https://judithcurry.com/2021/03/06/canceling-the-amo/
Did you read the article I posted on why the AMO probably doesn’t exist?
From data I posted, it doesn’t look like albedo has changed much since 2000. Albedo data, in general, is not very good.
I don’t think AMO is a driver of climate change. It certainly is not going to be a substitute for the greenhouse effect. At best, it impacts weather patterns.
JJ Braccili
We know very little about stars. We do know that as stars age, they output more solar radiation. Our sun puts out about 1-2 W/m2 more energy over a century.
1 W/m^2 per century increasing solar output?
Over about 4 billion years of earth history, that should have brought us to about 40 million W/m^2 now.
Your number must be wrong.
That’s what the current estimate is. I suspect it varies.
JJB, yes I read the article, the 2000 study of models producing an AMO envelope without the relevant solar forcing only proves a fundamental fault in the models.
I am not convinced that article is rational regarding teleconnections between volcanic events and AMO-Arctic warming or cooling. The circulation models certainly are not rational, they predict increasingly positive NAO/AO conditions with rising CO2 forcing, but that would cool the AMO and Arctic. The same problem manifests in UK summers, which the circulation models predict should become warmer and drier with rising CO2 forcing, but they have become on average wetter since 1995, because of low indirect solar increasing negative NAO, driving a warmer AMO.
JJ and Christos: The biggest fluctuations in the climate of the last million or so years – glacials and interglacials – appear to have been initially driven without any significant change in global forcing. Ice ages have been initiated by a REGIONAL decrease in solar radiation during summer at high latitudes in the northern hemisphere, but not a global increase in solar radiation. (Terminations can be, but are not always, initiated by a REGIONAL, but not global, increase in radiation ion the same place and season.
During terminations, warming caused CO2 outgas from the oceans (a global forcing), but warming in Antarctica ice cores began about 5 millennia before warming in Greenland ice cores, so the forcing from rising GHGs at the end of the last ice age, is a lousy model for today’s warming from rising GHGs – which has been negligible in Antarctica and greatest in the Arctic.
Was it a coincidence that the biggest climate fluctuation in the past two millennia occurred during the biggest drop in sunspots? Perhaps – the change in TSI associated with a change in sunspots is not big enough to explain a robust LIA (0.7K drop). We need sunspots to be a proxy for some other cooling mechanism independent from TSI. The consensus appears to be in the process of erasing a robust LIA from the climate record (as they did with the MWP). Then we won’t need a new mechanism.
However, I don’t find it essential to speculate about future unpredictable changes in solar activity: If ECS is high (say 3.5 or greater), another LIA near the end of the 21st century will only have a modest impact on GHG-mediated global warming. If ECS is low (say 2.5 or lower), GHG-mediated global warming won’t be catastrophic and we won’t need to hope we will be saved by an unpredictable drop in solar output. So I tend to focus on ECS
https://svalgaard.leif.org/research/TSI-Reconstruction-2014.png
The ups and downs of the 11/22 year cycle but no trend.
“A surprising outcome of the work was the realization that there has been no long-term trend in solar activity since 1700 AD: The absence of the Modern Grand Maximum in the revised series suggests that rising global temperatures since the industrial revolution cannot be attributed mainly to
increased solar activity or to processes that vary with solar activity such as the flux of Galactic Cosmic Rays, which often are claimed to modulate or control the amount of cloudiness and hence the amount of sunlight reflected back to space”.
https://svalgaard.leif.org/research/Climate-Change-My-View.pdf
Svalgaard has a demonstrable bias on this issue. The sunspot record does support the Modern Solar Maximum:
https://i.imgur.com/xw8sT8u.png
And cosmogenic records do support it too. Results from Steinhilber et al. 2009; Rooth & Joos 2013; Lean et al. 2018; Zheng et al. 2021:
https://i.imgur.com/V0vWNX2.png
The literature supports a clear climatic effect from the Modern solar maximum:
Modern solar maximum forced late twentieth century Greenland cooling
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2015GL064764
Svalgaard cannot be trusted on this issue. Check the Connolly et al. 2021 paper linked by our host at the end of her article. Svalgaard reconstruction is the one out of 16 that shows the least solar component in the temperature trend. This is by design.
“The Sunspot Number, the longest scientific experiment still ongoing, is a crucial tool used to study the solar dynamo, space weather and climate change. It has now been recalibrated and shows a consistent history of solar activity over the past few centuries. The new record has no significant long-term upward trend in solar activity since 1700, as was previously indicated. This suggests that rising global temperatures since the industrial revolution cannot be attributed to increased solar activity. The analysis, its results and its implications for climate research were made public today at a press briefing at the International Astronomical Union (IAU) XXIX General Assembly, currently taking place in Honolulu, Hawai`i, USA.”
“The apparent upward trend of solar activity between the 18th century and the late 20th century has now been identified as a major calibration error in the Group Sunspot Number. Now that this error has been corrected, solar activity appears to have remained relatively stable since the 1700s.”
https://www.iau.org/news/pressreleases/detail/iau1508/
“Now that this error has been corrected, solar activity appears to have remained relatively stable since the 1700s.”
Appears to whom? The figure I have linked is made from the official SILSO data after the 2015 revision.
https://i.imgur.com/xw8sT8u.png
Here is the data:
https://wwwbis.sidc.be/silso/DATA/SN_ms_tot_V2.0.txt
The official sunspot dataset I linked above shows that the average number of yearly sunspots for the 1844-1996 period was 24% higher than for the period 1700-1843. It will take you 5 minutes to check it by yourself.
How is that for relatively stable, a 24% difference?
Javier
This is the real “butterfly effect.”
https://i.ibb.co/hYfmX2x/eisnplot.png
https://wwwbis.sidc.be/silso/eisnplot
Javier,
My graphs are TSI. Yours are sun spot number. Related but not the same.
TSI is what matters.
COP26 was a timely reminder of what climate change is all about.
Ottmar Edenhofer – German economist and IPCC official in an interview with the Sueddeutscher Zeitung, November 20, 2010
“First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.”
As we saw in Glasgow, the redistribution requirement now stands at $100bn per year, rising to $1trn in five years. That is the main UN project but climate change is an integrated part of it. The UN has several agencies that play a key part in climate science, the WMO, IPCC and WCRP. The World Climate Research Program, among other things, runs the CMIP project which compares and coordinates the climate models that effectively underpin government policies.
It is an understatement to say that the UN has a major involvement in every step of climate science from the weather to the government policies. It is true that individual governments provide the funding, but the recipients, universities and specialist agencies, wish to keep the funding flowing and know what evidence is required and what evidence must be avoided.
As I read many examples of reference and deference to UN agencies on these pages, I feel concerned about the extent of free and independent thinking in this field.
Really? A giant cabal controlled by the UN for the past 40 years involving 1000s of scientists across the world. Scientists from different generations, cultures, and political systems. Scientists who probably have never met, and if they know each other its by reputation only. These scientists don’t give a damn about their reputation and only care about research money. They falsify the evidence on a grand scale and trash evidence to the contrary. The UN is part of a wider socialist plot to redistribute wealth.
Then we have the fossil fuel industry. A paradigm for truth, justice, and the American way. They don’t care about profits. They don’t worry about losing trillions in revenues. They just want to truth to come out. It just so happens that the “truth” they want to come out preserves their profits and revenues. Purely a coincidence.
It’s called group think, Broccoli
Something that Happens often with humans.
Examples:
Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Trump Russian collusion
Rittenhouse was a white supremacist
A climate crisis is coming.
Open borders are good for America
Many religious beliefs(all based on faith, not facts).
The coming climate crisis belief is a little different.
— It’s just a prediction so can never be proven wrong.
One could show the prediction began in the late 1950s,
and no climate crisis has arrived do far, but it is
always predicted in 10 or 20 years, so can never
be falsified. A claim that can never be falsified
is not real science. But YOU love it !
It’s not group think.
CO2 induced climate change is real and we can see the impact right now.
https://unfccc.int/news/state-of-climate-in-2021-extreme-events-and-major-impacts
Guess those wildfires out west are a mirage. How about the 29 in of rain in 24 hours in China or the severe heat waves across the Europe and out west? Wildfires in Sibera? Wildfires in Canada?
I know. I know. They’re just anomalies. Put enough anomalies together and you know what you have? You have a trend.
Replying to Mr. Broccoli’s next comment here,
on two subjects:
(1) Historical CO2 – Temperature Relationships:
Geologic History:
Prior to past 500.000 years
= no known CO2 changes causing temperature changes relationship
Past 500,000 years (Ice cores)
= Temperature changes led CO2 changes by an average of 800 years
Recent History:
1910 to 1940 warming with very small CO2 increase
1940 to 1975 cooling with moderate CO2 increase
1975 to 2020 warming with faster CO2 increase.
So, which CO2 temperature relationship will apply in the future ?
(2) Wildfires
Your statements on wildfires are scaremongering and wrong too !
— NASA’s global Active Fire Index has been in a downtrend since 2000
— US wildfire acres burned peaked in the 1930s, along with US heat waves.
I would also argue that wildfires are about 90% human caused, and a few tenths of a degree warming will not affect that cause. The amount of rainfall could affect wildfire acres burned, but rainfall is increasing in a warming world.
What happened in the past doesn’t matter. The climate on the planet is all about cause and effect. What part of that don’t you understand? It’s not that hard to figure out that the planet is warming and what is causing it. All the other “theories” and explanations have fallen apart.
How climate change impacts wildfires is by creating conditions that increase the probability of a wildfire starting. Climate change makes wildfires more likely. In California, climate change has caused wildfire season to be extended.
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/wildfires.html
Mr. Broccoli
You have made two additional wrong statements about wildfires.
(1) Since roughly 90% of wildfires are believed to be man made, you offer no explanation of why man made fires would be affected by slight changes in the temperature.
Fires could be related to a lack of trimming tree branches near electric wires, as in California. Also, as the population increases, there are more chances of an accident, with more people are living near forests than ever before.
Those are likely factors in the number of fires.
The lack of forest management is a factor in the intensity of fires. The lack of sufficient prescriptive burns, when appropriate, is a factor in forest management.
(2) I discussed the NASA global Active Fires Index in a prior comment, which has been in a downtrend since the late 1990s.
You mentioned California fires.
Please note that California is a tiny percentage of the world, and does not refute global data. In addition, there is no downtrend of rainfall in California which could be an explanation for CA: According to NOAA, using a 36 month average, the 1897 through 2020 precipitation trend in California is flat. The linear trend line, to be precise, was -0.03 inches per decade, which looks like a straight line on the NOAA chart.
My conclusions, based on data and common sense
(not computer game predictions)
(1) 90% of wildfires (man made) are not affected by slight changes in temperature.
(2) For one example, in every year California vegetation gets dry enough for wildfires — a few tenths of a degree warmer can not make already dry / dead vegetation any dryer
(3) If the global Active Fires Index is declining, then what is happening in California is data mining
Note:
If I wrote in a comment that the US (48 states) has not warmed since 2005, based on NOAA’s best weather station network – USCRN — you would claim the US is only a tiny percentage of the world — that’s data mining !
,,, But your focus California wildfires is not data mining ??
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/wildfires.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/17/climate/climate-change-wildfire-risk.html
Maybe, you should get your head out of the sand and get more current information.
Note: From Richard Green
“If I wrote in a comment that the US (48 states) has not warmed since 2005, based on NOAA’s best weather station network – USCRN — you would claim the US is only a tiny percentage of the world — that’s data mining !
,,, But your focus California wildfires is not data mining ??”
As Richard Green correctly notes – The alarmists are champions of data mining/cherrypicking
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/wildfires.html
https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Wildfires-and-Climate-Change-California%E2%80%99s-Energy-Future.pdf
JJ
A real scientist would want to know what other factors might be in play with forest fires in the past. Let’s look at California since you brought it up.
From a study of past droughts in the US West Cook et al, 2009
“ At the same time, great new insights into past drought variability over North America have been made through the development of the North American Drought Atlas from tree rings. Analyses of this drought atlas have revealed past megadroughts of unprecedented duration in the West, largely in the Medieval period about 1000 years ago.”
A real scientist might also consider the following:
The US has no upward trend in droughts per NOAA
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/clip_image0121.jpg
California population has increased from 1.5 million in 1900 to ~40 million now.
Related, the wild land/urban interface has grown commensurately.
Again, related, human ignition of forest fires is a part of the mix
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-IGFf7hj_5xA/YZx0Jb-mZmI/AAAAAAAACBQ/Ok3_bf916Xw_ODDWj9BNdD4NTReBPSZegCLcBGAsYHQ/image.png
“ Humans have vastly expanded the spatial and seasonal “fire niche” in the coterminous United States, accounting for 84% of all wildfires and 44% of total area burned”
Part of that is arson
Introduction of invasive species of vegetation and trees that are more combustible such as cheat grass and Eucalyptus trees, which have been called the gasoline tree.
https://www.pnas.org/content/116/47/23594
Changes in forest management practices that created more forest floor fuel. Timber harvest decline.
https://149366104.v2.pressablecdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/clip_image016-1.jpg
Higher level of fires in the past
https://scontent.fdet1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t31.18172-8/22548738_10156121084368968_4558999427942612294_o.png?_nc_cat=110&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=-SZxyQXxp3wAX_6aGgh&_nc_ht=scontent.fdet1-1.fna&oh=65ccc383b100213cf517600622cab53e&oe=61C5909F
Globally
“Wildfire has been an important process affecting the Earth’s surface and atmosphere for over 350 million years and human societies have coexisted with fire since their emergence. Yet many consider wildfire as an accelerating problem, with widely held perceptions both in the media and scientific papers of increasing fire occurrence, severity and resulting losses. However, important exceptions aside, the quantitative evidence available does not support these perceived overall trends. Instead, global area burned appears to have overall declined over past decades, and there is increasing evidence that there is less fire in the global landscape today than centuries ago.”
“ https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2015.0345
Get your head out of the past.
https://www.pnas.org/content/112/13/3858
I thought I already said what happened in the past has zero impact on what’s happening now.
Anything from Mann is a joke. No wonder you can’t handle the science.
“Anything from Mann is a joke. No wonder you can’t handle the science.”
As compared to what? The stuff you post? LOL!! BTW there’s a lot more on the topic.
https://www.c2es.org/content/wildfires-and-climate-change/
I can handle the science. Your problem is that you don’t understand it and I doubt you ever will. You’re only interested in what confirms your beliefs. Religion is not science.
Is it too late to start feeding at the trough?
The circulation over British Columbia does not change, as I wrote, it is a constant pattern caused by ozone accumulation in the north of Pacific.
The jet stream bypasses the ozone patch from the south and heads northward bypassing Alaska. In Alaska, this has resulted in high pressure and severe frost.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=alaska×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_toz_nh_f00.png
https://i.ibb.co/9hfX1jk/Screenshot-1.png
Snow in the mountains will soon exceed 3 meters. Rainfall in flood-affected areas is increasing.
The issue of the sun’s impact on climate change is irrelevant. If the earth continues to warm, the politicians will say “We told you so” and double down on the restrictions on fossil fuels and low-cost energy. If the earth cools down, the politicians will say, “We told you so; see our efforts are working” and double down on the restrictions on fossil fuels and low-cost energy.
Politicians always win; scientist are just an inconvenience.
You’ve got a point there, however the truth does put its shoes on eventually. If CO2 emissions keep rising (or remain high) and the earth cools down, they cannot say that their efforts are working. Don’t get me wrong, they will try that, but CO2 emissions are known with reasonable accuracy. I predict that increasing arctic ice will break the camel’s back, because it’s hardest to manipulate.
Don’t you know that global warming can make rising CO2 actually cool the Earth???
I agree with you as it is consistent with global mean temperature pattern since 1880 shown below:
https://bit.ly/3cCodbx
The above figure shows that the global warming rate has stopped rising in 2005 at a peak of about 0.2 deg C per decade, and it has been moving towards IPCC’s minimum projection of 0.15 deg C per decade.
You are too optimistic, Mr..Edimbukvarevic !
The Climate Liars can, and will, say anything they want to say.
They predict the future climate.
Real scientists study the present and past climate
for which data can be collected and studied.
There are no data for the future
— just theories and speculation.
With no data, there are only opinions.
And for some reason those opinions always claim
the future climate can only get worse.
The claims have been wrong for the past 64 years,
but they never stop,
Global mean temperature pattern since 1880
Girma
1880 had few land weather stations outside the Us and Europe, almost none in the Southern Hemisphere, and ocean measurements were even worse. That was true for about 40 years.
There are only very rough estimates of the average Northern
hemisphere average temperature. Any claimed GLOBAL average for the years before 1920 are not to be taken seriously.
How do you insert an image in a comment here? Thank you.
Just testing image link
Hi, Girma. Apparently you are new here.
Few months ago the images stopped to appear, because commenters, me including, had been overloading the pages with images, and, therefore, pages became very slow to operate.
So WordPress.com has adapted the software…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/d2ad6ce5-62f2-4bed-951d-32cb4cc39631/ess2907-fig-0010-m.jpg
WUWT
Leif Svalgaard Responds to Willie Soon
1 hour ago
In a talk featured in our Monday Weekly Climate and News Roundup at the 14th International Conference on Climate Change Willie Soon [at time 26:49] took me, (Svalgaard) to task for arguing that there has not been any trend in solar activity the past 300+ years.
Thanks Christos,
The “Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon” is the first time I heard about it. If your theory is valid, what is your prediction for the global mean temperature trend for the period 2020-2030? a) warming trend b) cooling trend or 3) flat trend.
In my opinion we are always in a very slow and continues warming pattern. The trend has not anything to do with the “Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon”.
It is an orbital cyclical phenomenon described by the astronomer and mathematician Milutin Milankovitch…
The current gradual warming Earth experiences I have shown in the pages I have prepared in my website
Links:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/443826320
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/444467896
For an excellent summary of my work you can visit Ron Clutz’s blog “Science Matters”
Link:
https://rclutz.com/2021/07/21/how-to-calculate-planetary-temperatures/#:~:text=The%20Planet%20Surface%20Rotational%20Warming%20Phenomenon.%20It%20is,planet%20rotates%20faster%20it%20is%20a%20warmer%20planet.
Thank you Girma for your interest in my work. What is your opinion about the cause of Earth’s Global Warming?
Christos
Thanks Christos,
“What is your opinion about the cause of Earth’s Global Warming?”
According to the 2nd principle of Thermodynamics, “heat flows downhill the temperature scale” from the warmer mixed ocean layer to the colder deeper ocean, so solar energy is accumulated in the deeper ocean that results in the secular increase in the global mean temperature (GMT) or global warming.
The “Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon” does not predict temperature trend.
It states:
“Planets’ mean surface temperatures relate (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products’ sixteenth root.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Pingback: Solar Variations Controversy – Watts Up With That?
Pingback: Solar Variations Controversy – Watts Up With That? - ChicHue.com
Pingback: Solar Variations Controversy – Watts Up With That? – Adfero News
Pingback: Controversy over Sun variations - Frustrated with that? - News7g
The coming night will be frosty in eastern North America. The jet stream continues to wave hard over North America.
https://i.ibb.co/ZXtGjHz/gfs-o3mr-200-NA-f012.png
Another front with rain and snow in the mountains will reach the west coast tomorrow night.
https://i.ibb.co/47NWhd8/gfs-o3mr-200-NA-f036.png
Pingback: Solar Variations Controversy |
This should be one big comment, but I got the infamous “invalid security token.” error when trying to post it. So I’m going to try to post it in parts…
Part 1 of {?}
In an offline discussion provoked by this excellent article, a question came up.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter_02.pdf#page=22 (line 52) says:
But https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter_02.pdf#page=13 (line 24) says:
Of course the increase from “0.05–0.10 W m–⁻²” to “0.09–0.35 W m⁻²” is striking, but that’s not all. I was also startled to notice that they divided TSI by nearly 8 instead of 4, when calculating ERF:
cont’d…
Correction: the second link should have been to page 23, not page 13:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter_02.pdf#page=23 (line 24)
Part 2 of {?}
My understanding has been that ERF (Effective Radiative Forcing) is defined to be the change in TSI averaged over the whole globe, or its equivalent due to other factors. Since the surface area of a sphere is four times the surface area of a circle of equal radius, if TSI is 1365±5 W/m² then average irradiance at TOA should be 341±1.25 W/m², and ERF from a change in TSI should be the change in that figure, i.e., ΔTSI divided by four.
Apparently not!
The AR6 figures are very different from that. 0.7 / 0.09 = 7.8, and 2.7 / 0.35 = 7.7, rather than 4.
cont’d…
Radiative forcing is the difference between solar energy absorbed by the earth and the energy the earth radiates into space. That’s about 0.6 W/m2.
Your definition is wrong.
That’s incorrect, JJBraccili. 0.6 W/m² is (NASA’s estimate of) the Earth’s current radiative imbalance (or, in AR6 terminology, “Earth’s energy imbalance”), not the radiative forcing.
No, it’s the same thing.
Here’s the AR5 definition of Radiative Forcing:
“Radiative forcing. Radiative forcing is the change in the net, downward minus upward, radiative flux (expressed in W m⁻²) at the tropopause or top of atmosphere due to a change in an external driver of climate change, such as, for example, a change in the concentration of carbon dioxide or the output of the Sun. Sometimes internal drivers are still treated as forcings even though they result from the alteration in climate, for example aerosol or greenhouse gas changes in paleoclimates. The traditional radiative forcing is computed with all tropospheric properties held fixed at their unperturbed values, and after allowing for stratospheric temperatures, if perturbed, to readjust to radiative-dynamical equilibrium. Radiative forcing is called instantaneous if no change in stratospheric temperature is accounted for. The radiative forcing once rapid adjustments are accounted for is termed the effective radiative forcing. For the purposes of this report, radiative forcing is further defined as the change relative to the year 1750 and, unless otherwise noted, refers to a global and annual average value. Radiative forcing is not to be confused with cloud radiative forcing, which describes an unrelated measure of the impact of clouds on the radiative flux at the top of the atmosphere.”
If the Earth had not yet warmed at all since the pre-industrial LIA, then the radiative forcing from raising CO2 from 280 ppmv to 416 ppmv and the consequent radiative imbalance would be the same.
But the Earth has warmed. That warming has increased radiative emissions, and thereby decreased the radiative imbalance.
To look at it another way, the radiative imbalance represents additional warming “in the pipe,” which has not yet happened, due to the fact that ECS > TCR.
Ignoring GHGs other than CO2, TCR represents “short term warming” in a theoretical scenario in which CO2 level rises much faster (+1%/year) than it actually has.
In contrast, ECS represents “long term warming” in a theoretical scenario in which CO2 level has plateaued for a few hundred years, and all the slow feedbacks (except the very slowest, like ice sheet dynamics) have had time to play out.
Real-world warming should be somewhere between those two extremes. If ECS is 1.5× TCR (a common guesstimate, though probably a bit on the high side), and if actual warming realized so far is halfway between TCR and ECS (another reasonable guesstimate), then we should have already realized about 83% of the “ECS warming” to be eventually expected from from 57% of the forcing from a doubling of CO2.
The other 17% is warming “in the pipe,” represented by the current radiative imbalance, which NASA estimates to be 0.6 W/m².
If we take the actual warming since the LIA to be 1.1°C, and if we assume all of it was anthropogenic (which I doubt), and if we assume that 2/3 of the anthropogenic warming was due to CO2 (a common guesstimate), that makes CO2-induced warming from 57% of a doubling of CO2 equal to 0.73 °C, which would make ECS = 0.73 °C / 0.57 / 0.83 = about 1.5°C, and TCR = 2/3 of that (about 1°C).
If ECS from a doubling of CO2 is 1.5°C, and RF from a doubling of CO2 is about 3 W/m², that’s 0.5°C per W/m², which is a bit more than the ≈0.3°C per W/m² that you’d expect from the Stefan-Boltzmann response, suggesting that net climate temperature feedbacks are modestly positive.
If 1.1°C is 83% of equilibrium warming (from all forcings, not just CO2), the remaining 17% would be about 0.23°C. That’s an estimate of the remaining warming “in the pipe,” to be expected eventually if all forcings (GHGs levels, aerosols, etc.) were to plateau at current levels.
0.23°C of warming “in the pipe,” but not yet realized, from 0.6 W/m² of radiative imbalance, would 0.6 / 0.23 = 2.6 W/m² per °C, which isn’t too far from the 2.0 W/m² per °C (0.5°C per W/m²) that we calculated above.
Very nice. I fell this is an adequate explanation as to why CO2 is relatively benign. However I believe the issue at hand is that we do not understand the solar and cosmic relation to temperature terribly well which I think is the purpose of this article.
Also, and few answer this to my satisfaction, when you look at the Holocene era as a whole have we not had close to 4 warming events at/above/slightly below our current warming trend. This does not mean that CO2 does not play a role in warming – it should – but again we do not fully understand all the other mechanisms and have become, in my mind, – fixated – on CO2.
Man will cause change to the environment and thus cause change to the climate. Windmills and solar panels will do this as well, just no one is terribly fixated on the HOW they will as of now. I own a couple of panels and I can say in relation to the area around them they are HOT. on my roof in the summer when I do a thermal picture of the house they glow REALLY hot for the first several hours in comparison to the rest of my roof.
Anyway fun read. Thank you.
Radiative forcing is a measure of the earth’s temperature inertia. In other words, the earth’s resistance to temperature change. It has more to do with the time it takes to get to the steady state temperature than what that temperature is.
To calculate the final temperature at carbon neutral. You would measure the back radiation add that to the solar radiation and calculate the final temperature from the S-B equation. The radiative forcing would be used in an equation like this one”
mCpdT/dt = energy in – energy out.
T = planetary temperature
Cp = specific heat
m = mass of the planet
t = time
energy in – energy out is the radiative forcing. energy out is a function of T.
If you are at carbon neutral, energy in is fixed. You would use the equation to figure out how long it takes to reach close to steady-state. You can never reach true steady-state. Using radiative forcing to estimate the steady-state temperature is not a good way to do it.
Of course, in our current situation energy in is not fixed and is increasing. I’m not sure what you are trying to say because you pose a lot of hypotheticals. If you’re trying to say that the warming of the planet is somehow limited by the radiative forcing, you couldn’t be more wrong. You can see from my equation, if you keep increasing energy in to maintain a constant radiative forcing, the temperature would continue increasing indefinitely.
I put those calculations into a spreadsheet.
Excel (also works in LibreOffice Calc):
https://sealevel.info/radiative_imbalance.xlsx
Google sheets:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQ5i7M9-lhvWdtxUvQj1HyfmByM3-3Fp4lZZwn7tlcbmVK0Beyo2Q4nHed2Jc_UsQaiGNz2kXS31_7G/pubhtml?gid=1375666579&single=true
A read-only exported web page:
https://sealevel.info/radiative_imbalance.html
The yellow boxes are things you can change (or argue about).
The blue-background figures are calculated from the figures in the yellow boxes. Unless I made a mistake, I don’t there there can be any argument about those calculations.
There are three columns of values. The calculations are identical in all three, only the values in the yellow boxes are different (and the calculated values derived from them, of course).
Column B is labeled “my best estimates.” It includes values which I think are pretty reasonable. My perspective is lukewarmist, but I tried to compensate for my prejudices, and I might have over-compensated. E.g., I used an ECS-to-TCR ratio of 1.5-to-1, rather than the 1.25-to-1 from Lewis & Curry 2018.
Column D makes extremely “alarmist” assumptions. E.g., it assumes 120% of warming since the LIA is anthropogenic, and an ECS-to-TCR ratio of 1.8-to-1.
Column E makes more “skeptical” assumptions. E.g., it assumes only 60% of warming is anthropogenic.
NASA’s 0.6 W/m² estimate for current radiative imbalance, and the IPCC’s 3°C/doubling figure for ECS, both seem to be too high. You have to make very alarmist assumptions to get figures that high. Go ahead and play with the figures in the yellow boxes, and see what I mean.
JJB wrote, “Radiative forcing is a measure of the earth’s temperature inertia. In other words, the earth’s resistance to temperature change. It has more to do with the time it takes to get to the steady state temperature than what that temperature is.”
That’s not radiative forcing, that’s the current radiative imbalance.
JJB wrote, “To calculate the final temperature at carbon neutral….”
Final CO2 and CH4 levels at carbon neutral would be about 295 ppmv CO2 and 0.87 ppmv CH4 — approximately the levels in the 1890s (when average temperatures were probably about 0.9°C colder than present).
JJB wrote, “If you are at carbon neutral, energy in is fixed.”
That is incorrect. Natural negative feedbacks are rapidly removing most GHGs from the atmosphere, and they would continue to do so if anthropogenic emissions went to zero. So if we were at carbon neutral (zero anthropogenic CO2 and CH4 emissions) then the levels of those two GHGs in the atmosphere would be declining.
So the radiative forcing would be declining, the radiative imbalance would be negative, and the Earth would presumably be cooling.
The levels of those two GHGs would eventually decline to about 295 ppmv CO2 and 0.87 ppmv CH4 (probably ±5%).
JJB wrote, “if you keep increasing energy in to maintain a constant radiative forcing, the temperature would continue increasing indefinitely.”
I think you’re still confusing radiative forcing with radiative imbalance. If you keep increasing energy in then you are increasing radiative forcing, not keeping it constant.
If anthropogenic GHG emissions plateau, then GHG levels will rise until the natural negative feedbacks that remove them equal the emission rates, at which point the GHG levels would plateau. In the case of CH4, the oxidative processes which remove it are so rapid that if CH4 emissions cease rising then the CH4 level in the atmosphere would plateau very quickly. In the case of CO2, the processes that remove it are slower, but if anthropogenic emissions plateau at the current rate then the CO2 level in the atmosphere will plateau at only about 515 ppmv.
“I think you’re still confusing radiative forcing with radiative imbalance. If you keep increasing energy in then you are increasing radiative forcing, not keeping it constant.”
The only one confused is you. Here the definition of radiative forcing:
https://www.climate.gov/maps-data/climate-data-primer/predicting-climate/climate-forcing
If energy-in is fixed and there is a difference between energy-in and energy-out, the temperature of a planet will change and the difference between will energy-in and energy-out will decrease until they are equal and the planet is at steady state. To maintain a constant radiative forcing, energy-in has to be continually increasing to offset the increases in energy-out.
“That is incorrect. Natural negative feedbacks are rapidly removing most GHGs from the atmosphere, and they would continue to do so if anthropogenic emissions went to zero. So if we were at carbon neutral (zero anthropogenic CO2 and CH4 emissions) then the levels of those two GHGs in the atmosphere would be declining.”
What I wrote is correct. You are confused about the meaning of carbon neutral. Carbon neutral means net carbon emissions are zero. In other words, carbon added to the atmosphere is balanced by carbon removed. You don’t have zero anthropogenic emissions. You can do that by decreasing emissions, increasing the amount of carbon removed, or both.
What happens is that the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere remains constant. The temperature of the planet continues to rise until radiative forcing is zero. At that point the planet, is at steady-state and the temperature remains constant.
The rest of your post I didn’t bother to read because you have the definitions of radiative forcing and carbon neutral wrong.
JJB, I see why you are confused. Like most things at climate.gov, that discussion of “climate forcing” and “radiative forcing” is a muddled mess.
That’s presumably because that hideous site is run by journalists and “communicators” (propagandists), not scientists. They have a “Science Panel” upon whom they can call when they have questions, but they obviously don’t bother to call them very often, or else they don’t understand what they’re told by the scientists.
The prose they use is a dead-giveaway that it’s not written by scientists. That page you cited is sprinkled with redundancies like “sunlight energy,” and “heat energy,” “pushing force,” etc. No scientist would write like that.
The people who write for that site often have only the most superficial understanding of what they’re writing about. That page you cited is a good example, because it gives contradictory definitions of “radiative forcing.”
In the second paragraph they say, “The difference between incoming and outgoing radiation is known as a planet’s radiative forcing (RF).”
That’s just plain wrong. That’s actually the radiative imbalance, which even NASA only estimates to be 0.6 W/m² (and that’s probably too high).
But that’s immediately followed by this table:
https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_620_original_image/public/RF%201750-2011.png
Let’s see if I can reproduce it:
| Radiative Forcing (RF)
Year | Relative to 1750 (W m⁻²)
——+————————
1750 | 0.0
1950 | 0.57
1980 | 1.25
2011 | 2.29
That’s actually about right. Those ARE reasonable estimates of radiative forcing, and the caption is consistent with it:
Apparently the anonymous “communicator” who wrote that page didn’t understand that what he or she wrote is contradictory.
The AR5 definition of radiative forcing is correct.
Radiative forcing is a change in the net, downward minus upward, radiative flux, defined between two different times.
Radiative imbalance is a difference between incoming radiation and outgoing radiation at the same time.
As for “net zero,” your definition is what it would mean, if the Climate Industry were not at war with science.
But then they’d have to admit that reductions in carbon emissions are unnecessary, because natural negative feedbacks will prevent CO2 concentrations from rising to worrisome levels, even if CO2 emissions are never reduced at all (until mankind runs out of coal).
Here, from “NetZeroClimate dot org”, is what the term means as it is used by the climate activists who advocate it:
https://netzeroclimate.org/what-is-net-zero/#:~:text=global%20net%20human-caused%20emissions%20of%20carbon%20dioxide%20(CO2)%20need%20to&text=reaching%20net%20zero%20around%202050&text=warming%20is%20proportional%20to%20cumulative%20CO2%20emissions&text=the%20planet%20will%20keep%20heating%20for%20as%20long%20as%20global%20emissions%20remain%20more%20than%20zero.&text=heating%2C%20will%20continue%20escalating%20for%20as%20long%20as%20emissions%20continue.
It says:
“WHAT IS NET ZERO? … global net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) need to fall … reaching net zero around 2050. Global warming is proportional to cumulative CO2 emissions, … the planet will keep heating for as long as global emissions remain more than zero. … heating, will continue escalating for as long as emissions continue.”
That’s obviously complete nonsense, but it IS what they mean. They are perfectly clear: “net zero” does not refer to the difference between human CO2 emissions and natural CO2 removals, it’s “net human-caused emissions.”
Their definition of “carbon neutral” is consistent with that:
“CARBON NEUTRAL. An actor’s net contribution to global CO2 emissions is zero. Any CO2 emissions attributable to an actor’s activities are fully compensated by CO2 reductions or removals exclusively claimed by the actor…”
Again, they make it perfectly clear that they are NOT counting natural removals of CO2 from the atmosphere. They’re crackpots, but at least they’re consistent crackpots.
Here’s the definition of radiative forcing from your source:
“Radiative forcing is the change in the net, downward minus upward, radiative flux (expressed in W m–2) at the tropopause or top of atmosphere due to a change in an external driver of climate change, such as, for example, a change in the concentration of carbon dioxide or the output of the Sun.”
That definition says nothing about “between two different times”. That makes no sense. That something YOU added to the definition. Naughty! Naughty!
Further on in the definition:
“For the purposes of this report, radiative forcing is further defined as the change relative to the year 1750 and, unless otherwise noted, refers to a global and annual average value.”
Notice the words “For the purposes of this report, radiative forcing is further defined as the change relative to the year 1750.” That means they are redefining radiative forcing “FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS REPORT”. What they did was subtract from the radiative forcing values the radiative forcing in 1750, which was probably estimated from a model. 1750 is about the start of the industrial revolution. The idea is to report values that reflect the effect of CO2 on radiative forcing sans any “natural” radiative forcing.
It’s idiotic to think that they are using radiative forcing from 1750 to calculate the radiative forcing today. They “average” the energy-in energy-out globally and over a year, but that not taking it at “two different times.”
The IPCC definition of carbon neutral:
“Carbon neutrality is achieved when anthropogenic CO2 emissions are balanced globally by anthropogenic carbon dioxide removals over a specified period. Carbon neutrality is also referred to as net-zero carbon dioxide emission.”
That changed from the original definition of carbon neutrality, which is what I was using. That’s a good thing. Using that definition of carbon neutrality, means that we will start reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. I thought the IPCC recommendations were too weak and more needed to be done. That is better than I thought.
You said:
“That is incorrect. Natural negative feedbacks are rapidly removing most GHGs from the atmosphere, and they would continue to do so if anthropogenic emissions went to zero. So if we were at carbon neutral (zero anthropogenic CO2 and CH4 emissions) then the levels of those two GHGs in the atmosphere would be declining.”
That is incorrect. Carbon neutral does not require “zero anthropogenic CO2 and CH4 emissions.” It requires anthropogenic CO2 and CH4 emissions balance with removal.
JJ,
“Radiative forcing is the difference between solar energy absorbed by the earth and the energy the earth radiates into space.”
To make it simple, and you will agree with this (from wikipedia):
“Positive radiative forcing means Earth receives more incoming energy from sunlight than it radiates to space. This net gain of energy will cause warming. Conversely, negative radiative forcing means that Earth loses more energy to space than it receives from the sun, which produces cooling.”
So, let’s see what is happening in the real world:
https://andthentheresphysics.files.wordpress.com/2020/04/remotesensing-10-01539-g004.png
Earth is warming and its radiation into space is increasing. In fact, the Earth’s radiation into space is closely following its surface temperature. WUWT? So, solar energy absorbed by the Earth must be increasing even more, to make the radiative forcing positive.
If the earth is warming, radiative forcing is positive. It is true that as the temperature of the earth rises it emits more energy. Radiative forcing will decrease toward zero. At zero the system is at steady-state, and the temperature will stop rising.
Increasing solar irradiance could keep radiative forcing positive or increase it. That’s not what’s happening. As CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the back radiation increases, and that’s what drives a positive radiative forcing.
Part 3 of {?}
Here’s the referenced Section 7.3.4.4 of AR6:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter_07.pdf#page=52
It says (starting on line 19):
cont’d…
Part 4 of {?}
Their 0.29 figure for total planetary albedo is probably about right. It is said to be 77.0 / 340.4 = 0.2262 due to reflection from clouds, plus 22.9 / 340.4 = 0.0673 due to surface reflection. (0.2262 + 0.0673 = 0.2935.) So the numbers work: 0.72 × (1 – 0.29) = 0.5112, and 4 / 0.5112 = 7.8.
But since it was my understanding that radiative forcing figures are taken as equivalent to changes in average irradiance at TOA, I don’t see how multiplying by (1-albedo) can be justified, and I don’t understand the 0.72 multiplier, either.
cont’d…
Hi daveburton
For TSI to climate forcing conversion here is the report by Haigh (2002):
“Geometric factors affect the conversion from change in TSI to radiative forcing: it is necessary to divide by a factor of four, representing the ratio of the area of the Earth’s disc projected towards the Sun to the total surface area of the Earth, and to multiply by a factor of 0.7, to take account of the Earth’s albedo of 30%. Thus, a variation of 1 W m2 in TSI represents a variation in global average instantaneous radiative forcing of ca. 0.175 W m2.”
Hi Girma.
I would like to comment here that we are not justified to divide the incident on a planet solar flux by a factor of four…
And here is why:
Not the entire solar flux’s the not reflected radiative energy is transformed into heat, and, therefore it cannot be averaged on the entire planet surface area, since it is not being accumulated in the first place.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“I would like to comment here that we are not justified to divide the incident on a planet solar flux by a factor of four…”
You do it in your equation. LOL!!
What’s not justified is your “spherical correction” factor. That’s a joke.
JJBraccili
“What’s not justified is your “spherical correction” factor. That’s a joke.”
NO it is not a joke.
Is it a JOKE for you planets are spheres?
Is it a JOKE for you there are smooth surface planets and there are rough surface planets ?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
It’s a joke. You already corrected for the spherical nature of a planet when, in your equation, you divide by four.
What does a smooth or rough planet have to do with anything? Your equation is for planets without an atmosphere. You have no idea what that factor is for. I believe you gave 3 different definitions of it and none of them makes any sense.
Robert – Nov. 7, 2021
“A more balanced observer would note that nearly everyone is unconvinced – and endless repetition is not going to change that.
The fundamental problem is that unless there is a mechanism experimentally validated for changes in albedo or atmospheric gas concentration with spin is it all made up. A wild claim based on dodgy analysis.”
“nearly everyone is unconvinced” – yes, I know that
“endless repetition is not going to change that.”
From Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus#De_revolutionibus_orbium_coelestium
“At about 1532 Copernicus had basically completed his work on the manuscript of Dē revolutionibus orbium coelestium; but despite urging by his closest friends, he resisted openly publishing his views, not wishing—as he confessed—to risk the scorn “to which he would expose himself on account of the novelty and incomprehensibility of his theses.”[70]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei#Controversy_over_heliocentrism
“Galileo defended heliocentrism based on his astronomical observations of 1609. In December 1613, the Grand Duchess Christina of Florence confronted one of Galileo’s friends and followers,”
November 7, 2021 – Robert, we still say the sun is rising, and we still consider Earth flat. And it always requires some mental effort to remember that we are on a rotating sphere (planet) which is the scientifically correct.
The blue sky is always considered as a protective dome covering flat Earth. That is why the greenhouse effect is so easily “understood” and accepted.
……………………………………………
Thank you both. I have learnt something.
Any help in the direction of improvement the New theory is very much appreciated.
Also, since it is a New theory, there is not a settled methodology or a system developed for the classroom teaching…
The New theory still struggles its right to succeed via the continuous polemics.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
LOL!!
What you have is not a “theory”. It a limited curve fit based on junk science.
I predict this. It will never be taught to students in a class room at an accredited university. It will never be accepted in the scientific community. It will have no influence on climate science. You will whine about a conspiracy preventing your “discovery” from seeing the light of day.
The 0,04% atmospheric CO2 content fearmongering!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Thank you for that, Girma.
I searched for that quoted excerpt, and found her paper, here (but paywalled):
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2002.1111
and here:
https://paperzz.com/doc/6852108/the-effects-of-solar-variability-on-the-earth-s-climate-a…
and here:
https://sci-hub.se/10.1098/rsta.2002.1111
Note that she adjusts for albedo (assuming 30%), but she does not use the additional 0.72 multiplier. Thus she ends up dividing TSI by (1/.175 = 5.7), whereas AR6 divides by 7.8.
I suppose that you could justify some sort of albedo adjustment by arguing that albedo is defined as the average reflectance of solar radiation, which mostly visible and near IR, and that reflectance of far-infrared is presumably different, so if you want to compare the effects of the two then you need to scale one or the other by something (through surely not by the entire albedo!). But…
1. My understanding has been that solar insolation was the baseline to which other forcings are customarily scaled, not vice-versa! And,
2. What is the Earth’s “far-infrared albedo” (average LW IR reflectance), anyhow? Does anyone know? It’s surely not zero!
Christos & JJB, dividing by the factor of four is the ONLY part of that 7.8 divisor that I am fully comfortable with.
Sounds like you’re worried by the albedo effect. We don’t have good numbers on albedo because we don’t have enough satellites to get a good handle on it. There is an unfunded NASA project called RAVAN to launch satellites to continuously monitor the earth’s radiant energy. A good idea, but I don’t if or when it will get funded.
https://directory.eoportal.org/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/r/ravan
Having said that you can come up a pretty good estimate of the albedo from a composite spectrograph of the earth’s radiant energy. From that you can calculate the W/m2 of earth’s radiant energy. Since that is approximately equal to the solar radiation absorbed, it’s not difficult to calculate the albedo.
As for the reflection of the earth’s IR, whatever it is, it gets lumped in with back radiation from greenhouse gases. I’ve never heard of anyone trying to separate it out or worry about it.
Part 5 of {?}
AR6 has a large glossary, here:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Annex_VII.pdf
Their definition of ERF on p.28 is not very helpful:
This is on p.56:
That seems like an ambiguous mess, to me. It does not say where the change in “net, downward minus upward, radiative flux” is, to which the definition refers (e.g., TOA vs. surface). I also don’t see any justification in that definition for multiplying by (1-albedo).
What am I missing? Can someone explain it?
cont’d…
Part 6 of 6
On a related note, I see that the ACRIM website has been shut down, thereby eliminating this heretical statement:
“For reference, the forcing from atmospheric greenhouse gases over the same period was 2.29 W/m2.” “….stating that the TSI between the Maunder Minimum (1645–1715) and second half of the 20th century increased by 0.7– 2.7 W/m2”
If the TSI increase from the 1700s has been 2.7 W/m2 — then that is greater than the assumed forcing from GHGs.
Is it possible that all/most of the post-LIA warming has been increasing TSI?
Hi Kip,
TSI is customarily spec’d at Top Of Atmosphere, facing directly toward the Sun. It’s variously estimated to be about 1365±5 W/m². (I think NASA is currently estimating 1361.5 W/m².)
Radiative Forcing is customarily spec’d as an average, over the entire planet, including the dark side. So to compare them, you must divide TSI by four. That’s the 340.4 W/m² figure in this graphic:
https://sealevel.info/nasa_new_energy_budget_2014.png
2.7 W/m² ÷ 4 = only 0.675 W/m²
You can compare that to about +3 W/m² per doubling of CO2, multiplied by [log2(416/280) = 57% of a doubling]) = 1.7 W/m² from CO2 (plus perhaps half that from other GHGs).
The thing that confuses me is that they didn’t divide the “0.7– 2.7 W/m²” figure by 4, they divided it by 7.8. (See my comments above.)
Dave ==> Which they” failed to divide?
“They” refers to the AR6 WG1 authors.
Pingback: Photo voltaic Variations Controversy – My Blog
I just added a new paper to the main post, def worth reading
Frank Stefani: Solar and anthropogenic influences on climate: regression analysis and tentative predictions https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/9/11/163
Pingback: Solar Variations Controversy – Climate- Science.press
Hmmmm… So I am a lay person in this area. Hence it is interesting to read what people think and say.
A few Observations. Mr. JJBraccili, most of your links appear to be appeals to authority rather than to the science behind the facts and figures that you bring to bear. This is fine but I would suggest you stop simply pointing to the same data composites and saying, “See, See.”
As for myself I see little in the way of understanding the complexities of the planets temperature and irradiance from the Sun is only one of many factors.
I think the real question that seems to need answering is that of the water vapor cycles, cloud formations, and other such influences on water on this planet. This includes but is not limited to irradiance, increased CO2, etc and so.
While I would love to believe that CO2 is the control knob for temperature. If it were then the real issue would be “What temperature do we want the world to be” Which is also a discussion I do not see being had.
As to Mr. Eschenbach – Bravo, your frank thoughtful ideas are always interesting to read. At times I may not be able to agree with your conclusions from your analysis of data but I rarely can fault you for your efforts.
Dr. Curry – thank you for the fun and interesting topics and your ability to examine and not react it is always fun to read your thoughts on these topics which I rarely comment on.
The theory that CO2 started the planet warming which increased temperature causing water vapor to increase is a mistake because water vapor has increased about twice as fast as possible from just planet warming. A comparison of the measured increase of water vapor to what it would be from just temperature increase (HadCRUT4) is at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RPru1Nb-o_A7azVVF5P7dyeaGHHUHmHG/view?usp=sharing
Oops, wrong link. Use this instead: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XLgFbYCeQAkO9NekqWRZiV3n3OcxJx9Q/view?usp=sharing
I saw that somebody drew a couple of lines through that data that indicates there is a deviation. I doubt that’s real. For most of that plot the curves match. The variation is between 28.0 and 29.5 kg/m2. Not much of change. What you’re probably seeing is noise.
I don’t get the kg/m2 unit. Shouldn’t that be kg/m3? Shouldn’t it be a volume unit and not an area unit. You need to provide more context.
You didn’t look at the graph that is relevant to the text.
Both graphs are valid. I know because I made them. They are explained in detail at the links shown in the box in the upper right corner of the graphs.
On the graph that you looked at, the light lines show the monthly variation in the data. The dark lines through the data are trend lines; regression lines calculated by EXCEL. The trend lines show the difference in rate in spite of any noise. Measured water vapor (WV) has been increasing 1.49% per decade. Seven molecules of WV have been added for each molecule of CO2.
kg/m*2 is correct. It is the weight of all of the WV above a square meter. It is also the depth of the water in mm if it was all liquid on the surface.
I still don’t understand what kg/m2 means. What is the physical significance? Why not use absolute concentration kg/m3?
You’re drawing lines parting dramatically that don’t seem justified to me. Water vapor in the atmosphere is limited by atmospheric temperature. It can’t increase without something else forcing atmospheric temperature higher.
JJ, it’s called total precipitable water (TPW).
http://www.eumetrain.org/data/3/359/navmenu.php?tab=2&page=1.0.0
JJ,
kg/m*3 is a weight per unit volume, i.e. a density e.g. water has a density of 1000 kg/m^3.
kg/m^2 is the weight of the actual amount of water on a square meter. It is numerically the same as the depth of the water in mm.
Only at saturation does the temperature of the air limit the amount of water vapor it can hold. Saturation only exists in clouds. All clear air is below saturation so it can hold more water vapor without a temperature increase.
“Soon found a striking correlation between TSI and Arctic surface air temperatures since at least 1875”
That is not possible, the AMO and Arctic are warmer at least during each centennial solar minimum. The AMO cooled in the 1970’s because the solar wind was very strong then, not because of lower TSI.The same for the early 1900’s cooling, lower sunspot numbers but stronger solar wind states driving a colder AMO.
The new paper by Stefani is interesting, but makes the comment (p2):
“The upper edge, in turn, is not far from the spectroscopy-based estimation by van Wijngaarden and Happer”
People keep making unqualified references like this – the Wijngaarden & Happer estimation is only for clear sky conditions. It does not apply to the 2/3rds of the Earth surface that is cloudy. Thus it is not a true estimate of the ECS of the Earth system.
Forgot a link:
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html
don’t attack the people explain why the data is wrong. Who cares if someone has been wrong before – I have been – maybe you have not.
Instead talk to the data rather than trying to discredit the person who brought the data to you ( which you kind of do but then why attack the person? )
Also should you trust the IPCC who only exists to express that there is man made climate change? That is the entire reason they get funding is to prove that it exists and that it is a problem. Yet you simply accept their conclusions – now again this does not mean there is not merit in what they are saying, rather it means that you shold take what they are saying and try to remove their advocacy from data.
I ask this question to most people, fey give a satisfactory answer. What is the optimal temperature of the earth? How do we arrive at that conclusion? Based off of one NASA quote I saw in looking for planets that would be optimal for habitation the figure they put forth was 22 Degrees Centigrade. I believe our own planet is 16 degrees Centigrade.
So… what should we be looking for?
Here we go with the conspiracy theories again. The IPCC assembles the work of climate scientists from around the world. They don’t have an agenda. What they report is the consensus of climate scientists.
I don’t take the word of anybody. I researched climate science myself. Do I agree with everything in climate science? I do not. It’s clear to me that the consensus on climate science is correct. All the “science” you see on this forum and others like it is junk science. The reason this “science” isn’t accepted by the scientific community is not because someone is trying to push an agenda, it’s because it has no merit.
The problem with most of the people on this forum, is that they don’t understand the science or science in general. They latch on to pet theories and have convinced themselves that their view is correct and the professionals, who do this for a living, are lying. Thus, the grand conspiracy theory. It’s nuts.
We should keep the planet at a temperature where we maximize the number of species on the planet. At 22 C, considerable damage would be done to the planet. That number is probably the maximum temperature that could sustain life.
JJBraccili
“It’s a joke. You already corrected for the spherical nature of a planet when, in your equation, you divide by four.”
I am not dividing the incident not reflected solar energy by four.
What I do is integrating the planet’s IR emission over the entire planetary surface 4πr²:
Jemit = 4πr²σΤmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W)
“What does a smooth or rough planet have to do with anything?”
What do you think it does?
The smooth planet surface has a very much intense specular reflection and the rough surface planet has not.
“Your equation is for planets without an atmosphere.”
Yes, that is right!
“You have no idea what that factor is for.”
Now I have no idea…
“I believe you gave 3 different definitions of it and none of them makes any sense.”
I was trying to make you understand…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Pingback: How The BBC Is Crushing Climate Debate And Pushing Science Denial – Menopausal Mother Nature
For those who have the time I think this is a good primer about solar activity, including what we know and don’t know.
““ Solar-terrestrial relations
The sun ultimately defines the climate on Earth supplying it with energy via radiation received by the terrestrial system, but the role of solar variability in climate variations is far from being clear. Solar variability can affect the Earth’s environment and climate in different ways (see, e.g., reviews by Haigh 2007; Gray et al. 2010). Variability of total solar irradiance (TSI) measured during recent decades is known to be too small to explain observed climate variations (e.g., Foukal et al. 2006; Fröhlich 2006; Yeo et al. 2014). On the other hand, there are other ways solar variability may affect the climate, e.g., an unknown long-term trend in TSI (Solanki and Krivova 2004; Wang et al. 2005) or a terrestrial amplifier of spectral irradiance variations (Shindell et al. 1999; Haigh et al. 2010). Uncertainties in the TSI/SSI reconstructions remain large (Schmidt et al. 2012; Yeo et al. 2014), making it difficult to assess climate models on the long-term scale. Alternatively, an indirect mechanism also driven by solar activity, such as ionization of the atmosphere by CR (Usoskin and Kovaltsov 2006) or the global terrestrial current system (Tinsley and Zhou 2006) can modify atmospheric properties, in particular cloud cover (Ney 1959; Svensmark 1998; Usoskin and Kovaltsov 2008a). Although the role of this direct mechanism is found to be small (Mironova et al. 2015), indirect effects of energetic particles may be still notable (e.g., Gray et al. 2010; Calisto et al. 2011; Martin-Puertas et al. 2012).
Accordingly, improved knowledge of the solar driver’s variability may help in disentangling various effects in the very complicated system that is the terrestrial climate (e.g., Gray et al. 2010). It is of particular importance to know the driving forces in the pre-industrial era, when all climate changes were natural. Knowledge of the natural variability can lead to an improved understanding of anthropogenic effects upon the Earth’s climate.”
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41116-017-0006-9
From the above paper
“ Grand maxima on a multi-millennial timescale
The question of how often grand maxima occur and how strong they are, cannot be studied using the 400-year-long series of direct observations. An increase in solar activity around 1200 AD, also related to the Medieval temperature optimum, is sometimes qualitatively regarded as a grand maximum (Wilson 1988b; de Meyer 1998), but its magnitude is lower than the modern maximum (e.g., Usoskin et al. 2003c). Accordingly, it was not included in a list of grand maxima by Eddy (1977b, 1977a)”
“A quantitative analysis is only possible using proxy data, especially cosmogenic isotope records. Using a physics-based analysis of solar-activity series reconstructed from
Be data from polar (Greenland and Antarctica) archives, Usoskin et al. (2003c, 2004) stated that the modern maximum is unique in the last millennium. Then, using a similar analysis of the
C calibrated series, Solanki et al. (2004) found that the modern activity burst is not unique, but a very rare event, with the previous burst occurring about 8 millennia ago. An update (Usoskin et al. 2006a) of this result, using a more precise paleo-magnetic reconstruction by Korte and Constable (2005) since 5000 BC, suggests that an increase of solar activity comparable with the modern episode might have taken place around 2000 BC, i.e., around 4 millennia ago, in agreement with more recent studies by Steinhilber et al. (2012) and Inceoglu et al. (2015). On the other hand, the definition of grand maxima is less robust than grand minima and is sensitive to other parameters such as geomagnetic field data or overall normalization (Usoskin et al. 2016a).”
Climate’s emergent properties of sheet ice, cloud, vegetation, aridity, dust and biology have causes in ocean and atmosphere flow field changes – including that from internal resonances – although the details of how flow vectors and eddies globally vary cannot be calculated on modern computers. There appears to be a correlation between solar wind and polar surface pressure – the Mansurov effect – this involves polar annular modes and largescale climate variability.
‘Over the past million years, Earth’s globally averaged surface temperature has risen and fallen by about 5˚C in ice-age cycles, roughly every 100,000 years or so (Figure 2.1a). In the coldest period of the last ice age, about 20,000 years ago, sea level was at least 120 metres lower than today because more water was locked up on land in polar ice sheets. The last 8,000 years, which includes most recorded human history, have been relatively stable at the warmer end of this temperature range. This stability enabled agriculture, permanent settlements and population growth.’ https://www.science.org.au/learning/general-audience/science-climate-change/2-how-has-climate-changed
When it changes with reduced THC at low points in the Milankovitch cycle it is as ice sheet growth.
Meridional winds in cooler, lower solar intensity periods driving Pacific Ocean Gyre circulation enhancing abyssal eastern and central Pacific upflow.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/ocean-gyre.png
https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/gsofacpubs/140/
Cosmogenic isotopes show low solar activity between 8k and 5k BP – and higher activity up to some 1k BP. Holocene temperature and SSH are a puzzle.
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/109/16/5967/F3.medium.gif
https://www.pnas.org/content/109/16/5967
The Pacific Ocean is involved because it is such a large and variable part of clouds and climate. The ocean state shifted from more La Nina like to more El Nino like some 5k years BP. On top of decadal to centennial variability.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/moy-2002.png
I’d say it’s internal feedbacks caused most warming before the Anthropocene in 1980 – and some half since. Largely as marine stratocumulus cloud effect feedback on warmer ocean surfaces.
Unlike your “planet rotation theory”, it’s not junk science.
I think the clearest evidence for a link between solar activity (ie sunspots and associated flares) and clouds is in the Svensmark 20009 paper “Cosmic ray decreases affect atmospheric aerosols and clouds” (http://hallolinden-db.de/files/2009.08.01_Svensmark_GRL_09_Cosmic_Rays.pdf).
Responding to the discussion of cycles here, I used the cyclic decomposition algorithm created for my PhD in speech signal analysis to perform a decomposition of 135 years of southern ocean surface temperatures. I found that four cycles (circa 800, 200, 60, and 11 years) accounted for over 99% of the variance in the signal – the rms error being ±0.03C.
The 800y cycle was by far the largest and the 11y cycle the weakest. All these cycles have been prevously observed and named prior to the climate scare era.
Details were available on my brindabella.id.au site. This was de-hosted but is still visible via the wayback machine.
Javier | November 22, 2021 at 11:21 am |
I took a look at that. It is clear evidence that if you torture data long enough, it will confess.
They claim that they want to measure the changes in the “amplitude of the semiannual oscillation in length of day”. Seems straightforward to me … look at each year, measure the amplitude of the semiannual oscillation, see how it varies over time. If there’s noise, maybe use a Gaussian or LOWESS filter first …
Alternatively, use a CEEMD analysis to remove the low-frequency part of the signal, calculate a best-fit annual sine wave to it, and see how it varies from that sine wave over time.
… but here’s how they do it.
Given the number of tunable parameters in that calculation, you could wiggle the trunk of a whole herd of elephants.
w.
Oh, stop it Willis. Whenever you can’t refute something, it is data torture. You behave as a warmist using your reason to defend your made-up mind.
The solar effect on the Earth rotation speed has been found consistently since the 1960s by anybody that has bothered to look at it, using different methodologies:
Barlyaeva, T., Bard, E. and Abarca-del-Rio, R., 2014, July. Rotation of the Earth, solar activity and cosmic ray intensity. In Annales Geophysicae (Vol. 32, No. 7, pp. 761-771). Copernicus GmbH.
https://angeo.copernicus.org/articles/32/761/2014/angeo-32-761-2014.pdf
There is even a WUWT article on it by Paul Vaughan:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/23/confirmation-of-solar-forcing-of-the-semi-annual-variation-of-length-of-day/
I am sure you can reproduce his methods.
The problem is that this shows you have been wrong for all these years, so you don’t want to find that out. I am sure you will find a better excuse than data torture.
Graphic didn’t show, let me try again.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/lod-variation-over-time.png
w.
Solar variations controversy
Why not publish the last 20 years of true TSI determined from the satellites and show the true variance and whether it matches with the Schwabe cycles or not?
If it did we could all clearly say only 1 W/M2 variation per 11 years and all go back to sleep.
Why does the sun producing more sunspots mean it has to be more active as in producing higher output?
The sunspots appears to be due to the energy in the sun varying into and out of the magnetic fields.
This is not necessarily a precursor for less energy output.
From a practical viewpoint the sun is a gravity controlled nuclear furnace fueled over time by material from space..
This self controlled heat production must of necessity vary slightly as hotter matter approaches the surface and cools.
In other words TSI cannot be truly constant and must show variations over minutes and hours in total output.The level of variation must exceed a couple of W/M2 and may show such changes for periods of up to a year but overall, short of a Jupiter falling into the sun the output should be consistent within a reasonably narrow range.
Extraneous activity like the sunspots should not be capable of producing any real variation in the output which is controlled by the furnace whereas the sunspots are window dressing.
How do we explain Maunder minimums and El Nino/La Nina?
The latter are due to temporary increase and decrease in the solar radiance.
The former requires a much larger solar system view of the earth and its distance from the sun, Its speed of rotation and its inclination.Whether we had volcanic or meteoric activity capable of dropping the temperature but not observed on land.
In other words natural variability.
Pingback: Auringon rooli puhuttaa | Roskasaitti
1. An alternative to anthropogenic global warming theory
The observed seasonal heating and cooling of high latitude ocean is shown below:
https://bit.ly/3nNGKbe
Because the heat capacity of the atmosphere is much smaller than the mixed ocean layer, the atmosphere is seasonally heated to a higher temperature and cooled to a lower temperature than the mixed ocean layer. As a result, during the seasonal solar heating from March to August, heat flows from the warmer atmosphere to the relatively colder mixed ocean layer, resulting in the observed seasonal global sea level rise. During the seasonal cooling from August to March, heat flows from the relatively warmer mixed ocean layer to the colder atmosphere and to space, resulting in the observed seasonal global sea level fall.
From the above figure, solar energy is absorbed by the ocean during spring and summer and this absorbed energy is released to the atmosphere and to space during autumn and winter. However, the absorbed and released energy are not equal because of heat flow from the warmer mixed ocean layer to the colder deeper ocean in order to satisfy the second principle of thermodynamics that heat must flow downhill on the temperature scale. As a result, we have the energy balance equation for the ocean given by
ΔQstored = ΔQheating – ΔQcooling
This asymmetry in the seasonal heating and cooling rates explains the observed asymmetry in the climate variables (atmospheric CO2, GMT and sea level).
The fact that the sea level rises annually indicates energy is being stored in the ocean. This energy that is locked as sea level rise is released only when the sea level falls, which is when the atmosphere cools relative to the ocean mixed layer (at night, during autumn, winter and ice ages).
2. Anthropogenic Global Warming theory
IPCC 1990 (SPM): “Short-wave solar radiation can pass through the clear atmosphere relatively unimpeded. But long-wave terrestrial radiation emitted by the warm surface of the Earth is partially absorbed and then re-emitted by a number of trace gases in the cooler atmosphere above. Since, on average, the outgoing long wave radiation balances the incoming solar radiation both the atmosphere and the surface will be warmer than they would be without the greenhouse gases.” Houghton (2004): “The basic principle of Global warming can be understood by considering the radiation energy from the Sun that warms the Earth’s surface and the Thermal radiation from the Earth and the Atmosphere that is radiated out to space. On average these two radiation streams must balance. If the balance is disturbed (for instance by an increase in atmospheric Carbon dioxide) it can be restored by an increase in the Earth’s surface temperature.”
A simplified diagram for the ”greenhouse effect” is given below:
https://bit.ly/2ZpsV9y
As shown in the above figure, the greenhouse warming theory assumes that heat is trapped by greenhouse gases and that warms the surface. This is inconsistent with the observation that the earth surface warms ONLY during spring and summer and the absorbed heat is released in autumn and winter. This is repeated each and every year. The ocean absorbs heat during spring and summer because the atmosphere that has a much lower heat capacity than the mixed ocean layer is heated to a much higher temperature so heat flows from the warmer atmosphere to the relatively colder mixed ocean layer. In autumn and spring, the above heat flow reverses because the atmosphere is cooled to a much lower temperature than the mixed layer so heat flows from the relatively warmer mixed ocean layer to the colder atmosphere. The schematic diagram for the greenhouse effect shown above is inconsistent with these observations.
The greenhouse theory also assumes that the radiation energy from the Sun and the thermal radiation from the earth surface must balance. This assumption is inconsistent with storage of heat energy in the ocean as described by Hoeffert (1980):
Rossby[1959], for example, in discussing the response of the climate system to imbalances between absorbed solar energy flux and outgoing longwave radiative flux to space considered the possible significance of ocean water below the main thermocline as a secular heat reservoir. He concluded firstly that in all probability a global radiation balance in general does not exist, even if periods of several decades are taken into account; and secondly that anomalies of heat may be stored for long periods isolated in the deep ocean. After several decades to centuries these anomalies return to the upper ocean where they again participate in atmospheric climatic processes.”
https://doi.org/10.1029/JC085iC11p06667
Judith Curry once said, “Researchers have speculated that multi-decadal and longer changes in solar activity could be a major driver of climate change.”
In fact, there is a great deal of confusion about the sun’s impact in the climate system with too many variables to take into account. What is most confusing is how a sun that is more or less assumed to be a constant and how such a constant could power the climate system. But if one ponders the quotation above and assumes as a hypothesis that a small continuous change in TSI over a number of decades implies a corresponding reduction or increase in the outflow from the sun, then perhaps the confusion decreases somewhat. A small increase in the flow of energy towards the Earth over a number of decades can only mean that the accumulated energy increases and, on the contrary, if the energy flow decreases over a number of decades.
Treating the sun as a constant is a mistake, for it is very much a variable with an ever-varying wavelength content. The biggest changes are in the UV area, the changes of which have a major impact on the chemical composition of the stratosphere and its temperature variability.
Bjorn, go down to week in review and you will find what I put on your sight.
That states that the only variable controlling the ICE MAKING AND ICE MELTING is the average surface temperature of the sun and possibly he diameter of the diameter of the sun!!!!
The smooth planet surface has a very much intense specular reflection and the rough surface planet has not.
JJBraccili
“Specular and diffuse reflection are about how radiation scatters. I suspect planets without a liquid surface would have diffuse reflection. In any event, you shouldn’t be correcting for it because albedo already takes reflection off the surface of a planet into account.:”
“…albedo already takes reflection off the surface of a planet into account.”
Planetary average Albedo is a very precisely satellite measured planet’s the diffusely reflected portion of the incident solar flux.
Albedo does not take into account the planet surface specular reflection.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Albedo does not take into account the planet surface specular reflection.
How does a satellite know the difference between specular or diffuse reflection? The answer is — it doesn’t. It all SW radiation as far as it’s concerned.
Still making up science as you go along.
“How does a satellite know the difference between specular or diffuse reflection? The answer is — it doesn’t. It all SW radiation as far as it’s concerned.”
The solar reflection is SW radiation.
Satellite does not “see” the specular reflection from the sphere. The specular reflection doesn’t hit the satellite’s sensors.
“Still making up science as you go along.”
JJ, please put questions trying not to be rude…
JJ, you are apparently new here. I am explaining patiently the same questions for two years here.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Thank you, JJBraccili, for your very much appreciated help to further developing and explaining the New Equation!
Thank you again for your passionate participation in that, not always easy, task to understand what exactly it is this aboutYour idiotic equation as you characterized it above…
Yes, I had to explain it more meticulously, thank you, it is a New equation, and it needs us to be focused on the every tiniest detail. Everything should be thoroughly explained to the very end.
Let’s proceed now with the:
“I am not dividing the incident not reflected solar energy by four.”
“Yeah, you are. From your website: …”
Please, again, let’s focus on it:
πr²Φ*S*(1-a) = 4πr²σTmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W)
JJBraccili:
“See what you did. On the left side, you multiply the solar flux by the area of a circle to get the watts. BTW that is correct because the sun radiates to the surface of a circle. On the right side, you multiply the S-B equation by the area of a sphere to get the watts. That’s correct as well because a planet radiates over its entire surface area.”
Let’s look close to it:
On the left side there is the SW not reflected portion of the incident solar flux’s energy in TOTAL in Watts.
πr²Φ*S*(1-a) (W)
On the right side there is the LW radiative energy a planet radiates over its entire surface area in TOTAL in Watts.
4πr²σTmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W)
This two amounts of energy (the SW incident and the LW emitted) are equal only energetically-wise, both amounts are expressed in Watts, so we can write the equation:
energy in = energy out
πr²Φ*S*(1-a) = 4πr²σTmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W)
and, solving for Tmean we obtain:
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Thus, what we do is to solve algebraic equation.
There is not any spherical correction factor four (4) here.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
On the left side there is the SW not reflected portion of the incident solar flux’s energy in TOTAL in Watts.
πr²Φ*S*(1-a) (W)
On the right side there is the LW radiative energy a planet radiates over its entire surface area in TOTAL in Watts.
4πr²σTmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W)
This two amounts of energy (the SW incident and the LW emitted) are equal only energetically-wise, both amounts are expressed in Watts, so we can write the equation:
energy in = energy out
πr²Φ*S*(1-a) = 4πr²σTmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W)
and, solving for Tmean we obtain:
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Thus, what we do is to solve algebraic equation.
There is not any spherical correction factor four (4) here.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
What are you talking about?
You see the area of a circle (Ar = πr²) on the left side of your equation. You see the area of a sphere (As = 4πr²) on the right side of your equation. When you divide Ar by As, you get 1/4. Which appears in your final Tmean equation on the right. That’s the spherical correction.
No one should ever take you seriously. Maybe, you need glasses.
Been here two years, huh? I should have gotten here sooner. I could have saved people from having to read you BS. Now they know what your theory really is — junk science.
know what your theory really is — junk science.”
JJ:
We all know that, and with someone as deluded as him there is absolutely no point in engaging. You’ll just get driven down the rabbit-hole that he occupies.
Nothing, repeat nothing, shifts these types from their “Newton” complex.
“Satellite does not “see” the specular reflection from the sphere. The specular reflection doesn’t hit the satellite’s sensors.”
A satellite doesn’t see a lot of radiation. The question is whether it sees a representative sample. What do you think is more likely? NASA doesn’t know how to take a representative sample of reflected radiation or you don’t know what you are talking about. Based on your history, I think the answer is apparent.
Thank you, JJBraccili, for your very much appreciated help to further developing and explaining the New Equation!
Let’s have a look now to the planet simple blackbody equation Te:
πr²S*(1-a) = 4πr²σTe⁴ (W)
Let’s look close to it:
On the left side there is the SW not reflected portion of the incident solar flux’s energy in TOTAL in Watts.
πr²*S*(1-a) (W)
On the right side there is the LW radiative energy a planet radiates over its entire surface area in TOTAL in Watts.
4πr²σTe⁴ (W)
This two amounts of energy (the SW incident and the LW emitted) are equal only energetically-wise, both amounts are expressed in Watts, so we can write the equation:
energy in = energy out
πr²*S*(1-a) = 4πr²σTe⁴ (W)
and, solving for Te we obtain:
Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Thus, what we do is to solve algebraic equation.
There is not any spherical correction factor four (4) either.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Look I already explained this twice. I’m not going to do it again. It’s obvious.
The problem here is you don’t want to admit that the 4 in your equation is the spherical correction. It makes your fudge factor look more stupid because you don’t have an explanation for it other than it makes the equation give the answers you want. That’s not science.
The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon states:
Planets’ mean surface temperatures relate (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products’ sixteenth root.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Willis,
Have you seen this article. https://www.academia.edu/51139286/Evidence_of_solar_11_year_cycle_from_Sea_Surface_Temperature_SST_
Also,
Lin YF, Yu JY, Wu CR and Zheng F (2021) The Footprint of the 11‐Year Solar Cycle in Northeastern Pacific SSTs and Its Influence on the Central Pacific El Niño. Geophysical Research Letters 48 (5) e2020GL091369
https://www.ess.uci.edu/~yu/PDF/Lin%20et%20al.GRL.2021.pdf
Thanks Javier for the above link
The central issue of the climate debate is attribution to the greenhouse effect. Specifically, how large is it?
IPCC science assumes it to be 33C. After all these decades, this is still just an assumption. I can find nothing in the academic literature that even attempts to justify it. If anyone is aware of something I’ve missed, then please point it out.
Before finally being kicked off, I spent months on Titter (@electricelecti1) challenging people to show that I’m wrong. Mann just ducked for cover. Gavin Schmidt said it was all in the models. I presume he was referring to the UN sponsored IPCC/ICCP models. As far as I can find it’s not. Even if it is, the calculations are not based on published research.
A theoretical estimate is not difficult – undergrad level physics. These give values less than 1% of the assumed value. I have confidence in my estimate since my physics speciality field is gas phase molecular spectroscopy and I dealt with a far more complex problem in my ANU MSc circa 1972 “A Study of the Hyperfine Structure of the Iodine Molecule Using a Laser Technique” – still available, I assume, in the ANU library thesis collection.
The climate scare has been going on far too long. Opponents have been circling around throwing garlic at the beast that is sapping the life-blood of Western economies and telling a generation of children they have no future. It needs to have a wooden stake through its heart.
Its fatal weakness is the greenhouse assumption. This needs to be pressed home relentlessly and without distractions.
“IPCC science assumes it to be 33C. After all these decades, this is still just an assumption. I can find nothing in the academic literature that even attempts to justify it. If anyone is aware of something I’ve missed, then please point it out.”
It’s not an assumption. You can verify it with a composite IR spectrograph of the earth’s radiant energy. The earth’s radiant profile peak matches a blackbody curve at 288 K. You can calculate the amount of energy the earth is radiating because the area under the radiant curve is the amount of energy the earth is radiating — 240 W/m2. That corresponds to a blackbody temperature of 255 K. The difference is 33 C.
You can also see the impact of greenhouse gases and calculate the back radiation from the greenhouse effect.
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-VUCUTnu2VmQ/WoSSn6lNE9I/AAAAAAAAA6k/QLXgJmCJJugeh4aAlU7xlu98GqbZ3bdwgCEwYBhgL/s1600/TOA%2Bgraph%2Bwith%2Bbars.jpg
You seem to be unaware that NASA uses its satellites to do IR spectroscopy. That means you don’t know much about climate science. Your estimate of the temperature is wrong. Your comments about the greenhouse effect are wrong. In fact, there’s nothing you’re right about.
“Gavin Schmidt said it was all in the models. I presume he was referring to the UN sponsored IPCC/ICCP models. As far as I can find it’s not. Even if it is, the calculations are not based on published research.”
Gavin Schmidt is the head of NASA’s GISS. NASA has its own model.
The same Gavon Schmidt who to worldwide astonishment, admitted a while back that the climate models all ran too hot?
https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.373.6554.474
“Climate panel confronts implausibly hot models”
All you, and the UN consensus view, have shown is that the Earth is 33C above the theoretical value for a black-body at Earth orbit. The false assumption is that this is caused by the GHE. It is this assumption that is unsupported. Ten years ago it seemed plausible to me, too, because there was no apparent alternative.
Now, since NASAs 2009 DIVINER lunar temperature data, we see that the moon is also above the BB temperature and the reason for this is well understood. Thermal buffering of the rock surface reduces daytime surface temps and increased them at night. Because of the E=cT^4 rate of radiative emission, a 1C daytime drop reduces emission (E) more than the same rise from a lower temperature at night. The diurnal average rises to maintain a balance with incoming radiation. On Earth, the atmosphere adds a little to this effect, but overall CO2 plays no significant part.
You, like the consensus, are confused about the GHE, and the IPCC has struggled to come up with a meaningful definition. Just saying that GHGs absorb (and emit) infrared radiation and pointing to back radiation is not enough. That just shows that the GHE exists. I don’t dispute that. I have evaluated it.
The magnitude of the GHE depends on how rapidly the absorbed energy is transferred up to be radiated to space. If rapid, as through the H2O spectral hole, there is little or no heating. What is absorbed in the lower few hundred metres of the atmosphere takes several hours to get high enough to be radiated.
The 33C assumption implies that this transit time is 19 days. Several independent sources of evidence agree on a few hours. The most obvious of these is convection to which NASA attributes about half of the upward transfer in its standard energy balance diagram.
The GHGs and collision induced excitation and consequent radiation cause the atmosphere to be thermoluminescent in the IR. Because the atmosphere leaks at the top, roughly speaking, there is a net upward transfer. This can be readily calculated, as I have, to get GHE less than 0.3C with CO2 typically contributing about 0.01C.
You said that the 33 C increase in the earth’s temperature was an “assumption.” Now that we agree that it’s not an “assumption.” What’s causing that?
Now you turn to the moon. You claim that the blackbody temperature of the moon is greater than the blackbody temperature of the earth. Then you go through a screed about daytime-nighttime temperatures. In other words, the rotation of the moon is causing the temperature to rise. I went through this with another poster. Planet rotation has NO impact on planetary temperature. Then you claim that it must be the earth’s rotation responsible for the 33 C temperature rise. It can’t be CO2 because of your calculations.
Let’s start with calculations on the moon.
Here is a NASA fact sheet comparing the earth to the moon:
https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/moonfact.html
Solar irradiance for both planets is identical 1361 W/m2.
The blackbody temperature of the earth is 254.0 K
The blackbody temperature of the moon is 270.4 K
Indeed, the moon is hotter than the earth. Let’s correct the solar irradiance to calculate the planetary temperatures from the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.
The spherical correction is identical, and the solar irradiance becomes 340.25 W/m2 with the correction applied. Next, we use the correction for albedo. The earth’s albedo is 0.31, and the moon’s albedo is 0.12.
The earth’s solar irradiance corrected for albedo is 238.175 W/m2.
The moon’s solar irradiance corrected for albedo is 299.42 W/m2
The temperature of the earth from the S-B equation is 254.6 K
The temperature of the moon from the S-B equation is 269.6 K
The difference in albedo is the cause of the moon’s higher temperature. The planet’s rotation has nothing to do with it.
In a previous post I proved mathematically that the rotation of a planet has no impact on the planet’s temperature. I won’t repeat that because I have an equally compelling argument.
We know from an IR spectrograph that the earth’s radiant temperature is 288 K. From the S-B equation, that means the earth is radiating 390 W/m2 of energy. The earth absorbs 240 W/m2 of solar radiation, confirmed by IR spectrograph. Where does the additional 150 W/m2 of energy come from? Your theory doesn’t account for it.
For somebody who claim expertise in spectroscopy, you don’t know how to read an IR spectrograph. Remember the IR spectrograph I posted. Notice the greenhouse gas labels along the radiant curve? Those labels mark the greenhouse gas absorption bands. Did you see the dips? The area of those dips is the amount of energy that greenhouse gases prevent from radiating into space. If you sum all the energy being blocked you will have 150 W/m2.
“That just shows that the GHE exists. I don’t dispute that. I have evaluated it.”
You evaluated it wrong. All of the earth’s radiant energy that CO2 can absorb it absorbs in the lower troposphere. What you see at TOA is blackbody radiation from the kinetic energy of the CO2 molecules above the troposphere.
https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect-advanced.htm
Even in the lower troposphere, where the effect is “saturated,” more energy is available for CO2 to absorb as temperature increases. That’s due to how a blackbody behaves as temperature increases.
JJB,
Would appreciate your explanation of the following for clarification in words better than I can muster.
Much of the anthropogenic CO2 entering the atmosphere from devices like smokestacks is already at elevated temperature.
Spectrally speaking, does this initial heat (which is too little to change the measurable global atmospheric temperature) affect the physics of CO2 radiative heating?
If the chimney gas cools to average T in a short time, why do the radiatively heated gases not also cool to average T in a short time?
We can measure a chimney gas exit temperature. Can we measure or estimate how much hotter CO2 gets because of radiative heating? What is the result?
Thank you in anticipation Geoff S
To answer your question requires dealing with CO2 on a molecular level. Temperature is an abstraction. It is the measure of molecular kinetic energy. Kinetic energy is the energy of motion. The kinetic energy of a molecule consists of translational, rotational, and vibrational energy. Molecules collide all the time. If a molecule has a higher kinetic energy than another molecule, it transfers some of its energy to the molecule with the lower kinetic energy.
CO2 only absorbs specific wavelengths of the earth’s radiant energy in the atmosphere, called absorption bands. CO2 has three absorption bands, but only the 15 mm band is important because that’s the band responsible for our current situation. CO2 absorbs all the radiant energy it can. That energy causes the CO2 molecule to vibrate. After a very short delay, the CO2 molecule will emit radiant energy at the same wavelengths as the radiant energy it absorbed. The difference is that the energy is now scattered in all directions. Some of the energy continues its journey out of the earth’s atmosphere. Some of it is redirected back toward the earth.
That’s one way the CO2 molecule radiates energy. Remember that the earth’s radiant energy absorption causes the CO2 molecule to vibrate, vibration is kinetic energy, and there is a delay before that energy radiates from the CO2 molecule. That means that some of CO2’s vibrational energy can transfer to surrounding molecules and vice versa.
If the CO2 molecule’s vibrational kinetic energy is > the surrounding molecules’ kinetic energy, some of the kinetic energy will transfer to the surrounding molecules. That will result in the CO2 molecule radiating less energy, and the surrounding molecules will be “warmer.” The opposite can happen, and the CO2 molecule can “cool” the surrounding molecules and radiate more energy. That occurs in the upper atmosphere.
“Spectrally speaking, does this initial heat (which is too little to change the measurable global atmospheric temperature) affect the physics of CO2 radiative heating?”
As far as the absorption of radiant energy from the earth, the temperature has no impact. The “hot” temperature of the gas will cause the CO2 molecule to radiate more energy than it absorbs from the earth, and it will attempt to “cool” the hot gas.
“If the chimney gas cools to average T in a short time, why do the radiatively heated gases not also cool to average T in a short time?”
That’s pretty easy. Radiative heating occurs because of the transfer of vibrational kinetic energy to the other gaseous molecules. The non-radiating gases transfer kinetic energy as well. We have a lot more non-radiating molecules in our atmosphere than radiating ones. The temperature of the surrounding molecules is lower because the rate of removal of kinetic energy by the non-radiating molecules is >> the addition of kinetic energy by the radiating molecules. The system never reaches steady-state. The temperature of the radiating molecules must be > the temperature of the surrounding molecules, or energy transfer is not possible. Put those molecules in a perfectly insulated box that allows radiation to pass through, and they will come to a constant steady-state temperature.
“We can measure a chimney gas exit temperature. Can we measure or estimate how much hotter CO2 gets because of radiative heating? What is the result?”
The odds are the temperature is going to be cooler. The only way to estimate CO2’s effective temperature is to use the radiant energy absorbed by CO2 in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to determine the effective radiant temperature of the CO2 molecule.
JJB,
Can we start anew, please, this time with knowledge that I practised professional spectroscopy for the decade of the 1970s, which was a time when atomic transitions were better known than molecular, in general and to me. Thank you for your first response, though it does read a little like an undergrad course primer. To add a couple a couple of questions,
1. With molecular transitions, are there allowed energy levels that must be exceeded by a photon seeking to excite?
2. Does the Planck equation E=hc/lambda involve energies way above those to be found in chimney exhausts?
3. How much hotter does a typical CO2 molecule get in your description of greenhouse effects? Can you derive this from theory and match it to observation?
4. How many excited CO2 molecules must be involved in global warming to produce a measurable temperature change? Two is intuitively not enough, likewise 4, 8, 16, 32 … How many doublings before we feel it?
5. Is there are maximum energy that can be attained by radiation effects on CO2? (n.b. I also spent a couple of years with high-powered CO2 industrial lasers)
6. A single heated molecule of CO2 can send its excess to space or to earth. It is reasonable to assume, in bulk, that half is lost and half survives to enter the next cycle. So we end up with a math series that simply says in the extreme that all of the excess does get to space. How does this interact with explanation that this can lead to long-lasting heating aka greenhouse warming?
I am trying to keep this simple and without too many buzz words to many readers can see it all clearly. I am trying to help others as well as to infill any wrong concepts that I have in my mind. Geoff S
I’m not a physicist. What I know about how CO2 interacts with the earth’s radiant energy is from what I have read researching CO2, and from physics forums where I posed questions to those claiming to be physicists. For some of your questions, I will refer you to physics forums.
1&2 I Refer you to a physics forum
3. We know that a CO2 molecule absorbing electromagnetic energy will transfer some of that energy to surrounding molecules as kinetic energy. To do that it has have a higher “temperature” — kinetic energy — than surrounding molecules. What is that temperature? I researched that and I found nothing. The only thing I found was that there is a delay from the time a CO2 molecule absorbs a photon and radiates a photon. There was no explanation why that delay exits. If a photon was radiated at the same time one is absorbed, then there could be no kinetic energy transfer. I suspect that’s why physicists claim it exists.
4. Most of the radiant energy that CO2 absorbs from the earth is reradiated and reabsorbed by the earth. Only a small amount warms the atmosphere. The question should be how much radiant energy must CO2 absorb. It’s hard to say because as CO2 causes the temperature to rise, the amount of H2O in the atmosphere rises which is positive feedback. Another factor is earth’s radiant energy which varies as temperature rises. Currently, as planetary temperature rises. The amount of energy available for CO2 absorption increases.
5. I refer you to a physics forum. As far as I know, CO2 is more than capable of absorbing and reradiating all the radiant energy the earth is capable of throwing at it.
6. Here’s where the Beer-Lambert law comes in. We know that the amount of radiant energy that is absorbed is a function of the absolute concentration of CO2 and the path length. CO2 can’t absorb all the radiation thrown at it, but it can absorb almost all of it given a high enough absolute concentration and a long enough path length. That’s called saturation. It occurs in the lower troposphere. That means effectively all the radiant energy CO2 can absorb it does and hardly any escapes the lower troposphere. What we see at TOA is from the kinetic energy in the atmosphere being converted to IR above the CO2 saturation point.
JJBraccili
“In a previous post I proved mathematically that the rotation of a planet has no impact on the planet’s temperature. I won’t repeat that because I have an equally compelling argument.”
No, you didn’t proved that the rotation of a planet has no impact on the planet’s temperature.
Your math, as I showed to you, prove exactly the opposite.
Your mathematical approach proves there definitely is an impact of planet rotation on the planet’s temperature!
But you are under a strongest cargo cult influence.
You believe so much the trace gases in Earth’s very thin atmosphere can cause +33C warming above the theoretical abstraction earth’s blackbody temperature 255K, that you refuse to properly analyze your own mathematics.
Here is what you claimed:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/09/the-faster-a-planet-rotates-the-warmer-its-average-temperature/#comment-964165
“The temperature of a planet is not a function of rotation. The temperature remains constant no matter how fast it spins.
Let all T’s be the temperature raised to the fourth power. Let Ts be the hot source temperature. Let Th be the planet’s hot side temperature. Let Tc be the planet’s cold side temperature. k is the Stefan-Boltzman constant x emissivity. Start with a non-rotating planet at steady-state. From the Stefan-Boltzman equation”
Heat absorbed on the hot side = k(Ts – Th)
Heat emitted on the cold side = kTc
at steady-state k(Ts – Th) = kTc
Therefore, Tc = Ts – Th
Rotate the planet 180 degrees so the cold side faces the sun and the hot side faces outer space.
heat absorbed on the hotside = k(Ts – Tc), but Tc = Ts – Th
heat absorbed on the hotside = kTh
heat emitted on the cold side = kTh
heat absorbed on the hot side = heat emitted on the cold side. The planet remains in energy balance and the temperature of the planet can not change.
As you rotate the planet, and an increment of cold side faces the sun, the same amount of hot side faces outer space. The planet remains in energy balance and no matter how fast you rotate the planet, its temperature will not change.”
Here is my disproval of your “prove” :
https://judithcurry.com/2021/10/10/radiative-energy-flux-variations-from-2000-2020/#comment-964656
“Ok, let’s see now:
“Heat absorbed on the hot side = k(Ts – Th)
Heat emitted on the cold side = kTc
at steady-state k(Ts – Th) = kTc
Therefore, Tc = Ts – Th
Rotate the planet 180 degrees so the cold side faces the sun and the hot side faces outer space.
heat absorbed on the hotside = k(Ts – Tc), but Tc = Ts – Th
heat absorbed on the hotside = kTh
heat emitted on the cold side = kTh”
You say at steady-state:
“Heat emitted on the cold side = kTc”
So, the temperature of the cold side at steady-state should be:
( kTc)¹∕ ⁴ the cold side steady-state temperature
or
(kTs – kTh)¹∕ ⁴
Next, after rotating planet 180 degrees:
“heat emitted on the cold side = kTh”
So, the temperature of the cold side, after rotating planet 180 degrees, should be:
(kTh)¹∕ ⁴
After rotating planet 180 degrees, the cold side temperature rise ΔΤc is:
ΔΤc = (kTh)¹∕ ⁴ – (kTs – kTh)¹∕ ⁴ ≠ 0 ”
ΔΤc = (kTh)¹∕ ⁴ – (kTs – kTh)¹∕ ⁴ ≠ 0 !!!!
And your “answer” :
https://judithcurry.com/2021/10/10/radiative-energy-flux-variations-from-2000-2020/#comment-964658
“I didn’t check your math because it doesn’t matter. The point is the when you rotate the planet 180 degrees, the energy absorbed = the energy emitted. By the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Internal Energy cannot change and the temperature of the planet cannot change. Makes no difference what Tc and Th do.”
“I didn’t check your math because it doesn’t matter. ”
The math doesn’t matter now for you, JJBraccili ?
But you keep repeating that “I proved mathematically that the rotation of a planet has no impact on the planet’s temperature.
Maybe it helps you when I am underlining in bold !
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Changing the subject, are we? I thought we were discussing the temperature of the moon. BTW all the temperatures of all the planets you claim your equation matched are blackbody temperatures. The only exception is the moon which you now claim shouldn’t be compared to blackbody temperature because it’s an abstraction. Good luck with that line of reasoning!
Okay, let’s discuss my disproof of your theory. What I said is that because the heat emitted and heat absorbed were still in balance after I rotated the planet, the temperature of the planet cannot change. Notice I did not say the heated emitted and the heat absorbed were the same before and after rotation. Obviously, they changed. What I said was the DIFFERENCE before and after the rotation was zero.
I also didn’t say Th and Tc were the same before and after rotation. They aren’t. After rotation, the hot side temperature is Tc and the cold side temperature is Th. Your math is MEANINGLESS! That’s why I didn’t bother to check it. Why should I waste the time? I never claimed the temperatures didn’t change.
Your theory is still junk science.
The 0,04% CO2 content in the very thin Earth’s atmosphere…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
We have spectrographic data that proves CO2 has an impact. The too small argument is more junk science. Here’s why:
When you talk about CO2 having a ppm level, that’s a relative number. It depends on the other gases in the atmosphere. Take away all the other gases, and the CO2 is at 1 million ppm. It doesn’t matter how much CO2 is there. It could be one molecule of CO2, and the concentration is still 1 million ppm.
Take a transparent empty box, and put some CO2 in it, and shine a fixed-rate full spectrum of infrared radiation through the box. Some photons will hit CO2 molecules, and if they are of the right wavelength, they will be absorbed, and less radiation will be measured leaving the box. Double the amount of CO2 in the box, and even less radiation will leave the box. All while the concentration of CO2 remains at 1 million ppm.
Now add an equal number of N2 molecules to the box. The concentration of CO2 is 500,000 ppm. The CO2 molecules still roam the same volume. N2 does not absorb radiation in the CO2 absorption band. Photons in the CO2 absorption band pass right through N2 like it wasn’t there. The odds of the right photon hitting a CO2 molecule is the same. There is no change in the amount of radiation leaving the box even though the concentration is half.
The magnitude of CO2 ppm doesn’t correlate with CO2’s greenhouse effect. When you say that the planet was cooling when CO2 ppm is 10Xs today’s ppm, that’s not a valid argument. Something other than CO2 could be controlling the climate, or there may be less of the other atmospheric gases, so that ppm seems high, but it could have the same or even less of a greenhouse effect.
A perfect example is a comparison between the planets Venus and Mars. Both have CO2 concentrations > 95%. The temperature on Venus is 460 deg C. The temperature on Mars is -63 deg C. CO2 has a large impact on the temperature of Venus and little effect on the temperature on Mars. Why? The pressure on Venus is 90 atm, and the pressure on Mars is 0.006 atm. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere of Venus is orders of magnitude greater than the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere of Mars. That’s why the difference.
Another example is to imagine the earth’s atmosphere as 100 molecules of CO2. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 is 1 MM ppm or 100% CO2. What would be the greenhouse effect? Virtually nothing.
What we should be doing is using molecules/volume or molar density to correlate the greenhouse effect. We are stuck with ppm because it is easy to measure. So why does the greenhouse effect increase with ppm? It doesn’t correlate with the actual value of ppm. It correlates with the change in ppm. If you add CO2 to the atmosphere, gravity keeps the CO2 close to the earth. You’re adding CO2 and increasing the molar density. Gravity doesn’t totally maintain the volume, and there is some increase in the “height of CO2 in the atmosphere. That increases the odds that a photon will hit a CO2 molecule. That means CO2 absorbs more photons, and molar density is not a perfect measure of the greenhouse effect but is infinitely better than ppm.
JJB wrote, “CO2 has three absorption bands, but only the 15 mm band is important because that’s the band responsible for our current situation.”
You meant the 15 µm band.
It’s the big green notch in this diagram of the Earth’s emission spectrum:
https://sealevel.info/slide16_excerpt2_FTIR_data_from_a_satellite_tropical_western_pacific_annot12.png
JJB wrote, “CO2 has a large impact on the temperature of Venus and little effect on the temperature on Mars. Why? The pressure on Venus is 90 atm, and the pressure on Mars is 0.006 atm.”
Are you sure about that? Are you confident that atmospheric CO2 has “little effect… on the [surface] temperature on Mars”?
Mars’ atmosphere contains seven times as much CO2 as Earth’s atmosphere, and that atmosphere is spread over only 38% of Earth’s surface area. But you think a CO2 optical depth 7 / 0.38 = 18.4× greater than on Earth has “little effect”?
To get the same CO2 optical depth on Earth would require a CO2 concentration of about 7,600 ppmv.
Pressure broadening on Earth surely makes a big difference, but, still…
What do you do? Stay up at night reading my old posts trying to find an inconsistency? Good luck with that.
“Are you sure about that? Are you confident that atmospheric CO2 has “little effect… on the [surface] temperature on Mars”?”
I was comparing Mars to Venus and yes, I’m more than confident that CO2 has little effect on the temperature of Mars vs Venus. Both planets have a relative concentration of about 95% CO2. The effect of CO2 on Venus’s temperature is about a 400 C increase. On Mars, it’s about a 5 C increase. What I was showing — unsurprisingly, you don’t get it — is that relative concentration is meaningless when assessing the greenhouse effect. What’s important is the absolute concentration.
“Mars’ atmosphere contains seven times as much CO2 as Earth’s atmosphere, and that atmosphere is spread over only 38% of Earth’s surface area. But you think a CO2 optical depth 7 / 0.38 = 18.4× greater than on Earth has “little effect”?
To get the same CO2 optical depth on Earth would require a CO2 concentration of about 7,600 ppmv.
Pressure broadening on Earth surely makes a big difference, but, still…”
Once again, you demonstrate your ignorance on the subject of climate change. There is one gigantic difference between Mars vs Earth. Mars doesn’t have water vapor in its atmosphere. Water vapor is responsible for most of the greenhouse effect on the Earth. It has one problem. It is temperature limited. CO2 is not temperature limited and as it raises the temperature of the planet, it raises the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. You don’t need as much CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere to have more impact than CO2 in the atmosphere of Mars.
Another thing you seem blissfully unaware of is that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is not driving climate change. It’s that it is continuously increasing.
Sorry, JJB, water vapor amplification of CO2’s warming effect is not “gigantic.” Based on AR5’s figures, water vapor amplifies the warming effect of additional CO2 by between 39% and 77% (best estimate 54%).
We would need more than four “doublings” of atmospheric CO2 concentration on Earth to match the CO2 optical depth of the Martian atmosphere.
The great big “notch” in Mars’s emission spectrum is due to CO2:
https://sealevel.info/LWIR_Emission_spectra_of_Mars_green_CO2_notch.png
You never miss an opportunity to show your ignorance, do you?
What I was talking about was the temperature difference between Mars and Venus even though both had roughly the same relative concentration. Both planets are at steady-state in my analysis.
Water absorbs over a much wider wavelength band than CO2 and the ratio of water to CO2 in the atmosphere is about 100. Water is the primary cause of the 33 C rise in the earth’s temperature. It has nothing to do with driving the current climate change. It amplifies the effect of increasing CO2 on radiative forcing.
BTW water doubles the impact of CO2 on radiative forcing.
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html
Guess it’s time to change the subject.
One more thing. That graph you’re using is BS.
On that graph he superimposes blackbody curves from Planck’s equation. There is an, apparently, little know problem with Planck’s equation. It gives different results depending on whether you use wavenumber or wavelength as the integrating variable.
For the earth, CO2 should be to the left of the blackbody peak — it’s on the right –, and the peak should be around a wavelength 18 mm.
If he had used wavenumber instead of wavelength, integrated Planck’s equation using wavenumber to generate blackbody curves, the graph would be correct.
dai davies | November 25, 2021
All you, and the UN consensus view, have shown is that the Earth is 33C above the theoretical value for a black-body at Earth orbit.
Just saying that GHGs absorb (and emit) infrared radiation and pointing to back radiation is not enough. That just shows that the GHE exists. I don’t dispute that.
JJB paraphrased.
“What you see at TOA is blackbody radiation equivalent to the grey body radiation at the surface of the earth.”
In other words the TOA radiation is exactly equivalent to all the radiation coming from the earth that actually got through and back plus all the radiation that tried and did not get through.
Funny how a grey body in the sky radiates exactly the same amount of radiation that a much smaller and hotter black body radiates, has to radiate , at the surface with no energ imbalance.
Why is that?
Right now, the earth has an energy imbalance. Let’s assume it doesn’t.
You have 240 W/m2 being absorbed by the earth from the sun. Add to that the back radiation from greenhouse gases. That’s another 150 W/m2. The total energy the earth absorbs is 390 W/m2. The earth radiates 390 W/m2 to the atmosphere. The greenhouse gases remove 150 W/m2 for back radiation. That leaves 240 W/m2 being emitted to space. At 390 W/m2 the temperature of the earth is 288 K.
BTW your definition of entropy has no basis in reality.
1. Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature calculation
Tmean.earth
So = 1.361 W/m² (So is the Solar constant)
S (W/m²) is the planet’s solar flux. For Earth S = So
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
Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
The planet mean surface temperature equation
produces remarkable results.
The calculated planets temperatures are almost identical with the measured by satellites.
Planet…Te…Te.correct..Tmean..Tsat.mean
Mercury..439,6K…364K….325,83K…340K
Earth….255K…..210K….287,74….288K
Moon…..270,4Κ…224K….223,35Κ…220Κ
Mars…..209,91K..174K….213,21K…210K
The 288 K – 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.
There is NO +33°C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
What the BBC never mentions about the end of last century…
https://www.mpg.de/research/sun-activity-high
“The Sun is more active now than over the last 8000 years
An international team of scientists has reconstructed the Sun’s activity over the last 11 millennia and forecasts decreased activity within a few decades
OCTOBER 28, 2004
The activity of the Sun over the last 11,400 years, i.e., back to the end of the last ice age on Earth, has now for the first time been reconstructed quantitatively by an international group of researchers led by Sami K. Solanki from the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research (Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany). The scientists have analyzed the radioactive isotopes in trees that lived thousands of years ago. As the scientists from Germany, Finland, and Switzerland report in the current issue of the science journal “Nature” from October 28, one needs to go back over 8,000 years in order to find a time when the Sun was, on average, as active as in the last 60 years. Based on a statistical study of earlier periods of increased solar activity, the researchers predict that the current level of high solar activity will probably continue only for a few more decades.”
daveburton | November 23, 2021 at
“TSI is customarily spec’d at Top Of Atmosphere, facing directly toward the Sun. It’s variously estimated to be about 1365±5 W/m². (I think NASA is currently estimating 1361.5 W/m².)”
–
Are you sure about this?
I would guess it is specified at the earth’s surface, not at TOA.
The reason being that the may use the earths radius for calculating the area of r the circle the light is supposed to hit if the atmosphere was not there .
Makes sense as diagrams give the actual radiation that reaches the ground as a percentage of the 340 W/m2.
The TOA on the other hand is where the energy in and out is in balance .
This is the energy that hit the earths surface and that which was reflected.
That is it is the measurement of the TSI the surface of the earth would have received diluted by the larger surface area of theTOA
Funny that the 240 or whatever at that height exactly matches the 288 at the true earth’s surface, isn’t it?
What are you talking about? There is virtually no difference in solar irradiance at TOA and the earth’s surface sans albedo. The 240 W/m2 solar irradiance corresponds to a blackbody temp of 255 K. A 288 K blackbody temperature corresponds to a solar irradiance of 390 W/m2.
Yes, I’m sure, angech. I have a collection of links to glossaries on my site, here:
https://sealevel.info/resources.html#glossaries
Here’s the DCD:
http://www.odlt.org/dcd/definitionsOut/total_solar_irradiance.html
(site works best if you disable javascript for it)
Here’s the AMS:
https://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Total_solar_irradiance
Here’s AR5:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_AnnexIII_FINAL.pdf#page=17
Here’s AR6:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Annex_VII.pdf#page=68
daveburton | November 23, 2021
“TSI is customarily spec’d at Top Of Atmosphere, facing directly toward the Sun. It’s variously estimated to be about 1365±5 W/m². (I think NASA is currently estimating 1361.5 W/m².)”
–
Are you sure about this?
I would guess it is specified at the earth’s surface, not at TOA.
Yes, I’m sure, angech. I have a collection of links to glossaries on my site, here:
I think you should recheck.
Your last reference source directly rebuts it.
Here’s the AMS:
https://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Total_solar_irradianceTotal solar irradiance (TSI) The total amount of solar radiation in watts per square metre received 18
outside the Earth’s atmosphere on a surface normal to the incident radiation, and at the Earth’s mean distance from the Sun.
Radiative imbalance as described does not and cannot exist.
A warmer earth is not storing more energy in the system.
If the sun puts 10 W/m2 into the earth , the earth puts 10 W/m2 out again, at basically the same time.
Everyone agrees on this.
Now I don’t dispute the earth looks as if it is “warmer””.
It looks like it should be storing energy with all those molecules leaping around the place.
So people say yes energy has to go back out but…….
Energy has to be stored.
When faced with two conflicting beliefs that both appear to be true what do people do?
They pretend to believe in both of them simultaneously.
Close their eyes and ignore facts.
When all the possible alternatives are eliminated we have to go with the least impossible one.
The only way I can reconcile these two good arguments is to go with the one which makes our physics work.
Energy in, energy out .
How to reconcile that apparent stored energy.
Thank Einstein for proving that a lot of things we want to take for granted are not.
– “If the sun puts 10 W/m2 into the earth , the earth puts 10 W/m2 out again, at basically the same time. Everyone agrees on this.”
I don’t.
Javier | November 26, 2021 at 9:20 am | Reply
– “If the sun puts 10 W/m2 into the earth , the earth puts 10 W/m2 out again, at basically the same time. Everyone agrees on this.”
I don’t.
Very good, Javier.
You do not on what grounds?
Nitpicking?
Changing the definition?
Semantics?
In a science discussion one is limited to science.
That is the set you are working in.
You cannot inject faith , religion or self belief as valid arguments.
Matter energy and time are intertwined and depend on each other functioning in a specific and ordered way.
One of the results of this is entropy.The forward march of time.
The other is the concept of force or energy as an immutable entity.
We have a concept of stored energy.
Potential energy, that of a dam, a battery or a nuclear reaction about to occur.
There is no extra energy there unless an equal or greater amount of energy is put into the system to release that energy.
You only see a product ready to go.
In reality that product can never go until enough energy is put into the system to activate it.
Push the switch, you say ?
How?
You would have to build a world from scratch to make men capable of building the dam in the first place, plus the switch plus the man or woman to press it.
Every time.
Or we can go back to easy science that works,
Real energy.
Heat in, heat out and good old SB.
Now tell me again how you do not believe in thermodynamics, SB and entropy, scientifically of course.
Beliefs have nothing to do. I disagree with your statement because the oceans and the atmosphere store a great amount of energy and move around a great amount of energy. Nothing in science says that if the Earth receives more energy it should return it “at basically the same time.”
The Earth cools and warms at all timescales, which means it is not returning the same amount of energy it is receiving. The oceans stored more energy during the Holocene Climatic Optimum and less energy during the Last Glacial Maximum.
The idea that the Earth is at equilibrium is silly, and if it is not, nor should it be, there is no reason why it should return the same energy it receives. Sometimes more, sometimes less.
Thanks Javier,
” Beliefs have nothing to do with it.
. I disagree with your statement as I believe the oceans and the atmosphere store a great amount of energy and move around a great amount of energy.
“Nothing in science says that if the Earth receives more energy it should return it “at basically the same time.”
I beg your pardon.
A lot of things in science suggest, assert and even dictate that the more energy received the more energy that has to be returned.
You actually know that.
The fact that you can make this statement says more for your conflict in belief over science.
Examples
The Carnot cycle.
The impossibility of a perpetual energy machine
Heat equation
From Wikipedia
Another interesting property is that even if u initially has a sharp jump (discontinuity) of value across some surface inside the medium, the jump is immediately smoothed out by a momentary, infinitesimally short but infinitely large rate of flow of heat through that surface. For example, if two isolated bodies, initially at uniform but different temperatures u 0 and u 1 , are made to touch each other, the temperature at the point of contact will immediately assume some intermediate value, and a zone will develop around that point where u will gradually vary between u 0 and u 1.
The Laws of Thermodynamics
First law: Energy is conserved; it can be neither created nor destroyed.
Second law: In an isolated system, natural processes are spontaneous when they lead to an increase in disorder, or entropy.
Third law: The entropy of a perfect crystal is zero when the temperature of the crystal is equal to absolute zero (0 K).
Consistentcy with the Boltzmann definition, the second law of thermodynamics that entropy increases over time.
“The idea that the Earth is at equilibrium is silly, and if it is not, nor should it be, there is no reason why it should return the same energy it receives. Sometimes more, sometimes less.”
So you say.
Yet you admit of equilibrium at TOA.
You use SB as a guiding rule which basically says energy in equals energy out.
Minus a little loss overall for entropy of the whole system.
You want the earth to be a perpetual energy machine sucking in great swathes of energy to be stored in mystery locations until that perpetual energy is needed .
The only energy in any energetic system is only there because of the constant input and will always, always dissipate as quickly as it can once that source of energy is removed. There is no battery only an incoming current.
You see it as storage.
Your choice. It is actually input a different and very important concept.
–Javier
“If the sun puts 10 W/m2 into the earth , the earth puts 10 W/m2 out again, at basically the same time. Everyone agrees on this.”
” I don’t.”
“there is no reason why it should return the same energy it receives. Sometimes more, sometimes less.”
–
Surely there is a reason in that middle of that?
But OK,
We have three choices.
1..It puts the same amount out.
2 It puts less out.
3 It puts more out.
I guess you go with 2 or 3 but 1 is excluded.
Science or belief?
Lets say 3 . It will eventually get colder to 0 Kelvin.
Long term consequence of believing in decrease.
Lets say 2. It will continue to heat up past the temperature of the heat source to some runaway greenhouse hell?
or 1.
Heart up your soup, It gains in temp in balance with the incoming energy and develops a temperature at this new input consistent with that.
Take away the heat source and it goes back to its natural energy input status at whatever temperature that is.
Perfectly in balance at all times with the energy coming in although , you might notice the temperature but not the energy reaches a new level.
The internal energy is specified for the temperature it is at in other words it s internal energy has not changed.
What it does with it depends on the combined internal energy of it and whatever system you choose to put it in is.
– “Science or belief?”
Science. The Earth’s surface is colder in January by -3.8° than in June. This is the baseline that is subtracted to calculate the monthly anomaly.
If in an instant the Earth is emitting the same amount of energy it is receiving is by chance. As the Earth changes its temperature at all timescales it is obvious that nearly all the time it doesn’t.
What you defend doesn’t make any sense. I studied a 9-month course of thermodynamics at the university. Fascinating subject. It was several decades ago, but I don’t think it has changed that much as to require updating.
Long-term averaging to create a “normal” is a risky endeavor, as most people forget that the universe doesn’t work that way, only our minds.
Allow me pls to put a question (regarding thermal balance)
From where does the earth gets the energy that, from deep glacial to interstadial, melts most of the polar ice, as well as a small overall temp rise. (remember it takes 334J to melt a gram of ice but 4.186J to raise it by 1 degree.)
Storage of energy.
A 1 kilogram mass at absolute zero, on its own, has no energy , no stored energy, and never will.
If perchance it receives energy (from where?) it will put it out and return to being inert.
It has no choice.
If it is heated at a specific temperature intake it will heat up in part and radiate the same amount of energy that is coming into it it will never heat up beyond that energy input, it has no storage.
Turn the energy source of and it will go back to cold inert 1kgm for eternity.
The energy does not magically build up , stored in the deep 1 Kim oceans to come out a minute later or an eternity later..
The object cannot take in less or more energy, just what it gets and it cannot put out less or more than it gets.
That’s what being an object at 0 K means and how it will behave.
How to reconcile this with touching a red hot anvil from a furnace?
Still red hot 5 minutes later.
Is it hot because it has energy stored in it?
The answer is obviously no but you still have one burned finger.
If people have trouble seeing that the answer has to be no then they believe in “ radiative forcing”, in storage of energy but t.hey have stopped believing in physics and science.
It is possible for objects to be hot, for them to appear to retain or store heat.
In science the only true comment, from thermodynamics, is they can be all of those things but not storing heat.
Agreed!!!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
What Earth does is on the instant to reflect a portion of SW, to instantly transform another portion from SW into LW (IR) outgoing radiation and on the same instant to re-radiate.
And a fraction of those 10 W/m2 on instant to transform into heat…
The heat is what accumulated in the inner layers. After being accumulated heat “belongs” to the planet surface matter.
What happens to the heat next…
Heat is energy the matter has to get rid of.
There are three known ways matter gets rid of heat.
1). The IR emission – it is the most effective, especially when matter is warmed at high temperatures.
2). Convection – let’s say an oceanic current moving North, it IR emits, and also mixes with colder waters, thus mitigating the ability to IR emission’s fast from the water the accumulated heat removal.
3). Conduction – a very slow process, that is why there is the thermocline is present at the equatorial waters.
Eventually all the accumulated heat will be re-radiated.
What affects differences in the heat removal delay (storage ?) is the incident radiation /matter interaction process.
Thus we observe the latitudinal differences, the seasonal differences. the decadal and the millennial cycles’ differences.
When comparing different planets with a single similar factor, the rest of factors affect the differences.
Moon and Earth are at the same distance from Sun.
Earth’s higher rotational spin and Earth’s higher the average surface specific heat make Earth surface on average a warmer planet.
Also Earth has atmosphere we live in. It also takes a small part in the heat accumulation – heat removal process. But Earth’s atmosphere is very thin, it does not warm earthen surface by +33C.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Curious George
Especially one kilogram of U235 :-)
–
Yes Glad you raised it. :-}
Sense of humor and usually very insightful.
Your comments are always welcome.
–
The topic is mass and energy and heat transfer.
Nowhere in the vast range of thermodynamics is there a suggestion of nuclear activity being considered.
Right or wrong the question is purely existing energy and existing, sadly solid and non breaking down existing mass.
–
Anyone can claim a fusion occurring in U235 or almost all any mass can occur.
But no one runs around using radioactive material for mass.
Where your otherwise valid suggestion falls down is as follows.
Any deterioration causing new energy to appear is a new heat source. We are discussing the transfer of already existing energy through matter.
The fact that it is a fission source like the sun is immaterial.
The question is what happens when already existing energy and matter interact.
If U235 does breakdown then the mass is no longer 1 kilogram.
We are no longer discussing identical situations.
Secondly at absolute zero, No energy in the U235, there will be no radioactive decay.
Proof, radioactive decay slows down with decreasing energy.
At zero K with no available energy to initiate breakdown it can never occur.
Thanks for raising the issue. I am aware of it. I hope my explanation helps you consider the more pertinent point about matter being unable to hold energy.
This creates a lot more problems than it answers but the answers we use, Newtonian and Einstein, rely on this peculiarity.
All our physics is based on this. All our unanswered questions are because of the problems this creates.
“Nowhere in the vast range of thermodynamics is there a suggestion of nuclear activity being considered.”
LOL!!
Thermodynamics pertains to all forms of energy. In climate change nuclear activity plays a huge role. It not surprising that you don’t know that sun uses nuclear activity to generate solar radiation, which supplies much of the energy that warms the earth.
“Any deterioration causing new energy to appear is a new heat source. We are discussing the transfer of already existing energy through matter.”
LOL!!
All energy is existing energy.
“The fact that it is a fission source like the sun is immaterial.”
LOL!!
The sun uses fusion.
“If U235 does breakdown then the mass is no longer 1 kilogram.”
LOL!!
Mass is energy. First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics can be applied to mass and its conversion to energy.
“Secondly at absolute zero, No energy in the U235, there will be no radioactive decay. Proof, radioactive decay slows down with decreasing energy. At zero K with no available energy to initiate breakdown it can never occur.”
LOL!!
At absolute zero, KINETIC energy is zero. It has no impact on radioactive decay. There is no evidence that radioactive decay is influenced by temperature. It’s just the opposite. At 0 K mass exists, therefore energy exists. U235 still has energy.
As usual, you’re 100% wrong.
Especially one kilogram of U235 :-)
The back radiation = GHE idea may seem reasonable at a glance but not if you take the whole atmosphere, not just the surface 100m or so. BR is just the surface layer seeking thermal equilibrium with the surface as thermodynamics shows it must. The magnitude of the GHE depends on how long it takes for the absorbed energy to reach space, or how long the heat is accumulating in the atmosphere.
Quoting from my Defining Greenhouse article:
“… using high school or introductory undergraduate thermodynamics. The heat content of a gas or solid is equal to its temperature multiplied by the material’s specific heat capacity, c. Where Q is heat in joules, T the absolute temperature (Kelvin, K), and ∆ represents a change in value:
∆Q = c ∆T eq1
After algebraic manipulation:
∆T = ∆Q / c eq2
With power (W) expressed as watts (joules per second) and with delay time as t:
∆Q = W t eq3
so:
∆T = W t / c eq4
Hence, the increase in atmospheric temperature can be quantified by the radiative power applied for t seconds.
The specific heat is defined for a unit mass of 1 kg. For a square metre column of air we have a mass M (10 tonnes) so:
∆T = W t / M c eq5
The key to both the definition and evaluation of the GHE is the transit or delay time.”
The radiation, W,is about 200 Watts. For an intuitive example think of a 200W lamp in a large well insulated gym.
As an analogy for the heat accumulation, take a venue such as a museum, with people arriving and leaving at a rate of 1 per minute. If the average duration of a visit is 1 hour, then the average occupancy will be 60 people.
– “The magnitude of the GHE depends on how long it takes for the absorbed energy to reach space, or how long the heat is accumulating in the atmosphere.”
I completely agree with that. That is the correct way of seeing it. GHGs are responsible for the delay in energy exit that keeps the troposphere/surface warmer than it would otherwise. Similar to the cloths that delay the emission of our skin heat except that our heat is internally generated.
We know our cloths keep as warm, yet many think GHGs warm us. They don’t. An increase in GHGs produces a one time increase in troposphere/surface temperature. The increase is smaller the more GHG there is in the atmosphere. On Earth there is an overabundance of GHGs due to its anomalously high water content.
On Earth the energy is received by the ocean and stored by the ocean. The atmosphere and land surface very readily cede their heat at night through radiative cooling. The ocean is very inefficient at transporting energy and it does so significantly only in the tropical band. From about 30° the bulk of energy transport is done by the atmosphere. That is its main energy role and it does it very efficiently, creating what we call weather.
Most of the energy the oceans transport is through the wind-driven circulation. At the tropical band energy is ceded to the atmosphere mainly through convection and evaporation, but the upper branch of the Hadley cell has ceded most of its water vapor through cooling when ascending, and when it descends and warms is very dry creating the desert bands at 40°. The lower band of the Hadley cell transports latent energy towards the equator. That’s why ENSO exists, to distribute equatorial energy when it accumulates.
Outside the tropics the energy the oceans transport is readily ceded to the atmosphere due to baroclinic instability, as evaporation depends mainly on wind speed not on temperature. This energy flux across the surface is more prominent at the oceans basins extratropical western boundary. See Yu & Weller 2007 (figure 2c)
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/88/4/bams-88-4-527.xml
Since at that latitudes predominant winds are westerlies the eastern side of the continents receives most of that heat in winter and are warmer than the western side. The idea that Europe is warmed by the Gulf Stream or AMOC is false. As Carl Wunch said, as long as we are in a rotating planet with oceans and atmosphere Europe will not stop receiving warm moist air at winter regardless of what the AMOC does.
So weather is what the atmosphere does with the energy in transit from its, on average, lower latitude entry point to its higher latitude exit point, and climate is what the entire climate system does with the energy in transit over a longer period.
Our knowledge of the extraordinarily complex climate system is woefully inadequate for the answers we seek, but the Dunning-Kruger effect runs rampant among climatologists, bureaucrats, politicians and climate-emergency apostles. Those most affected are the ones most celebrated.
The heat is not accumulating in the atmosphere. Most of it is being reradiated to the earth. A better choice of words is that the energy is accumulating in the earth system — earth + atmosphere.
Javier: “GHGs are responsible for the delay in energy exit that keeps the troposphere/surface warmer than it would otherwise. Similar to the cloths that delay the emission of our skin heat except that our heat is internally generated.”
I disagree. Here is my interpretation of earth’s surface warming and cooling:
Because the heat capacity of the atmosphere is much smaller than the mixed ocean layer, the atmosphere is seasonally heated to a higher temperature and cooled to a lower temperature than the mixed ocean layer.
As a result, during the seasonal solar heating, heat flows from the warmer atmosphere to the relatively colder mixed ocean layer, resulting in the observed seasonal global sea level rise. During the seasonal cooling, heat flows from the relatively warmer mixed ocean layer to the colder atmosphere and to space, resulting in the observed seasonal global sea level fall.
So there is no heat trapping by greenhouse gases. The heating trapping is due to the atmospheric temperature being greater than the mixed ocean layer in summer and as a result heat flows from the warmer atmosphere to the colder ocean. This heat trapping by the warmer atmosphere in summer is suspended every winter, with heat flowing from the relatively warmer mixed ocean layer to the colder atmosphere.
There are a few problems with your theory.
1. The sun does not heat the atmosphere. SW solar radiation is not absorbed by the atmosphere.
2. The heat flow is from the earth to the atmosphere year-round.
Javier
You are somewhat overstating the climate importance of atmosphere at the expense of ocean, and also it is a mistake to dismiss entirely the heat stored on land particularly the heat and water stored in soil.
Ocean and atmosphere are coupled like the cliché-d dog is coupled to its tail. The atmosphere really is only the tail. A lot of what it seems to be doing on its ownsome is in reality ocean-driven, such as Pacific equatorial trade winds driven by ocean surface temperature and pressure gradients set up by cold upwelling off Peru.
The idea that European or even global climate is independent of the AMOC is not one I share, I’m not really a Wunsch disciple. We’ll get a chance to test this quite “soon” – in ocean terms. A lot of people like to ridicule prof Steve Rahmstorf and colleagues at the Potsdam Institute and their theory and observation of imminent AMOC slow down, but on that issue I think they’re right.
“Heat trapping” by atmospheric CO2 contradicts the physical principle of least action. Therefore I doubt that it is significant in reality.
https://ptolemy2.wordpress.com/2021/11/13/climate-pandemonium/
‘“Heat trapping” by atmospheric CO2 contradicts the physical principle of least action.’
I don’t use the word “trapping”. To me that’s a politically loaded word. That heat accumulates over the delay interval is a real phenomenon and to dispute it would require detailed argument rather than a general reference to least action.
I looked at your article, and agree with the significance of Miskolczi’s observations. It is a complicated system with many influences involved, and a mathematically complex system which finds resonant states where it can.
I see it as coupled resonances driven primarily by planetary influences on the solar plasma circulations resulting at chaotic border regions in turbulence that escapes to the surface as sunspots (least action?) and consequent solar flares. As anyone who has pushed a swing knows, resonant cycles can build up with repeated small actions.
If you look at long-term representations of continental drift you can see the Earth repeatedly creating situations where there is land mass on one side of the planet with water dominating the other. This minimises tidal extremes, which suggests that the drift is promoted by the jiggling of tidal forces to end up with a thermohaline current which resonates with the quasi-millennial solar cycle.
I performed a cyclic decomposition of the southern ocean surface temperature data that shows it to be tightly cyclic with four cycles aligning with known solar activity cycles accounting for greater than 99% of the variance.
Greenhouse gases don’t trap heat. They reradiate energy. I used to have a spectrograph taken from ground level that showed the magnitude of the reradiated IR. That link no longer works. Only a small portion of the energy that greenhouse gases absorb winds up heating the atmosphere.
Even if the greenhouse gases did trap the heat in the atmosphere, the temperature rise would be limited by the restriction of heat transfer from the surface of the earth to the atmosphere. With the amount of temperature rise in the atmosphere due to the trapped heat, it is possible that the heat flow would reverse.
Girma | November 27, 2021 at 6:38 pm |
– “heat flows from the warmer atmosphere to the relatively colder mixed ocean layer”
This is incorrect. You have not studied energy fluxes across the surface. The oceans transfer latent heat and sensible heat to the atmosphere nearly everywhere at all times. Only at very high latitudes during winter does the flux revert and the atmosphere warms the ocean. You can see that in the Yu & Weller article I linked above, figure 2c.
If radiative transfer is considered, the ocean is net gaining 170 W/m2 from shortwave radiation and net losing 53 W/m2 from longwave radiation.
Energy goes from the sun to the ocean and from the ocean to the atmosphere. This is pretty basic stuff. From the atmosphere the energy can only go up, and up it goes. GHGs delay the exit. A warmer atmosphere can reduce the flux from the ocean and its temperature would increase, but it cannot warm the ocean directly. Only the sun can do that.
Javier: “Only at very high latitudes during winter does the flux revert and the atmosphere warms the ocean.”
That is not consistent with each of ours lived experience of sweltering summers (seasonal atmospheric heating) and shivering winters (atmospheric cooling).
Phil Salmon | November 27, 2021 at 7:21 pm |
Ocean and atmosphere are different means and play different roles, there is no more important or less important.
The ocean receives and stores most energy in the climate system and therefore powers the climate system while releasing it, very much like a battery. The atmosphere excels at moving energy, so it is the main engine. The amount of energy a hurricane is capable of moving across the Atlantic in just a few days is just mind-boggling.
Warm water ascends and cold water descends, surface currents are wind driven. The thermo-haline circulation is very slow and climate is very dynamic. I am very skeptic that it plays the important role many think.
The ocean plays a very important role in meridional transport mainly through ENSO, AMO, and PDO. AMOC? not so much.
Regarding Wunsch and Rahmstorf, there is no comparison. Wunsch is one of the best oceanographers in history and Rahmstorf is a clown. I doubt he can tie his shoelaces properly without help. For example his article:
Timing of abrupt climate change: A precise clock
Is all wrong. If one wants to be charitable he made mistake after mistake basing the entire article on an artifact. The alternative is that he committed scientific fraud.
Anyway, given your oceanic inclination you might like this article:
Schmitt, R.W. 2018. The ocean’s role in climate. Oceanography 31(2):32–40, https://doi.org/10.5670/oceanog.2018.225
Oceanographers got late to the climate party and want to make up for the funds lost.
Javier: “From the atmosphere the energy can only go up, and up it goes.”
I disagree.
If the atmospheric temperature is greater than that of the mixed ocean layer (in summer), heat flows from the atmosphere to the mixed ocean layer.
If the atmospheric temperature is less than that of the mixed ocean layer (in winter), heat flows from the mixed ocean layer to the atmosphere and to space.
The main issue is that the atmosphere more quickly warms and cools re
native to the mixed ocean layer.
The second principle of Thermodynamics states that “heat must flow down on the temperature scale”
The Second Law of Thermdynamics states that the NET heat flow must be from the warmer body to the colder body.
The earth (colder body) radiates energy to the sun (warmer body), but the net heat flow is from the sun to the earth.
Correct. I made a mistake saying winter instead of summer.
Check the figure at the paper link or here and you will see that the flux is positive (towards the atmosphere) everywhere in the yearly average, and everywhere except at high latitudes in summer in the monthly averages.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert-Weller/publication/249616060/figure/fig2/AS:341412529885185@1458410498369/THIS-PAGE-AND-NEXT-Surface-a-LHF-b-SHF-and-c-LHF-SHF-in-February-August.png
– “If the atmospheric temperature is greater than that of the mixed ocean layer (in summer), heat flows from the atmosphere to the mixed ocean layer.”
You should stop thinking and start studying. This is not a matter of opinion. Even when the atmosphere is warmer evaporation drives energy from the ocean to the atmosphere. Sensible heat flux is tiny compared to latent heat, but still toward the atmosphere at most places.
Why don’t you read the Yu & Weller 2007 article instead of telling us about your experiences and thoughts? I don’t care much about opinions.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/88/4/bams-88-4-527.xml
Javier,
I still disagree.
Here is the description of the seasonal atmospheric heating and cooling by Jones et al. (1990):
“The annual cycle of global mean temperature follows the of the land-dominated NH [Northern Hemisphere], with a maximum in July of 15.9 oC and a minimum in January of 12.2 oC”.
https://bit.ly/3CTcC2o
So from January to July the atmospheric temperature increases and that heats the ocean. From July to January, the global surface atmospheric temperature falls that allows the ocean to loose its stored heat to the atmosphere and to space.
The above description is consistent with the seasonal variation in the sea level that lags the atmospheric temperature by two months (the seasonal global sea level increases from March to September) as shown in the following seasonal sea level data.
https://bit.ly/3127UlI
Javier “Even when the atmosphere is warmer evaporation drives energy from the ocean to the atmosphere.”
I am talking about the net energy as seen from the steady seaonal rise in global surface temperature and sea level in summer and their fall in winter.
Javier
Here is published description of the seasonal oscillations of gmt and sea level that supports my comments:
Kantha & Clayson, 2003:
“The ocean mixed layer (OML), the ocean region adjacent to the air–sea interface, is typically tens of meters deep, and due to the fact that it is well mixed, the temperature and salinity (and therefore the density) are fairly uniform….The OML mediates the exchange of mass, momentum, energy, and heat between the atmosphere and the ocean and hence plays a central role in long-term climate and weather. Because of the high heat capacity of water (2.5 m of the upper ocean has the same heat capacity as the entire troposphere), and because the oceans compose over two-thirds of the surface of the globe, most of the solar heating on Earth passes through the OML. Oceans are heat reservoirs, gaining heat during spring and summer and losing it slowly during fall and winter, and therefore act like a flywheel in matters related to weather on time scales of weeks and longer.”
Here is the link for the above article:
https://curry.eas.gatech.edu/Courses/6140/ency/Chapter11/Ency_Atmos/BL_Ocean_Mixed_Layer.pdf
Girma | November 27, 2021 at 9:39 pm |
– “I still disagree.”
OK. That puts and end to the discussion from my part as it is not productive. I’ve showed you the evidence from the data. The net flux of energy from the ocean to the atmosphere is positive at all seasons nearly everywhere. You don’t have any evidence that contradicts it because it doesn’t exist, yet you insist in your position.
The ocean surface is generally warmer than the atmosphere with some exceptions:
Peixoto and Oort. Physics of climate (1992).
“Near the equator the air temperature tends to be slightly lower than the ocean surface temperature. This difference increases with latitude in the winter hemisphere. The largest air-water temperature differences up to — 8 °C are observed in northern mid and high latitudes just east of the continents. In summer, the northern mid and high latitudes show positive temperature differences up to 2 °C.”
The transfer of sensible heat is very small and still from ocean to atmosphere most of the time.
The seasonal cycle in SST is complex and affected by multiple factors including radiative changes, wind, precipitation, heat-advection by currents and changes in the thermocline. However changes in shortwave radiation towards the ocean dominate outside the tropics, and changes in wind speed and humidity (i.e. latent heat flux) dominate in most of the rest.
Kara, A.B., Wallcraft, A.J., Hurlburt, H.E. and Loh, W.Y., 2009. Which surface atmospheric variable drives the seasonal cycle of sea surface temperature over the global ocean?. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 114(D5).
“The SST seasonal cycle is primarily driven by shortwave radiation, wind speed, and vapor mixing ratio (over 33.5%, 27.2% and 21.7% of the global ocean, respectively).”
It has been known for a long time that air and humidity above the sea surface follow SST and not the other way around. That you insist in believing in something wrong denotes you are not interested in the truth, but engaged in bias confirmation. I will not be answering any further comments on this subject.
Javier: “The ocean surface is generally warmer than the atmosphere with some exceptions:”
What you are saying is in consistent with observation.
Here is why:
Kantha & Clayson, 2003:
“The ocean mixed layer (OML), the ocean region adjacent to the air–sea interface, is typically tens of meters deep, and due to the fact that it is well mixed, the temperature and salinity (and therefore the density) are fairly uniform….The OML mediates the exchange of mass, momentum, energy, and heat between the atmosphere and the ocean and hence plays a central role in long-term climate and weather. Because of the high heat capacity of water (2.5 m of the upper ocean has the same heat capacity as the entire troposphere), and because the oceans compose over two-thirds of the surface of the globe, most of the solar heating on Earth passes through the OML. Oceans are heat reservoirs, gaining heat during spring and summer and losing it slowly during fall and winter, and therefore act like a flywheel in matters related to weather on time scales of weeks and longer.”
Javier:
“It has been known for a long time that air and humidity above the sea surface follow SST and not the other way around.”
That is inconsistent with observation:
https://bit.ly/3E1w3HP
Javier:
“It has been known for a long time that air and humidity above the sea surface follow SST and not the other way around.”
What you are saying is inconsistent with the property of water:
“Water has a very high specific heat capacity of 4184 J/(kg·K) at 25 °C – the second-highest among all the heteroatomic species (after ammonia), as well as a high heat of vaporization (40.65 kJ/mol or 2257 kJ/kg at the normal boiling point), both of which are a result of the extensive hydrogen bonding between its molecules. These two unusual properties allow water to moderate Earth’s climate by buffering large fluctuations in temperature,”
The large fluctuation in temperature is that of the atmosphere.
Javier:
“It has been known for a long time that air and humidity above the sea surface follow SST and not the other way around.”
What you are saying is inconsistent with the property of water:
WATER (TIME LIFE BOOK)
A compound slow to boil
Homeowners whose water pipes have burst when the temperature suddenly fell need no other proof that water, unlike most liquids, releases tremendous energy when it freezes. Conversely, it must absorb a great deal of energy – in the form of heat – before its temperature is raised even slightly. An iron kettle used to boil water will be blistering hot long before the water in it is lukewarm. This property accounts for water’s use as a cooling agent in automobile engines. It soaks up an enormous amount of heat without boiling.
In this manner, large bodies of water and the moisture in the atmosphere can regulate extremes of temperature, absorbing heat on hot days, and giving of heat on cold days. Where there is little natural water, as on the desert, temperatures can range from a searing 140 oF (60 oC) to well below freezing at night.
Before the temperature of a substance can be raised, it’s molecules must be prodded into vigorous motion. But in water molecules, the firm grip of the hydrogen bonds must be loosened – a task which requires considerable amounts of heat.
Why complicate the issue. The oceans are warming. What warms the oceans? Visible radiation between 0.4 and 0.7 Microns. Has more visible radiation been reaching the oceans? Yep. Simply look at the cloud cover over the oceans. It isn’t the amount of radiation put out by the sun, it is the amount of radiation that reaches the oceans. Atomic Rays seed clouds. Also, to claim CO2 is warming the globe you have to prove LWIR between 13 and 18 microns, peak 15 microns can warm water. Hint, ice of temp 0C emits 10.5 micron LWIR. In other words, CO2 radiation can’t even melt ice.
The way I understand it CO2 does not need to be able to melt ice in order to warm the planet. All it needs to do is impede the exit of radiation from the TOA to space in order to change the change the temperature gradient from the TOA on down to the surface. That said, CO2’s 15u opacity saturates as it increases, has no effect where H2O has already saturated the15u band, only causes 3.7W/m2 forcing per doubling in dry air, which is harmless without the assumption of a 3X-4X positive feedback.
The oceans absorb ALL radiation they don’t reflect. That’s about 95% of incident radiation.
It’s true that CO2 and H2O both absorb in the 15 mm band. It is not true that the band is saturated. Spectrographs show that there is plenty of radiant energy that can be absorbed in the 15 mm band.
The whole idea of “saturation” is one of the great lies of climate denial. The “saturation” argument is based on shining a fixed source of radiation through a box with CO2 in it and observing what happens. As you add CO2, eventually the CO2 absorbs all the radiant energy available. Saturation does occur in the lower troposphere. That means all the radiant energy of earth that can be absorbed is absorbed. The story ends there for the climate denial crowd, but there is more to the story.
Earth is not a fixed source of radiant energy that CO2 can absorb. Earth behaves like a blackbody. In this case, that means that as temperature increases, the Earth emits more energy that CO2 can absorb. Above the saturation point in the atmosphere, the kinetic energy of the atmosphere creates energy in the 15 mm band that can be absorbed. The 15 mm CO2 absorption band broadens, encompassing more wavelengths to absorb energy from. The “saturation” theory is a fairy tale.
Earth / Mars satellite measured mean surface temperatures 288 K and 210 K comparison.
These ( Tmean, R, N, cp and albedo ) planets’ parameters are all satellites measured.
These planets’ parameters are all observations.
Planet…….Earth.….Moon….Mars
Tsat.mean.288 K….220 K…210 K
R………………1… AU..1 AU..1,525 AU
1/R²………….1………..1….…0,430
N……………..1….1 /29,531..0,9747
cp…………….1………0,19…….0,18
a…………..0,306……0,11……0,250
1-a………..0,694……0,89…….0,75
(1-a)¹∕ ⁴…0,9127….0,9713…0,9306
coeff………..1……………….0,72748
As we can see Earth and Mars have very close values for (1-a)¹∕ ⁴ term;
For Earth (1-a)¹∕ ⁴ = 0,9127 and for Mars (1-a)¹∕ ⁴ = 0,9306.
Also Earth and Mars have very close N; for Earth N = 1 rotation /day, and for Mars N = 0,9747 rotation /day.
Earth and Mars both have the same Φ = 0,47 solar irradiation accepting factor.
Thus the comparison coefficient can be limited as follows:
[ (1/R²) (cp)¹∕ ⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴
Earth: Tsat.mean = 288 K
[ (1/R²)*(cp)¹∕ ⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
= [ 1*(1)¹∕ ⁴ ] ¹∕ ⁴ = 1
Mars: Tsat.mean = 210 K
(1/R²)*(cp)¹∕ ⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
= [ 0,430*(0,18)¹∕ ⁴ ] ¹∕ ⁴ = ( 0,430*0,65136 )¹∕ ⁴ =
= ( 0,2801 )¹∕ ⁴ = 0,72748
Let’s compare
Earth coeff. / Mars coeff. =
= 1 /0,72748 = 1,3746
And
Tmean.earth /Tmean.mars =
= 288 K /210 K = 1,3714
Conclusion:
Everything is all right. It is a demonstration of the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon!
And
It is the confirmation that the planet surface specific heat “cp” should be considered in the (Tmean) planet mean surface temperature equation in the fourth root:
Tmean.planet = [ Φ (1-a) So (1/R²) (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, thanks for your comment.
As an aside would you mind terribly not putting up your equation time after time in the same post. Some of the people here can read. some have an attention span, It is basically a question of good manners which everyone except perhaps the Italians understand.
Toss in some other stuff if you like, some more actual details.
Unless of course…. ciao.
Thank you, angech.
What I am trying to explain is, there is not “planet surface without-atmosphere Tmean should be equal to the planet Te” any universal law.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The satellite temperatures you mention are from matching blackbody radiant profiles.
NASA says the blackbody temperature of the moon is 270.4 K. You claim its 220 K. Who to believe you or NASA? That’s a no-brainer if there ever was one.
https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/moonfact.html
Looks like you fit up your “equation” to get a temperature of 288 K on the earth. The moon is whatever your equation says it is — 220 K. According to your theory, the rotation of the moon is causing it to be cooler. LOL!!
JJBraccili
“NASA says the blackbody temperature of the moon is 270.4 K. You claim its 220 K. Who to believe you or NASA? That’s a no-brainer if there ever was one.”
Lune — Wikipédia (wikipedia.org)
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lune
Maximum 396 K (123 °C) Moyenne 200 K (−73 °C) Minimum 40 K (−233 °C)
JJBraccili
“…According to your theory, the rotation of the moon is causing it to be cooler. ”
The slower rotation of the moon…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
What was that?
Your equation predicts an average moon temperature of 220K. The average temperature is 270K. Doesn’t rotating a planet cause its temperature to be above blackbody temperature?
Once again, your theory is a joke.
JJBraccili
“What was that?
Your equation predicts an average moon temperature of 220K. The average temperature is 270K. Doesn’t rotating a planet cause its temperature to be above blackbody temperature?
Once again, your theory is a joke.”
> “Your equation predicts an average moon temperature of 220K.”
That’s right, the average moon temperature is 220K.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon
> “The average temperature is 270K. Doesn’t rotating a planet cause its temperature to be above blackbody temperature?”
The problem with you is that you are in a cargo cult. You never take notice what you exactly been told. You only listen to yourself… Once again I am explaining to you…
The Planet Rotational Warming Phenomenon states:
Planet’s mean surface temperatures relate (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products’ sixteenth root.
Which also means :
The faster a planet rotates, the higher its mean surface temperature.
Now, what you don’t understand? Moon’s rotational spin is very slow, moon’s average surface specific heat is low too.
Thus Moon’s average surface temperature 220K is lower than Earth’s average surface 288K!
And look what is it you compare moon’s mean surface temperature 220K with… You have said above:
“NASA says the blackbody temperature of the moon is 270.4 K.”
Now you say 270K is moon’s average temperature.
Blackbody temperature of the moon 270K is a mathematical abstraction, I have already explained it to you!!!
It is a mathematical abstraction, it cannot be measured on the moon’s surface, because it is not like this in the real world.
What I think is you should stop practicing science. Science is a too much burden for you, so give it a rest.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“That’s right, the average moon temperature is 220K.”
That’s at the equator. They report the “average” temperature at a different latitude just below that. It’s 130 K. So, which is it? Anything special about the equator except that it’s not representative of the “average” surface temperature of the moon? NO!
That temperature is too low. BTW the blackbody temperature is the average surface temperature. It’s also the average planet temperature at steady-state. Know why? Because if there was a difference between the average surface temperature and the planet average temperature, heat would be transferred until both are at the same temperature.
“Blackbody temperature of the moon 270K is a mathematical abstraction, I have already explained it to you!!!
It is a mathematical abstraction, it cannot be measured on the moon’s surface, because it is not like this in the real world.”
Temperature is an abstraction. Planck’s equation and the S-B equation have plenty of experimental data to back them up. What does your “Universal Law of Planet Rotation” have to back it up. NOTHING! Just a limited curve fit.
You keep saying that your equation matches the average surface temperature of the earth — 288 K. Know where that temperature comes from? It’s a match of a blackbody radiant energy profile. You know what that makes it? It’s the blackbody temperature of the earth. Is that a “mathematical abstraction” as well? Why is it okay for you to claim that temperature is representative of the average surface temperature of the earth, but the blackbody temperature of the moon isn’t?
Your theory is still a joke no matter how you try to spin it.
Try again!!
Blackbody temperature of the moon 270K is a mathematical abstraction, I have already explained it to you!!!
It is a mathematical abstraction, it cannot be measured on the moon’s surface, because it is not like this in the real world.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Now that’s funny!
What about all those planetary temperatures you compare your “equation” to? You know what they are? They are blackbody temperatures. So, why are those valid and the moon’s blackbody temperature isn’t?
The only reason I see is that it doesn’t comply with your “universal” equation. If it doesn’t comply with that, it must be wrong. You’ve got it wrong. The reason it doesn’t comply is that your “universal” equation is junk science.
Christos wrote, “The faster a planet rotates, the higher its mean surface temperature.”
That is true. Anything which serves to “spread around” the heat on a planet will raise its mean (though not peak!) surface temperature.
That includes rotation, but it also includes even a perfectly transparent, perfectly inert, non-condensing (but circulating!) atmosphere.
So, all other things being equal (which they rarely are), the faster-rotating of two planets will have the higher mean temperature.
It’s pretty easy to understand why that is so. It’s because, all else being equal, a body’s radiant energy loss is proportional to the fourth power of absolute temperature, per the Stefan-Boltzman relation:
E = A ε σ T⁴
E = total radiative emission
A is surface area in m²
σ is the Stefan-Boltzman constant, 567,037,441.9 W/m²K⁴
T is temperature in Kelvin
ε [0..1] is actually a dimensionless function of frequency, except for a perfect grey-body; for a blackbody it is 1.
A planet which is tidally-locked to the sun/star around which it orbits will have one hot side, and one very cold side. Assuming uniform albedo, the point on the planet directly facing the sun will have the highest temperature, and the perpetually-dark opposite side of the planet will be very, very cold.
For simplicity of analysis, let’s consider a “planet #1” which is a perfect spherical grey-body, of uniform albedo, with no atmosphere, and let’s give it very low thermal conductivity in the X & Y axes (so that no heat from the lit side can reach the dark side). Also, let’s give it no radiant energy source other than the sun/star around which it orbits.
The dark side of planet #1 will have a uniform temperature of approximately zero K.
The lit side will have temperatures determined by the equilibriums reached when it is hot enough for its radiant emissions to have the same intensity (power) as the solar radiation that it absorbs.
Let’s suppose that the lit-side average temperature of planet #1 is 400K. (The temperature will, of course, be higher than that where the sun is directly overhead, and lower than that where the sun is near the horizon.)
Now let’s put an identical planet #2 in an identical orbit, but let’s spin it, with a spin axis perpendicular to its orbital plane. In fact, let’s spin it so rapidly that the diurnal temperature range is negligible.
At any given time the lit and dark sides of planet #2 have the same average temperature, so both sides of the planet must have the same radiative emissions.
So, what do you think the average temperature will be, of the rapidly spinning planet #2?
“If you can’t quantify it, you don’t understand it.” – Peter Drucker
The two planets are in identical orbits, and they are identical in size, so they receive identical amounts of solar radiation. So at equilibrium, the total emissions of the two planets must be identical. The only thing different between the two planets is their radiating surface area: Planet #2 radiates from twice as much surface area as planet #1.
So if A is the total surface area of each planet, then planet #1 radiates from area A/2, and planet #2 radiates from area A.
So for planet #1:
E = (A/2) × ε × σ × T₁⁴
And for planet #2:
E = A × ε × σ × T₂⁴
E, ε and σ are the same for both planets, so equating the two gives:
A × T₂⁴ = (A/2) × T₁⁴
T₂⁴ = T₁⁴ / 2
T₂ = ⁴√(T₁⁴ / 2)
= ⁴√(400K⁴ / 2)
= 336.358566K
That’s the average temperature of planet #2, and it is a lot warmer than planet #1’s average temperature of 200K.
A slowly-rotating planet would, at any given time, have two sides of different temperatures, but the dark side would be warmer than 0K, the lit side average temperature would be cooler than 400K, and the mean temperature would be somewhere between the average temperatures of planet #1 and planet #2: greater than 200K, but less than 336.358566K.
“That is true. Anything which serves to “spread around” the heat on a planet will raise its mean (though not peak!) surface temperature.”
That’s not true. You have the science wrong.
Let’s take your example of two identical planets with identical solar irradiance. One is spinning very fast, and the other is not spinning.
Let’s start with the non-spinning planet. How do we calculate the temperature of the planet? We take solar irradiance and apply the spherical correction. What does that do? That correction spreads out the solar irradiance over the entire surface area of the planet. It’s as if the sun is irradiating the whole planet simultaneously. Then we use the S-B equation to determine the temperature of the planet.
What happens when you spin a planet? The sun irradiates the part of the planet facing the sun less and the opposite side more. As you spin it faster and faster, the effect increases, but with each increase in the spin rate, the effect gets less and less. Eventually, you get to the point where the sun is irradiating the planet evenly. That’s what we assumed for the non-spinning planet to determine its temperature. The temperature of a non-spinning planet and the temperature of a high rotation planet are the same. As I showed mathematically, that temperature — the blackbody temperature — is the same no matter how fast you spin the planet. It doesn’t change with spin.
As for your example, you start with a planet at 400K on the hot side and 0 K on the cold side. Your big mistake is to assume the planet’s temperature is 200 K. It’s not. You made the same mistake CV did. You thought you could take an arithmetic average. That would work if the relationships were linear. They aren’t. The S-B equation is non-linear. The way you determine the planet’s temperature is from the S-B equation applied over the entire surface of the planet.
P.S. — please indulge me by ignoring the unlikelihood of a perfectly spherical planet with perfectly uniform albedo and no atmosphere ever becoming “tidally locked.” 😉
Thank you, daveburton!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Oops, I just noticed that I dropped an exponent from the S-B constant. So it was off by (only) 16 orders of magnitude. 🤔
It cancels out, so the result is the same, but still, that’s a pretty big error, even for me…
The S-B constant is actually:
5,670,374,419×10⁻¹⁷ W/m²K⁴ = 5.670374419×10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴
JJBraccili
“…That’s what we assumed for the non-spinning planet to determine its temperature. The temperature of a non-spinning planet and the temperature of a high rotation planet are the same.”
And since it is logically impossible, the planet blackbody effective temperature Te is a mathematical abstraction!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
ALL temperatures are an abstraction. They represent the average kinetic energy.
There is a ton of experimental data that show the S-B equation is an accurate relationship between radiant energy and temperature. You use it in your own equation. You use the temperatures it predicts fit your equation. The only time you try to discredit it is when it proves your theory is junk science. That’s not going to work.
Why is the actual mean temperature of the moon so much lower than the effective temperature?
NASA lists the effective temperature of the moon at 270.6 kelvin.
The mean temperature of the moon at the equator is 220 kelvin.
With no atmospheric effects, why is the surface temperature so much lower than the effective temperature predicts?
What factor is NOT part of the effective temperature formula that so dramatically affects the actual temperature of the moon?
I’ll tell you what it is:
It is the Φ -the planet solar irradiation accepting factor.
For smooth surface Moon Φ= 0,47.
Te.correct.moon = [ Φ (1-a) So /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Te.correct.moon = [ 0,47 (1-0,11) 1.362 W/m² /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Te.correct.moon = [ 0,47 (0,89) 1.362 W/m² /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Te.correct.moon = [ 2.510.168.871,25 ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Te.correct.moon = 223,83 Κ
This simple example clearly demonstrates the CORRECTNESS of the Φ -τhe planet solar irradiation accepting factor.
For smooth surface planets, like Moon, Φ= 0,47.
Conclusion:
From now on, for every smooth surface planet and moon, we should take in consideration instead of the planet blackbody effective temperature Te , the corrected values of the planet blackbody effective temperature – the Te.corrected.
Table of results for Te and Te.corrected compared to Tsat and to Rotations/day for smooth surface planets and moons with Φ=0,47
Planet…….. Te…. Te.corrected…..Tsat…Rot/day
Mercury…..440 K…….364 K…..340 K…0,00568
Moon………270 K……224 K…..220 K…0,0339
Earth………255 K…….210 K…..288 K….1
Mars……….210 K……174 K…..210 K…0,9747
Europa…….95,2 K……78,8 K…102 K…0,2816
Ganymede..107,1 K…..88,6 K…110 K….0,1398
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
What you proved is that your “equation” is defective.
According to your “equation”, a non-rotating planet is at 0 K. It could be sitting within 1 meter of a star, and it would be at 0 K. That’s idiotic. When it’s not rotating it should be at blackbody temperature. The slower a planet spins the more idiotic an answer your “equation” produces.
If your equation was in the proper form T = (1 + f(spin)) Tb, you’d get a better result. The moon rotates slowly so you get an answer lower than blackbody temperature. Your equation is not an improvement over the S-B equation. It is inferior because you didn’t formulate it properly.
Your claim is rotating a planet causes it to be at a higher temperature than blackbody temperature. Rotation does not create energy. A planet at a higher temperature must radiate more energy. You have no source for that energy. Your theory is junk science.
JJBraccili
“Your claim is rotating a planet causes it to be at a higher temperature than blackbody temperature. Rotation does not create energy. A planet at a higher temperature must radiate more energy. You have no source for that energy. Your theory is junk science.”
> “Your claim is rotating a planet causes it to be at a higher temperature than blackbody temperature.”
That’s right!
> “Rotation does not create energy.”
Yes, rotation does not create energy.
> “A planet at a higher temperature must radiate more energy.”
No, a faster rotating warmer planet doesn’t radiate more energy. (it is the point which you do not understand…)
> “You have no source for that energy.”
A faster rotating warmer planet doesn’t need more energy.
> “Your theory is junk science.”
No, my theory is not junk science. It is you do not understand.
The not reflected SW portion of the incident solar flux is always constant.
What actually happens is that the SW not reflected portion of the incident solar flux gets on instant transformed into:
1). A fraction of IR on the instant outgoing radiative energy.
2). A fraction of HEAT on the instant accumulated in the inner layers.
When rotating faster, the fraction of IR on the instant outgoing radiative energy is smaller.
And, when rotating faster, the fraction of HEAT on the instant accumulated in the inner layers is higher.
JJBraccili, I know what you think – you think “The not reflected SW portion of the incident solar flux gets first entirely absorbed in surface, rise the surface’s temperature, and then being IR radiative energy emitted…
But it is not how it happens. When solar energy hitting planet surface, on the instant it is partly reflected, on the instant partly transformed into IR outgoing energy, and partly being accumulated.
When rotating faster, the fraction of IR on the instant outgoing radiative energy is smaller.
And, when rotating faster, the fraction of HEAT on the instant accumulated in the inner layers is higher.
And that is what makes a faster rotating planet on average warmer.
No, my theory is not junk science. It is you do not understand.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I understand your “theory” better than you do. It is junk science — nothing more.
To compensate for the deficiencies in your theory, you have developed your own physics.
1. SW radiation cannot be converted into IR without first converting to kinetic energy which raises the temperature of the planet and causes it to radiate that energy as IR.
2. If a planet temperature’s rises, it will radiate more energy and that energy has to come from somewhere. Rotation cannot supply that energy. Therefore, rotation cannot raise the temperature of a planet.
Those two points come from the First Law of Thermodynamics and Blackbody Radiation Theory. Your “new physics” is something you made up to keep your theory relevant.
The Planet Rotational Warming Phenomenon states:
Planet’s mean surface temperatures relate (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products’ sixteenth root.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
JJBraccili
“I understand your “theory” better than you do. It is junk science — nothing more.
To compensate for the deficiencies in your theory, you have developed your own physics.
1. SW radiation cannot be converted into IR without first converting to kinetic energy which raises the temperature of the planet and causes it to radiate that energy as IR.”
Well, you understand a fraction of the process. Here it is what you understand:
“SW radiation cannot be converted into IR without first converting to kinetic energy which raises the temperature of the… ” well, till here you understand perfectly well.
Let’s continue from that point further:
SW radiation cannot be converted into IR without first converting to kinetic energy which raises the temperature of the… very first skin layer and causes it to radiate that energy as IR.
JJBraccili, I understand my theory better than you do. It is not junk science — it is you don’t understand.
JJBraccili
“2. If a planet temperature’s rises, it will radiate more energy and that energy has to come from somewhere. Rotation cannot supply that energy. Therefore, rotation cannot raise the temperature of a planet.”
When rotating faster, Planet temperature rises, because the very first skin layer gets warmed lesser, its temperature rises less, and, therefore, more kinetic energy is conducted in inner layers getting accumulated as HEAT.
JJBraccili, you should be aware of that, that surface IR emission is the surface temperature T (K) FOURTH POWER function.
Also I am sure, you are aware, that kinetic energy conduction process (from planet surface skin layer into inner layers) the thermal conduction is the planet surface temperature T (K) FIRST POWER function.
Those two points come from the First Law of Thermodynamics and Blackbody Radiation Theory.
Conclusion:
I am explaining this simple way the (Solar Energy – Planet Surface) INTERACTION process takes place.
On the very instant solar energy hits planet surface, the not reflected SW radiation portion is instantly transformed, partly, into IR emission radiative energy and, partly, into accumulated HEAT.
When rotating FASTER, and when planet average surface specific heat (cp) is HIGHER, the surface skin layer gets warmed less, and, therefore, planet accumulates more and becomes a WARMER planet.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
JJB, I think this is the source of your confusion. You wrote:
“Let’s start with the non-spinning planet. How do we calculate the temperature of the planet? We take solar irradiance and apply the spherical correction. What does that do? That correction spreads out the solar irradiance over the entire surface area of the planet.”
In fact, a non-spinning planet (that is, a planet which the same side always facing the star around which it orbits) gets no radiant energy at all on the dark side. So the solar irradiance is not spread over the entire surface of the planet. It is spread (unevenly) over only half of the surface of the planet.
The sun radiates to a planar surface. In the case of a planet, that’s to the area of a circle with the radius of the planet.
A planet radiates energy over its entire surface. To calculate the average temperature of the planet, solar irradiance must be spread over the entire surface of the planet in order to use the S-B equation. That’s because energy in = energy out. The radiant energy of the planet is over its entire surface so energy in (solar radiation) must be spread over the entire planet.
The dark side of a planet is not at 0 K or anywhere near it. The only way that happens is if it has no sunny side.
Christos wrote, “Planet’s mean surface temperatures relate (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products’ sixteenth root….
[and]
N – rotations /day, is the planet’s axial spin
cp – cal /gr*oC, is the planet’s surface specific heat”
I didn’t look at your page in detail, but that formula cannot be right.
1. “Rotations / day” is meaningless for a planet that doesn’t rotate, and always 1, otherwise. But maybe you mean “24 hours” instead of “day”?
2. That formula is zero when N is zero (i.e., for a non-rotating planet). But a temperature proportional to zero would be zero, which is obviously wrong. A non-rotating planet does not have 0K average temperature.
JJB wrote, “A planet radiates energy over its entire surface.”
Not the (theoretical) part of a (theoretical) planet that’s at absolute zero (and hardly any from the part that’s near absolute zero on an actual non-rotating, atmosphere-free planet).
JJB wrote, “To calculate the average temperature of the planet, solar irradiance must be spread over the entire surface of the planet”
The calculation averages it over the entire surface, but the solar irradiance is not spread over the entire surface. The always-dark side of a non-rotating planet gets no solar radiation.
Remember, by “non-rotating” we mean a planet which is not rotating relative to the sun around which it is orbiting, what I called “tidally locked.” So one side of the planet never sees the sun.
JJB wrote, “The radiant energy of the planet is over its entire surface…”
Not for the non-rotating planet.
JJB wrote, “The dark side of a planet is not at 0 K or anywhere near it. The only way that happens is if it has no sunny side.”
Read what you just wrote. The “dark side of a [non-rotating] planet” _IS_ the side of a non-rotating planet which “has no sunny side.”
The planet radiates energy over its entire surface whether it is rotating or not. It doesn’t radiate energy just on the sunny side.
If a planet is non-rotating and absorbing energy from a star, at steady state some of that energy will warm the cold side of the planet. The temperature of the cold side is dependent of the planet’s thermal conductivity. The only way for a planet to approach absolute zero is if there is no sunny side — no solar energy to absorb.
I said it right. You read it wrong.
“Rotations / day” means “rotations per earthen 24 hours”.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Way upthread I wrote:
That’s the non-rotating planet which we’re discussing.
But JJB wrote, “The temperature of the cold side is dependent of the planet’s thermal conductivity.”
The thermal conductivity of an entire planet is very, very near zero — and for the theoretical “planet #1” which we’re discussing it is zero, so the dark side of the planet is 0K and does not radiate.
Of course, if there were a moon reflecting moonlight onto the dark side, then the dark side would receive some energy that way, but we’ve stipulated that our “planet #1” has no moon (in fact, “no radiant energy source other than the sun/star around which it orbits”).
Let’s look at this from another angle.
Q1: Do you recognize that two blackbodies with the same arithmetically-averaged surface temperatures may emit different amounts of radiant energy, depending on the temperature distributions over their respective surfaces?
☑Y ☐N
Q2: And do you recognize that, conversely, two blackbodies with identical total amounts of radiant energy emitted may have different arithmetically-averaged temperatures?
☑Y ☐N
Q3: For instance, an object #1 with surface area A/2 and uniform surface temperature of 400K would emit the same total amount of radiant energy as an object #2 with surface area A (i.e., twice as large) and uniform surface temperature of 336.358566K. Do you agree with that?
☑Y ☐N
“The thermal conductivity of an entire planet is very, very near zero”
Where is your PROOF?
“Of course, if there were a moon reflecting moonlight onto the dark side, then the dark side would receive some energy that way, but we’ve stipulated that our “planet #1” has no moon (in fact, “no radiant energy source other than the sun/star around which it orbits”).”
Let’s look at the moon and the earth. The earth directs energy to the moon, but the irradiance is low, and the moon is far enough from the earth that by the time earth’s irradiance reaches the moon it’s too small to have any impact. Just in case you didn’t know it, irradiance decreases with distance between planets.
Then you go into a rant about arithmetically averaged temperatures. The thing is I never said anything about arithmetically averaged temperatures. That was you in that ridiculous example where you tried to prove that rotating a planet raises its temperature.
My definition of average planet temperature is a temperature calculated from the S-B equation from the average radiant energy which has to be the absorbed solar radiation or determined from the composite planetary radiant profile.
Let’s say you and CV are right and the average planetary temperature increases with rotation. That means that when I compare a non-rotating planet to a rotating planet, the rotating planet has a higher temperature. That means the rotating planet is radiating more energy than a non-rotating planet. Where does the additional energy come from? It’s not coming from the rotation the planet. The solar irradiance has changed. If the planet is at a higher temperature, it’s absorbing less solar radiation — not more.
I have already shown that no matter how fast you rotate a planet, the planetary temperature is the blackbody temperature for a non-rotating planet. It never changes.
P.S. – The shapes of the two blackbodies do not matter, as long as they are concave. (So we don’t have to consider radiation intercepted and absorbed by other parts of the same object.)
The shapes of blackbodies don’t matter — ever.
Planets have convex surfaces.
All radiation absorbed by a blackbody matter.
Q1:Two same size planets ☑Y
Q2: Two same size planets ☑Y
Q3: Two blackbody objects ☑Y
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Correction: (again!)
I wrote, “The shapes of the two blackbodies do not matter, as long as they are concave.”
Crimmony, how did I type THAT? I meant “convex,” of course. Or “not concave.”
Sigh.
“Crimmony, how did I type THAT? I meant “convex,” of course. Or “not concave.””
Yes, of course, convex. I knew that, what you meant.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
JJBraccili
> “Let’s say you and CV are right and the average planetary temperature increases with rotation. That means that when I compare a non-rotating planet to a rotating planet, the rotating planet has a higher temperature. That means the rotating planet is radiating more energy than a non-rotating planet. Where does the additional energy come from? It’s not coming from the rotation the planet. The solar irradiance has changed. If the planet is at a higher temperature, it’s absorbing less solar radiation — not more.”
We do not have tidally locked to sun planets or moons – every planet and moon in solar system is a rotating celestial body.
So we do not have measured data for non-rotating planets to compare with rotating.
But we have measured data for existing rotating planets and moons, some rotating faster and some rotating slower.
So we can compare those planets with different rotational spin the measured surface temperatures – and we have observed and we have discovered the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
JJB wrote, “Where is your PROOF? [that “The thermal conductivity of an entire planet is very, very near zero”]
Oh, gimmie a break. If it isn’t obvious, do a web search, and a little bit of arithmetic.
E.g., let’s make our planet of granite, thermal conductivity of about 3.2 W/(d·ΔT)
…with d = in meters.
Make it cubical, non-rotating relative to the sun, with a hot face away from the sun, and a cold face facing the sun.
Make the opposide sides 10,000 km apart (i.e., a planet roughly similar in volume to Earth).
So d = 10^7 meters. Conducted energy is:
3.2×10⁻⁷ W/m² per degree temperature difference.
If the hot side is 400K (126.85°C) and the cold side is 0K, that’s:
1.28×10⁻⁴ W/m²
= 128 µW/m²
That’s very roughly 10% of what the Earth gets from moonlight.
Is that negligible enough for you?
For rock, that corresponds to an emission temperature of about 7K.
Next time you ask a question like that I’m going to let YOU do the math, okay?
JJB wrote, “The earth directs energy to the moon, but the irradiance is low, and the moon is far enough from the earth that by the time earth’s irradiance reaches the moon it’s too small to have any impact.”
If moonlight is too dim to have any impact, then thermal conductance through a planet is about ten times “too small to have any impact.”
JJB wrote, “Just in case you didn’t know it, irradiance decreases with distance between planets.”
Where is your PROOF?
(BTW, that’s snark. Not a real question.)
JJB wrote, “Then you go into a rant about arithmetically averaged temperatures. The thing is I never said anything about arithmetically averaged temperatures. That was you in that ridiculous example where you tried to prove that rotating a planet raises its temperature.”
“Rant?” Moi??
Oh, I can rant, that’s for sure, but you haven’t heard it!
Mostly, when people talk about average temperature, they’re talking about arithmetically averaged temperature. So two areas of equal size at 0K and 400K, respectively, have an average temperature of 200K. (Or areas of 7K and 400K, respectively, have an average temperature of 203.5K, for our cubical granite planet example.)
“Arithmetically averaged” is what everybody else here has meant by “average temperature,” I think.
Do you think that’s “ridiculous?”
JJB wrote, “My definition of average planet temperature is a temperature calculated from the S-B equation from the average radiant energy which has to be the absorbed solar radiation or determined from the composite planetary radiant profile.”
So, given two blackbody areas of equal size at 0K and 400K uniform temperatures, respectively, according to your definition, they have an average temperature of WHAT, exactly? (To several decimal points of precision, please!)
JJB wrote, “Let’s say you and CV are right and the average planetary temperature increases with rotation. That means that when I compare a non-rotating planet to a rotating planet, the rotating planet has a higher temperature.”
No, it has a higher AVERAGE temperature. Neither planet has just one temperature.
JJB wrote, “That means the rotating planet is radiating more energy than a non-rotating planet.”
Wrong. And here we’ve come right back to the questions that you won’t answer. We could have saved a lot of time if you didn’t dodge it in the first place:
Q1: Do you recognize that two blackbodies with the same arithmetically-averaged surface temperatures may emit different amounts of radiant energy, depending on the temperature distributions over their respective surfaces?
☑Y ☐N
Thanks for the proof. It’s about time you got something right.
“Mostly, when people talk about average temperature, they’re talking about arithmetically averaged temperature. So two areas of equal size at 0K and 400K, respectively, have an average temperature of 200K. (Or areas of 7K and 400K, respectively, have an average temperature of 203.5K, for our cubical granite planet example.)”
Not in the world of climate science and I already explained why.
“So, given two blackbody areas of equal size at 0K and 400K uniform temperatures, respectively, according to your definition, they have an average temperature of WHAT, exactly? (To several decimal points of precision, please!)”
If the temperature is uniform, they have blackbody temperatures of 0 K and 400 K. That is the average radiating temperature. What varies is the planet irradiance. Was that of sufficient precision for you?
“No, it has a higher AVERAGE temperature. Neither planet has just one temperature.”
What we’re interested in is the average radiating temperature. It’s all about the First Law of Thermodynamics and Internal Energy.
“Wrong. And here we’ve come right back to the questions that you won’t answer. We could have saved a lot of time if you didn’t dodge it in the first place:”
Let me be very, very, clear. Nobody cares about the arithmetic average temperature of two sides of a planet. It means NOTHING! It’s why you and CV think rotating a planet increases its temperature. The only thing that matters is the radiating temperature — blackbody temperature. Rotating a planet has NO impact on that. That means it has no impact on the Internal Energy of a planet. That means it has no impact on the temperature of a planet. That means it can’t cause climate change. Is that clear enough for you?
JJBraccili
> “Let’s say you and CV are right and the average planetary temperature increases with rotation. That means that when I compare a non-rotating planet to a rotating planet, the rotating planet has a higher temperature. That means the rotating planet is radiating more energy than a non-rotating planet. Where does the additional energy come from? It’s not coming from the rotation the planet. The solar irradiance has changed. If the planet is at a higher temperature, it’s absorbing less solar radiation — not more.”
Let’s compare a faster rotating Earth (N = 1 rotation/day) with the slower rotating Moon (N = 1 /29,53 rotation/day = 0,03386 rotation/day).
Earth has higher than Moon average surface Albedo (a =0,306 vs a = 0,11).
As a result Moon has to “absorb” 28 % larger amount of the solar SW incident energy than Earth.
It means, on the average surface area, Moon’s surface emits 28 % more IR EM outgoing emission energy than Earth’s surface.
Nevertheless, Earth’s measured average surface temperature is 288 K. Moon’s average surface temperature is 220 K.
The very big 288 K – 220 K= 68C difference is explained by the Earth’s higher rotational spin (29,53 times higher) plus by the Earth’s surface higher average specific heat (5 times higher).
Therefore, the Earth’s higher than Moon’s (N*cp) product is what makes Earth a much warmer planet than Moon.
Earth (N*cp) /Moon (N*cp) ratio is 29,53*1/0,19 = 155,42 times higher!
JJBraccili, what more illustrative example !!!
Moon IR radiates 28 % more IR outgoing EM energy than Earth, but, nevertheless, Moon’s measured average surface temperature is 68C lower than that of Earth.
To conclude with:
Earth has 155,42 times higher (N*cp) product, and Earth has 68C higher average surface temperature.
And, not to forget, Earth “absorbs” 28 % less incident SW EM solar energy.
It is obvious, that we are ABSOLUTELY right, and the average planetary temperature increases with rotation.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Another correction (of course):
In this comment,
“a hot face away from the sun, and a cold face facing the sun.”
…should be vice-versa (of course).
Sigh.
daveburton, how you do the:
In (this comment,) trick?
In other words, how you attach the web address to your text?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
JJBraccili
“If the planet is at a higher temperature, it’s absorbing less solar radiation — not more.”
If a whole planet (?), or only the solar lit hemisphere…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The whole planet because it is an average radiating temperature.
It really radiating more, but in heat transfer lingo, it’s absorbing less because the temperature difference is less.
We have to compare the planets surface temperatures between the real planets, and not with the planet blackbody effective temperature Te , not with a planet Te mathematical abstraction.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
JJB wrote, “Thanks for the proof. It’s about time you got something right.”
Is that really necessary?
I wrote, “Mostly, when people talk about average temperature, they’re talking about arithmetically averaged temperature. So two areas of equal size at 0K and 400K, respectively, have an average temperature of 200K. (Or areas of 7K and 400K, respectively, have an average temperature of 203.5K, for our cubical granite planet example.)”
JJB wrote, “Not in the world of climate science and I already explained why.”
That’s incorrect. The arithmetic average is what just about everyone, including climate scientists, means by “average temperature.” That’s what people mean when they say that the “average surface temperature” of the Earth is 15°C (or 14°C, or 16°C). Here’s a discussion about how it is calculated.
“Average temperature” is sometimes a useful concept. For instance, if you mix two equal quantities of liquid water, which are at two different temperatures, T1 and T2, the temperature of the mixed water will be at the arithmetic average of those temperatures, (T1+T2)/2 (assuming no heat transfer between liquid and container, no evaporation, etc.).
I wrote, “So, given two blackbody areas of equal size at 0K and 400K uniform temperatures, respectively, according to your definition, they have an average temperature of WHAT, exactly? (To several decimal points of precision, please!)”
JJB replied, “If the temperature is uniform, they have blackbody temperatures of 0 K and 400 K. That is the average radiating temperature. What varies is the planet irradiance. Was that of sufficient precision for you?”
You didn’t give an answer. What is the average temperature? The average of two values is one value. The average temperature of two same-sized surfaces, one at 0.00K and the other at 400.00K, is between 0K and 400K.
Most people would answer that the average temperature is 200.00K. That’s the arithmetic average.
But you apparently don’t mean that. It’s hard to have a meaningful conversation when different people are using different definitions for the same words. So, according to your definition, what, exactly, is the “average” temperature of those two equal-sized surfaces (a single value)?
“If you can’t quantify it, you don’t understand it.” – Peter Drucker
“Is that really necessary?”
Yes! People need to know what I’m dealing with.
“That’s incorrect. The arithmetic average is what just about everyone, including climate scientists, means by “average temperature.”
You should have read your source. What they are talking about is statistical sampling and weighting. They come up with a temperature of 288 K which just so happens to be the radiating temperature of the earth radiating 390 W/m2. The measured value of earth’s radiant flux is 398.2 W/m2.
From your source:
“The average temperature of the Earth’s surface is changing in order to achieve a balance between the energy it receives and the energy it loses.”
““Average temperature” is sometimes a useful concept. For instance, if you mix two equal quantities of liquid water, which are at two different temperatures, T1 and T2, the temperature of the mixed water will be at the arithmetic average of those temperatures, (T1+T2)/2 (assuming no heat transfer between liquid and container, no evaporation, etc.).”
You don’t know the difference between linear and non-linear response.
“Most people would answer that the average temperature is 200.00K. That’s the arithmetic average.”
Sorry! I didn’t get the question because I was laughing too hard at the post.
You would calculate the average radiating temperature by calculating the radiant energy flux for each surface from the S-B equation and add them together.
Since one surface is at 0 K its radiating flux is 0. The total radiating flux is k(400)**4. where k is a constant. That has to be spread over the entire surface. The average radiating flux over the entire surface is k/2(400)**4. The average radiating temperature is kT**4 = (k/2(400)**4) or T = ((400**4)/2)**0.25 = 336.4 K. As you can see, it’s not 200 K.
I can list you a bunch of sources and YouTube videos that tell you how to properly do the calculation, and it’s not by taking the arithmetic average. Even your source doesn’t do that.
” “If you can’t quantify it, you don’t understand it.” – Peter Drucker”
In your case the quote needs to be modified.
“If you don’t understand it, you can’t quantify it.” — JJB
Christos asked, “daveburton, how you… attach the web address to your text?”
It varies from one blog to another. Here on Dr. Curry’s blog, you use HTML syntax. For example, the HTML that I used to link to your question is:
Christos ≤a href=”https://judithcurry.com/2021/11/21/solar-variations-controversy/#comment-965804″≥asked≤/a≥, ≤i≥”daveburton, how you… attach the web address to your text?”≤/i≥
(substitute the less-than symbol for ≤, and the greater-than symbol for ≥)
Test asked
href=”https://judithcurry.com/2021/11/21/solar-variations-controversy/#comment-965804″>asked
Thank you daveburton!
Christos
Then, remarkably, it turns out that we are all in agreement about this:
Q3: For instance, an object #1 with surface area A/2 and uniform surface temperature of 400K would emit the same total amount of radiant energy as an object #2 with surface area A (i.e., twice as large) and uniform surface temperature of 336.358566K. Do you agree with that?
☑Y ☐N
JJB’s disagreement about the “average temperature” of rotating planets vs non-rotating planets is simply because what he means by “average temperature” is different from what most people mean by “average temperature.”
Kumbaya.
“Then, remarkably, it turns out that we are all in agreement about this:..”
We aren’t in agreement about anything. Yesterday you were saying the average temperature was 200 K.
“JJB’s disagreement about the “average temperature” of rotating planets vs non-rotating planets is simply because what he means by “average temperature” is different from what most people mean by “average temperature.””
LOL!! You don’t understand your own source. They don’t take all the temperatures add them up and divide by the number of points. They weight the temperatures to come up with a representative temperature of the earth. If done correctly, that will be the same as the radiating temperature.
What I mean by average is just not a difference of opinion. My way, which is the way of climate science, is necessary to conform with the First Law of Thermodynamics.
Your way doesn’t pass the laugh test.
Of course we all agree. Blackbodies do not have average temperatures. Blackbodies have UNIFORM temperatures.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Hi Christos,
How are you able to use math fonts here?
Hi Girma,
I don’t know. No one uses them here I think.
Christos
Could you tell me how you do it?
∭ – test
I use single characters which I copy-paste one-by-one in the equation the way I write a simple text.
Example (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ …. ¹ … ∕…… ⁴
Thanks Christos.
How come Climate Etc does not have a simple font editor like WUWT?
Δ(dT/dy) = λΔF
Thanks Christos, your method works!
You welcome! I am glad I could help.
Girma, I invite you to visit my site. My theory works…
Also you may visit Ron Clutz’s Blog “Science Matters”. Ron has done a brilliant summary of my work.
https://rclutz.com/2021/07/21/how-to-calculate-planetary-temperatures/
Christos
I know.
I think it is good that you are working on it. I may disagree with your interpretation but never with your right and desire to think and investigate further.
I’m sure that if anyone wants to investigate it further with you the most appropriate forum, after you have mentioned it here, is over at your blog.
New research shows – surprisingly – that atmospheric aerosols have changed little over the last century:
https://notrickszone.com/2021/11/26/new-study-modelers-got-aerosols-all-wrong-co2-climate-sensitivity-likely-another-0-4c-overstated/
This contradicts the “global dimming” idea whereby climate scientists have attempted to argue that CO2 global warming would have been even greater if industrial aerosols had not actually cooled the climate a bit in the last few decades.
It appears that this supposed relative aerosol cooling of recent decades is nonexistent. So this “dimming” based attempt at steroid enhancement of CO2 warming is a fail.
The “aerosols did it” fairy tale was used to explain global cooling from 1940 to 1975. It didn’t take, so the cooling was gradually “adjusted away” and now it no longer exists. That’s science fraud.
The story:
The global cooling from 1940 to 1975 was estimated at about -0.5 degrees C. by NCAR. Since CO2 levels were increasing in that period, an excuse was needed for the lack of global warming. That excuse was: Air pollution aerosols were blocking some sunlight, causing more global cooling then the global warming caused by more CO2 in the atmosphere.
That fairy tale fell apart faster than a cheap suitcase when a global warming trend began in 1975. For that to happen, all the air pollution aerosols would have had to fall out of the sky in 1975. That obviously did not happen, although the Climate Liars believed it. They are very gullible.
The “answer” to get rid of that aerosol fairy tale was to get rid of the global cooling from 1940 to 1975 — using magic adjustments by NASA-GISS — and now it’s gone. No more need for the aerosol excuse. And that is government junk climate science in action !
Before the 1970s, nobody worried about air pollution above ground level. So air pollution abatement meant building chimney’s that were tall enough to keep the soot away from the ground.
The tallest chimney ever built in the United States was apparently at Homer City Generating Station, in Homer City, PA, in 1977 (though there were others almost as tall). Here’s a photo:
https://sealevel.info/homer-city_jon-dawson-800.jpg
In the developed world, the late 1970s were when we stopped doing power plant pollution abatement by building 1/4-mile-high chimneys, and instead began using “scrubbers” to remove the particulates and sulphur. The reason was the twin scares about global cooling and acid rain.
Power plants still have chimneys, but building taller and taller chimneys hasn’t been considered a primary remedy for air pollution in more than forty years.
Building taller and taller chimney does nothing about pollution. It just keeps the ground level concentration low. People complain less. You can’t treat the atmosphere like a toilet and not expect consequences.
We got rid of fluorocarbons because they were destroying ozone in the atmosphere which was shielding us from the sun’s UV radiation.
BTW global cooling was never scientific consensus. The first-time global warming caused by CO2 emissions was mentioned was in a report by a Presidential commission in 1965. There was no mention of global cooling.
JJB wrote, “Building taller and taller chimney does nothing about pollution. It just keeps the ground level concentration low. People complain less.”
People complain less because it harms them less. That’s not “nothing.”
But the practice was ended because of concerns about global cooling and acid rain.
JJB wrote, “global cooling was never scientific consensus.”
I guess that depends on how you define “consensus.” There was better evidence and stronger agreement, then, that global cooling was a threat, than there is now, about wrongheaded claims that CO2 emissions are a threat.
Here’s a 1974 CIA report, summarizing the scientific “agreement” (their word) about the looming threat of a return to the “neo-boreal” conditions of the Little Ice Age (global cooling):
https://sealevel.info/CIA1974ClimateReport2/CIA1974_potentialtrends.pdf
Here’s an excerpt from the 1965 Presidential Commission on the Environment concerning the impact of CO2.
https://www-legacy.dge.carnegiescience.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira%20downloads/PSAC,%201965,%20Restoring%20the%20Quality%20of%20Our%20Environment.pdf
Global cooling was never a thing taken seriously. The evidence of global cooling then is not better than what we have about global warming today. I’m not going to go through those papers that say CO2 is beneficial at today’s levels because all the evidence is to the contrary. If I do go through them, I’m pretty sure I’ll find the flaws that discredit each paper. That why those explanations never gain traction in the scientific community. It’s not a cabal of scientists trying to hide the “truth.”
JJB wrote, “global cooling was never scientific consensus.”
“I guess that depends on how you define “consensus.” There was better evidence and stronger agreement, then, that global cooling was a threat, than there is now, about wrongheaded claims that CO2 emissions are a threat.”
Numerous “wayback machine ” searches done by the activists claim that the “studies ” from the 1960’s – 1970’s showing global warming vastly exceeded the studies showing global cooling.
FWIW – the comprehensiveness of those searches seem to quite lacking in comprehensiveness – cherrypicked searches / studies proxies being a frequent occurance through out climate science.
From way back to the high water mark of pollution and beginning of the environmental movement in the USA, 1968’s “The Population Bomb”:
Tainted by the intrinsic sin of irresponsibility, man (or whomever) is bound for a reckoning. Is this true? Maybe. But it is very appealing as religion goes, especially when redemption can be offered in the form of votes or cash.
Ron, it is a testament to the unscientificness of our age that someone who thinks that “a few degrees of heating” could melt the Antarctic ice sheet (which averages more than 40 degrees below zero), could be hailed throughout the world as a visionary scientist, with enormous public and academic influence, and countless awards and honors, including Fellow of the Royal Society, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Fellow of the United States National Academy of Sciences, Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and Fellow of the American Philosophical Society.
No. I don’t care how many awards and titles you have, nor how many letters you write after your name: you still cannot melt ice by raising its temperature from -45° to -40°, or thereabouts. Because science.
Richard
I agree with you.
Here is the evidence for the global mean temperature pattern for the HadCRUT4 data:
https://bit.ly/3cCodbx
The solar monoclimate narrative makes the same mistake as the CO2 monoclimate narrative. Both make the fatal error of imagining the ocean driven climate to be passive. A passive clean slate for any “forcing” to make into a copy of itself.
Respect the ocean! It is not a passive puddle. Climate and ocean are one and the same. Climate and climate change are only from the ocean. Atmospheric processes are short term intermediaries of ocean processes.
The ocean is active, not passive, a source of internally generated variation on all timescales up to millennial. Positive feedbacks such as those associated with sites of downwelling (e.g. AMOC) and upwelling (e.g. ENSO) result in emergent oscillations based on the entrainment from turbulent chaos to low dimensional chaotic emergent pattern achieved by positive feedback.
https://ptolemy2.wordpress.com/2021/11/13/climate-pandemonium/
Feedbacks in the real ocean-climate result in emergent oscillation – to think they cause unidirectional runaway change is infantile. Feedback based excitability of the ocean is the basis of oscillating oceanic circulation systems and the dreaded and bewildering phenomenon of climate change.
Denial of chaos-emergence lies at the heart of the absurd phenomenon of horror and fear of climate change. Once the penny drops and one finally understands the role in nature of chaos-emergence, it becomes clear that “climate change” is a meaningless tautological phrase, similar to “wet rain”. Climate by its nature can’t do anything other than continually change.
– “Climate and climate change are only from the ocean.”
No. To change the climate it is necessary to change the radiative exchange at the ToA. The ocean can’t do that without going through the atmosphere.
Climate is the reflection of an energy flux through the climate system from an entry point to an exit point. Along its way the shortwave radiative energy is transformed into many forms of energy and performs work, before leaving as longwave energy. Part of that work is what we call weather.
Horizontal transfer of energy, when integrated over the entire globe, must necessarily be zero, as the amount of energy inside the climate system can only be changed at the ToA (disregarding the very small contributions from internal heat and tides).
Changing the amount of flux through different components produces internal variability, that affects regional climates and has the potential to affect global climate if, and only if, it affects the exchange of energy at the ToA. There is evidence that it does.
Water is the most fundamental molecule in Earth’s climate and the oceans are a part of the role water plays on climate. The most fundamental roles the ocean plays in climate are to store energy and to provide unending amounts of water vapor. Water in the atmosphere is the most fundamental regulator of the energy exchange at the ToA, and the most important vehicle for energy transport. A third fundamental role the ocean plays is to transport energy in the tropical band, where the atmosphere transport is very inefficient.
Every study shows that outside the tropics the bulk of the energy transport is done by the atmosphere, and its importance grows with latitude, and when the sea-ice edge is reached, the atmosphere becomes fully responsible because the exchange through the ice is very small.
My answer to a previous comment of yours yesterday went into moderation. It should eventually emerge.
Javier – of course more or less sun (TOA balance) will change the climate, I don’t deny that. Although I also agree with Richard Lindzen that even if TOA balance stayed the same for 1000 years, there could be continual climate change from redistribution of ocean heat, particularly vertical mixing. Even in the tropics the ocean bottom water is near-freezing.
Thus I fully accept for instance the Milankovitch entrainment of the glacial cycles and am grateful for your excellent posts on that subject.
I note however that the climate seems to adapt to changes in insolation. I’m always surprised that the insolation difference between perihelion and aphelion is so small and subtle. And also that the ~25% increase in insolation over earth’s history has not prevented the earth having a water ocean supporting life over almost all of its history (except only for the late bombardment period). Some kind of emergent homeostasis – Gaia-like – seems to be in operation.
All the oceans do is transfer energy from one point on earth to another. That cannot cause climate change. That can affect weather patterns. The oceans have no impact on earth’s energy balance.
Some claim that the oceans can impact albedo. If it has any impact, it doesn’t appear to be a major one.
Pure Wrong, a spacecraft or any complicated system transfers energy from where it is warmest to where it is coldest to radiate energy out and cool the whole system. The earth climate systems transfer energy from tropical oceans to polar regions and radiate more energy out from the polar regions and the evaporation and snowfall and ice sequestering provides ice that is dumped into the oceans to cause the cold periods to be cold. It is not that you do not understand, it appears that no one even has a clue.
Warm times occur when polar ice is depleted and there is more evaporation and snowfall and sequestering of ice during the warmest times and cold times always follow
Cold times occur when polar ice is deep and heavy and pushing ice into turbulent salt water currents and that forms thick sea ice that prevents evaporation and snowfall but it chills the tropical currents and sends cold water back to the tropics. Sequestered ice depletes during cold times and warm times always follow.
Ice core records from Greenland and Antarctica and ice sheets and glaciers all over the world shows more ice accumulation at the heads and tops of ice sheets and glaciers in warmest times when more oceans are thawed. The ice always spreads and causes colder after the more ice accumulation in warmest times.
Give this a thought or two.
None of that can cause climate change. It is the response to climate change.
There are reasons why we had warm and cold periods in the past and none of it has to do with moving around energy on the planet. All of it had to do with something that had an impact on earth’s energy balance.
If you have a car, your engine heat is transferred to the Radiator to be radiated out and cooler water or antifreeze is transferred back into your engine to keep it from just melting the metal and freezing up. Transferring energy from hot places to be radiated out from colder places has, and does and will cause climate change. Earth was warmer when tropical currents flowed between the North and South Continents. That flow between north and south America and Europe and Asia and Africa was blocked by land and the climate cooled because warm tropical water was transported to polar, colder regions where it was radiated out.
Climate Science became Peer Reviewed Consensus Science Before it was properly understood, and then weaponized by the alarmists who use it to tax and control us and promote the crocked schemes to make themselves rich and powerful
Your example of a car radiator is a bad one. That is not just a transfer of energy from one place to the another. It can cause climate change.
In a car gasoline is burned to release energy. That is considered a source that can impact earth’s energy balance. It’s not considered because human production of energy is too small compared to solar radiation and back radiation to have impact.
Another source is geothermal energy, which is about twice as big as human production of energy. It’s still too small to have an impact on climate change.
Climate change cannot happen without an imbalance of energy at TOA.
JJ
All the oceans do is transfer energy from one point on earth to another.
Fantastic comment, illustrating perfectly the denial of the ocean at the heart of the nonsensical alarmist architecture of climate pseudoscience.
Climate IS the movement of heat from one place to another, equator to pole, and driven by earth’s rotation.
JjBraccilili
“ The oceans have no impact on earth’s energy balance.”
The great Rossby does not agree with you:
Rossby[1959], for example, in discussing the response of the climate system to imbalances between absorbed solar energy flux and outgoing longwave radiative flux to space considered the possible significance of ocean water below the main thermocline as a secular heat reservoir. He concluded firstly that in all probability a global radiation balance in general does not exist, even if periods of several decades are taken into account; and secondly that anomalies of heat may be stored for long periods isolated in the deep ocean. After several decades to centuries these anomalies return to the upper ocean where they again participate in atmospheric climatic processes.”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/JC085iC11p06667
That doesn’t pass the laugh test.
Rossby is wrong. There is a very simple scientific principle at play. Warm water rises and cold water falls. That’s due to the lower density of warm water. You can’t store “warm water” in the depths of the ocean for decades.
We have evidence that a radiative imbalance exists at TOA. That didn’t exist in 1959. Satellites capable of measuring IR didn’t exist in 1959.
“….. secondly that anomalies of heat may be stored for long periods isolated in the deep ocean. After several decades to centuries these anomalies return to the upper ocean where they again participate in atmospheric climatic processes.”
If accurate, one has to wonder why some get all wound up about 20 to 30 years of warming. The abyss might be the great wildcard and is certainly one of the least understood of all the dynamics at play.
CKid
“The abyss might be the great wildcard and is certainly one of the least understood of all the dynamics at play.”
The role of the deeper ocean is clear and very simple.
We just need to use the first principle of thermodynamics that “heat must flow downhill on the temperature scale” from the warmer mixed ocean layer to the colder deeper ocean that makes the deeper ocean a secular heat reservoir as described by Rossby in the link I posted above.
Whenever the mixed ocean layer cools relative to the deeper ocean, the downward direction of of the above heat flow reverses.
Girma
Agreed. I didn’t express well my intended meaning. The data over millennia is what I was trying to say. Admittedly not very well done. If we had been using the technology of today, and that still has challenges, for the last 1,000 years, we would be in a better situation to understand how those dynamics have played out.
https://www.frontiersin.org/files/Articles/435756/fmars-06-00432-HTML/image_m/fmars-06-00432-g002.jpg
JJ
“Rossby was wrong “
A question for you
Do you have waves named after you?
From Meyssignac 2019
“ At daily to multicentennial time scales, the climate system is constantly excited by internal variability and external forcing such that it actually never reaches any steady state with zero anomalies in the net TOA radiation budget. Thus, at each moment, there is an imbalance at TOA between the anomaly in incoming solar radiation and the anomaly in outgoing long wave radiation. This imbalance is called the EEI. EEI characterizes the energy state of the climate system. It results from the integrated response of the climate system to past and present internal and external perturbations.
From days to interannual time scales, EEI variations are dominated by the effects of internal climate modes of variability such as the El Niño Southern Oscillation (Loeb et al., 2018a). Primary causes for variability on decadal and longer time scales are changes in solar irradiance, large volcanic eruptions and natural variations in GHG concentrations (Hansen et al., 2011; von Schuckmann et al., 2016). Since the beginning of the industrial era, human activities caused GHG and aerosol emissions as well as land use changes that perturb EEI on decadal to millennial time scales (Hartmann et al., 2013).”
“ When estimating the uncertainty in OHC changes on decadal time scales, ideally all sources of uncertainty explained above should be taken into account and combined. This is difficult because the in situ observing system and therefore the different sources of uncertainty change with time and space. Some sources of uncertainty may include spatial and temporal correlation adding to the complexity of the calculation. Different groups have elaborated different strategies to calculate OHC trend uncertainties. In Table 1 we show the most recent estimate of the uncertainty in OHC trends over the last two decades from in situ data and recall the different sources of uncertainty they take into account. Because different groups account for different sources of uncertainty, their total uncertainty estimates differ substantially. However, in general, for uncertainty estimates over recent periods (estimates starting in 1993 or in 2005), the time and space error correlation and the error due to the data distribution in time and space appear to be the most important terms (see Table 1)”
From Table 1
https://www.frontiersin.org/files/Articles/435756/fmars-06-00432-HTML/image_m/fmars-06-00432-t001.jpg
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2019.00432/full
For the umpteenth time.
Moving energy from here to there on the planet does NOT cause climate change. Energy is a state function. That means to get a temperature change the energy state must change. To do that, the energy state has to increase or decrease. The only way that happens is by adding or subtracting energy from the planet. Moving energy around doesn’t do that.
Anyone who says anything different does not understand the First Law of Thermodynamics.
JJBraccili | November 30, 2021 at 9:33 am |
– “Rossby is wrong. … You can’t store “warm water” in the depths of the ocean for decades.”
The Dunning-Kruger effect: ignorance is daring
Dansgaard-Oeschger events are just that. Warm water stored for centuries and even millennia until suddenly released.
JJ wrote:
– “Rossby is wrong. … You can’t store “warm water” in the depths of the ocean for decades.”
Javier wrote:
The Dunning-Kruger effect: ignorance is daring
Dansgaard-Oeschger events are just that. Warm water stored for centuries and even millennia until suddenly released.
————
I will respond to the above claims by JJ and Javier using the result reported by Levitus:
Warming of the world ocean, 1955–2003 – Levitus – 2005 – Geophysical Research Letters – Wiley Online Library
We quantify a relation between heat and temperature anomalies of the ocean and atmosphere for the purpose of documenting how the climate system works ….
Thus, a mean temperature change of 0.1°C of the world ocean would correspond roughly to a mean temperature change of 100°C of the global atmosphere if all the heat associated with this ocean anomaly was instantaneously transferred from the ocean to the atmosphere. This of course will not happen but this computation illustrates the enormous heat capacity of the ocean versus the atmosphere.
————
From the above result, when Rossby says heat is stored in the deep ocean, he means that the heat energy corresponding to an effective, say, 30 °C warming had been removed from the atmosphere and was stored in the ocean causing a mean temperature rise of only 30*0.1/1000 = 0.0003 deg C.
Similarly, the heat capacity of the mixed ocean layer is about 30 times that of the atmosphere, so 30 deg C warming of the atmosphere is equivalent to 1 deg C of the mixed ocean layer.
None of that causes climate change. Moving energy around cannot cause climate change. That’s why it’s not considered by climate scientists.
What you are talking about is changing weather patterns. Weather always changes, climate does not. When you move energy from one part of the planet to another, there is a change in each part of the planet. You heat up one part of the planet and cool the other part — net change is zero. This may cause a temporary imbalance — not a permanent one.
Unless you want to claim that this is an exception to the First Law of Thermodynamics — there has never been one –, it’s time to move on.
Sorry I got my decimal places very wrong. it should be
30*0.1/100 = 0.03 deg C
None of that causes climate change. Moving energy around cannot cause climate change. That’s why it’s not considered by climate scientists.
I had no idea how spectacularly wrong mainstream climate science is. This is epicycles on steroids.
In the tropical ocean the deepest bottom water is near freezing.
Changes in vertical mixing in the ocean are ultimately the cause of all climate change.
Warm water doesn’t have to be “stored” in the deep ocean in suspension of the laws of gravity and thermodynamics.
Is is sufficient for there to be a little less vertical mixing. That’s all.
Mainstream climate science isn’t wrong. They are fully aware that moving heat around in certain ways causes climate change. JJ just doesn’t know anything about it
Phil
“Changes in vertical mixing in the ocean are ultimately the cause of all climate change.”
Yes, based on the second principle of thermodynamics that “heat must flow downhill the temperature scale” from the warmer mixed ocean layer to the colder deeper ocean.
Because of this heat energy storage in deeper ocean, a temperature balance between incoming solar and outgoing solar radiation does not exist. The stored heat energy in the ocean is released back to the atmosphere whenever the atmosphere cools relative to the mixed ocean layer (at night and in winter). So the stored heat energy in the ocean is there to ameliorate atmospheric cooling.
I meant to write:
Because of this heat energy storage in deeper ocean, a temperature balance between incoming solar and outgoing thermal radiation does not exist.
Girma
Indeed – in the ocean you have complex partly chaotic circulation with currents going all directions in 3D. Combined with this you have the strong vertical temperature gradient. Put these two together and you have continual massive movements of energy in the ocean. Then you get emergent spatiotemporal pattern and the result is the ocean driven oscillations such as AMO, PDO and many others. Wyatt and Curry’s stadium wave.
All this is known in the oceanography community. They for instance have worked out fully how during the latest stop-start deglaciation, a big Antarctic ice sheet collapse led indirectly to the Younger Dryas cold period in the Northern Hemisphere, via Antarctic Intermediate Water and a disruption of the AMOC. A consequence that lasted 1000 years.
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.571.6995&rep=rep1&type=pdf
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/97GL02658
Phil
Here is a quote from a Thermodynamics text book regarding the role of the ocean in storing solar energy (Zemansky et al, Basic Engineering Thermodynamics, 1975):
“The ocean and the outside air are approximate examples of an ideal body called a heat reservoir. A heat reservoir is a body of such a large mass that it may absorb or reject an unlimited quantity of heat without suffering an appreciable change in temperature or in any other thermodynamic coordinate.”
The oceans can’t absorb an unlimited amount of energy and raise the temperature only slightly.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics permits an isothermal transfer of heat to an infinite reservoir. This is an idealized case that can’t actually happen. It’s necessary for Carnot cycle which is important in the development of entropy.
That concept doesn’t permit the oceans to cause an energy imbalance, which is necessary if the oceans are going to cause permanent change in climate.
JJ: “The oceans can’t absorb an unlimited amount of energy and raise the temperature only slightly.”
The report by Levitus et al (2005) does not agree with you:
“… a mean temperature change of 0.1°C of the world ocean would correspond roughly to a mean temperature change of 100°C of the global atmosphere”.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2004GL021592
Infinite reservoirs don’t exist. The oceans contain a fixed amount of water. You’re can’t add an unlimited amount of energy and only get a small temperature rise.
You’re trying to imply that the ocean is an infinite reservoir. It isn’t. What happens is as you add energy to the ocean, it evaporates more water. That transfers energy to the atmosphere. The ocean’s temperature rises only slightly in temperature because the ocean doesn’t retain all the energy.
JJ:
“Moving energy from here to there on the planet does NOT cause climate change. Energy is a state function. That means to get a temperature change the energy state must change. To do that, the energy state has to increase or decrease. The only way that happens is by adding or subtracting energy from the planet. Moving energy around doesn’t do that.
Anyone who says anything different does not understand the First Law of Thermodynamics.”
The ocean temperature falls with depth as a result heat flows from the surface to deeper ocean that result in increase in the secular global mean temperature. This is based on the 2nd principle of Thermodynamics that “heat must flow down hill on the temperature scale”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeaQpuYPsy8
With Professor Jim Al-Khalili
Let’s say you’re right. Because energy flows “downhill” the temperature of the planet increases. The only thing that happened is a transfer of energy from a warmer part of the ocean to a colder part.
With the planet at a higher temperature, the planet is radiating more energy into outer space. Where did the additional energy come from?
JJ:
“Moving energy from here to there on the planet does NOT cause climate change. Energy is a state function. That means to get a temperature change the energy state must change. To do that, the energy state has to increase or decrease. The only way that happens is by adding or subtracting energy from the planet. Moving energy around doesn’t do that.
Anyone who says anything different does not understand the First Law of Thermodynamics.”
The above statement of yours is not consistent with the observation described below.
Varying planetary heat sink led to global-warming slowdown and acceleration
A vacillating global heat sink at intermediate ocean depths is associated with different climate regimes of surface warming under anthropogenic forcing: The latter part of the 20th century saw rapid global warming as more heat stayed near the surface. In the 21st century, surface warming slowed as more heat moved into deeper oceans. In situ and reanalyzed data are used to trace the pathways of ocean heat uptake. In addition to the shallow La Niña–like patterns in the Pacific that were the previous focus, we found that the slowdown is mainly caused by heat transported to deeper layers in the Atlantic and the Southern oceans, initiated by a recurrent salinity anomaly in the subpolar North Atlantic. Cooling periods associated with the latter deeper heat-sequestration mechanism historically lasted 20 to 35 years.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1254937
You’re equating surface temperature variation with planet temperature variation. Moving energy from the surface of the ocean to deeper in the ocean has ZERO impact on climate change.
Let me say this again. Energy is a state function. In this case it means it is a function of temperature. To get the temperature of the planet to rise or fall, the energy of the planet must increase or decrease. The planet must absorb or emit energy. That can only happen by an energy imbalance at TOA. What the oceans do doesn’t matter unless it impacts the energy balance at TOA. What you’re talking about doesn’t.
In three days, an ozone patch from over Alaska will extend over Canada and cause a sharp drop in temperatures over Hudson Bay.
https://i.ibb.co/QKHRQmb/gfs-t100-nh-f72.png
Pingback: Energy and Environmental Review: November 29, 2021 - Master Resource
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #481 – Watts Up With That?
Pingback: AWED NEWSLETTER: We cover COVID to Climate, as well as Energy to Elections. - Dr. Rich Swier
Forgive me if this is not the place to ask for resolution of a problem I have with the IPCC
Assessment Reports. I am new at this, so it may be a misunderstanding on my part. The problem I have is with the contribution of water vapor to global warming. The assertion is that a temperature rise caused by any forcing agent will be amplified by an accompanying increase in water vapor density which, since water is a very effective forcing agent, will amplify the initial rise by a factor two or three. I can find no explanation of how they arrive at this result, nor can I find it in any of the (small number of) books on introductory meteorology that I have consulted. My guess is that they have performed a regression on the presumed temperature rise since sometime in the nineteenth century, reasoning that the gap between the rise that would be predicted by the greenhouse gases and what is seen is due to the amplification caused by water vapor. Of course, this is just the subject of the present discussion, and is why I bring it up here.
My question is this: Why does the amplification stop? That is, with positive feedback, the increase in temperature will feed upon itself and diverge, contrary to observation. The resolution offered by the IPCC is that water vapor is not a forcing agent, but instead is a response. I do not understand this argument, as it can be both response and forcing agent.
Actually there is a way that seems quite likely to avoid a runaway temperature rise. Given a small increase in water vapor, a temperature rise is not the only effect. If thermal convection and cloud albedo increase proportionally to the vapor increment, a back-of-the-envelope calculation says that the temperature rise is negated (as one would expect, given equilibrium). But if this counterargument is correct, the amplification caused by water vapor vanishes, and we would conclude that greenhouse gases do not account for the temperature rise since the start of the Industrial Revolution. (Perhaps I should point out that it also would make the predictions of future climate change, which have consistently been too high since they first appeared, more in line with reality.)
Any guidance on this question will be greatly appreciated.
I can answer your question in one word — RAIN.
The atmosphere can only hold so much water at a given temperature. That why water vapor can’t be a driver of climate change. It is a positive feedback — nothing more.
As for increased clouds, the CO2 effect doesn’t need a lot of solar radiation to have a big impact. Venus absorbs less solar radiation than the earth does. Yet, CO2 keeps the planet 400 K higher than it should be. Less solar radiation only slows down the CO2 effect, it doesn’t change the temperature CO2 can drive the planet to.
“In our current situation, CO2 could push the temperature of the planet 50-60 C higher. The planet only has to rise about 10-15 C to wipe out most of the life on the planet. That’s the situation we find ourselves in, and why CO2 is an existential threat.”
Utter, total garbage. Alarmism on steroids and about as far from the truth as is possible. You are suffering from Climate Delusion®.
No, it’s scientific fact. It’s a function of the behavior of CO2 in the atmosphere and how the earth radiates energy.
“No, it’s scientific fact.”
Nonsense. There is no science backing your outlandish claim.
Point us to a scientific paper that provides backing for what you have said here.
You mean it doesn’t rain?
You got me. If it never rains, what I said isn’t true.
JJ
There is voluminous literature on the role of oceanic circulation and heat transport that you apparently have never read. Spend some time reading what mainstream climate science says about the oceans role in climate variability. Somewhere you spoke about not changing the climate permanently. No one says the oceans change climate permanently. But there is plenty of evidence that the oceans can affect climate on a multi decadal and longer timescale.
“what I said isn’t true”
Yes, I can agree with that. Your claims relating to CO2 and radiation are bogus.
Peter
Actually there is a way that seems quite likely to avoid a runaway temperature rise.
There is indeed a way. It’s called “the world”.
Natural systems are dominated by chaotic-emergent dynamics.
In such systems, positive feedback causes emergence of pattern such as oscillations. Not unidirectional “runaway” change.
Runaway change from positive feedback is an absurd fiction only existing in La La Linearland.
There is a limit to how high CO2 can drive the temperature of a planet. That temperature is around 460 K — about the temperature of Venus. That takes millions of years to occur.
In our current situation, CO2 could push the temperature of the planet 50-60 C higher. The planet only has to rise about 10-15 C to wipe out most of the life on the planet. That’s the situation we find ourselves in, and why CO2 is an existential threat.
Ninety-nine % of the species on the planet go extinct at some time or another. We are no different. The difference this time is that other species are not the cause of their own demise. Not to worry, over millions of years the earth will regenerate itself. New species will arise. Hopefully, this time, there will be at least one intelligent species — unlike the current state of life on the planet.
JJ
I have no doubt that your knowledge of climate science is a lot more extensive than mine.
Nonetheless that can’t be right that CO2 could drive the earth to a regime damaging to the biosphere, even modestly, let alone extinctions. It never happened before in earth’s history during both the Paleozoic and Mesozoic when there were periods during which CO2 was in the thousands of ppm and spaceship earth and its biosphere did just fine. It just doesn’t add up.
“Dim sun” is no refuge from this stark falsifying observation.
I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again.
You can’t draw any conclusions from the past unless you know the status of all the conditions that could impact climate at that time. Otherwise, you are engaging in speculation.
JJ
“In our current situation, CO2 could push the temperature of the planet 50-60 C higher.“
CO2 change follows global mean temperature (GMT) change, not the other way round:
The hypothesis that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is related to observable changes in the climate is tested using modern methods of time-series analysis. The results confirm that average global temperature is increasing, and that temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide are significantly correlated over the past thirty years. Changes in carbon dioxide content lag those in temperature by five months.
https://www.nature.com/articles/343709a0
The article you referenced was published in 1990. It hasn’t gained traction in the scientific community, which usually means it’s been dismissed.
Here’s a graph of CO2 and temperature by year:
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/9xL3-vAx4xBdNV7U7NOZn181PbgdYBy5xaBDMawGT6yaesB8rDMpDBRrS7t-gPZUalHzsag1RaOy-JRn3q6ltxX_gnD8bxuwlRGHUqpiDkuAWK45-G7HkmpeZdpg_R-vHvPE04e1
Clearly, temperature lags CO2 since about 1960.
Let’s think about this. What the authors are saying is there is a relationship between CO2 and temperature. As temperature rises — CO2 rises, but it trails the temperature rise. That implies that a rising temperature is responsible for the CO2 increases. The term for that is “bonkers.” We already know that the increases in CO2 in the atmosphere comes from energy consumption. That would mean a rise in temperature of the planet causes us to use more fossil fuels. I can’t see how those two correlate.
Let’s put that aside and assume fossil fuel usage is not causing the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. What else could be causing it that is function of temperature? The only other thing that could be causing it is the CO2 in the oceans. CO2 becomes less soluble in water as temperature rises. The problem there is that the oceans are absorbing CO2 — not releasing it. How do I know? The acidity of the oceans is increasing. If the oceans were releasing CO2, the acidity would be decreasing.
http://www.leftopia.com/images/oceans/ocean_pH_since_1850.PNG
In other words, that paper isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.
Girma
Thanks for highlighting this.
“ In our current situation, CO2 could push the temperature of the planet 50-60 C higher. ”
After some of the bizarre things JJ said about the oceans, I quit reading his comments. That statement is a little over the top, methinks. It might even be too much for Greta.
In this one case I’ll be charitable. Could be the alcohol talking.
JJ
“Let’s put that aside and assume fossil fuel usage is not causing the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. What else could be causing it that is function of temperature? The only other thing that could be causing it is the CO2 in the oceans. CO2 becomes less soluble in water as temperature rises”
I agree with the above statement of yours. Here are the evidences:
Here is the low frequency correlation between annual atmospheric CO2 and secular GMT (or deeper ocean warming)
https://bit.ly/3rxOQXA
Here is the high frequency seasonal correlation between atmospheric CO2 and sea level.
https://bit.ly/3oilLNT
For two variables to be related, they must correlate at both high and low frequencies. The seasonal atmospheric CO2 is not correlated to the seasonal Human emission of CO2). As a result human emission of CO2 and atmospheric CO2 are unrelated. However, global mean temperature and atmospheric CO2 are related ( https://www.nature.com/articles/343709a0)
You claim a relationship between planetary temperature and CO2 ppm. You claim that CO2 ppm lags temperature. That means temperature is somehow increasing CO2 ppm. This CO2 is magical because there is no source for it that temperature impacts that isn’t decreasing CO2 in the atmosphere. Does that sound reasonable to you? Good luck with that.
As the graph I used showed you, CO2 correlates extremely well with global temperature increases and it does not lag temperature.
As for your other graphs that supposedly show that human emission of CO2 is unrelated to atmospheric CO2, it’s a ridiculous claim. Where is the source of CO2 that’s causing that? It’s not human respiration or plant decay. Those are more than handled by natural removal of CO2 from the atmosphere. Not even the fossil fuel industry is claiming that.
JJBraccili: “In other words, that paper isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.”
Here is what Keeling, who produced the atmospheric CO2 curve for Mauna Loa, wrote about the empirical statistical data analysis work by Kuo et al 1990 (https://www.nature.com/articles/343709a0):
“…anomalous variations in CO2 and in temperature have tended to occur [COHERENTLY], as suggested by comparing Fig. 2a with Fig. 2b. Many of these coherent anomalies are associated with El Niño events (arrows in Fig. 2a), but they also occur on the decadal timescale (solid curves) as previously noted by Keeling et al. (see p. 211 of ref. 1), [AND CONFIRMED BY RIGOROUS ANALYSIS OF COHERENCE [4]“ (https://bit.ly/3lB7nyC).
In the above quote, [4] is the paper Kuo et al. 1990 that you dismissed. So the great Keeling does not agree with you.
JJBraccili, why are you doing this?
I would like to quote the great Feynman here:
“We’ve learned from experience that the truth will out. Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right. Nature’s phenomena will agree or they’ll disagree with your theory. And, although you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven’t tried to be very careful in this kind of work. And it’s this type of integrity, this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of the research in Cargo Cult Science.” (https://bit.ly/3pl1Op2)
What? Because she does something right, that means everything she does is right?
The “truth” has already come out and has been verified over and over and over again. You’re trying to muddy the waters and not succeeding.
The complete article for Kuo et al 1990 (https://www.nature.com/articles/343709a0) is available at this website:
https://bit.ly/3djyNVd
“ JJBraccili, why are you doing this?”
The devil made him do it.
JJBraccili:
“As the graph I used showed you, CO2 correlates extremely well with global temperature increases and it does not lag temperature.”
What you are saying that CO2 does not lag global mean temperature is not supported by the observation:
“Changes in carbon dioxide content lag those in temperature by five months.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/343709a0
JJ
I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again.
You can’t draw any conclusions from the past unless you know the status of all the conditions that could impact climate at that time. Otherwise, you are engaging in speculation.
That’s extraordinary, it looks like the same argument that 6-day creationists use to deny the fossil record. It’s all so long ago and it’s such an uncertain and difficult science that we can’t believe any of it. So we’ll stick to the (IPCC) bible.
I respect your faith but I don’t share it.
No, I made that statement because the earth has no memory. Planetary temperature changes are all about cause and effect. You can’t look at what happened in prehistoric times and claim that CO2 had or didn’t have an impact unless you know the status of all the other factors that can cause a change in planetary temperature.
We know what is causing our current situation because we can study and eliminate all the other possible causes.
Peter Kloeppel asked, “Why does the amplification stop? That is, with positive feedback, the increase in temperature will feed upon itself and diverge…”
That is a common misconception, which I discuss on my web page about climate feedbacks, here:
https://sealevel.info/feedbacks.html
Here’s an excerpt:
A positive feedback is one which causes a same-direction response, so it tends to increase (amplify) the effect of a change in input.
A common misconception is that positive feedbacks necessarily “run away,” and make a system unstable. That is incorrect. Positive feedbacks of less than 100% don’t make a system unstable.
For example, consider a linear system with a gain G=1 and positive 10% (i.e. +1/10) feedback from the output to the input. An input change of 1.0 will “feed back” +10% to become, effectively, 1.1. The “.1” (additional part) is also then amplified by 10%, becoming .11, etc.
https://sealevel.info/linear_feedback_system_diagram2.html
The +10% feedback ends up, in the long term, asymptotically approaching 11.11111…% (i.e., +1/9 = ×10/9) amplification.
Similarly, a +20% (i.e. 1/5) linear feedback causes a +25% (i.e., +1/4 = ×1.25) amplification, a +33⅓% (i.e. 1/3) feedback causes a +50% (i.e. +1/2 = ×1.5) amplification, and a +50% (i.e. 1/2) feedback causes a +100% (i.e. +1 = ×2) amplification.
In general, in a linear system, a feedback ƒ causes a “compounded” net amplification (or attenuation, if ƒ is negative) which multiplies the original effect by 1/(1-ƒ).
For example, if ƒ =+20% then net amplification =
1/(1-ƒ) = 1/(1-0.2) = 1.25×.
(Caveats: In practice, delays in the feedback path may mean that the full amplification effect of a positive feedback isn’t immediately seen. Also, these calculations assume linearity, but most systems are not perfectly linear, though many are approximately linear over ranges of interest.)
“My question is this: Why does the amplification stop? That is, with positive feedback, the increase in temperature will feed upon itself and diverge, contrary to observation.”
Most things with an amplification factor like say compound interest have a corresponding limiting factor which means that they approach a limit of how much they can expand far faster than they can continue to expand.
That is there is only so much expansion or amplification that can occur before what is there can no longer support amplification.
Water vapor contributes 10-20 times the GHG effect of CO2.
The IPCC cannot afford to acknowledge this.
The CO2 being the smaller factor is actually the amplifier for the water vapor effect, best of luck getting that concept up and running.
You never get anything right, do you?
It really very simple. The water vapor effect is controlled by atmospheric temperature. It can’t drive atmospheric temperature. CO2 can drive atmospheric temperature higher. It “controls” how much impact water vapor has on climate change. BTW so would any other greenhouse gas that is increasing.
JJBraccili. says predictably
“Water vapour is not a green house gas”.
He forgets that increased atmospheric temperature causes more CO2 to enter the atmosphere as well as water vapor.
Hence it is also true that some CO2 effect is controlled by atmospheric temperature.That extra CO2 can’t drive atmospheric temperature either. H20 can drive atmospheric temperature higher. It “controls” how much impact that CO2 has on climate change.
Say what?
NASA
Increasing water vapor leads to warmer temperatures, which causes more water vapor to be absorbed into the air. Warming and water absorption increase in a spiraling cycle.
Amazing what the sun coming up in the morning does, JJ
Drilling starts on the new EPICA Antarctic core project back at Dome C.
The aim is 3 km (2 miles) and 1.5 million years.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59475410
This should help with glacial timings from well before the MPT.
To describe how the earth’s climate works, we use two axioms.
1) The heat capacity of the atmosphere is much smaller than that of the mixed ocean layer.
2) Heat flows downhill on the temperature scale (2nd principle of thermodynamics).
From axiom 1, in spring and summer the atmosphere is heated to a much higher temperature than the mixed ocean layer that result in heat flow from the hotter atmosphere to the relatively colder mixed ocean layer based on axiom 2.
From axiom 1, in autumn and winter the atmosphere cools to a much lower temperature than the mixed ocean layer that result in heat flow from the relatively warmer mixed ocean layer to the colder atmosphere based on axiom 2.
From the above description, ocean warming and cooling are explained with out invoking greenhouse warming and aerosol cooling.
The primary source of convective heat for the atmosphere is the surface of the planet. That’s because radiant energy from the sun that isn’t reflected is not absorbed by the atmosphere. It’s absorbed by the surface of the planet. The atmosphere does not transfer heat by convection to the planet. Spring, fall, summer, or winter that doesn’t change.
Here’s a plot of the temperature profile of the atmosphere:
https://www.weather.gov/images/jetstream/atmos/atmprofile.jpg
You have a poor understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Heat can flow “uphill” it happens all the time. The earth radiates energy to the sun. What the Second Law says is the NET flow of heat has to be from the warmer body to the colder body.
JJBraccili
“You have a poor understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Heat can flow “uphill” it happens all the time. The earth radiates energy to the sun. What the Second Law says is the NET flow of heat has to be from the warmer body to the colder body.”
I agree with the figure you posted for the falling temperature with height in the atmosphere. What this means is that heat flows from the surface upward to the atmosphere.
Similarly, the temperature falls with depth in the ocean that means heat flows from the surface downward to deeper ocean. The upward heat in the atmosphere finally escapes to space. However, the downward heat is stored in the deeper ocean by increasing its temperature slightly because the heat capacity of the deeper ocean is several orders of magnitudes greater than that of the atmosphere.
Heat can not flow “uphill” the temperature scale as you claimed. Here is what my Heat Transfer text book says:
When a temperature gradient exists in a body, experience has shown that there is an energy transfer from the high-temperature region [mixed ocean layer] to the low temperature region [deeper ocean].
Source: Heat Transfer, J. P. Holman, Fifth Edition, page 2.
This heat flow stored in the deeper ocean explains the observed global warming without invoking greenhouse warming. The direction of the heat flow from the atmosphere to the mixed ocean layer above changes whenever the atmosphere is colder than the mixed ocean layer (at night and in winter), which shows that the stored energy in the ocean is there to ameliorate atmospheric cooling.
You keep using the Second Law of Thermodynamics to justify your position while completely ignoring the First Law of Thermodynamics.
You’ve convinced yourself that somehow heat flowing from a warm area of the planet to a cold area of the planet can change the temperature of the planet. It can’t. No matter how much energy is on the move. That does nothing to accumulate energy on the planet which is necessary to increase the temperature of the planet.
There are only two ways to warm the planet. Either you increase the energy sources to the planet, or you restrict the energy drain from the planet. Either will cause the earth to accumulate energy and that accumulation of energy raises the temperature of the planet. There is no other way to do it.
You can’t do work into the vacuum of space. Heat cannot be transferred into the vacuum of space by conduction and convection. The only way energy gets to the planet is by solar radiation and the only way it leaves the planet is by radiation into outer space. The ONLY way to accumulate energy on the planet and raise its temperature is by an imbalance between the energy entering and leaving at TOA. All the other “causes” that you and the others believe can warm the planet can’t. You would have to show how those “causes” add to the energy of the planet. I can’t see how that is possible.
There are three energy sources to the planet — solar radiation, human production of energy, and geothermal energy. The last two are too small to matter and are ignored. Solar radiation has been flat to decreasing over the last 40 years and can’t be responsible for the warming of the planet. Whatever is warming the planet has to restrict the energy outflow at TOA. That exactly what greenhouse gases do.
As I said, your understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is wrong. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is used as the basis for an argument against climate change by greenhouse gases. How can greenhouse gases warm the planet when the temperature of the atmosphere is lower than the temperature of the planet? That a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Isn’t it? No, it isn’t.
What happens is greenhouse gases take a portion of energy the earth radiates and returns it to the earth. The earth is absorbing more energy and that causes its temperature to rise to radiate that energy away. There is no energy created. The net amount of energy still flows from the hot body — earth — to outer space. The Second Law is not violated. At TOA, at steady-state, solar energy flows in, the equivalent quantity of energy from the earth flows out and the earth is at a higher temperature than the S-B equation predicts from the quantity of the outflow. Neither the First nor Second Law of Thermodynamics is violated.
What you are proposing is a clear violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics.
JJBRACCILI: “ You’ve convinced yourself that somehow heat flowing from a warm area of the planet to a cold area of the planet can change the temperature of the planet. It can’t. No matter how much energy is on the move. That does nothing to accumulate energy on the planet which is necessary to increase the temperature of the planet.”
I disagree. The most important issue is that the heat that flowed “downhill the temperature scale” from the warmer mixed ocean layer to the colder deeper ocean gets ACCUMULATED there until the mixed ocean layer cools relative to the deeper ocean.
JJBraccili: “What you are proposing is a clear violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics.”
I disagree.
You wrote: “There are only two ways to warm the planet. Either you increase the energy sources to the planet, or you restrict the energy drain from the planet. Either will cause the earth to accumulate energy and that accumulation of energy raises the temperature of the planet. There is no other way to do it.”
I agree with the above statement of yours. Yes I am taking about restricting “the energy drain from the planet”. From the 2nd principle of thermodynamics that “heat must flow downhill on the temperature scale”, heat flows from the warmer mixed layer into the colder deeper ocean and it accumulates there causing global warming. Note that because the heat capacity of the deeper ocean is several orders of magnitude greater than that of the mixed ocean layer, heat energy from the mixed ocean layer at higher temperature is stored at a much lower temperature in the deeper ocean. This accumulated energy is released only when the mixed ocean layer becomes colder than the deeper ocean to satisfy the 2nd principle of thermodynamics.
Girma
You are right about the ocean, that it is the source of most climate change from chaotic-emergent movement of heat.
The CO2 alarmist narrative ignores and denies the ocean. It denies that the majority of climate heat is in the ocean, and denies the implication of heat movement by dissipative nonlinear dynamics.
It’s simply a monstrous exercise in denial of the ocean and denial of chaos. Every letter and syllable ever uttered by alarmist pseudoscience is a waste of breath and a useless burden and distraction to the human race.
JJBraccili | December 4, 2021 at 9:50 am |
“You can’t do work into the vacuum of space. Heat cannot be transferred into the vacuum of space by conduction and convection. The only way energy gets to the planet is by solar radiation and the only way it leaves the planet is by radiation into outer space.”
Not correct.
A rocket propelled into space causes energy to be able to leave earth without being radiated away.
The rocket itself would transmit heat into space from the inside of the rocket by heat and convection to where it could radiate into space but not from the earth.
Sorry, Curious George made me do it.
What was that? It made no sense. The purpose of a rocket is to increase the momentum of the rocket — not to do heat transfer.
A rocket in space cannot transfer heat by convection. Only by radiation. Convection and conduction are impossible in a vacuum.
Girma | December 4, 2021 at 6:09 pm |
“JJB wrote: “There are only two ways to warm the planet. Either you increase the energy sources to the planet, or you restrict the energy drain from the planet. ”
I agree with the above statement of yours. Yes I am taking about restricting “the energy drain from the planet”.
How does one restrict an energy drain from the planet??
What is the physical thermodynamic principle here, Girma?
You are talking about layers of the planet which are at different temperatures.
Not the planet’s temperature.
By the planet’s temperature you and JJB are talking about the effective radiating temperature of the planet.
Not the temperature of one layer, the colder deeper ocean .
You blithely make a jump from one to the other in terms of the apparent heat flows which then lead to nasty contradictions.
Look at it this way.Estimates only.
Inner earth 5273 K
Outer space 3K
“heat must flow downhill on the temperature scale”,
So heat must be flowing from the centre of the earth to the colder deeper ocean and out to outer space. through the warmer upper ocean.
So does heat flow both ways?
More importantly can you restrict the energy drain from the planet.
It seems you can if you look at it one way, but not if you look at it all in totality.
You see if the energy is accumulating in the deep sea it will be heating up the ocean floor and then the centre of the earth which will then, due to this idea of retention of heat in the cooler oceans continue to heat the earth’s interior for ever.
Carnot would weep.
–
This leads on to this nonsensical storage concept.
“Note that because the heat capacity of the deeper ocean is several orders of magnitude greater than that of the mixed ocean layer, heat energy from the mixed ocean layer at higher temperature is stored at a much lower temperature in the deeper ocean”.
“heat energy from the mixed ocean layer at higher temperature is stored at a much lower temperature in the deeper ocean”.
I will try to explain it.
There is a lot of heat energy in the earth.
Being produced in the earth.[heat source from pressure leading to nuclear fission].
The heat flows to space, the outer earth and the sea get cooler.
The air gets cooler and the heat radiates out to space.
the colder deeper ocean still holds more energy than the surface due to the increased capacitance due to the pressure of the weight of the water at depth.
If there was no second source of energy the temperature slope would be always outward.
“heat must flow downhill on the temperature scale”.
Now light a match.
around the new heat source most flows to space, it is not stored.
That that goes downward heats up a little then flows back out to space, not to the centre of the earth [It cannot go uphill.]
Heat flows out it is not stored. There is no storage mechanism. Capacitance is not a storage device just an expression of the state of the matter at a a certain temperature.
“This accumulated energy is released only when the mixed ocean layer becomes colder than the deeper ocean to satisfy the 2nd principle of thermodynamics”
There is no accumulated energy, new energy flows in old energy strives to flow out, capacitance does not hold it.
“Either will cause the earth to accumulate energy and that accumulation of energy raises the temperature of the planet.”
Neither causes the earth to accumulate energy.
How can it?
Turn up the temperature of the sun and more energy flows both in and out instantly.
You cannot restrict heat energy or thermodynamics does not work.
Replying to daveburton: Your characterization of self-limiting positive feedback is correct, but it reinforces my point. The temperature feedback is 100%; there is no distinction between the temperature rise produced by carbon dioxide and that produced by water. In the language of amplification, both the amplification factor and the feedback are equal to unity, which is what causes the runaway situation that we have all experienced with sound systems.
I make the same reply to JJBracelli: to quote, “water vapor is controlled by atmospheric temperature. It can’t drive atmospheric temperature.” Temperature is temperature. A one degree increase in temperature caused by water will have the same effect as a one degree increase caused by carbon dioxide.
As I pointed out, there is something that does limit water vapor increase: the combination of cloud albedo and atmospheric convection. The problem here is that if these increase in proportion to the water vapor increase, they negate the temperature rise. The numbers are these: convection (mostly caused by violent updrafts in thunderstorm) amounts to 24 watts per square meter removed from the heating budget. The water portion of cloud albedo is about 50 watts per square meter. (Both numbers are taken from the Assessment Reports.) A 1 degree temperature increase will produce an approximately 7% increase in water vapor at equilibrium; it seems reasonable to assume that everything depending on water vapor will increase by the same amount. But if the 74 watts per square meter ascribed to convection and albedo is increased by 7%, or roughly 5 watts per square meter, this will produce a cooling of just about 1 degree. In other words, it will cancel the effect that created it.
I see no way out of this. I have been in the business long enough to realize that such back of the envelope calculations are often proven wrong by more detailed calculations, but I find no hint of any such disproofs. That is what I am asking for.
Peter wrote, “The temperature feedback is 100%”
That is incorrect. It is a tiny fraction of that. Net climate temperature feedbacks might even be slightly negative, though I doubt that.
Water vapor radiative feedback is positive, but lapse rate feedback, which is also largely driven by water vapor, is negative — and water vapor also affects clouds — in complex, poorly-understood ways.
My best guess is that the net feedback is positive, but not hugely.
Peter wrote, “there is no distinction between the temperature rise produced by carbon dioxide and that produced by water.”
Sure, l but I don’t know what your point is.
Peter wrote, “In the language of amplification, both the amplification factor and the feedback are equal to unity,”
That is incorrect:
a. The feedback is a tiny fraction of unity, and
b. Feedback and the resulting amplification are only the same when zero.
For example, a feedback ƒ = +33⅓% causes a +50% amplification, which is a gain of 1/(1-ƒ) = 1.5×.
Peter wrote, “water vapor is controlled by atmospheric temperature. It can’t drive atmospheric temperature.”
Actually, it does both: warmer temperatures increase water vapor content of the atmosphere; and water vapor is a GHG so it increases warming. That makes it a positive feedback loop, but it is nowhere near unity feedback.
I go into all this in greater depth on my web page about it:
https://sealevel.info/feedbacks.html
I’ll give you two effects you are not taking into account. The idea that water vapor effect would spiral out of control if not for albedo is wrong.
Let’s say water vapor increases in the atmosphere and that causes more back radiation. What happens is that that radiation is absorbed by the earth and reradiated, but the earth is not a mirror. That radiation is reradiated across a wide range of IR wavelengths according to Planck’s equation. Water vapor absorbs IR energy over a wide band of wavelengths, but not all wavelengths and not at the same rate over those wavelengths. That means less radiation is absorbed than was radiated by the water vapor. That will spiral downward as the absorbed radiation gets reradiated. It will not spiral out of control. There will be some equilibrium temperature reached without considering albedo effects.
Some of the back radiation will be stored in the ocean. That is necessary to compensate for mass transfer resistance.
I’m not going to go through the rest of it because I don’t have the time. The only thing I can tell you is from what I have read is the albedo effect is expected to increase with rising atmospheric temperature, but only slightly.
Reply to daveburton:
You misunderstand my point. Let me try again. According to the amplification hypothesis endorsed by the IPCC, a 1 degree increase in atmospheric temperature caused by carbon dioxide or any other forcing agent will cause an increase of water vapor in the atmosphere, which causes an additional temperature rise. They assert that this rise is 2 or 3 times the original 1 degree increment, so it is not trivial. Take the lower guess (it does not matter, so long as the contribution is positive.) The temperature is now 2 degrees, not 1, warmer than it was before, so the water vapor should respond to a 2 degree increment. At a nominal increase in water vapor density of 7% per degree, the increase in water vapor is now 14% rather than 7%, causing still more heating. (By the way, the assertion that “water vapor is controlled by atmospheric temperature. It can’t drive atmospheric temperature” was not written by me. I was quoting JJBracelli, who was also responding to my query.) With more vapor present, the temperature rise is twice what it was before, so the result should now be a 4 degree rise. So now, the vapor density increase should be 28%, and so it goes. This is the divergence I wrote about.
Since this obviously does not happen, something else must halt the rise. This is where the convection and cloud albedo argument comes in. If they increase at the same rate as water vapor in the atmosphere, they will negate the temperature increase caused by water. Of course, it is only an assumption that convection and albedo increase proportionally to the water present, but absent experimental proof to the contrary, I can imagine no credible alternative. Absent a valid disproof of my argument, I stand by what I have written.
A few more points to clear things up.
1. Greenhouse gases do not significantly heat the atmosphere by heat being transferred from greenhouse gas molecules to the atmosphere. Most of the energy absorbed by greenhouse gases is reradiated. You can see that from the temperature profile of the atmosphere. The highest temperature is at the surface, and it decreases linearly to the top of the troposphere. If greenhouse gases were heating the atmosphere the profile would be flatter or inverted. The troposphere is heated by convection from the surface.
2. Evaporation and condensation of water contributes nothing to warming or cooling the planet or the atmosphere globally. Energy is absorbed at the surface and the same amount of energy is released in the atmosphere. It’s done isothermally. The global average temperature of the atmosphere sets the water saturation temperature for the planet. Local conditions cause local evaporation and condensation in an attempt to bring the local atmospheric temperature in line with the global average.
3. The primary means of heating the atmosphere by water vapor is the earth’s absorption of back radiation from water vapor. That raises the temperature of the planet which causes more heat to be transferred to the atmosphere by convection from the surface which raises the temperature of the planet.
I have already discussed how the temperature rise due to back radiation gets distributed according to Planck’s equation and how that prevents a runaway temperature rise in the atmosphere.
JJB, I have no qualifications other than reading the climate blogs but I think I disagree with 1. The EGHE theory predicts warming of the troposphere and cooling of the stratosphere. GHG does not generate heat it impedes radiative flux. By absorbing and reradiating at the 15 micron band CO2 acts like an atmospheric stop sign slowing the flow of energy. This changes the temperature gradient, particularly in areas of the troposphere devoid of water vapor (that would otherwise mask the effect by vapor’s saturation of the 15m band).
Once a 15m photon reaches the top of the troposphere it approaches a point where the chances are better than not it will have an unimpeded travel to deep space, subtracting from surface Earth’s energy. I believe this is known in climate science as the top of the atmosphere TOA. The stratosphere, lying mostly above this point, is cooled by the lack of flow of 15m relative to before.
Another way I have seen the EGHE explained is from the perspective of CO2 concentration raising the “effective height” of the TOA where there’s a clear shot to deep space. From the higher height the final reradiation is from a cooler temperature due to the lapse rate. The 15m radiation just below the TOA now has a better chance than not of being thermalized to other molecules and be reradiated at a lower energy photon due to the lower temperature (and thus lower black body profile) relative to before. Both ways are descriptions of the same thing I think.
If I have stated something better or worse than the IPCC consensus or your understanding of the actual physics I look forward to gaining corrections.
You have some parts right and some parts wrong.
Let’s talk about CO2. The CO2 15mm band gets saturated in the lower troposphere. That means it absorbs all radiant energy in 15 mm that the earth generates and very, very little escapes the troposphere. Some of the absorbed energy heats the atmosphere, but the bulk of it is reradiated and reabsorbed by the earth. The energy you see in the 15 mm band at TOA is from kinetic energy in the atmosphere. The conversion of kinetic energy into radiant energy is modeled by Planck’s equation. That why they use the term blackbody radiation when they refer to this energy. The energy that doesn’t escape the atmosphere is eventually converted to kinetic energy raising the temperature of the atmosphere. In fact, all the energy that additional CO2 absorbs is converted into kinetic energy because it is impossible for that energy to reradiate the earth. That means it raises the temperature of the atmosphere. The earth transfers heat to the atmosphere by convection. Any increase in the temperature of the atmosphere restricts convective heat transfer which raises the temperature of the planet.
Since all the radiant energy at TOA is from kinetic energy, the concept of a CO2 radiating temperature in the atmosphere follows. From the amount of radiation escaping the atmosphere in the 15 MM band, you can calculate a CO2 radiating temperature from the S-B equation. As more and more CO2 is absorbed, that temperature gets lower and lower. From that comes the idea that CO2 is radiating energy higher and higher in the troposphere.
There is another effect that seldom gets mentioned. As the earth warms it puts out more radiation in the 15 mm band. That because the earth radiates like a blackbody. Even though the 15 mm band is “saturated” it will continue to increase reradiation as the planet warms.
Because IR absorption by a greenhouse gas molecule causes the molecule to vibrate, and kinetic collisions can cause the molecule to vibrate. A greenhouse gas molecule is capable of cooling or heating the atmosphere.
The stratosphere warms — not cools, but it’s not due to greenhouse gases. Ozone forms in the stratosphere by reaction of ultraviolet solar radiation with oxygen. The reaction release heat and that heats the stratosphere.
“2. Evaporation and condensation of water contributes nothing to warming or cooling the planet or the atmosphere globally.”
I’m afraid I disagree with this.
Evaporation cools the surface and warms the troposphere at the height of the vapor’s condensation. The higher the average surface temperature and wind speeds the higher the evaporation rate. This would have a negative feedback effect to surface temp. Whether a warmer atmosphere relative to the surface expels more energy from the planet than before I am not positive. But I am certain that more thunderheads, which are heat volcanos to the stratosphere expel huge amounts of heat from the planet relative to no thunderheads.
Here’s the thing. None of that impacts the energy balance of the planet and has zero impact on planetary temperature. The earth and its atmosphere form a system. All things you deem as important are just energy transfers back and forth within the system. The ONLY things that matter are the amount of energy the earth absorbs from the sun and the amount of energy it radiates into space.
All the things you talk about are due to the earth trying to come to a uniform temperature. What you’re doing is the same as believing if you take money out of one pocket and put it in another you have more money.
JJB wrote, “Evaporation and condensation of water contributes nothing to warming or cooling the planet…”
Ron replied, “Evaporation cools the surface and warms the troposphere at the height of the vapor’s condensation. The higher the average surface temperature and wind speeds the higher the evaporation rate. This would have a negative feedback effect to surface temp.”
I agree with Ron. Evaporative cooling is an important negative feedback mechanism, because warmer water evaporates faster, accelerating the water cycle.
warmer surface → more rapid evaporative heat loss → cooler surface
The water cycle is a classic phase-change refrigeration cycle, like the Freon refrigeration cycle in your refrigerator: Water evaporates at the surface, absorbing “heat of evaporation” (latent heat). Because the molecular weight of water vapor molecules is just 18 (compared to 28 for nitrogen), moist air is lighter than dry air (perhaps contrary to intuition). So the moist air rises to the mid-troposphere, where the water condenses into clouds, releasing the “latent heat” which it had absorbed at the surface.
This process is the most important way in which heat is removed from surface of the Earth.
On cool nights the opposite happens: moisture from the air condenses on the ground, releasing latent heat, and warming the ground.
Global warming should generally increase the rate of evaporation, and thereby increase the rate at which heat is transported away from the surface. That decreases the surface temperature changes which result from other forcings.
The importance this feedback is demonstrated by the dramatically lower diurnal temperature swings in humid climates, compared to deserts.
Here’s the problem with your analysis.
Any water that gets evaporated at the surface eventually condenses in the troposphere. Very, very little water vapor escapes the troposphere. Condensation in the atmosphere releases the same amount of energy that was absorbed by evaporation at the surface. Net impact is zero.
At one time I thought that some of the heat released by condensation warmed the atmosphere and was radiated to outer space. I have rethought that in terms of average atmospheric temperature and the fact that the condensation process is isothermal. That leads me to the conclusion that condensation in the atmosphere does not cause an increase in the radiant energy escaping to outer space.
As I keep on trying to explain to you, transfer of energy that occur in the earth system (planet + atmosphere) have no impact on the planet’s energy balance and no impact on the planet’s temperature. That’s what the First Law of Thermodynamics dictates.
JJB wrote, “Any water that gets evaporated at the surface eventually condenses in the troposphere.”
True. That removes heat from the surface (cooling it), and released heat in the mid-troposphere (warming it).
JJB wrote, “Very, very little water vapor escapes the troposphere.”
True, although the stratosphere does get some water via oxidation of methane.
JJB wrote, “Condensation in the atmosphere releases the same amount of energy that was absorbed by evaporation at the surface. Net impact is zero.”
It releases then energy in a different place. That has a very significant impact.
Here’s NASA’s (updated Trenberth) “Earth’s energy budget” diagram:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/langley/what-is-earth-s-energy-budget-five-questions-with-a-guy-who-knows
(also saved here)
Look near the right side. Do you see where it shows “latent heat (change of state)… 86.4” W/m²… “evapotranspiration”? That’s what we’re talking about. It removes a very large amount of heat from the surface.
In fact, it is a considerably more important cooling mechanism than the net LW IR flux. That also cools the surface, but by an average of only (389.2 – 340.3) = 48.9 W/m² (according to NASA’s estimates).
JJB wrote, “At one time I thought that some of the heat released by condensation warmed the atmosphere and was radiated to outer space.”
It does. But it also reduces the lapse rate, because it cools the surface and warms the mid-troposphere, and that also reduces the temperature of the surface of the Earth.
JJB wrote, “I have rethought that in terms of average atmospheric temperature and the fact that the condensation process is isothermal.”
What do you mean by “the condensation process is isothermal”?
JJB wrote, “That leads me to the conclusion that condensation in the atmosphere does not cause an increase in the radiant energy escaping to outer space.”
It does increase the rate at which radiant energy escapes the atmosphere. But that’s not the only way that it cools the surface of the Earth.
Your problem is that you don’t understand the energy budget you supplied.
Let’s look at your energy budget and see what really going on. Your energy budget is not a steady-state energy balance. If it were, there would be no “net heat added”. That means if latent heat has an impact, we should see an energy imbalance either in the atmosphere or on the planet once we correct for the net heat added due to the greenhouse effect.
First, let’s do an energy balance around the atmosphere
Energy In
Solar radiation absorbed: 77.1 W/m2
Radiation emitted by the surface of the earth: 398.2 W/m2
Thermals: 18.4 W/m2
Latent Heat: 86.4 W/m2
Total Energy In = 580.1 W/m2
Energy Out
Total outgoing infrared radiation: 239.9 W/m2
Back Radiation: 340.3 W/m2
Total Energy Out = 580.2 W/m2
The difference is 0.1 W/m2. A roundoff error. How do I know? Because if evaporation is causing an imbalance, Energy In would be > Energy Out. In any event, latent heat has no impact on the temperature of the atmosphere.
Now, let’s look at the planet.
Energy In
Solar radiation absorbed: 163.3 W/m2
Back radiation: 340.3 W/m2
Total Energy In = 503.6 W/m2
Energy Out
Net absorbed energy: 0.6 W/m2
Emitted by the surface of the earth: 398.2 W/m2
Thermals: 18.4 W/m2
Latent heat: 86.4
Total Energy Out = 503.6 W/m2
The latent heat has no impact on the temperature of the planet. It may cause local cooling, but that’s it. Do an energy balance on the planet and the atmosphere combined and you get the same result. Transferring energy from one point to another within the earth system has NO impact on the planet’s temperature.
“What do you mean by “the condensation process is isothermal”?”
If you measure the temperature of water condensate at the beginning of condensation and at the end, it will be the same. It’s the same reason water boils at a constant temperature.
“It does increase the rate at which radiant energy escapes the atmosphere.”
It doesn’t. If you can’t grasp the concept that moving energy around doesn’t impact the temperature of the planet, you will never understand the logic behind what I said.
JJB wrote, “If you can’t grasp the concept that moving energy around doesn’t impact the temperature of the planet, you will never understand the logic behind what I said.”
Perhaps your problem is that when you say “the temperature of the planet” you are not talking about the average temperature at the surface of the planet (which is what matters).
Evaporative cooling moves heat from the surface to the mid-troposphere cools the surface of the Earth, while warming the mid-troposphere.
I asked, “What do you mean by “the condensation process is isothermal”?”
JJB replied, “If you measure the temperature of water condensate at the beginning of condensation and at the end, it will be the same. It’s the same reason water boils at a constant temperature.”
I think you’re talking about the dew point. It is not a constant temperature.
Nor does water evaporate at a constant temperature. Have you ever dried clothes on a clothesline? (Most water which evaporates from the surface of the Earth does not do so at the boiling point.)
But those facts seem irrelevant to our discussion. The fact is that when water evaporates, it absorbs “latent heat’ and when it condenses it releases latent heat. If it evaporates in one place, and condenses somewhere else, that moves heat from one place to the other, cooling the former, and warming the latter.
“Perhaps your problem is that when you say “the temperature of the planet” you are not talking about the average temperature at the surface of the planet (which is what matters).”
What I’m talking about is the average radiating temperature of the planet or it’s blackbody temperature. That’s what every climate scientist on the planet means by planet temperature.
Why is that important? Because the temperature of a planet is a function of the internal energy of a planet. The temperature of a planet can ONLY go up if a planet is absorbing more energy than it radiates into space. Arithmetic average surface temperature means NOTHING.
BTW there is little difference between the average surface temperature of a planet and the average temperature of a planet. Do you know why? If there were, heat would transfer from the surface of a planet to the planet. Planets, like the earth are always close to steady state. The earth radiates 99%+ of the energy it receives from the sun.
“I think you’re talking about the dew point. It is not a constant temperature.”
The dew point temperature is the temperature when the partial pressure of water in the atmosphere equals the vapor pressure. When the temperature of the surrounding atmosphere is at the dew point temperature condensation commences. What goes on then is simultaneous heat and mass transfer, but the liquid will be at or near the dew point temperature as long as the conditions are stable — the partial pressure of water in the atmosphere remains constant.
Phase changes occur at constant temperature for pure components.
As for evaporation, go figure it out for yourself. I’m tired of giving you science lessons.
Correction:
On Dec. 4 I mistyped “398.2” as “389.2”. This…
Jeepers, I hate it when my typos spoil my typo corrections! This time I left out the “/” in “/blockquote”.
Trying again…
Correction:
On Dec. 4 I mistyped “398.2” as “389.2”. This…
…should have been this:
Sorry about that!
“In fact, it is a considerably more important cooling mechanism than the net LW IR flux. That also cools the surface, but by an average of only (398.2 – 340.3) = 57.9 W/m² (according to NASA’s estimates).”
Another attempt by you to redefine something that has no purpose other than to make some idiotic point.
You can’t subtract the back radiation from the earth’s radiative flux. Do you know why? Of course, you don’t. The absorbed solar radiation + back radiation is absorbed by the earth and is the source of earth’s radiative flux + latent heat loses + convective losses. Earth’s radiative flux is by far the largest and most important cooling mechanism for the planet.
Why not subtract back radiation from latent heat? It makes just as much sense.
Peter wrote, “According to the amplification hypothesis endorsed by the IPCC, a 1 degree increase in atmospheric temperature caused by carbon dioxide or any other forcing agent will cause an increase of water vapor in the atmosphere, which causes an additional temperature rise. They assert that this rise is 2 or 3 times the original 1 degree increment, so it is not trivial.”
AR5 considered Water Vapor and Lapse Rate feedbacks together, with an estimated range (section 7.2.5, p.587) of +0.96 to +1.22 W/m² per 1°C, for the net effect of the two feedbacks, combined. If we also assume that 2.8 to 3.4 W/m² forcing causes 1°C of warming, that would imply a 0.96/3.4=28% to 1.22/2.8=43% positive net combined feedback from water vapor & lapse rate feedbacks, which, with “compounding,” would result in a net amplification of 1/(1-ƒ) = 1/(1-(0.96/3.4)) to 1/(1-(1.22/2.8)) = 1.39× to 1.77×, adding 39% to 77% (best estimate 54%) to the original warming.
Peter wrote, “Take the lower guess (it does not matter, so long as the contribution is positive.)”
It certainly DOES matter! A feedback of < +1°C per 1°C of warming merely amplifies. A feedback of ≥ +1°C per 1°C of warming would "run away." When that happens in real life, we call it an "explosion."
Peter wrote, “The temperature is now 2 degrees, not 1, warmer than it was before, so the water vapor should respond to a 2 degree increment. At a nominal increase in water vapor density of 7% per degree, the increase in water vapor is now 14% rather than 7%, causing still more heating…. With more vapor present, the temperature rise is twice what it was before, so the result should now be a 4 degree rise. So now, the vapor density increase should be 28%, and so it goes. This is the divergence I wrote about.”
You’ve described a feedback ƒ = 100%, which would, indeed, be unstable:
ƒ = 100%
amplification = 1/(1-ƒ)
Uh oh!
Fortunately, the actual WV feedback is nowhere near that large. Even the most absurdly high estimate of the amplification effect of WV feedback I’ve seen (Lacis, Hansen et al (2013)) was an estimate of the “compounded” effect, after all feedbacks have happened.
1°C warming increases WV by about 7%. That increases RF by roughly 1.09 W/m² (central estimate).
+1.09 W/m² adds about 0.35°C of additional warming, making the feedback +35%.
0.35°C of additional warming increases RF by about 0.38 W/m².
That adds about 0.04 °C of additional warming.
That increases RF by about 0.1 W/m².
…etc.
If you’re patient enough to do that exercise a few more times you’ll see that the summation (0.35 + 0.04 + … ) converges to the result I showed you above:
A feedback ƒ = +35% causes a gain of 1/(1-ƒ) = 1/0.65 = ×1.54, i.e., a 54% amplification.
Correction:
This:
That adds about 0.04 °C of additional warming.
That increases RF by about 0.1 W/m².
…should have been this:
That adds about 0.12 °C of additional warming.
That increases RF by about 0.13 W/m².
That adds about 0.04 °C of additional warming.
That increases RF by about 0.05 W/m².
Sorry!
https://www.adroitinfotech.com/
Daveburton: Thank you, Dave. I had misinterpreted the IPCC. When they wrote that the amplification is 2 or 3 times the initial forcing, I thought they referred to the first shot, in other words what you call the factor f. And as you point out, for any f greater than 1, it will diverge.
I still have a question, however. You say that the most extreme estimate of the amplification is about 54%. Where then does the IPCC estimate come from?
54% is not the most extreme estimate. It’s a central value which I calculated using AR5’s figures (section 7.2.5, p.587) for RF from water vapor & lapse rate feedbacks, considered together.
The most extreme estimate I’ve seen is from (Lacis, Hansen et al, 2013), and they gave no source. They claimed that the “feedback contribution to the greenhouse effect by water vapour and clouds” effectively quadruples (adds 3× to) the warming effect of CO2 and other GHGs. (However, further down in the paper they admitted that lapse rate feedback reduces that.)
Everyone paying attention is aware that the world has warmed up since the depths of the LIA. The mistake is assuming that the warming is significantly a result of CO2 increase. Water vapor is a ghg that molecule for molecule is a more effective absorber of terrestrial radiation than CO2. Average global water vapor has been measured by NASA/RSS using satellite instrumentation Jan 1988 to Jan 2021 and reported monthly. It has been increasing about twice as fast as it would from just planet warming (net result of all feedbacks and forcings). The human contribution to warming is a result of WV increase; mostly (about 90%) from increasing irrigation. https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com
Irrigation is normally considered by climate scientists as a land use effect. Land use and land change (LULC) are considered a non-climate effects. If irrigation is the cause of significant evaporation on a regional scale and this is causing warming is this is a rural equivalent to UHI or is it the cause of warming of the globe since the LIA?
Question: If so, then what caused the LIA?
Once again, moving energy around cannot cause climate change.
Let’s look at the earth. It would be at 255 K without the greenhouse effect. Now add the effect of water. What happens? The water evaporates and saturates the atmosphere. The greenhouse effect raises the temperature of the planet, and the atmosphere can hold more water. As with many other processes, this process follows the law of diminishing returns, eventually the planet comes to an equilibrium temperature. At that point, water can no longer impact the planet’s temperature. That’s because the atmosphere is saturated with water. Any more water vapor added to the atmosphere will cause condensation and the water added will return to the earth. The ONLY way water can further affect temperature is if some other cause changes the temperature of the planet. That could be an increase in solar radiation or an increase in another greenhouse gas. Water can only react to temperature changes of the earth. It can’t cause them.
All of these idiotic theories, including the planet rotation theory, rely on nonlinear temperature responses to an exchange of energy. In other words, you take energy from somewhere and move it somewhere else. The temperature from where you take it from doesn’t lower as much as where you put it to, then you average the temperatures, and the average temperature is higher than before you do the exchange. That leads you to believe that the planet has warmed. It hasn’t. You haven’t increased the temperature of the planet at all. To do that, you have to increase the energy of the planet. Moving energy from one place to the other doesn’t do that.
When the scientific community doesn’t consider your “epiphany” relevant, it’s a conspiracy theory to hide the truth. The truth is that those who propose such theories are being disingenuous, or don’t understand science.
Ron,
The first indication that water vapor has been a substantial factor in the temperature increase of the planet since about 1700 is from the NASA/RSS measurements. They show a WV increase rate of about 1.49% per decade. That increase is more than possible from just average global temperature increase.
An investigation of possible sources of WV uncovered the huge contribution from irrigation. The investigation is described in Section 6.
What caused the LIA is a separate issue. It was well before the industrial revolution so it must have resulted from some natural phenomena. Perhaps related to solar changes or Milankovitch cycles or other, as yet not identified natural phenomena.
“Once again, moving energy around cannot cause climate change.”
JJB, When you say climate change I think you are meaning Earth energy balance ERB. Moving energy around in new ways does cause climate change almost by definition. It also changes ERB if the energy movement changes atmospheric temperature’s dispersion, advection or elevation profiles.
The first two profiles affect Earth’s radiation efficacy. The more evenly energy is distributed horizontally on the Earth skin the less effective energy can be radiated. And the reverse is true, of course. Planets without atmospheres and weather to distribute the Sun’s energy more evenly along the surface have much cooler mean surface temperatures. This is well known.
The elevation profile is a critical component to the Earth’s radiation profile because the radiation only leaves the Earth from the TOA. Thus a higher the temperature at the TOA is critical, which is the basis of the EGHE.
Climate change is all about energy. The First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Once energy increases on the planet — planet + atmosphere –, it’s there until it is removed. The increases in number and severity of weather events are caused by the energy buildup. As energy increases on the planet so does the planet’s temperature. The energy buildup is caused solely by an energy imbalance at TOA.
There is another effect occurring at that same time. The sun does not heat the earth evenly. That sets up energy imbalances across the planet. Weather is an example of how the earth is trying to resolve these imbalances. I think a better way of describing the result of this effect is climate variability. The climate is different across the planet. Other events can channel the distribution of energy to cause a change in local weather patterns, but none of that can cause the global climate to change.
“The more evenly energy is distributed horizontally on the Earth skin the less effective energy can be radiated. And the reverse is true, of course. Planets without atmospheres and weather to distribute the Sun’s energy more evenly along the surface have much cooler mean surface temperatures. This is well known.”
It makes no difference how evenly the energy is distributed. Whatever radiant energy the earth absorbs gets radiated into space. The earth behaves like a blackbody, it absorbs everything that doesn’t get reflected. The earth absorbs and radiates energy differently between the sunny and dark sides, and at the equator and the poles, but it still radiates whatever it absorbs, otherwise energy will buildup on the planet.
What earth’s atmosphere does is reflect solar radiation because of clouds. Even though it doesn’t have an atmosphere, the moon is hotter than the earth. That’s because it has a lower albedo than the earth.
“The elevation profile is a critical component to the Earth’s radiation profile because the radiation only leaves the Earth from the TOA. Thus a higher the temperature at the TOA is critical, which is the basis of the EGHE”
It’s not critical at all. There are very few molecules at TOA to impact the earth’s radiant energy. The place in the atmosphere where temperature has an impact is the upper troposphere. Even there, the effect is somewhat limited.
The atmospheric window is where the radiant energy of the earth passes through the atmosphere undisturbed. The effect of the atmosphere on the rest of earth’s radiant profile is from a lot to a little.
Planets are not blackbodies. Earth is a planet.
Earth does not behave as blackbody.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Yet, your “equation” has the blackbody temperature embedded in it, and you compare the results of your equation with blackbody temperatures of planets. It seems the only time you disparage blackbody temperatures is when it doesn’t agree with the junk science you’re trying to peddle.
Planets are not blackbodies. Planets do not have blackbody temperatures…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“The energy buildup is caused solely by an energy imbalance at TOA.”
Yes. This is controlled by Earth energy balance, which is complex. https://www.weather.gov/jetstream/energy
“…but none of that can cause the global climate to change. It makes no difference how evenly the energy is distributed. Whatever radiant energy the earth absorbs gets radiated into space.”
I disagree.
“The earth behaves like a blackbody, it absorbs everything that doesn’t get reflected. The earth absorbs and radiates energy differently between the sunny and dark sides, and at the equator and the poles, but it still radiates whatever it absorbs, otherwise energy will buildup on the planet.”
I agree. However, the key that you are missing is that as energy distributes from the tropics to the poles (or summer side to winter side) the efficiency of the radiation to emit outward off the planet diminishes on the whole. If the tropics lose an average of 10 deg K to the polar regions due to a change in the global conveyor the two changes in temperature will balance but the average change in the blackbody energy profiles will not, because the Stefan-Boltzmann follows a 4th power curve, not a linear slope. IOW, when half of a planet’s surface has all the Sun’s energy and does not share it the emission will be much higher as a whole then when solar energy is shared by convection along the surface. For each degree Kelvin it shares it loses BB efficiency to the 4th power.
“Even though it doesn’t have an atmosphere, the moon is hotter than the earth. That’s because it has a lower albedo than the earth.”
Normalizing for the difference in albedo, the moon, or any surface that can’t distribute energy through convection, will be cooler as a whole than a surface that can dissipate the Sun’s energy more efficiently around to it dark side and polar regions, thereby lowering the overall BB radiative profile of the sphere.
“There are very few molecules at TOA to impact the earth’s radiant energy. The place in the atmosphere where temperature has an impact is the upper troposphere. Even there, the effect is somewhat limited.”
The TOA is defined as the theoretical place where radiation last touches off the planet. This is a different elevation for every wavelength and different composition of the atmosphere. That elevation is called the Effective Height. The EGHE postulates the effective height for the 15 micron wavelength is increased by increased CO2 concentration thereby radiating at a cooler height due to the lapse rate and therefore emitting at a lower BB profile.
Your problem is that you can’t see the forest for the trees. You are too concerned with the minutia. Let’s look at a couple of examples.
In this case, we will consider the impact of greenhouse gases on the earth by looking at only the earth’s energy balance.
The earth absorbs a constant amount of solar radiation and comes to a steady state at a constant temperature. It makes no difference where additional radiation comes from. The earth reacts to what it sees. The additional radiation could be from the sun or little green men firing an energy weapon at the planet.
In the case of greenhouse gases, the additional radiation comes from back radiation. Notice that back radiation takes no energy from the planet. It uses energy that the earth has already discarded and recycles it. The earth sees more radiation and reacts by raising its temperature to discard the additional energy. It has no idea that the radiation source is its waste radiation.
Now let’s look at an uneven distribution of energy on the planet. Another way to look at it is start with an even distribution, and then move energy to different points on the planet. In terms of energy, the planet sees no difference in the energy it receives. There is no reason for it to increase its energy output. The planet’s temperature remains constant. Temperatures adjust to the energy balance – not vice-versa.
“Normalizing for the difference in albedo, the moon, or any surface that can’t distribute energy through convection, will be cooler as a whole than a surface that can dissipate the Sun’s energy more efficiently around to it dark side and polar regions, thereby lowering the overall BB radiative profile of the sphere.”
That is the idea behind the planet rotation theory. As a planet rotates, it gets warmer, exceeding its stationary blackbody temperature. You can disprove that by starting with a non-rotating planet at steady state. Rotate the planet by 180 degrees so that the cold side faces the Sun and the hot side doesn’t. Now you’ve put the planet in an unsteady state. If the planet rotation theory is valid, there should be an energy imbalance. I will use the S-B equation to test out the planet rotation theory.
When I use the symbol T, take it to mean T to the 4th power. Let the sun’s temp be Ts. Let the hot side surface temperature of the planet be Th. Let the cold side surface temperature of the planet be Tc. k is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant x emissivity x area. Assume the sun irradiates half the planet, so the hot and cold areas are the same. Start with a non-spinning planet with no atmosphere and at steady state.
Heat absorbed by the planet = k(Ts – Th). The heat emitted by the planet = kTc (the cold side of the planet absorbs no energy).
At steady state, heat absorbed by the planet is the same as the heat emitted by the planet. k(Ts – Th) = kTc or Tc = Ts – Th
Rotate the planet 180 degrees, so the cold side faces the sun.
The heat absorbed on the hot side is k(Ts – Tc)
The heat emitted by the planet kTh.
Since Tc = Ts – Th, make the substitution for Tc.
The heat absorbed by the planet = kTh.
The heat emitted by the planet = kTh.
Heat absorbed equals heat admitted. Since there is no difference, the planet’s temperature cannot change. Due to rotation, the hot side and cold side temperatures have changed. The planet is absorbing and emitting more energy. What you’re missing is that the planet absorbs more energy when the energy is more evenly distributed, but it also emits more energy. The energy balance forces those temperatures to specific values to maintain the energy balance. You can’t create energy. Temperatures adjust to the energy balance – not vice-versa.
“The TOA is defined as the theoretical place where radiation last touches off the planet. This is a different elevation for every wavelength and different composition of the atmosphere. That elevation is called the Effective Height.”
TOA is a fixed point.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/7373/the-top-of-the-atmosphere
JBraccili:
“In the case of greenhouse gases, the additional radiation comes from back radiation. Notice that back radiation takes no energy from the planet. It uses energy that the earth has already discarded and recycles it. The earth sees more radiation and reacts by raising its temperature to discard the additional energy. It has no idea that the radiation source is its waste radiation.”
This is just an assumption that is not supported by the observation.
The earth surface warms in summer and cools in winter as reported by Jones et al. (1990):
https://bit.ly/3CTcC2o
And by Kantha & Clayson, 2003:
https://b.gatech.edu/3EXMS6E
Seasonally, in summer, the atmosphere is heated to a higher temperature than the mixed layer because the heat capacity of the atmosphere is an order of magnitude less than that of the atmosphere. As a result, the mixed ocean layer is heated in summer by the warmer atmosphere, not due to the greenhouse effect. Similarly, in winter, the atmosphere is cooled to a lower temperature than the mixed layer. In winter, the mixed ocean layer looses heat to the relatively colder atmosphere and to space.
That due to the greenhouse effect the colder atmosphere heats the surface by back radiation is contrary to the second principle of thermodynamics that “heat must flow downhill on the temperature scale”. In the atmosphere, temperature falls with height from the surface.
The greenhouse is back up by experimental data. The spectrographic data alone is enough.
Since “summer” and “winter” occur in different parts of the world at different times during the year, that analysis is meaningless.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics says the NET flow of heat must be from the warmer body to the colder body. It does not say that no heat can flow from a colder body to a warmer body.
The earth radiates energy in all directions. Some of that energy is directed toward the sun. The sun is hotter than the earth yet, energy flows from the colder body — earth — to the sun — hotter. The net flow of energy is from the sun to the earth. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is not violated.
JJBraccili:
“In the case of greenhouse gases, the additional radiation comes from back radiation. Notice that back radiation takes no energy from the planet. It uses energy that the earth has already discarded and recycles it. The earth sees more radiation and reacts by raising its temperature to discard the additional energy. It has no idea that the radiation source is its waste radiation.”
This is just an assumption that is not supported by the observation.
The earth surface warms in summer and cools in winter as reported by Jones et al. (1990):
https://bit.ly/3CTcC2o
And by Kantha & Clayson, 2003:
https://b.gatech.edu/3EXMS6E
Seasonally, in summer, the atmosphere is heated to a higher temperature than the mixed layer because the heat capacity of the atmosphere is an order of magnitude less than that of the mixed ocean layer. As a result, the mixed ocean layer is heated in summer by the warmer atmosphere, not due to the greenhouse effect. Similarly, in winter, the atmosphere is cooled to a lower temperature than the mixed layer. In winter, the mixed ocean layer looses heat to the relatively colder atmosphere and to space.
That due to the greenhouse effect the colder atmosphere heats the surface by back radiation is contrary to the second principle of thermodynamics that “heat must flow downhill on the temperature scale”. In the atmosphere, temperature falls with height from the surface.
JJBraccili | December 10, 2021 |
.concerned with the minutia.
In this case, we will consider the impact of greenhouse gases on the earth by looking at only the earth’s energy balance.
The earth absorbs a constant amount of solar radiation and comes to a steady state at a constant temperature.
In the case of greenhouse gases, the additional radiation comes from back radiation.
No, there is no additional radiation [The earth absorbs a constant amount of solar radiation]
”
That is the idea behind the planet rotation theory. As a planet rotates, it gets warmer, exceeding its stationary blackbody temperature.
No As a planet rotates, it gets warmer, approaching the true blackbody temperature.
TOA is a fixed point.
No the TOA on the cold or night side of the planet and at the cold pole is a lot closer to the surface than that on the hot side and is variable.
“No, there is no additional radiation [The earth absorbs a constant amount of solar radiation]”
Well, one thing that can be said for you is that you’re consistent — consistently wrong.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/2010_schmidt_05/
Take a look at the IR spectrographic on the above website. If you calculate the area of the blue section, you come up with 240 W/m2. If you calculate the area under the red curve you come up with 390 W/m2. The 240 W/m2 is the outgoing radiation at TOA. The 390 W/m2 is the outgoing radiation at the surface of the earth. The difference is the back radiation — 150 W/m2. That’s data! Refute that.
“No As a planet rotates, it gets warmer, approaching the true blackbody temperature.”
The true blackbody temperature is the temperature when the planet is stationary. It never changes no matter how fast you rotate the planet. What happens is that the faster you spin a planet the more uniform the temperature of the planet. The entire surface of the planet approaches the stationary blackbody temperature. I know it’s beyond you, but I already proved that.
“No the TOA on the cold or night side of the planet and at the cold pole is a lot closer to the surface than that on the hot side and is variable.”
TOA doesn’t exist. It’s an arbitrary point.
Dan
Thank you for highlighting this topic. I’ve never read any studies about the potential effect of irrigation on climate so this gave me a chance to do so. I found this study which in part says this:
“ Our study shows that incorporating irrigation has substantially improved the simulated precipitation amounts over the downwind areas across the CONUS, suggesting the importance of integrating anthropogenic influences on the land surface in climate modeling. Over the irrigated areas, the added surface water by irrigation is redistributed within the regional climate system through complex land–atmosphere interactions, wind modifications, and upper-level moisture advection processes rather than simply through direct local recycling via the ET–convective rainfall link, which is commonly assumed. This simulated anthropogenic change in soil water content strongly affects atmospheric thermodynamic features nationwide from the lower atmosphere to the upper troposphere, modifying the entire water cycle.”
The authors include several citations about various aspect of the issue, more than I would have imagined. A new and interesting area to consider in evaluating the proportion of NV to AGW.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/29/10/jcli-d-15-0337.1.xml
CK,
Thanks for the link. Looks like a useful study on CONUS.
JJBraccili:
“Take a look at the IR spectrographic on the above website. If you calculate the area of the blue section, you come up with 240 W/m2. If you calculate the area under the red curve you come up with 390 W/m2. The 240 W/m2 is the outgoing radiation at TOA. The 390 W/m2 is the outgoing radiation at the surface of the earth. The difference is the back radiation — 150 W/m2. That’s data! Refute that.”
What you are ignoring is the initial global warming rate or the thermal flywheel effect of the ocean. If the global was warming at a rate of 0.1 deg C per decade in 1990, the global would warm by 0.2 deg C due to the initial global warming, without any climate forcing. The “AGW theory” attribute this warming to the greenhouse effect instead of to the thermal flywheel effect of the ocean described by Hoffert (1980):
“There has existed for some time the impression that the deep oceans of the world, by virtue of their extremely high heat capacity relative to the atmosphere, may act as a kind of thermal flywheel, providing temporary heat storage during periods of climatic change and affecting the rate of change of global surface temperatures over timescales of years to centuries.”
https://bit.ly/31PEYhx
You are also ignoring the huge seasonal changes in incoming solar and outgoing thermal radiations, i.e, in northern hemisphere summer, the global is a heat sink and in winter a heat source.
That refutes your claim.
JJBraccili
> “All of these idiotic theories, including the planet rotation theory…”
Moon IR radiates 28 % more IR outgoing EM energy than Earth, but, nevertheless, Moon’s measured average surface temperature is 68C lower than that of Earth…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
This observation cannot be explained otherwise, but by the “Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon”.
It states:
“Planets’ mean surface temperatures relate (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products’ sixteenth root”.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
daveburton | November 23, 2021 I put this in again so you would see it and perhaps comment further?
“TSI is customarily spec’d at Top Of Atmosphere, facing directly toward the Sun. It’s variously estimated to be about 1365±5 W/m². (I think NASA is currently estimating 1361.5 W/m².)”
–
Are you sure about this?
I would guess it is specified at the earth’s surface, not at TOA.
Yes, I’m sure, angech. I have a collection of links to glossaries on my site, here:
I think you should recheck.
Your last reference source directly rebuts it.
It is maeasured at the equivalent of the earths surface not TOA.
Here’s the AMS:
https://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Total_solar_irradianceTotal solar irradiance (TSI) The total amount of solar radiation in watts per square metre received outside the Earth’s atmosphere on a surface normal to the incident radiation, and at the Earth’s mean distance from the Sun.
angech, the word “surface” in the phrase “received outside the Earth’s atmosphere on a surface normal to the incident radiation” does not refer to the surface of the Earth. It is what the surface of (for example) a solar panel on an orbiting satellite would receive, if facing directly toward the Sun.
In other words, it is above the atmosphere, not down on the surface of the earth.
Dave , thanks for the reply.
I still think you are wrong.
Your reply leaves out the important words quoted above.
“and at the Earth’s mean distance from the Sun.”
This means they are saying ignore any loss of radiation due to earth’s atmosphere and measure the disc receiving the radiation at the mid earth plane.
ie 1364 W/M2 on a disc on the plane of the centre of the earth, ie the earth’s circumference.
The outside the atmosphere is not referring to where it is being measured.
The Earth’s mean distance from the sun is where it is being measured from and this equates to the surface of the earth.
It is poorly described [not my fault] which may have misled you.
I put the comment up because I initially read it the same way as you until I looked closer.
Happy if others can give us a heads up on this interpretation.
And I feel you may need to put a more clear reference up but they are hard to find.
No, angech, the phrase, “at the Earth’s mean distance from the Sun” is telling you at what place in the Earth’s orbit around the Sun you should measure (where the distance is exactly 1AU). You still must measure from above (“outside”) the Earth’s atmosphere, i.e., at TOA.
1AU is defined as 149,597,871 km.
The Earth’s orbit is an ellipse, with the Sun at one of the two foci. The Earth’s distance from the Sun varies from a minimum of about 147.5 million km to a maximum of about 152.6 million km. (I’ve also seem slightly different numbers from other sources, perhaps because some are specified as the distance from the Sun’s center, and others are specified as the distance from its photosphere, and the Sun’s radius is substantial, at about 0.7 million km.)
The actual distance of the Earth from the Sun deviates from 1AU by up to about 3 million km. That is a big enough difference to significantly vary the intensity of solar radiation. So the phrase in question tells you where to measure the intensity of the Sun’s radiation: from 1AU.
It is important to specify that, because (per the inverse-square law):
((149.597871M+3M) / 149.597871M)² – 1 = 4%.
That’s a lot! 4% of 1362 = 54.5 W/m².
In contrast, the Earth’s diameter is only 0.01275 million km. Moving in or out half that distance from the Sun is too tiny of a variation to much affect the intensity of solar radiation:
(((0.01275M/2) + 149.597871M) / 149.597871M)² – 1 = 0.0085%
0.0085% of 1362 = only 0.12 W/m².
Thanks Dave, those numbers put things into perspective. Arguing about TOA versus earth’s surface and about actual distance from the sun is like arguing about the needle in the haystack versus about 16% of the haystack if you take the haystack to be 341 W/m².
However, I believe that your calculation does not account for the increased radius at TOA. Would not the entire atmosphere (including the part that radiation can pass through missing the earth) have some effect? Each GHG molecule is capable of absorbing energy and then scattering that energy in all directions including towards the earth. I imagine that energy that is directed just “above” the earth (but directed to pass by) would be particularly susceptible given that its path would require traveling through the maximum amount of atmosphere. I have never seen the calculations for this, however, as the black body equations will not work. I suspect that the effect might be small as I can find no references to it whatsoever in any of the published energy balances. I guess there is the possibility that they are including it in other items such as the total back radiation number, but don’t know for sure. The total back radiation number is 333 W/m², so that is some indication to me that this may be significant.
If one assumes that the total back radiation does not include this, then 333 W/m² is the energy hitting the earth, then going back into the atmosphere then back down to the earth. The chance of scattering in this case would not be greater than the chance of scattering for energy that is originally directed past the earth (just my guess), so I assume then that the number is not insignificant.
Conversely, if one assumes that the total back radiation does include this, then I assume that it could be roughly half of the number (just my guess), again not an insignificant number.
daveburton | December 9, 2021 at 7:01 am | Reply
“No, angech, the phrase, “at the Earth’s mean distance from the Sun” is telling you at what place in the Earth’s orbit around the Sun you should measure (where the distance is exactly 1AU). You still must measure from above (“outside”) the Earth’s atmosphere, i.e., at TOA.”
Rubbish.
I try not to use capitals and harsh expressions but this hit my fuse.
You made a statement I said Are you sure about this?
I would guess it is specified at the earth’s surface, not at TOA.
“TSI is customarily spec’d at Top Of Atmosphere, facing directly toward the Sun. It’s variously estimated to be about 1365±5 W/m². (I think NASA is currently estimating 1361.5 W/m².)”
–
Yes, I’m sure, angech. I have a collection of links to glossaries on my site, here
I said I think you should recheck.
Your last reference source directly rebuts it.
It is measured at the equivalent of the earths surface not TOA.
Here’s the AMS:
https://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Total_solar_irradianceTotal solar irradiance (TSI) The total amount of solar radiation in watts per square metre received outside the Earth’s atmosphere on a surface normal to the incident radiation, and at the Earth’s mean distance from the Sun.
Your reply
” angech, the word “surface” in the phrase “received outside the Earth’s atmosphere on a surface normal to the incident radiation” does not refer to the surface of the Earth.””
Is the issue
The word surface does refer to the TSI on the surface of the earth.
Specifically the TSI is received at the Earth’s mean distance from the Sun.
Which is where your solar panel and the surface of the earth would be.
Not at a spot on top of the atmosphere which is 6378 kilometers closer
to the sun.
ie It is what the surface of (for example) a solar panel on an orbiting satellite would receive, if facing directly toward the Sun. at the same distance as the centre of the earth from the sun.
Measuring TSI on a surface in space at a distance away from the sun means unimpeded, that is what no atmosphere in the way means. No atmosphere in the way, not above the earth’s atmosphere.
For assessing the earths TSI you take the amount a 1 meter square solar panel in space at the average distance of the earth surface from the sun and multiply it by the earths surface area at that distance.
“The Earth’s orbit is an ellipse,The Earth’s distance from the Sun varies”
Exactly and so what?
The average distance where the solar panel and the earth is from the sun for the purpose of working out the average TSI is what you yourself said
Where the distance is exactly 1AU.
Why is that important?
you claim It is important to specify that, because of the inverse-square law) Moving in or out half that distance from the Sun is too tiny a variation to much affect the intensity of solar radiation:
0.0085% of 1362 = only 0.12 W/m².
You forget though that TOA circumference is a lot bigger than earth circumference as atandb | December 9, 2021 .points out
However, I believe that your calculation does not account for the increased radius at TOA.
He also says “I have never seen the calculations for this, however, as the black body equations will not work.”
However I am under the impression that there are figures. Perhaps something called horizontal radiation?
Whatever .
The amount is quite substantial.
A lot more than only 0.12 W/m².
Again you have taken one bit of the puzzle and chosen to ignore the concept of the much larger amount of TSI at the TOA circumference and the fact that a sizeable percentage of energy increase would go into the earths atmosphere
Every bit that hit the atmosphere but would not hit a disc earth circumference only.
Thanks atandb
angech, I promise, I am not lying to you. TSI is the intensity of the Sun’s radiation at a distance of 1AU, without interference from the Earth’s atmosphere (i.e., at TOA). It is not specified at the surface of the Earth. It is specified as outside the Earth’s atmosphere.
The thickness of the Earth’s atmosphere is inconsequential in this context. It is very small compared to the radius of the Earth, which, in turn, is very small compared to the Earth’s orbital eccentricity.
“Outer space” is generally considered to be anything above the Karman Line, which is an altitude of 100 km. The radius of the Earth is >63 times that.
The International Space Station orbits at an altitude of 409 km. The radius of the the Earth is more than 15 times that.
We can easily calculate how much of difference a 100 km change in distance from the Sun makes in the intensity of solar radiation:
((100 + 149.597871M) / 149.597871M)² – 1 = 0.0001337%
0.0001337% of 1362 W/m² = only 0.0018 W/m²
That’s about three orders of magnitude smaller than the uncertainty in TSI.
Dave,
Given that the earth’s radius is >63 times the distance from the earth to TOA, I agree that the amount of GHE from the radiation that is directed past the earth is going to be small in comparison to the radiation directed at the earth. Therefore, using the earth radius will not result in a significant difference in the energy calculation. When we look at models of this energy balance the atmospheric distance is either exaggerated or more frequently only the top of the earth is shown. It did not occur to me that the difference in distance was so great.
Thanks for you explanations.
Thanks David
I will try to find another source for us. So many of our ideas like TOA are just not clearly specified and set out in multiple accessible sources.
I think “TOA” is generally used just as a shorthand for “outside/above/without the Earth’s atmosphere.” Taken literally, it suggests some unspecified distance/displacement from the Earth’s surface or orbital path, but that’s not what is normally meant by it.
daveburton | December 14, 2021 at 8:20 am | Reply
I think “TOA” is generally used just as a shorthand for “outside/above/without the Earth’s atmosphere.”
No it is specifically where the in going and outgoing energy fluxes are equal.
You know that.
It therefor can be well within the earths atmosphere [night time cold side] but never above or outside the atmosphere.
Taken literally, it suggests some unspecified distance/displacement from the Earth’s surface or orbital path.
Not unspecified. It exists everywhere the fluxes are equal in and out all around the earth in the atmosphere.
Actually, I don’t know that, angech. That definition is new to me.
There is not necessarily any altitude at which the incoming and outgoing radiant energy fluxes to and from a particular location on the Earth’s are equal at any given time. On the night side, at most latitudes, outgoing flux is much greater than incoming (which is why temperatures cool after sunset). Conversely, on the day side, the outgoing flux is generally much less than the incoming flux.
Nor are even the average fluxes necessarily balanced. Some places have positive average net radiative fluxes, and others have negative average net radiative fluxes, because air and water currents also transport heat.
Overall, the Earth is believed to have a current slight net energy imbalance at TOA (which NASA estimates at 0.6 W/m², but that’s pretty clearly too high).
daveburton
“I think “TOA” is generally used just as a shorthand for “outside/above/without the Earth’s atmosphere.” Taken literally, it suggests some unspecified distance/displacement from the Earth’s surface or orbital path, but that’s not what is normally meant by it.”
Yes, I also refer to TOA in the same definition terms : “I think “TOA” is generally used just as a shorthand for “outside/above/without the Earth’s atmosphere.”
And
“Overall, the Earth is believed to have a current slight net energy imbalance at TOA (which NASA estimates at 0.6 W/m², but that’s pretty clearly too high).”
What is your opinion, does Earth have a uniform at TOA net energy imbalance, or it is the average TOA net energy imbalance?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos asked, “What is your opinion, does Earth have a uniform at TOA net energy imbalance, or it is the average TOA net energy imbalance?”
Certainly not uniform, it’s just an average.
For instance, the Earth’s polar regions have net-negative radiation budgets. That is, they radiate more energy than they absorb from sunlight. That is always the case in Antarctica, even in summer! It is nearly always the case in the Arctic, as well, except for a brief period near the summer solstice, when the Sun is at its zenith, and solar radiation absorbed barely exceeds radiation emitted.
Here are some graphs from L’Ecuyer, T. et al, 2015 (or here). The observed state of the energy budget in the early twenty-first century. J. Climate, 28, 8319-8346:
https://sealevel.info/2015_lecuyer_eeb_jcli_fig7-8.html
Scroll down for enlarged versions of the Arctic and Antarctic graphs. Look at the black lines in each graph, which represent net flux. Note that in the Antarctic graph the net flux never reaches zero, and in the Arctic graph it only barely does, briefly, for a month or so around the summer solstice.
Thank you, daveburton.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
daveburton | December 14, 2021
angech, it is specifically where the in going and outgoing energy fluxes are equal.
You know that.
Actually, I don’t know that, angech. That definition is new to me.
There is not necessarily any altitude at which the incoming and outgoing radiant energy fluxes to and from a particular location on the Earth’s are equal at any given time. On the night side, at most latitudes, outgoing flux is much greater than incoming (which is why temperatures cool after sunset). Conversely, on the day side, the outgoing flux is generally much less than the incoming flux.
Those are good points.
I think we should talk more about the definition of TOA to clear it up as others are definitely not understanding it
The problem is that TOA is actually a specific average flux figure for the whole of the planet,so the value does not vary depending on which side of the planet or which pole you are at.
Are you happy with that?
The TOA does vary in average height over the world depending firstly on the input radiation.
If the sun goes up a notch the TOA goes up a notch both in value and height.
Agreed on that?
I would guess that if albedo goes up so there is less incoming radiation that TOA value and average height go down.
Three out of three?
Now the tricky bit. At the moment you are right on the night side. I will have to revise my thoughts.
Dave consider
Wiki Total Solar Irradiance
(TSI) is a measure of the solar power over all wavelengths per unit area incident on the Earth’s upper atmosphere.
but
The solar constant is a conventional measure of mean TSI at a distance of one astronomical unit (AU).
The SI unit of irradiance is watt per square metre (W/m2 = Wm−2).
The separation of Earth from the sun can be denoted RE and the mean distance can be denoted R0, approximately 1 astronomical unit (AU).
The solar constant is denoted S0. The solar flux density (insolation) onto a plane tangent to the sphere of the Earth, but above the bulk of the atmosphere (elevation 100 km or greater)
[Here they specify, as I said the plane is at the mid level of the earths distance from the sun.
Then they cleverly say it is above the atmosphere but not between the earth and the sun]
Of course the amount of energy that can hit the earth on a plane tangent to the earth and sideways above its atmosphere is zilch.
Average annual solar radiation arriving at the top of the Earth’s atmosphere is roughly 1361 W/m2.
on the plane next to earth at earths midpoint level
The average annual solar radiation arriving at the top of the Earth’s atmosphere (1361 W/m2) represents the power per unit area of solar irradiance across the spherical surface surrounding the sun with a radius equal to the distance to the Earth (1 AU). This means that the approximately circular disc of the Earth, as viewed from the sun, receives a roughly stable 1361 W/m2 at all times.
So it is the earth’s disc surface area that is considered to be irradiated. not the toa above the earth between the earth and the sun.
Because the Earth is approximately spherical, it has total area 4 π r 2 {\displaystyle 4\pi r^{2}} 4\pi r^{2}, meaning that the solar radiation arriving at the top of the atmosphere, averaged over the entire surface of the Earth, is simply divided by four to get 340 W/m2. In other words, averaged over the year and the day, the Earth’s atmosphere receives 340 W/m2 from the sun. This figure is important in radiative forcing.
TSI is for the earths surface at the space level TSI on a plane lateral to the earth
The earth has atmosphere outside this disc which is also heated.
The energy budget worked out this way is fictitious and allows a top of earth imbalance that does not exist.
> “Because the Earth is approximately spherical, it has total area 4 π r 2 {\displaystyle 4\pi r^{2}} 4\pi r^{2}, meaning that the solar radiation arriving at the top of the atmosphere, averaged over the entire surface of the Earth, is simply divided by four to get 340 W/m2. In other words, averaged over the year and the day, the Earth’s atmosphere receives 340 W/m2 from the sun. This figure is important in radiative forcing.”
We are not justified to average 1362 W/m2 over the entire surface of the Earth. When hitting Earth, solar energy on the instant INTERACTS with Earth’s matter.
It is not like uniformly adding heat to the entire Earth surface area.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas
We are not justified to average 1362 W/m2 over the entire surface of the Earth?
We have discovered the Planet Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation
the New Equation doesn’t state planet having a uniform surface temperature.
The Planet Mean Surface Temperature Equation for the earth.
–
There seems to be a disconnect in your statements.
You allow yourself to work out a mean planet temperature which in essence if not effect is working out a form of average temperature your way and then say that others are not allowed to do it their way?
–
Of course it is justified to work out the average energy input of the planet over the surface area of the planet.
It is then justified to use this figure in calculations.
The value of using this figure, the meaning of this figure and whether this figure can ever be technically correct is another matter but there is ample justification for using it, wrong though it may be in some calculations, as a specified starting point with suitable caveats.
angech
“You allow yourself to work out a mean planet temperature which in essence if not effect is working out a form of average temperature your way and then say that others are not allowed to do it their way?”
What I meant is that planet effective temperature is a mathematical abstraction. We cannot compare planets’ measured mean surface temperatures with something that doesn’t exist.
“Of course it is justified to work out the average energy input of the planet over the surface area of the planet..”
Please do it correctly then. For Earth ” the average energy input of the planet over the surface area of the planet.” is 111 W/m2 and not 240 W/m2…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The reason they average solar irradiance over the surface of a planet is because the planet radiates energy over its entire surface. As steady state energy in = energy out. To determine the energy a planet radiates based on solar irradiance requires taking the solar irradiance and correcting it. That allows you to calculate an average planetary temperature based on the S-B equation.
Using the arithmetic average temperature is arbitrary. It has no scientific justification other than it is useful for some idiotic unscientific theory to discredit consensus climate science.
> “The reason they average solar irradiance over the surface of a planet is because the planet radiates energy over its entire surface. As steady state energy in = energy out. To determine the energy a planet radiates based on solar irradiance requires taking the solar irradiance and correcting it. That allows you to calculate an average planetary temperature based on the S-B equation.”
> “is because the planet radiates energy over its entire surface. ”
Planet doesn’t radiate like this, because planet is not a previously warmed uniform temperature blackbody surface.
When solar irradiation hits planet’s surface there is an INTERACTION happens.
> “That allows you to calculate an average planetary temperature based on the S-B equation.”
No, it doesn’t allow you!
> “it is useful for some idiotic unscientific theory to discredit consensus climate science.”
You defend the consensus climate science… Do not call names what you don’t understand yet. I do my best to make you understand!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Planet doesn’t radiate like this, because planet is not a previously warmed uniform temperature blackbody surface.
When solar irradiation hits planet’s surface there is an INTERACTION happens.”
Whatever a planet absorbs from the sun, it radiates into space. It radiates over its entire surface. If the surface has a temperature above absolute zero, it radiates energy. It is perfectly valid to assign a planet an average radiating temperature. What isn’t valid is you assigning a temperature to a planet from a defective equation — a non-rotating planet has a temperature of 0 K according to you — that has no basis in reality. You don’t have a single experiment to back up your theory, and it not too difficult to prove it false. Energy has to be created from nothing to make your theory work.
When solar irradiation an INTERACTION does occur. Solar irradiation is converted into kinetic energy. It doesn’t instantly become IR.
“You defend the consensus climate science… Do not call names what you don’t understand yet. I do my best to make you understand!”
I understand just fine. What you do is make up science as you go along. Your post I’m replying to proves my point.
JJB wrote, “Using the arithmetic average temperature is arbitrary. It has no scientific justification other than it is useful for some idiotic unscientific theory to discredit consensus climate science.
Wrong. The reason just about everyone (except you) means “arithmetic average” when they talk about “average surface temperature” is not some giant conspiracy “to discredit climate science.” The reason we use the arithmetic average is that it is both convenient and useful.
If you want to know the resulting temperature of two or more mixed fluids, you need the arithmetic average of their temperatures (weighted by their respective masses and massic heat capacities). You use T, not T⁴.
If you want to estimate total conductive / convective heat transfer from a surface (with varying temperatures) to something else (like a fluid or gas), you need the arithmetic average of the various temperatures over the surface, because heat conduction is proportional to difference in temperatures</a. It is not proportional to T⁴.
(Evaporative cooling rate is more complicated, but it is not proportional to T⁴, either.)
“If you want to know the resulting temperature of two or more mixed fluids, you need the arithmetic average of their temperatures (weighted by their respective masses and massic heat capacities). You use T, not T⁴.”
Another clueless statement among many. An arithmetic average is NOT weighted. I know you don’t know it, but what you did is come up with an average temperature based on an energy balance. Which is what I’ve been saying all along.
“If you want to estimate total conductive / convective heat transfer from a surface (with varying temperatures) to something else (like a fluid or gas), you need the arithmetic average of the various temperatures over the surface, because heat conduction is proportional to difference in temperatures</a. It is not proportional to T⁴."
I agree conductive/convective heat transfer is not proportional to T**4. You seem unaware that planets transfer heat by radiation. Radiative heat transfer is proportional to T**4.
JJB wrote, “Another clueless statement among many. An arithmetic average is NOT weighted.”
You really ought to invest in a dictionary. It might be good for your blood pressure. You keep getting into passionate arguments because your definitions of things are different from everyone else’s.
JJBraccili | December 11, 2021 at 9:34 pm |
Whatever a planet absorbs from the sun, it radiates into space. It radiates over its entire surface.
No, No, No.
If the surface has a temperature above absolute zero, it radiates energy.
Yes
So if a planet has zero kelvin on the unlit side it cannot radiate from that side..
It cannot get warn from the other side as that side, you said, is radiating into space.
It is perfectly valid to assign a planet an average radiating temperature.
Thank you. JJ
Also thanks to David for a common sense explanation
daveburton | December 11, 2021 at 1:30 pm |
The reason just about everyone means “arithmetic average” when they talk about “average surface temperature” is that it is both convenient and useful.
“The reason just about everyone means “arithmetic average” when they talk about “average surface temperature” is that it is both convenient and useful.”
Not in radiant heat transfer. It’s proportional to T**4.
We’re talking about the surface of the Earth. It is cooled by multiple processes. Radiant heat transfer is one of them, but not the only one, nor even the most important one.
Whether the planet is warming or cooling depends on the energy balance at TOA. Anything that doesn’t change that has zero impact on the temperature of the planet.
Radiant heat transfer is the ONLY process that impacts the temperature of the planet. That is from the First Law of Thermodynamics applied to a planet. All the processes you think are significant have no impact on the temperature of a planet.
Just because temperatures go up and down doesn’t make them significant. To understand climate change, the only things that needs to be considered are energy and energy balances.
JJB wrote, “Whether the planet is warming or cooling depends on the energy balance at TOA. Anything that doesn’t change that has zero impact on the temperature of the planet.”
That’s wrong, because the temperature of the planet is the surface temperature of the planet. That is affected by many things other than TOA radiative balance. For instance, a decrease in the tropospheric lapse rate will cool the surface and warm the upper troposphere, without necessarily changing TOA radiative balance at all.
The average surface temperature is very close to the planet average temperature. Why?
If there was a difference, energy would be exchanged until they are the same. The energy imbalance at TOA is small. That means the Earth is almost at steady state. At steady state average surface temperature is the planet average temperature.
Stop pretending you know something about this subject. You don’t. I keep telling you moving energy from one place to another on the planet does nothing to change planetary temperature. It’s why climate scientists ignore all the processes you claim are important. They aren’t.
JJ,
“The average surface temperature is very close to the planet average temperature. Why?”
As you define things differently than anyone else, you are going to need to make explicit what you mean by average surface temperature and planet average temperature. If you are including core temperature in planet average temperature then this statement is wrong. However, I do not think that is what you are saying as that doesn’t fit with your usage below. The best that I can infer from your argument is that you define planet average temperature as the average of the surface and atmosphere, or maybe you just mean average atmospheric temperature?
“If there was a difference, energy would be exchanged until they are the same. The energy imbalance at TOA is small. That means the Earth is almost at steady state. At steady state average surface temperature is the planet average temperature.”
Dave explained this very well in a previous comment. The exchange of energy is always taking place so it never catches up to the imbalance, so the imbalance is always there. This is because the planet is always rotating with the heated side warming and the night side cooling.
“Stop pretending you know something about this subject. You don’t. I keep telling you moving energy from one place to another on the planet does nothing to change planetary temperature. It’s why climate scientists ignore all the processes you claim are important. They aren’t.”
Actually I find that Dave’s comments are reasonable, and yours are mathematically incorrect. Energy moving (on its own) from one place to the other will always increase the average temperature of the planet. This is due to the energy moving from hotter to colder, and therefore the T^4 radiative effect of energy will result in the planet radiating less energy. Further, climate scientists are not ignoring the processes that you claim are not important like ocean heat transport, clouds, evaporation, convection, etc. See https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/EnergyBalance
You don’t get to define what the temperature of a planet is. There is only one definition. It is the definition I use. It is the scientific definition. It is the radiating temperature of a planet. That is determined from the S-B equation or a matching the radiant profile of a planet with a blackbody radiant profile.
DB initially claimed that it is the arithmetic average of the hot and cold side temperatures. Why stop there? Why not the arithmetic average of the hot side, core, and cold side? Wouldn’t that be more representative?
DB must have gone somewhere and read that in the example he used that the temperatures must be weighted. He then changed his argument. Because he doesn’t understand the science, he didn’t realize that the weighted formula for average temperature comes from an energy balance.
Planetary temperature is a radiative heat transfer problem. In that world, energy transferred is proportional temperature raised to the fourth power — not temperature raised to the first power. That’s been scientific fact for over 100 years.
“Dave explained this very well in a previous comment. The exchange of energy is always taking place so it never catches up to the imbalance, so the imbalance is always there. This is because the planet is always rotating with the heated side warming and the night side cooling.”
The energy imbalance at TOA is small. That means the planet is close to energy balance and the temperature of the planet is close to steady state. That means the average surface temperature, radiating temperature of the planet, and planet temperature are essentially the same.
The temperatures are changing very slowly because of the imbalance, but they remain close to steady state.
“Actually I find that Dave’s comments are reasonable, and yours are mathematically incorrect.”
How so?
“Energy moving (on its own) from one place to the other will always increase the average temperature of the planet.
That would be a clear violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics. You’d have to manufacture energy out of nothing to accomplish that.
This is due to the energy moving from hotter to colder, and therefore the T^4 radiative effect of energy will result in the planet radiating less energy.
If a planet’s average temperature goes up, it radiates more energy not less. That would be a violation of Planck’s equation.
“Further, climate scientists are not ignoring the processes that you claim are not important like ocean heat transport, clouds, evaporation, convection, etc.”
From your source:
“When the flow of incoming solar energy is balanced by an equal flow of heat to space, Earth is in radiative equilibrium, and global temperature is relatively stable. Anything that increases or decreases the amount of incoming or outgoing energy disturbs Earth’s radiative equilibrium; global temperatures rise or fall in response.”
Ocean heat transport has no impact on planetary temperature. The others can impact atmospheric temperature which can impact radiative energy transfer to space. The impact is very small when compared to the greenhouse effect.
JJBraccili
“The energy imbalance at TOA is small. That means the planet is close to energy balance and the temperature of the planet is close to steady state. That means the average surface temperature, radiating temperature of the planet, and planet temperature are essentially the same.”
> “…That means the average surface temperature, radiating temperature of the planet, and planet temperature are essentially the same.”
How they can be the same? Why they should be the same?
No they are not the same.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Never said they were identical. What I said is that they are very close to being identical. That’s because the earth is close to steady state. That why it has taken decades to start seeing the impact of dumping CO2 in the atmosphere.
I guess this doesn’t conform with your “universal” equation. That’s because I’m talking about actual reality, and you live in an alternate reality, where the laws of physics don’t apply.
A. P. Smith
Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0802.4324.pdf
It is very much mistaken. It claims:
Mercury has Te =439K, instead of the corrected Te =364K
Moon has Te =270K, instead of corrected Te =224K
Earth has Te =255K, instead of corrected Te =210K
Mars has Te =210K, instead of corrected Te =174K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Of course, we should abandon the S-B equation, which has been around for over 100 years. It has a mountain of experimental data to back it up. It is used extensively and successfully in radiant heat transfer. We should immediately use your equation which has no experimental data to back it up, defies the First Law of Thermodynamics, and is defective.
That makes perfect sense.
The planet mean surface temperature equation
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
produces remarkable results.
The calculated planets temperatures are almost identical with the measured by satellites.
Planet…….Tmean….Tsat.mean
Mercury…..325,83 K…..340 K
Earth……….287,74 K…..288 K
Moon………223,35 Κ…..220 Κ
Mars………..213,21 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.
There is NO +33°C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.
Both the calculated by equation and the satellite measured Earth’s mean surface temperatures are almost identical:
Tmean.earth = 287,74K = 288 K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
JJBraccili,
What you claim is that for the stationary Moon the planet blackbody temperature is 270K.
It is calculated by the use of the planet blackbody equation:
Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
which is a mathematical abstraction .
Moon’s MEASURED average surface temperature is 220K though!
It is 270K-220K =50C less than the mathematical abstraction equation calculates.
Conclusion:
The Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ equation is not valid for planet surface temperatures estimations.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
You 220K is not the temperature of the moon. It’s a temperature that somebody claims is the temperature at the equator of the moon. That’s not the temperature of the moon.
The only reason your “equation” comes up with a low number is because at 0 rotation, it predicts planetary temperature is 0K. That’s not an abstraction. That junk science at its worse.
BTW when do you intend to fix your equation? Let’s see the numbers it predicts when it has to produce a reasonable number at no rotation.
Here is a “compatible” to GHE theory question:
Moon having a lower Albedo a=0,11 than Earth a=0,306 absorbs 28% more solar SW EM energy.
Earth’s surface is warmed +Δ33C from Te=255K to Tmean=288K because of the Greenhouse Effect in its atmosphere.
Moon’s measured mean surface temperature is Tmean =220K. Diviner gives Tmean=193K.
What cools Moon’s surface -Δ50C from Te=270K to Tmean=220K, or, according to Diviner, what cools Moon’s surface -Δ77C from Te=270K to Tmean =193K ?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I know of only 3 ways to transfer heat. They are conduction, convection and radiant heat. You can feel the radiant the environment of the earth retains daily. Why can’t you believe it radiates that same amount of heat to the black sky daily?
As the average surface temperature of the sun goes up or down the heat retained by the earth goes up or down, thus the water evaporated goes up or down, thus the average ocean level goes down or up, thus more ice or less ice breaks off the ice blocks and melts, thus constant surface temperature of the earth,
The temperature of the planet cannot be constant if the amount of energy of a planet varies. That would violate the First Law of Thermodynamics.
JJB wrote on 11/23, “Heat transfer occurs by three methods — conduction, convection, and RADIATION.”
Christos wrote on 11/26, “There are three known ways matter gets rid of heat. … 1). The IR emission … 2). Convection … 3). Conduction…”
Robert wrote on 12/13, “I know of only 3 ways to transfer heat. They are conduction, convection and radiant heat.
I disagree with y’all. As I wrote on 12/4, “Evaporative cooling is … the most important way in which heat is removed from surface of the Earth.”
Radiation is only significant way that the Earth loses energy, but evaporation is the most important way that the surface of the Earth is cooled.
The temperatures which matter, for creatures which inhabit the Earth, are surface temperatures, not some sort of averaged equivalent radiative emission temperature as seen from outer space. That’s why, when someone (except JJB) refers to a planet’s temperature, they are talking about surface temperature (usually arithmetically averaged).
For planets with significant atmospheres, the surface temperature and equivalent average radiative emission temperature can be very different. For instance, Venus is believed to have an “average temperature” (surface temperature) of around 460°C, which is about 450°C hotter than Earth, yet the average equivalent emission temperature for the radiation from Venus is only about -13°C (only about 5°C warmer than Earth).
Another day, another chance for DB to put his science illiteracy on full display. He never disappoints.
“I disagree with y’all. As I wrote on 12/4, “Evaporative cooling is … the most important way in which heat is removed from surface of the Earth.”
Radiation is only significant way that the Earth loses energy, but evaporation is the most important way that the surface of the Earth is cooled.”
Evaporation and condensation are not types of heat transfer. Both use conduction and convection to transfer heat to and away from water molecules.
Radiation is the only significant way the Earth loses energy? Really?
I can’t remember if it was you or someone else who used this graphic:
https://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/energy_budget/
Look at the amount energy removed by IR radiation from the earth’s surface — 398 W/m2. Look at the energy removed from the earth’s surface by evaporation/transpiration — 88 W/m2. It’s not even close.
I know you need to make the “average” temperature of the planet be an arithmetic average to make your and CV’s idiotic theories work. It’s just not so.
“The temperatures which matter, for creatures which inhabit the Earth, are surface temperatures, not some sort of averaged equivalent radiative emission temperature as seen from outer space. That’s why, when someone (except JJB) refers to a planet’s temperature, they are talking about surface temperature (usually arithmetically averaged).”
I thought I went through this before, apparently you were where you usually are — out to lunch.
If you measure the IR emitted by the earth — 240 W/m2, you wind up with a surface temperature of 255 K. If you match earth’s IR radiant profile with blackbody profiles, you wind up with a surface temperature of 288 K. Why the difference? The quantity of radiant energy emitted is equal to the amount of solar radiation absorbed. The radiant profile of the earth represents the amount of solar radiation absorbed + the back radiation and is the true surface temperature.
“For planets with significant atmospheres, the surface temperature and equivalent average radiative emission temperature can be very different. For instance, Venus is believed to have an “average temperature” (surface temperature) of around 460°C, which is about 450°C hotter than Earth, yet the average equivalent emission temperature for the radiation from Venus is only about -13°C (only about 5°C warmer than Earth).”
That statement is true for surface temperatures from radiative emissions at TOA. It is not true for surface temperatures from matching radiant profiles. It is also not true if you use radiant energy emission at the planet’s surface.
All you did was confirm the greenhouse effect of CO2 on Venus. I thought you were trying to disprove it. I know this all makes perfect sense to you in your alternate reality. In the real world — not so much.
JJB wrote, “Evaporation and condensation are not types of heat transfer. Both use conduction and convection to transfer heat to and away from water molecules.”
Then you’d better discard your refrigerator, because it can’t really be keeping your food cold; and you’d better discard your heat pump, because it can’t really be warming your house.
A google search for “evaporative cooling” returns an estimated 6 million results. Searching for related terms, like “phase-change refrigeration,” will add to that number. But you think they are all wrong?
They aren’t. The way that the water cycle removes heat from the surface or the Earth is a three-step process:
1. evaporative cooling at the surface, followed by
2. air movement which transports the (lighter) moist air to the mid-troposphere, and then
3. release of that latent heat at altitude, as the water vapor condenses.
I explained it to you in more detail, above.
JJB wrote, “Radiation is the only significant way the Earth loses energy? Really?”
Radiation is the only significant way that the planet as a whole, including its atmosphere, loses energy. But radiation is only one of several mechanisms that cools the surface — and (on Earth) it’s not the most important of those mechanisms.
JJB wrote, “I can’t remember if it was you or someone else who used this graphic: https://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/energy_budget/ “
I cited this similar version:
https://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/141/2020/07/ERB-poster-combined-update-8.2019v4.pdf
JJB continued, “Look at the amount energy removed by IR radiation from the earth’s surface — 398 W/m2. Look at the energy removed from the earth’s surface by evaporation/transpiration — 88 W/m2. It’s not even close.”
(Well, I’m glad you acknowledge that evaporative cooling is a real thing.)
The version I cited shows “latent heat (change of state)… 86.4″ W/m²… evapotranspiration” which is a considerably more important cooling mechanism than the net LW IR flux. That averages only 398.2 – 340.3 = 57.9 W/m² (or 398 – 345 = 53 W/m² in the version you cited).
Emission and absorption of radiation is one of the means by which two things — in this case the Earth’s surface and its atmosphere — trade energy. But the cooling effect is the difference between those fluxes. On average, on Earth, that’s considerably less than the energy transported away from the surface by the water cycle.
Of course, it varies from place to place. The reason the water cycle is such an important cooling mechanism is that most of the Earth is very wet. There can only be evaporative cooling where there’s water to evaporate, so in dry places radiative cooling is locally more important than evaporative cooling.
Radiant heat is the only method the surface of the earth gains heat from the sun and loses it to the black sky. The only item nature changes is the average temperature of the surface of the sun.
This blog post should be re-issued with whatever updates are necessary. And the Dutch Climate Dialogue project should be reprised. It’s amazing, in view of the court decision on Shell last year, that the effort was undertaken. Tragic that it was stopped and worse, did not receive more attention. The story needs to be told – how it originate and, more important, why it was discontinued.