by Javier Vinós & Andy May
“The atmospheric heat transport on Earth from the Equator to the poles is largely carried out by the mid-latitude storms. However, there is no satisfactory theory to describe this fundamental feature of the Earth’s climate.” Leon Barry, George C. Craig & John Thuburn (2002)
3.1 Introduction
Nearly all the energy that powers the climate system and life on Earth comes from the sun. Incoming solar radiation is estimated at 173,000 TW. By contrast geothermal heat flow from radiogenic decay and primordial heat is estimated at 47 TW, human production of heat at 18 TW, and tidal energy from the Moon and the Sun at 4 TW. Other sources of energy, like solar wind, solar particles, stellar light, moonlight, interplanetary dust, meteorites, or cosmic rays, are negligible. Solar irradiance, thus, constitutes over 99.9 % of the energy input to the climate system.
The energy received from the sun changes over the annual cycle by 6.9 % due to the changing Earth-Sun distance. The Earth is closest to the sun (perihelion) around the 4th of January and farthest (aphelion) around the 4th of July. Although half the Earth is illuminated by the sun at any given time (50.2 % due to the difference in size), the changes in the Earth’s axis orientation towards the sun, the irregular distribution of land masses, changes in albedo, and regional changes in surface and atmosphere temperature, cause important seasonal changes in the amount of reflected solar shortwave radiation (RSR) and outgoing longwave radiation (OLR). As a result, the temperature of the Earth is always changing and the planet is never in energy balance.
Contrary to what could be naively expected, the Earth is warmest just after the June’s solstice, when it is farthest from the sun, and coldest just after the December’s solstice, when it is receiving 6.9 % more energy from the sun. Earth’s average surface temperature is c. 14.5 °C (severe icehouse conditions), but during the year it warms and cools by 3.8 °C (Fig. 3.1). As expected, the Earth emits more energy (total outgoing radiation, TOR) when it is cooling and less when it is warming, regardless of what it is receiving at the time, so the idea of an energy balance at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) is clearly wrong. The Earth displays little interannual temperature variability but there is no reason to think we properly understand the mechanisms involved in Earth’s thermal homeostasis.
Fig. 3.1. Yearly temperature and radiation change. The global surface average temperature of the planet (thick line) changes by 3.8 °C over the course of a year, mostly because the NH (thin line) varies by 12 °C. The planet is coldest during the month of January, despite receiving 6.9% more total solar irradiance (TSI, dotted yellow line) in early January when the Earth is in perihelion. The planet has two peaks of energy loss (TOR, Total Outgoing Radiation, outgoing longwave and reflected shortwave, dotted red line) when each hemisphere cools, with the highest during the cooling of the NH. Between November and January, the planet emits more energy (TOR) than at any other time. SH, dashed line. NH winter, light grey area. 1961–1990 temperature data from Jones et al. 1999. Radiation data from Carlson et al. 2019.
What it is clear from figure 3.1 is that although the climate system is entirely powered by solar irradiance, what determines the Earth’s temperature is what the climate system does with that energy, and the climate system is extremely complex. As Barry, et al. (2002) say in the quote at the top of this part, modern climatology lacks a proper theory of how energy is moved within our planet’s climate system. It is possible to model what it is not properly understood, even if very complex, but to believe such a model is foolish.
The energy from the sun comes in a straight line from its surface, as can be clearly appreciated during a total eclipse. The sun has an apparent size of 0.5° of arc in Earth’s sky and is located in the plane of Earth’s solar orbit, called the ecliptic. The ecliptic is the projection of Earth’s orbital plane onto the sky, it is also the path the most vertical rays from the Sun make around the globe, at the local noon, during a 24-hour day. Due to Earth’s axial tilt, the sun is not always directly above the equator, and moves from being above 23.44°N at the June solstice to 23.44°S at the December solstice. The position of the sun at any given daytime determines the angle of incidence of its radiation. At a higher angle of incidence (sun lower on the horizon) the energy arriving from the sun is spread over a larger surface area, decreasing the amount of energy per unit of horizontal area. The flux of solar radiation per unit of horizontal area for a given locality is the solar insolation, and it is higher at solar noon the closer in latitude to the declination of the sun, which marks the position of the ecliptic with respect to the equator. Solar insolation is the most important determinant of local surface temperature.
As a result of the position of the sun with respect to the Earth, most energy enters the climate system in the tropics. However, OLR increases with the absolute temperature of the surface, and decreases with the greenhouse effect, and cloud cover. As the average absolute temperature of the surface does not vary that much with latitude (278–300 K between 60°N–60°S), and greenhouse gas concentration and cloud cover tend to be higher in the tropics, OLR does not vary much with latitude. The result is that the net radiation flux at the TOA is positive (more incoming than outgoing) on the annual average between c. 30°N-30°S and negative between c. 30° and the pole. However, during the Dec-Feb season the net flux is negative north of 15°N (Fig. 3.2), and most of the Northern Hemisphere is losing energy. The resulting cooling from reduced insolation and a net energy deficit creates a latitudinal temperature gradient (LTG). Energy is moved from latitudes where there is a net gain of energy (energy source) to latitudes where there is net loss of energy (energy sink to space), along the LTG (Fig. 3.2), by meridional transport (MT).
Fig. 3.2. Net radiation flux at the top of the atmosphere for Dec-Feb. Positive net flux values (red area) indicate a net energy flow into the climate system, and negative values (blue area) indicate a net energy sink, that is, a net flow to space. Areas are not proportional to the amount of energy due to the geometry of the Earth. Meridional transport moves energy, among other things, from regions with an energy surplus to regions with an energy deficit along the gradient in temperature (dashed line, near-surface air temperature for January). Meridional transport moves a lot more energy towards the winter pole. Temperature data from Hartmann 1994. Radiation data from Randall 2015.
Without MT, the temperature of the regions where the net flux of energy at the TOA is negative would decrease continuously until OLR emissions are sufficiently low to match insolation. In the polar night regions that temperature would be close to absolute zero (–273.15 °C). MT is carried out by the atmosphere and the ocean along the temperature gradient and is variable over time. It transports a lot more energy (stronger MT) in the winter hemisphere (Fig. 3.2).
3.2 The latitudinal temperature gradient defines the planet’s climate
In the physical universe processes tend to happen spontaneously along gradients, whether they are gradients in mass, energy, or any manifestation of them, like gravity, pressure, or temperature. The Earth’s surface LTG is a direct consequence of the latitudinal insolation gradient. Enthalpy (energy adjusted for volume and pressure) tends to move along the LTG from regions of higher to regions of lower enthalpy. This is the basis of MT, but given the complexity of the climate system, it is far from a passive process that depends only on the temperature difference between the tropics and the poles. Instead, it is a highly regulated process that can drive more energy for a smaller temperature difference and less energy for a larger temperature difference. As will be shown in the next part, MT has increased in the first two decades of the 21st century, despite the Arctic being warmer, reducing the LTG.
We know that the Earth’s LTG has varied a lot over the geological past of the planet. We saw in Part I that Wladimir Köppen, the Russo-German scientist who studied the sun-climate effect in the 19th century, established a climate classification that is still in use with modifications. Climate zones are defined in terms of temperature, precipitation, and their seasonal distribution. Many groups of plants and animals are restricted to a habitat with a narrow range of temperatures; and some geological processes are also temperature dependent. Using this type of information Christopher Scotese has mapped past climate history with his Paleomap Project(1). The information thus obtained allows him to geographically reconstruct half a dozen climate zones every few million years, and from that to reconstruct the changing LTG of the Earth’s past. Scotese et al. (2021) defines the climate and global temperatures of each period based on their LTG, demonstrating that it is a fundamental climate variable. Scotese defines the present (21st century) LTG and global temperature as severe icehouse conditions, as demonstrated by the massive permanent ice sheets over Antarctica and Greenland.
The existence of very different past climates of the Earth creates an unsurmountable problem for modern climatology. During the last glacial maximum (LGM), 20,000 years ago, the energy received from the sun was the same as now. Not only that, but the precession and obliquity values were the same as now, and the orbital eccentricity was very similar. The distribution of solar energy over the Earth and the latitudinal insolation gradient were nearly identical to now, yet the climate was very different. Energy input to the climate system must have been lower, because albedo was higher and the greenhouse effect lower. A lower energy input and a larger LTG ought to have drained the tropics of heat via a much stronger MT, but that was not the case. There is still controversy about tropical temperatures during the LGM, but it appears that they were only 1–2 °C colder than present (Annan & Hargreaves 2015). This is consistent with evidence presented by Scotese et al. (2021) that tropical temperatures have not changed much over the course of the past 540 million years despite huge changes in the average temperature of the planet (9–30 °C).
If the LGM creates a problem for how MT operates during a glacial period, the equable climate of the early Eocene results in a paradox that modern climatology cannot solve. Currently the Earth is in a severe icehouse climate with a very steep LTG. Temperature falls by 0.6–1 °C/°latitude from the equator to the winter pole. Such cold or colder conditions as of today have been relatively rare during the past 540 Myr (less than 10 % of the time). The early Eocene Earth had an average temperature estimated at 23.8 °C, that Scotese describes as hothouse conditions. The early Eocene LTG was very shallow, at 0.25–0.45 °C/°latitude, with temperatures at the North Pole above freezing all year round, as attested by the presence of frost-intolerant biota. These hothouse conditions have been even rarer. Over 80 % of the Phanerozoic Eon the Earth had an average temperature of 17–20 °C (Scotese et al. 2021).
Fig. 3.3. The Earth’s climate is defined by its latitudinal temperature gradient. a) Climatic belts of the early Eocene hothouse (top) deduced from fossil and geochemical evidence by Scotese et al. 2021, and the present severe icehouse (bottom). Equatorial wet (dark green), subtropical arid (yellow), warm temperate (light green), cool temperate (brown) and polar (light blue) belts. Temperature is the estimated global mean average. b) Latitudinal temperature gradient inferred for the early Eocene (red) and the present (blue) versus measured (black, fine line). After Scotese et al. 2021
The climate of the early Eocene, the Cretaceous, and early Paleogene, is defined as equable, characterized by a warm world with reduced LTG and low seasonality. The failure of modern climate theory to explain these periods has been termed the “equable climate problem” (Huber & Caballero 2011). To reproduce the early Eocene warm continental interior temperatures and above freezing winter high latitudes, models have to raise CO2 levels to 4700 ppm and tropical temperatures to 35 °C. However, the best CO2 estimates for the early Eocene climatic optimum (Beerling & Royer 2011; Steinthorsdottir et al. 2019) place CO2 levels at 500–1000 ppm, and it is unclear that a tropical temperature above 30 °C is possible. The survivability wet-bulb temperature limit for mammals is 35 °C, at which point they become unable to lose heat (Sherwood & Huber 2010). The highest wet-bulb temperature on Earth today is 30 °C, and there is no reason to think that it has been higher at any time in the past at places where mammal fossils are found.
At the root of the equable climate problem lies the “low gradient paradox” (Huber & Caballero 2011). Conceptually, we believe that to have warm poles more heat must be transported there, to compensate for the insolation deficit. Heat MT is a very important part of the planetary energy budget, and it is generally believed that without it the poles would be much colder. But MT depends on the LTG since much of the poleward transport in the present climate is through atmospheric eddies resulting from baroclinic (where temperature gradients exist at constant pressure surfaces) instability. The paradox arises because, counterintuitively, the warm poles of the early Eocene and their much shallower LTG imply a reduced MT. It is no wonder that climate models have such a problem reproducing it. In Part VI a possible solution to the paradox will be offered.
3.3 Meridional transport is mainly carried out by the atmosphere
The lower atmosphere is a thin film of gas, just 1/600 of the Earth diameter (c. 10 km), that has the crucial role of always maintaining a land surface temperature compatible with complex life, something it has done for at least the past 540 Myr. To do that it has to compensate for surface temperature differences arising from differences in insolation. First, it must compensate the difference between day and night. It does so mainly through the greenhouse effect that reduces night cooling, and through the effect of clouds, that increase albedo during the day and reduce night cooling. Then, it must compensate for the latitudinal decrease in insolation and its seasonal changes due to the axial tilt of the planet. It does so through meridional heat transport.
Of these three factors responsible for Earth’s thermal homeostasis, greenhouse effect, clouds, and MT, modern climatology has focused exclusively on the first, developing the CO2 “control knob” climate hypothesis (Lacis et al. 2010). The effect of clouds and their variability on climate change is still largely unknown. With respect to MT, and as figure 3.2 suggests, energy is only exchanged between the climate system and the outside through the TOA, this results in MT necessarily having a net zero value when integrated over the climate system. Moving energy from one region to another does not alter the amount of energy within the system. This fact has resulted in the general belief that changes in MT cannot constitute a significant cause for climate change, producing the most fundamental mistake of modern climatology.
The atmosphere has the outstanding capacity of moving a great amount of energy, fast and efficiently, over the entire surface of the Earth. As a result, MT is carried out mainly by the atmosphere. Only within the deep tropics (10°S–10°N) the atmosphere is inadequate for MT requirements. This is the region where most energy enters the climate system (Fig. 3.4 black dashed line). But the Hadley cell’s upper branch transports dry static heat (sensible + geopotential; Fig. 3.4 red dotted line) poleward, and this is partly compensated for by the lower branch’s equatorward transport of latent heat (Fig. 3.4 red dashed line). Due to this, the ocean must carry out most of the heat transport in the deep tropics. However, the ocean is less efficient at transporting heat than the atmosphere and the energy transport required in the tropics is very large, particularly in the Pacific, due to its size. ENSO is the answer to this problem, as El Niño is the way to periodically transport out of the deep tropics the excess accumulated heat that the regular MT cannot carry. ENSO is part of the global MT system.
Fig. 3.4. Meridional transport decomposition. Left, meridional transport in peta Watts calculated from velocity-potential temperature fields and represented as poleward in positive values. THT, total heat transport; OHT, oceanic heat transport; AHT, atmospheric heat transport; DSH, dry static heat (sensible + geopotential); LH, latent heat; ITCZ, inter-tropical convergence zone. After Yang et al. 2015. Right, black dashed line, CERES TOA net radiation flux in Watts/m2, positive is net inflow, or warming. After Randall 2015.
Once outside of the Hadley cell reach, the ocean transfers most of the energy it transports to the atmosphere, particularly at the western ocean basin boundary currents in the mid-latitudes, and poleward latent heat atmospheric transport becomes important. In summary, most of the energy enters the climate system at the photic layer of the tropical oceans, it is then transported outside the deep tropics mostly by the oceans and ENSO, and most of the energy is then transferred to the atmosphere that does the bulk of the transport in the middle and high latitudes. Once the sea-ice edge is reached, the transport is essentially carried out exclusively by the atmosphere, as the energy flux through the sea ice is much less than from the liquid ocean surface. Excluding solar radiation, the rest of the energy flux across the sea surface is positive towards the atmosphere nearly everywhere at every time, except for some high latitude regions during the summer (Yu & Weller 2007). Sea-surface temperature is not as important for ocean-atmosphere energy flux as wind speed and air moisture, the principal factors governing evaporation.
Figure 3.4 shows that MT is asymmetric. Poleward transport at the equator line is near zero, with a small inter-hemispheric transport (0.2 PW northward). The position of the inter-tropical convergence zone (ITCZ, the climatic equator that separates the North and South Hadley cells), varies between 15°S and 30°N, and has an annual mean position c. 6°N. Poleward transport increases with distance from the equator as heat from a bigger region is transported poleward. Northern Hemisphere (NH) MT is bigger because northern oceanic MT is bigger. This is due to a northward inter-hemispheric ocean MT of 0.4 PW, mainly through the Atlantic Ocean, compensated in part by a southward inter-hemispheric MT of 0.2 PW by the atmosphere from the ITCZ (Marshall et al. 2013). Poleward of 45° the northern atmospheric MT becomes larger than the southern, due to a larger sensible heat transport by eddies, particularly during winter. This transport reflects a larger ocean-atmosphere flux at the western boundary mid-latitude currents (Yu & Weller 2007), that is responsible for a warmer winter climate in the European mid-latitudes and for Arctic winter warming. As we can also see in figure 3.4, 70–90° TOA net radiation is more negative in the Arctic than in Antarctica. This is the obvious result of transporting more heat to the Arctic in winter.
Transport of energy by the atmosphere is linked to the transport of mass, momentum, chemicals, moisture, and clouds. It takes place in the troposphere, mainly along preferred routes over ocean basins, and in the stratosphere. As we saw in section 2.5, angular momentum is exchanged between the solid Earth–ocean and the atmosphere. In low latitudes, surface winds are easterly and flow in the opposite direction to the rotation of the Earth, so the atmosphere gains momentum through friction with the solid Earth–ocean that reduces its speed of rotation, while in middle latitudes surface winds are westerly and the atmosphere loses momentum to the solid Earth–ocean that increases its speed of rotation, so a poleward atmospheric flux of angular momentum is required to conserve momentum and maintain the speed of rotation.
Fig. 3.5. Meridional transport of energy (left) and angular momentum (right) implied by the observed state of the atmosphere. In the energy budget there is a net radiative gain in the tropics and a net loss at high latitudes; to balance the energy budget at each latitude, a poleward energy flux is implied. In the angular momentum budget, the atmosphere gains angular momentum in low latitudes due to easterly surface winds and loses it in the middle latitudes due to westerly surface winds. A poleward atmospheric flux of angular momentum is implied. Meridional transport of energy and momentum is known to be modulated by ENSO, the quasi-biennial oscillation and solar activity. After Marshall & Plumb 2008
Changes in the atmospheric angular momentum (AAM) must be balanced by changes in the speed of rotation of the solid Earth–ocean to preserve momentum, and they are mostly due to the seasonal changes in the zonal wind circulation. Zonal wind circulation is stronger in winter, when more angular momentum resides in the atmosphere due to a deeper LTG, so the Earth rotates faster in January and July, and slower in April and October, when zonal circulation is weaker. As mentioned in Part II, these small changes in the rate of rotation of the Earth are measured as micro-second changes in the length-of-day (∆LOD), the difference between the duration of the day and 86,400 Standard International seconds. Seasonal variation in ∆LOD reflects changes in zonal circulation (Lambeck & Cazennave 1973) and, therefore, in MT. The biennial component of ∆LOD reflects changes in the QBO (Lambeck & Hopgood 1981), the 3–4-year component matches the ENSO signal (Haas & Scherneck 2004), and the decadal change in ∆LOD reflects changes in solar activity (Barlyaeva et al. 2014).
The Sun, QBO and ENSO constitute three factors modulating the coupling of the tropical stratosphere to the polar vortex (PV) and the polar troposphere, regulating heat and moisture transport to the winter pole. Since they affect the zonal wind circulation it is not surprising to see they also affect the speed of rotation. But while the role of ENSO and the QBO in changing the AAM and ∆LOD is widely known and reported, the role of the sun remains largely ignored.
3.4 Winter transport to the Arctic. The biggest heat-sink of the planet
It is believed that the hemispheric difference in temperature (Fig. 3.1) is due mainly to the larger land fraction in the NH (67.3 % of global landmass) that warms and cools more than the ocean surface. The answer is however more complex, as it also involves the asymmetry in MT (Kang et al. 2015). As we have seen, some of its consequences are the preferential location of the ITCZ in the NH, and a net inter-hemispheric heat transport from the SH to the NH. Hemispheric transport asymmetry results also from the reduction in MT to the South Polar Cap, hindered by the Antarctic Circumpolar Current and the Southern Annular Mode, that climatically isolate Antarctica. The result from these asymmetries is that despite the South Pole being much colder, more energy is transported to the North Pole (Peixoto & Oort, 1992). As a result of its warmer atmosphere, the 70–90°N polar region loses c. 10 W/m2 more heat over the year than the 70–90°S polar region. The loss is much bigger during the boreal winter, when the atmosphere transports 120 W/m2 across 70°N, than during the summer, when it transports 80 W/m2 (Peixoto & Oort, 1992). Most of the transport is carried out by transient eddies and the mean meridional circulation, but the winter-summer difference is mostly due to stationary eddies along storm tracks that in winter are responsible for most of the increase (Fig. 3.6). Over 80 % of the energy transported during the warm season to the north polar region is used to melt snow and ice, and warm the ocean. About two thirds of that energy constitutes energy storage that is returned to the atmosphere during the cold season cooling and re-freezing, and mostly lost through OLR. As a result of these differences, the north polar region loses 20 % more energy than the south polar region during the respective winters, constituting the biggest heat-sink of the planet (Fig. 3.2).
Fig. 3.6. January northward heat flux by eddies. During boreal winter the NH subtropical jet has two maxima downstream of the Himalaya and Rocky Mountains over the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, respectively. These wind speed maxima result in vigorous mid–latitude cyclones following storm tracks that define the main gateways into the Arctic. Contour is 5 K m/s. Blue shading in the SH indicates southward flux. After Hartmann 2016
During winter, nearly all the energy lost at this heat-sink is transported there by the atmosphere, as the equilibrium temperature of sea water in contact with ice is practically constant regardless of the atmospheric temperature and sea-ice thickness. Sea-ice constitutes a very good insulator (K ≈ 2.2 W/m K). Compared to a loss of 310 W/m2 for exposed waters at a 30 °C temperature difference, a 2 m thick ice layer reduces the loss to only 30 W/m2 (Peixoto & Oort, 1992). It is clear that the great loss of winter sea-ice for the past 45 years constitutes a strong negative feedback on global warming.
Dry static (sensible + geopotential) heat is brought into the winter Arctic by both the middle (20–100 km height) and lower atmosphere, while latent heat (moisture) is transported almost exclusively by the lower atmosphere. Figure 3.7 shows NH winter atmospheric heat transport. Upper atmosphere transport is inter-hemispheric; however, it involves only 0.1 % of the atmosphere mass, making it irrelevant for energy considerations. The stratosphere contains 15% of the atmospheric mass, and its meridional transport is termed the Brewer–Dobson circulation (BDC). Air enters the stratosphere at the tropical pipe (Fig. 3.7), through a cold region above the tropical tropopause where it loses most of its water vapor. In the upper stratosphere the deep branch of the BDC is inter-hemispheric and moves toward the winter pole. In the lower stratosphere, the shallow branch of the BDC has a poleward direction, although it is stronger towards the winter pole. In the middle and high latitudes, the BDC air descends through the tropopause toward the surface. The BDC takes place through a meridional wind thermal balance established by the LTG and is powered by planetary and synoptic waves that release energy and momentum to the mean flow when they dissipate.
Fig. 3.7. Schematic of atmospheric circulation at the December solstice in a two-dimensional lower and middle atmospheric view. Background colors indicate relative temperatures at 10 K steps, with red being warmer and dark blue being cooler. Vertical scale is logarithmic, and the SH latitudinal scale is compressed. Westerly winds represented by thin lines; easterly winds by thin dashed lines. The tropopause (thick orange line) separates the troposphere and stratosphere, and the stratopause (thick steel blue line) the stratosphere and the mesosphere. Thick dotted lines separate the tropical pipe (ascent zone), the surf-zone (wave-breaking zone), and the polar vortex. Planetary waves (undulating lines) generate at areas of contrast (concentric lines at surface) and can pass through the stratosphere, be deflected and break at the stratosphere or be refracted back to the troposphere. The quasi-biennial oscillation (QBO) is shown with its easterly and westerly components close to the Equator. The intertropical convergence zone (ITCZ) is shown as a tall stormy cloud. The Hadley circulation is displayed in dark brown. Other atmospheric circulation is represented by yellow arrows except the lower tropospheric equatorward circulation in turquoise. The stratospheric circulation is termed the Brewer–Dobson circulation. Its deep branch (upper stratospheric) and mesospheric circulation are inter-hemispheric from the summer to the winter pole. Tropospheric circulation is carried out mainly by eddies, and the rest by the mean residual circulation. At the December solstice, regions North of 72° are in polar night. From Vinós 2022
The autumn cooling of the Arctic atmosphere causes the end of the summer polar anticyclone, as the pressure decreases and the easterly winds that prevent upward wave propagation are replaced by westerly winds. A pole-centered cyclone (low pressure center with anti-clockwise rotating winds), known as the polar vortex (PV) forms then. The winter westerly winds of the NH are so strong that they only allow vertical wave propagation to the stratosphere of planetary waves of the highest amplitude (zonal wavenumber 1 and 2). The waves release their momentum and energy in an area of the stratosphere known as the “surf-zone” (McIntyre & Palmer 1984). The effect on the zonal mean circulation is a deceleration of westerly winds disrupting the thermal structure. As the LTG cannot be maintained under weaker westerly winds, air is forced down inside the PV, warming adiabatically, and up outside the PV, cooling. The Arctic polar atmosphere can warm by 30 °C in the lower stratosphere and up to 100 °C in the upper stratosphere. Afterwards, as the Arctic atmosphere is under strong radiative cooling during the winter, the stratosphere cools and the westerlies regain speed. When wave propagation weakens, the opposite happens and temperature at 30 km above the Arctic can become as low as –80 °C.
Northward of 20°N the atmosphere becomes the main carrier of heat poleward. During the NH winter, heat is transported to the Arctic mainly by stationary eddies (planetary waves) and transient eddies (cyclones). Cyclones preferentially generate, propagate and dissipate in storm tracks and tend to form where surface temperature gradients are large (Shaw et al. 2016). The jet stream influences their speed and direction of travel. The winter eddy heat flux reveals the preferred storm track areas (Fig. 3.6; Hartmann 2016).
A few extreme events per season associated with individual weather systems are responsible for a large part of the heat and moisture transported into the Arctic winter. Large-scale atmospheric blocking conditions deflect cyclone tracks poleward, and figure 3.8 shows one of these extreme events that took place in the last days of 1999 and first days of 2000, a case studied by Woods and Caballero (2016).
Fig. 3.8. Intense intrusion event of moist warm air into the Arctic in winter. a) Daily mean temperature North of 80°N for Nov 1999–Mar 2000 (black line) from ERA40 reanalysis, and the 1958–2002 average (red line). A blue rectangle marks the event. Data from the Danish Meteorological Institute (2021). b–d) Surface air temperature anomaly in the Arctic at different times during the intrusion event. After Woods & Caballero (2016)
According to Nakamura and Huang (2018) blocking develops like a traffic jam when the jet stream capacity for the flux of wave activity (a measure of meandering) is exceeded. Large-scale blocking conditions develop to the east of each ocean basin, deflecting midlatitude cyclones poleward (Woods et al., 2013). As a consequence, a great part of the latent heat transported into the Arctic is the result of a limited number of weather systems that enter the Arctic mainly through a North Atlantic gateway (300–60°E), followed in importance by a North Pacific gateway (150–230°E), and a less important Siberian one (60–130°E; Mewes & Jacobi 2019; Woods et al. 2013). Over the Atlantic, winter blocking strongly anti-correlates with the North Atlantic Oscillation (Wazneh et al., 2021).
Knowing how heat is transported into the Arctic allows us to examine the phenomenon of Arctic amplification. General circulation models have been predicting polar amplification as a result of global warming since their beginnings. After all, as seen in figure 3.3, as the climate of the Earth changes the change in temperature is larger the higher the latitude. However, in modern global warming Antarctic amplification has not been observed, and by 1995 so little Arctic amplification had been observed despite intense global warming the previous 20 years, that Curry et al. (1996) said: “The relative lack of observed warming and relatively small ice retreat may indicate that GCMs are overemphasizing the sensitivity of climate to high-latitude processes.” That was about to change that year when Arctic amplification suddenly accelerated (Fig. 3.9). But the question is still valid. Why was Arctic amplification small before 1996, when intense global warming was taking place, and large after 1996 when global warming rate decreased (the pause)? Modern climatology does not have an answer to that.
Fig. 3.9. Arctic seasonal temperature anomaly. Black curve, summer (June–August) mean temperature anomaly calculated from the operational atmosphere model at the European Center for Medium-range Weather Forecast (ECMWF) for the +80°N region. Red curve, the corresponding winter (December–February) mean temperature anomaly for the same region. Reference climate is ECMWF– ERA40 reanalysis model for 1958– 2002. Data from the Danish Meteorological Institute.
As we have seen above (e.g., Fig. 3.2), the Arctic in winter constitutes the biggest heat-sink (net energy loss to space) in the planet. Arctic precipitable water is c. 1.5 cm in summer, but in winter it drops to c. 0.2 cm (Wang & Key, 2005), the lowest value outside Antarctica. As a result, cloud cover becomes lower in winter increasing the energy loss. With a reduced cloud cover, almost no water vapor, and no albedo effect, the Arctic in winter has essentially no feedbacks to the greenhouse effect from CO2. Even more, van Wijngaarden & Happer (2020), note that “the relatively warm greenhouse-gas molecules in the atmosphere above the cold surface cause the Earth to radiate more heat to space from the poles than it could without greenhouse gases.”
It is clear that Arctic amplification is the consequence of an increase in MT, as the Arctic has a negative annual energy budget and the increase in greenhouse effect does not make it less negative. The warming in the Arctic, particularly during the winter, can only come from an increase in the heat transported from lower latitudes. The increase in Arctic heat transport that is not exported back to lower latitudes is distributed between increased OLR and increased downward longwave radiation. The enhanced downward radiation increases surface temperature, but due to the low thermal conductivity of ice, and since the heat flux always goes from the warmer ocean to the atmosphere during winter, temperature inversions commonly result, often accompanied by humidity inversions, and the radiative cooling continues from the top of the inversion or the top of the clouds until the water vapor freezes and precipitates, restoring the original very cold condition (Fig. 3.8a).
Arctic winter heat transport is enhanced at times when high pressure conditions prevail over the pole leading to a weak or split vortex. Warm air then enters the central Arctic ascending over the cold air (isentropic lifting), pushing it outwards. As a result, cold Arctic air masses then move over the mid–latitude continents producing anomalously cold temperatures and snow. Since Arctic amplification started, the frequency of mid-latitude cold winters has increased, something that models cannot explain (Cohen et al. 2020), but something similar took place between 1920–40 (Chen et al. 2018).
In this part we have reviewed how the LTG constitutes the most fundamental climate variable, and the mechanisms by which it drives the MT of energy towards the poles. In the next part we will review what happens when those mechanisms change in a coordinated way, as it happened when Arctic amplification started after 1996.
(1) http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
References
Pingback: The Sun-Climate Effect: The Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis (III). Meridional transport - News7g
Bibliography has been updated with some more references for part VI.
The plots with heat gain/loss versus latitude would be more accurate if the x-axis was sin(latitude) rather than latitude. That axis shows the relative area per degree change in latitude.
The whole idea of “heat gain/loss” based on temperature is an aberration of physics. Heat is energy, temperature is NOT energy.
The specific heat capacity of land (damp rock) is about half that of ocean water. This explains why the temperature swing of NH is much larger than that of SH. You do not need to try to look for a complex climatic mechanism for the alleged 3.9 deg C swing in “global average temperature”. It is an artefact of the fact that averaging temperatures is an non physical statistic.
TEMPERATURE IS NOT AN EXTENSIVE PROPERTY AND CANNOT BE “AVERAGED” IN A PHYSICALLY MEANINGFUL SENSE.
If someone did an average of heat energy instead of temperature, it would work a lot better. The hemispheres would be nearly equal and the annual average much flatter.
It is lamentable in view of the amount of time and resources committed to this subject over the last half century that such fundamental errors in the physics pervade the entire field of climatology.
https://judithcurry.com/2016/02/10/are-land-sea-temperature-averages-meaningful/
This posting proves that current climate theory cannot explain or prove what the actual data shows.
Throw it away and consider a theory that does reasonably explain what the actual data proves actually happened.
Fossil fuels, Coal, Oil, Natural Gas, are as old as dirt.
The plants and animals that grew, long ago and then died and were buried and and were changed into fossil fuels by great pressure, grew in the tropics, even if polar regions were warmer, there was not enough solar in to produce adequate green plants. Polar land what has abundant fossil fuels were near the equator when the fossil fuels were formed.
The event that killed the dinosaurs and much other life on earth, also shifted the crust of the earth and located tropical land in earth’s polar regions. Before that, land masses drifted toward the equator, and was all close, now land masses still drift toward the equator, but have drifted apart, east and west, over fifty million years.
Now, tropical oceans are warmed and the energy is transported by ocean currents into polar regions, where increasing evaporation and snowfall and IR out from the forming of ice and snowfall and sequestering of ice, with the ice being pushed into the warm tropical currents which get chilled to cold enough to form sea ice while the currents return as cold water to cool the tropics, cool the climate system as a result of the more polar IR out that formed the ice. The forming of the sequestered ice happens in the warmest times and the cooling by the thawing ice happens in the coldest times. The long term average for climate energy balance does not just happen in yearly seasons, it happens over hundreds of years in alternating Roman warm, then cold, Medieval warm, Little Ice Age Cold and now, Modern warm. Also the balance occurs over thirth thousand warm years and a hundred thousand year cold ice age.
Consider all this!
” tropical oceans are warmed and the energy is transported by ocean currents into polar regions”
Read the article! Transport to polar regions is essentially done by the atmosphere, not the oceans. Transport by ocean currents is less important outside the tropics.
“Transport to polar regions is essentially done by the atmosphere, not the oceans.”
Nonsense.
Northward-flowing Atlantic Water is the major means of heat advection toward the Arctic…
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1197397
Nonsense.
I see you cannot interpret the data displayed in figure 3.4.
Your knowledge of basic climate evidence is appalling, as expected.
Northward of 20°N the atmosphere becomes the main carrier of heat poleward.
The warming in the Arctic, particularly during the winter, can only come from an increase in the heat transported from lower latitudes.
Referring to figure 3.9, another significant reason the arctic seasonal anomaly trended positive after 2000 besides atmospheric poleward heat transport was the increase to a larger and warmer Arctic Ocean open area from which it could warm the atmosphere directly, due to the further reduction of sea ice extent.
In general the oceanic circulation of poleward heat transport inflow from the tropics significantly warms the Arctic Ocean and melts the ice, particularly after El Nino events.
https://i.postimg.cc/wvpjhQjj/Nino3-leads-NH-Sea-Ice-Extent.png
” another significant reason the arctic seasonal anomaly trended positive after 2000 besides atmospheric poleward heat transport was the increase to a larger and warmer Arctic Ocean open area from which it could warm the atmosphere directly, due to the further reduction of sea ice extent.”
Not in winter, not North of 80ºN (or 70ºN). It is fully ice covered. Nearly all the heat transported to the Arctic in winter is transported by the atmosphere. If it is warmer is because the atmosphere transported more heat each and every winter that was warmer. The increase in atmospheric transport has been measured.
What about any warmer air transported from the short distance northward from the open water nearest the ice boundary?
Additionally, if the entire Arctic froze up every single winter from Dec 21- Mar 21 I’d believe you 100%, but it doesn’t.
The Arctic sea ice reaches it’s highest extent in late February/early March, leaving 2/3 of the Arctic winter with less than the maximum sea ice extent, therefore having some portion(s) of the Arctic Ocean still open. Furthermore the sea ice extent itself is defined as only at least 15% sea ice, leaving room for even more open Arctic water. Therefore I think it is a safe assumption that the tropical ocean’s poleward heat transport is one source of Arctic warm anomalies.
·I’d believe you 100%”
Your beliefs are of no consequence.
Figures 3.4 and 3.8 show that the bulk of the transport to the Arctic is done by the atmosphere. You have no evidence of the opposite.
That was about to change that year when Arctic amplification suddenly accelerated (Fig. 3.9). But the question is still valid. Why was Arctic amplification small before 1996, when intense global warming was taking place, and large after 1996 when global warming rate decreased (the pause)? Modern climatology does not have an answer to that.
Figures 3.4 and 3.8 show that the bulk of the transport to the Arctic is done by the atmosphere. You have no evidence of the opposite.
There is adequate evidence of the opposite too, and btw, I am not ‘denying’ warm air intrusions and their effect.
Since your plot 3.9 lacks monthly resolution it is harder to identify specific drivers of the Arctic warming events when comparing it to other monthly time series such as the MEI.
However, the overall upward Arctic T anomaly trend closely matches the upward HadSST3 trend, indicating the warming ocean is the original overall driver as I had indicated.
https://i.postimg.cc/Pr77y2xm/Had-SST3-and-80-90-N-Arctic-T-Anomaly.png
https://i.postimg.cc/Hk7hhXcF/MEI-and-80-90-N-Arctic-T-Anomaly.png
If a daily or monthly time series for the Arctic T anomaly is obtained, this issue could be resolved with cross-correlation analysis by comparing it to several climate indices at the same resolution.
The total of atmospheric and oceanic heat transport should remain close to constant with the same initial conditions but not exactly constant. When more heat is transported by the ocean you get more total heat transport (in theory at least). That makes the oceans the climate drivers.
Bob,
I think you are missing a key point. During the polar summer, the heat transported to poles is stored in melted ice and in raising the humidity (evaporation). In the winter, much of this is frozen or re-frozen and the released heat is transmitted to space, in the newly, near zero winter humidity. The growing ice in winter, also traps heat under it, in the Arctic Ocean. Temperature inversions are also common in the Arctic and Antarctica, meaning more GHGs just increase the radiation to space.
I hope that helps.
Climate change, is normal…
https://twitter.com/i/status/1558753801133346816
Western academia is pushing a hoax!
There are many factors including the global stadium and antiphase polar responses – as well as more mundane volcanoes and changes in TSI.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/pages.png
Ultimately – Arctic amplification implies that there is more energy in the system.
d(global heat and work)/dt = energy in – energy out
There is currently more energy in the system than at the start of the satellite era.
CERES data is available – https://ceres-tool.larc.nasa.gov/ord-tool/jsp/EBAF41Selection.jsp – the visualisations are interactive and reveal interesting energy dynamics.
Javier is looking for internal amplification of a faint solar signal through unspecified physical pathways. Although he does seem to be now throwing a lot against the wall in the hope I suppose that some stick. This is a quintessential nonlinear process. Frankly I would focus on the sources of major climate variability and how that works to change the 1st order differential global energy equation.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/clement-et-al-e1512080464744.png
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2007GL030288
Transport of heat in the system is in turbulent fluid flow. Immensely complex and dynamic. Only to be seen in future with improved monitoring and modelling. But if a faint solar beat can be amplified through global systems – why not an order of magnitude greater anthropogenic forcing?
Albedo changes are an order of magnitude larger than CO2 forcing yet to observed 5% decline in cloud cover only produced 0.4 deg C of warming from a 2.5w/m2 forcing (the amount of OLR increase) that puts ECS at neutral to weak negative feedback.
Looking at anomalies in the CERES products shows quite large reductions in reflected shortwave – and an increase in outgoing longwave. Cloud cover declines in the eastern Pacific feature prominently in a positive feedback to sea surface temperature.
e.g. https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/6/3/62
Koren (2017) discusses cloud physics of Raleigh-Benard convection. Closed marine boundary layer cloud cells – discovered in the satellite era – persist for longer over cooler water before raining out to leave open cells. Bistable nonlinear.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/87456/open-and-closed-cells-over-the-pacific#:~:text=Closed%2Dcell%20clouds%20look%20similar,leaving%20the%20centers%20cloud%2Dfree.
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1063/1.4973593
The slow increase in greenhouse gases increases global temperatures and radiative emissions – all things being equal as of course they never are. Disentangling that trend from other influences is not simple.
Kravtsov et al compared models to reanalysis and concluded that natural variability was as much as +/- 0.3C in a 40 year period. Half the warming of the past 40 years?
https://www.osti.gov/pages/servlets/purl/1567550
But a Fermi calculation suggests an ECS of 5C – and because CO2 on its own is not that potent – albedo feedbacks seem likely.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/schneider.png
The solar signal referred to – btw – was not TSI – but the 0.01% that is UV or solar winds. And as I said to you in Javier’s penultimate post – what stabilises the planetary nonequilibrium thermodynamic system is the Planck feedback. The negative feedback pushes the system towards maximum entropy – energy in equals energy out. But it is always playing catch up to dynamic physical changes in ice, cloud, atmosphere, dust, biology… Moreover the system internal components interact in dynamically complex ways to produce states of multiple transient energy equilibria. Regimes and abrupt transitions evident in many geophysical series.
I can’t understand the question – I get called incomprehensible when people don’t understand. Eh – and sometimes people
are just having a moment. My day started great but went downhill after the Tax Office didn’t believe the date of birth I was giving them. I have to go back to the accountant tomorrow and prove my date of birth. 🤣 Then my formerly Rock Building Society now faceless MyState raised my house interest rate to 6.9%. I got that down to 6.07% – there’s little left to pay off and I’m so old it can’t be refinanced even in protest – I keep it for convenience and nostalgia – but talking to lenders I’m a class of elderly homeowner and I’m taking it to the AFCA. Then I was waiting for a delivery of package I knew was coming with the front door open the person didn’t even ring the bell. I had to pick it up at the Post Office. It was a good reminder to retain my equanimity.
There’s a comment in moderation with thoughts and scientific citations. There’s lots of the other kinds often presented as definitive but may instead be authoritative if one agrees. They have their place – but what’s a comment on science without a scientific citation. In a system where simple physics and complex models both come up short and what’s needed is a lot more observation. Look – it pains me yo say it but Javier is on the right track. But these pathways are so stupendously complex – literally at scales of planetary wave to viscous dissipation and everything between. And our monitoring and modelling capacities are still not up to scratch. We need to spend many more billions on it. 🤣 Sorry – that was a joke in bad taste.
I look forward to your reply.
“Big whirls have little whirls that feed on their velocity, and little whirls have lesser whirls and so on to viscosity.”—Lewis Fry Richardson.
Robert, Much more to come in parts 4-6. Patience.
Andy – I object to three things.
1. The anti-science rhetoric. Science is not neglecting anything.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009RG000282
2. A lack of catastrophe theory.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/bifurcations.png
3. Failure to acknowledge the butterfly in the room.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/bifurcations.png
Cheers
Sorry – that was a joke gone wrong. I meant to add this from noted climate modeller and respected physicist Tim Palmer.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2021/01/laws-of-physics.png
Observations should be replicable and methods sound in accordance with Newton’s 4 rules of scientific reasoning.
e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7134605/.
Jim was asking if science was truth? Yes in the sense of Newton’s 4th rule of scientific reasoning.
‘Since Goodman’s criteria are fulfilled, each rule of reasoning is valid—provided that the appropriate supporting data are available for rule 4 as well as explications for theory-dependent second-order phenomena and theory application safeguards are pursued for rule 2. Validating Newton’s rules does not mean that these are the only valid rules for natural or even empirical philosophy. All it means is that these rules suffice for reasoning validly from phenomena to inductions in natural philosophy.’
While the nature of albedo change being a forcing of feedback is hard to determine, even as a feedback it would be an additional positive feedback which would then be amplified ever more by the predicted water vapour positive feedback. Yet there was no amplification, because after the OHC accumulation phase the system responds to the increased warming in the form of deep tropical convection the dries out the upper troposphere, reducing GHG effect from water vapour as shown by declining relative and specific humidity in the upper troposphere. This fits with MT transport declining in a warm world as deep convection handles the energy transfer instead. Essentially you have a hot phase dominate by vertical transport with less clouds in a zonal pattern, or a cold phase dominated by meridonal transport with more clouds from atmospheric mixing. And this pattern is influenced by the stratosphere which is driven by solar and volcanic influences.
If there are supporting observations… see catch 22.
Thank you very much Javier for integrating various atmospheric sciences into one inter-connected presentation.
Javier and Andy:
An excellent summary presentation on the myriad interconnected facts related to energy transportation affecting the climate.
“Other sources of energy, like solar wind, [….] are negligible.”
Yet the solar wind variability appears to drive Northern Annular Mode anomalies, and appears to inversely drive the AMO.
Well yes the NAO may be connected to the solar wind – and that drives oceans. Water conveys a great deal of heat poleward. It does move slower than atmosphere but in the north Atlantic is central to interglacial/glacial transitions. At about where the planet is now.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/smeed-fig-71-e1523915527771.png
The North Atlantic is central to a lot of things during an interglacial. Changes in low cloud cover, advance and retreat of northern hemisphere glaciers, changes in CO2 uptake.
NO – I mean it is physically linked by THC to glacial initiation.
“Yet the solar wind variability appears to drive Northern Annular Mode anomalies, and appears to inversely drive the AMO.”
Ulric, so you say, but where are the published studies? Correlation is not causation.
One mode is the Mansurov effect – what’s needed is more and better observation and a new math.
But there are model studies.
e.g. https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8535
“One mode is the Mansurov effect – what’s needed is more and better observation and a new math.”
Not really. The Mansurov effect is a correlation between the interplanetary magnetic field and polar surface pressure. No idea if it has a climate impact. And the correlation is disputed:
“This, in addition to the lack of significance, suggests that there is no adequate evidence in support of the Mansurov Effect.”
https://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU21/EGU21-2362.html
They didn’t word it so strongly in the paper:
https://www.swsc-journal.org/articles/swsc/abs/2022/01/swsc210082/swsc210082.html
So the problem is not the lack of a new math, the problem is the lack of evidence that solar wind affects climate. Even if the Mansurov effect is true, there is a huge leap to claim that it drives the annular modes and the AMO.
If the solar effect on climate has an energy problem to explain, the solar wind effect on climate has an energy problem on steroids.
I do not spouse solar theories that lack in evidence. That’s why I do not support Svensmark or Ulric hypotheses.
That’s pretty much what I said. Polar oscillation indices are based on surface pressures – and that’s related to geopotential height. And that’s tropospheric???? But there is no compelling statistical correlation to that or any other aspect of solar variability. There are other wings flapping one might say.
Mansurov effect was intended to prompt Google searches and not quoting back a document I introduced. Here’s a good study to start with – in the interest of scientific objectivity.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2014GL061421
It depends on the quality and the quantity of the correlations, which if large enough would suggest that an effect is real and warrants further investigation into its mechanisms. Which is certainly the case for my work with the solar drivers of major heat and cold waves through the last 1000 years or more. Correlative studies on the solar wind and the NAO/AO are rare as so few people study it.
Effects on winter circulation of short and long term solar wind changes:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0273117713005802
The interplanetary magnetic field influences mid-latitude surface atmospheric pressure:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/045001
Correlations of global sea surface temperatures with the solar wind speed:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364682616300360
Solar wind is not the only influence on polar surface pressure.
“Solar wind is not the only influence on polar surface pressure.”
Solar proton storms have been observed destroying very large amounts of polar ozone.
And internally. Some things are like beats on a drum that set up resonant patterns of waves in oceans and atmosphere.
“if large enough would suggest that an effect is real and warrants further investigation into its mechanisms.”
I remain skeptical that solar wind can be responsible for much of climate change, even if the effect is real. But I agree that further investigation will cause no harm. The search for correlations is a problem, because it does not constitute an investigation into the mechanisms. It was never very productive in the solar effect, as I showed in the first part, despite the number of articles being like 10^4 the number on solar wind.
The most productive approach, in my opinion, is to follow the energy, as energy change is required for climate change. The problem with solar wind is that it involves very little energy.
Javier:
“It was never very productive in the solar effect, as I showed in the first part”
What did you show?
“The most productive approach, in my opinion, is to follow the energy, as energy change is required for climate change.”
I can see that the Sun discretely drives NAM anomalies and hence heat and cold waves in the mid latitudes, I have been forecasting them for years. That’s productive, and it is obviously driving climate change, and only changes in the solar wind could be responsible.
“The problem with solar wind is that it involves very little energy.”
Well we must be missing something about it, maybe the way it heats up when it hits the bow-shock with million °C plasma bubbles.
“I do not spouse solar theories that lack in evidence. That’s why I do not support Svensmark or Ulric hypotheses.”
“espouse”
I have the very best evidence, thousands of astronomical correlations revealing the ordering of the solar forcing of NAM anomalies at less than weekly scales. We are never going to explain the solar forcing of climate change without first explaining the solar forcing of weather.
Thank you Ulric,
“I have the very best evidence, thousands of astronomical correlations revealing the ordering of the solar forcing of NAM anomalies at less than weekly scales.”
Then do a statistical study on those correlations and get it published.
I have a problem with astronomical correlations. With so many bodies a numerical correlation can be found for nearly any interval. For example the Hallstatt 2300-year interval has been astronomically correlated in multiple works. Yet the Hallstatt cycle is bogus, a frequency analysis artifact that cannot be extended before 9500 BP and that uses the huge cosmic ray increase from the Vela supernova that did not produce a climatic effect. If the real periodicity is closer to 2,500 years a new correlation will be produced (has been produced) that fits the new period. To me it amounts to little more than numerology.
I do not discard a planetary origin for solar variability, but all those astronomical correlations mean nothing to me. Most will turn out to be as fake as the Gleissberg and Hallstatt solar cycles, despite massive bibliography.
Javier,
These particular astronomical correlations have nothing to do with numerical correlations or intervals, this is purely about discrete events of a geometric nature.
The Gleissberg cycle is actually variable between roughly 80 and 130 years, and is another name for centennial solar minima. That is ordered by the cycles of Venus, Earth, Jupiter, and Uranus. The interval variability is primarily due to the sunspot cycle maxima being ordered by quadrupole configurations within elliptical orbits. If the orbits were circular, the intervals of the centennial minima would be more regular.
The four gas giants have a 4627 year synodic cycle with a couple of close repeats of their relative starting positions around the middle at 2224 and 2403 years in, at 179 years apart. Various quadrupole configurations of the gas giants order warmer and colder periods at seasonal to inter-annual scales, but they have no connection alone with super solar minima, so they are the wrong candidate for a Heinrich event anyway.
Numerology is relatively polite, Scafetta earned the title of the king of mathurbation, and I thoroughly agree. I am in no need of any explanation of how sketchy and far fetched some supposed correlations are. Typically the periods are the wrong length, and their ‘hypothetical’ cycles can never account for any of the normal variability either. I am in the best position to critique such work, and I do regularly. Zharkova took it on the chin from me, and she even ‘liked’ my work in return.
Ulric: Venus, Earth, Jupiter I may accept but if you have to pull in Uranus , small and very very distant , I’d say that’s numerology.
Greg, no pull or numbers are involved so I’d say you are barking up the wrong tree.
First, thanks on all the detail in the first paragraphs.
A very good summary of conditions and circumstances of the globe and energy.
“Contrary to what could be naively expected, the Earth is warmest just after the June’s solstice, when it is farthest from the sun, and coldest just after the December’s solstice, when it is receiving 6.9 % more energy from the sun.”
–
A little more explanation as to the cause of this effect?
“A little more explanation as to the cause of this effect?”
You didn’t know this? It is curious that the same people that tell us that a 0.1% increase in radiation cannot have a significant effect, don’t tell us that a 6.9% increase in radiation cools the Earth over 3ºC and a 6.9% decrease in radiation warms the Earth over 3ºC.
A big part of that are the seasonal changes in albedo, but the changes in OLR are also very important. It essentially comes from the hemispheric differences in land surface.
Go to this page.
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/data/
Chose EBAF-TOA- level 3b – press the big red order data button. TOA – BTW – is the point above the atmosphere where all energy flux is electromagnetic. It goes to a page where parameters of Net, SW, IR and solar flux – inter alia – can be chosen and global and monthly means specified. There’s a visualise data button at the bottom.
Net flux anomalies are warming up by convention. SW and OLR anomalies show why. Unfiltered SW and OLR flux shows when and where.
Earth’s average surface temperature is c. 14.5 °C (coolish), but during the year it warms and cools by 3.8 °C.
–
As expected, the Earth emits more energy (total outgoing radiation, TOR) when it is cooling and less when it is warming, regardless of what it is receiving at the time.
The idea of an energy balance at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) is clearly wrong.
–
This statement is not correct.
The reason is simple.
TOA refers to and can only refer to where the incoming and outgoing radiation are equal.
That is why it is called the TOA.
There can never be any imbalance of radiation at a TOA because that is how it is defined.
Why is this so hard for the mass of sensible people here to understand?
“TOA refers to and can only refer to where the incoming and outgoing radiation are equal.”
Where is the reference for that, and what altitude is that?
It is obvious that if the Earth is changing its temperature incoming and outgoing radiation cannot be equal. And the Earth is always changing its temperature.
Javier | August 16, 2022 at 6:52 am | Reply
“TOA refers to and can only refer to where the incoming and outgoing radiation are equal.”
–
“Where is the reference for that, and what altitude is that?”
–
To be absolutely clear , Javier, since you introduced the term TOA.
TOA top of atmosphere, in terms of incoming and outgoing radiation specifically since you mention it in terms of imbalance of radiation.
–
Please specify your understanding and definition and reference of TOA for the advancement of your arguments.
–
You should not have a problem with a simple definition, or would you?
–
There is a vacuum of description and definition and people use the term quite loosely to support their particular thesis (I am not talking about you in this regard).
–
“What altitude is that?”
Sarcasm?
–
Do you mean day or night?
Do you mean average or actual?
Do you mean radiatively or figuratively?
Do you know where the altitude is?
Do you care?
–
I care a lot about correct science and terminology.
That is why I make a fuss about loose definitions.
–
I hope to get a definition that is acceptable from you and acceptable to others.
If not, I hope others here can put up their definitions if they know and have references or thoughts on the matter.
–
What altitude or altitudes is that?
Over to you.
An answer worth waiting for.
Satellites which measure these thing are above TOA because in space it is all electromagnetic radiation and no one can hear you scream.
Look at this statement.
–
“As expected, the Earth emits more energy (total outgoing radiation, TOR) when it is cooling and less when it is warming, regardless of what it is receiving at the time.”
–
It could read
“As expected, the Earth emits more energy (heats things up more?!) when it is cooling and less [so must cool things down?!] when it is warming, regardless of what it is receiving at the time.”
–
At least that is what the English being used here implies.
–
This statement is made as in trying to establish a non existent TOA radiation imbalance one has to treat the earth as a storage battery.
One looks at the earth temperature and says there is more energy in the earth when it is getting hotter so less is being sent out to space.
This is a total misunderstanding of the concepts of heat and temperature.
When the earth is hotter more energy is coming in and more [equal] energy is leaving.
What one sees is the effect of this extra energy on the matter that is responding to it and instantly sending it back.
It is Stefan Boltzmann 101.
When people see air molecules speeding up and colliding they confuse that activity with its energy with the actual real energy of the system which needs those previously slower molecules to be in a faster moving state precisely to be able to put back out the equal amount of energy the system has to do.
–
The energy coming in and out is the same, the movement merely reflects the altered potential energy of the system which is disturbed by the extras energy and will settle back down when that total energy goes back to its previous state.
There is no extra energy in the system.
angech:
“There is no extra energy in the system.”
Yes, system “holds” all the energy it “fails” to get rid off.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
angech,
What nonsense! Retained energy, that is energy received, that is not emitted to space, raises temperatures, unless the energy is converted to another form, like work.
Pingback: The Sun-Climate Effect: The Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis (III). Meridional transport – Watts Up With That?
Hopefully, a better understanding of the climate system will put a stop to this sort of tripe.
They predict that in three decades, more than 100 million Americans will live in an “extreme heat belt” where at least one day a year, the heat index temperature will exceed 125° Fahrenheit (52° Celsius) — the top level of the National Weather Service’s heat index, or the extreme danger level. (The index combines temperature and humidity to arrive at how it feels when you go outside.)
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-15/us-south-midwest-will-reach-temps-of-125-f-by-2050s
Pingback: 겨울 문지기 가설(III). 자오선 운송 – 그와 함께 와트? – Blog Ciencia
Pingback: The Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis (III). Meridional transport – Watts Up With That? - Lead Right News
“Why was Arctic amplification small before 1996, when intense global warming was taking place, and large after 1996 when global warming rate decreased (the pause)? Modern climatology does not have an answer to that.”
Arctic Amplification is a misnomer. Arctic warming is a negative feedback to a net decline in climate forcing. Directly by negative NAO/AO conditions causing an increase in the transport of humidity events into the Arctic, and indirectly by the negative NAO/AO conditions driving a warmer Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO). The changes in Arctic cloud cover associated with the warmer AMO phase, is a decline in cloud cover over Arctic land regions, and an increase in cloud cover over the Arctic ocean. Hence 80-90°N high summer temperatures have trended cooler since around 2000.
Pingback: The Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis (III). Meridional transport – Watts Up With That? - wtnzfox34.com
3.3
“First, it must compensate the difference between day and night. It does so mainly through the greenhouse effect that reduces night cooling, and through the effect of clouds, that increase albedo during the day and reduce night cooling.”
Atmospheric water vapour lowers potential daytime land surface temperatures as it absorbs considerable amounts of solar near infrared. All thermal reservoirs moderate temperature variability. The oceans reduce their own night surface cooling far more than atmospheric water vapour and clouds reduce night time land surface cooling.
Currently the Earth is in a severe icehouse climate with a very steep LTG
Disappointing for an inter-glacial period?
The Holocene is a little bit cold compared to 3 of the 5 previous ones (MIS 5, 9 & 11). By astronomical configuration and amount of global ice before it started it should have been warmer. I think the Younger Dryas came at an inconvenient time and sabotaged it, so it did not end being as warm as it should.
Cosmogenic isotope production in the atmosphere is somewhat inversely associated with solar activity. This shows low solar activity some 7250 years ago transitioning to high activity until some 2000 years ago. The last 1000 years has been a wild ride in geological timescales.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/isotope-9400-e1659732607560.gif
A question about this ”Incoming solar radiation is estimated at 173,000 TW”.
Is the atmosperic refraction included?
Otherwise it should be at least 0.3% higher
“Is the atmosperic refraction included?”
No. It is the solar power delivered at the top of the atmosphere:
3.1416 x (6.371)^2 x 1360.8 x 10^12 W = 173 524 TW
The amount delivered to the climate system is 70% of that: 121,500 TW, still 99.99%
Are batteries included?
No
Javier
“The energy from the sun comes in a straight line from its surface, as can be clearly appreciated during a total eclipse
It is the solar power delivered at the top of the atmosphere
3.1416 x (6.371)^2 x 1360.8 x 10^12 W = 173 524 TW:”
The definition of TOA used is to consider the TOA for a sphere the circumference of the earth only.
The earth only.
to the top.
as a cylinder going up from a base circle which is the cross sectional area of the earth from side to side.
What does it miss?
Only a whole bunch of atmosphere to either side which the sunlight and energy must pass through.
Again everybody, Trenbath, Willis, et al know this and ignore it
“Torbjörn when the sunrays travel through the atmosphere its refracted and the rays which would passed the Earth is actually hitting the Earth as well.
Then you can calculate for the albedo and scattering.
It would change the solar power from 173524TW to approx. 174000TW.”
–
This effect of solar scattering is well known.
But it makes the calculations all too messy.
Throws all the figures out.
–
“Scattered radiation is very important and variable with solar incidence.”
Javier:
“The amount delivered to the climate system is 70% of that: 121,500 TW, still 99.99%”
–
The
Ein = (1-a)So W\m2
where
a=0.306 and So=1360.8 W\m2
does not consider planet having very strong specular reflection.
–
The correct estimation is:
Ein = Φ (1-a)So W\m2
where
Φ=0.47 is the Solar Irradiation Accepting Factor.
–
Thus
173,000 TW *Φ (1-a) = 173,000 TW *0.47 (1-0.306) = 173,000 TW *0.326 = 56,429 TW.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Thank you for your answer, but when the sunrays travel through the atmosphere its refracted and the rays which would passed the Earth is actually hitting the Earth as well.
Then you can calculate for the albedo and scattering.
It would change the solar power from 173524TW to approx. 174000TW.
You are correct. Also scattered light has a particularly great effect on vegetation.
Sulfate particles from strong tropical volcanic eruptions result in an increase in shortwave radiation scattering. This increase results in enhanced photosynthesis that reduces global CO2 levels. That is just from a change in scattering.
Scattered radiation is very important and variable with solar incidence.
Javier, Andy, all
I’ve appreciated this series as it (in being also paleo-centered) resonates with an undergraduate project where this physical geographer :) delves into and fuses the paleo with also political science: intelligence analysis/security, to flesh out – in a year or so at C-level – how a governmental branch might need to handle undue politicization in the area of climate security. Already its climate part is off the table with a level-2 background paper now reposited here.
(..incl bits detailing securitization and argumentation – it’s not what format, time and other course dynamics could have allowed, far from your level of detail – so, not totally pleased here, but, it’s still informative and to some extent original – read it: anyone’s constructive feedback welcome.)
What resonated extra is this I found in addition, after its posting in June: among the ~20 citations that actually made it into the paper’s climate-results section, almost none are in IPCC’s latest relevant assessment (Vol 1, Chapter 2) with otherwise 41 pages of references. What I described as the climate war’s core field: Holocene medium-term solar-climatic linkages, is just not detailed in this assessment at all (as so much is otherwise).
This could be used as inquiry-content example next. An upcoming-scope graph can be studied here. It should cost 5 mo work; sizable backing suggestions contact via LinkedIn.
Sören, most of what you talk about is outside my area of knowledge.
“among the ~20 citations that actually made it into the paper’s climate-results section, almost none are in IPCC’s latest relevant assessment (Vol 1, Chapter 2) with otherwise 41 pages of references.”
IPCC AR chapter lead authors and editors practice reference selection. If an article says something they don’t like it is not included or tangentially mentioned for something different.
Schlesinger & Ramankutty 1994 Nature paper, cited 1644 times by their peers, where they described for the first time the effect of multidecadal variability on global temperatures is not cited in the relevant chapters of AR5.
“In addition to the well-known warming of ∼0.5 °C since the middle of the nineteenth century, global-mean surface temperature records display substantial variability on timescales of a century or less. Accurate prediction of future temperature change requires an understanding of the causes of this variability.” Schlesinger & Ramankutty 1994.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael-Schlesinger-4/publication/274043864_Low-frequency_oscillation/links/596ed0b00f7e9bd5f75f774e/Low-frequency-oscillation.pdf
After that, it is clear the IPCC is in the misleading business.
Thanks Javier, seems this selective business calls for the more investigative take I hope to explore, through interviews perhaps – course starts in September.
This looks amazing. Slick visuals in a NOAA 4 day prediction of solar wind.
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/wsa-enlil-solar-wind-prediction
One idea is that solar winds affect the global electric circuit. And that has an influence on marine boundary layer stratocumulus. Low level cloud over oceans that is a lot of global albedo. The cloud forms from Raleigh-Benard convection cells. The cells are nonlinear bistable. Closed cells persist for longer over cooler water before raining out from the center to leave an open cell. More cloud on average over cooler water.
Cloud condensation nuclei are supplied over oceans in products of breakdown of dimethyl sulphate released from oceanic organisms. So global electric circuit changes might change cloud dynamics in a flash.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/cms/asset/d4b7948b-6adf-45e5-990a-30e7af0dab4c/rspa20190758f07.jpg
Figure 7. Description of the current flow in the global electric circuit in the fair-weather and semi-fair-weather regions. Left panel: charge separation in thunderclouds, shower clouds and other exchange regions in disturbed weather regions drives upward current between the surface and the upper atmosphere (lightning is shown from the cloud base, the wavy arrow indicates point discharge currents, i.e. corona); middle panel: downward return current flow Jc in a cloudless fair-weather region showing the upper potential Vu and the effective resistance of the lower atmosphere RL (comprising the PBL) and upper troposphere Ru (i.e. above the cloud-forming regions); right panel: downward return current flow in a region containing layer cloud (with resistance Rcloud) through which the return current passes. In the semi-fair-weather region, the upper potential is reached at a slightly lower altitude than in the cloudless case.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.2019.0758
Javier Vinós & Andy May, thank you for this essay.
Javier Vinós & Andy May – A set of differential equations may be worth a thousand words, but it’s nice to see those thousand words laid out so eloquently.
I’m putting this up twice as I need explanations from the guys who know their thermodynamics better than I do but who will not explain logical fallacies.
–
Javier
you start it. you finish it .please.
What and where is your definition of TOA [missing]
and what altitude your question your answer.
Anyone else like to help him or me out here on this?
–
Andy May | August 16, 2022
“angech,What nonsense! Retained energy, that is energy received, that is not emitted to space, raises temperatures, unless the energy is converted to another form, like work”
–
Andy, you are an intelligent guy.
–
”Retained energy, that is energy received, that is not emitted to space, raises temperatures,”
–
There is real energy.
There is potential energy.
There is mass.
Temperature is not energy
Temperature is a measure of the energy being reflected and emitted by a mass field.
–
You know all that and yet you talk about retained energy
in a non nuclear, non chemical, non potential energy setting of thermodynamics.
–
When you take the temperature of an object you are not measuring the energy in the object, you are measuring the exact amount of energy being emitted or reflected at that very moment.
What raises the temperature is the energy going out increases because the energy coming in increases.
There is no storage of such energy.
None.
Stefan Boltzmann for heavens sake
Mass is not a battery.
Mass is not a cliff building up energy to fall off it.
Mass in general is not creating energy ever [non nuclear, non chemical, non potential energy]
It is merely a transmission point.
Energy is a transmission.
A sending through of a non mass mass.
Again happy for anyone here to point out the flaws in this reasoning
Hey angech … I believe the battery and storage issue is just an unfortunate semantic misunderstanding, or misuse. If I put an object into storage, all things being equal, it comes out the essentially the same. Its time of residence in the storage unit was unaffected and unaffecting. As I know you’ll agree, not so with the energy that strikes the earth. If we say the energy that strikes the earth is the box, and the earth is the storage container, the energy that comes out is not the same box that went in, though it may have similar measurements. Your point of the label storage container vs container may be true, but IMHO I don’t think it really has an impact on what’s being discussed.
Hi Bill
Thanks for thinking about it.
–
Several points.
“Its time of residence in the storage unit was unaffected and unaffecting.”
No.
On so many levels.
Have you ever checked an old unused torch, radio or tv controller battery left alone for over say 3 years?
It may be quite corroded and green.
Let alone the object it was in.
There are gravity considerations, temperature of both box and container etc, nature of the object and, fundamentally the fact that objects are mass and energy is, well energy.
As for energy in and out
Take a basic lump of metal at absolute zero and hit it with one measurable photon of energy.
The lump of metal will emit one measurable amount of energy equal in value to the original photon.
It has, on its own, no storage system.
At absolute zero it is quite comfortable in its state of lowest possible energy for what it is.
Without outside input it will not de novo create or destroy energy apart from random nuclear fission on an extremely long time base beyond that of thermodynamic consideration
I am impressed. You are talking like you understand the actual facts of heat transfer.
Now the facts about water .
Is the temperature of the saturated salt water on the floor of the oceans north and south pole 28-degrees farenheight?
As the sun goes around the earth does it heat the heat the top water, thus also the air above?
As the air above heats the relative humidity lowers. As the water heats and the relative humidity drops can it get to a point where the water will flash to vapor?
Angech: Temperature is not energy
Temperature is a measure of the energy being reflected and emitted by a mass field.
Temperature is proportional to the average kinetic energy of the molecules in the vicinity of the measuring device.
Please take notice, it is very important!
Christos Vournas | August 17, 2022 at 8:35 am |
–
Javier:
“The amount delivered to the climate system is 70% of that: 121,500 TW, still 99.99%”
–
The
Ein = (1-a)So W\m2
where
a=0.306 and So=1360.8 W\m2
does not consider planet having very strong specular reflection.
–
The correct estimation is:
Ein = Φ (1-a)So W\m2
where
Φ=0.47 is the Solar Irradiation Accepting Factor.
–
Thus
173,000 TW *Φ (1-a) = 173,000 TW *0.47 (1-0.306) = 173,000 TW *0.326 = 56,429 TW.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Evidence is science. The inferences drawn from evidence may be incomplete or wrong – there has never been an instance of it being completely right. The Christos SIAF principle is untested and angech is adrift on a boat with no anchor and no compass. Science might be able to help.
Heat in a mass is the kinetic energy of molecules. Energy is conserved. Heat moves – on net from warm to cool. Energy is transformed – photons to kinetic energy or the electron states of resonant molecules – mass to energy – friction to heat and momentum… The laws of physics without which there is no progress. Entropy rules time – as local mass increases in spiralling galaxies time dilates. Matter coalescing from waves of energy thrown out in the big bang. The new math – btw – needed for planetary geophysics and cosmology is in state-space geometry.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2021/01/laws-of-physics.png
Energy is magically radiated in packets of multicoloured waves – seen in the old double slit test. Each photon with a quantum of energy somehow – in infrared the quantum of the energy difference between greenhouse gas electron orbits – the problem of the day. Look at it and it is light – feel it and it is warmth – go too close and it burns.
Speaking of quantum energies, have you considered the 10% variance in Solar UV over the 11 year cycle (constituting 8% of total solar output) constitutes a 2.5w/m2 forcing on the stratosphere, and a concurrent decrease in visible light being absorbed by oceans (to balance TSI). The notion that solar effects are small relative to CO2 is somewhat misplaced even before potential feedbacks.
Robert:
“The Christos SIAF principle is untested…”
–
SIAF – the Solar Irradiation Accepting Factor “Φ”.
………….
In short, the Φ -Factor is not the planet specular reflection portion itself. The Φ -Factor is the Solar Irradiation Accepting Factor (in other words, Φ is the planet surface spherical shape and planet surface roughness coefficient).
……………………….
How to formally prove Φ -Factor’s correctness in the
Ein = Eout formula.
–
Answer:
The Energy in:
Ein = (1-a)S W/m²
used in the blackbody planet effective temperature Te is an empirical assertion, which is not based on any theoretical research, not to say, its correctness has not been demonstrated, quite the opposite…
–
The Energy in:
Ein = Φ(1-a)S W/m²
is based on measurements (the Drag Coefficient for smooth spheres in a parallel fluid flow Cd = 0,47), and it is demonstrated to be the correct one.
The Φ -Factor’s importance is explained in every detail in the pages of my site.
Link:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/445559911
–
Thank you, Robert, for SIAF – the Solar Irradiation Accepting Factor “Φ” abbreviature.
So I think UV is about 5% of incoming solar on the surface – 8% in the stratosphere where it warms ozone. It changes a few 10ths of a percent? The rest of solar variability is insufficient to cause the climate change observed. So perhaps a small UV variability amplified through a tumultuous Earth system from top down warning of stratospheric ozone is an explanation. The change in greenhouse gas forcing is some 0.3 W/m^2/decade.
An interesting subject, from a specific view; the rest not my field.
Quote REI; ” The inferences drawn from evidence may be incomplete or wrong”. Or maybe both.
Whatever ‘SAIF’ is, the earth is a heat exchanger, receiving heat from a point source at one end, and rejecting it to space at the other end in a somewhat complex manner. The in-between mechanics are variable.
That the earth as a heat exchanger rotates is very important. That its orientation to the heat source also changes is equally so. Then again the mode of heat transfer from input to output is very variable (direct in and out at equatorial deserts within 24hrs, with a secondary heat transfer engine/mechanism to polar regions as an indirect mode. Those variable mechanics dictate thermal residence time and ‘Delta T’.
Compare to Venus, a stalled – hardly rotating- rotating heat exchanger, or the moon with no atmosphere as a secondary mode heat exchanger.
melitamegalithic:
“Whatever ‘SAIF’ is, the earth is a heat exchanger, receiving heat from a point source at one end, and rejecting it to space at the other end in a somewhat complex manner. The in-between mechanics are variable.”
–
SIAF – the Solar Irradiation Accepting Factor “Φ” abbreviature.
–
“the earth is a heat exchanger, receiving heat from a point source at one end, and rejecting it to space at the other end in a somewhat complex manner.”
Let me, please, disagree:
My point is “the earth is a heat exchanger, receiving heat from a point source at the every solar hit spot, and rejecting it to space at the same very instant from the same spot of incidence as SW reflected EM energy (Specular and Diffuse) and IR emitted EM energy.
Only a portion of the incident and not reflected solar energy is accumulated in inner layers and being rejected to space at the dark end.”
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas’
I think you are underestimating the heat engine that receives heat at mid latitudes, converting water to vapour (one phase change) at same temperature, then conducts it to the polar regions, and released/rejects the heat to space (in two phase changes) and depositing ice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_heat#/media/File:Water_temperature_vs_heat_added.svg
In that lies a second ‘unrecognised?’ fact. Reception is direct, so absorption is high leading to fast melt of any ice. While rejection via heat engine is a slower two stage indirect process leading to slow polar ice build-up. But that is dependent on heat exchanger orientation (mostly obliquity).
melitamegalithic:
“Reception is direct, so absorption is high leading to fast melt of any ice.”
–
In the mid latitudes yes, absorption is high – I agree with that.
What I am saying is that not the “entire not reflected” energy is absorbed. A significant part of it is IR emitted on the instant of incidence.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas
“A significant part of it is IR emitted on the instant of incidence.”
Agreed, but with some reservation. That, I expect, would certainly be the case on desiccated land/desert. However on wet or where there is vegetation, evaporation is high. Eg.: one square metre of fig-leaf canopy, transpiration is in excess of 5 litres of water daily (lat 35.8N) [local desiccation noted over the past 50 years has meant that those trees no longer survive in soil, as I am experiencing. It is as is evident historically at this particular time of the Eddy cycle].
Re quote “Only a portion of the incident and not reflected solar energy is accumulated in inner layers and being rejected to space at the dark end.”
Accumulation I would think is low; due to low Sp.Ht. of dry land. Otherwise evaporation would be predominant (again noted from the fast rate of desiccation). That enthalpy is lost to space at higher latitudes. But that means a secondary mechanism is at work; equals cascading ‘Delta T’ in the system.
Hi, melitamegalithic!
Yes, I agree with
Re quote “Accumulation I would think is low; due to low Sp.Ht. of dry land. Otherwise evaporation would be predominant (again noted from the fast rate of desiccation). That enthalpy is lost to space at higher latitudes. But that means a secondary mechanism is at work; equals cascading ‘Delta T’ in the system.”
–
And, here it is, I think, how the first mechanism occurs:
On Planet’s surface the energy Emission /Accumulation ratio
–
When solar irradiated, planet’s surface always has a certain the energy
Emission /Accumulation ratio.
–
It happens so because those are different mechanism energy transfer processes.
The incoming solar energy is one a pure radiative energy.
–
When solar irradiation interacting with the planet’s surface there are two different physics phenomena take place.
The by the surface instant IR emission and by the surface heat accumulation (conduction).
–
And it is observed that when the surface’s temperature is higher, everything equals, the
Emission /Accumulation ratio is higher.
–
Consequently when rotating slower and having a lower cp the planet’s surface gets hotter and the planet’s surface emits more and accumulates less.
And the opposite, It is observed that when the surface’s temperature is lower, everything equals, the
Emission /Accumulation ratio is lower.
–
Consequently when rotating faster and having a higher cp the planet’s surface warms less and the planet’s surface emits less and accumulates more.
———————–
It can be explained by the difference in energy transfer by radiation vs energy transfer by conduction.
The energy transfer by radiation is in fourth power of the surface’s absolute temperature.
The energy transfer by conduction is linear of the surface’s layers temperature gradient.
——————–
Example:
Let’s have a planet’s surface T = 100 K
Jemission = σT⁴ = σ*100.000.000
Jconduction = cT = c*100
Jemission /Jconduction = σ*100.000.000 /c*100 = 1.000.000*σ /c
———-
Let’s have a planet’s surface T = 200 K
Jemission = σT⁴ = σ*1.600.000.000
Jconduction = cT = c*200
Jemission /Jconduction = σ*1.600.000.000 /c*200 = 8.000.000*σ /c
–
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
c – is the coefficient of conductivity
–
Thus in this simple example we have illustrated that when a planet’s surface gets warmed at higher temperatures, everything equals, the energy
Emission /Accumulation ratio is higher.
The planet’s surface accumulates less.
–
And when a planet’s surface gets warmed at lower temperatures, everything equals, the energy
Emission /Accumulation ratio is lower.
The planet’s surface accumulates more.
–
That is why sea accumulates much more heat than land.
That is why, when we have Earth and Moon having the same solar flux of So = 1361 W/m² Moon rotating slower and having a lower cp, at daytime is getting hotter and having a higher the energy
Emission /Accumulation ratio.
So Moon’s surface accumulates less.
Earth rotating faster and having a higher cp, at daytime getting less warm and having a lower the energy
Emission /Accumulation ratio.
So Earth’s surface accumulates more.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
In my earliest post in this section I referred to the orientation of the earth to its heat source. As a rotating heat exchanger, the earth’s orientation is of paramount importance. This aspect is missing in most all considerations. That is because earth’s axial orientation (read tilt) has been assumed near constant. The evidence says otherwise (but abandoning dogma is always difficult) .
Compare two pieces of info
1 from here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpUkPPtkPVc go to 21:49 The two curves on the left graph are temperatures with latitude for Eocene and today’s.
2 See fig 5 here https://www.cfca.nao.ac.jp/~tito/ftp/psdoc/Ito-Hamano.1995.ECore.pdf
The differences may be explained by comparing and finding which temperature profile corresponds to which tilt angle.
Done here https://www.facebook.com/melitamegalithic/photos/a.433731873468290/1957722401069222/
It is where, ‘Quote REI; ” The inferences drawn from evidence may be incomplete or wrong”. Or maybe both.’
Reply to Bill,
“Your point of the label storage container vs container may be true, but IMHO I don’t think it really has an impact on what’s being discussed.“
–
Discussed or lectured on?
Javier needs to put up a TOA description if he wishes to get traction on his thesis.
Where is it?
Invisible.
Not his fault.
It is extremely difficult to find or give a TOA description that allows
an energy imbalance.
No help from the usual gaggle of commentators either
TOA anyone?
CO2 is life. His bread and butter
RIE. Strangely silent.
Joshua Willard DM not a whisper.
Andy May. He could help
How about Willis or WUWT or ATTP
Admit it either they do not have a clue or………..
angech … thank you for your response. You have been patient and kind with my admittedly naive and folksy comment.
> It is extremely difficult to find or give a TOA description that allows an energy imbalance.
Is it? I’m having trouble seeing that. If I pour water into a bowl at a constant rate the bowl will eventually overflow at the same rate, all things being equal. But what if the bowl is continually changing shape? Sometimes larger, sometimes smaller. We would have to wait till the mechanism that alters the bowl’s shape to cease to be able to show that the water in equaled the water out over the whole period of time water was being poured. If we add the fact that my hand shakes a bit when I’m pouring, and so the amount going in varies slightly, it would seem to add to the complexity of getting a balanced reading at any moment in time.
I’m sure there’s much I’m not seeing with my own example. Your thoughts are always welcome.
Bill, you may reply, you will reply, that the energy coming in alters the shape.
–
The answer to this is that the shape is determined by the molecules of the bowl but the mass of the molecules in the bowl does not change in mass.
Volume of the mass yes but the effect of energy on mass is purely dependent on the mass, not the volume the mass occupies .
This conundrum and fact explains why the mass keeps emitting exactly the amount of energy that comes into it.
The volume that the mass occupies while doing this changes The bowl for energy is not the volume but the mass.
–
This is the only reasonable explanation that keeps SB alive.
allows the concept of a TOA
and denies the possibility of radiation imbalance at the effective radiating level which for most purposes is also the TOA as it should be defined.
–
Thank you for your analogy. It explains Javier, RIE and Andy but unfortunately proper application of SB says it is wrong.
The
T = ( J /σ )¹∕ ⁴
is a mistake !
Stefan-Boltzmann emission law doesn’t work vice-versa !
The old convincement that the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law works vice-versa is based on assumption, that EM energy obeys the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (1LOT). That assumption was never verified, it was never been confirmed by experiment.
Let’s see:
The Stefan-Boltzmann emission law states:
J = σ*Τ⁴ (W/m²) EM energy flux (1)
The mathematical ability to obtain T, for a given J led to the misfortunate believe that the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law formula can be used vise-versa:
T = ( J /σ ) ¹∕ ⁴ (K) (2)
as the surface (vise-versa) radiative emission temperature “definition”.
Well, this is theoretically right for a blackbody theoretical approach. Blackbody surface behavioral property is compared with a tiny hole in a stove. The incident in the hole radiative energy vanishes inside the stove… The hole is infinitesimally smaller than the stove’s inside walls area. Thus the incident in the hole EM energy cannot escape out of the stove.
After multiple interactions with the stove’s walls, the incident in the hole the entire EM energy is transformed into heat and is, eventually, evenly dissipated and accumulated as HEAT in the stove’s inner walls…
The EM energy emitted out of the stove’s hole is then only the inside stove uniform surface temperature T dependent function
J = σ*Τ⁴ (W/m²).
But the
T = ( J /σ ) ¹∕ ⁴ (K) (2)
as the irradiated surface (vise-versa) radiative emission temperature “definition”… is utterly unacceptable, because it has not a physical analogue in the real world.
That is why we should consider planet effective temperature
Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)
as a mathematical abstraction, which doesn’t describe the real world processes.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Thanks, angech.
> Problem?
[1]We know that the energy outflow is always instantly equal to the energy input or SB is wrong.
[2]We know that the bowl seems to be increasing or decreasing in capacity.
[3]One is wrong.
I don’t think anyone is arguing that [1] is wrong. I also think that everyone would most likely agree that what you said about volume (the shape of the bowl) and energy is correct. J&A have made a post on what I called my ‘shaky hand’ pouring water into the bowl, meaning the variability of the energy from the sun. And, what affect it has on a bowl that seems to vary in size (volume) [2].
Prior you said:
> To get around this we have to accept your model of a bowl able to change itself at whim and store energy when it expands and squeeze out more when it contracts thus giving the story line of
imbalances in the amount of water in the container.
In the above, we have to change ‘squeeze out more when it contracts’ to ‘squeeze out what was held when it contracts’ or if your prefer ‘squeeze out what was detoured’. The imbalance in the story line is not over ‘all time’, but rather temporary. And that shouldn’t contradict [1] above. With [1] we would need to accept that at any point in time energy in may not equal energy out. This ‘detour’ (my word) was, in my opinion, what spawned the usage of such words as storage and battery. I understand your preference for not using those two words.
Thanks Bill.
The fact is if energy takes detours the SB principle is wrong.
Most people do take the view that energy can be stored in a mass and on the surface this has always seemed eminently feasible.
This would have to mean SB is wrong.
Worlds could absorb and store an indefinite amount of energy becoming hotter than their source if this was the case.
Since we know empirically and practically that this is not the case we have to review our concepts of how energy and mass interact with each other.
Energy is the irresistible force, it cannot be stopped or it would not be energy.
Mass is the immovable object
It cannot move of its own volition.
All very well if different masses did not move in relation to each other but they do.
In so doing they distort time and space around them.
Not a problem for slow moving objects but when it comes to energy travelling at light speed the warping causes considerable effect.
The prime characteristic of mass interacting with external energy it encounters is that it cannot contain it, must instantaneously emit it but in so doing the position and speed of the smaller masses (molecules) comprising the larger complete mass are altered, returning to their overall natural locked positions and speed when the energy has exited
Though this may look different to the pre energy encounter.
Only speculation trying to marry the two at odds facts.
angech:
“Most people do take the view that energy can be stored in a mass and on the surface this has always seemed eminently feasible.
This would have to mean SB is wrong.
Worlds could absorb and store an indefinite amount of energy becoming hotter than their source if this was the case.”
SB is not wrong.
SB says how a hot body emits IR EM radiative energy at fourth power of its absolute temperature.
–
SB cannot be applied (vice-versa) to radiative energy interaction with matter, because, when solar flux hits surface, there is a process of EM energy transformation into HEAT.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
TOA
Top of atmosphere.
Not the real atmosphere of course as the real atmosphere definition wise depends on the number of molecules of atmosphere in otherwise empty space.
Where should one find it ?
Between the earth and the sun?
Going through a circular area the size of the earths diameter on a plane horizontal to the sun at one AU?
On average of course due to the elliptical orbit the one AU only occurs twice a year.
Constant or variable height?
Some people value specify a fixed height of 100 kilometers but this causes too many problems.
Some 30 Km with the same problems.
Tough isn’t it?
Where is it at nighttime when the energy going out at the surface may be greater than any coming in.
Imagine a TOA partially under the surface of the earth at night
During the day at the Equator at midday the opposite problem.
The TOA May now be 1/3 or more higher than the average height.
TOA is therefore an artificial construct.
It is the average height around the world that needs to exist to enable incoming sun energy to balance outgoing sun energy.
Complicated a little by endogenous earth heating, very minor and solar scattering of excess escolar energy that hits the atmosphere but would not have directly impacted the earth’surface.
It is used by everyone.
Used to work out, with errors due to the omitted heat sources, the temperature the earth would be without an atmosphere and with an atmosphere of GHG.
Opposed by those who do not believe in GHG effect, CV Ned and others.
But still quoted.
This leads to the concept of an effective radiating surface for a planet with atmosphere which is above the surface of the earth.
By how much?
Strangely the very definition of a true artificial construct called the TOE
And as said, and the cause of everyone’s grief, this demands energy in and out are equal no matter how fast or slow the sun heats or cools or clouds change the albedo of the planet.
This SB effect causes a strange dichotomy between energy, temperature and our perception of energy as being stored in moving objects when in reality the fact that the objects were still in the first place required the suns energy to break their bonds and move them.
No one asks where the bonding energy that has been violated goes but by the laws of conservation of energy no matter how much energy is in a hot particle of air the exact equal amount of energy is going out to space as what came in to move it.
It has no extra storage of energy
I like this reply. Tm. angech
Love it. Canonically Wily E. Coyote science. Strapped to a chemical rocket on reentry. Hitting the atmosphere heats things up. Chemicals can store energy. A steam engine heats water and that is converted to mechanical energy. The planet is warmed by the sun and over the long term energy in equals energy out. Imbalances in the moment – constrained by physical laws – accumulate as the world oceans and land warm or cool. On any timescale internal Earth system processes are in abrupt transitions to episodic states.
Robert I. Ellison Sometimes you get your words just right.
Evidence is science. The inferences drawn from evidence may be incomplete or wrong
angech is adrift on a boat with no anchor and no compass.
Science might be able to help.
–
Heat in a mass is the kinetic energy of molecules. Energy is conserved. Heat moves – on net from warm to cool. Energy is transformed – photons to kinetic energy or the electron states of resonant molecules – mass to energy – friction to heat and momentum”
–
For every force there is an equal but opposite reaction.
When you see a molecule running fast in one direction you miss the forces in the other direction.
Zen.
The sound of one hand clapping.
–
The interaction between energy and matter over time and distance is very complex.
Electromagnetic energy is not kinetic energy or potential energy or stored chemical energy or electron states of resonant molecules.
It cannot be stored.
Those other forms of energy relate purely to the already existent motion contained in the mass of the earth when it first formed 4 billion years ago.
A giant rock travelling at incredible speed with enormous innate energy.
They did not come from energy from the sun though they can be affected by it.
In other words the potential energies and kinetic and chemical energies and electron states already existed and would exist if there was a sun or not..
A tiny bit of energy from the sun moves a few molecules on the deck of the Titanic.
In turn that energy also has to go back out into space, the earth energy bucket is full .
That is why SB works.
Some of it may even move a few molecules on the surface of the sun seeing you are a back radiation man.
–
Open your mind like Tamino and see both hands clapping for a change.
There is no rule that says the planet has to be at energy equilibrium. Within the Stefan-Boltzman law is the negative temperature exponential Planck feedback. It acts to counter stochastic/dynamic planetary warming or cooling.
Robert I. Ellison | August 19, 2022
“There is no rule that says the planet has to be at energy equilibrium.”
–
Wrong.
–
Then there would be no rules and no physics!
–
The boys are describing and using physics to try to make a premise.
–
They are applying energy transfer concepts to a planet model.
The model used assumes that the planet is not arbitrarily changing its energy at whim or because RIE wants a different concept.
–
Ground rules in their schemata.
No planetary (core) heat production considered.
No consideration of extra scattered atmospheric energy.
Expected energy equilibrium of the planet under stable solar emission and CO2 levels and other GHG at the start of their cycles.
–
Then they examine what would happen in this scenario only with a small but expected rise and fall in solar energy that happens to occur, they feel , in synch with the sunspot cycle.
–
Voila, with significant negative correlation they can produce an audible, visible, proof of a significant response to these said temperature changes at the right time of neutral ENSO years.
–
If you believe in storable energy energy then you are agreeing with them.
Thanks, Bill.
–
“But what if the bowl is continually changing shape? Sometimes larger, sometimes smaller.”
–
Therein the puzzle and the prize.
–
What makes the bowl change size and shape?
Serious question.
The problem being that you may now be changing the parameters in a way that you see correct but which does not apply to the physics of the phenomenon you are looking at.
–
Feynman posed this problem when he said something like how does the ball calculate all that complex maths and geometry to know exactly where it should go?
Hint, it does not.
–
Similarly here you are adding in a third force, an engineer or a potter or a deity consciously altering the shape of the bowl.
–
An overflowing bowl [Condition no 1] does not care about the rate of flow into the bowl and constant or not will always overflow according to the actual amount of water being put in.
This is better known as the SB constant.
Since the SB constant exists, is proven, not disproven, energy in must equal energy out not just for a black body but any body.
–
To get around this we have to accept your model of a bowl able to change itself at whim and store energy when it expands and squeeze out more when it contracts thus giving the story line of
imbalances in the amount of water in the container.
–
Problem?
We know that the energy outflow is always instantly equal to the energy input or SB is wrong.
We know that the bowl seems to be increasing or decreasing in capacity.
One is wrong.
TOA is a puzzle worth exploring. I will investigate a little more as no one other than Bill has made a peep about it as a definition.
The average global net radiation at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) is defined as the difference between the energy absorbed and emitted by the planet.
In an equilibrium climate state, the global net radiation at the TOA is zero.
In the presence of an increasing climate forcing, an imbalance between the energy absorbed and emitted occurs,
and in response the climate system must react to restore the balance (e.g., by changing temperature).
The rate at which the earth reacts is modulated by its capacity to store energy.
Given that oceans are 10 times more efficient at storing heat than other components of the climate system (e.g., land, ice, atmosphere; Levitus et al. 2001),
the global net radiation at the TOA should be in phase with and of similar magnitude as the global ocean heat storage.
At the top-of-atmosphere (TOA), the Earth’s energy budget involves a balance between how
much solar energy Earth absorbs and how much terrestrial thermal infrared radiation is emitted to space.
Since only radiative energy is involved, this is also referred to as Earth’s radiation budget (ERB). NG Loeb, W Su et al 2016
A natural balance exists in the Earth system between incoming solar radiation and outgoing radiation that is emitted back to space as either light (direct reflection of sunlight)
or heat (infrared emission from surfaces).
This balance, referred to as Earth’s radiation budget (ERB), determines the climate of the Earth and makes our planet hospitable for life.
Chemical Sciences Laboratory NOAA
Earth’s Energy Budget
The TOA ERB describes the balance between how much solar energy the Earth absorbs and how much terrestrial thermal infrared radiation it emits.
N.G. Loeb, … W.F. Miller, in Comprehensive Remote Sensing, 2018
Conclusion
TOA has two literal meanings.
Top of the actual atmosphere.
Or the boundary where the ERB exists =TOA as a radiative TOA.
This can be 5-10 KM high or 100 km high.
Javier refuses to specify which TOA definition he uses [and of course it follows what height he would guesstimate].
Despite the definition of ERB hence TOA being where the in going and outgoing radiation balance [Loeb no less] exists.
Even Loeb makes the mistake of thinking there is an actual storage possible of external energy when SB says this is impossible.
The contortions made to accommodate this mistaken view include the missing heat [Trenbath]
The positive out going [negative imbalances observed in earlier years
and an insistence that energy must be stored.
There is 8 minutes only of energy from the sun keeping the whole earth where it is in its current surface temperature and atmosphere.
Turn off the sun completely and after 8 minutes the surface would freeze.
The massive innate energy of the earth with its own energy producing core will still keep the under surface warm.
EM radiation takes a long time to travel through rock to the surface to radiate away.
The 100 million atomic bombs of energy or whatever the earth receives a day from the sun, diffused over 24 hours into our atmosphere and ocean surface and top of earth surface does its best every 8 minutes to keep a temperature and atmosphere on the earth surface.
Pull the plug and all that atmospheric science becomes an atmosphere less, ice covered ocean planet at the earths innate temperature.
RIE’s molecules in motion no longer have an energy or a motion to stay in the sky.
The distance a planet orbits sun determines the solar flux’ intensity incident on it.
For Earth it is So = 1361 W/m²
For Moon it is So = 1361 W/m²
And
For Mars it is S = 585,4 W/m²
–
We consider solar flux on the Earth’s TOA (top of atmosphere) as
So = 1361 W/m²
Because not the entire solar radiative energy reaches Earth’s surface.
–
Earth’s Albedo is on average a=0,306 because of the clouds which reflect stronger than surface, so the combined diffuse reflection is on average a=0,306.
–
Thus only the (1-a)So = 0,694So = 0,694*1361 W/m² = 944,5 W/m² on average reaches a flat plate on Earth’s surface perpendicular oriented to the solar rays.
–
Earth’s TOA is where we can measure the exact solar flux at the Earth’s distance from the Sun.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Thanks for your defining the flat plate on the earth’s surface (horizontally oriented to the solar rays I think you mean?) at one AU from the sun as the defining level and area of the TOA used by Javier and Andy although they refuse to comment.
I think you will find that this enables a solar flux calculation in the 1361-1364 W/m2 range .
Neglecting the scattered extra solar input that hits the atmosphere outside of that circle, as you also do.
This is then changed to a TOA as a flat disc above the flat earth area to give an average altitude at which both the reflected SW and the emitted LW match the input.
Still also 1361-1364W/m2.
Which is wrong because the earth also contributes several W/m2 to the output from its own heat generation.
The albedo is not important at TOA because the TOA is defined as where the incoming and outgoing IR is in balance.
The reflected SW can therefore be added to it at the same distance.
Missing out on the scattered extra solar energy, 0.3% according to one commentator, and the extra earth derived energy, a few Watts only would take the total amount striking the earths atmosphere and coming back out to 1400W/m2 combined.
A not insignificant amount when trying to describe minute amounts of change as having an effect.
angech:
“This is then changed to a TOA as a flat disc above the flat earth area to give an average altitude at which both the reflected SW and the emitted LW match the input.
Still also 1361-1364W/m2.”
angech, there is not any place around a planet (a planet with or without atmosphere)
“at which both the reflected SW and the emitted LW match the input.”
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
TOA is at the top of the atmosphere – duh – and the relevant distinction is that above that there is no atmosphere in which convection and advection take place. It is all electromagnetic.
Not helpful.
But thanks for the light hearted attempt.
The bowl may not change shape so much but the contents can warm or cool. Episodically in hydroclimatic data. Everything is in flow to an entropic ground state – matter, energy and light. Water flow is always the great exemplar.
On P6 there is a sketch of the difference between periodic and unpredictable but with a non random distribution. The climate system has regularities in night and day and seasons and has regimes and transitions driven by internal processes.
‘Kolmogorov (1931)
clarified that the term process means
change of a certain system;
introduced the term stochastic process;
used the term stationary to describehas r
a process in probabilistic terms.’
https://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/getfile/1724/1/documents/2017EWRA_PantaRhei.pdf
‘Since “panta rhei” was pronounced by Heraclitus, hydrology and its objects, such as rivers and lakes, offer grounds to observe and understand change and flux. Change occurs at all time scales, from minute to geological, but our limited senses and life span, along with the short time frame of instrumental observations, restrict our perception to the most apparent daily to yearly variations. As a result, our typical modelling practices assume that natural changes are a short-term “noise” superimposed to the daily and annual cycles in a scene that, in the long run, is static and invariant. Hydrologist H. E. Hurst, studying the long flow records of the Nile and other geophysical time series, was the first to observe a natural behaviour related to multi-scale change and to study its implications in engineering designs. This behaviour, in which long-term changes are much more frequent and intense than commonly perceived, makes prediction of future states much more difficult and uncertain, particularly for long time horizons, than commonly thought. Surprisingly, however, the implications of multi-scale change have not been assimilated in geophysical sciences, as reflected by a vocabulary in which change is identified with “noise”, and a perception that only an exceptional and extraordinary forcing can produce a long-term change. A change of perspective is thus needed, which should depart from the 19th-century myths of static systems, deterministic predictability and elimination of uncertainty, and should move toward a new understanding and modelling of natural processes, in which change and uncertainty are essential parts.’ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/252371314_Hydrology_and_Change_Plenary_Leture
“The bowl may not change shape so much but the contents can warm or cool.“
–
Again you are confusing Temperature with energy.
We are talking about energy flow into and out of the bowl.
Not the temperature of the bowl.
A heated bowl has more energy in and as much energy out.
It is the energy coming out that you measure as a temperature.
The bowl has just lost that energy you are measuring.
It does not store it and no longer contains it.
If it does not have new energy coming in it is cold.
angech … Your expressions/comments of energy in equals energy out seems to imply that it is immediate. Is that what you are saying … that it is immediate, similar to light reflected by a mirror? That can not be. A quantity of energy that ‘comes in’ to the earth will equal a quantity that ‘comes out’ eventually. But not immediately.
“A quantity of energy that ‘comes in’ to the earth will equal a quantity that ‘comes out’ eventually.”
It never does.
Angech does not understand the energetics of the climate system. It is not his fault because it is explained to us in the wrong terms.
Let’s say we could properly measure the average temperature of the Earth over a certain period of time. It changes:
– from day to day
– from month to month
– from year to year
– from decade to decade
– from century to century
– from millennium to millennium
Whoever disputes this, should point to the evidence that the temperature has remained constant over a certain period of time.
If the temperature changes, it is obviously an impossibility that energy “in” equals energy “out” over any time interval.
The planet keeps a pretty good homeostasis, because its temperature changes are relatively narrow. For example in the interdecadal timeframe changes are in the order of 0.1-0.2ºC. The idea that we properly understand how the planet achieves this homeostasis is pure hubris. If somebody thinks he does, he could start explaining why both hemispheres have the same albedo (albedo hemispheric symmetry), when they have so different land surface, ocean surface, and snow/ice cover. Because scientists don’t know.
Javier … Never say never, but I agree with your point.
Javier,
Well put
“If the temperature changes, it is obviously an impossibility that energy “in” equals energy “out” over any time interval.”
–
Therefore we throw SB out the window.
“The energy in equals the energy out over any time interval”
–
The two concepts are incompatible
Heat is energy – molecules jiggle about in the bowl and some escape to join others in a Maxwell-Boltzmann velocity distribution in the atmosphere at velocities up to around 1500mph.
The -3.2 W/m2/K (within narrow temperature limits) Planck feedback keeps the planet from spiralling out of habability. I say narrow because the temperature term is exponential to the 4th power. The lower or higher the planetary temperature gets the bigger the energy balancing effect.
And if you still don’t believe that heat is energy – Messieurs Stefan and/or Boltzmann may may have something to say.
j* = sigma T^4
If there is no energy coming in it is cold describes a nonequilibrium thermodynamic system. It’s true but trite. If there is no water coming down it’s a drought. Ironically adding to increases in surface temperature – with less cooling in evapotranspiration. But if it is not directly changes in sunlight coming in – it must be internal planetary responses changing planetary reflectance driving the energy dynamics of climate change.
The whole idea of “heat gain/loss” based on temperature is an aberration of physics. Heat is energy, temperature is NOT energy.
The specific heat capacity of land (damp rock) is about half that of ocean water. This explains why the temperature swing of NH is much larger than that of SH. You do not need to try to look for a complex climatic mechanism for the alleged 3.9 deg C swing in “global average temperature”. It is an artefact of the fact that averaging temperatures is an non physical statistic.
TEMPERATURE IS NOT AN EXTENSIVE PROPERTY AND CANNOT BE “AVERAGED” IN A PHYSICALLY MEANINGFUL SENSE.
If someone did an average of heat energy instead of temperature, it would work a lot better. The hemispheres would be nearly equal and the annual average much flatter.
It is lamentable in view of the amount of time and resources committed to this subject over the last half century that such fundamental errors in the physics pervade the entire field of climatology.
https://judithcurry.com/2016/02/10/are-land-sea-temperature-averages-meaningful/
The whole idea of “heat gain/loss” based on temperature is an aberration of physics.
good points Greg
Javier
“If the temperature changes, it is obviously an impossibility that energy “in” equals energy “out” over any time interval.”
–
Start with one molecule at rest.]Mass]
Hit it with one photon of light [Energy]
Result the light either goes through [past the molecule]
Energy in, energy out.
Reflects
Energy in, Energy out
Or interacts with the molecular field and is emitted in any direction
Energy in, Energy out.
It does not stay in the molecule.
It is not stored in the molecule.
There is nowhere for it to do so.
A molecule is a mass with a large amount of energy of potential energy which is innate to that molecule and cannot be added to or subtracted from.
–
Add in an observer and receiver and you alter the mechanics of the situation.
Schrödinger.
A receiver implies a second object.
movement vectors.
Altered time.
–
on a one to one basis it does not matter. The light comes straight in and goes straight out.
There is no direction out in a one on one situation.
The light does not stop and does not change in energy.
Only when has two masses does direction become important.
With multiple masses the wave in can go out in several directions at altered wavelengths but the same total energy.
What is a “molecular field” and how does it interact with anything?
Javier
“If the temperature changes, it is obviously an impossibility that energy “in” equals energy “out” over any time interval.”
–
No.
–
You are confusing the issue
Take a series of steps with an object being heated at an extra watt every 10 seconds for a minute.
6 step increases.
The energy in equals the energy out at each stage.
It does not build up energy stored in the system.
–
Now take that object and flatten it out for 20 kilometers by 10 kilometers.
1 molecule thick
Good conductibility.
Same amount of energy in every 10 seconds.
Now you say this object will keep heating up and retaining energy until the whole 10x 20 molecule sheet is at the emitting temperature.
–
Let’s say the extent is 2 million times the extent of the original surface area.
Does the object take in 2 million more times the energy before it radiates it back to space?
I hope you agree the answer is no.
–
Then like the car behind the closed door analogy reduce the area.
2 thousand times the surface area 2000 times hotter?
No.
I hope this is correct.
–
Two times he surface area
Still No.
Why?
because the energy in per unit of time has to equal the energy out per time for a given mass.
–
Is there any increase?
No because after 10 seconds, or 1 second or a millionth of a second the energy in has to equal the energy out when in balance.
There is no lag time possible or needed.
–
I hope this example suffices to confuse all of you out there who believe that energy can actually be stored in a system.
It cannot.
The EM energy interaction with matter transforms SW into IR.
What do you have to say about it?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas | August 22, 2022
“The EM energy interaction with matter transforms SW into IR.’
What do you have to say about it?”
–
All I can say is that the total amount of EM energy in equals the total amount out.
I do not know how the SW energy wave breaks up into lower frequencies or is broken up into IR frequencies in the interaction with matter.
–
Just that the amount of energy flow in and out must be preserved.
Thank you, angech.
Yes, the amount of energy flow in and out must be preserved.
What I think is that a part of the EM energy out, it goes out on the very instant of incidence, and the rest of the EM energy out gets transformed into HEAT and gets emitted out later.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
angech …
> I hope this example suffices to confuse all of you out there who believe that energy can actually be stored in a system.
It cannot.
I’m not confused. Just wondering at the semantics. Very interesting actually.
If we can’t use the word storage then I would need to hear a physicist’s (yours?) definition of a capacitor, or capacitance.
The effect of the Sun is discussed here. Read about this major breakthrough in understanding the effect of greenhouse gases … they actually cool us according to the physics explained here and in the cited papers and video.
https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/digital-id-and-the-climate-scam-with-maria-zeee/#comment-1701
Well since your arguments are based on an ill-founded misunderstanding of the second law and you don’t seem to be aware of the principal of superposition, I won’t bother wasting time going further with your “papers”.
TEMPERATURE IS NOT AN EXTENSIVE PROPERTY AND CANNOT BE “AVERAGED” IN A PHYSICALLY MEANINGFUL WAY.
Until climatologists recognise the “basic physics” they so vocally pretend to be basing their ideas on they are wasting everybody’s time.
When you basic metric for monitoring the planetary physics is a non physical statistic , it is IMPOSSIBLE to evaluate the impact of the energy imbalance they claim to be created by GHG.
At this stage that is probably entirely intentional. They know that the whole thing is hopelessly simplistic and are smugly lying to the world is sure and certain knowledge that “they know what is best for us. “
I like your idea of using soil temperatures and water temps for a given depth. You can combine two separate materials to calculate a weighted average specific heat for both. This is a common rule of thumb in engineering. I don’t hear much talk about thermal conductivity in surface materials. Unlike steel, the thermal conductivity in soils and other surfaces such as asphalt and concrete is very low. Although heat capacity rho x Cp can be high, if the thermal conductivity is low, the thermal diffusivity will be low which will cause the surface temperature to heat up without much heat being conducted into the material for storage. This is why the surface of concrete heats up fast during the day.
Figure 3.1 needs a legend just like Figure 3.4. A list of acronyms would also be great so nuclear engineers like me can follow.
Figure 3.1 has a caption.
The list of acronyms and glossary was posted. Links were in the first part and first comments to the second part.
https://judithcurry.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/VinosMay-AbbrevGlossary.pdf
A proper definition of TOA.
–
Anyone?
–
Judith? Curry
–
Roy? Spencer
–
Rud? Istvan
–
–
–
Etc
The plasma trail is a tell.
Temperature is measured by instruments devised to study heat. Instruments measure the temperature of land to depth and oceans – 90% of planetary heat variability is in oceans – in Joules – the change in temperature – if measured precisely enough – is exactly analogous to increases and decreases in energy content of the planet. Just using oceans is a lot easier – and it can be seen at a glance.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/argo-to-jan-2018.png
I haven’t plotted Argo for a bit – but I assume ongoing coastal and midocean upwelling (such upwelling of now unpressurised cold and nutrient rich water delivering carbon to the atmosphere and life to coasts and oceans) in the Pacific Ocean counters AGW for the moment. Counter intuitively with higher cloud radiative effect over low lying marine stratocumulus cloud. Higher domain albedo over bluer oceans.
https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Products/ocean/sst/anomaly/the
I like to look at the cloud form in more detail. It is a form of Raleigh-Benard Convection (RBC) – ocean warming atmosphere and releasing water vapor. A small amount of which is constantly condensing into cloud and raining out. RBC cells persist and then rain out to leave opens cells. Both open and closed cells are present in a range of environmental conditions. But that they persist as closed cells in a lower energy state over cooler ocean explains cloud observations in the eastern Pacific Ocean. This is where the planet gets a lot of its energy.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/87456/open-and-closed-cells-over-the-pacific#:~:text=Closed%2Dcell%20clouds%20look%20similar,leaving%20the%20centers%20cloud%2Dfree.
Now I need to get back to some science reality. Birdgirl is calling.
You wrote: 90% of planetary heat variability is in oceans – in Joules – the change in temperature – if measured precisely enough
The oceans are not evenly mixed, the temperature changes and the volumes influenced both must be known.
Also, the sequestered ice on land and the ice in the ocean has the capacity to thaw and chill the land and oceans and the volumes of ice must be accounted for in order to get the energy budget of the climate system. The ice stored in my freezer can be transferred to my ice chest and it can keep food and drinks cold for extended periods of time, as the ice cools by thawing.
A major warm period had extended warm time with much more IR out from the evaporation of tropical water in polar regions and the formation of the polar sequestered ice. More ice spread and thawed and caused a cooler climate until the ice was depleted. This is not, and has not been considered in climate theory or models. Major ice ages were much colder, much longer, because there was much more sequestered ice on land that had to spread and reflect solar in and thaw and keep the climate colder until the ice sheets thinned and retreated.
Escape velocity gives an object enough kinetic energy to counter gravitation. Top of atmosphere is where there is no friction to bleed kinetic energy of an object in orbit.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vesc.html
” Top of atmosphere is where there is no friction to bleed kinetic energy of an object in orbit. ”
–
Novel approach to framing the issue.
Nothing to do with radiative physics then?
Still much better than the silence of the would be experts.
–
I’ll take your no friction suggestion and raise you the fact that the atmosphere is orbiting as well such that if atmosphere was present it could be orbiting at the same speed hence at a lower height than you suggest.
Robert Ellison, you wrote: Top of atmosphere is where there is no friction to bleed kinetic energy of an object in orbit.
Skylab came down sooner than planned because they did not correctly determine the actual top of the atmosphere. They were warned by some, but they went with their incorrect peer reviewed consensus which was wrong, they could have planned for keeping it up longer, but they did not.
Skylab still holds records for largest volumes inside space vehicles. Space Station volumes are smaller and spread out with less in one space.
angech | August 22, 2022 at 5:38 pm | Reply
A proper definition of TOA.?
–
angech, do you agree with:
“Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect
Arthur P. Smith∗
American Physical Society, 1 Research Road, Ridge NY, 11961
A recently advanced argument against the atmospheric greenhouse effect is refuted. A planet without an infrared absorbing atmosphere is mathematically constrained to have an average temperature
less than or equal to the effective radiating temperature. Observed parameters for Earth prove that
without infrared absorption by the atmosphere, the average temperature of Earth’s surface would
be at least 33 K lower than what is observed.”?
Link:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0802.4324.pdf
CV
“angech, do you agree with: Arthur P Smith
“Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect”
–
Since neither you or Javier do what value is my opinion?
–
He goes through the usual talking points.
In thorough fashion.
Explains why rotational speed cannot change surface temperature above the black body limit.
Mentions the 2K temperature rise from background cosmic which Javier forgot to mention.
( with good reason for 2K above absolute zero only requires a speck of the energy that a 1 K rise at 288 K would need)
Uses the wrong radius of the disc instead of the larger earth disc and modified atmosphere radius formula required .
Unfortunately he then uses the energy storage model of GHG rather than the variable surface layer model that allows energy into and out of a mass to be equal.
By ignoring the fact of SB always being violated by such a storage model he gets it wrong.
In terms of the multilayer GHG model he gets it right
Thank you, angech, for your respond.
Here it is the important point I would like to discuss:
“Observed parameters for Earth prove that
without infrared absorption by the atmosphere, the average temperature of Earth’s surface would
be at least 33 K lower than what is observed.”?
Link:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0802.4324.pdf”
–
“at least 33 K lower”
“A planet without an infrared absorbing atmosphere is A planet without an infrared absorbing atmosphere is mathematically constrained to have an average temperature
less than or equal to the effective radiating temperature. to have an average temperature
less than or equal to the effective radiating temperature”
–
According to “mathematically constrained” (if one accepts Arthur P. Smith’ theory) for Earth it is obvious then the surface temperature should be less the effective temperature of 255 K.
–
And since Earth’s surface is not a uniform surface temperature planet, its without atmosphere mean surface temperature should be less than the measured Moon’s 220 K.
–
It should be (because of Earth’s (a=0,306) higher than Moon’s (a=0,11) Albedo, for Earth the mean surface temperature should be 210 K.
–
288 K – 210 K = 78 K
Yes, it is lower than 33 K…
“Observed parameters for Earth prove that
without infrared absorption by the atmosphere, the average temperature of Earth’s surface would
be at least 33 K lower than what is observed.”?
–
Please comment.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
CV
“And since Earth’s surface is not a uniform surface temperature planet, its without atmosphere mean surface temperature should be less than the measured Moon’s 220 K.”
–
You are making too many assumptions.
First up an airless earth would also have an albedo similar to the moon.
It is at the same distance from the sun as the moon.
Therefore it’s surface temperature should be similar to that of the moon, possibly a little higher as it is rotating with respect to the sun some 28 times faster which increases its average surface temperature slightly.
Thank you, angech, for your respond.
“Therefore it’s surface temperature should be similar to that of the moon, possibly a little higher as it is rotating with respect to the sun some 28 times faster which increases its average surface temperature slightly.”
It is the conclusion one have to make when reading the Arthur P Smith
“Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect”
Link:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0802.4324.pdf”
–
and the conclusion disproves the atmosphere +33C greenhouse effect.
–
The atmosphere’s greenhouse effect should be (according to Arthur P Smith “Proof”) at least some +55C, if earth without atmosphere had Moon’s albedo.
–
And what it leaves as with then?
–
The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
CV
You are making too many assumptions.
First up an airless earth would also have an albedo similar to the moon.
This means that the moon as a black body, and the earth, would both have a surface temperature of 254K.
Agreed?
step 1 This means that the moon as a black body, and the earth, would both have a surface temperature of 254K.
Agreed?
step 2
This means that the moon as a black body, and the earth, without atmosphere and both rotating with respect to the sun at a 28 day cycle would have a temperature of 220 K
Agreed?
Step 3 This means that the moon as a black body, and the earth, without atmosphere and not rotating at all with respect to the sun would have a temperature of < 220 K.
Lets fudge an example and say 205 K
Agreed?
Step 4 This means that the moon without atmosphere, and the earth, without atmosphere but rotating daily with respect to the sun would have a temperature of < 254 K.
Lets fudge an example and say 250 K
Agreed?
Thank you, angech, for your respond.
Here is from
Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect
Arthur P. Smith∗
American Physical Society, 1 Research Road, Ridge NY, 11961
” A planet without an infrared absorbing atmosphere is mathematically constrained to have an average temperature
less than or equal to the effective radiating temperature. Observed parameters for Earth prove that
without infrared absorption by the atmosphere, the average temperature of Earth’s surface would
be at least 33 K lower than what is observed.”?
Link:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0802.4324.pdf
–
And
“So no matter the rotation rate, no matter the surface heat capacity, the average temperature of the planet in this
rotating example, with only radiative energy flows and no absorbing layer in the atmosphere, is always less than the
effective radiating temperature. For very slow rotation or low heat capacity it can be significantly less; for parameters
in the other direction it can come as close as 1% (i.e. up to 252 K on a planet like Earth).”
My comment is:
Both Earth and Moon rotate very-very slowly to make any claim of uniform surface temperature distribution.
Therefore, for Earth without atmosphere, according to Arthur P. Smith theory, we should be oriented close to the measured Moon’s mean surface temperature 220K, and not “up to 252 K ” as Arthur P. Smith claims.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
CV
Both Earth and Moon rotate very-very slowly to make any claim of uniform surface temperature distribution.
Therefore, for Earth without atmosphere, according to Arthur P. Smith theory, we should be oriented close to the measured Moon’s mean surface temperature 220K, and not “up to 252 K ” as Arthur P. Smith claims.
–
The earth rotates 28 times faster than the moon so as Arthur Smith said the average temperature increases towards a black body temperature.
angech
“The earth rotates 28 times faster than the moon so as Arthur Smith said the average temperature increases towards a black body temperature.”
–
Yes, but it still very much far from the uniform surface temperature.
Both Earth and Moon rotate very-very slowly, when compared to a planet rotating so fast, so to having developed a uniform surface temperature…
–
The Arthur Smith’s “Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect” is based on a mathematical abstraction. Arthur Smith misuses the real physics phenomenon that actually takes place when the theoretical planetary mean surface temperature is estimated.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Both Earth and Moon rotate infinite quickly when compared to a non rotating planet, so they are always warmer than it, but can never achieve the surface temperature they would be if that energy was emitted uniformly {As a black body} and if they had no atmosphere.
No matter whether they have an atmosphere or not, all planets airless and with an atmosphere have to emit the same energy they take in
Hence it is impossible to compare the surface temperature of an airless planet surface to an identical one with an atmosphere because the one with an atmosphere plus or minus oceans needs to have the weight of the air and the water added to the airless (and waterless) planet.
Once you have an atmosphere you no longer have a surface to have a temperature from.
Any surface you define as solid for “true” consideration now has to take in the sea bed where for just <2/3 of the earth
Has to be at 273K approx.
Making the average “true surface temperature much closer to 278K rather than 288.
And ,as said, totally ignoring the mass of the air and water and it’s energy interactions.
What are we left with?
Platitudes from yourself, Javier, and so called Climate scientists about an average surface temperature with no agreement on what it is, what it should be and how it changes.
None.
The Trembath diagram is a good starting point for a discussion on energy movement but fails lamentably in the assessment energies it takes coming into and out of the system.
The GHG effect is as real as anything else but is a consequence not a cause of the earths Surface” temperature.
If GHG are higher in an atmosphere then, pari passu , the temperature is higher than if that atmosphere did not have them, despite all the rotational maths in the world
A planet cannot have uniform surface temperature also because of its spherical shape.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Both Earth and Moon rotate very-very slowly, when compared to a planet rotating so fast, so to having developed a uniform surface temperature…
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #516 - Energy News Beat
The 80–90-degree latitude temperature anomaly beautifully displays the 1995 inflection point I describe in my research article “1995: An Important Inflection Point in Recent Geophysical History” (https://juniperpublishers.com/ijesnr/pdf/IJESNR.MS.ID.556271.pdf). Once you start to view the recent geophysical past through the lens of a surge in mid-ocean geothermal flux, much of the change we see makes perfect sense.
TOA is very relevant to this and all energy budget diagrams.
Probably why no one reading here is prepared to put up their own definition and be attacked by other definitions.
I will continue asking even if no one cares as it is important.
Who knows, one day I might be able to put up a cogent form of the problem that would be worthy of an article or question on this and other sites.
Pingback: The Sun-Climate Effect: The Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis (III). Meridional transport Just another Online News & Entertainment Site
This lack of acceleration is caused by AGW
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=680-140
This acceleration is caused by fear of AGW
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FbCUFLSX0AAqrlM?format=jpg&name=large
Let’s not leave out the Germans.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FbJeABuUIAYxDrh?format=png&name=large
Pingback: The Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis (VII). A summary plus Q&A | Climate Etc.
Pingback: The Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis (VII). A summary plus Q&A - Climate- Science.press