by Javier Vinos
This post features a chapter from my new book Solving the Climate Puzzle: The Sun’s Surprising Role. The book provides a large body of evidence supporting that changes in the poleward transport of heat are one of the main ways in which the planet’s climate changes naturally. It also shows that changes in solar activity affect this transport, restoring the Sun as a major cause of global warming. Since climate models do not properly represent heat transport and the IPCC reports completely neglect this process, this new hypothesis will not be easily dismissed. I am sure that over time it will lead to a better understanding of how the climate changes naturally, and hopefully less climate hysteria.
Here is the text of Chapter 17 of my new book
- The Ocean’s heat transport is largely wind driven
The ocean is the primary source of poleward heat transport in the tropics, with the tropical Pacific being the dominant player due to its size. It exports heat to the Atlantic and Indian Oceans, which are the only ones to transport heat across the equator. However, inter-basin exchanges are relatively small, indicating that global seawater pathways play a minor role in heat transport. The Atlantic is unique in having an exclusively northward net heat transport due to its meridional overturning circulation, which accounts for about 60% of the heat transported in the North Atlantic. Oceanic heat transport from the North Atlantic to the Nordic Seas and the Arctic increased significantly between 1998 and 2002, during a period of Arctic and global climate shift.
Most of the heat transported by the global ocean is carried by water above 10°C (50 °F), located between 40°N and 40°S at depths of less than 500 m. This transport is primarily due to wind-driven circulation. Even the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation is as sensitive to winds as it is to the formation of high-latitude deep water.
Analysis of the critical tropical upper-layer heat budget has revealed a remarkable 11-year variability associated with the solar cycle that is ten times larger than can be accounted for by changes in solar radiation. In addition, model studies of the Atlantic meridional circulation show that solar forcing is its most important natural determinant. These studies underscore the critical role of the Sun in modulating ocean heat transport by inducing changes in atmospheric circulation.
Ocean heat transport
The ocean plays a critical role in the Earth’s climate system, providing thermal stability and storing a large fraction of the system’s energy. With a total mass 265 times that of the atmosphere and a heat capacity 1000 times greater, the ocean stores 96% of the energy in the climate system and receives 75% of the energy delivered by the Sun to the planet’s surface. This essential feature of the ocean has allowed the existence of complex life. However, because the Earth is currently in an ice age that began 34 million years ago (the Late Cenozoic Ice Age), the ocean has reached a cold state with an average temperature of about 4°C (39 °F), and only the upper mixed layer is substantially warmer due to solar heating and wind-induced turbulence. The sea surface temperature of the open ocean is limited to 30°C (86 °F) because deep convection occurs above 27°C (80 °F), increasing evaporation and forming clouds that effectively cool the surface. Although the upper 2.5 m of the ocean contains as much heat as the entire atmosphere, its main function in climate change is to absorb heat as the planet warms and release it as it cools, providing thermal inertia.
The ocean contributes about 25% of global poleward heat transport (ch. 10). In the tropics, the ocean is the most important heat transporter. Its contribution is even greater in the Northern Hemisphere, where it accounts for about 30% of heat transport. However, the Atlantic Ocean has a unique heat transport pattern. The South Atlantic has a net heat transport towards the equator (fig. 25).
Figure 25. Ocean heat transport. Mean meridional ocean heat transport (in petawatts) for the global ocean (solid black), Atlantic (dashed red), and Indo-Pacific (dotted blue).[1]
Most of the ocean’s heat is transported by water with a temperature above 10°C (50 °F), mainly in the band of the ocean between 40°S and 40°N and above a depth of 500 m. This is the main reason why meridional ocean heat transport is more important at these latitudes, where the Hadley cell is not very effective in transporting heat poleward (ch. 13).
Global ocean heat transport is dominated by heat export from the tropical Pacific, which has the largest tropical surface area and receives the most solar energy. However, it’s striking how much the tropical Pacific dominates heat export to other oceans, exporting four times more heat than is imported into the Atlantic and Arctic oceans. The Atlantic and Indian Oceans transport heat north and south across the equator, respectively, but the Pacific provides this heat through the Drake Passage and the Indonesian Throughflow. While there is some exchange between the basins, it’s relatively small, suggesting that global seawater pathways play a minor role in the Earth’s heat budget.[2]
Poleward heat transport to the Arctic
The Atlantic Ocean has northward heat transport in both hemispheres and across the equator due to the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation. This circulation is part of the thermohaline circulation, which involves the northward flow of warmer, lighter water in the upper layers of the Atlantic and the southward flow of cooler, denser water at depth. Although the two branches are mechanically driven, they are linked by the transformation of warm to cold water masses at high latitudes (ch. 10).
The uniqueness of Atlantic heat transport is highlighted in figure 25 and is related to the asymmetry of the latitudinal temperature gradient between the two hemispheres. Each year, the Southern Hemisphere receives more solar energy than the Northern Hemisphere. This is due to the Earth’s current axial precession, which causes the Southern Hemisphere to be oriented toward the Sun when the Earth is closer to it. Albedo does not correct for this difference due to its interhemispheric symmetry (box 2, ch. 3). Despite receiving a greater annual influx of solar energy, the Southern Hemisphere is about 2°C cooler than the Northern Hemisphere, and the Earth maintains a steeper temperature gradient toward the colder Antarctic than toward the warmer Arctic (ch. 9, fig. 13). Transport theory states that more heat should flow toward the colder pole since temperature differences drive transport. However, the Atlantic transports more heat from the Southern to the Northern Hemisphere, suggesting that energy transport is not solely determined by entropy production. Rather, it is strongly influenced by geographic and climatic factors and thus may be a forcing mechanism for climate change.
The exceptional nature of the Atlantic Ocean’s heat transport has important implications for the climate of the surrounding regions of the North Atlantic, the Arctic, and the global climate. Sea surface temperature in the North Atlantic exhibits a multidecadal oscillation that correlates with global temperature (ch. 19).[3] Analysis of the Atlantic heat flux over time shows a clear relationship between oceanic heat transport and North Atlantic sea surface temperatures (fig. 26). This evidence supports the notion that the oscillation in North Atlantic sea surface temperature is a result of changes in meridional heat transport. Surprisingly, despite this evidence, ocean oscillations are rarely considered in terms of heat transport.
Figure 26. Atlantic heat transport and North Atlantic sea surface temperature. a) Atlantic integrated meridional heat transport over time in petawatts from reanalysis. b) North Atlantic sea surface temperature record for the same period.[4]
The transport of Atlantic water to the Arctic occurs through the Nordic Seas, and the volume and temperature of the transported water strongly influence the climate of northern Europe and the Arctic. The transformation of warm to cold water masses necessary for the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation occurs in the Nordic Seas and the Arctic Ocean. Although oceanic heat transport is a small part of the Arctic heat budget (ch. 11 & 16), its analysis can be very informative. A recent study of ocean heat transport in the Nordic Seas and the Arctic Ocean found a sudden increase in transport. From the 1993-98 average to the 2002-2016 average, oceanic heat transport in this important climate region, the “bellwether” for climate change, increased by 25 terawatts (9%) between 1998 and 2002 (fig. 27).[5]
Figure 27. The Arctic Shift in ocean transport. Ocean heat transport to the Arctic and Nordic Seas during 1993-2017 shows an abrupt change during the Arctic Shift.
I refer to the period of rapid climate change in the Arctic that coincided with the change in oceanic transport as the Arctic Shift. As we will see, atmospheric heat transport to the Arctic also increased during the Arctic Shift, not showing the compensation between atmospheric and oceanic heat transport that the models predicted (box 8, ch. 12). It accelerated climate change in the Arctic, a clear demonstration of how changes in transport lead to profound climate changes that are erroneously attributed to anthropogenic forcing. The Arctic Shift was only one of the most conspicuous parts of the most significant global climate shift in 40 years. This issue is discussed in detail in chapter 33.
Wind-driven and thermohaline circulations
Ocean circulation can be divided into two types: fast circulation driven by wind stress, organized into ocean gyres, and slower circulation, related to changes in water density caused by changes in temperature and salinity (thermohaline). These two types of circulation are not independent, as the wind also affects the thermohaline circulation. It is important to note that the term thermohaline circulation, which refers to mass, heat, and salt circulation, can be misleading because heat and salt circulations are different.[6] In the Atlantic, wind-driven and thermohaline circulations contribute to poleward transport, but wind-driven gyres carry most of the heat in other oceans.
Despite its importance for understanding the climate system, our knowledge of the vertical structure of ocean heat transport is poor. This issue is fundamental to the debate over whether abyssal mixing, high-latitude deep-water formation, or winds control oceanic heat transport. This debate has led to unwarranted concerns that the Atlantic overturning circulation could be disrupted, causing significant cooling in Europe. Previous investigations of the vertical structure of oceanic heat transport, taking into account the temperature difference at the ocean-atmosphere boundary, have revealed our misunderstanding of this crucial process.[7] Such analyses show that surface circulation, which is highly sensitive to wind stress, dominates the total oceanic heat transport, while abyssal mixing has virtually no effect. High-latitude deep water formation contributes 60% of the North Atlantic heat transport, but the meridional circulation transport is also proportional to wind stress, being as sensitive to winds as to high-latitude convection.
The results of these studies challenge the common understanding of ocean heat transport as presented in books and illustrated by colorful ribbon diagrams. It is clear that winds play a critical role in ocean heat transport and that the amount of heat transported by the oceans is linearly proportional to the magnitude of wind stress. These findings lead to three controversial and far-reaching conclusions about climate change:
- Atmospheric circulation is primarily responsible for heat transport on a global scale, either directly or through its influence on oceanic transport.
- Atmospheric and oceanic heat transport cannot compensate for each other. Since they are fundamentally linked by wind action, any change in one must be accompanied by a change in the other in the same direction. Consequently, changes in the amount of heat transported poleward are not only possible but inevitable.
- Variability in global heat transport must occur on the decadal timescales typical of atmospheric and upper ocean variability, rather than the centennial or longer timescales characteristic of deep meridional overturning.
Box 14. Response of ocean heat transport to solar variability
Ocean heat transport occurs primarily in shallow tropical waters, so the heat budget of the upper layer is critical to global ocean transport. Studies of the variability of sea surface temperature and pressure have identified typical quasi-biennial and El Niño-Southern Oscillation frequencies, as well as an 11-year frequency. Although this 11-year variability is synchronous with the solar cycle, its magnitude cannot be explained by direct radiative forcing from the Sun at the surface.[8] In the global tropical ocean, the temperature in the upper layer varies by ±0.1°C in phase with the solar cycle, requiring a change of ±0.9 W/m2, while the change in surface radiative forcing from the solar cycle is an order of magnitude too small, ±0.1 W/m2. Therefore, the variability must be due to ocean-atmosphere mechanisms despite its synchronization with the Sun.
The effect of El Niño on ocean heat transport is characterized by the warming of the upper layer of the global tropical ocean, which then warms the overlying atmosphere. In contrast, variability associated with the solar cycle leads to the warming of the global tropical atmosphere, which then heats the underlying ocean. This process is accomplished primarily by reducing the net sensible + latent heat flux from the ocean to the atmosphere, as the increase in solar radiation in the ocean is insufficient. Evidence indicates that the effect of the solar cycle on the ocean is indirect, occurring through the atmosphere. Claims that the Sun cannot be responsible for climate change because of the small change in total solar irradiance that produces its variability ignore the abundant evidence that solar variations act indirectly by affecting atmospheric circulation.
Models agree that solar variability has a significant impact on ocean heat transport. The fully coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulation model of the UK Met Office Hadley Centre shows that solar forcing is the most important natural factor determining the multidecadal response of the Atlantic meridional circulation.[9] Solar forcing is associated with long-lasting anomalies in the atmospheric circulation over the North Atlantic caused by changes in the stratosphere due to weaker solar irradiance during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The model does not fully capture the atmospheric response to solar variability, but it does show notable changes in the location of the Intertropical Convergence Zone, precipitation in the Amazon, and temperatures in Europe.
In summary
The ocean plays a critical role in transporting heat poleward within the tropics. Wind-driven circulation in the ocean gyres is responsible for most of the heat transport, and a global conveyor has a limited contribution. However, the Atlantic Ocean is an exception, exhibiting net northward heat transport with relevant transequatorial transport, mainly due to the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, which is sensitive to both wind stress and deep water formation at high latitudes.
The atmosphere, directly through its circulation and indirectly through the effect of wind stress on oceanic transport, is primarily responsible for most of the poleward heat transport. The multidecadal oscillation of sea surface temperature in the North Atlantic results from changes in poleward heat transport. In addition, the upper layer of the tropical ocean shows temperature changes in phase with the solar cycle caused by changes in the atmospheric circulation that affect the heat flux from the ocean to the atmosphere.
Book availability
A 50-page excerpt from the Solving the Climate Puzzle: The Surprising Role of the Sun is available on my ResearchGate page: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/375120132
The English edition of the book is available on Amazon and Google Books, and will soon be available elsewhere through the IngramSpark distribution network. The paperback edition has black and white figures. The Spanish edition should be available later this month, and the German, French, and Italian editions shortly thereafter, with other language editions to follow.
I’d like to thank our gracious host, Judith Curry for her appreciation and support of the book prior to its publication.
[1] Yang, H., et al., 2015. Clim. Dyn. 44, pp.2751–2768. doi.org/10.1007/s00382-014-2380-5
[2] Forget, G. & Ferreira, D., 2019. Nat. Geosci. 12 (5), pp.351–354. doi.org/10.1038/s41561-019-0333-7
[3] Chylek, P., et al., 2014. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41 (5), pp.1689–1697. doi.org/10.1002/2014GL059274
[4] Top plot from Macdonald, A.M. & Baringer, M.O., 2013. Internat. Geophys. Vol. 103, pp. 759–785. doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-391851-2.00029-5. Bottom graph, NOAA data.
[5] Tsubouchi, T., et al., 2021. Nat. Clim. Change, 11 (1), pp.21–26. doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-00941-3. Source of data for fig. 27.
[6] Wunsch, C., 2002. Science, 298 (5596), pp.1179–1181. doi.org/10.1126/science.1079329
[7] Boccaletti, G., et al., 2005. Geophys. Res. Lett. 32 (10) L10603. doi.org/10.1029/2005GL022474 Ferrari, R. & Ferreira, D., 2011. Ocean Model. 38 (3–4), pp.171–186. doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2011.02.013
[8] White, W.B., et al., 2003. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans, 108 (C8) 3248. doi.org/10.1029/2002JC001396
[9] Menary, M.B. & Scaife, A.A., 2014. Clim. Dyn. 42, pp.1347–1362. doi.org/10.1007/s00382-013-2028-x
What is not considered? The role of Polar Ice.
Ice is sequestered on land in the polar regions, ice core records show that ice accumulations are most in warmest times. The polar ice machines are powered by tropical sun heating water and that energy being carried into the polar regions by ocean currents. Sequestered land ice in polar regions is pushed into the turbulent salt water currents and that cools the water to below freezing. When there is not enough ice pushing into the oceans, the ice machines rebuild the sequestered ice, when there is enough ice pushing into the oceans, sea ice forms and turns the ice machines off. The cold currents sent back to the tropics in deep currents were cooled mostly by thawing ice. When polar sea ice covers the polar oceans, that corresponds to colder climate, but that colder climate cannot be from polar ocean evaporation through the sea ice so the cooling is from thawing ice.
This causes the alternating warm and cold periods in climate change, this cooling does not have a stable midpoint, the reason is that the ice build up and depletion has many years of lag. It snows more and builds the ice sheets on top while the edges of the ice sheets and tails of glaciers are still retreating. Ice accumulation is most at the warmest times when the ice volume and weight is enough to cause ice to flow faster than the edges and tails are thawing and retreating.
Warming occurs when ice extent is decreasing.
Cooling occurs when ice extent is increasing.
This is well known, but the ice extent change is cause.
Common theory is that temperature change causes the ice extent change.
In other words, something causes the climate to get colder, then somehow, colder sea ice covered oceans can put the frozen ocean water on land.
Ice accumulation is most in the warmest times and then advancing ice causes colder.
“This is well known, but the ice extent change is cause.”
Ice extent due to its high albedo is well known to be positive feedback. This does not mean that it is the cause. Temperature change, either through changes in insolation or GHGs (volcanic/slow carbon cycle weathering, or human increase/(hopefully)decrease) are the usual cause. A study of paleoclimatology might be helpful.
It is well known that when ice extent is more, albedo is more, what is not recognized is that when there is more ice extent, the area of ice thawing is also more.
Green Gas increasing is supposed to reduce IR out which is supposed to cause warming of the climate.
IR out is a function of temperature to the third power..
Warmest times have much more IR out while coldest times have much less IR out.
IR during warmest times causes more ice to be sequestered on land. IR during coldest times cannot be a reduce of temperatures.
Cold times must be colder because more ice extent causes cooling by more ice extent, more albedo “and more ice thawing”.
Javier wrote:
Each year, the Southern Hemisphere receives more solar energy than the Northern Hemisphere. This is due to the Earth’s current axial precession, which causes the Southern Hemisphere to be oriented toward the Sun when the Earth is closer to it.
Yes, over ten thousand years the solar energy received by the Northern Hemisphere decreased while the solar energy received by the Southern Hemisphere increased, yet, ice core records show the temperatures to stay regulated in almost the same bounds, but often the alternating north and south warm and cold periods were out of phase with each other.
The temperature that sea ice forms and thaws is the thermostat setting and the northern and southern ice machines are turned on and off as sea ice is removed and added back.
Just because the sun causes our extinction instead of only us, should we not search for ways to mitigate it, even though we only caused part of it?
Zero risk of extinction for us. Whatever is proposed we do should be accompanied by a non-biased cost-benefit analysis, because the effect of our actions might have a negligible effect on climate and yet cost so much as to seriously damage the global economy.
Humans have adapted to climate change since day 1. And our species has experienced much bigger climate changes many times in the past. The warming 12,000 years ago was much more intense than now and our species increased in number.
“The warming 12,000 years ago was much more intense than now and our species increased in number.”
Actually the warming was 18,000 – 8000 years ago (https://phys.org/news/2021-11-global-temperatures-years-today-unprecedented.html) with very slow cooling since then, except the last 150 years. It started at a lower temperature and never got as high as it is now. Nor was it as intense as now:
During the steepest section of the warming curve (17 – 10 kabp) the temperature rose about 6 C, or 0.0086 C/year on average. In the last 60 years, global average surface temperature has risen about 0.8 C (NOAA), or about 0.013 C/year. That is 15.5 times faster (more “intense”) than the last glacial – interglacial transition. I would posit that this is because our species has increased so much in number and has learned how to take slow-cycle carbon sequestered deep in the earth and transfer it into the fast carbon cycle, with full effects yet to be observed.
I beg to disagree. Sea levels rose at 4 times current speed for 8,000 years in a row. And during Dansgaard-Oeschger events temperatures rose in Europe and North America at 10 times current speed for seven decades in a row. There is abundant evidence from glaciers and treelines that the Holocene Climate Optimum was warmer than now, as I defended in CLINTEL’s answer to AR6: “The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC”, and in my new book. It is just inconvenient evidence. Proxy reconstructions offer better possibilities to get the desired answer, but glaciers and trees don’t lie.
First, thanks for the free chapter previews (ch22 is a preferred :) )
I fully agree with the second paragraph. And with the first except for the first sentence. I see the risk to be high to very high. Analysis should also include risk besides economic. In the present technological environment, it will be very difficult to go back to a system similar to the 1800’s, at the time of the birth of power machines. Technically and psychologically it can be a dead end.
I give you one reason. Ch22 pg 142 box 19 first sentence. Abrupt change to tilt beyond the limits you give are very real. The 4K2 event was the result of such a change.
“I see the risk to be high to very high.”
There’s 8 billion of us, we are everywhere and we are the most adaptable species on the planet. There is no conceivable way with a non-infinitesimal probability that could get us extinct at this point. Catastrophism is a cognitive syndrome that should be resisted.
In the long term, who knows. All species disappear and ours will not be an exception, but we might be talking about millions of years.
Quite so; who knows.
Incidentally, your post here is on the 5th Nov. I posted one – link below- on the 3rd. Catastrophism is a studied subject, not just a syndrome. There are syndromes, and ‘denialism’ is also one of them. It is a more common one in the face of evident but unseen danger (ask any smoker).
Link here: https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/
Post is middle one. Next to it rt is further proof. As you say, glaciers and sediments don’t lie, but they also tend to conceal the truth.
> and yet cost so much as to seriously damage the global economy.
Such alarm!
“Such alarm!”
I supposed you have lived through an oil crisis. I don’t see the fun in creating a permanent one.
“Proxy [temperature] reconstructions offer better possibilities to get the desired answer, but glaciers and trees don’t lie.”
Glaciers (isotopes ratios) and tree rings (widths, and isotopes) are proxies. The best answers are from consistencies in multiple proxies.
Glacier length is not a temperature proxy.
Treeline altitude is not a temperature proxy.
They are not converted into degrees involving experimenter judgement.
Both indicate the Holocene Climate Optimum was warmer than the present, contradicting some proxy temperature reconstructions but not others.
Nah, glacier length and treeline depend on other factors; precipitation, topographical exposure, latitude, detritus cover on glacier surfaces, etc. not to mention “experimenter judgement”. They are proxies.
Proxies do not lie, but they are very difficult to interpret correctly. Especially if one is laboring under a fundamental misconception.
A case in point is the one in my above link (Searching Evidence: Astronomy for the Heretic). It was a chance find. I was after any evidence for year 2345bce. Science, from early school days preaches analysis by taking mean or trend. It is what is applied in proxies from any source. What the trend can do and does is discard the important outlier that tells the story.
Obliquity is the main factor in earth’s temp and climate. That it flickers to some small or large extent is contrary to the dogma. Yet there it is. Starting from about 300bce (an Eddy cycle root) to 173CE (an Eddy peak) and on to nearly the next root, there have been relatively small disturbances that do show in the sediment proxy. But presently no one would think of putting that to obliquity flicker.
A trend line would be near straight. The scatter plot limits itself to singular points that are measurements but what is actually in between or to what extent were the limits of the flicker is unknown.
The effect of those flickers can also be known to some extent from the human activity of the time; a historical period that is relatively known.
(Note: the effect of year 173ce was likely within a 24hour period – very abrupt)
“Nah, glacier length and treeline depend on other factors;”
Here you are just showing your ignorance of climate proxies, very far from your specialty. I have studied climate proxies and their interpretation for 9 years.
The treeline depends on temperature, particularly winter temperature that causes tree seedlings to die. It doesn’t rain less a few meters above the current treeline, but it is colder.
And before we started polluting the atmosphere glaciers responded exclusively to precipitation and temperature. That despite all the polluting we have done for the past 200 years brutally increasing atmospheric soot levels from combustion and fires the glaciers of the world are still longer than in the Holocene Climate Optimum speaks volumes about where we are now in terms of temperature. And 80% of the world glaciers are 1 Km2 or less. They are very small and therefore vulnerable. There are also lots of permanent ice-patches that didn’t exist 6,000 years ago. They are melting now creating a new discipline in archaelogy as they are releasing animal remains and human artifacts buried in ice for thousands of years from a time that was as warm as now or warmer.
I respect your beliefs, but science is not about beliefs.
Sorry, but this is irresistible.
Javier says “There are also lots of permanent ice-patches that didn’t exist 6,000 years ago. They are melting now creating a new discipline in archaelogy as they are releasing animal remains and human artifacts buried in ice for thousands of years from a time that was as warm as now or warmer.”
To be nearer to the correct number its 5500 years (3550bce). See- one of several papers- https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jqs.850
Name: “A major widespread climatic change around
5300 cal. yr BP at the time of the Alpine Iceman”
That was an abrupt cooling, but only north of the tropic. Yet at the same date it caused the fast desiccation of the Sahara. Archaeology indicated an obliquity decrease.
“I respect your beliefs, but science is not about beliefs.”
How true, Mr. Einstein – it is about knowledge; asking questions, forming hypothetical answers (hypotheses) to those questions, and testing those hypotheses though observation, both passive and designed experiments. (It is not, as you claim, exclusively about evidence.)
As for treeline elevation and glacier retreat/advance – I don’t think you even understand the basic definition. Here is a simple one from NISDC: “proxy data are preserved physical characteristics of the environment that can stand in for direct measurements”,
Here is another example – first two sentences from the paper “Mass elevation effect and continentality have a stronger impact on global treelines than spatial isolation” (Kienle, Irl, and Beierkuhnlein, Global Ecology and Biogeography, April 2023)
“The global relationship between treeline elevation and temperature (or latitude as a PROXY) is well established. However, additional large-scale and regional abiotic influences such as mass elevation effect (MEE), continentality and isolation are superimposed onto the latitude-treeline relationship.”
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/geb.13689
Glacial retreat/advance is also obviously a climate/temperature proxy – that doesn’t need further discussion.
Since you are a self-anointed, self-educated “expert” that admits to reading less than 0.1% of climate literature (and compares his self-education to that of Einstein), It is not too much of a surprise that you don’t understand what “proxy” means. And, since you referenced your ResearchGate profile, I’ll note that you have never published a peer reviewed paper on climatology or a related field (some expert!), only a rather meager record of a few, largely uncited, papers on biochemical entomology. As for climate – only your three (not so) popular press books.
In closing, people who live in glass houses … and snarkiness begets snarkiness.
“
“it is about knowledge; asking questions, forming hypothetical answers (hypotheses) to those questions, and testing those hypotheses though observation, both passive and designed experiments.”
All that comes to nothing if you aren’t right. To succeed in science you need to be right when everybody else is wrong.
“Your mission as a scientist is to discover how current models are wrong, not right, and to create new paradigms. When you succeed, you will have to fight to publish and fund your research. However, if you persist (and are actually right) then the world will eventually come around to your point of view.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2675886/
“Since you are a self-anointed, self-educated “expert” that admits to reading less than 0.1% of climate literature”
The climate science field has exploded to tens of thousands of articles per year, to that you have to add the previously published over a hundred thousand articles. My 0.1% amounts to several articles every day which is a lot more than 99% of climate scientists are capable of reading, given they are so busy with their research, teaching, grant application, meetings, reciving prizes, and so on. 0.1% is a lot, and probably an order of magnitude higher than the climate science articles you read.
“All that comes to nothing if you aren’t right. To succeed in science you need to be right when everybody else is wrong.”
Thanks for your deflection to the philosophy of science. I’ll accept that as an admission that you don’t understand (or have just learned) what a proxy is.
You are free to admit to how much climatology you read, but claiming that it is 10 times as much as I read is unfounded, and seems an expression of an Adler superiority <- inferiority complex. I'm sorry you didn't succeed at being a scientist, perhaps it is your attitude of: "To succeed in science you need to be right when everybody else is wrong." It is my experience that skepticism is a good thing (properly applied, not a search for fame), but that original ideas supported by investigation, as already described, is quite sufficient for a successful scientific career.
https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/B-A-Bushaw-8748013
https://patents.justia.com/inventor/bruce-a-bushaw
“To succeed in science, you need to be right when everyone else is wrong”
Thanks for the pat on the back!
“I’ll accept that as an admission that you don’t understand (or have just learned) what a proxy is.”
You’d be wrong. I do understand quite well what a climate proxy is and I will not admit the opposite.
“I’m sorry you didn’t succeed at being a scientist.”
I don’t share that opinion, and neither does ResearchGate, that informs me that my Research Interest Score is higher than 88% of ResearchGate members, higher than 59% of ResearchGate members who first published in 1987, and higher than 82% of researchers with work related to: Climatology. Perhaps not impressive but above average among scientists.
Time will tell how right or wrong I am in my climate science findings.
Congratulations on your impressive list of publications, but they are unrelated to climate science, so they count as little in this discussion.
“Congratulations on your impressive list of publications, but they are unrelated to climate science, so they count as little in this discussion.”
Thanks. Just my opinion, but I don’t think that popular press books count for much in this discussion, when they are not backed up by any peer reviewed climate literature publications. Difference is, I don’t claim to be an expert – you do, but show that you are not.
My first academic book was peer-reviewed. This second one has been read by four climate scientists (William Happer, Judith Curry, Willie Soon, and Françoise Gervais), all of them with impressive and relevant credentials, who have found it excellent.
Your opinion is noted but discounted. Essentially you are falling in the old fallacy of ad-hominem argumentation because you lack the scientific knowledge to discuss the science.
Thanks Javier. Bought the book. After reading your first book I felt like I wanted to learn more about the solar role. There is so much literature out there that this issue, more than anything else, might be the wildcard in having a better understanding of our climate. Looking forward to digging in.
I ordered it too. I can’t wait. I wonder what comes next for Vinos and his conquest to truth.
By the way, CK, I’d love to know after you are done reading the book if you find this exposition about the role of the Sun more convincing. Skeptics are split on thinking if the Sun has had a big role in global warming or not, and those convinced that it has are split on the possible mechanism, whether direct (W/m2), or indirect.
Javier
With your previous book I remember reading about one of your book reviewers expressing concern about what deniers might say as a result of your book.
Generally, how was your experience working with publishers on this book compared to the first one.
That was with Springer. I didn’t have any problems this time.
When ice melts, the result is water which results in water vapor. Warms the atmosphere. If we don’t have water vapor in the air we don’t have life on Earth.
All the years I have followed this debate I still have not seen a good explanation to why the 2:00pm temperature is warmer than the 8:00am. Add to this that all valid temperature readings are in air that include a multitude of gases, including water vapor, where IPCC never declaring why “certain” gases are excluded and reasons for so doing.
You note that, “If we don’t have water vapor in the air we don’t have life on Earth.”
This is absolutely correct. Water vapor accounts for 64% of the total heating of the planet. All other greenhouse gases, including CO2, 3%. The sun 33%.
You go on to note –
“All the years I have followed this debate I still have not seen a good explanation to why the 2:00pm temperature is warmer than the 8:00am.“
The more vertical the solar radiation and the longer the surface is heated, the hotter it becomes.
And –
“Add to this that all valid temperature readings are in air that include a multitude of gases, including water vapor, where IPCC never declaring why “certain” gases are excluded and reasons for so doing.”
Could it be that water vapor is excluded because water vapor accounts for 95% of greenhouse heating?
Actually, if we include the effect of the clouds that form from water vapor, they account for an estimated 75% of the greenhouse effect.
They are not included because water vapor amount in the atmosphere is a function of temperature. As their changes respond to temperature changes they have to be included with the feedbacks instead of with the forcings.
But my hypothesis is based on the fact that in the poles in winter water vapor falls to almost cero, so the greenhouse effect becomes several times weaker. This makes them great cooling radiators, like in a car’s internal combustion engine refrigeration system. Nobody takes into account that the greenhouse effect is extremely heterogenous on the planet and increasing CO2 has little effect in the tropics and actually increases the radiating efficiency at the poles. That’s why the climate sensitivity to CO2 is much lower than estimated.
The more vertical the radiation and the longer the surface is heated, the hotter it becomes. Sounds like the warmest days of the year should be around the summer solstice in June. If the warmest days are in July and August then that would indicate something causing a lag. Probably the seasonal changes in ocean heat transport.
Javier
I just finished Chapter 10. Figure 16 shows lingering heat off the NE coast of Japan and US for the period 1981-2005. When NOAA had their monthly maps of SST I noticed prolonged heat regardless of month or year. It seems like I looked at the maps during the entire record that they published and the red was constantly there.
Do you have any theories about that apparently constant heat?
Figure 16 doesn’t show temperature, so it is not lingering heat. It shows heat flux from the ocean to the atmosphere. During the boreal winter, those areas are the main source of heat that the atmosphere gets from the ocean.
That those areas are unusually warm at some periods indicate more heat is being transported by the ocean and released to the atmosphere. The recent warming in the North Atlantic gyre that Judith posted about a couple of months ago has that origin, and is partly responsible for the September and October record temperatures. We are seeing more heat being transported and released to the atmosphere. The cause must be an altered atmospheric circulation of unknown origin, perhaps the Hunga Tonga volcano.
Javier:
As you know, the National Weather Service confirmed the 2023 El Nino on June 8, and temperatures always rise during an El Nino, so it is responsible for the Sept and Oct record temperatures.
You attribute it to more heat being transported and released to the atmosphere, but you have it backwards.
EVERY El Nino forms because of a decrease in the amount of dimming SO2 aerosols in our atmosphere, cleansing the air and causing temperatures to rise enough to form an El Nino, i.e., an El Nino does NOT cause any warming, it is the result of atmospheric warming.
https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2023.17.1.0124
We are currently cleaning our air by continued “Clean Air” efforts and Net Zero activities, and the cleaner it becomes, the hotter it will get!
“The recent warming in the North Atlantic gyre that Judith posted about a couple of months ago has that origin, and is partly responsible for the September and October record temperatures. We are seeing more heat being transported and released to the atmosphere. The cause must be an altered atmospheric circulation of unknown origin, perhaps the Hunga Tonga volcano.”
I find the recent increase in global temperatures quite intriguing. However, it’s concerning that some are quick to attribute this rise solely to human emissions, hindering open scientific inquiry. Could this spike in temperature be the result of accumulated heat from previous decades being released into the atmosphere? It’s challenging to see how this trend can persist indefinitely without an underlying cause. Did the unusual weather events of 2023 have any mention in your book?
Gorilla,
“It’s challenging to see how this trend can persist indefinitely without an underlying cause.”
There is a well-known and exhaustively studied underlying cause. Some people are just loathe to accept it. Also, within the constraints of normal climatic processes/interactions, even (known) underlying causes eventually become self-limiting.
“Did the unusual weather events of 2023 have any mention in your book?”
Yes, they are briefly mentioned in chapter 24 about volcanic eruptions under the “Hunga Tonga 2022 eruption” heading. I don’t give answers, I just say that some of the effects (surface warming and ozone hole early start) are consistent with what we should expect from such eruption, and that the long delay in the effects is no obstacle, as the effects of 1815 Tambora eruption were also long delayed.
“Some people are just loathe to accept it.”
And some people are content with explanations that lack evidence. In science you better be of the first type, that’s why skepticism is the rule, except on the weird climate “science” where models are mistaken for evidence.
“where models are mistaken for evidence”.
Most theories are models, and both are based on an underlying assumption of a physical causality, and then testing with evidence (data from experiments and passive observations).
“Most theories are models, and both are based on an underlying assumption of a physical causality,”
Which means nothing in science. Science is based exclusively on evidence. 99.999% of theories ever proposed turned out to be wrong, and 100% of models are wrong. If you want to discover what a piece of very expensive sh¡t climate models are, read chapter 49 in my new book. I make a list of the things that don’t work in climate models from my reading of scientific articles over just 4 months. And considering that I read less than 0.1% of what is published in climate science, you can imagine what a disaster climate models are.
Although you might probably not want to discover that.
Javier, Yes skepticism which sees “real” deficiencies in the existing science is good, particularly when viable (better) alternatives or more “completeness” can be offered. Skepticism can be good, even when motives are dislike of the implications of the current state of the science, as long as they offer viable, testable alternatives/additions. Denial motived by that same dislike, but without testable alternatives/addition, is not good. The latter is what I refer to when I speak of “loathing”.
Your answer is reasonable, Ganon. Do you accept tbe peer reviewed science Demetris presented?
Skepticism is the only thing in life that protects us from being fooled by people that know more than we do about something.
As such, it is an essential skill that should always be practiced by everybody. Alas, it is not taught because it makes people a lot harder to be governed. And we don’t come with it, as children will believe anything.
Nullius in verba. And climate science is a lot of “verba,” particularly the consensus.
Jungletrunks,
I have not worked through Demetris’ paper(s) yet. But I get the feeling that it is a little short on a hypothesis of underlying physical causality, particularly for the Temperature rise causing the CO2 rise of the last 50 years.
ganon,
Did Co2 take a great leap of faith of July?
Havier,
I don’t pay too much attention to the “verba”, my area(s) of expertise is photophysics, mass spectrometry, isotope ratios, and nonlinear dynamics.
“Science is based exclusively on evidence. 99.999% of theories ever proposed turned out to be wrong, and 100% of models are wrong.”
4 whole months, read less than 0.1% of the literature, don’t understand how science works, and a penchant for hyperbolic exaggeration. Can’t imagine why I’d want to read any chapter in your book.
“Can’t imagine why I’d want to read any chapter in your book.”
I couldn’t care less if you read my book or not. But I’ve been an experimental scientist for decades and worked at several first rate reasearch centers in three countries. I do understand how science works pretty well, thanks.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Javier-Vinos
Javier,
Yes, I already looked at your ResearchGate profile. It is obvious what an expert you are from the subject matter, the number of publications, and number of citations.
Expertise rests on knowledge. Albert Einstein didn’t have any citations or publications while he worked as a patents clerk and developed general relativity. I am sure you would have laughed at his cv. I would have listened to him before judging him as other scientists did then.
ganon
I know you have been investigating this issue for only 6 months. While 6 months is certainly longer than 6 days or 6 weeks, it pales against 6 years or multiple of 6 years by some denizens. What do you have to lose to read both of Javier’s books and Judith’s books. If it’s a monetary issue and forking over a few bucks for a Kindle edition puts a little crimp in the budget, I am sure some here would donate to your GoFundMe page. Adding to the understanding of our fellow man is always a worthy cause.
Hi Javier
Thanks for a very interesting report so very required in the roar of the CO2 hysteria. Earth getting warmer is not disputable. It is. Whatsoever the sun is the causing factor is far from my ability to scientifically discuss though your report sounds absolutely trustworthy, however, there is something else that I’m competent to add. I make this addition easy to read for non-scientific subscribers.
The melting permafrost is causing a bacterial process that produces methane CH4 and the availability to this is astronomical. It’s not disputable tah this will happen. It has already started at the tundra. (trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Eu5B3FfZmM )
An exponential CH4 release effect is expected rendering the zillions of cubic miles of bound CH4 to be emitted to the atmosphere. Alaskan researchers & NASA make it absolutely clear that this forthcoming CH4 emission is a hugely under estimated factor by that many influentials. I’m fully aware of the impact to come of a wild CH4 emission 7/24 for centuries unstoppable into the atmosphere tens of times more devastating than the hysterical CO2 irrespectively of the natural heating by the sun.
Your comprehensive report is half of the issue excluding the unstoppable CH4 that my CH4 absorbent invention so far is the sole option to prevent the CH4 Monster to ecer reach atmosphere. To be very clear. I’m as well very reluctant to the hysteria of extinction by heating up Mother Earth, however, I cannot neglect the fact that the permafrost frozen CH4 content is at the level of all natural gas commercially explored.
I lack a consequence discussion in your important report concerning the CH4. Irrespectively of the necessary critic of the extinction hysteria, I simply cannot neglect the proven CH4 circumstances. Thanks from Bill The Swede survival2300(at)mail.com
The proxy record is full of big increases in methane during the Dansgaard-Oeschger events when the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere warmed by +7ºC in just a few decades. It came from bacteria in swamps due to the increase in precipitation.
I don’t doubt there may be an increase in methane in the future, but I am skeptical about its undemostrated possible terrible effects. Then methane oxydizes into CO2 and water in a few years.
Yes, Ganon; “Fortunately, all (most) of these are eventually self-limiting”, I understand this; maybe CO2 also? Certainly OH will have no direct effect on CO2, and maybe no indirect effect, yet the author of the science I’ve pointed to suggests a disruption to previously understood climate mechanisms, at least as it relates to models. What may those be? I understand it will be conjecture at this point, in consideration that this is new science, but please ramble on about the possibilities, if you care to.
Jungletrunks, The infrared absorbing gases are limited by saturated absorption (although it is not as simple as the logarithmic response of the Beer-Lambert law). CO2 concentration is limited by increased weathering with higher temperature more precipitation, and more acidic (carbonic) rain; also sequestration by plant fractions that are covered and eventually become coal. Increasing albedo is limited by complete loss of high latitude snow and ice; and limit land extent for increased desertification. etc., etc.
Thanks Bill, I find this a very interesting topic.
I don’t have the competency to dig into the subject scientifically, but my understanding is that CH4 atmospheric half-life is about 8 years. What determines how quickly it breaks down is the oxidation rate, how long it takes CH4 to bump into OH.
I came across this article recently, it doesn’t directly discuss CH4, it’s scope is larger: “Scientists discover a way Earth’s atmosphere cleans itself”:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/04/230407133443.htm
It seems the science would be relevant to CO2, and CH4. I’d be interested if you, or Javier, have any comments about what is being described in this “new science”, what may the ramifications be to our current understanding of AGW?
Yes, there are many “positive” feedbacks that can reinforce the currently rising temperature, regardless of the initiator, including (among others) CH4, deep ocean CO2 release, decreasing high latitude albedo, etc. Fortunately, all (most) of these are eventually self-limiting, but probably not before dramatic changes that, at best, are uncomfortable. Perhaps the best example we have from paleoclimatology is the Paleocene Eocene hyperthermal event, usually referred to as the PETM (Paleocene Eocene thermal maximum) some 56 million years ago, where CO2 level increased with only about 1/10 the speed they are now. A study of the PETM can be instructive.
By accepting the 255K as an approximation, you accept the 255K or -18C to emit the impossible
240 W/m².
Because the generally accepted physics say so. They have averaged the incident on Earth solar flux over the entire planet surface and came out with the 240 W/m².
It is known, from our everyday’s practice, that a body does not emit the impossible high 240 W/m² at the very low temperature of -18C.
In our homes, it is the fridges what produce to that very low temperature.
When outside in winter, at -18C, there it is a deadly cold, there is nowhere any 240 W/m² emission to warm our bones a little bit.
*******
Nevertheless, they, the generally accepted physics, have derived (from the planetary average surface emission
of 240 W/m²), they have derived the 255K or -18C as the Earths without-atmosphere uniform surface temperature.
They call it the Earths effective temperature (Te =255K).
*******
Yes, it is a rather crude approximation. It rather much depends on the assumption of albedo. If you use the current average albedo of (about) 0.3, you get the 255 K, if you use the albedo of the moon ~0.1 (rock, no water), you get about 274 K.
*******
But should’t be there an equation which is capable to theoretically calculate every planet’s and moon’s without atmosphere, or with a thin atmosphere, (Earth included), shouldn’t be there an equation which calculates the planet average (mean) surface temperature?
–
Shouldn’t there exist an equation which could do the job?
–
Yes, inevitably, there should be an equation theoretically calculating the planet average (mean) surface temperature.
–
There should be an equation which is valid for every planet and moon without atmosphere, or with a thin atmosphere (Earth included).
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I see no reason why there should be an “exact” equation, since planets and moons do not have uniform surfaces.
Thank you, ganon, for a good question.
“I see no reason why there should be an “exact” equation, since planets and moons do not have uniform surfaces.”
–
Every planet and moon is a unique selestial body, and every planet and moon has its unique properties.
Every planet and moon has for its surface the unique properties and the unique features.
–
Inevitably, for every planet and moon, there is a different, for each planet and moon, the average surface temperature (Tmean).
–
But all planets and moons are subjected to the same universal physics laws.
And planets and moons have the most significant common features.
All of them are spherical shape selestial bodies.
All of them are solar irradiated planets.
All of them rotate (having diurnal cycle).
Thus, there should inevitably exist such an equation!
–
And, it is the:
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K) (1)
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Except, of course, that the constants aren’t constant, they vary in time and space, even when averaged over the whole earth, and even if human activity and external forcing were constant.
ganon1950,
“I did not specify any temperature, I only specified “over the range of Earth’s BBR” which most certainly does exist. You may integrate it over any distribution of temperature and emissivity you like. My statement does not change.”
–
–
The non-linearity of the S-B radiation law, when coupled with a strong latitudinal variation of the INTERACTED solar flux across the surface of a sphere, and with the planet rotational spin, and with the average surface specific heat, creates a mathematical condition for a correct calculation of the true global surface temperature from a spatially integrated infrared emission.
Jemit = 4πr²σΤmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W)
Where:
Jemit (W) – is the INFRARED emission flux from the entire planet (the TOTAL)
r – is the planet radius
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – is the Solar Irradiated Planet INTERACTING-Emitting Universal Law constant
N – rotation /per day, is planet’s rotational spin with reference to the sun in earthen days. Earth’s day equals 24 hours= 1 earthen day.
cp – cal/gr*oC- is the planet average surface specific heat
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
Thanks, you previously provided your derivation of the total emission flux (or at least Tmean). It says nothing about the spectral characteristics or how it interacts with absorbing gases in the atmosphere – that is what we were discussing.
” … creates a mathematical condition for a correct calculation of the true global surface temperature from a spatially integrated infrared emission.”
(1) Tmean is not a “true global surface temperature”, which is obviously inhomogeneous.
(2) How does one obtain a spatially integrated (surface) infrared emission when there are intervening absorbing gases between the surface and the measurement device?
(2) What value do you obtain for Tmean from your “correct calculation”
Thank you, ganon, for good questions,
“(1) Tmean is not a “true global surface temperature”, which is obviously inhomogeneous.
(2) How does one obtain a spatially integrated (surface) infrared emission when there are intervening absorbing gases between the surface and the measurement device?
(2) What value do you obtain for Tmean from your “correct calculation””
–
(1) Tmean is not a “true global surface temperature”, which is obviously inhomogeneous.
– It is the planet average surface temperature.
–
(2) How does one obtain a spatially integrated (surface) infrared emission when there are intervening absorbing gases between the surface and the measurement device?
– It is obtained globally by Φ(1 – a)S = not reflected portion of the incident solar flux.
Φ =0,47 for smooth surface planets without-atmosphe, or with a thin atmosphere (Earth included)
a – is the average surface Albedo (measured)
S – is the Solar flux W/m^2
–
(2) What value do you obtain for Tmean from your “correct calculation”
–
The calculation obtains Tmean very much close to those measurd by satellites.
Planet…………Te…………..Tmean….Tsat.mean
Mercury…..439,6 K…..325,83 K…..340 K
Earth……….255 K……….287,74 K…..288 K
Moon……….270,4 K…….223,35 Κ…..220 Κ
Mars……….209,91 K…..213,21 K…..210 K
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Thanks for the answers. I understand (1), as I indicated. For (2) I do not accept that planets are smooth, nor that Earth’s atmosphere is optically thin – not for outgoing LWIR, as already discussed; it is thin for visible incoming solar, but not for UV or SWIR, which are still significant components of incoming solar. Thus, how is Φ determined/measured?
Thank you, ganon.
“Thus, how is Φ determined/measured?”
–
Well, in few words:
Φ -Factor is an analogue of the well known Drag Coefficient Cd=0,47 for smooth sphere in the parallel fluid flow.
And it is about the by sphere’s surface the portion of incident energy acceptance!
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
“In fluid dynamics, the drag coefficient (commonly denoted as: Cd, Cx or Cw) is a dimensionless quantity that is used to quantify the drag or resistance of an object in a fluid environment, such as air or water. It is used in the drag equation in which a lower drag coefficient indicates the object will have less aerodynamic or hydrodynamic drag. The drag coefficient is always associated with a particular surface area.[3]
The drag coefficient of any object comprises the effects of the two basic contributors to fluid dynamic drag: skin friction and form drag.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:14ilf1l.svg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_coefficient
Also, ganon, I have explained about Φ – factor in my site –
I have there a section: “Φ factor EXPLANATION “.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
OK, you didn’t really answer my question. But I examined and you used Φ = 0.47 for earth. It is not a smooth surface (I live in the mountains). Also I do not know, but do accept, if you can extrapolate the drag coefficient for massed viscous fluid flow to a no mass, non-viscous flow. Intuitively, I do not correlate the absorption of photons with the disturbance of fluid flow by a solid body.
Also, which you did address, I do not accept that the Earth’s atmosphere is optically thin for either outgoing LWIR, or incoming UV & SWIR.
Again, intuitively, I expect that if your model included skin roughness (if even applicable) and the atmospheric capture of both incoming and outgoing optical radiation, that you would arrive at a much higher temperature than your rather fortuitous result (equal to Tmean measured).
Sorry to a skeptical old physicist.
Thank you ganon.
“But I examined and you used Φ = 0.47 for earth. It is not a smooth surface (I live in the mountains).”
Yes, Earth is very smooth planet. Vast oceans, prairies, stepps, desserts, tundra, glaciers etc.
“Also I do not know, but do accept, if you can extrapolate the drag coefficient for massed viscous fluid flow to a no mass, non-viscous flow. Intuitively, I do not correlate the absorption of photons with the disturbance of fluid flow by a solid body.”
It is the energy interaction with matter.
“Also, which you did address, I do not accept that the Earth’s atmosphere is optically thin for either outgoing LWIR, or incoming UV & SWIR.”
We discuss few kilometers above the surface. Satellites “see” every tiny detail on Earth. Doesn’t that prove atmosphere is transparent?
“Again, intuitively, I expect that if your model included skin roughness (if even applicable) and the atmospheric capture of both incoming and outgoing optical radiation, that you would arrive at a much higher temperature than your rather fortuitous result (equal to Tmean measured).”
It is not at all a “fortuitous result”.
The model includes planets and moons with a heavy cratered surface.
For those planets and moons the Φ = 1.
And, for those planets and moons, we also have the theoretically calculated average surface temperature very much close to the measured by satellites.
Ganon, I have calculated the surface temperatures for every planet and moon in solar system. It is everything in the site.
“Sorry to a skeptical old physicist.”
I am very glad you ask your questions, so I can respond with arguments.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“It is the energy interaction with matter.”
Photons do not care about the shape of a macroscopic body, they are either absorbed, reflected or transmitted. They do not flow around objects like a fluid.
“We discuss few kilometers above the surface. Satellites “see” every tiny detail on Earth. Doesn’t that prove atmosphere is transparent?”
No, if you still don’t understand wavelength dependence I am wasting my time. You ignore the interactions of optical radiation with the atmosphere.
ganon1950,
“Photons do not care about the shape of a macroscopic body, they are either absorbed, reflected or transmitted. They do not flow around objects like a fluid.”
–
Atoms and molecules in the fluid also do not care about the shape of a macroscopic body.
When, after interaction with body, when reflected, atoms and molecules flow around objects.
When photons interact with body, photons get reflected (specularly and diffusely), get transformed into IR instantly outgoing EM radiation, and the rest of them, a small part of photons gets decayed into heat, which heat is instantly absorbed in inner layers.
“if you still don’t understand wavelength dependence I am wasting my time. You ignore the interactions of optical radiation with the atmosphere.”
Of course there are interactions of optical radiation with the atmosphere. But they are of minor importance, since atmosphere is very thin.
And you do not wasting your time. You participate in a very interesting and a very creative dispute.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Of course there are interactions of optical radiation with the atmosphere. But they are of minor importance, since atmosphere is very thin.”
Approximately 24% of incoming TOA solar irradiance is absorbed by the atmosphere and more than 60% of outgoing LWIR is absorbed by the atmosphere. In terms of energy balance, and where I come from (photophysics) that is not “very thin” nor negligible and very different from a celestial body without an atmosphere.
ganon1950,
“Approximately 24% of incoming TOA solar irradiance is absorbed by the atmosphere and more than 60% of outgoing LWIR is absorbed by the atmosphere.”
–
It is impossible. Who says so?
“In terms of energy balance, and where I come from (photophysics) that is not “very thin” nor negligible and very different from a celestial body without an atmosphere.”
Earth’s radiative energy balance has some very minor, and, thereforre, negligible differences from a celestial body without an atmosphere.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“It is impossible”
https://www.newport.com/t/introduction-to-solar-radiation
And any number of energy balance diagrams. 23% absorption from direct irradiance with sun normal to TOA. If Mie scattering (blue sky) illumination is added to the direct beam, about 18%. If the sun is not normal to TOA, then geometric increase in path length increases absorption even further.
I think you use terms like “impossible”, “negligible”, and “instantly” (conversion of SW in to LWIR out) a bit too freely – quantification is important in science, particularly physics.
Thank you, ganon.
“Figure 3. Normally incident solar spectrum at sea level on a clear day. The dotted curve shows the extraterrestrial spectrum.”
Where and how the “Normally incident solar spectrum at sea level on a clear day. ” was obtained?
Christos,
https://www.nrel.gov/grid/solar-resource/spectra-am1.5.html
and references therein.
Thank you, ganon.
–
“The spectra are modelled using the SMARTS2 (version 2.9.2)”
–
Now I know it. The spectra are modelled.
–
Quote:
“If there is something very slightly wrong in our definition of the theories, then the full mathematical rigor may convert these errors into ridiculous conclusions.”
Richard Feynman
So, are you dismissing a model because it is a model that does not conform with approximations in your model?
Good morning 9:36 AM from Athens, Greece.
–
ganon1950,
“So, are you dismissing a model because it is a model that does not conform with approximations in your model?”
–
I did not know it was obtained by a model. Now I know.
–
I always were wondering, how the “Normally incident solar spectrum at sea level on a clear day. ” was obtained. I thought it was measured, but it was very much obvious to me that it could not be so.
“I think you use terms like “impossible”, “negligible”, and “instantly” (conversion of SW in to LWIR out) a bit too freely – quantification is important in science, particularly physics.”
and
“it is a model that does not conform with approximations in your model?”
–
I started searching because I realized the ~400 ppm [CO2] content in Earth’s thin atmosphere couldn’t cause any warming (any significantly measured warming).
–
I wondered why scientists do not see how wrong the “Normally incident solar spectrum at sea level on a clear day” is.
Because it so much obvious – that I only can say it is impossible.
–
“quantification is important in science, particularly physics.”
–
Yes, you are right. The ~400 ppm [CO2] content in Earth’s thin atmosphere couldn’t absorb some EM bands all the way down. The same is impossible for H2O.
–
The solar “energy in” should be estimated on the solar lit Hemisphere (on the spherical shape), and not on the disc normal to the solar flux.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
Just because something is not obvious to you does not make it impossible. The clear sky, normal incidence model is a best case for you to ignore the existence of the atmosphere. If there are clouds (they are not impossible), they decrease the insolation reaching the ground. If the incidence angle is less than normal, the increased path length causes more absorption (not less).
“I wondered why scientists do not see how wrong the “Normally incident solar spectrum at sea level on a clear day” is.
Because it so much obvious – that I only can say it is impossible.”
There is an answer that you perhaps haven’t considered: the scientists understand it and have studied it for most of a century, you have not and don’t understand atmospheric physics or molecular spectroscopy.
The same goes for the absorption of EM radiation over certain bands of the spectrum by CO2, H20, CH4, O3, etc.: The low concentration of these gases (420 ppmv for CO2) does not make it “impossible” for them to be optically thick (opaque, near totally absorbing). Concentration is only part of the relevant equation, In the Beer Lambert Bouguer Law for absorption:
A = log(I_0/I_t) = ecl
Where ecl (not c alone), with e = molecular extinction coefficient, c = concentration, l = path length. It is quite simple, If extinction coefficient and path length are large, then concentration need not be high to have strong absorption.
I’ll just close by saying, many things may seem “impossible” if they are not understood (or if there is a personal motivation to have them be impossible). It seems that if someone is self-educated, they often become “experts” in a narrow field of interest, and think that makes them experts in many things where they do not have a broad base of knowledge. I believe there is a nice Greek derived word for this: sophomoric. I don’t know if this applies to you, but thinking things are “impossible” and apparently not understanding atmospheric molecular photophysics, make it seem likely.
Thank you, ganon.
“Just because something is not obvious to you does not make it impossible. The clear sky, normal incidence model is a best case for you to ignore the existence of the atmosphere. If there are clouds (they are not impossible), they decrease the insolation reaching the ground. If the incidence angle is less than normal, the increased path length causes more absorption (not less).”
–
Well, the method I use in my research is “the planets surface the satellite measured temperatures comparison”.
–
I do everything correctly. Haven’t I demonstrated reproducible experiments?
–
When I do the same calculations on every planet and on every moon in solar system and the results are so very much close to those measured by satellites… those calculations are adequate to the very much convincing reproducible experiments!
–
Those calculations have convinced me: Earth’s atmosphere doesn’t play any significant role in average surface Temperature.
Planet Earth’s average surface temperature is of a planet with a thin atmosphere.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“When I do the same calculations on every planet and on every moon in solar system and the results are so very much close to those measured by satellites… those calculations are adequate to the very much convincing reproducible experiments”.
Really? What results did you get for Venus and the gas giants?
You cannot ignore the Earth’s atmosphere, just by calling it “thin”. Even if you don’t understand the molecular spectroscopy of a “clear day”, you cannot ignore the effect of clouds (albedo and other processes) by assuming no atmosphere.
ganon,
Here is the LINK for Venus:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/446393385/446364348?t=1699546731403
Thank you, ganon
Here is the LINK for Jupiter:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/444274049/?t=1699547129519
ganon, please, for Saturn, Uranus, Neptune you can follow the same thred in my site.
Yes, and as I have pointed out many times now; basing GHG effectiveness on concentration (and molecular weight) is nonsense.
The characterization of Earth’s atmosphere as “thin” is subjectively meaningless. It is certainly optically “thick” for most frequencies of infrared radiation, and its column mass of 1.06 kg/cm^2 (75% in the troposphere) is not exactly a “thin” specific heat, particularly when a few percent of it are water and other polyatomic molecules (higher c_p), that absorb LW radiation.
“The characterization of Earth’s atmosphere as “thin” is subjectively meaningless. It is certainly optically “thick” for most frequencies of infrared radiation,”
–
How much “thick” Earth’s atmosphere is “for most frequencies of infrared radiation” ?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
“Thick” is (nearly) completely opaque over much of the infrared spectrum, dominated by water (single molecules and small hydrogen bonded polymers). The important exception over the range of earth’s BBR is the “water window” (~8 – 15 micron) where the changing concentration of various GHGs can make large differences in the BBR escaping through the water window. See relevant spectra at, e.g.:
https://www.climate-policy-watcher.org/climate-dynamics/the-atmospheric-absorption-spectrum.html
ganon1950,
” The important exception over the range of earth’s BBR is the “water window” (~8 – 15 micron) where the changing concentration of various GHGs can make large differences in the BBR escaping through the water window. See relevant spectra at, e.g.:
https://www.climate-policy-watcher.org/climate-dynamics/the-atmospheric-absorption-spectrum.html ”
–
ganon, there is not any Earth’s Black Body 255K emission curve.
–
Earth’s surface doesn’t emit at any uniform temperature, the
Te = 255K included.
–
Thus, the mentioned Earth’s Atmospheric Absorption Spectrum does not exist.
–
Earth’s atmosphere does not “absorb” what is not “emitted” by the surface.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
I did not specify any temperature, I only specified “over the range of Earth’s BBR” which most certainly does exist. You may integrate it over any distribution of temperature and emissivity you like. My statement does not change.
I am sorry you do understand what an absorption spectrum is. The reference I gave, most specifically, states “% absorption”. It does not say anything about the transmitted intensity of Earth’s BBR. You may take the product of the two, using whatever thermal emission distribution you like.
You can see a better representation of what you are looking for at: https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/archive/2010_schmidt_05/
It seems to me you are devolving into Dunning-Kruger type nitpicking.
Clouds, a collection of raindrops have NO greenhouse effect. Their effect and it is slight, is a consequence of the increase in albedo, a cooling effect.
So, do you deny that winter cloudy nights are warmer than clear-sky nights? I am sure you don’t raise crops in a temperate climate or you would know that severe frosts mostly take place under clear skies.
Pingback: Solving the Climate Puzzle: The Sun’s Surprising Role - The Truth Central
Pingback: Solving the Climate Puzzle: The Sun’s Surprising Role - Climate- Science.press
“[In the global tropical ocean, the temperature in the upper layer varies by ±0.1°C in phase with the solar cycle], requiring a change of ±0.9 W/m2, while the change in surface radiative forcing from the solar cycle is an order of magnitude too small, ±0.1 W/m2. Therefore, the variability must be due to ocean-atmosphere mechanisms despite its synchronization with the Sun.”
What is the source of [your claim], as there is no citation for it?
The problem with radiative forcing is there is no allowance made within it for absorbed solar energy storage/release by the ocean.
I have posted the following image set from my 2022 AGU and Sun-Climate Symposium posters many times on this and the WUWT blog in the last year and a half that shows the average response of the tropics between solar minima and maxima over the last nine solar cycles, an asymmetric ±1°C, and it was the basis of the work I presented at this year’s meeting regarding predicting the climate response of this solar cycle, which I was able to do successfully:
https://i.postimg.cc/7hvjBJz5/Solar-Cycles-and-Tropical-Step-Changes.png
Therefore Javier started off here with the wrong perspective, as real ±1°C changes are 10X greater than his fake puny ±0.1°C changes.
Therefore Javier’s statement about radiative forcing being equal to his claimed solar cycle forcing (±0.1°C) is wrong, as both are wrong.
Therefore his conclusion that the tropical variability is due to ocean-air mechanisms is also wrong.
Therefore, Javier has no idea what the sun’s role is.
“What is the source of [your claim], as there is no citation for it?”
It is in the book.
White, W.B., et al., 2003. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans, 108 (C8) 3248. http://doi.org/10.1029/2002JC001396
Do you ever read the relevant scientific literature? For somebody who claims to research on this you don’t appear to know what other scientists have publish on it.
It is not for you to decide if I have idea or not about the Sun’s role. Your opinion doesn’t carry much weight.
“It is not for you to decide if I have idea or not about the Sun’s role. Your opinion doesn’t carry much weight.”
It is too for me to decide. What makes you think only you should decide, or any others but me? You just demonstrated your typical double-standard, on top of your authoritarian egotistical attitude.
Quite frankly you’re just using everyone again and your transport topic was already in the literature (yes, I read).
“It is too for me to decide.”
Nope. In science only evidence matters, not the opinion of others.
Over time only the most correct hypotheses survive, so I don’t fear judgement by others like you. I only fear being wrong, and evidence will decide that, not you.
Bob it seems you have some kind of vendetta against Javier. Why?
I have a different hypothesis to his.
He is wrong about the sun’s role. Isn’t that enough for you?
“The effect of El Niño on ocean heat transport is characterized by the warming of the upper layer of the global tropical ocean, which then warms the overlying atmosphere. In contrast, variability associated with the solar cycle leads to the warming of the global tropical atmosphere, which then heats the underlying ocean. This process is accomplished primarily by reducing the net sensible + latent heat flux from the ocean to the atmosphere, as the increase in solar radiation in the ocean is insufficient. Evidence indicates that the effect of the solar cycle on the ocean is indirect, occurring through the atmosphere. Claims that the Sun cannot be responsible for climate change because of the small change in total solar irradiance that produces its variability ignore the abundant evidence that solar variations act indirectly by affecting atmospheric circulation.”
Javier you have lousy evidence and poor understanding if you really think TSI indirectly warms the ocean by warming the air first.
The ocean itself absorbs huge amounts of solar energy at depth, which warms it directly by its conversion into sensible heat, part of which upwells quickly, and the rest accumulates in the upper ocean until TSI falls below my decadal ocean warming threshold, then equatorial cooling starts, in a pattern.
https://i.postimg.cc/HWQHn9bR/Spectral-Light-Penetration-Open-vs-Coastal-Ocean.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/xjWs5Fjv/AGU-2018-Fig-15b-f-Solar-Cycle-Eq-OHC-Pattern.png
The ocean warmed in response to solar cycle #24 TSI with a lag, note most of the net SST warming occurred after TSI reached my decadal ocean warming threshold of 1361.25 W/m^2.
https://i.postimg.cc/8PZPBzP2/Solar-Cycle-24-Influence-on-SST.jpg
You may say ‘the air could still have warmed the ocean’, but that view neglects reality, the fact that the LT lags SST by 2 months.
https://i.postimg.cc/L4QZQd3J/UAH-LT-v-Had-SST3.jpg
The atmosphere that lags the ocean surface temperature by 2 months does not then warm the ocean too, no, that would create runaway warming. The ocean warms the atmosphere in the tropics, a one-way heat vector after the tropics is warmed by the solar cycle influence of TSI above the decadal ocean warming threshold.
Your views are as wrong as the radiative forcing regime, which has no ocean forcing of the atmosphere. That’s counter-factual.
https://i.postimg.cc/zXVCz2rr/Radiative-Forcings.png
Bob Weber:
You say that Javier is incorrect in claiming that increased warming of the air warms the oceans. There, he is correct, but he is incorrect in ascribing it to TSI.
See my earlier 9:38 post for the actual cause of the current warming.
See how much you can learn from reading papers.
“Atmospheric forcing of NE Pacific SST is well established on monthly to multidecadal time scales (10–12, 14, 25, 27). Based on the strong, physically realistic correlation between large-scale SLP and SST indices from 1900 to 2012, we conclude that dynamical forcing accounts for virtually all of the observed warming in NE Pacific Arc SST over the 1900–2012 period as well.”
Johnstone, J.A. and Mantua, N.J., 2014. Atmospheric controls on northeast Pacific temperature variability and change, 1900–2012. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(40), pp.14360-14365.
“In observations, DJF-mean NAO-like SLP anomalies have a linear covariation with the subsequent JJA-mean El Niño Modoki-like SST anomalies in the tropical Pacific in the following 1 year. This observed SLP-SST covariation shows up in the high solar activity (HS) subset and disappears in the low solar activity (LS) subset. In the HS years, positive NAO-like SLP anomalies are produced by the stronger solar-UV radiation through a “top-down” mechanism.”
Huo, W., Xiao, Z. and Zhao, L., 2023. Modulation of the solar activity on the connection between the NAO and the tropical pacific SST variability. Frontiers in Earth Science, 11, p.1147582.
I read the Johnstone paper when it came out here. I found the NE Pacific SST responds to decadal solar activity in the same manner as the rest of the climate, so it’s no surprise that the NAO can be connected to the tropics via solar activity as well.
The cumulative departure from average for the following indices group around a narrow sunspot number range, the NE Pacific SST having the same value as the adjacent NH Sea Ice extent. The whole climate has a nominal tipping point of ~95 SN ±10. These five climate areas are excerpted from a list of 71 climate indice CDA solar thresholds from my 2022 AGU and SCS works:
ERSSTv5 200-220E, 30N-60N 92.4 (NE Pacific)
HadiSST2.2 NH Sea Ice ext 92.4
HadSST3 Globe 92.7
HadSST3 Tropics 92.8
Sea Level Pressure 95.8
This is why the NE Pacific Blob was extremely warm during the strong 2015/16 El Niño, from sunspots & high irradiance.
https://i.postimg.cc/wTMzSGtm/AGU-Fig10.jpg
The composite image is from my 2018 AGU poster, depicting the effect of TSI on the equatorial upper ocean heat content anomaly with respect to SORCE TSI and my ocean warming threshold (i) of 1361.25 W/m^2, and it’s effect on the NE Pacific Warm Pool (f).
The sequence of high TSI warming of the tropics and ocean has happened again in cycle 25, with the ocean accumulating a surplus of absorbed solar energy converted to sensible heat from strong total solar irradiance, driving an El Niño again, in complete accordance with my threshold system.
Also:
“The ocean contributes about 25% of global poleward heat transport (ch. 10). In the tropics, the ocean is the most important heat transporter. Its contribution is even greater in the Northern Hemisphere, where it accounts for about 30% of heat transport.”
I think your guestimate is a bit low as r>0.6 between Niño3 and NH sea ice extent. The same mechanism, TSI warming, that affects the NE Pacific warm pool, affects the adjacent NH sea ice.
https://i.postimg.cc/wvpjhQjj/Nino3-leads-NH-Sea-Ice-Extent.png
and
“With a total mass 265 times that of the atmosphere and a heat capacity 1000 times greater, the ocean stores 96% of the energy in the climate system and receives 75% of the energy delivered by the Sun to the planet’s surface. “
The ocean’s heat capacity is 890X that of the atmosphere. It is not clear whether you meant albedo is 25% or if you meant something else by this partition..
Pingback: Solving the Climate Puzzle: The Sun’s Surprising Role • Watts Up With That?
As the sun goes around the earth, east to west, it flashes the water into vapor. That humid air is sucked into the less humid air above it. This begins the Equator trade winds east to west.
!!!!!!!!!!WEATHER!!!!!!!!!!
Pingback: The Solar’s Shocking Function • Watts Up With That? - Finencial
Pingback: The Sun’s Surprising Role • Watts Up With That? - Lead Right News
“Solar forcing is associated with long-lasting anomalies in the atmospheric circulation over the North Atlantic caused by changes in the stratosphere due to weaker solar irradiance during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.”
North Atlantic Oscillation anomalies vary dramatically from month to month due to changes in indirect solar forcing.
“In addition, solar activity affects the frequency of extremely cold winters in the midlatitudes of the Northern Hemisphere.”
Extreme cold winter events are discretely solar driven by changes in indirect solar forcing, via the NAO/AO. This short centennial solar minimum has seen fewer extreme cold events than the average, and many of the discretely driven negative NAO/AO anomalies have not been in the winters.
Figure 67 has an issue, it shows higher planetary wave amplitude in the mid 1970’s and mid 1980’s, during positive NAO regimes when the AMO was the coldest. During the fastest and hottest solar wind states of the space age.
“According to this hypothesis, as shown in figure 81c, then cooling observed in the late 19th century can be attributed to increased heat transport caused by low solar activity and a shift into the negative phase of the multidecadal oscillation. On the other hand, the early 20th century saw a warming initiated by the shift to a positive phase (decrease in heat transport) of the multidecadal oscillation and the influence of the Modern Solar Maximum since the mid-1930s. The cooling in the mid-20th century resulted from the shift to a negative phase in the multidecadal oscillation. This cooling effect was mitigated by a counteracting effect on stratospheric transport due to high solar activity. In the late 20th century, both forcings again contributed to warming. However, in the 21st century, low solar activity has acted as a dampening factor, potentially leading to a decrease in the rate of warming, as the multidecadal oscillation is expected to turn negative in the mid-2020s.”
That’s thoroughly confusing, increased heat transport drives a warmer AMO. and decreased heat transport drives a colder AMO.
Cold AMO anomalies near sunspot cycle minimum around 1903, 1913, and 1924, are great analogues for the mid 1970’s, mid 1980’s, and early 1990’s cold AMO anomalies. Positive NAO regimes during stronger solar wind periods.
The AMO warming from 1925 was definitely driven by negative NAO regimes, so the solar wind must have generally weakened, like from 1995, regardless of sunspot numbers or TSI.
“That’s thoroughly confusing, increased heat transport drives a warmer AMO. and decreased heat transport drives a colder AMO.”
No. I show in the book how in low heat transport regimes the heat gets accumulated at 30-60ºN latitudes, while in high transport regimes the heat proceeds to the Arctic.
A warm AMO regime is due to a dominant zonal wind circulation and a stronger polar vortex resulting in less transport and heat accumulation at the Atlantic surface. The data on wind speed and vortex strength shown in the book clearly supports this interpretation.
A warmer Arctic Ocean is fed by a warmer AMO.
A warmer AMO is negative NAO driven, which is why the AMO is warmer during each centennial solar minimum. Negative NAO is not zonal circulation.
Ah yes, It’s now or never! We’ve heard that before –i.e., We Must Act Now! Al Gore gave humanity 10 years… back in in 2006
..
Provide a quote and a date. I’ve heard the word bending way too often to believe it.
Easy to Google- “gore” and “10 years”, e.g., ‘In 2006, six years after his presidential bid, Al Gore launched the documentary An Inconvenient Truth. The movie made headlines around the world, raising awareness of global warming and its predicted dire consequences for the planet and society.’ (NPR)
Nearly 55 years ago an expert was prescient. Ohh, wait. Guess not.
https://www.nytimes.com/1969/02/20/archives/expert-says-arctic-ocean-will-soon-be-an-open-sea-catastrophic.html
Wagathon, so google it and give a direct quote (and it’s date) or a link thereto, instead of making up your own paraphrase.
Cerescokid,
“Col. Bernt Balchen, polar explorer and flier, is circulating a paper among polar specialists proposing that the Arctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two.” (1969).
Guess you must be one of those people that thinks science is static, doesn’t understand the difference between “may” and “will”, and that non-scientists/activists/politicans represent the views of scientist. Besides, he got the big picture right (~50% of the way there), just a half order of magnitude off on the time scale.
“ Besides, he got the big picture right (~50% of the way there), just a half order of magnitude off on the time scale.”
Move the goal post much?
ganon
Just like the stock market, global climate and arctic sea ice never go straight up or straight down. There are cycles and oscillations all over the place. Take your pick, ENSO, AMO, PDO, IPO, SAM, AO, have effects on something almost everywhere. If you had coughed some coin for Javier’s book, you would have known that.
It’s mainstream science that internal variability affects Arctic sea ice.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/32/5/jcli-d-18-0307.1.xml
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-018-0256-8
The other things that are all over the place are failed predictions about climate.
https://www.nytimes.com/1978/01/05/archives/international-team-of-specialists-finds-no-end-in-sight-to-30year.html
When I was a kid I had fun collecting plastic models planes. Today I have fun collecting failed predictions about climate.
Good catch, CK.
Here is the article (paywalled)
https://www.nature.com/articles/270573a0
“Indicators of large-scale climate developments show that the oscillatory cooling observed in the past 30 yr in the Northern Hemisphere has not yet reversed. This conclusion was reached by updating our data on the month-to-month, season-to-season, and year-to-year variations of selected zonally averaged meteorological parameters.”
Notice that:
a) These scientists had identified a 30-yr cooling trend that has now been turned by the modern magic of algorithms into a slight cooling in the accepted datasets.
b) They were aware of its oscillatory nature 17 years before the AMO was identified.
c) They were expecting it to reverse without the need for any CO2 magic.
And its reversing was taking place at that very same moment.
cerescokid,
I know about internal variability and cycles, and have already said that they coexist with external forcings. Thanks for your thoughts anyway.
“And politicians and corporations have been ignoring the issue for decades, to the point that unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return…” ~Al Gore
Wagathon,
Thanks for the Gore quote. As expected, your paraphrase is not what he said. And of course, action has been taken. Question remains whether it enough, soon enough. Or to be pedantic – the world is always at a point of no return – the question is what the future of no return looks like, and what influence we have on it. Many people think it is an important question, some do not and choose to mock or minimize it.
Not sure how Obama stopped the seas from rising when the global consumption of coal, for example, set a new all-time record in 2022 and can be expected to rise thereafter for many years.
“I know about internal variability and cycles, and have already said that they coexist with external forcings.”
No the AMO is not simply internal variability, it is warmer when weaker solar wind states cause negative North Atlantic Oscillation regimes. So it functions as a negative feedback.
But rising CO2 forcing is expected to increase positive NAO conditions, so their coexistence is not as you assume, as rising CO2 should in theory drive a colder AMO. But it has failed to.
Just so I don’t forget after I finish the book I want to ask a question now and make a comment.
I would like to get inside your head for a moment. Was there a particular study or ahaa moment or bingo experience that your hypothesis started to take form? How far into your research did think that this might be the answer as to climate changes? The role of the atmosphere is secondary to the oceans in most thinking.
Also, a comment. Reading about the uncertainties and lack of understanding about various aspects of climate in many papers over several years doesn’t quite have the same effect as reading about them in a few hours. You made several references to that point throughout the first part of the book. That reminded me again that climate science is still in its infancy and still needs many more decades of research to have a sense knowing in the traditional use of the word.
Believing we know it all and feeling self satisfied are disincentives to dig in some more.
I’ve enjoyed the first half of the book. Thanks.
Yes, there was a “Eureka!” moment. What is important about a theory is what it does not explain, where it fails, not what it does explain. I started studying climate because the consensus theory fails. I looked at the usual suspects, and to do that I had to learn paleoclimatology. On this blog you have witnessed my learning in 2016. The role of solar variations on climate shows a strong contradiction between an undeniable effect in many Holocene periods and an undeniable lack of effect in recent solar cycles. The principle of uniformitarianism requires that past and present processes proceed in the same way. This contradiction offered an opportunity because sometimes nature reveals its secrets through contradictions. This is the path of research I followed until 2018, discovering the evidence, present in many scientific papers, that the Sun acts through heat transport and that the stratosphere is essential in this process. But something essential was missing. These changes were already known by some scientists and could affect regional climate, as the IPCC itself recognized in its 5th Assessment Report. What was missing was how this could change the global climate.
One summer evening, in 2020 or 2021, while strolling down the seafront of a small Spanish village on the Mediterranean, sipping a delicious pistachio ice cream, I had fallen behind the rest of the family, lost in thought. I was pondering the paradox of the equable climates of the late Cretaceous and early Eocene. At that time, the poles were so temperate that palm trees grew in the Arctic and frogs lived in Antarctica. For the poles to be so warm, even during the long polar night, would require enormous heat transport, many times greater than today. However, the small difference in temperature between the equator and the poles, 50°C less than today, would necessarily result in much less heat transport than today. Nobody can explain it, and models cannot reproduce these climates. Then I had my “Eureka!” moment, I just had to turn it around. Heat is lost through the poles, and by transporting much less heat, the planet was conserving and distributing it, resulting in much warmer poles where the greenhouse effect was very strong, instead of very weak as it is now. At that point, all the pieces fell into place. Climate changes naturally due to changes in heat transport, and the effect of solar variations on climate is through transport. This explains most of the climate changes the planet has experienced over the last 50 million years, during the Holocene, and in the last 200 years. Now we just have to wait for climate science to get as far as I have. That may take decades.
Chance occurrences of asynchronous, synchronous, related and unrelated oscillators msy best explain the next descent into the next ice age, but, the problem is… it would then be unpredictable and that alone is abhorrent to science.
I’m not yet finished with your book but want to make this comment while these thoughts are fresh on my mind.
For all those people who have doubts about solar activity having an impact on climate (including many skeptics), I think you do yourself and the debate a disservice by not reading Javier’s book. The concepts are beyond the normal debating points and more complex than what I have read before. And quite compelling.
Also, reading this book restructured how I think about the climate. What is true during the Holocene about processes, mechanisms and interrelationships doesn’t necessarily mean they have always been that way. Models are inadequate because of this faulty precept.
Just rethinking how to think about climate has been a valuable lesson for me.
Javier
I’ve finished your book and am very impressed with the scholarship involved. While the mechanisms and processes and interdependencies are complex and intricate, the overall theme and concepts are straightforward not requiring a deep background in the sciences. Kudos.
The Kindle edition has the advantage of quick access to the 442 footnotes, which in the aggregate, could be another few books.
For anyone who thinks climate science has all the answers, this book should dissuade them from any such notion. The sentences including unknown and not understood are uncountable. However, that is not different from what most papers say.
The discussion throughout the book about the role of solar activity was outstanding and persuasive. I never could understand why those critical of the solar theory thought there should be an immediate effect from the 11 years cycle given the oceans memory of a thousand plus years. Your hypothesis gives a plausible explanation for how the sun influences climate, in an indirect way. That is where the complexities begin.
I hope some of the skeptics of AGW who are also skeptical about the solar theory will take the time to consider what you have outlined in your book. They might reconsider their views.
My next task is to go back to browse selected chapters to dig deeper into the footnotes.
Great book. Thank you.
Pingback: Solving the climate puzzle: The sun’s surprising role - Watchman.Today
Pingback: The sun’s surprising role – NaturalNews.com – Survive the News
Can’t wait to read it, Javier. Thanks.
Pingback: "The Earth Is Warming, but Is CO2 the Cause?" ("Ouch" for climate alarmism) - Master Resource
Just ordered your book, Javier. Looking forward to it.
Planet Earth’s average surface temperature is of a planet with a thin atmosphere.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Judith and Javier, two of the most important and informative scientists in the debate about our climate. I have read your books, and will order Javier’s new book and read with great interest. One day, the real science and research they promote will push the IPCC to one side.
Pingback: SCIENCE, CLIMATE, ENERGY AND POLITICAL NEWS ROUNDUP, 2023 NOVEMBER | wryheat