Guest post by David Archibald
Solar Cycle 24 is now three years old and predictions of the date of solar maximum have settled upon mid-2013. For example, Jan Janssens has produced this graph predicting the month of maximum in mid-2013, which is 54 months after the Solar Cycle 23/24 minimum in December 2008:
For those of us who wish to predict climate, the most important solar cycle attribute is solar cycle length. Most of the curve-fitting exercises such as NASA’s place the next minimum between 2020 and 2022 (eg: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/06/nasas-november-solar-prediction/). Solar minimum in December 2022 would make Solar Cycle 24 fourteen years long, which in turn would make the climate of the mid-latitudes over Solar Cycle 25 about 1.0°C colder than the climate over Solar Cycle 24.
Curve-fitting leaves a lot to be desired. Even late in the progression of Solar Cycle 23, the curve fitters in NASA had poor predictive ability.
Examination of Altrock’s green corona emissions plot from mid-2011 suggests that a new predictive tool is available to us. The original is available here:
http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~deforest/SPD-sunspot-release/6_altrock_rttp.pdf
This is my annotated version:
Altrock had observed that solar maximum occurs when the “rush to the poles” reaches 76°. The magnetic poles of the Sun reverse at solar maximum, which is also considered to be the beginning of the new extended solar cycle.
We also observe that solar minimum for the last four minima has occurred when emissions are exhausted at 10°. The latitude of 10° is shown as the red line on the diagramme. Further to that, the last two solar cycles show that the month of minimum can be predicted by drawing a line between solar maximum (the point at which the rush to the poles intersects 76°) and the point of exhaustion at 10°. The bulk of activity is bounded by this line.
Altrock has noted that the “rush to the poles” in Solar Cycle 24 is much weaker and much slower than in previous solar cycles. The line he has drawn intersects 76° in mid-2013, consistent with other predictions of Solar Cycle 24 maximum.
The shape of the emission regions also suggests that Solar Cycle 24 will be quite extended. The blue bounding line from the Solar Cycle 23 maximum intersects 10° latitude in 2026, making Solar Cycle 24 eighteen years long.
That would be an exceptionally long solar cycle. The most recent cycle that neared that length was the seventeen years from the maximum of Solar Cycle 4 to the maximum of Solar Cycle 5. Prior to that, the Maunder Minimum had some very long solar cycles as interpreted from C14 data:
It seems that the first solar cycle of the Maunder Minimum was also eighteen years long.
An eighteen year long Solar Cycle 24 would be very significant in that it would be five and a half years longer that Solar Cycle 23. With the solar cycle length/temperature relationship for the US-Canadian border being 0.7°C for each year of solar cycle length, a further cooling of 3.8°C is in train for next decade. The evolution of Altrock’s green corona emissions diagramme as a predictive tool will be followed with some interest.
Back to the subject of curve-fitting, it may be still too early to call Solar Cycle 24 using that technique. The following graph shows the raw monthly data for sunspot number amplitude for Solar Cycles 5 and 6 (the Dalton Minimum) with Solar Cycle 24 to date aligned on the month of minimum. Solar Cycle 5 took about four years to get going before it had a sudden burst, and then died off over the following ten years. It is still a bit too early to be certain about how Solar Cycle 24 will shape up.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
dwright says:
January 8, 2012 at 10:36 pm
“To everybody who says that Canada will have no wheat crops in a cooler NH.”
Actually, the changes in the Canadian wheat industry are quite amazing and there is no reason to believe a slight bit of cooling will be much of a problem. For a short summary, see here:
http://www.ccge.org/resources/rivers_of_canada/saskatchewan_river/dreams_wheat.asp
Now, if they get covered by 500 meters of ice, all bets are off!
@ur momisugly A Physicist
(1) If we focus on global temperature averages, and we subtract short-term fluctuations correlated to independent observations of volcanoes, ocean current oscillations, and the solar cycle, then we see very clearly a warming trend.
A bit of a problem this blindness to criticism, but that comment is missing the crucial part.
After cycle it should have had “and add an artificial warming trend” .
Some people seem to rely on Foster and Rhamstorf (2011) heavily for their increasing temperatures. When I first saw the graphs showing UAH and RSS satellite data I was very suspicious.
Then came Tisdale. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/02/tisdale-takes-on-taminos-foster-rahmstorf-2011/
Unlike A Physicist and R Gates I read the assessment as highly critical.
As I read the assessment of Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) they only get a continuing warming trend (and it seems identical in all the datasets) by adding the fudge factor of 0.167 degrees C per decade, as their “trick” to “hide the decline”.
That paper has now made it to my recycle bin.
The big concern must be how it made it through the review process when it obviously should not have.
As for temperatures, in Jan 1 2011 Weatherzone a commercial weather service that need to be reasonably accurate to stay in business, announced in Australia 2010 was the coolest year in the 21st century (although still above the long term trend) -see The Australian Jan 1-2 2011. Other people of course may since have applied adjustments to the 2010 Oz temperatures.
Now the government weather bureau has declared 2011 to be below the long term trend, http://www.bom gov.au and look at their news releases, i.e. temperatures cooling for 2 years.
Eastern Australia got the cooling effect of the La Nina 6 months before the U.S.A. and that trend has continued since.
Unfortunately for David Archibald that is not enough trend yet to confirm his post.
While I also consider that CO2’s net effects are trivial, you should give up that silly argument. The surface does not remain static while the radiation is doing its doh-si-doh in the nearby atmosphere; it’s continuing to be warmed by incident SW radiation, etc. So the failure to escape to space of the bouncing stuff has a net warming effect. However, there’s so much more going on, that it comes out a wash, at most. In fact, CO2 “leaching” thermal energy from the other gasses and squirting it upwards in the higher altitudes may more than counterbalance the lag-warming at lower levels. See
http://jinancaoblog.blogspot.com/2011/11/physical-analysis-shows-co2-is-coolant.html
A much better line of argumentation to follow.
Wenson says: January 8, 2012 at 8:22 pm
Totally agree Wenson, clouds and water vapour(convection/evaporation/condensation) can clearly be seen to be the dominant factor in controlling temperature. Why radiation is always mentioned as if the atmosphere was static when
1) convection/water condensation is what moves the heat gained at the tropics to high altitude and subsequently the polar regions. Heat the surface more and the whole process is going to speed up as a result.
and
2) As Wenson says, all it takes is one clear night for all the energy in the lower troposphere to escape. A slight change in CO2 is not going to effect this at all.
Leif Svalgaard says January 8, 2012 at 8:48 pm
… but are currently gaining strength and heading in the opposite direction.
http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/8462/filtereds.png
As indeed appears to be unfolding. At this juncture we can only guess whether another dominance inversion will occur after Feb/March before eventually reversal [thus dragging it out further]. Good entertainment value either way.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 8, 2012 at 8:48 pm
5) solar cycle length as such has nothing to do with climate
Where has this been proven? To be certain there is no connection, you would need to show there are no unknowns left. That there are no surprises left in either solar science or climate science. Which means no reason for taxpayers to fund them further. They should move from science to engineering and private industry.
There is a demonstrated correlation between temperature and the length of the solar cycle. However, the noise in the temperature signal, as well the the short length and poor quality of instrumented records, and well as the impact of air-moisture on energy versus temperature, all call into question any cause and effect conclusions in climate science.
To say there is no effect because no one has yet discovered the reason behind the correlation.
@ur momisugly physicist
I think you did not represent the discussion of Foster & Rahmstorf correctly. There are quite a few things to say about that – basically it is another example of failed peer review.
1. Is this really the state of the art of climate science ? A regression with basically only 3 parameters and at least 2 of these with very questionable significance for the effect they are assigned to explain ? How many climate scientists asked in private emails. not to be associated with that ?
2. ENSO indices do not represent the process of ENSO or its impact on global temperature (Tisdale).
The use of ENSO supports the assumption that the authors do not understand the matter at all.
ENSO averages the temperature of the surface of the tropical eastern Pacific Ocean. F&R assume in their model, that a yearly ENSO index stops to effect temperatures after 31 December of a single year. Of course, this is untrue. The warm or cold water from the tropical eastern Pacific does not evaporate or disappear in the deep ocean on that day. It is distributed to other parts of the pacific and continues to influence temperatures over years. This should have already been a show stopper in proper peer review.
3. Treating ENSO the F&R way, and solar influence only through the very stable TSI, the model contains nothing to explain the natural climate variability of the last few hundred years. This should have been another show stopper in proper peer review.
4. An improved model would allow a yearly ENSO signal to influence temperature over a couple of years, and as soon as the model would be improved in that way, ENSO starts to eat away a significant fraction from the linear trend with every added year, just because ENSO signals tend to allign over decades.
5. Another significant and undiscussed inconsistency arises, as the authors claim, that after regression, satellite and ground based temperature trends are very similar. Climate models predict, however, that they should be very different. The failure to discuss or explain this inconsistency, should have been another show stopper in proper peer review.
6. After correction of these basic errors, (and perhaps inclusion of further natural effects such as cosmic rays to perhaps account for longer trends), the little trend left is of course deducted from realclimatescientists GISS data, and includes land use change, unaccounted UHI, smearing of fast land warming over the arctic and further recent warming adjustments. Perhaps there may be something left for GHG, perhaps not.
@Otter January 8, 2012 at 2:32 pm
“….(is) there is a relationship between the Sun’s geomagnetic activity (since it has dropped quite a bit), and geologic activity on the Earth? Main reason I ask this is because there was quite a bit of volcanic activity coming out of the LIA (and likely, going into it). I had seen comments over the years that volcanic activity had dropped off as the sun’s activity increased…..”
There does seem to be a logical enough connection – as little as I can understand, the sun is moved in tiny orbits about the barycentre of the solar system as it balances out the gravitational forces of all the planets – each of these orbits (all within an area of about 2 x sun diameter) takes about 10-11 years.
There are various long and short term cycles/patterns which can be observed.
At regular periods, these orbits go from being very regular in pattern to being more chaotic or irregular. Some publications show these stages may relate directly to sunspot activity, and also perhaps to seismic activity on earth. It is perhaps reasonable to assume different forces tugging athe sun may affect its magnetic characteristics, and so affect sunspot activity.
It also perhaps makes some sense that the different tidal forces being exerted on the earth as its orbit follows the sun’s little spirals (the earth/sun barycentre is somewhere quite close to the centre of the sun) may result in more seismic activity. So perhaps both sunspots and to earthly seismic activity are simply co-incidently linked to the sun’s “solar inertial motion”, and its not a case of one causing the other.
Original work was by Ivanka Charvátová (you may need Google translate for the ref below – but if you just Google it, you should find an English version)
Interview with Ivanka Charvátová: The inertial motion of the sun controls the climate
Source: Klimaskeptik.cz Original text in Czech May 25, 2011
http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/calen13/charvatova_entrevista.html via Google Translate
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/interview-with-ivanka-charvatova-is-climate-change-caused-by-solar-inertial-motion/
Sorry, you’ll have to Google this one – I have the pdf but don’t know from where:
LONG-TERM CHANGES OF THE SURFACE AIR TEMPERATURE IN RELATION TO SOLAR INERTIAL MOTION * IVANKA CHARVATOVA and JAROSLAV STI~EST[K Geophysical Institute AS CR, Bo~nf ll, 141 31 Praha 4 – Spofilov, Czech Republic
Another interesting site on the topic here: Beyond Landscheidt
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node&page=1
There’s been considerable discussion of points (1-3), in the comments on this thread and on other WUWT threads, and the upshot is simple: theory and data are both supporting points (1-3) with increasing strength.
In particular, after hammering mainly on Prediction (1) for awhile, James Hansen and his colleagues now have begun hammering on Prediction (2) too.
The long-term scientific strategy of Hansen et al is becoming clear too: in coming years Hansen and his colleagues expect to begin hammering vigorously on Prediction (3), beginning as soon as the (relatively high-precision) ARGO and GLISS data show an acceleration of (relatively low-fluctuation) ocean temperatures and sea-level rise, and continuing as the various (relatively lower-precision) land temperature and satellite data confirm the acceleration seen by ARGO and GLISS.
At which point, the accelerating warming seen in many more specialized data sets (Arctic sea-ice coverage, ice-mass loss from the Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets, etc.) will finish the job of making Hansen’s case.
When this point is reached, Hansen et al will (rightly) claim to have won game, set, and match against WUWT’s skeptical guest posters. Because skeptical posts like David Archibald’s have not delivering been anything like the vigor and rigor of Hansen’s Predictions (1-3).
This is why WUWT’s climate-change skepticism needs to start thinking of a “Plan B” in the event (which is looking increasingly likely) that Hansen’s predictions turn out to be just plain right.
What might be that Plan B?
@Otter January 8, 2012 at 2:32 pm
“….(is) there is a relationship between the Sun’s geomagnetic activity (since it has dropped quite a bit), and geologic activity on the Earth? Main reason I ask this is because there was quite a bit of volcanic activity coming out of the LIA (and likely, going into it). I had seen comments over the years that volcanic activity had dropped off as the sun’s activity increased…..”
There does seem to be a logical enough connection – as little as I can understand, the sun is moved in tiny orbits about the barycentre of the solar system as it balances out the gravitational forces of all the planets – each of these orbits (all within an area of about 2 x sun diameter) takes about 10-11 years. There are various long and short term cycles/patterns which can be observed.
At regular periods, these orbits go from being very regular in pattern to being more chaotic or irregular. Some publications show these stages may relate directly to sunspot activity, and also perhaps to seismic activity on earth. It is perhaps reasonable to assume different forces tugging athe sun may affect its magnetic characteristics, and so affect sunspot activity.
It also perhaps makes some sense that the different tidal forces being exerted on the earth as its orbit follows the sun’s little spirals (the earth/sun barycentre is somewhere quite close to the centre of the sun) may result in more seismic activity. So perhaps both sunspots and to earthly seismic activity are simply co-incidentally linked to the sun’s “solar inertial motion”, and it’s not a case of one causing the other.
Interview with Ivanka Charvátová: The inertial motion of the sun controls the climate
Source: Klimaskeptik.cz Original text in Czech May 25, 2011
http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/calen13/charvatova_entrevista.html via Google Translate
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/interview-with-ivanka-charvatova-is-climate-change-caused-by-solar-inertial-motion/
Another interesting site on the topic here: Beyond Landscheidt
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node&page=1
Otter January 8, 2012 at 2:32 pm (the short version – the rest lost)
Google Solar Inertial Motion, Charvátová
re sunspots, earthly seismic activity, 11 year cycles of the sun about the solar barycenter, and planetary effects – there are some very pretty diagrams here. http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node&page=3
Leif Svelgaard wrote:
January 8, 2012 at 8:55 pm
Tomorrow I’m off to Japan for this: http://www.leif.org/research/Nagoya-Workshop.doc, and won’t have time to respond to insults from the usual suspects :-
So Leif will be directing his usual insults at those poor souls who are attending the Nagoya Workshop. 🙂
Solar cycle 24 is a mystery as are all other solar cycles, the chaotic nature of the interplay of our solar system and our galaxy on the sun is a maths problem of huge magnitude. Some things in life are sure, as in death and taxes other things not so easy.
We have had a long time to come to terms with women yet they remain as does the climate an unsolved mystery. Climate science is young and over time it may be understandable and calculatable, weather not so much. The mathematics that govern the harmony of the spheres is simplicity compared to the chaos maths that rules the interplay between the planets and the sun and the resultant behaviour of old Sol. We figure all that out and maybe we can predict the climate in broad terms.
The weather not so much, we have a heat source in the equatorial regions, water as a refrigerant and two radiators at the poles, an unplumbed airconditioner, thus chaos prevails.
CO2 per sec does diddly squat in all this chaos, our variable star and its moods and distance cause all our chaos including instability in the inner and crustal zones of our fragile world. If our old Sol goes into a deeper funk expect more earthquakes and the odd nasty volcano, and probably the odd cold day or two.
To all those seeking answers with the scientific method to these vexing problems I salute you.
Very interesting indeed David Archibald, thankyou.
K.R: Frank
“Bill H says:
January 8, 2012 at 8:48 pm
Stephen Wilde says:
January 8, 2012 at 7:58 pm
LOL
Isn’t that what i said in layman’s terms?”
Yes, I was agreeing with you but trying to make it a bit clearer 🙂
Also it was a good opportunity to refer you to my article saying much the same thing.
ferd berple says:
January 9, 2012 at 12:47 am
“5) solar cycle length as such has nothing to do with climate”
Where has this been proven?
E.g. here: http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%20Length%20Temperature%20Correlation.pdf
RobB says:
January 9, 2012 at 12:26 am
Wenson says: January 8, 2012 at 8:22 pm
Totally agree Wenson, clouds and water vapour(convection/evaporation/condensation) can clearly be seen to be the dominant factor in controlling temperature. Why radiation is always mentioned as if the atmosphere was static when
1) convection/water condensation is what moves the heat gained at the tropics to high altitude and subsequently the polar regions. Heat the surface more and the whole process is going to speed up as a result.
and
2) As Wenson says, all it takes is one clear night for all the energy in the lower troposphere to escape. A slight change in CO2 is not going to effect this at all.
————————————————————————-
As Willis points out, as a system cools, it loses heat ever more slowly. It is possible that a slight change in CO2 could move the curve of night time cooling, yet have little effect on the minimim, just on when and how it was reached.
The perturbations to the earth’s orbit by changes to the SIM may relate directly to seismic activity cycles on earth. (Charvátová)
So sunspot/seismic link may be real, but the sunspots are symptomatic rather than the cause.
Perhaps Solar Inertial Motion ( SIM) manages to logically tie together all the odd things related to ‘solar cycles’ that previously seemed to be a bit closer to ‘astrology’.
So changes to the SIM may generate internal perturbations in the sun which affect its magnetic field, and sunspots.
There is also the added effect of variations in solar radiation reaching the earth, perhaps affecting cloud formation. So there may also be a SIM/cloud connection, but indirectly.
John F. Hultquist says:
January 8, 2012 at 10:53 pm
…
I grow up in China and live in LA, California for more than 30 years now. I still have relatives there in China. I talk with them every week. I visit my hometown almost every year for last 10 years, most of the times are in winter.
My hometown is in a rural area. There was no official temp record at the time when I was young. We judged the weather, temperature by memory, by comparing the snowfalls, frozen ground and river.
When I was young, the river in front of my house froze in the winter. people played on the ice ,walked on the ice crossing the river. Since 1956/7, people cannot walked on the ice any more. After 1970, the river never fully covered by ice. In last 10 years, it is hard to see ice on the river. (The river is much shallower dirtier than before) Also there much fewer snowfalls. If it snows, the snow disappears the next day.
(the year 2008 was an exception. Lots of snow and the river was covered by ice but no one walked on the icy river. the ice maybe thick enough but people are not used to do that)
A physicist- you are not a physicist. Go back to school and keep your eyes and ears open this time!
Wenson,
Thanks for the local context. First a correction, then a comment. In my previous note, I left out a minus sign. I should have said minus (-) 17 degrees. Such a small thing but a major impact. Water pipes froze in many homes.
Comment on freezing rivers: In Alaska there is a place where there is betting yearly on when the ice in the Tanner River will breakup. See:
http://www.nenanaakiceclassic.com/
Here at WUWT (or elsewhere; I can’t find it now) this was discussed because it has been going on for a long time. Someone thought it might be useful to look at the dates of breakup in the context of global warming. However, the population of Fairbanks (about 50 miles up-river) and associated warming of the river was questioned. I don’t remember the full story. The principle is that it is hard to find any such thing where all other variables remain constant. I guess that is why they are called variables.
A similar thing can be said of the Frost Fairs on the river at London:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Thames_frost_fairs
Too many things have changed to make much of the lack of ice now. Again, the population has grown, warm water discharges into the river, physical changes in the river system – are the ones that come to mind.
My summary is that even though we can note changes in our surroundings it is not always certain why those have taken place. On your next visit to your hometown in China, ask the oldest folks about stories told by their parents and grandparents regarding the weather way-back-when. Currently, my oldest relative is a 93 year old cousin. I do a lot of checking with her – good mind, good memory, almost no sight, enjoys phone calls.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 8, 2012 at 8:55 pm
“Tomorrow I’m off to Japan for this …Nagoya-Workshop…, and won’t have time to respond to insults from the usual suspects”
Cool… take a stick and beat them senseless. Prof Takeshi Sagiya’s GPS network is about the only source for vertical displacement in the Canary Islands. It seems that IGN sees fit to only publish lateral displacement. The issue is that Sagiya’s network doesn’t update as fast. Give him more support and grad students and I’m sure he could to a much better job.
I am also curious as to what motivated him to do an independent study of the Canaries. Did he see something in the cards that hinted at El Hierro getting noisy?
Either way, have a good trip and meeting!
Physicist,
Even most of the most rabid AGW scientists will concede the warming has stalled. Ask yourself this question: if the heat isn’t missing, why are they (including Trenberth) looking for it?
I’d love an answer to that.
Leif hahah at least you have a sense of humour
Ferd. You do indeed seem very certain of your claims that “every time the planet warms CO2 levels increase” – so do they decrease as a result of it cooling – such as just after 1945? (LOL) Maybe you could answer with similar certainty these four questions …
(1) When the refective (mirror-like) internal surface of a vacuum flask reflects radiation back into the coffee the coffee does not get any hotter – true / false ?
(2) If you hold a mirror over a batch of earth (which is radiating) at night so that the mirror reflects that radiation back to the patch it does not get any hotter, just like the coffee – true or false?
(3) When carbon dioxide captures radiation from the surface and then re-emits it back again it is acting rather like a mirror because the radiation going back has no more energy than that which it captured – true or false?
(4) Hence, when such back radiation meets the surface it does not warm the surface – true or false?
Can I play?
1) True. The coffee does not get any hotter. In fact, it cools. You can try this experiment yourself. Put hot coffee into a vacuum thermos. Measure its temperature. Wait one day. Measure the temperature again. Look, it is cooler!
Note that this assumes that the temperature of the mirror is lower than the temperature of the coffee. If it is a “perfect mirror” surrounded by a perfect vacuum, well then, the temperature remains perfectly constant. But life isn’t perfect, sadly.
2) Also true. It gets cooler, assuming that the temperature of the mirror is lower than the temperature of the ground. Unless the earth is a source of heat, in which case you have to do a bunch of math to answer the question. Darn!
3) False! It acts very little like a mirror. A mirror reflects 100% (or close to it) of the energy incident on it back in the direction of incidence. CO_2 does nothing like this. A CO_2 molecule “heats up” (by absorbing the energy) and then bounces around in the gas, sharing its heat with the rest of the gas. From time to time it reradiates some of the energy in a random direction, as do the other molecules of gas it has shared the heat with.
The heat it absorbs is thus conducted and convected to the entire atmosphere in which it resides, and some of it happens to be reradiated in the right direction to reach the ground. Eventually, of course, the whole atmosphere radiates energy in the right direction (and wavelengths) to reach “outer space” in detailed balance with the energy being radiated up from down below.
It doesn’t warm the ground as it acts not-terribly-much like a mirror — it slows the rate at which it cools, kinda like the thermos in 1) with an imperfect mirror at a finite but cooler temperature.
Again, to figure out how much it slows the cooling is a hard problem. It is even harder if water vapor is around, as water vapor is many times more powerful a greenhouse gas and actual clouds are so much again. A cloudy night is likely a “warm night”. A clear, dry night is likely to cool a lot. That’s why it can actually freeze by dawn in the middle of the desert, at the same place one experiences 40+C temperatures during the day!
4) Answer cloudy, try again later. You’re talking about part of a process of overall cooling. If you trace the time history of a single molecule on the surface, it might emit radiation (cooling), have the radiation make it clean through the atmosphere and be lost, then absorb a quantum of radiation from the overhead “reflecting” atmosphere (warming), cool by bouncing off an air molecule and transferring its energy (cooling the surface, warming the air), be warmed by the molecule next to it, be warmed again by an absorbed quantum, be cooled by radiating away a quantum of energy, and so on ad nauseam.
The one thing that is certain is that if it is nighttime and all things are equal (ignoring bulk heat transport in or out via wind, assuming a reasonably normal thermal profile to the atmosphere) is that the surface will cool, more slowly as the integrated scattering cross-section of the atmosphere overhead increases (increasing the probability of backscatter and increasing the time required for heat to make it out of the system, heating the atmosphere and/or clouds until the higher temperature of the atmosphere/clouds brings the overall system into a dynamical balance. But the surface always cools, never heats.
So on average, 4 is true. The backscattered radiation does not (net) warm the surface unless the clouds are already warmer than the surface for some reason. Microscopically it is false — any radiation incident from above is going to warm this molecule or that in a process that is overall cooling.
What is true (and what I’m sure you are trying to say) is that coffee, the ground, and so on will cool more slowly with a mirror, or clould, or diffuse specular reflector of some sort between it and 3K cold “outer space”. This, of course is true.
What’s my score?
rgb