I’m offline this weekend with travel and other projects.
Discuss anything with limits of the WUWT site policy. This will remain a “top post” for the weekend. Some auto-scheduled stories will appear below this one. Don’t forget to observe Earth Hour Human Achievement Hour 8:30 PM local time in your time zone.
Weins displacement law describes how emissions move towards higher frequencies with higher temperatures.
Also a quite high amount of solar radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere before it reaches the surface. The suns energy reaching the surface is not significantly warming the atmosphere compared to what the surface provides.
New climatology animation:
Total Cloud Cover
http://i42.tinypic.com/4rf6h2.png
For comparison:
Low Level Cloud Cover
http://i52.tinypic.com/auw1s0.png
Monthly Maximum of Daily Precipitation
http://i41.tinypic.com/34gasr7.png
Column-integrated Water Vapor Flux with their Convergence:
http://i51.tinypic.com/126fc77.png
Evaporation Minus Precipitation
http://i43.tinypic.com/2isvynb.png
Precipitation
http://i42.tinypic.com/2njypw9.png
Precipitable Water
http://i52.tinypic.com/9r3pt2.png
Credit: Climatology animations have been assembled using JRA-25 Atlas [ http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/jra/atlas/eng/atlas-tope.htm ] images. JRA-25 long-term reanalysis is a collaboration of Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) & Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry (CRIEPI).
“Apart from all other reasons, the parameters of the geoid depend on the distribution of water over the planetary surface.” — N.S. Sidorenkov
Is Svensmark correct ?
Here I show data for the last 15 months for the Ap-max index, which when above 50 results in a decrease of the galactic cosmic rays impact, known as the ‘Forbush decrease’.
Forbush decrease should be most noticeable in the polar regions.
Also is shown degree of cloudiness (%) for the area from 60N to 90N.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Ap-Cl.htm
Cloudiness should significantly drop during the Forbush decrease. Allowing for variable delay between 3 and 6 days occasional (but not always) small reduction in cloudiness lasting 1-2 days could be observed, but no noticeable correlation can be established.
Is Svensmark correct ?
Here I show data for the last 15 months for the Ap-max index, which when above 50 results in a decrease of the galactic cosmic rays impact, known as the ‘Forbush decrease’.
Forbush decrease should be most noticeable in the polar regions.
Also is shown degree of cloudiness (%) for the area from 60N to 90N.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Ap-Cl.htm
Cloudiness should significantly drop during the Forbush decrease. Allowing for variable delay between 3 and 6 days occasional (but not always) small reduction in cloudiness lasting 1-2 days could be observed, but no noticeable correlation can be established
Earth hour come and gone here in NL.
I turned on every freaking electric power using thing I have in my house ON.
Aaaaaaahhhhh, that feels good!
Warm, dry, cozy comfi because of my friend E.
Here comes the backpedaling from the warmists….
Now maybe there is a chance that some coral might survive the “heat”…
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/chance-coral-can-survive-warmer-ocean-20120331-1w518.html
I was so worried about this…NOT !!
Don’t think for a moment that the Obama administration & cronies here in Chicago have abandoned their dreams for wind power! Here’s the latest regarding siting wind turbines offshore into Lake Michigan:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-offshore-wind-farms-20120401,0,6369701.story
How much will these studies cost? Who will pay for them? Will the public have input? I could save them a bunch of time & money and just recommend “don’t bother.”
Perhaps a suggestion should be floated to the EU board that the rich alarmists worldwide will invest their retirement and savings funds in carbon credits. If they’re right they’ll be richer than sin in a few decades… If they’re wrong, well, let’s just say they won’t be funding world takeovers or fakegates anymore. What do you say Phil, Mike, Peter and Mr. Suzuki? Care to wager your money where your mouth is?
Ric Werme:
I visit your button almost as much as I visit the sea ice, sun status, and blogs of our comrades.
Maybe, I should’ve said weekly, if not daily.
Andrew Judd says:
March 31, 2012 at 11:03 am
“It is easier to focus on water and water vapour rather than C02.”
Water just makes the back radiation issue more complicated because of convection and phase changes etc. (I know water is much more important than CO2 for earth’s climate.) I just want to really understand the postulated greenhouse effect due to CO2.
I can not find a simple comprehensive scientifically sound demonstration of the CO2 effect on the internet. The warming people always come up with cars parked in the sun (which has very little to do with radiation) and the skeptics come up with complicated thought experiments (that I’m not sure that they are right).
My questions are:
1. Is it really true that stratospheric CO2 gets more energy from the surface of the earth than from the sun and the rest of the atmosphere combined? What are the percentages?
2. What about the “horizon effect”: almost all CO2 molecules see more sky than earth. Thus more than 50% of their back radiation goes to space.
3. If 1. and 2. are true, what is the effect? Shouldn’t CO2 be considered cooling the earth when it gets most of its energy from earth? Most of the CO2 is close to the warm surface thus helping the earth to radiate energy to space.
4. What about the “umbrella effect”: As CO2 emits and absorbs energy at the same wavelengths it should to a certain degree shield the earth from the suns heat. Whatever energy the CO2 gets directly from the sun, more than 50% go to space and thus can not reach the earth.
As of today, March 30th The SSN avg for the month is 77.366~7.
Predicted number was 2012 03 70.8 (high)77.8 (low)63.8
bair polaire says:
I can not find a simple comprehensive scientifically sound demonstration of the CO2 effect on the internet.
I can assure you there is a co2 effect on the internet. Just look at the number of bytes expended on the subject of this trace gas daily…
DirkH says:
March 31, 2012 at 12:33 pm
Myrrh says:
March 31, 2012 at 12:01 pm
“What’s the mechanism that makes it net hotter to colder?”
Blackbody radiation.
Please explain in more detail, much more detail.
@bair polaire
“4. Is there a good everyday life example of reduced heat loss through back radiation?”
An old style thermos bottle with a double-walled glass insert has a mirrored surface on the outer glass. This reflects IR from the hot contents coming off the inner wall back to the inner surface. This is also a good example of the insulating power of a vacuum (the glass container has a double wall with a vacuum). The silvery coating on the outer surface ‘back-radiates’ the IR coming off the hotter inner surface. There is no doubt that the outer wall is colder than the inner wall, but the reflector is still effective at keeping the high energy IR photons in for a while longer then they otherwise would have.
Part of the misunderstanding is that the because the temperature of the ‘colder’ object is colder, people say it can’t ‘heat something that is already warmer’. It is not simply a matter of ‘transferring heat’ it is a matter of the energy of the photons in the IR frequency range. If a high energy photon comes off a surface and is refracted or reflected instead of being absorbed by the colder surface (as a portion are) the same photon can go back to the source and be absorbed. A low energy photon can be absorbed by a hot surface, no problem. Happens all the time between equally hot surfaces, literally.
The over-simplification of the transfer of heat from one surface to another is misleading. There is a seething mass of photons going back and forth between surfaces at all sorts of different energies all the time. Net, the colder one loses less energy that the hotter one and the two average out after a while. If the cold one has an even colder surface behind it, there is a net heat loss to the third even colder surface.
It is not like a flow of money from one pocket to another. There is a continuous interchange with a net loss in one direction (hot to cold). ‘Back radiation’ is going on all the time. The insulating effect of placing more ‘mirrors’ if you will, between the surface and the dead cold of space means a slowed heat loss as the photons take slightly longer to work their way out of the atmosphere.
This effect has been well characterised and is real. The effect from CO2 is no very great. The IPCC reports claim the effect is amplified by water vapour but there is no proof that this amplification is real. The back radiation is real.
If you see that thin aluminized plastic film (partially mirrored) stuck on office building windows that keeps heat in the building in winter by reflection, that is back radiation by reflection. If it were made of an IR absorbing material, it would have a similar though less effective effect, reradiating in all directions, some of in back into the office. Because it is less effective, they use mirrors.
John West says:
March 31, 2012 at 5:40 am
Very nice! I’m eagerly awaiting your next update.
tallbloke says:
March 31, 2012 at 2:31 pm
bair polaire says:
I can not find a simple comprehensive scientifically sound demonstration of the CO2 effect on the internet.
I can assure you there is a co2 effect on the internet. Just look at the number of bytes expended on the subject of this trace gas daily…
You read my mind! This is exactly my suspicion about the CO2 effct…
By the way: JRA-25 is fantastic. Here is the net surface heat flux. Any CO2 effect?
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/jra/atlas/eng/indexe_surface12.htm
To bad they don’t have CO2 data. Or have they?
‘Real Climate’ has reached a tipping point: Now you can learn more climatology from comments banished to the borehole than from those that don’t get censored.
I stopped over to RealClimate to see how the IPCC report is sitting with Gavin.
It’s pretty quiet there. The bloggers are worried about Pielke’s button getting too much exposure. And one fellow expresses worry: “I am concerned about the blog whats up with that, why is this issue (climate change) such a controversy to them and others?”
I am reading Stand on Zanzibar (1968) by John Brunner. It has a fabulous quote that certain institutions and climate scientists might care to reflect upon: If the evidence says you’re wrong, you don’t have the right theory. You change the theory, not the evidence.
DirkH says:
March 31, 2012 at 3:41 am
Roy Spencer, The Box, measuring back radiation
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/help-back-radiation-has-invaded-my-backyard/
==========================================================
The guy is seriously talking about “sky temperature”, very funny.
Planet Under Pressure, 26-29 March, declaration, some extracts-
“Without urgent action, we could face threats to water, food, biodiversity and other critical resources: these threats risk intensifying economic, ecological and social crises, creating the potential for a humanitarian emergency on a global scale.
“…the continued functioning of the Earth system as it has supported the well-being of human civilization in recent centuries is at risk.
“…we have driven the planet into a new epoch, the Anthropocene…
“the international scientific community calls for a framework for regular global sustainability analyses that link existing assessments that build on the foundations of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change…
“…current mechanisms for governing global environmental change show why existing international arrangements are not dealing quickly enough with current global challenges such as climate change…
“…a new contract between science and society in recognition that science must inform policy to make more wise and timely decisions…
“…input from governments, civil society, research funders, and the private sector.
“A greater commitment to fund and support capacity-building in science and education
globally, and particularly in developing countries.
“Fundamental reorientation and restructuring of national and international institutions is required to overcome barriers to progress and to move to effective Earthsystem
governance.
“the creation of a Sustainable Development Council within the UN system to integrate social, economic and environmental policy at the global level.
“…proposal for universal Sustainable Development Goals is needed, as goals for Global Sustainability.
“The research community should be involved in the development of goals, targets and indicators…They should apply to all levels of governance.
“Corrective measures that internalize costs and minimize the impacts on the commons need to be identified and implemented through regulatory and market-based mechanisms.
“The survival of our societies, our civilization and our cultures are dependent
on a stable climate, natural resources and ecosystem services. We have become a force of nature…
“We support the concept of a green economy that recognizes the inter-connectivity of economic, environmental and social sustainability. Reforms of governance structures at all scales are critically needed to make sustainable development a reality.”
And so on and so forth. ‘Carbon dioxide’ is conveniently not mentioned. It’s now about global sustainability, Earth system governance, funding and regulatory corrective measures all building up to Rio+20 in June.
Link for Planet Under Pressure, State of the Planet Declaration:
http://www.planetunderpressure2012.net/pdf/state_of_planet_declaration.pdf
Bomber_the_Cat says:
March 31, 2012 at 5:08 am
However, the presence of greenhouse gases make the surface of the planet about 33K higher than it would otherwise be.
==========================================
If you look carefully at the calculations of “33K”, you will probably see a little trick there. First they compare the earth without atmosphere with earth with atmosphere and get the 33 degree difference. Then they simply replace the word “atmosphere” with the words “greenhouse gases” and get (surprise!) their 33K “greenhouse effect”.
On its Web site, NSIDC on March 18 observed that the annual maximum had probably been reached and it was the ninth lowest in the satellite era. It went on to say that taken together, the last nine years have been the nine lowest.
So a little logic says that 2012, being better than the previous eight, is the highest maximum in almost a decade. That would have been considered newsworthy except that the purpose was to emphasize the decline, even in a year when it’s up.
Right… everything from now should be considered an April Fools joke.
P.S. Al Gore was right.