The Sun Does It: Now Go Figure Out How!

the_sun_stupid(Perturbation Calculations of Ocean Surface Temperatures.)

Guest essay by Stan Robertson, Ph.D., P.E.

1. Introduction

It is generally conceded that the earth has warmed a bit over the last century, but it is not clear what has caused it, nor whether it will continue and become a problem for humanity. There is a possibility that some of the warming has been caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases, but it is also likely that the sun has been partially responsible. The arguments that are advanced to say that humans caused it and that it will become a serious problem rely on models that have not been validated and positive feedback effects that have not been shown to exist, at least at the hypothesized levels of effectiveness. The apparent weakness in the argument that the sun has been a major contributor is that satellite measurements of Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) have not shown changes large enough to have directly produced the warming of the earth over the last half century. But what about indirect effects? Is it possible that the sun exerts control in some indirect way? In these notes I recapitulate the evidence that this is the case by showing that the variations of TSI cannot provide the energy that is necessary to account for the warming of the oceans during solar cycles.

TSI, as measured above the earth’s atmosphere varies by about 1.2 watt/m2 over a nominal eleven year solar cycle (h/t Leif Svaalgard) primarily at wavelengths shorter than 2 micron. The dominant harmonic variation of TSI would thus have an amplitude half this large, or about 0.6 watt/m2. About 70% of this enters the earth atmosphere. Averaged over latitudes and day/night cycles, about one fourth of this 70%, or ~0.11 watt/m2, on average, enters the upper atmosphere. Since only about 160 watt/m2 of 1365 watt/m2 of incoming solar radiation at wavelengths less than 2 micron reaches the earth surface, the amplitude of short wavelength TSI reaching the earth surface would be only (160/1365)x0.6 = 0.07 watt/m2. However, about half of the difference between 0.11 and 0.07 watt/m2 eventually reaches the earth surface as scattered thermal infrared radiation at wavelengths greater than 2 micron. Thus the average amplitude of TSI reaching the earth surface in all wavelengths would be about 0.09 watt/m2. So the question is, just how much sea surface temperature variation can this produce?

Several researchers, including Nir Shaviv (2008), Roy Spencer (see http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/06/low-climate-sensitivity-estimated-from-the-11-year-cycle-in-total-solar-irradiance/) and Zhou & Tung (2010) have found that ocean surface temperatures oscillate with an amplitude of about 0.04 – 0.05 oC during a solar cycle. (In fact, all of the ideas that I am presenting here were covered in Shaviv’s work, but it has not gotten the attention that it deserves.) Using 150 years of sea surface temperature data, Zhou & Tung found 0.085 oC warming for each watt/m2 of increase of TSI over a solar cycle. Although not strictly sinusoidal, the temperature variations can be approximately described in terms of a dominant sinusoidal component of variation with an 11 year period. Thus the question to be answered at this point is, can 0.09 watt/m2 amplitude of variation of TSI entering the oceans produce temperature oscillations with an amplitude of 0.04 – 0.05 oC?

The answer to this question depends on the average thermal diffusivity of the upper oceans. That is an unknown, but not unknowable, quantity. Thermal diffusivity is the ratio of thermal conductivity to heat capacity. The upper 25 to 100 meters of oceans are well mixed by waves and shears. These are mixing zones with high thermal diffusivity and correspondingly small temperature gradients. Diffusivities are lower at greater depths. Bryan (1987) has found that thermal diffusivities ranging from 0.3 to 5 cm2/s are needed to account for the temperature profiles below the mixing zone. In my first trial calculations of the energy flux necessary to account for the temperature variations, I tried values of thermal diffusivity in the range 0.1 – 10 cm2/s and found that the TSI variations were generally inadequate to produce the sea temperature variations over a solar cycle. But there was wide variation of calculated energy flux. Larger values of thermal diffusivity required more heat because more was able to penetrate to the depths, but even for 0.1 cm2/s, the required input was double the TSI variations that reach the earth surface. Fortunately, there is a way to constrain both the value of the thermal diffusivity and the heat input. It consists of first matching the measured trends of surface temperatures and ocean heat content over time. Measurements of these were reported by Levitus et al. (2012) and are available from http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/ .

In the calculations described below, I have used the data from 1965 to 2012 for ocean depths to 700 meters. Sea surface temperatures and ocean heat content began to increase after 1965. Only about a third of the increase of heat content occurred at depths below 700 meter. Since little heat migrates below this depth over 11 year solar cycles, it is preferable to use the 0 – 700 m data for the purpose of calibrating the thermal diffusivity

2. Heat Transfer Perturbation Calculations

For the calculation of sea surface temperature and sea level changes, we can treat the variations of radiations entering and leaving atmosphere, lands and oceans as minor perturbations on an earth essentially in thermal equilibrium. Ocean mixing zones, thermoclines and other features of the temperature profiles remain largely as they were while small radiant disturbances produce minor variations of temperature starting from zero, and imposed at each depth. Thus the effects of these disturbances can be modeled as one-dimensional energy flows into a medium at uniform temperature. Such “perturbation calculations” are among the most powerful analysis techniques used by physicists and engineers and are widely used. The energy equation to be solved in this case is:

http://i1244.photobucket.com/albums/gg580/stanrobertson/equation_zpscea297ad.jpg

clip_image001

Where T is the temperature departure from equilibrium at depth , z, and time, t. q is a perturbing radiant flux entering the surface, u the absorption coefficient, c is absorber heat capacity and k its thermal conductivity. The rate of heat transfer by conduction processes is controlled by the thermal diffusivity, which is the ratio k/c.

As a one dimensional heat flow problem, it is straightforward undergraduate level physics or engineering to numerically solve the equation above for the expected changes of surface temperature as surface radiant flux varies. In my calculations, temperature changes were calculated for 1.0 meter increments of depth in the oceans. Two cases were considered. In one

case the surface radiation perturbation was assumed to increase linearly with time. This corresponds to the ocean conditions for the period 1965-2012. In the second case, it was assumed to vary as a cosine function of time with the 11 year period of the solar cycle. The cosine function provides both some positive and some negative variation in the first half cycle, which helps to minimize the transients of the first few years.

I treated q and thermal diffusivity, (k/c), as input parameters that were chosen to provide agreement with the observed sea surface temperature variations and ocean heat content measurements (https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ersst/ ). The absorption coefficient, u, was entered in piecewise fashion. Only the deep UV radiations penetrate to depths below 10 meter, but conduction takes energy to much greater depths. For the values of u chosen, only 44.5% of the surface energy flux goes deeper than 1 meter, 22.5% below 10 meter and 0.53% to 100 meter (h/t Leif Svalgaard). Thermal diffusivity of oceans was assumed to be 0.3 cm2/s below 300 m. This accords with Bryan’s estimates below the mixing zone, but little change of results occurred for values as low as 0.1 cm2/s. The required heat inputs are relativity insensitive to the thermal diffusivity below 300 meter. For the shallower depths, thermal diffusivity was varied until trends in accord with observed temperatures and heat content were produced.

It is necessary to maintain an energy balance at the sea surface in approximate equilibrium with the incoming solar radiation. As estimated by Trenberth, Fasullo and Kiehl (2009), about 160 watt/m2 enters the surface, on average. At a mean temperature of 288 oK, the sea surface will emit about 390 watt/m2 of surface thermal infrared radiation at wavelengths longer than about 2 micron, however, about 84% of that is returned as back scattered radiation. The rest of the energy balance is provided by evaporation and thermal convection, which remove about 59% of the heat from the surface. From the standpoint of merely wanting to know how much heat is required to change the ocean surface temperature, it is possible to maintain a proper energy balance without delving into the messy details of evaporation, convection and infrared absorption in the first few millimeters of water. The temperature variations at one meter depth will not be measurably different from those at the surface for the thermal diffusivities of interest here. If we merely want to know what net energy flux entering the surface is required to make the water temperature at one meter depth oscillate with an amplitude of 0.04 – 0.05 oC , then all we need to do is account for the outgoing surface infrared emission and let 41% (160 watt/m2 / 390 watt/m2 = 0.41) escape. At the present 288 oK, the earth radiates an additional 5.42 watt/m2 for each 1 oC increase of surface temperature. In the case of surface temperature being perturbed by 0.04 oC, an outgoing additional 0.22 watt/m2 would be generated and 0.09 watt/m2 was allowed to escape. This nicely balances the amplitude of TSI variations that reach the earth’s surface.

3. Linear heating:

In these calculations, the aim was to find the heat input and thermal diffusivities necessary to account for the observed surface temperature increase (http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/ )Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature) and the increased ocean heat content (OHC 700) that have been reported by NOAA. Since surface temperatures had not been increasing in the early 1960s, but began to increase in the last half of that decade, I chose to start calculations with linearly increasing heating in 1965. I found that the ocean heat content to a depth of 700 meters was quite sensitive to the thermal diffusivity used. The best results that I have been able to obtain were for a thermal diffusivity of 1 cm2/s to 300 meter depth and surface heat input increasing at a rate of 0.31 watt/m2 per decade. These are shown on the graph below with calculated trends shown by the green and black lines. On a time scale of 50 years, most of the heat accumulates at relatively shallow depths. To better reflect a realistic thermal diffusivity for greater depths, I used a lower value of 0.3 cm2/s below 300 meter. That has little practical effect on a 50 year times scale, but would be necessary if one wanted to extend the calculations for several centuries while surface heating perturbations had time to penetrate to much greater depths.

http://i1244.photobucket.com/albums/gg580/stanrobertson/OHC700_zpsb9e34e91.jpg

clip_image003

Figure 1. Ocean heat content 0 – 700 meter and surface temperature trends according to NOAA. Blue and green lines show trends calculated for the parameters shown.

These calculations establish some parameters that do a good job of representing the thermal behavior of the upper oceans, however, if one looks closely at the data trends in the graph, it is apparent that both surface temperature and ocean heat content have considerably slowed their rates of increase in the last decade. This makes it unlikely that greenhouse gases are the cause of the rate of heating needed to explain the previous trends because their effects should have become enhanced rather than diminished. It might also be noted that a similar warming trend occurred in the first half of the previous century before anthropogenic greenhouse gases could have contributed significantly. Thus it is more likely that both warming periods had natural origins.

Obtaining simultaneous fits to the ocean heat content and sea surface temperature trends with only two free parameters, thermal diffusivity and surface heating rate, is quite confining. Acceptable, but noticeably worse, fits than shown above, were obtained with thermal diffusivities ranging from 0.8 to 1.2 cm2/s and heat inputs ranging from 0.29 to 0.33 watt/m2. Based on previous calculations for sea level data, I was initially inclined to think that larger thermal diffusivities would be necessary, but larger values let more heat penetrate to greater depths than the amounts of heat reported by Levitus et al. In addition, I was chagrined to learn that most of the variation of sea level that accompanies solar cycles is caused by evaporation rather than thermal expansion.

Solar Cycles:

The process of choosing thermal diffusivity and surface heating rates to accord with observations provides a sound basis for calculating what to expect for the temperature variations during solar cycles. In this case we can use the thermal diffusivity of 1 cm2/s that is required of the ocean heat content results as an input parameter and choose the heat input that is required to produce temperature variations of 0.04 – 0.05 oC amplitude. Producing sea surface temperature variations with an amplitude of 0.04 oC requires a surface heat input of 0.33 watt/m2, as shown below:

http://i1244.photobucket.com/albums/gg580/stanrobertson/solarcycle10_zpsa3b8b0ee.jpg

clip_image005

Figure 2. Radiant flux, ocean temperature oscillations, and sea level variations for three solar cycles of eleven years each. The entering flux shown here is the value of q = 0.33 watt/m2 needed to drive the variations of surface temperature of 0.04 oC with ocean thermal diffusivity of 1.0 cm2/s to depth of 300 m. The amplitude of thermosteric rate of change of sea level was 0.47 mm/yr. Temperature lags the driving energy flux by 15 months. The thermal expansion coefficient of sea water used here was 2.4×10-4/ oC.

I believe that this settles the issue of what is required to produce sea surface temperature oscillations with an amplitude of 0.04 oC. The solar TSI variations that reach the earth’s surface are smaller than the 0.33 watt/m2 needed to account for sea surface temperature variations by a factor of 3.6 for this smallest estimate of sea surface temperature variability.

Although the estimated 0.33 watt/m2 that is required to explain the surface temperature variations is large compared to the amplitude of TSI variations that reach the surface, it is still only about two parts per thousand of the 160 watt/m2 of solar UV/VIS/NIR that reaches the earth surface. There are many possible ways in which the sun might modulate the surface energy flux to this extent. These include modulation of cloud cover and small spectral shifts in the energetic UV that might modulate ozone absorption or produce shifts of the effective sea surface albedo. It would seem to be a fairly direct radiative effect, rather than feedback, since it must vary in phase with the solar cycle.

In summary, my calculations based on energy conservation considerations imply that the sun modulates the ocean temperatures to a much greater extent than can be provided solely by its TSI variations. The great question that desperately needs an answer is how does it do it? It should be easily understood that solar effects would not necessarily be confined to cycles. More likely, the sun has been the driver of the large changes of temperatures of the Roman and Medieval warm period, the Little Ice Age, and the recent recovery from it without requiring large changes of its own irradiance. When we understand how the sun does this, we will have begun to understand the earthly climate.

###

Biographical note:

Stan Robertson, Ph.D, P.E, retired in 2004 after teaching physics at Southwestern Oklahoma State University for 14 years. In addition to teaching at three other universities over the years, he has maintained a consulting engineering practice for 30 years.

References:

Bryan, F., 1987: Parameter Sensitivity of Primitive Equation Ocean General Circulation Models. Journal of Physical Oceanography, 17, 970-985. (PDF available here http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0485%281987%29017%3C0970%3APSOPEO%3E2.0.CO%3B2

Levitus, S. et al., 2012 World ocean heat content and thermosteric sea level change (0–2000 m), 1955–2010, Geophysical Research Letters, 39, L10603, doi:10.1029/2012GL051106, 2012 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL051106/abstract

Shaviv, Nir 2008, Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcing, Journal of Geophysical Research, 113, A11101 http://www.sciencebits.com/files/articles/CalorimeterFinal.pdf

Trenberth, K., Fasullo, J., Kiehl, J. 2009: Earth’s Global Energy Budget. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 90, 311–323. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/2008BAMS2634.1 www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/trenberth.papers/TFK_bams09.pdf , Fig. 1

Zhou, J. and Tung, K. ,2010 Solar Cycles in 150 Years of Global Sea Surface Temperature Data, Journal of Climate 23, 3234-3248 http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2010JCLI3232.1

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
480 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 10, 2013 3:03 pm

The solar TSI variations that reach the earth’s surface are smaller than the 0.33 watt/m2 needed to account for sea surface temperature variations by a factor of 3.6 for this smallest estimate of sea surface temperature variability.
So, in normal science, that falsifies the assumption that solar variations are the cause.

October 10, 2013 3:16 pm

For a start, here’s 50 papers describing potential solar amplification mechanisms
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/search?q=solar+amplification&max-results=50&by-date=true

October 10, 2013 3:20 pm

TSI variations, Leif.

Bruce Cobb
October 10, 2013 3:21 pm

So, in normal science, that falsifies the assumption that solar variations are the cause.
Maybe in Post-Normal Science it does.

October 10, 2013 3:22 pm

Leif is thinking in top-down one-dimensional terms, believing that the TSI must be equivalent to a direct dial control on sea surface temperature in order for the sun to drive ocean oscillations. But clearly that is not the case, given the cyclic nature of solar and planetary orbital dynamics and the complex behavior that the sun demonstrates over time.
As many wiser people than myself have said, solar scientists do not know what the hell they are doing.

October 10, 2013 3:23 pm

Hockey Schtick says:
October 10, 2013 at 3:16 pm
For a start, here’s 50 papers describing potential solar amplification mechanisms
None of those explain how 3.6 times more heat reach the surface than the variation of what the Sun puts out…Otherwise the climate system would be a nifty energy producer: you put 10 units in and you get 36 out. I want one of those 🙂

Magicjava
October 10, 2013 3:23 pm

lsvalgaard says:
October 10, 2013 at 3:03 pm
The solar TSI variations that reach the earth’s surface are smaller than the 0.33 watt/m2 needed to account for sea surface temperature variations by a factor of 3.6 for this smallest estimate of sea surface temperature variability.
So, in normal science, that falsifies the assumption that solar variations are the cause.
————————————–
It would if the climate where as simple as only being composed of sun and ocean. But it’s not. There are additional factors at play, such as cloud cover, stoot, CFCs, etc.

October 10, 2013 3:25 pm

Pat Frank says:
October 10, 2013 at 3:20 pm
TSI variations, Leif.
We are talking Wattage here. There are almost no energy in the non-TSI variations.

Magicjava
October 10, 2013 3:32 pm

lsvalgaard says:
October 10, 2013 at 3:25 pm
Pat Frank says:
October 10, 2013 at 3:20 pm
TSI variations, Leif.
We are talking Wattage here. There are almost no energy in the non-TSI variations.
—————————————————
Dr. Svalgaard, even AGW folks say the heat being trapped by CO2 comes from the sun.
If the heat is not originating from the sun, where is it coming from? The Earth’s core?

October 10, 2013 3:37 pm

Magicjava says:
October 10, 2013 at 3:32 pm
If the heat is not originating from the sun, where is it coming from? The Earth’s core?
More likely the calculation is wrong. Where do think the heat is coming from [if you accept the calculation: 10 units in 36 units out – I want such a heat engine]

milodonharlani
October 10, 2013 3:38 pm

“These include modulation of cloud cover and small spectral shifts in the energetic UV that might modulate ozone absorption or produce shifts of the effective sea surface albedo.”
Why not both (or all) of the above, among other effects?
Modulation of cloud cover could be by both solar radiance & magnetic flux. The UV energy shifts could affect both ozone absorption & sea surface albedo. There doesn’t need to be One Big Solar Effect on the climate system.
“Climate science” needs more observation & experiment & less CACA-based, GIGO modeling.

October 10, 2013 3:41 pm

milodonharlani says:
October 10, 2013 at 3:38 pm
Why not both (or all) of the above, among other effects?
Explain how any or all of these can supply 3.6 times MORE energy than the variation of the TOTAL energy received from the sun.

@njsnowfan
October 10, 2013 3:43 pm

“If the heat is not originating from the sun, where is it coming from? The Earth’s core?”
90 million+ barrels per day, Billions of CF Nat gas, Nuclear reactors and wood being burned.
In 2008 when the economy came to a halt global temps reflected that with a big dip in temps.
Everyone says that the heat source other then the sun can not effect temperatures some but I feel otherwise.
TSI Reconstructed chart from 1610-2012
http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/tsi/historical_tsi.html

October 10, 2013 3:51 pm

Here’s one of many papers on “global brightening” demonstrating large changes in surface solar radiation due to changes in cloud cover
New paper finds increase in US sunshine has had 4.4 times more effect than greenhouse gases since 1996
A paper published today in the Journal of Geophysical Research – Atmospheres finds that due to a decrease in cloud cover, solar radiation has significantly increased over the US from 1996 to 2011. The authors note the change in longwave (infrared) surface radiation “dwarfs the [alleged contribution] from the increase of CO2 during the analysis period.” According to the paper, the natural variability due to changes in sunshine has had 4.4 times greater effect on surface radiation than increased greenhouse gases since 1996 [6.6/1.5 = 4.4]. According to the authors,
“The network average total surface net radiation increases by +8.2 Wm−2 per decade from 1996 to 2011. A significant upward trend in downwelling shortwave [solar radiation](SW-down) of +6.6 Wm−2 per decade dominates the total surface net radiation signal. This [brightening of solar radiation] is attributed to a decrease in cloud coverage, and aerosols have only a minor effect. Increasing downwelling longwave [radiation from greenhouse gases](LW-down) of +1.5 Wm−2 per decade and decreasing upwelling LW [infrared radiation from the Earth surface] (LW-up) of −0.9 Wm−2 per decade produce a +2.3 Wm−2 per decade increase in surface net-LW, which dwarfs the expected contribution to LW-down from the 30 ppm increase of CO2 during the analysis period. The dramatic surface net radiation excess should have stimulated surface energy fluxes, but, oddly, the temperature trend is flat.”
The paper adds to many other peer reviewed papers documenting a global decrease in cloud cover or ‘global brightening’ over various periods and locations beginning the the 1980’s. This decrease in cloud cover alone could account for all global warming observed since the ice age scare of the 1970’s.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/01/new-paper-finds-increase-in-us-sunshine.html

milodonharlani
October 10, 2013 3:52 pm

lsvalgaard says:
October 10, 2013 at 3:41 pm
IMO, small variations at critical junctures in the climate system can produce out-sized results. This possibility hasn’t been thoroughly studied because of the false dominant paradigm of the One Big Gas.
For example, small changes in orbital parameters cause or contribute critically to shifts from glacial to interglacial conditions.
Also, magnetic effects are only indirectly linked to TSI, although perhaps more strongly to the variation in high energy UV. You could enlighten me on this point.
Thanks for your past comments on the possible effects of UV directly on the oceans, but IMO there are still lots of possibilities worth investigating. Science has historically been full of surprises & strongly-held certainties frequently overthrown by better analysis & discovery of more information.

Magicjava
October 10, 2013 3:54 pm

Thank you Dr. Svalgaard and njsnowfan for both giving me something to think about.

October 10, 2013 4:01 pm

milodonharlani says:
October 10, 2013 at 3:52 pm
Science has historically been full of surprises & strongly-held certainties frequently overthrown by better analysis & discovery of more information.
I’m not discussing this in general [and this is all the other people trotting out their usual stuff], but let us stick to the article if this thread: it claims that 0.33 W/m2 input is required and notes that TSI only provides 3.6 times as little, or 0.09 W/m2. How can that work? what discovery awaits us that can provide 3.6 times more energy than supplied by the variation of TSI? The Sun cannot, the deep ocean might, or the calculation is wrong.

milodonharlani
October 10, 2013 4:02 pm

@njsnowfan says:
October 10, 2013 at 3:43 pm
Have you computed the total of energy produced by human activities & compared that with TSI? Or with volcanoes? Or the internal heat generated by our planet?
The financial crisis began in Aug or Dec 2007 & lasted until June 2009. Have you computed the amount of energy not produced as a result of the recession of 2007-09? Are you aware that a La Niña also developed in mid-2007 and lasted almost until 2009? IMO hard to separate out the natural from any possible economic effects.

October 10, 2013 4:04 pm

Leif is a broken record. Let him carry on with his crusade, while the solar/climatic connection evidence keeps mounting with each passing day.
It is ashame his potential talents in this area are being wasted.

Bob Shapiro
October 10, 2013 4:08 pm

lsvalgaard says:
October 10, 2013 at 3:41 pm
milodonharlani says:
October 10, 2013 at 3:38 pm
Why not both (or all) of the above, among other effects?
Explain how any or all of these can supply 3.6 times MORE energy than the variation of the TOTAL energy received from the sun.
Dr. Svalgaard, it seems you’re arguing just for the sake of arguing. More cloud cover vs less cloud cover easily can mean 3.6 times MORE/LESS energy than the VARIATION in solar radiation. More radiation isn’t being produced – more/less is getting through.

milodonharlani
October 10, 2013 4:09 pm

lsvalgaard says:
October 10, 2013 at 4:01 pm
I don’t know. Any speculation would be pure guesswork on my part, without the ability to support it. Maybe Dr. Roberston can provide an answer to your good question.
Lord Kelvin was sure the earth had to be less than 100 million years old, based upon thermodynamics. Then nuclear radiation was discovered.
As the Melancholy Dane said:
“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

David Archibald
October 10, 2013 4:10 pm

What if the heat is already there? Then it doesn’t have to diffuse. Cloud cover varies over the solar cycle. The oceans have an albedo of 5% so most visible light gets through and can get as far as 200 metres down.

Jim G
October 10, 2013 4:13 pm

@njsnowfan says:
Excellent point. How can the trace gas (0.039% of atmosphere) CO2 be the recognized cause of global warming while all of the energy released by human activities be ignored as a source of heat. The human race is one big UHI in some respects. More wars and a major plague would fix the problem. Just think how plants and wildlife would flourish without us pesky humans. Oh, wait. Who would plant the trees after forest fires, no fish and game department to help keep a wildlife balance, no more protection of endangered species from predation like sage grouse and raptors….never mind.
Also:
“It is generally conceded that the earth has warmed a bit over the last century, but it is not clear what has caused it, nor whether it will continue and become a problem for humanity.”
Since when has warmer been bad for life on this planet? Way better than colder for humans, historically.

October 10, 2013 4:16 pm

Bob Shapiro says:
October 10, 2013 at 4:08 pm
More radiation isn’t being produced – more/less is getting through.
what gets through does not vary by a factor of 3.6 compared to what goes in. Explain to me how 0.09 W/m2 going in heats as much as 0.33 W/m2.

Louis
October 10, 2013 4:20 pm

How good are we at measuring total TSI? Is it any better than how we measure the planet’s average temperature? Do the measurements account for all wavelengths? I guess I’m asking if the margin of error is known and if it is large or small.

1 2 3 19