Guest essay by Bob Irvine
A common refrain from the “settled science” community is that there is no known low sensitivity model that can produce either the total temperature rise or the general temperature profile of the last century.
This, however, is only the case if we assume that the efficacy of a GHG forcing is substantially the same as or slightly higher than the efficacy of a similar solar forcing. The lack of a successful low sensitivity model, then, should not come as too much of a surprise, as this is the position taken by all the IPCC reports, including the AR5.
There is, however, a strong physical case to be made for GHG efficacy being a lot lower than solar efficacy. The following paper published by the Wessex Institute of Technology outlines this case.
The abstract can be found at ; http://www.witpress.com/elibrary/wit-transactions-on-engineering-sciences/83/27156
A Comparison Of The Efficacy Of Greenhouse Gas Forcing And Solar Forcing
Free (open access) Paper DOI 10.2495/HT140241
R. A. Irvine
Abstract
The efficacy (E) of a forcing is a measure of its capacity to generate a temperature response in the earth’s system. Most Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) climate models assume that the efficacy of a solar forcing is close to the efficacy of a similar sized greenhouse gas (GHG) forcing. This paper examines the possibility that a change in short wave solar forcing may more readily contribute to ocean heat content (OHC) than a similar change in long wave GHG forcing. If this hypothesis is shown to be correct, then it follows that equilibrium restoration times at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) are likely to be considerably faster, on average, for a change in GHG forcing than for a similar change in solar forcing. A crude forcings model has been developed that matches almost perfectly (R2 = 0.89) the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) temperature series from 1880 to 2010. This model is compared to and performs much better over this period than the United Kingdom Met Office’s (HadGEM2) contribution to the CMIP5 (R2 = 0.16). It is concluded, by implication that the efficacy of a GHG forcing is likely to be considerably lower than the efficacy of a similar sized solar forcing. Keywords: efficacy, forcing, greenhouse gas, solar, sensitivity, climate, model.
Free access to the paper is available by logging on at witpress.com and conducting an advanced search for “A comparison of the efficacy of greenhouse gas forcing and solar forcing” by R.A. Irvine, 2014. doi:10.2495/HT140241
The Basic Energy Model (BEM) outlined in the paper produces the following reconstruction (Fig 1). It has a low CO2 sensitivity of approximately 1.3C (CO2 doubling) or 3.5C/wm2 and a very strong correlation with the NOAA temperature series of R2=0.89. Importantly this model reproduces the current temperature hiatus which is proving to be a major problem for all the high sensitivity models used by the IPCC.
Fig 1; Low sensitivity model described in Irvine 2014 compared to NOAA temperature series
The inputs to the model are anthropogenic GHGs, solar, anthropogenic aerosols and internal variability.
The aerosol input to the model is toward the lower end, but still within the IPCC’s range. Internal variability is consistent with our current knowledge and is based on a combination of the AMO and PDO indexes. The solar input assumes a solar multiplier of some sort and is consistent with our knowledge of temperature over the last millennium as graphed in the AR5 and discussed in Yu & Luo 2014.
The physics behind the model is based on the established fact that the oceans are opaque to long wave GHG energy but are very transparent to short wave solar energy. This implies that GHG energy is returned to the atmosphere and space very quickly as latent heat of evaporation while solar energy is effectively absorbed to a depth of many meters with consequent delays in equilibrium at the Top of the Atmosphere (TOA).
The following quote from Hansen 2011, makes the obvious point that response time is proportional to climate sensitivity; ‘On a planet with no ocean or only a mixed layer ocean, the climate response time is proportional to climate sensitivity….Hansen et al 1985, show analytically, with ocean mixing approximated as a diffusive process, that the response time increases as the square of climate sensitivity.”
The case has been made at Real Climate and other places, that the top fraction of a millimetre, warmed by GHG energy, acts as a blanket to slow the cooling of the oceans or, alternatively, is thoroughly mixed by wave action to the point where it effectively has the same effect on Ocean Heat Content (OHC) as solar energy that is transported many meters into the oceans by radiation.
All these different mechanisms will have some effect, but to say they have the same effect is a huge assumption and, nearly certainly, not true. In fact, this is shown to be untrue by an experiment outlined in the paper. Basically, two tubs of warm water, one under a clear cling wrap roof and one under a reflective foil roof, are allowed to cool. In test A they are both free to evaporate and both cool at the same rate. In test B evaporation is restricted by placing cling wrap on the surface of the water in both tubs. In test B the tub under the foil sky is significantly affected by downward long wave radiation and cools more slowly.
Test B is how the IPCC models the oceans while test A indicates that long wave radiation does not significantly affect the temperature of a water body if that water is free to evaporate. I should at this point acknowledge the work of Konrad Hartmann and Roger Tattersal in developing the experiment. I have performed this experiment myself and confirmed their results.
The initial high sensitivities used by the IPCC were based on glacial maxima and volcanic measurements and are essentially based on solar forcing only. These sensitivities will, therefore, not apply to GHGs if this paper’s assumptions are correct, a position that is supported by the experiment and the accuracy of the model in Fig 1. The IPCC’s high sensitivity models are now assuming large amounts of energy are diverting to the deep ocean as an explanation of the lack of atmospheric warming. This is unlikely given the NOAA’s recent sea level budget report 2005-2012 by Eric Leuliette; http://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/sod/lsa/SeaLevelRise/documents/NOAA_NESDIS_Sea_Level_Rise_Budget_Report_2012.pdf
This report shows a sea level budget that is balanced since 2007 using a level or falling thermal expansion component. It is becoming increasingly obvious that no model, with a solid physical basis, can accurately track the slope of the temperature increase from 1910 to 1940, the cooling from 1940 to 1970, the slope of the increase from 1970 to 1998, and the current temperature hiatus without assuming GHG forcing efficacy is considerably lower than solar forcing efficacy.
References;
1. Yu & Luo, 2014, Effect of solar variations on particle formation and cloud condensation nuclei. Doi:10.1088/1748-9326/9/4/045004
2. Hansen, Sato, Kharecha & von Schuckman, 2011, Earth’s energy balance and implications. Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss, 11, 27031-27105, pp 19-21.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
James Abbott says:
You clearly are fixed in your view.
True. My view is that global warming has stopped. I am fixed in that view. Nothing you have written refutes that.
And to answer your question: the “carbon” scare is your falsified conjecture that a rise in CO2 [“carbon”] will lead to runaway global warming and climate catastrophe.
If a rise in CO2 only caused a tiny amount of global warming [or none, as Konrad shows above], then you would have no reason to post here. Climate alarmism is your motivation. It is your Belief and it is evident in your comments.
But if you admitted what all real world evidence shows — that what we have been observing is entirely consistent with natural climate variability, and nothing more — then you would have nothing to be concerned about. You would have to admit that your scare has fizzled.
Anyway, thanx for the amusement. When you say, “I follow the science”, you left out a word: “fiction”. Because that’s what your “carbon” scare is based on: science fiction.
Was it even necessary to twist the knife ?
I like to pull the wings off flies, too. ☺
Thank you for the laugh!
db,
You have to understand. The green party do not want the Earth to be verdant… It’s an Orwell thing.
As goes the top skin of seawater being cool.
I can personally attest that from old Linescan deep IR films from the 70’s. Ships churn up the water and leave a bright trail behind them. This fact also makes a mockery of HADCRUT4 by upping the sea water temperatures from leather buckets to the engine room coolant pipes that measured sea water. This hides the decline in temperatures from the 1940’s.
Bob Irvine, your R^2 0.89 may be better than that in the real world. Remember, the temperature fiddlers stuck a thumbtack in the temperature record about 1945 or so and rotated it counter clockwise to make the warmiing steeper (cool the past, warm the present and get rid of the pesky record high 1930s that was prominently a burr under the CAGW saddle unti this was “fixed” by GISS’s Hansen in `1997. The reason your curve fits the NOAA curve very well at the top is that satellite temps are constraining the “room” these guys have for adjusting the temperature upwards. Indeed, I think their machinations succeeded in only accentuating the pause more. Your model since 1970 probably is closer to the real path. Maybe your correlation is more like 0.93 or so.
Anyway, the temperature gymnastics and the invoking high forcings by aerosols, etc, to keep the CAGW ship afloat have been begging for someone to develop a model with lower CO2 sensitivity for over a decade. I would like to see what you get with a forecast. It could be fair for the next 5-10 years before it falls apart – (chaotic systems and the like).
I comment further to the interesting comments by Hockey Schtick
October 11, 2014 at 1:48 pm, and Konrad’s experiment that suggests that LWIR cannot heat water at least not when water is free to evaporate.
I have been posting this info for years on this site, with several of the charts referred to.
There is a major problem with DWLWIR and the oceans, and there is a great deal left to be understood. This is an area which has not been sufficiently studied by the Climate Science community and is an extremely important one since it is the oceans that drive climate here on planet Earth. Not only do they cover approximately 70% of the globe, they represent about 95& of the total heat capacity of the syste. They are the heat pump that circulates energy absorbed in the equitorial and tropical regions polewards.
1. Many people consider that DWLWIR penetrates to millimetres, but is is just microns.
2. DWLWIR is omni-directional, such that much of the DWLWIR intercepts with the oceans at a grazing angle of less than 35 deg. The charts show the perpendicular vertical penetration.
3. When one takes account of the omnidirectional nature of DWLWIR, at least 60% possibly ~75% of all DWLWIR is anbsorbed within just 4 microns.
4. According to K&T, DWLWIR energy is approximately double that of solar. Just stop and consider the implication of that (if it were true) and the fact that solar is absorbed over and within a depth of about 1 metre (of course some solar penetrates much deeper and the depth of absorption extends well below 1 metre) whereas about 75% of DWLWIR is absorbed in just 4 microns.
5. If DWLWIR energy is approximately twice the power of solar and if 75% of DWLWIR is absorbed in just 4 microns, in real terms one sees that about 1.5 times the equivalent energy of solar is being absorbed in just 4 microns.
6.Now that is a hell of a lot of energy. In fact it is so much energy that one would expect to see upwards of 16 metres of rainfall annualy from the amount of water that would be evaporated from the amount of energy being absorbed in the first 4 microns of the oceans. We do not see anywhere near that amount of rainfall. WHY NOT?
7. IF DWLWIR is capable of sensible work, the question is how can the amount of energy that is being absorbed in the first 4 microns be dissipated (and thereby diluted) at a speed quick enough so that it does not drive evaporation leading to approx 16 metres of rainfall?
9. It cannot be by conduction since we know that the temperature profile of the top millimetres of the ocean is upwards. Conduction cannot swim against the energy flow.
10. Some suggest ocean over turning, but this is a slow mechanical process, and may even be diurnal such that for half the 24 hour period there is no or little ocean over turning.
11. Of course there is the wind and waves, but is this truly effective? What about conditions of BF3 or less when there would be little wind and waves to drive mixing?
12. And then you have the reverse problem what about BF8 and above? In these conditions, the very top of the ocean is skimmed off and there is a divorced layer of wind swept spray and spume which acts as a DWLWIR block, in much the same way as a parasol can block out solar. This wind swept spray and spume is a fine mist of water droplets, but these droplets are more than 4 microns in diametre and they would therefore absorb incoming DWLWIR before it reaches the ocean layer below!! In very windy conditions DWLWIR is being absorbed before it even reaches the oceans and is immediately being carried upwards thereby help powering the storm that is ravishing above the oceans.
What needs to be studied in great detail is a column consisting of a few metres of the atmosphere above the ocean and the first few metres of the ocean. We need to know the energy profiles almost on a millimetre by millimetre basis, and for the top 20 cms of the oceans on a micron by micron basis.
What are the energy flows? How is energy being distributed?
Unless someone can put forward a convincing physical model explaining how the energy that is absorbed within the first 4 microns of the ocean is dissipated to depth at a speed faster than the energy so absorbed would drive evaporation, there is a major problem for those who claim that DWLWIR heats the oceans, and who promote the gross energy budget, rather than the net energy flow budget.
Maybe DWLWIR is a signal incapable of performing sensible work. In the winter one often sees a hollow filled with dew. One side of the hollow may be in shaddow most of the day and the dew hangs around all day, whereas the other side of the hollow is sunny. Within an hour of sun up, even though early morning winter sun is weak, the dew, on the sunny side, is driven off. Why is that? Similar surface, similar atmospherice conditions, the only difference is that one side is receiving low energy solar which even in just a short duration can drive evaporation of the dew. Solar can do work that DWLWIR seems incapable of performing.
Richard can I second your excellent post? I am a latecomer to party, but It didn’t take me long when I started pointing an IR gun at the ocean and sky.
By my calculations the extra wattage from the clouds at 130 watts (which I can measure with an IR gun, they are real), should warm the top few microns of the surface by 8 degrees per second depending on the estimated depth of the radiation. The surface doesn’t warm that much, so something is wrong.
What is wrong is the concept of separating upward radiation and downward radiation. The only concept that works is NET radiation. Then the math works nicely.
It is kind of like the idea of separating two metal plates that have been heated together. Before separating them there is zero radiation between the two plates but after separating them there is 1000 watts going both directions, if I neglect to subtract the radiation from one plate I can show where 1000 watts is going to vaporize one of the metal plates very quickly.
Despite the warmest September on record, GISS is flat for the last 10 years.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/last:120/to/plot/gistemp/last:120/trend
Irving supports the ideas in his paper:
http://www.witpress.com/elibrary/wit-transactions-on-engineering-sciences/83/27156
with an experiment developed by Konrad Hartmann and Tattersall.( H and T )
Irving incorrectly describes this experiment in this post.
They say
From what I have observed, backscattered LWIR can slow the rate at which substances cool.
There is no evidence in these experiments of “backscattering” existing, or affecting cooling or evaporation.
The experiments show the a metal surface reflects radiation.
The transparent surface allows radiation out and so cools faster .
There is no “backscattering”, or back-radiation slowing cooling.
(H and T) continue:
However in the case of liquid water that is free to cool evaporatively this effect is dramatically reduced.
It has not dramatically reduced, it was never there.
This argument reminds me of the guy selling dragon repellent spray.
” But there are no dragons here”, says the sceptical customer.
“Yes, see how well it works”. “only $10”.
Roger,
“DWLWIR” or “back radiation” or however you want to phrase it does exist.
Remember the experiment has two sections. The second run should be done with LDPE film restricting evaporation but not conduction or radiation. Here radiation reflected back to the water sample does slow its cooling rate. This works for most materials, but not for materials that are free to evaporatively cool.
REPLY: Bullshit, it does. Get over yourself, and stop wasting the time of myself, moderators, and others by arguing the unarguable. There’s a blog for that, called “Principia Scientific”. Go argue it there all you want, but you’re done here on this topic. -Anthony
Anthony,
I point out to Roger that DWLWIR does exist. You respond, calling my comment “bullshit” with a link to Dr. Spencer demonstrating (using exactly the same instruments I use) that DWLWIR does exist. What’s up with that?
Never on this blog or any other have I ever argued that the atmosphere does not absorb or emit IR. Never. Nor have I ever claimed, as “slayers” have, that IR emitted from a cooler object cannot slow the cooling of a warmer object. In fact I attempted to combat the “slayers” just as you did with empirical experiment, demonstrating how to build Willis’ “steel greenhouse” for real. Nothing I am claiming in any way violates existing laws of radiative physics.
All I am demonstrating by those experiments is –
A. DWLWIR has a different effect over water than it does over land.
B. Solar SW has a different effect on water than it does on land.
I don’t not believe these are incredible claims. Bob Irvine has confirmed A. As to B, I found out after I had run the experiments that it was old news. Very old news from 1965 –
Harris, W. B., Davison, R. R., and Hood, D. W. (1965) ‘Design and operating characteristics of an experimental solar water heater’ Solar Energy, 9(4), pp. 193-196.
Researchers at Texas A&M found, just as I did that, that depth of SW absorption made a dramatic difference in average temperatures in convecting solar ponds.
What I am essentially demonstrating is the base assumption of the AGW hypothesis of 255K for “surface without atmosphere” is in grave error. The application of the short form of the SB equation to the oceans essentially treats them as opaque to solar SW. This clearly isn’t the case.
I do not understand where you think I am “arguing the auarguable”.
Anthony,
I point out to Roger that DWLWIR does exist. You respond, calling my comment “bullshit” with a link to Dr. Spencer demonstrating (using exactly the same instruments I use) that DWLWIR does exist. What’s up with that?
Never on this blog or any other have I ever argued that the atmosphere does not absorb or emit IR. Never. Nor have I ever claimed as “slayers” have that IR emitted from a cooler object cannot slow the cooling of a warmer object. In fact I attempted to combat the “slayers” just as you did with empirical experiment, demonstrating how to build Willis’ “steel greenhouse” for real. Nothing I am claiming in any way violates existing laws of radiative physics.
All I am demonstrating by those experiments is –
A. DWLWIR has a different effect over water than it does over land.
B. Solar SW has a different effect on water than it does on land.
I don’t not believe these are incredible claims. Bob Irvine has confirmed A. As to B, I found out after I had run the experiments that it was old news. Very old news from 1965 –
Harris, W. B., Davison, R. R., and Hood, D. W. (1965) ‘Design and operating characteristics of an experimental solar water heater’ Solar Energy, 9(4), pp. 193-196.
Researchers at Texas A&M found, just as I did that, that depth of SW absorption made a dramatic difference in average temperatures in convecting solar ponds.
What I am essentially demonstrating is the base assumption of the AGW hypothesis of 255K for “surface without atmosphere” is in grave error. The application of the short form of the SB equation to the oceans essentially treats them as opaque to solar SW. This clearly isn’t the case.
I do not understand where you think I am “arguing the auarguable”.
REPLY: My mistake, an error in reading comprehension. I apologize. It has been a difficult week for me due to some health issues and I simply read it wrong. – Anthony
Anthony,
no problem, I was been able to reply to Roger Clague more fully at Rog’s site, and I apologise for any misinterpretations that have occurred elsewhere.
I hope your health issues are not too serious. The work you do with WUWT is greatly appreciated. The discussion resulting from Dr. Brown’s essay shows just why WUWT is so important.
Konrad.
Hockey Schtick mentioned a post at Digging in the Clay. It is a most interesting post by Peter Morcombe which I have enjoyed reading. I was reading a few of the comments (Dr. Brown of Duke added to the comments) and saw that “Ron C.” added the following:
I would add that this means that convection and conduction are the overwhelming dominate means of heat transfer in the lower atmosphere just like they taught us at university in the early 70s before the madness set in.
As Peter Morcombe pointed out in conversation with Dr. Brown:
And so it is gravity which causes the atmosphere near the earth to be very, very dense and less dense as one climbs up the mountain (grew up in the Appalachian mountains). As one goes up one notices it gets colder. It is in the upper atmosphere (Stratosphere and above) where the air is very thin that radiation (CO2 being a player there) is the dominate means of moving heat out into space. In the lower atmosphere CO2 radiation plays only a very small role.
I don’t see much in the above about the latent heat of evaporation at the ocean’s surface. Evaporation/clouds/precipitation cycle process a hundred times more cooling and heating than sensible radiative heating.
http://www.writerbeat.com/articles/3713-CO2-Feedback-Loop
This post is something I’ve been saying for a while — forcings aren’t all the same. Watts are watts, yes, but GHG infrared’s effect is mostly limited to surface effects, while solar-shortwave penetrates water surfaces. So GHG’s effect is pretty much the same over oceans as on land (immediate), but shortwave can be partially stored in water to manifest later. That very much affects sensitivity time-constants — much shorter for GHG warming than for solar changes (albedo/clouds).
The models use the adjustable parameter “ocean diffusivity” as the estimate for how quickly & to what extent heat enters & mixes in the ocean (and shows up later). After only a brief search, I came up w/this quote from RPielkeSr at:http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/10/24/paper-sensitivity-of-distributions-of-climate-system-properties-to-the-surface-temperature-dataset-by-libardoni-and-forest/
That confirmed what I thought — modellers/climate scientists don’t have a handle on this.
I am afraid the whole forcing idea may be “barking up the wrong tree”. We see that the models cannot predict the warming and cooling phases that have been observed in the recent past (1910 onward). Now everyone looks at forcing mechanisms because prima facie the “forces” that are observable are not large enough to explain the observable facts. That’s like seeing a tiny Asian martial artist throwing three grown men in one sweep without much effort and thus concluding he must have access to some “forcing”. Yet he hasn’t.
“Basically, two tubs of warm water, one under a clear cling wrap roof and one under a reflective foil roof, are allowed to cool. In test A they are both free to evaporate and both cool at the same rate. In test B evaporation is restricted by placing cling wrap on the surface of the water in both tubs. In test B the tub under the foil sky is significantly affected by downward long wave radiation and cools more slowly.”
Irvine
In test A, convective cooling is more significant than radiative cooling. In test B, convective cooling is suppressed. To measure the effect of evaporation, measure the weight of the water in the tubs before and after cooling.
Opacity is not a measure of heat transfer. A slab of concrete is opaque to sunlight. Expose it to the sun and it will warm. Solar variation is about 0.25 W/m^2. CO2 radiative forcing since pre-industrial era is 1.88 W/m^2. They are unequal even if all other things remain equal.
On the sphere that construct the radius size of 1 AU (150 million kilometers), can accommodate about 500 million spheres the size of our planet. Who is more powerful the sun or something that exists on the planet, so small and negligible in size and power.? It seems that everything that exists on our planet and around it behaves according to the laws of nature, respecting each other and obeying these laws, a person is not incorporated into these laws, because he wants to be “smarter” than all that is formed and the planet and everything in it. Is not that proof .that all such considerations and discussions have not led to real results, therefore it is up to now nothing has proved as true cause of these phenomena.
Therefore, in the interest of science and consciousness that we get to reveal to her the true causes of the phenomenon, an urgent need to turn science to the study of the laws governing with all existing in the universe. Who can ignore such power and force that drives the planet that revolves around the sun, around and around the center of mass itself. If you ignore this, we wander up to the new (never present the last of the big bang), but we can not come in this way to the true causes of events in and around us. Many scientists behave like Grandma fortune teller, who look at a cup of coffee or a glass globe, and scientists in the model extracted from the PC, and think that there is a lot smarter than themselves. Is this so? If not, why so many took the PC as a “god” as did the Jews who had believed in the golden calf.
Climate change on the planets, in general, have quite different causes than are today’s science advocates. That science is right, I guess by now found something that agrees with the phenomena of nature.
There is so much that seems to be missing in the IPCC models. According to energy budgets, more heat energy is moved from the Earth’s surface to where clouds form then by LWIR absorption band radiation and convection combined. Clouds have a net cooling effect. As CO2 is added supposedly increasing the LWIR absorption band radiative insulation properties of the atmosphere, upper atmospheric H2O decreases which provides another negative feedback. Another point is that an increase in greenhouse gases increases the LWIR absorption band emissivity of the atmosphere. If a gas is a good absorber in a particular band it is also a good radiator in that band. The gases that really hold LWIR absorption band related energy the best are really the non greenhouse gasses because they are such poor radiators in greenhouse gas LWIR absorption bands. The primary so called greenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmosphere is H2O and it provides ample negative feedbacks to changes in other so called greenhouse gases so as to mitigate any effect they might have on climate. The Earth’s climate has been sufficiently stable to changes in greenhouse gases over the past 500 million years for life to evolve. There has been no runaway global warming. We are here. There are many good reasons to be conserving on the use of fossil fuels but global warming is not one of them. The real environmental problem is Man’s our of control population in a finite world with finite resources. If Man does not learn to control his own population, Nature will, catastrophically.
Hockey Schtick
The top 10 um is cooler because of convective cooling from the air. The effect of IR is warming because without it the top layer would be cooler. To cause evaporation, either warm the water or reduce partial pressure. IR can warm water and cause evaporation. But warming has to occur first. Blowing wind can reduce partial pressure can cause evaporation. So IR warming can be cancelled by evaporation caused by wind. But IR itself does not have cooling effect.
If you visit the WIT Press site you’ll now find: REMOVED – A Comparison Of The Efficacy Of Greenhouse Gas Forcing And Solar Forcing
Apparently they decided to do some peer review after all.
‘Free (open access) Paper DOI 10.2495/HT140241’
Your link now says:
‘REMOVED – A Comparison Of The Efficacy Of Greenhouse Gas Forcing And Solar Forcing’