Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Thanks to an alert commenter, half of my last post was shown to be in error. Like most folks, I really, really hate to be publicly wrong, and of course I do my utmost to avoid it. But sometimes I overlook something, or my logical staircase is missing some steps, and there I am. Wrong. In public. Again. Not pretty.
However, when I regained some semblance of detachment I realized once again that speed in finding my own errors is the most valuable part of writing for the web. Rather than spending months going down some error-lined rabbit-hole, I’m handed my head on a platter right away, so I can fix what I did wrong and move on. That’s the good part of putting it all on the line in public—my illusions don’t last long.
In this case, I’d misunderestimated the effect of the movement of heat from the tropics to the poles. Horizontal movement of heat is called “advection”. Let me start with the solar input, the only input I considered in my previous post:
Figure 1. 15-year average, solar energy input. CERES data, Mar 2000 – Feb 1015. Gray lines show the latitudes receiving the global average of 340 W/m2. All graphics show 1°x1° gridcell data.
From the tropics to the poles, there is a gradient of about 250 W/m2. However, the incoming solar is not the only energy involved. We also have the energy that is constantly being advected from the tropics to the poles. Figure 2 shows where that advected energy comes from and goes to.
Figure 2. Amount of energy either exported (red/yellow) or imported (green/blue) by each gridcell.
As you would expect, in general the areas receiving more than the average amount of solar energy export some of it, while those receiving less than the average receive some of that exported energy … but there are notable exceptions in the desert areas. You can see that the entire Sahara/Sahel/Arabian Peninsula is a net importer of energy. I ascribe this to the lack of water. Having ample water allows for the movement of latent heat, which in turn enables the entire hydrological cycle. But I digress.
Over the orange/red area the earth receives about 112 petawatts of energy. The two poles combined, on the other hand, only receive about half of that, 63 petawatts. And there are about 12 petawatts of energy constantly being moved polewards from the tropics to the two poles. By comparison, the total energy used by humans is about 12 terawatts … about a thousandth of the amount of energy exported from the tropics to the poles … but I digress.
The important issue here is that I was wrong to use just the solar input to estimate the net energy coming into each gridcell. In addition, I needed to include the advected energy shown in Figure 2.
To show the distribution of this net gridcell energy input, in Figure 3, I’ve subtracted the advected energy (Figure 2) from the solar energy (Figure 1). This give us the net energy being added to each gridcell, after advection.
Figure 3. Net amount of energy (solar ± advection) entering each gridcell.
Now, this is most interesting. I would never have guessed that the location on the planet that receives the most net energy is the North African desert. And of course including the advected energy has the effect of reducing the tropical/polar inequality. After advection the 250 W/m2 difference drops to about 200 W/m2 from the tropics to the poles.
Note also that the poles get a significant boost from advection, a difference of about a hundred more watts per square metre. However, the subtraction of the advection from the incoming solar has left one thing unchanged—the overall average. This is what we’d expect, since the system hasn’t added or subtracted any energy, just moved it around.
So I think that now we’re ready to compare Figure 3, the net gridcell energy input, with the surface temperature. In order to adjust for the effect of altitude, I have used the “potential temperature”, which is the observed gridcell temperature adjusted for the average altitude of the gridcell. Of course, for the ocean the potential temperature is equal to the observed temperature.
Figure 4 shows a scatterplot of potential temperature versus the net amount of energy entering each gridcell. As is my usual custom, one of the first things that I do is to calculate the Gaussian average to see what is happening with the data.
Figure 4. Scatterplot, net gridcell energy input (top-of-atmosphere solar plus/minus advection) versus surface potential temperature (observed temperature adjusted for altitude).
Now, I’m not much of a fan of straight-line trends. But I have to follow the data where it leads, and in this case the Gaussian average shows the underlying straight-line nature of these particular trends. So in Figure 5, I’ve added those trends.
Figure 5. Scatterplot, net gridcell energy input (top-of-atmosphere solar plus/minus advection) versus surface potential temperature (observed temperature adjusted for altitude).
I found this chart most fascinating. The area at the far left with the dark blue trendline is mostly Antarctica, where it is high, cold, and dry. It appears that the Antarctic Plateau stays cold pretty much regardless of the variations in incoming energy. This may relate to the peculiar nature of the South Polar vortex, which keeps it somewhat isolated from the rest of the climate system.
Of particular interest is the “knuckle” at ~ 342 W/m2. This value is quite close to the global average of 340 W/m2. So it appears that areas which have below-average total incoming energy warm quite a bit with increasing energy … but in areas receiving more than the average level of incoming energy, the observations show that the response to increasing incoming energy goes nearly flat.
Now, some may recall my oft-repeated description of the nature of temperature regulation by emergent phenomena. The short version is that above some thermal threshold, phenomena such as cumulus clouds and thunderstorms emerge to cool the surface. These act so effectively that they damp the temperature increase down to almost nothing.
And indeed, this is what we see in Figure 5. Below a certain threshold, we don’t get things like dust devils and thermal cumulus and tropical thunderstorms and the like, so the sun is free to warm the earth without opposition. In that section of the planet, between about three hundred and three hundred forty W/m2 of incoming energy, the temperature does indeed rise rapidly. In fact, it rises at a rate of about 3°C per doubling of CO2 (using the IPCC value of 3.7 W/m2 per doubling), which is the classic estimate of the “climate sensitivity”.
But above that threshold, we get one or more of the variety of thermoregulating phenomena that emerge to cool the surface … let me suggest that this is the reason that the so-called “climate sensitivity” has proven to be so hard to pin down—because as I have argued for over a decade now, “climate sensitivity” is not a constant. Instead the “climate sensitivity” differs in different situations, and as a result, the idea that we can push a straight-line trend through the differences is a simplistic view of a complex reality.
Anyhow … that’s what came of the most recent case of my being shown to be wrong …
w.
My Usual Request: Misunderstanding is far too common, particularly on the web, but we can minimize it by being specific about our differences. If you disagree with me or anyone, please quote the exact words you disagree with, so we can all understand the exact nature of your objections. I can defend my own words. I cannot defend someone else’s interpretation of some unidentified words of mine.
My Other Request: If you believe that e.g. I’m using the wrong method or the wrong dataset, please educate me and others by demonstrating the proper use of the right method or identifying the right dataset. While demonstrating that I’m wrong about methods or data is valuable, it doesn’t advance the discussion as much as if you can point us to the right way to do it.
Such a pity that most scientists don’t admit their errors. Everyone makes mistakes and it is by making mistakes, and recognizing them, that science progresses.
Well done Willis!
Most working scientists submit their work to peer review. It’s the process of peer review that exposes any mistakes and forces the scientist, however reluctantly, to admit to them.
Willis has submitted his thoughts to ‘blog review’, which is not ‘peer review’ in the normal sense. As Willis has been man enough to admit, his initial thoughts have failed to pass even this modest task. They failed even blog review.
Imagine how he would have fared had he submitted his initial thoughts to a reputable journal for peer review…. Hence peer review.
Except that peer review has become pal review, in which utter garbage passes “review” if it promote the program, while valid science fails review if it doesn’t support the prevailing, politically-correct paradigm.
Gabro
How do you define ‘valid science’? Who validates it?
If it’s science, it’s self-validating. Most government-funded “science” is pure, unadulterated garbage, politically motivated.
Anti-scientists (and non-scientists) like Mosher and Orestes are now trying to invalidate the time-tested scientific method, through which alone validation occurs.
Peer review didn’t do so well at discovering the flaws in Mann’s hockey stick methodology, and as I recall, the scientists who do most of the peer reviewing didn’t understand those flaws even after the flaws were explained to them. They kept defending Mann’s methodology until there was a Congressional inquiry and an independent review by a statistician to prove that Mann’s hockey stick was the result of mining the proxy record for hockey stick curves and then overemphasizing them.
Peer review didn’t catch even the obvious methodological flaws in Cook’s 97% consensus paper.
DWR54 on August 20, 2016 at 3:13 pm
Gabro
How do you define ‘valid science’? Who validates it?
A theory is valid when its results can be predicted on that theory.
Johann,
Yes. A scientific hypothesis is validated or confirmed when predictions made upon its basis are found correct. If not, then the hypothesis has been shown false, or “falsified” in the sense of scientific jargon.
“Consensus climate science” has been repeatedly falsified in both the common and scientific senses of the word.
Peer review quality and honesty depends on the peers. Climate science abounds with those lacking both, or either.
A striking feature of the peer review is that after decades of it the climate models continue to deliver nil mutual information to a would be regulator about the outcomes of events. Regulators continue to attempt regulation though regulation is impossible under nil mutual information..
peer reviewed in public – followed up by a correction – that’s prettier than you think Willis – it needs to be more commonplace
jeyon
In what sense was Willis’s article submitted to ‘peer review’? In what sense are, say, you and I Willis’ ‘peers’?
We read the same blog. Is that all we need now to become reviewers of someone’s ‘scientific’ ideas? Do we not need any expertise in the specific subject under discussion ourselves?
There are many here who have learnt more in life than what they read on WUWT.
DWR54 —
“Pal review” would probably meet all the conditions you would set for a proper review — the only problem being “open honesty” is not a condition you would set.
You advocate “form” and an appeal to authority.
Here the emphasis is “substance” and an appeal to ability.
Eugene WR Gallun
There are clearly many knowledgeable and competent scientists who follow WUWT and comment regularly. It is easy to spot them as well as the occasional trolls. No one seems to get away with sloppy or poorly thought through posts without being called out. Smart folks tend to follow the old adage that it is better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt. BTW, Willis is clearly no fool.
I’ll concentrate on beer review. ‘chup’.
What is the difference between the blue and red dots? Are red continental / glacial? How is the Arctic divided? Sea ice as sea?
You clearly have little idea of how peer review actually works.
An analysis a couple of years back came to the conclusion that the majority of published science turns out to be WRONG. ( That was not focused on climatology either ).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/
it’s ugly. The scientific findings are too often wrong, but not only that; the assumptions in abstract and introduction are full of yea-yea, we know this so we don’t need to make sure if it’s actually right. Science is so vast nowadays that you should never trust a scientist writing an assertion outside the small scope of the paper’s key findings. Which may also be wrong.
The big error here is the idea that the word ‘scientific’ means ‘true’. From a small % of humanity come as well the idea that ‘religious’ means ‘untrue’. We shouldn’t beat around that bush.
It is an old battle I won’t detail here. Atheist priests want to replace religious priests. The essence is that there are those who are empowered to ‘anoint’ certain texts as ‘absolutely true’. These human powers are self-conferred.
The idea that ‘peer review’ means ‘truth confirming’ is also incorrect on two scores: first that the reviewer is an anointed person and second that his/her anointing of the text was a validation exercise. As Greg says, that represents a misunderstanding of how peer review works.
Peer review has no more gravitas than a claim that someone has no standing (locus standi) to make make comment – i.e. that they are not qualified or have no legitimate interest to have their opinion considered.
The problem is not limited to climate nonsense, it is just a stark example of it.
Most working scientists submit their work to peer review. It’s the process of peer review that exposes any mistakes and forces the scientist, however reluctantly, to admit to them.
____________________________________
Except in my case the reviewers had no clue and were intent on introducing mistakes. One did not even know what a gas partial pressure was. In fact, the entire peer-review process was a dissapointment, and the vast majority of criticisms were grossly incorrect, in both logic and science.
R
I’m curious about the CERES results over the poles. I’m wondering whether the sampling methods are reliable in that configuration. This may be the cause of the 5W/m^2 excess average heat flux in the CERES data.
http://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/science_information.php?page=EBAFbalance
Maybe you can make more of this than I.
Thanks, it seems they have masaged the imbalance down to a credible net imbalance but with the error limits they provide this does not really change anything. They have just tweaked it to a sensible value because they have lots on uncertainty.
Uncertainties of 1% + 2% are quite a lot when you are talking about 1360 W/m^2. 2% of SW is 27 W/m^2
This clearly does not provide any useful information on the actual budget which we can nail down more accurately that that without satellites. It is useful for providing a gridded dataset and for defining changes relative to previous years.
Achieving experimental accuracy of 1% is incredibly hard even for a controlled lab experiment.
Willis —
Good on you.
A small criticism. The only thing I would have liked to have seen was a mention by name (well, name under which he or she writes) of whoever pointed out the error. Acknowledgement makes both you and that person look good and encourages the process.
Eugene WR Gallun
It was Jan Kjetil Andersen, Gene, and I mentioned his name when I first reported the error. He has my thanks,
w.
Eugene WR Gallun
Well, that IS a problem with today’s “peer-approved” peer-review process nobody discusses.
With an almost-unknown editor choosing several unknown “peers” from a network of his/her “approved but anonymous list of peers” to review the manuscripts sent to the magazine, then (from that unknown list of potentials) convincing 2 or 3 “qualified reviewers” to spend THEIR (unpaid, unrewarded) time reading and critiquing the papers, then going through writes and re-writes, then returning the favored papers back to the (prejudiced) editor for some future publication date …
Now, all of that ideal process relies on the (unqualified-to-judge but unprejudiced) editor selecting (qualified but un-prejudiced) reviewers who are willing to spend THEIR TIME to benefit somebody else’s COMPETING ideas and theories. Which, if the result threatens the reviewer’s favorite project, favorite theory, and favorite theory funding will cause the new paper to destroy the foundations of the (reviewer’s favorite) old theory, right? Well, does the author’s receive a favorable review? Or many months of distractions and re-editing over trivialities and nonsense and back-biting?
We KNOW from the climategate emails which role today’s “climate scientists” chose!
I would recommend instead that the paper be published, be peer-reviewed. BUT. Give public credit to those who reviewed the paper. By name.
But also, give as much credit and attention to a “peer-review” in post-doc awards and promotions and “credit for publication”and tenure and travel budgets and honors as one gets for publication.
Now, if a peer-reviewer DISAGREES with a paper, permit/allow/require that disagreement to be published with the article.
But no CAGW-rewarded “climate scientist” publishing today has shown me by ANY actions at ANY level that they would permit that sort of light to be shown on their parade of self-centered, self-awarding “pal-review” circles.
And that does not
RACook
Once again I am motivated to express my agreement with your idea, in this case the publication of the names of the reviewers. Watching grad students produce their PhD theses, it is clear to me that the quality of the work is affirmed by the quality of the degree committee.
When you’ve reach the top you only have ‘peers’ as a check on your pursuit of new knowledge. The idea that a doctoral thesis has to agree 100% with the ideas of the reviewers is not correct. Differences have to be defended, not accepted. If the defense is good, then the alternative stands for others to consider.
A good example of this is Dr Willem Nel’s thesis demonstrating that the CO2 concentration is very unlikely ever to exceed 540 ppm no matter what we think we can do. It was the topic of the thesis, which was accepted, but not yet published because the editors can’t get it past the climate mullahs. A logical demonstration of the idea that CO2 can’t be doubled is anathema. Anathemas don’t get published for fear of excommunication, as witnessed in the Climategate emails.
The luminous sphere that is the surface of the sun radiates 6.320E7 W/m^2 perpendicular to the surface in all directions per S-B, luminosity, surface temperature, geometry.
When that sphere expands to the orbital radius of earth (or other planet) because of the increased spherical surface over which the initial luminosity is spread, the power flux decreases to 1,368 W/m^2 radiating perpendicular to the sun’s luminous surface in all directions.
At the earth’s orbital distance the arc of the sphere that intersects the earth is essentially a flat plane so the radiating 1,328 W/m^2 strikes the earth perpendicular to its cross sectional area.
If that same energy were spread evenly in a perpendicular fashion over the entire spherical surface of the earth it would be 1,368/4 or 342 W/m^2. (1,360/4 = 340)
At apehelion, farther, the values become 1,323 & 331 W/m^2. At perihelion, closer, the values become 1,415 & 351 W/m^2. In other words, because of the eccentricity of the orbit TSI fluctuates +/- 45 W/m^2. Compare that to CO2’s 2 W/m^2 or RCP’s 8.5 W/m^2.
These popular graphics are NOT true heat or energy balances. A watt is a power unit, energy over time, i.e. 3.412 Btu/eng h or 3.6 kJ/SI h. These graphics do NOT consider night or day or seasons or tropospheric thickness, they are simple models (yep.) attempting to illustrate where and how the power enters and leaves/balances which NASA defines as the ToA of 100 km.
This is neither wrong nor right, but people have to understand what and how these graphics work.
So 342 enters ToA, 100 is reflected straight away by the albedo, 242 proceed to be absorbed by BOTH the atmosphere and the surface, 80 by the atmosphere, 160 by the surface. The surface upwells as follows: 17 by convection, 80 by evapotranspiration, 63 by LWIR. The surface and atmospheric power fluxes rejoin at the surface of the troposphere.
A surface at 15 C, 288 K, radiating 390 W/m^2 is incorrect. This assumes that 100% of the ISR is remitted only by radiation and at the surface and essentially double counts the power flux the way a bookkeeper incorrectly enters a number twice. When conduction and convection are possible, S-B BB does not work. S-B applies only to the power flux NOT moved by conduction and convection and handled by LWIR. The surface of the sun and earth ToA face a vacuum w/ no convection or conduction so S-B works.
BTW if you search “debunking greenhouse theory” there will be several sites that share my views although I think I do better job of clearly explaining it.
Satellite based TSI meaurements were re-evaluated, and since 2011 the value is now 1360.8 watts/m2
Refs at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiance
So what happens to the +/- 45 W/m^2 fluctuation between apehelion and perihelion?
What keeps this treatment of CERES data form being truly informative is the lack of comprehension of all the modes of energy transfer–not just radiation and advection–implied by the concept of enthalpy. TOA radiative imbalance provides insufficient information to determine the transfers of both latent and sensible heat in a three-dimensional atmosphere above a non-uniformly-thermalized globe. Small wonder that the results derived here scatter widely and make little scientific sense.
1sky1 August 20, 2016 at 3:59 pm
Thanks, 1sky1. You are correct that a TOA imbalance is not enough to determine the DETAILS of the advective heat transfer—it can’t tell where it is moved as latent heat and where as sensible heat, or how much of the heat is moved by the atmosphere and how much by the ocean, and the like.
But the TOA imbalance is entirely adequate for what I want to know, which are not the DETAILS of the energy moved, but the AMOUNT of energy moved. Once I know that, I can compare the total energy entering each gridcell with the temperature of that gridcell, which was the objective of this post.
First, natural results often scatter widely, it’s the nature of the beast. So that part is no wonder at all.
Next, I would say that the results make perfect sense when understood in the context of a system with emergent phenomena that only appear above a certain threshold and that cool the surface, and I’ve explained just how these results do make sense in that context. For you to respond by waving your hands and saying that they “make little scientific sense” is merely argument by assertion. You need citations, support, math, logic, that kind of stuff.
If you can provide evidence for an error in my work, please do so. I am afraid, however, that the unsupported opinion of a random anonymous internet popup doesn’t qualify as evidence on this or any planet …
w.
-Willis
I’m sure you’ve thought of this but the rainfall and snowfall records for a given area should be a reasonable proxy for the heat of condensation and of fusion, n’est pa? Not sure if that info would be comprehensive enough but might make a start?
This is a comically unrealistic claim, which passes off the operative
physics of the real-world problem to mere “DETAILS.” In reality, mere TOA
energy-flux imbalance provides no definitive information either about the
thermalization of cloud-modulated insolation in a geographical grid cell or
the advection of thermal energy by currents and winds from elsewhere. Both
of these are largely near-surface processes, while the emission of LWIR to
space largely takes place at various levels far above the surface.
The relationship between the two components of TOA imbalance over a grid
cell and the advected thermal energy thus is far from simple. Only in the
case of global–not local–imbalance measures (where the net advection
integrates out to zero) does simple algebra suffice. This analytic fact should be
recognized immediately, without recourse to
The misguided opinion of
internet gurus who argue with Clintonesque logic and Trumpean grace
doesn’t qualify as scientific evidence among the geophysically competent.
DWR54 August 20, 2016 at 2:59 pm
No need to imagine, DWR54. I have fared quite well under peer-review … heck, I even had a peer-reviewed “Communications Arising” published in Nature magazine. And in all, my citation count from my various peer-reviewed publications is over sixty and continues to rise. Not bad for a man with approximately zero formal science education, n’est-çe pas?
And you?
My favorite experience with peer-review was when I wrote an analysis of Michael Mann’s work. The reviewers said I was being too hard on poor Mikey, so they declined to publish … and then not long afterwards, Michael Mann published my ideas as if they were his own … the story is here.
Finally, I can’t begin to list the number of peer-reviewed articles published in reputable journals that have been shown to be anything from hopelessly wrong to deliberately obfuscatory … I’m sorry, but currently peer-review is not catching heaps and heaps of poor, bogus, and even deceptive climate “science”.
Hence my general contempt for your verdammt peer review …
w.
Willis, your “publication” in Nature was….(drum roll)….. A COMMENT
..
When are you going to submit original research for “peer review?”…..The fact is, you can “publish” all the commentary and opinion you desire, it does nothing to advance the science.
…
PS, citing your own publication to “prove” Mann stole your ideas isn’t “proof” get real buddy.
Beaumont Vance August 20, 2016 at 4:15 pm Edit
Beaumont, my “publication” in Nature was….(drum roll)…A PEER-REVIEWED COMMUNICATION ARISING
Since you obviously don’t understand the difference, you really should take a look at the Nature magazine guide for authors. Comments are published as Letters and are not peer-reviewed. They are very limited in length and cannot contain figures. “Communications Arising”, on the other hand, are peer-reviewed, and well-reviewed, I might add. They have a longer permissible length and can contain one figure.
Do your homework, Beau, you’re just revealing your lack of experience.
Two points. First, I have published my original research in peer-reviewed journals, including Nature. As I said above, I have more than sixty citations to my work.
Second, if you think that the blogs have done nothing to advance climate science, you are obviously inhabiting some alternate reality. Blogs have been the main force keeping climate alarmists from bankrupting the public purse and harming the poor in their futile pursuit of some carbon chimera. And I am proud to have played my own small part in that.
Proof? I have nothing to “prove”. I can only tell you what happened to me. Mann took my ideas and published them as his own. Read my account of the Mann’s charming ways first, and then come and we can discuss it.
Regards,
w.
“Critical comments on recent Nature papers may, after peer review, be published online as Brief Communications Arising, usually alongside a reply from the criticized Nature authors”
.
.
reference: http://www.nature.com/nature/authors/gta/commsarising.html
.
.
Please note the word COMMENTS
…
Now, please provide a link and/or links to the publication of your “original research” in peer-reviewed journals. PS, please don’t include stuff from “vanity journals” (and you know what I mean)
…
I’d like to see your “original research”
Beaumont
Might I see your “original research”?
Just a thought exercise using Q = U * A * dT.
Equator
lapse rate 6.8 C/km
Thickness 17 km
dT 115.6 C
Q / A = U * dT
Q / A 240 W/m^2
U 2.08
U / km 0.12
Surface 15 C
Surface 288 K
ToT 172.4 K
ToT -100.6 C
Poles
lapse rate 6.8 C/km
Thickness 9 km
dT 61.2 C
U / km 0.12
U 1.08
Q / A = U * dT
Q / A 66.1 W/m^2
Surface -35 C
Surface 238 K
ToT 176.8 K
ToT -96.2 C
It’s the thermal conductivity of the atmosphere and Q=U A dT that explains why the surface is warm, not the inappropriate application of S-B BB that comes up w/ a 33 C difference by mistakenly comparing 240 W/m^2 and 255 K to 15 C and 288 K. S-B BB can not be used at the surface to calculate 390 W/m^2. This is just flat WRONG!!
Always good to see a thermodynamic based approach to understanding bulk properties.
Also, the hazards of using “average” values in systems with non-linear characteristics.
Note that several surface weather stations located at the equator show average daily temps at 303K and night temps at 296K. Not surprisingly, the “average” equatorial sea surface temp is near 303K.
The canonical “average” global temp is 288K according to the experts. But that does not tell me much about what ecosystem exists at any point on Earth.
Also, contrast the summer and winter temps at the poles, instead of the annual average. The atmosphere can change a lot in a few hours, and that diurnal variability has some impact on life.
Willis, I’m still fixated by the natural “heat pumps” known as thunderstorms or “squalls”. This a daunting task, I’ll admit. However, I think that completing a good model (based on data) would add a part of the “heat balance” equation which is sorely needed. Here’s a start: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226933228_Charge_Structure_and_Dynamics_in_Thunderstorms
http://www.weather.gov/iln/ThunderstormProject
Trying to find data from this!
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0493(1974)102%3C0455:SSLHRC%3E2.0.CO%3B2 Latent heat release for a thunderstorm.
Willis, what is figure1 plotting? Is this just downward SW ? It seems to even to be net SW.
net_TOA – solar = reflected SW + upward LW
I don’t see how this can be equated to advection. Maybe a little more explanation of exactly what data is being plotted in each graph and some explanation for this equivalence to advection. Maybe I’m just missing what you are proposing.
Alas, I only come up with about 10 to 20 watts per meter squared for the TS output. or 5 to 10% of the outgoing IR. Is that enough to help regulation things?
Advection is a localised phenomenon that is being defined by general circulation patterns and seasons and not a global, tropics to poles. Take the case of circumpolar vortex — it is more frequent in south pole region and less frequent in the north pole region. Also, polar regions are quite different in terms of period of energy — 6 months night and 6 months day. Even at local and regional level climate system modifies the process of advection. See the case of see breeze and land breeze. The global warming theories are also putforth like that of advection process. Such studies lead no where except creating confusion and distortion of science phenomenon.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Wher do you sea see breezes?
Willis, I still must start to read your article well. I just had a quick look and I was fascinated by the beauty of the graph you produced: figure 5. If this graph is gonna be famous, I think a nice name would be the “Willis’ Woodpecker” graph. Or perhaps you prefer ‘The Roadrunner’?
I am gonna read the article. I was waiting for it!
Does the North African Desert sand have a variable emissivity? Nasa has a variable emissivity, varies with frequency, paint that allows electronic boxes in sunlight to reflect the sunlight and at the same time allows heat to be radiated to deep space and cool the electronics. The paint is S-13G and here is the specification http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19990021250.pdf
I had bookmarked a specification and now it is a report on thermal coatings. The data on S-13G is included in figures 61 and 62 on pages 61 and 62.The paint was specially designed for Nasa in the early 60s and was used vey successfully on the ATM Skylab.
Paints with selective spectral reflectivity have been used for decades on commercial airlines, to prevent them heating up when sat on the runway.
Many thanks to Willis for his amazing work over the years, and for his willingness to admit a mistake. The ability to admit mistakes is a true sign of honesty and integrity.
Sadly we will probably have to wait until hell freezes over before many climate scientists will admit their mistakes, which are literally costing us the Earth.
.
Funnily enough, a mistake may have tipped me towards being a sceptic.
Quite a few years ago, just when climate change started to appear on my radar, the Sunday Telegraph published two pieces by Christopher Monckton on consecutive Sundays. On the third Sunday they published a reply by Gore.
.
Here’s what impressed me about Christopher Monckton: in the second piece he admitted a mistake he had made in the first piece (I think it was something related to early Chines naval exploration).
Needless to say, Gore’s reply lacked substance and mostly relied on name-calling.
Both Monckton’s and Gore’s words possibly helped me on the way to being a convinced climate sceptic.
I’m proud to be a sceptic as scepticism is the very basis of science – or it once was.
.
Many thanks to Willis and Christopher Monckton, and keep up the good work!
Chris
So an entire article about how solar insolation and advection affect the planet’s temperatures.
“In fact, it rises at a rate of about 3°C per doubling of CO2 (using the IPCC value of 3.7 W/m2 per doubling), which is the classic estimate of the “climate sensitivity”.
And then that.
Glad that is settled 🙂
(sorry for the shot from the cheap seats).
Willis …. Best article you’ve ever posted.
So … Given your figure 5, it would seem that the absolute maximum climate sensitivity for CO2 would be around 2.4 C per doubling of CO2 (assuming 3 W/m2 per doubling of CO2 and assuming that CO2 and its feedbacks account for 100% of the change in energy).
Of course the real figure is less, as the globe does not all correspond to 302-342 W category showing a 0.8 C change per watt. …… And of course, CO2 can’t account for 100% of the W/m2 change.
Advection is only half the story in a 3D atmosphere.
Convection takes heat up within rising low pressure cells and returns heat to the surface in descending high pressure cells.
The regions with highest net heating are beneath high pressure cells for much of the time.,
It is the redistribution of convective cells that prevents system temperature change from radiative imbalances caused by GHGs.
http://www.public.asu.edu/~hhuang38/mae578_lecture_06.pdf
and see here:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=11482&linkbox=true&position=10
Excellent work Willis. I am in no way belittling Fig 5 by saying it is a work of art. Beautiful!
Thank you for…yet another fascinating read…Question…what, if any, impact is from very large power transfer from the sun as particles and electral energy through the North and South poles? Is anyone including that in overall power budget???
Mea Culpa’s in the Scientific Community are not only rare, they are a breath of fresh air!
Having a blog like this is incredibly refreshing. Willis is just plain honest, period.
If he’s wrong, he says so, corrects himself and moves on. WHAT AN INCREDIBLE BREATH OF FRESH AIR.
None of us are right all the time, the key is to truly self examine, correct and move forward.Willis even reports on the reason a mistake might have been made.
Thank You Willis for your incredibly refreshing take on an open scientific discussion. You’re the MAN (fortunately, not the Mann)….:-)