Latest Global Temp. Anomaly (May ’19: +0.32°C) A Simple “No Greenhouse Effect” Model of Day/Night Temperatures at Different Latitudes

Reposted from Dr. Roy Spencer’s blog

June 7th, 2019 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Abstract: A simple time-dependent model of Earth surface temperatures over the 24 hr day/night cycle at different latitudes is presented. The model reaches energy equilibrium after 1.5 months no matter what temperature it is initialized at. It is shown that even with 1,370 W/m2 of solar flux (reduced by an assumed albedo of 0.3), temperatures at all latitudes remain very cold, even in the afternoon and in the deep tropics. Variation of the model input parameters over reasonable ranges do not change this fact. This demonstrates the importance of the atmospheric “greenhouse” effect, which increases surface temperatures well above what can be achieved with only solar heating and surface infrared loss to outer space.

As a follow-up to yesterday’s post regarding why climate scientists use ~340 W/m2 as the global average solar flux available to the climate system, here I present a model which includes how the incident solar flux (starting with the 1,370 W/m2 solar constant) varies across the Earth as a function of latitude and every 15 minutes throughout the diurnal (day/night) cycle.

I am providing this model to avoid any objections regarding how much solar energy is input into the climate system on average, how that averaging should be done (or whether it is even physically meaningful), whether the nighttime lack of any solar flux should be excluded from the averaging, whether certain assumptions constitute a “flat-Earth” mentality, etc. Instead, the model uses the actual variations of the incident solar radiation on the (assumed spherical) Earth as a function of latitude and time of day. For simplicity, equinox conditions are assumed and so there is no seasonal cycle.

This is not meant to be a realistic model of regional climate; instead, it goes beyond the global averages in the Kiehl-Trenberth energy budget diagram and shows how unrealistically cold temperatures are when you assume there is no greenhouse effect — even in the deep tropics during the afternoon. The model “evolves” the final temperatures, from any starting temperature you specify, based upon a simple energy budget equation (energy conservation) combined with an assumed surface heat capacity. Imbalances between absorbed solar energy and emitted IR energy cause a temperature change which eventually stops (in a long-term average sense) when the daily rate of emitted IR energy equals the daily absorbed solar energy.

The time-dependent model has adjustable inputs: the solar constant (1,370 W/m2); an albedo (for simplicity assumed 0.3 everywhere); the depth of the surface layer responding to solar heating (using the heat capacity of water, but soil heat capacity is similar); and, the assumed broadband infrared emissivity of the surface controlling how fast energy is lost to space as the surface warms. I set the time step to 15 minutes to resolve the diurnal cycle. The Excel model is here, and you are free to change the input parameters and see the results.

Here’s how the incident solar flux changes with time-of-day and latitude. This should not be controversial, since it is just based upon geometry. Even though I only do model calculations at latitudes of 5, 15, 25, 35, 45, 55, 65, 75, and 85 deg. (north and south), the global, 24-hr average incident solar flux is very close to simply 1,370 divided by 4, which is the ratio of the surface areas of a circle and a sphere having the same radius:

Simple-no-GHE-model-solar-flux-550x344

If I had done calculations for every 1 deg. of latitude, the model result would have been exceedingly close to 1,370/4.

If I assume the surface layer responding to heating is 0.1 m deep, a global albedo of 0.3, and a broadband IR emissivity of 0.98, and run the model for 46 days, the model reaches very nearly a steady-state energy equilibrium no matter what temperature I initialize it at (say, 100K or 300 K):

Note that even in the deep tropics, the average temperature is only 29 deg. F. At 45 deg. latitude, the temperature averages -11 deg. F. The diurnal temperature variations are very large, partly because the greenhouse effect in nature helps retain surface energy at night, keeping temperatures from falling too fast like it does in the model.

There is no realistic way to remove the very cold bias of the model without including an atmospheric greenhouse effect. If you object that convection has been ignored, that is a surface cooling (not warming) process, so including convection will only make matters worse. The lack of model heat transport out of the tropics, similarly, would only make the model tropical temperatures colder, not warmer, if it was included. The supposed warming caused by atmospheric pressure that some believe is an alternative theory to the GHE would cause (as Willis Eschenbach has pointed out) surface temperatures to rise, making the surface lose more energy to space than it gains from the sun, and there would no longer be energy balance, violating the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. The temperature would simply go back down again to achieve energy balance (we wouldn’t want to violate the 1st Law).

I hope this will help convince some who are still open-minded on this subject that even intense tropical sunshine cannot explain real-world tropical temperatures. The atmospheric greenhouse effect must also be included. The temperature (of anything) is not determined by the rate of energy input (say, the intensity of sunlight, or how fast your car engine burns gas); it is the result of a balance between energy gain and energy loss. The greenhouse effect reduces the rate of energy loss at the surface, thus causing higher temperatures then if it did not exist.

4 1 vote
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

235 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mark Pawelek
June 9, 2019 5:10 pm

If there really was any greenhouse gas science it would be
1. fairly precise,
2. one version agreed upon among scientists,
3. shown by experiment and observation,
4. posed in language and/or maths which state clear falsification criteria.

You know – like all other science. It’s obvious the greenhouse gas effect is pseudoscience. Post-normal scientists can believe it; responsible scientists cannot. Because we cannot believe on faith. I’d be lying if I said “I believe in, or trust, the greenhouse gas theory”

Dave Fair
Reply to  Mark Pawelek
June 9, 2019 8:58 pm

1. Precision of 1.5C to 6C by 2100.

2. 95% of scientists agree with CAGW.

3. UN IPCC climate models obviate the need for experiment and observation.

4. Climate Denier! You’ve been told what science to believe.

See, Mark. CliSci has your concerns covered.

Mark Pawelek
Reply to  Dave Fair
June 9, 2019 10:58 pm

Laughing at Dave Fair’s answer; he’s a caricature.

There ought to be an article here on why ‘climate scientists‘ are addicted to speculation and contemptuous of empirical research such as rigorous observation and controlled experiment. Why only ‘climate scientists‘ do name-calling and worship fallacies like argument from authority. Note the most important aspect of argumentum ad verecundiam is how it allows the believer to claim belief and understanding of some idea; when all the while without understanding it. Same motivation today as in Socrates time!

Dave Fair
Reply to  Mark Pawelek
June 9, 2019 11:28 pm

How am I a caricature, Mark?

Dave Fair
Reply to  Mark Pawelek
June 9, 2019 11:29 pm

Actually, Mark, you could say I paint a caricature of CliSci.

A C Osborn
Reply to  Dave Fair
June 10, 2019 10:16 am

“3. UN IPCC climate models obviate the need for experiment and observation.”

WOW, the most absurd statement I have seen from Mr Fair.
How many Models are there?
How many different answers do they give?
Have you never heard of GIGO?

S
June 10, 2019 1:30 am

The vast numbers of atmospheric gas molecules make collisions much more likely than radiative interactions with trace greenhouse gases. In other words, a carbon dioxide molecule energised by long wave radiation radiated from the surface will almost certainly collide with other molecules raising their kinetic energy. This drives convection, transporting the heat to the upper atmosphere. The probability of collision is huge compared with the emission of a photon.

ren
Reply to  S
June 10, 2019 3:01 am

ABSTRACT
By the line-by-line method, a computer program is used to analyze Earth
atmospheric radiosonde data from hundreds of weather balloon observations. In
terms of a quasi-all-sky protocol, fundamental infrared atmospheric radiative flux
components are calculated: at the top boundary, the outgoing long wave radiation,
the surface transmitted radiation, and the upward atmospheric emittance; at the
bottom boundary, the downward atmospheric emittance. The partition of
the outgoing long wave radiation into upward atmospheric emittance and surface
transmitted radiation components is based on the accurate computation of the true
greenhouse-gas optical thickness for the radiosonde data. New relationships
among the flux components have been found and are used to construct a quasi-allsky model of the earth’s atmospheric energy transfer process. In the 1948-2008
time period the global average annual mean true greenhouse-gas optical thickness
is found to be time-stationary. Simulated radiative no-feedback effects of
measured actual CO2 change over the 61 years were calculated and found to be of
magnitude easily detectable by the empirical data and analytical methods used.
The data negate increase in CO2 in the atmosphere as a hypothetical cause for the
apparently observed global warming. A hypothesis of significant positive
feedback by water vapor effect on atmospheric infrared absorption is also negated
by the observed measurements. Apparently major revision of the physics
underlying the greenhouse effect is needed.
https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/E&E_21_4_2010_08-miskolczi.pdf

Reply to  S
June 10, 2019 5:59 am

S

comment image

Note the above graph. The yellow marked area is the radiation that does not reach the bottom of earth. The wavelengths of the ‘yellow’ correspond with the absorption spectra of the various GH gases 0-5um. All GH gases only make about 0.5% of the composition of the whole atmosphere. Please explain to me exactly where the amount of [yellow] energy goes that does not reach my hat and what processes you suggest that are involved in the disappearance of this large amount of radiation?

[I will show the relevance to your comment later. I have to go out now.]

ren
June 10, 2019 6:48 am

The present results show an apparent warming associated with no apparent change in the absorption properties. Change in absorption properties cannot have been the cause of the warming.
The results show that the theoretical CO2-induced virtual increase in true greenhousegas optical thickness greatly exceeds the actual empirically measured change over the
61-year dataset. The fact that the virtual change is about four times the actual change is strong empirical evidence that there is a very strong dynamic compensation that
stabilizes the atmospheric energy transport process against a potential perturbation by CO2 change.
This means that the empirically estimated virtual feedback of water vapor effect on the greenhouse-gas optical thickness is not significantly positive contradicting the IPCC doctrine of it being strongly positive.
It is clear from these data that the increase in surface temperature shown in Fig. 9 cannot in the least be accounted for by any effect
of CO2 on greenhouse gas optical thickness, with or without positive feedback by water vapor.
Merely empirical evidence does not necessarily justify predictions of the future:
for them, in addition to empirical evidence, some logical warrant of generality is needed.
Such a warrant of generality is usually called a physical theory. In order to predict the future, we need a principled physical theory to explain our empirical observations.
The present paper has restricted its attention to the empirical observational testing of the quasi-all-sky model, and has avoided theoretical analysis.

These empirical results could well be challenged by a comparable empirical method.
https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/E&E_21_4_2010_08-miskolczi.pdf

astonerii
June 10, 2019 9:36 am

I guess blankets do not warm the person laying under them, because the body has to lose energy in order to warm the blanket up, before it begins to warm the body up under it.
Convection may initially cool the surface, but as the entire atmosphere continues to gain energy it eventually begins to warm the surface. Without greenhouse gases, the atmosphere could get very warm as it has a low surface area from which to radiate black body radiation.

Mark Pawelek
June 10, 2019 12:22 pm

All 4 of your points are caricatures.

1. Precision of 1.5C to 6C by 2100.

A range of 400% accuracy is ‘precision‘? That is called imprecision where I come from.

2. 95% of scientists agree with CAGW.

Don’t you mean 97%? that’s the pseudoscience, and cherry-picked statistics normally quoted to support that fantasy. Apart from being bad stats it’s an argument from authority. Socrates, expalined why argument from authority is a crux for intellectual laziness and even incompetence. When using this argument, you’re basically admitting you don’t understand what you claim to know.

3. UN IPCC climate models obviate the need for experiment and observation.

IPCC models all claim a water vapour positive feedback factor to treble the, supposed, effect of carbon dioxide. Because they say water’s relative humidity will stay constant but increasing temperature actually means specific humidity will rise. The rise in specific humidity of water vapour is supposed to add additional greenhouse warming.

This is a lie. There is no water vapour positive feedback due to CO2 changes in the climate system. There may be a slight negative feedback effect. It is not bad science, or pseudoscience. It’s an actual lie.

comment image

4. Climate Denier! You’ve been told what science to believe.

You think your 4th point isn’t a caricature? Silly boy.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Mark Pawelek
June 10, 2019 1:04 pm

Mark, I rarely add “/sarc” to my obviously sarcastic postings. Your post, however, provides great refutations to the “science” of CliSci.

Mark Pawelek
Reply to  Dave Fair
June 11, 2019 5:31 am

You ought to know by now that climate science and eco-doomongering cannot be sarced because each time say something they outdo each other to mimic their caricature, or self-archetype. Reality out-sarcs any sarcasm.

https://twitter.com/SlowMoneyGreen/status/1138071014133211138

Brett Keane
June 11, 2019 4:17 pm

Dave Fair, your fact-free unscientific poor excuse for an answer to my last, just confirms your trolldom. Your contempt extending to Maxwell and Poisson, really piles it up to a large mound of ordure. Never mind, I am a dab hand with a shovel, being in fact one who made his life in the agricultural and marine worlds. Where you live or die by being observant and practical. Still doing it, along with research illuminated by real experience. I note you also insult the Astrophysicists by inference. Do keep it up, this not needing sarc….. Brett Keane

Dave Fair
Reply to  Brett Keane
June 11, 2019 6:16 pm

On that note, goodbye Brett.

The Reverend Badger
June 12, 2019 2:33 pm

This is disgraceful.
Stephen Wilde tells us he has been banned from Roy’s blog.
I’ve been on this earth long enough to know that people who try to close down others from debating with them are on the losing side.
Shame on you Roy.
You have no right to call yourself a scientist with that attitude.
Only free and open debate between scientists can make this world progress.
Censorship and banning is going to make progress go backwards.
And shame on you too Anthony for not realising this, your blog would be 1000% better with a more open attitude aligned with scientific integrity as opposed to helping others protect their little non scientific bubbles.
The truth fears no challenge , enquiry or discussion.

Stephen Wilde
Reply to  The Reverend Badger
June 12, 2019 3:28 pm

I don’t think Anthony should be tarred with the same brush.

June 13, 2019 1:42 pm

I should like to compliment Dr Spencer on a great piece of work and an excellent post, although I am not convinced that it demonstrates the existence of any greenhouse gas effect. It uses an albedo of 0.3 and an emissivity of 0.98, and shows that the temperatures “would be very cold”. This is, indeed, in line with simple calculations with the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, which gives -16.9 deg C.

However, with the same albedo, the pre-anthropogenic temperature of 288 K, (ie. 15 deg C) is obtained from the equation with an emissivity of 0.6146, which is in line with the estimates given in Wiki, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_model which do not involve greenhouse gases.

Now, consider the anthropogenic temperature rise in the Northern hemisphere, nominally nearly 1 deg C over the last 50 years. ie. the temperature becomes 289 K. SB then gives an emissivity of 0.6062, and so the change is (0.6146 – 0.6062), which is a reduction of only 1.37% in the Earth’s emissivity.

So, the question is could this reduction have been caused during the 50 years by human-caused effects? Eg, deforestation, land use, extra concrete, more buildings, pollution and so on?

If such a change in emissivity were possible, then the GHG theory would NOT be required to explain the anthropogenic temperature rise.