Climate Explainer: “If humans had not contributed to greenhouses gases in any way at all, what would the global temperature be today…”

Short answer? The same. No different. Zilch, Rien, Zero, Bog all. Diddly, etc. Science n follows.

Why? Longer answer.

I will start by trying to make a fundamental scientific point that overtly discredits the whole of the CO2ist GHE control of climate theory at a stroke. Always remembering that there is also no observational evidence for the CO2ist GHE theory, as the observations show the models to be very wrong. Except the Russian’s.

Because we are having the wrong discussion over an agenda set by the IPPCC that is partial and limited to tiny part of the overall system, that the atmospheric lapse rate or “GHE”, that is the rate of change of temperature to space through the thinning and insulating atmosphere. This is in fact a small part of the climate system, but the IPCC limits discussion of control to this part, the CO2ist “science” of atmospheric models designed to prove CO2 is a causal problem for planetary SST, that in fact is a small part of the much broader Earth science reality that in fact determine’s the global Climate.

Back off and look at the bigger planetary and solar system Earth SCience picture? As a result of studying the actual observations of the short and long term climate cycles, the longer term Milankovitch period controls of interglacial events, and learning the basics of cosmic ray effects and their shorter term solar driven cycles, and how the overall climate stability of Earth is strongly controlled, I suddenly realised, yesterday, after 4 years of study, that CO2 caused GHE is really just one small effect within the overall lapse rate of the Earth’s thermal gradient to the absolute zero of space provided by the atmospheric insulation, whereas the dominant effect is in fact the control delivered by the cooling and cloud forming response to change of evaporation from volatile oceans.

GHE is one small effect within a much bigger and dominant system, not an open loop or stand alone effect.

The IPCC has limited the discussion to this relatively insignificant and inconsequential effect of CO2 on GHE, a small component of the climate system, as if it acted alone. It doesn’t.

GHE/Lapse rate is a small component of the much bigger picture in terms of the dominant climate control system that has kept Earth’s climate stable within close limits since there were oceans to produce strong matching response to any SST perturbations, from whatever cause.

That means that even if there is some small GHE change, the dominant control system will neutralise it at the surface by natural feedback, so GHE change will not affect the SST, just the lapse rate in the Troposphere.

To repeat the answer given earlier, no change due to CO2. Or changing lapse rate profiles either. Back to the big picture

The planet has proven inherently stable against changes such as asteroids, super volcanoes, annual solar intensity variability of =/-15% every 100Ka Milankovitch maximum (but not solar wind variability).

How does it do that? The scale here is far greater than the noise of 1 or 2W/m^2 BTW.

But what then causes the real observed change, long and short term? I suggest actual cyclic changes we see in surface temperature records are caused by the effects the fundamental oceanic control cannot balance out in this way, so instead must set a new equilibrium to rebalance the changed system heat flows.

The causes, I suggest, are orbital forcings, briefly discussed later, that produce the short and long term cycles in the system equilibrium we observe in fact. There are many scientific papers, observation based, that make these effects very probable as proposed. Change that is proposed and then observed to happen as predicted, versus models that predict changes that are proposed, observed and don’t.

Again, we are being made to look in the wrong place within the system for what is a non problem for ground level SST when taken in the planetary round. It’s behind you!

nb: As a key insight, for my thought experiment, it is worth noting, as Alan Simmons has from NASA data, that thermal lagging of planets by their atmosphere, held on under pressure by gravity, also occurs on most other planets and large moons in the solar system, all similar and with the predicted black body Kirchoff radiative surface temperature occurring at around 0.1Bar pressure, regardless of gasses and absolute temperatures, etc. CO2 is not anything special in terms of modifying lapse rate profile. Most gasses that stay gaseous at the temperatures involved will do.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/3ayvamq0h5bg7ei/Greenhouse_Effect_at_work.pdf?dl=0

And in fact it doesn’t matter that GHE/Lapse rate changes somewhat. Because the top level evaporative control system will neutralise it at SST level with a change in clouds. The GHE effect will be observable where it happens, but not at the surface where its effect is nullified.

KEY POINT: GHE AKA lapse rate change is a small part of the overall control of heat flow, controlled by the dominant effect of the evaporative response of the controlling oceans to SST variation. Hence the relatively small range of variability in the absolute zero of space over 500 million years.

So, given the “GHE” effect is a small effect within a dominant control system that has worked well since we had oceans to maintain our equilibrium, why do huans consider a small change in the small GHE effect by the current organic population of the surface would not be corrected by a few more or less clouds, as has happened for the last 500 million years, perhaps with the loss of the current flora and fauna, but Hey, that’s life in space. The planet can manage its SST. We would do better to adapt to the changes we now know to expect, from the record. Cooling next, 2 degrees over 500 years or so, with some warm intervals.

The organic stuff like short lived humans comes and goes, and, while the Earth’s dominant systems adapt to the current version of Gaia, it seems to me the organic species on the planet’s surface have little effect on the dominant planetary scale systems that stabilise the climate in space – e.g. in the limiting case Earth will stay stable with oceans but without flora and fauna, whatever the lapse rate curve/GHE and the gaseous mix that produces it. As with the early and very different atmosphere, for example.

To get a little further into the details. Another thought experiment. Consider the Earth in a circular orbit around a stable Sun. Any “internal” atmospheric effect that the dominant control can return to equilibrium will not require a change in that equilibrium, change in GHE/Lapse rate, accidents to the atmosphere/events, etc. and also external solar intensity change.

The Earth would experience no orbital forcings so would stay stable and simply decline in energy monotonically as the solar system ages. But that is not the observed case. Because there are other effects that can’t be rebalanced without a new equilibrium.

ORBITAL FORCING: There are two such effects, now quite well studied, that change the fundamental control system balance in a way that demands a new equilibrium, again delivered by the modification of insolation by clouds, because controlling the proportion of the energy input of solar radiation arriving at the ocean surface remains the dominant planetary climate control – Natural APCC?

Examples of such causes are:

1. Cloud formation rate change influenced by cosmic rays as solar wind variations vary the cosmic ray flux, that probably drive the short term cycles of 2 degrees every 1Ka. Again, the effect comes from space and causes the amount of cloud, that modifies insolation, to vary by additional nucleation caused by intense particle showers, outside the natural planetary control of evaporation. So the equilibrium temperature of the global system must change to compensate for this external influence on cloud formation, this is a quick selection:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/oxtdfkwp9n9cade/Climate%20CHange%20Signatures%20Weiss.pdf?dl=0
?dl=0
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2019/03/SvensmarkSolar2019-1.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPC7Qy3lzAg

2. The changing internal heat input from the very long term variable output of submarine volcanoes, very under valued by the wrong in fact “consensus” – that definitely cannot be controlled by evaporation! It varies directly with the orbital forcing of all three Milankovitch cycles, probably by gravitational forces, hence ice ages. Covered here: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3259379

I suggest these two sets of external forcings of solar wind and Milankovitch gravitational forcing cycles summed together will replicate the entire ice age SST profile, short and long term.

And also, that this holistic approach is much closer to planetary climate change reality as we observe it.

This is Earth Science versus Atmospheric science, considering all the components of the system and their relative contributions to it, in particular not presenting one small and non controlling effect within the whole system, lapse rate AKA GHE, as if it were the controlling system determinant of SST. It ipso facto isn’t. QED.

In reality GHE is simply an internal heat transfer function within the larger system in control modelling terms. Not a problem.

In human lifetimes SST doesn’t change because the dominant control is managing minor perturbations to lapse rate and the other atmospheric events, etc. .

In the longer term the significant factors in change of equilibrium balance are the Sun, oceans, atmosphere, water vapour and clouds. Not the tiny and wholly correctible effect of CO2 within the variable heat transport of the lapse rate effect we call GHE for no obvious reason, as it has nothing to do with a greenhouse, which gets hot because the glass keeps the re radiated convected heat from the floor inside, the IR goes straight back out thro’ regular glass, and this has nothing to do with the lapse rate of a gaseous insulator by IR scattering, etc.. Much as CO2 has almost nothing to do with SST change, in fact.

That is my theory of everything, which is mine…. 😉 https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2oh8ia

EPILOGUE: What do you think? I need to know if anything can be proven wrong in the above. And what more supports it. Not what opinions are. I was aware of the parts of this issue for a while, but have only just put this big picture together. I am sure others cleverer have done similar, but not quantitatively as regards interglacials. My approach is as a physicist and engineer, looking at what the laws of physics will support and the observed facts versus statistical numerical models from theoreticians with little clue of why repeatable observational proof matters in science, so simply guess and force a fit so their predictions don’t match observations – as a consequence of being wrong – indeterminate science.

I have a broad physicist/engineering empiricist approach, rather than over specialised approach that simply rejecys externalities of substance.

What’s wrong with my science? There are numbers behind all this, of course.

I note with amusement your use of the cover of Science News magazine. I subscribed to it for more than thirty years, until I could no longer tolerate its increasingly Leftward tilt, and its refusal to consider the scientific controversy over Global Warming- they had simply gone “all in” for Mann, et. al.

Likewise, they would not even concede the existence of Intelligent Design.

What is scientific inquiry for?