Earth Seems to Be Losing Its Shine Due to Warming Oceans

Representational Image.(NASA)

[Update 10/4/21 9:40 am Pacific Time. I received an email from Dr. Steven Koonin, one of the authors. He wanted me to insert this statement-charles]

I am a co-author of this paper, which summarizes twenty years of earthshine observations to measure albedo changes. The paper speaks for itself. If you take the time to read it (it is open access), I think you’ll find it appropriately circumspect about what we measured, with what uncertainties, and the implications of what we found. However, I am in no way responsible for how the paper is cast by the general media, or even the AGU press release. Such is the state of today’s “climate communications”.

Steve Koonin

There’s a new study published in Geophysical Letters Called: Earth’s Albedo 1998–2017 as Measured From Earthshine

Here’s a description from the Weather Channel

The climate change crisis has cropped up with a vengeance in the last few years, and its ramifications have been unimaginable, extreme and life-changing. Now, a new study claims that climate change has dimmed our planet—literally!

According to the study, the Earth’s brightness has decreased as a result of warming ocean waters. Now you’re probably wondering, “how do you even measure something like that?” But researchers have their ways. They use the Earth’s reflectance or ‘albedo’, which they calculate using something known as the ‘earthshine’, to keep track of, well, the Earth’s shine.

While gazing at the crescent moon immediately after sunset or before sunrise, you may notice that aside from the dazzling crescent, the rest of the moon appears as a dark but faintly glowy disc. The light that bounces off the Earth gives the unlit part of a crescent moon a pale glow, which is referred to as earthshine.

The study indicates that our home planet now reflects almost half a watt less light per square metre than it did 20 years ago, with the majority of the decrease occurring in the last three years of earthshine data. This equates to a 0.5% reduction in the Earth’s reflectance.

Researchers investigated the Earth’s ‘albedo’ by studying earthshine at the Big Bear Solar Observatory in California between 1998 and 2017—that’s over 1,500 nights of data. They could determine how much light is reflected by the planet thanks to this analysis.

Earthshine annual mean albedo 1998–2017 expressed as watts per square meter (W/m2). The CERES annual albedo 2001–2019 is shown in blue. A best-fit line to the CERES data (2001–2019) is shown with a blue dashed line. Average error bars for CERES measurements are of the order of 0.2 W/m2.(Goode et al. (2021), Geophysical Research Letters)

Here is the abstract and plain language summary from the paper

Abstract

The reflectance of the Earth is a fundamental climate parameter that we measured from Big Bear Solar Observatory between 1998 and 2017 by observing the earthshine using modern photometric techniques to precisely determine daily, monthly, seasonal, yearly and decadal changes in terrestrial albedo from earthshine. We find the inter-annual fluctuations in albedo to be global, while the large variations in albedo within individual nights and seasonal wanderings tend to average out over each year. We measure a gradual, but climatologically significant urn:x-wiley:00948276:media:grl62955:grl62955-math-00010.5 urn:x-wiley:00948276:media:grl62955:grl62955-math-0002 decline in the global albedo over the two decades of data. We found no correlation between the changes in the terrestrial albedo and measures of solar activity. The inter-annual pattern of earthshine fluctuations are in good agreement with those measured by CERES (data began in 2001) even though the satellite observations are sensitive to retroflected light while earthshine is sensitive to wide-angle reflectivity. The CERES decline is about twice that of earthshine.

Plain Language Summary

The net sunlight reaching the Earth’s climate system depends on the solar irradiance and the Earth’s reflectance (albedo). We have observed earthshine from Big Bear Solar Observatory to measure the terrestrial albedo. For earthshine we measure the sunlight reflected from Earth to the dark part of the lunar face and back to the nighttime observer, yielding an instantaneous large-scale reflectance of the Earth. In these relative measurements, we also observe the sunlit, bright part of the lunar face.

We report here reflectance data (monthly, seasonal and annual) covering two decades, 1998–2017. The albedo shows a decline corresponding to a net climate forcing of about 0.5 urn:x-wiley:00948276:media:grl62955:grl62955-math-0003. We find no correlation between measures of solar cycle variations and the albedo variations. The first precise satellite measures of terrestrial albedo came with CERES. CERES global albedo data (2001-) show a decrease in forcing that is about twice that of earthshine measurements. The evolutionary changes in albedo motivate continuing earthshine observations as a complement to absolute satellite measurements, especially since earthshine and CERES measurements are sensitive to distinctly different parts of the angular reflectivity. The recent drop in albedo is attributed to a warming of the eastern pacific, which is measured to reduce low-lying cloud cover and, thereby, the albedo.

The full paper can be found here.

H/T Gregory W

2.4 16 votes
Article Rating
182 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 4, 2021 6:07 am

Proven wrong here

Sebastian Magee
Reply to  Krishna Gans
October 4, 2021 7:29 am

I was thinking exactly the same thing as I read the article… Wait a minute I was reading the opposite just a couple hours ago here in WUWT.

Bryan A
Reply to  Sebastian Magee
October 4, 2021 10:02 am

Interesting how the earthshine graphic resembles the Arctic ICE area coverage graph

Greg
Reply to  Bryan A
October 5, 2021 4:57 am

There is no resemblance, what do you mean?

Arctic sea ice has been generally increasing since 2012 ( with a massive recovery in 2013 ). There is no hint of that in either the earthshine or the CERES data.

Most arctic melting occurred between 1997 and 2007. This year is 15% more than in 2007. Nothing like that in the albedo data.

I’m guessing Koonin et al had to not speak the real result here in order to get published. This reduction in albedo means more incoming solar radiation was absorbed by the earth. That is not affected by GHE, so the IPCC’s rigged claims that all warming in the last 100y is totally as a result of human impacts is baloney.

Last edited 13 days ago by Greg
Greg
Reply to  Sebastian Magee
October 5, 2021 4:42 am

Willis’ figure 2 shows the TOA albedo trend and there is clearly more green ( negative ) than positive. So Krishna needs to pay more attention before declaring a serious published paper as “proven wrong”.

Also Willis’ article was mainly concerned with the arctic, which has little bearing on the global absorbance of solar energy or the illumination of the moon. Both of which circle around the tropics, not the poles.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Krishna Gans
October 4, 2021 7:30 am

Nothing of the sort:
Willis’ analysis is over 1 year (not 18) and is comparing tropical albedo to Polar albedo.
He says they cancel.

He was not comparing total albedo over time.
The study says that total albedo – dominated by clouds (seasonally averaged ice extent varied little over that time) – has decreased ….. that leaves tropical clouds – which are lessened in extent over warmer waters (reduced/negated convection), such than marine stratocumulus dominates.

They say “The CERES data show an even stronger trend of decreasing global albedo over the most recent years, which has been associated to changes in the PDO, SSTs and low cloud formation changes. It is unclear whether these changes arise from the climate’s internal variability or are part of the feedback to external forcings.”

Reply to  Anthony Banton
October 4, 2021 7:41 am

Sure you have read and understood Willis paper ? 😀

Neonormal
Reply to  Krishna Gans
October 4, 2021 7:57 am

Yes, Gans, looks like you might have spoken hastily here.

Bill the Frog
Reply to  Krishna Gans
October 4, 2021 8:05 am

In brief. Yes.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Krishna Gans
October 4, 2021 8:11 am

Yes thanks.
Do you understand the difference between a comparing regional differences of the Earth’s albedo over 1 year and the trend in total albedo over 19 years ?

And BTW: it is not a “paper” it is a Blog article – not peer-reviewed original research.

Reply to  Anthony Banton
October 4, 2021 8:20 am

What name ever you name it, no one said reviewed paper 😀

Last edited 14 days ago by Krishna Gans
Dave Fair
Reply to  Anthony Banton
October 4, 2021 11:27 am

Yes, real truth requires pee review.

steve
Reply to  Dave Fair
October 4, 2021 1:04 pm

errrr, no it doesn’t. Facts are facts, truth is truth……. regardless of where you find them.

Dave Fair
Reply to  steve
October 4, 2021 1:38 pm

I don’t use /sarc, Steve. And my spelling is very accurate.

meab
Reply to  Anthony Banton
October 4, 2021 8:40 am

Here’s what I posted yesterday when you posted this same plot. It’s a simple case of Alarmists (like you) fecklessly drawing a firm conclusion from data with HUGE errors.

snip

Did you even look at your plot, Bantam weight? The error range in their measurements is so large they don’t even know for sure if the change in albedo is positive or negative.

Their methodology is so imprecise because they’re looking at earthshine from the part of the moon unlit by the sun from a single location on Earth. They have to correct for changes in the observing site’s atmosphere, the altitude of the moon above the local horizon causing variable light extinction, the change in the topography and lunar albedo of the part of the moon’s surface that they’re looking at, their inability to see the full spectrum of the sun’s light reflected from the Earth to the moon and back to the Earth, and how the angle of the Sun to Earth to moon to Earth varies through the month and how that affects angular dependent albedo, among many, many other corrections.

I do commend you for including the plot showing errors so large that tells any thinking person that this study should not be taken too seriously.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  meab
October 4, 2021 9:09 am

Additionally, nowhere in the original ‘peer reviewed’ article do the authors actually enumerate the uncertainty for their data. Instead, they just show a graph of a wide gray area they call the uncertainty, and don’t specify whether it is 1 sigma or 2 sigma. Nor do they discuss how they arrived at their estimate of uncertainty. So much for peer review improving the quality of published research!

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
October 4, 2021 9:40 am

From under the graph at top …..

Earthshine annual mean albedo 1998–2017 expressed as watts per square meter (W/m2). The CERES annual albedo 2001–2019 is shown in blue. A best-fit line to the CERES data (2001–2019) is shown with a blue dashed line. Average error bars for CERES measurements are of the order of 0.2 W/m2.(Goode et al. (2021), Geophysical Research Letters)”

And from the paper….

“To construct this plot, we followed Palle et al. (2016) in which nights with larger error with respect to the mean are iteratively eliminated.”

Phil R
Reply to  Anthony Banton
October 4, 2021 10:24 am

“To construct this plot, we followed Palle et al. (2016) in which nights with larger error with respect to the mean are iteratively eliminated.”

So they cherry-picked their data to get rid of data that was “inconvenient.”

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Phil R
October 4, 2021 10:36 am

Pathetic.
They used the same statistical techniques to analyse the data as previous papers have in order for there to be comparability.

But I know that anything not to the anti-AGW liking crowd here will always be disparaged.
After all we cannot be 100% certain can we? (sarc).
Ad failing that it’s a fraud. “they’re all in it together” (as here).
The word at the top again.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Anthony Banton
October 4, 2021 11:19 am

Do you even know what the uncertainty interval informs you of? It is the interval within which any value is just as likely as another. It means you have no way to tell what the “true value” is. That is why the comment that says “you can’t even tell the sign” is magnificently correct! It’s what you don’t know and can never know!

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Jim Gorman
October 4, 2021 11:25 am

I should have attributed this to meab. “The error range in their measurements is so large they don’t even know for sure if the change in albedo is positive or negative.”

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Anthony Banton
October 4, 2021 1:17 pm

So, even if someone else does something that is wrong, “comparability” justifies making the same mistake — in your mind!

meab
Reply to  Phil R
October 4, 2021 1:40 pm

It’s not proper to eliminate data because of perceived high error. You can weight the data, but if you eliminate it you’ve biased the result. By doing this, they booted their analysis. Look up the Deming method for properly weighting data by its associated error. And yes, it’s the same Deming who radically improved Japanese production quality.

One of my degrees is in Mathematics with an emphasis on statistics – an area in which many alarmist analyses are demonstrably lacking – just like you.

Last edited 14 days ago by meab
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Anthony Banton
October 4, 2021 1:15 pm

You apparently have a reading comprehension problem. Yes, they enumerate the approximate CERES error range, but do not do the same for the Earthshine results; they only show a graphic.

Yes, deleting ‘inconvenient truths’ will improve the calculated standard deviation. But, they don’t expressly state what their ‘new and improved’ results are, nor whether they represent 1 sigma or 2!

I’m also troubled by the phrase “iteratively eliminated.” It is not recommended practice to use a cut-off of 2 or 3 sigma, delete those that exceed the threshold, and then repeat the process. It is usually recommended that it only be done once.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  meab
October 4, 2021 9:31 am

Here’s what I posted yesterday when you posted this same plot. It’s a simple case of Alarmists (like you) fecklessly drawing a firm conclusion from data with HUGE errors.”

Yes – that is precisely my point ….
EXCEPT I didn’t originate it.
That ” fecklessly drawing a firm conclusion from data with HUGE errors”

Came from Monckton.
Not me.
What I have said merely highlights that fact.
Nothing else.
So why is the “pause meaningful, when M’lord posts it up on here then?

You do know the meaning of “hypocricy”?

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Anthony Banton
October 4, 2021 9:32 am

Oh and like I’ve said to you cut the ad homs.

It’s not big and it’s not clever.

meab
Reply to  Anthony Banton
October 4, 2021 1:33 pm

Sorry, Bantam weight. Ad homs are a valid way to express my disdain for you having posted misleading stuff. Want the ad homs to go away? Start looking at the stuff you want to post before you post it and spend a few seconds thinking about it. That way you can avoid parroting pure nonsense.

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  Anthony Banton
October 4, 2021 10:51 am

“You do know the meaning of “hypocricy”?” (sic)

Do you know how to spell it?

Duane
Reply to  meab
October 4, 2021 10:06 am

The variance in the data is not “error” – “error” is the difference between the actual value of some parameter with its measured value.

The factors you mention are not errors, but are sources of variance that can affect the measurements.

Variance is not error. Variance is variance.

The key point you bring up, however, is that there are multiple sources of variance, or at least potential variance, that can cause error in the hypothesized existence of and direction of any trend in the data.

DD More
Reply to  meab
October 5, 2021 12:47 pm

Meab, “correct for changes in the observing site’s atmosphere” and the area emitting the reflected light.

Would China coal consumption around 4.1 billion tonnes set for the end of 2020, with minimal stack cleaning be worth the 0.5 W/m^2 they found?

Just the recent slow down in consumption has been noticed in Korea.

meab
Reply to  Anthony Banton
October 4, 2021 8:56 am

“Willis’ analysis is over 1 year (not 18) and is comparing tropical albedo to Polar albedo.”

Nope, not true. Willis’ analysis covers the period from March 2000 through February 2021. For the hard-of-thinking (hint, you) that’s 20 years, not 1.

You didn’t even make it to the second round. One punch and you went down for the count in the first round, Bantam weight.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  meab
October 4, 2021 9:47 am

More ……… sake.
I do wonder!

The 21 years is from his comment that Arctic albedo is decreased in that time …..

“As expected, due to the reduction in Arctic sea ice, the albedo in the Arctic has indeed decreased significantly over the 21-year period. It’s decreased at a rate of 0.28% per year, a total of almost 6% over the 21 year period. Note also that the poles are the only part of the surface with a significant trend.”

It is NOT his analysis of the differential between tropical and arctic albedo …. that was done by analysing the last years data.
The clue(s) are printed at the top of his graphs …..
here 2 of them reposted ….
comment image
comment image

Do you see that they say…..

“Surface albedo trend Mar 2000 – Feb 2001”

And you’ve read/understand the post eh ?

Last edited 14 days ago by Anthony Banton
Doonman
Reply to  Anthony Banton
October 4, 2021 10:25 am

No, I don’t see where they say Mar 2000 – Feb 2001.

Both of the graphs you posted and rendered in my browser say Mar 2000 – Feb 2021.

Which is 21 years when I do the arithmetic I was taught in the first grade.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Doonman
October 4, 2021 10:38 am

Heck ….
My apologies everyone.
Dyslexia strikes KO

However, his analysis was to compare two separate regions over that time period and not to compare the change in total albedo from beginning to end.

Last edited 14 days ago by Anthony Banton
Rory Forbes
Reply to  Anthony Banton
October 4, 2021 12:17 pm

Heck ….
My apologies everyone.
Dyslexia strikes KO

It is the accumulation of such examples of expectation bias that eventually leads to your distorted understanding of this subject and your tendency to be wrong so often. The cumulative effect equals “climate change” hysteria.

Meab
Reply to  Anthony Banton
October 5, 2021 8:13 am

You certainly are a plucky dyslexic, Bantam weight. Not very observant either. You’ve been on the canvas for the count in almost every post but you keep coming back for more punishment.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Anthony Banton
October 4, 2021 11:25 am

Additionally: “The recent drop in albedo is attributed to a warming of the eastern pacific, which is measured to reduce low-lying cloud cover and, thereby, the albedo.” Which means the recent, extended Super El Nino suppressed the normal upwelling of cold water to the surface of the Eastern Pacific Ocean by reducing and, in some cases, reversing the normal Easterly Trade Winds. This also allowed the deeper, warm water from the Western Warm Pool to migrate upward and eastward. No CO2 or CAGW needed.

Bill the Frog
Reply to  Krishna Gans
October 4, 2021 8:02 am

I don’t think so Krishna.

Willis Eschenbach was rather uncomplimentary about the IPCC and Arctic albedo, but he didn’t quote from their AR6 list of recent references.

In fact he didn’t even mention AR6.

Reply to  Bill the Frog
October 4, 2021 8:10 am

For example, in 2019 the IPCC said:

Feedbacks from the loss of summer sea ice and spring snow cover on land have contributed to amplified warming in the Arctic (high confidence).

This cited sentence is out of ARx ?

Bill the Frog
Reply to  Krishna Gans
October 5, 2021 2:36 pm

The IPCC’s SROCC was published in 2019.

AR6 was published a couple of months ago.

John Tillman
October 4, 2021 6:09 am

Steven Koonin as a co-author lends the paper more credibility than its merits, or lack thereof, warrant.

Ron Long
Reply to  John Tillman
October 4, 2021 7:54 am

John, I see the main problem with the paper being impossible to know if it’s just the Lunatics playing with us. NO, not the CAGW Lunatics, the Lunar residents, who may have dimmed the Earthshine reflection to enjoy a laugh at our expense.

Jay Willis
Reply to  Ron Long
October 4, 2021 10:33 am

It wouldn’t be the first time they’ve done that either.

fretslider
October 4, 2021 6:16 am

“We find the inter-annual fluctuations in albedo to be global, while the large variations in albedo within individual nights and seasonal wanderings tend to average out over each year. We measure a gradual, but climatologically significant decline in the global albedo over the two decades of data. “

Which doesn’t square with temperature trends – or a lack of them

“The New Pause has lengthened by a further month, from 6 years 8 months to 6 years 9 months. “

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/10/02/the-new-pause-that-goes-on-giving/

And that isn’t the only recent pause

“We are familiar with claims that, for instance, RSS shows no warming trend since December 1996. While there are different starting points since then which may show some warming, the logic is that this is as far back you can go and find no warming.”

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/06/09/the-met-office-the-pause-2/

So where is the ‘climatologically significant’ change? What are they trying to say?

Anthony Banton
Reply to  fretslider
October 4, 2021 7:49 am

Which doesn’t square with temperature trends – or a lack of them

Yes it does …. as the Monckton “pause” is fake – it being a step up above the longer-term trend, and that is increasing (v slowly) the longer it goes on.

Really – do you have to buy every recipe of snake-oil from him?

Last edited 14 days ago by Anthony Banton
leowaj
Reply to  Anthony Banton
October 4, 2021 7:54 am

Mr Banton, if you are going to assert that another claim is fake, at least provide evidence that it is fake (such as a logical and empirical refutation) instead of your opinion only. Let’s not drop scientific rigor here.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  leowaj
October 4, 2021 8:12 am
leowaj
Reply to  Anthony Banton
October 4, 2021 8:20 am

Mr Banton, Monckton’s paper’s nearest equivalent graph is the UAHv1 graph that examines the last 81 months. You linked a UAHv1 that examines the last 360 months. Monckton is looking at the most recent subset of the data and you are looking at a much larger subset (or the whole set). The comparison timeframe is not comparable and thus does not convincingly refute Monckton’s claim.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  leowaj
October 4, 2021 10:49 am

That was posted up by Monckton.
Not last month
It is the linear trend of the data that he takes his “pause” from…..

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/07/03/el-nino-and-the-lengthening-new-pause-now-6-years-10-months/

Dave Fair
Reply to  Anthony Banton
October 4, 2021 11:41 am

And you continue to ignore the very significant 18-plus year zero trend (1997 to 2015). The UN IPCC CliSciFi practitioners said a pause of a particular length would falsify the CAGW models. They started with 10 years, found that that period was quickly exceeded, and then said 15 years. When that period was exceeded, they could only stretch it to 17 years without people falling from their chairs laughing. CAGW fail. CO2 does not significantly drive temperatures.

Last edited 14 days ago by Dave Fair
Doonman
Reply to  Dave Fair
October 4, 2021 1:31 pm

Its not that CO2 cannot drive temperatures. Its only that it likes to take long holidays from driving temperatures.

Task masters who blame CO2 for working harder are not pleased with its performance, so they make excuses instead. You’d think they would instead be pleased with its lack of performance, but no.

No crisis, no gravy train. It is that simple.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Anthony Banton
October 4, 2021 1:48 pm

Do keep up, yourself. Either you can falsify Lord Monckton’s thesis, point by point or you can’t. Simply offering a link is not an argument.

In a contest between and Monckton on statistics or any other branch of mathematics, you will lose. On fundamental understanding of climate science, you will lose. On fundamental logic, you will lose.

Bill the Frog
Reply to  leowaj
October 4, 2021 8:43 am

Hi Leo,

You could always try reading my own humble critique, already linked to over there:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/10/02/the-new-pause-that-goes-on-giving/#comment-3357007

leowaj
Reply to  Bill the Frog
October 4, 2021 8:58 am

Bill, thank you. It is a well-done critique along the lines of what I’d expect a refutation to include: logical analysis and empirical analysis.

Bill the Frog
Reply to  leowaj
October 5, 2021 2:38 pm

Thanks very much for your kind words Leo

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Anthony Banton
October 4, 2021 7:58 am

comment image

So the linear trend goes through ~ -0.12 at 1998 and ~ +0.17 at 1017.
So 0.29C in 19 years is “no trend” eh?

It’s the equiv. of ~ +1.5C/Cent

rbabcock
Reply to  Anthony Banton
October 4, 2021 9:29 am

My comment from an earlier article:

“The real problem is UAH started in 1979, which may seem like a long time ago, but in reality some of these ocean cycles seem to run in substantially longer timeframes than 40 years. The 70’s were a relatively colder time than today, so if in fact we just happened to start launching satellites at the bottom of a cycle that runs 60-80 years, you are on the left side of the bell curve.”

Additional comment:

Actually if you look at the UAH since inception, the trends you see are down, up, down, up, down, up, down, up, down, up and now down and it’s essentially all within a 1 deg C range. The rapidly cooling ENSO region pretty much guarantees a down trend for the next years which will get us back to 2002 or lower. I don’t see any calamity from warming coming and I’d be more worried about cooling which is underway. Already early frosts are damaging crops in both hemispheres and fossil fuel stores are extremely low opening the NH to bad winter outcomes.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  rbabcock
October 4, 2021 11:35 am

You simply cant do a linear regression on a periodic function and expect it to provide a consistent relationship. At best it is a time varying series that needs special treatment. At best one needs to look into time functions to describe the alternating ups and downs.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Anthony Banton
October 4, 2021 11:46 am

A 1.5 C/century is a nothing burger, no crisis. The UAH6 full range has 1.4 C/century. And that ending on an extended Super El Nino.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Anthony Banton
October 4, 2021 2:02 pm

In other words you’re showing an insignificant warming easily attributed to the natural variation following the LIA … the null hypothesis. BTW … compare that 360 months to the percentage rise in CO2 over the same period.

Your problem is the inability to draw logical conclusions from the information you post. What you wrote about the graph isn’t what the graph shows. Hell, you couldn’t get simple numbers right … “~ -0.12 at 1998 and ~ +0.17 at 10171017 ???

Bryan A
Reply to  Anthony Banton
October 4, 2021 10:15 pm

Which is exactly 1/3 of the much ballyhooed 4.5C predicted by klimate models and vociferously intoned by Klimate Scientists and lamestream media outlets professing gloom and doom if proposed socialist actions aren’t brought to pass

M Courtney
Reply to  Anthony Banton
October 4, 2021 8:01 am

I think what you describe is exactly what Monckton says.
The Pause is how far back you need to go to have a meaningful trend be detected.
Obviously, the more alarming the trend the less time back you have to go find it.
The Pause keeps extending as the trend is very shallow and not accelerating. Not at all alarming,
An important finding. And one we should all welcome.

fretslider
Reply to  Anthony Banton
October 4, 2021 8:03 am

No it doesn’t

If is clearly the best you can do

Not good enough by a long chalk

Do tell us what has been climatologically significant

Seriously

Last edited 14 days ago by fretslider
Anthony Banton
Reply to  fretslider
October 4, 2021 8:34 am

Do tell hoe a “trend” that is operating ABOVE the long term linear fit can possibly be a pause in that self same long term trend?
Which by sheer logic and common-sense has to be the only meaningful about a pause.

It’s 6 years. Monckton’s last one was 18ish – and where is that now?

You/he are/is looking at an artefact of the boost the ’16 Nino gave (sat sensors are v sensitive to WV) and the decay under La Nina conditions.
Just shouting “oh look a pause” for the sake of it is laughable …..
comment image

Last edited 14 days ago by Anthony Banton
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Anthony Banton
October 4, 2021 9:22 am

Do tell hoe [sic] a “trend” that is operating ABOVE the long term linear fit can possibly be a pause in that self same long term trend?

Your unstated assumption is that warming will continue. While probability favors that implicit assumption, it is not a foregone conclusion. Should we all be surprised by an early return to another cold period, then the current pause would serve to define the beginning of the new phase. Please do keep up!

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
October 4, 2021 10:52 am

Your unstated assumption is that warming will continue.”

No I actually state what I mean
.
That if the Monckton “pause” continues obviously not beyond where the LT linear trend crosses the “pause” linear trend line) then the long-term trend mean will be dragged up (marginally) because of it.
That is all.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Anthony Banton
October 4, 2021 11:53 am

You didn’t graph the 18+ year flat trend (beginning in 1997 and ending in 2015) you referenced. An unconscious oversight, no doubt.

Step increases in temperatures do not reflect the purported “fast feedbacks” from a steadily rising CO2 atmospheric concentrations. Arm-wave a little for us.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Dave Fair
October 4, 2021 2:08 pm

He doesn’t see that his illustration doesn’t support what he’s trying to demonstrate. The 360 month trend line won’t look like any selected segment isolated from within it. He’s his own worst enemy.

John Tillman
Reply to  Anthony Banton
October 4, 2021 11:11 am

Not at all. Simply a totally valid linear re3gression working back until there is a trend other than flat.

It includes the pronounced cooling trend since February 2016. With La Nina in the offing, that decline is liable to continue at least until February 2022.

What model shows a six year cooling period under ever rising plant food in the air? Following soon after an 18-year flatline?

Bear in mind that for 32 years after WWII, Earth cooled dramatically despite steadily increasing CO2, until the PDO flip of 1977, the effects of which in the Pacific NW I well recall. Thus the CACA hypothesis of the 1980s was born falsified.

Giordano Milton
October 4, 2021 6:16 am

Not sure how to interpret this. How many diverse locations measure the same trends (to eliminate localized phenomena)?

From this web site:
measuring-earths-albedo

“If Earth was completely covered in ice, its albedo would be about 0.84, meaning it would reflect most (84 percent) of the sunlight that hit it. On the other hand, if Earth was covered by a dark green forest canopy, the albedo would be about 0.14 (most of the sunlight would get absorbed). Changes in ice cover, cloudiness, airborne pollution, or land cover (from forest to farmland, for instance) all have subtle effects on global albedo. Using satellite measurements accumulated since the late 1970s, scientists estimate Earth’s average albedo is about about 0.30.”

Wouldn’t the greening of the Earth from added CO2 benefits for ground plants and trees in forests reduce albedo? How about expanded farming in equatorial regions? The alternative would be to strip out trees, so the ice and snow under the trees in the boreal forest that circles the northern latitudes reflect more sunlight.

I’m not sure if this one-site measurement is accurate, but if it is, then it seems to me that those pushing “green” would welcome a reduction in albedo. Not all unaccounted energy would go toward heating the atmosphere, a lot goes into making plant material.

John Shotsky
Reply to  Giordano Milton
October 4, 2021 7:19 am

Less than 30% of earth is land, and 1/3 of that is desert. 10% is ice. I don’t think there is a thing humans can do to change that. The ‘greening’ is most likely not measurable in any meaningful way.

SxyxS
Reply to  Giordano Milton
October 4, 2021 7:33 am

You are up to something and saved me lots of writing.

Just want to add to you text.
Besides a 5% increase in greening and ever increasing crop productions we also may take into account the increase in greenhouses + the increase in solar panels.

Other things where AGW contradicts this theory :
AGW = warmer oceans = more evaporation = more clouds = higher Albedo.
+The recent ” increased snowfalls as result of AGW ” they used to explain the missing Sea Level Rise.
Increased snowfalls = increase of albedo as result of increase in reflecting surface
(though I’m pretty sure both things will be weaponised the opposite way to show how huge the agw impact is)

This is just another of the ” pull as much BS out of your butt while you can.
Eventually one of your claims will turn out to be true (as result of serendipity ) and then we will weaponise this claim.
Even if this phenomenon is 100% unrelated to AGW we will blame it on AGW “

Last edited 14 days ago by SxyxS
Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Giordano Milton
October 4, 2021 8:40 am

“Changes in … airborne pollution, …”. Didn’t many nations work really hard, and successfully, over the last 50 years to reduce airborne pollution (that is, real pollution)? If so, any reduction in albedo resulting in that reduction is an unintended consequence of cleaner air?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
October 4, 2021 9:52 am

However, the authors of this ‘peer reviewed’ research don’t appear to even consider changes in things like increased dust from droughts, or land-use changes, decreased reflectivity of snow from deposited aerosols, or possibly decreased diffuse reflectivity from particles suspended in the oceans. They decided that warming was responsible for decreased cloudiness, and set out to prove it, without considering other confounding factors.

Richard Page
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
October 4, 2021 12:42 pm

Or increases in vegetation, not to mention whether reducing air pollution actually raises or lowers albedo (I’m guessing it may do both depending on the region).

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Giordano Milton
October 4, 2021 9:45 am

If Earth was completely covered in ice, its albedo would be about 0.84, meaning it would reflect most (84 percent) of the sunlight that hit it.

Actually, pure ice would be a specular reflector, and would have a low albedo, as measured by Earthshine, because only a very small fraction would be reflected back towards the source. It would not come close to having the almost-Lambertian reflectance of clouds.

The 0.84 value appears to be more characteristic of fresh snow when measured with low angles of incidence. However, snow has a BRDF with a strong forward lobe, because of the sub-parallel alignment of the individual snow flakes, when illuminated by high angles of incidence. The proper measurement involves a hemispherical measurement of flux for a range of angles of incidence from 0 degrees to 90 degrees, and then integration over the hemisphere for all angles of incidence. Instead of doing this, NASA uses a ‘one size fits all’ number that only properly characterizes fresh snow with high sun angles (low angle of incidence).

On the other hand, if Earth was covered by a dark green forest canopy, the albedo would be about 0.14 (most of the sunlight would get absorbed).

That is true, yet in the article under discussion, it appears that the authors do not attempt to take into account that something like 1 or 2% of the absorbed sunlight is converted to plant mass instead of heat, when they convert albedo to an equivalent thermal forcing.

This is yet another example of sloppy work done by NASA climatologists. There is little excuse for not properly modeling the albedo of diffuse reflectors because we have computers that weren’t available 50 years ago.

bill Johnston
October 4, 2021 6:17 am

“A fundamental climate parameter”. But is it worse than we thought? If not, I will disregard.

whiten
Reply to  bill Johnston
October 4, 2021 8:50 am

Welcome to the age of the “Dark” Sun….

cheers

Jim Clarke
October 4, 2021 6:52 am

Any article that begins with “The climate change crisis has cropped up with a vengeance in the last few years, and its ramifications have been unimaginable, extreme and life-changing.”, can be disregarded. This first sentence is completely false and entirely propaganda to support a false narrative. The climate industrial complex has been very busy trying to convince humanity that normal weather events are signs of impending doom, but history is full of precedence, revealing the lie in their caterwauling.

SxyxS
Reply to  Jim Clarke
October 4, 2021 7:49 am

Let me translate the first sentence
” I am the ultimate overlord and what i am saying now is your commandment
and only heretics and crazy conspiracy theorists (a CiA trademark since 1968 after the false flag USS Liberty failed and ad hominems were needed to silence the plebs)
would dare to reject this official and absolute truth.
And as this mandatory truth is so ultimate the rest of the text must also be true.”

DMacKenzie
October 4, 2021 6:54 am

Using “Earthshine” is a pre-satellite era method of Albedo measurement. Thinking it has an accuracy of 0.5 watts reflected out of the 1361 watts incoming solar is really a symptom of insanity.

Reply to  DMacKenzie
October 4, 2021 6:57 am

Yes. As albedo can be, and is, measured directly from satellites, this seems rather indirect.

fretslider
Reply to  Tom Halla
October 4, 2021 7:00 am

And open to…. interpretation.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  fretslider
October 4, 2021 7:39 am

Just like Willis’s study of a few days ago then?

fretslider
Reply to  Anthony Banton
October 4, 2021 8:17 am

No

But with you it seems to be a matter of faith

Anthony Banton
Reply to  fretslider
October 4, 2021 11:03 am

No “faith” requires no evidence.
I require more than that posted by an amateur citizen scientist who thinks that WUWT is a review by his peers.

The body of scientific evidence by those thousands who do it as a profession … such that it can be shot down or replicated.
They are replicated time and again.
The likes of Willis (good though he is) do not countermand them.

Unless you have the sort of “faith” that you evidently have and the need to have it bolstered by coming here to answer the dog-whistles.

I keep saying on here – be sceptical of sceptics as well.

It’s like every consensus science conclusion is wrong/fraudulent/incompetent and everything anti-AGW is correct.

Really is that how the world works?
Serious question.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Anthony Banton
October 4, 2021 12:00 pm

What are you going to believe. Data from a “amateur citizen scientist” or propaganda from practiced liars.

Mr.
Reply to  Anthony Banton
October 4, 2021 12:31 pm

“Consensus science”

OXYMORON:

two words or phrases used together that have, or seem to have, opposite meanings:

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Anthony Banton
October 4, 2021 2:24 pm

I .No “faith” requires no evidence.

Which is why AGW is considered by actual scientists to be faith based dogma.

I require more than that posted by an amateur citizen scientist who thinks that WUWT is a review by his peers

Which proves you have absolutely no understanding of the word peer. English clearly isn’t your strong point.

The body of scientific evidence by those thousands who do it as a profession … such that it can be shot down or replicated.

They are replicated time and again.

The likes of Willis (good though he is) do not countermand them.

In other words you prefer to rely on argumentum ad populum and argumentum ad vericundiam … If you understand anything about science history, you’d learn that most science was done by amateurs in the past.

All it takes is one person to falsify the mythical majority you rely on.

I suggest you stop posting here and use that time more wisely by learning some of the basics of science. Maybe then you won’t come across as an ignoramus.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Anthony Banton
October 4, 2021 2:13 pm

Either illustrate your refutation of Willis work with a specific or STFU. That is the demand he makes in order to comment.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Tom Halla
October 4, 2021 7:38 am

Earthshine is measured from Earth, and the study compares it with CERES ( which is a measure from satellite.
The 2 sets of data agree.

The study says ….

we measured from Big Bear Solar Observatory between 1998 and 2017 by observing the earthshine using modern photometric techniques to precisely determine daily, monthly, seasonal, yearly and decadal changes in terrestrial albedo from earthshine.”

fretslider
Reply to  Anthony Banton
October 4, 2021 8:19 am

It’s still colder this year

We could do with some warming in the UK

Reply to  fretslider
October 4, 2021 9:32 am

Right:
comment image

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Anthony Banton
October 4, 2021 11:13 am

Just a demonstration of why (some seem to forget ) denizens keep praying for LA Nina conditions.

IE: why this year was cooler of UAH TLT V6 than last.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Anthony Banton
October 4, 2021 1:56 pm

You might want to post a better link, and maybe a description of what it is supposed to be. My anti-virus was all over this link like a duck on a June bug.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Anthony Banton
October 4, 2021 10:11 am

The 2 sets of data agree.

Well, yes, if you define agreement as both data sets having a nominal negative slope. However, the Earthshine experiment appears to have a much larger uncertainty than the CERES data, and no statistical tests are presented to quantitatively define the agreement or even the uncertainties in the slopes. The quantitative analysis leaves a lot to be desired for a ‘peer reviewed’ paper. Furthermore, there is no explanation for the apparent asymmetry in the shape of the uncertainty envelope. Yet, you are quick to accept it as gospel!

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
October 4, 2021 11:16 am

“Yet, you are quick to accept it as gospel!”

I am not.

I am just countering the usual echoes of “rubbish” etc (paraphrase) here.

Eg: “Nothing but BS.” (CO2islife).

Well yes of course it if you say so and the like

Last edited 14 days ago by Anthony Banton
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Anthony Banton
October 4, 2021 1:28 pm

You clearly defended the thesis with the unsupported statement “The 2 sets of data agree.” I consider that as acceptance.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Anthony Banton
October 4, 2021 12:03 pm

I am a co-author of this paper, which summarizes twenty years of earthshine observations to measure albedo changes. The paper speaks for itself. If you take the time to read it (it is open access), I think you’ll find it appropriately circumspect about what we measured, with what uncertainties, and the implications of what we found. However, I am in no way responsible for how the paper is cast by the general media, or even the AGU press release. Such is the state of today’s “climate communications”.
Steve Koonin

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Dave Fair
October 4, 2021 1:30 pm

I didn’t depend on press releases or MSM summaries. I read the original paper and it is clearly lacking in quantitative support for the claims.

DMacKenzie
Reply to  Tom Halla
October 4, 2021 4:13 pm

Two views through the atmosphere compared to a satellite seeing TOA directly…0.5 watts would disappears in an unknown stratospheric humidity variation….

alastair gray
Reply to  DMacKenzie
October 4, 2021 7:36 am

I wondered about that and thought about the quantification of observational error- a most unClimate-scientologist concern. Yesterday willis presented findings mostly to the contrary but based on better data, with a consistent pattern of albedo change distribution, and as cogent hypothesis . I think I will go with Willis’ stuff. But I thgought Koonin was supposed to be a good guy and a physiscist with a clear grip on assigning uncertainties.

Richard Page
Reply to  alastair gray
October 4, 2021 1:03 pm

My questions are along the lines of “have they adjusted for the moon’s orbital eccentricity, ie it’s changes in orbital distance as well as the steadily increasing distance between the Earth and moon?” and “have they adjusted for the times during the Earths orbit when it (and consequently the moon) are further from the sun?” Just interested.

Richard Page
Reply to  Richard Page
October 4, 2021 1:20 pm

Also, how have they treated measurements during different phases of the moon? Obviously trying to measure during a full moon is a non-starter and a new moon is highly desirable for taking measurements but how do you account for contamination from reflected sunlight during a gibbous or crescent phase? I would have thought that unless some precautions were taken with the measurements then there are some serious errors that could creep in to affect them. Do the authors discuss the measurement methodology in any great detail?

Enginer01
Reply to  DMacKenzie
October 4, 2021 7:53 am

I’ve followed Big Bear since the John Daly years, and ‘tho not an insider, it seemed to me that at soon as Earth Shine was noticed to be an offset to AGW, their board shut them up. One of the ‘follow the money’ memes to avoid defunding. Glad to see this (useless) reporting, tho.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  DMacKenzie
October 4, 2021 9:59 am

They aren’t claiming an “accuracy” of 0.5 W/m^2. That value is the nominal estimate of the 20-year decline in albedo-equivalent forcing. The “accuracy” and precision are buried in the gray uncertainty envelope that they do not actually enumerate in their article! However, even the graphic suggests the possibility that the forcing could be positive or negative, which is perhaps why they don’t actually state the uncertainty estimate.

Devils Tower
October 4, 2021 7:17 am

The paper is titled about earthshine

In paper the earthshine plot shows nothing outside of confidence bounds

But plot showing large drop comes from satilite

More generated headline hype

Devils Tower
Reply to  Devils Tower
October 4, 2021 7:19 am

comment image

Image from paper link

Steve Case
October 4, 2021 7:22 am

The climate change crisis has cropped up with a vengeance in the last few years, and its ramifications have been unimaginable, extreme and life-changing. Now, a new study claims that climate change has dimmed our planet—literally!

Good grief! Did they turn it up to eleven on that or not?
____________________________________________

For earthshine we measure the sunlight reflected from Earth to the dark part of the lunar face and back to the nighttime observer,

At 75 miles east of Los Angeles I’m sure the increasing air pollution and smoke from all the fires has no effect on the Big Bear observatory. Besides, wouldn’t the SOHO satellite have a series of full disk images?

Last edited 14 days ago by Steve Case
Oldseadog
October 4, 2021 7:22 am

“I saw the new moon late yestreen
Wi’ the auld moon in her arms,
And oh I fear, my Master dear,
We shall hae a deadly storm.”
The Ballad of Sir Patrick Spens.

When I attended Met classes many, many moons ago, I was taught that this phenomenon was caused, just after sunset, by sunlight reflected off the mass of depression couds over the Atlantic to the west and this meant that the depression would arrive shortly bringing rain and gales.

Usually works.

October 4, 2021 7:47 am

“The recent drop in albedo is attributed to a warming of the eastern pacific, which is measured to reduce low-lying cloud cover and, thereby, the albedo.”

This claimed relationship is one of acutely unstable positive feedback.
It means warmer oceans lead to less albedo with less cloud, meaning still more solar warming and so on.
This cannot be true.
If the ocean driven climate (i.e. the climate) was in such an unstable regime that all temperature change was positively reinforced, then the climate trend we would see would be endless monotonic oscillation between extreme limits.
This we don’t see.
Instead we see a kind of pseudo random walk with various emergent spatio-temporal patterns.
(This in turn tells us that there are strong negative feedbacks in the system.)
So it is a physical and mathematical impossibility for this to be true, the climate system does not sensitively and unstably amplify all temperature change.
Politics of course needs this to happen, for tiny forcings from CO2 to be amplified into catastrophe territory.
But it is nonsense – all climate records refute it.

Last edited 14 days ago by Hatter Eggburn
Ulric Lyons
Reply to  Hatter Eggburn
October 4, 2021 10:54 am

Not so, because the warmer ocean phases since 1995 are a direct response to weaker solar wind states since then. That’s why the AMO is always warmer during each centennial solar minimum.

Reply to  Hatter Eggburn
October 5, 2021 12:14 pm

Ulrich
No so?
So you do think that climate is balanced on a knife-edge?
Any warming or cooling is immediately amplified by positive feedback?

Warmist belief is that any climate change is bad, that climate should be unchanging like the garden of Eden, and any change leads to runaway catastrophe.
They don’t state it, and probably don’t know it, but nonethless Edenic stasis is the inescapable position of climate alarmism.

TonyG
Reply to  Hatter Eggburn
October 5, 2021 1:17 pm

Warmist belief is that any climate change is bad, that climate should be unchanging like the garden of Eden

And yet they can never articulate exactly what that unchanging state should be.

Nick Schroeder
October 4, 2021 7:55 am

“The albedo shows a decline corresponding to a net climate forcing of about 0.5 W/m^2.”
Are they kidding? Out of 1,368 ISR and 91 perihelion to aphelion, 700 summer to winter ToA 0.5 is just noise in the data.

More albedo and the Earth cools
Less albedo and the Earth warms.
No albedo and the Earth cooks becoming much like the moon, 400 K lit side, 95 K dark.
Nikolov, Kramm and UCLA Diviner concur.
That refutes the greenhouse theory that says a naked Earth becomes a ball of ice.

The Earth is cooler with the atmosphere/albedo not warmer. If this is correct, the greenhouse effect is not. If you disagree ‘splain how and why w/o handwavium or unicorn farts.
 
The GreenHouseGases must absorb/emit “extra” energy upwelling from the surface radiating as a black body (TFK_bams09) which as demonstrated by experiment is not possible.

(Snipped the link to meet blog policy) SUNMOD

“The principle of science, the definition, almost, is the following: The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific “truth.””
Richard P. Feynman, “Six Easy Pieces”
If this is correct, greenhouse theory is not. If you disagree ‘splain how and why w/o handwavium or unicorn farts.
 
No greenhouse effect, no GHG warming, no man caused global warming or climate change.
 
Concede or refute or change subject to some esoteric topic with authoritative links you don’t understand and call me names.
 
(Might have to actually do your own homework.)
 
Version 1.0 100421

Last edited 14 days ago by Sunsettommy
Anthony Banton
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
October 4, 2021 8:01 am

You continue to post b****cks from a sky-dragon slayer website against Blog rules.
And that you know.

Denizens wont believe me but please refer to Willis ……

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/10/a-greenhouse-gas-planetary-temperature-formula-to-put-nikolov-and-zellers-pressure-formula-in-context/

Last edited 14 days ago by Anthony Banton
October 4, 2021 7:58 am

Nothing but BS.

A 0.5 w/m^2 change in Earthshine manifests as microwatts/m^2 of change at the Moon and nanowatts/m^2 by the time it’s reflected back to the Earth.

Even if this difference could be measured today, the quarter century old technology of 1997 that established the baseline will have far more uncertainty then the presumed difference.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  co2isnotevil
October 4, 2021 8:05 am

Read the paper have you ? …..

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2021GL094888

There you go.

On the other hand – if you say so!
Handwaving works on here.

Last edited 14 days ago by Anthony Banton
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Anthony Banton
October 4, 2021 10:26 am

Handwaving works on here.

Yes, you employ it a lot!

Perhaps you could point out the sections in the paper where they discuss the potential confounding factors or alternative hypotheses? Or point me to the section where they quantitatively analyze the statistical parameters and establish the uncertainty in the slopes of the Earthshine and CERES measurements? You know, the things that go beyond hand waving and unequivocally establish that the data sets “agree.”

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
October 4, 2021 11:22 am

“Yes, you employ it a lot!”

Find me a post of mine that is not backed up with a link to consensus science (or a follow up to same).
It’s why I post on here – to search out the science.
I only do it to learn.
I know and expect the sort of idiocy that denizens will snap back with.
That *you* don’t want to and take posting consensus science as “handwaving” highlights the psychology at work of here.

Which is a constant source of stimulation for me also.
Do carry on.

Last edited 14 days ago by Anthony Banton
Richard Page
Reply to  Anthony Banton
October 4, 2021 12:50 pm

I can point to a post where I’m still bloody waiting for you to provide a timeframe for these disasters to occur. If you are so convinced by your precious ‘consensus science’ then why won’t you provide a time when this global thermageddon or the disasters you freely quote mine will occur? Or is it because you can’t?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Anthony Banton
October 4, 2021 1:37 pm

Find me a post of mine that is not backed up with a link to consensus science (or a follow up to same).

Most notably, your recent claim that the two data sets agree, is your personal, subjective opinion unsupported by you citing any statistics or logic based on quantified measurements. On the other hand, I have pointed out several problems with the statistics, in particular what isn’t stated!

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Anthony Banton
October 4, 2021 2:35 pm

Find me a post of mine that is not backed up with a link to consensus science (or a follow up to same).

No such “science” exists because science is the antithesis of consensus. Consensus science is an oxymoron (emphasis on the moron). If you seek consensus you’re doing politics, not science.

And BTW … slipping in a link to some random “expert” or possible argument from your “peers” is a very basic logical fallacy.

Learn something about science. Better still, learn some logic.

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  Anthony Banton
October 4, 2021 11:25 am

Hmmm. Makes me wonder if there might be other variables between here and the moon that might affect measurements. Maybe dust and ice crystals from past comets, or how about the increasing amount of space junk that we put into orbit. Or have they just leapt to a conclusion that it must be CO2. Surely not.

Reply to  Anthony Banton
October 4, 2021 7:18 pm

Read the paper have you ? …..

Yes, and it makes many unsupportable statements, for example, the claim that 0.5 w/m^2 change in solar energy is significant to the climate. The actual ECS is only 0.3C per w/m^2, so a 0.15C change in the average is insignificant and well within the variability observed from year to year.

The ice cores tell that the RMS change in the 50 year average surface temperature since the Eemian interglacial has been about 1C per century, or about 0.2C since the first Earthshine measurement, so 0.15C is even within the expected range of natural variability, as is any claimed change since the start of the Industrial Revolution, which just happened to coincide with the end of the LIA.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  co2isnotevil
October 4, 2021 10:21 am

They have computed the equivalent thermal forcing based on the measured change in Earthshine.

However, I can’t help by wonder that since tide tables take into account a lunar 19-year cycle, if they are measuring something like the atmospheric path length, or distance from Earth, varying with the lunar cycle. Again, something that they didn’t address in their paper.

dennisambler
October 4, 2021 8:03 am

Nothing new under the sun.
May 28, 2004 Science

     “Tracking the brightness of Earth by looking at its reflection on the 
      Moon, scientists have concluded that sunshine on Earth brightened in 
      the 1990’s, then dimmed after 2000. 

      The findings, being reported today in the journal Science, add a new 
      level of mystery to the recent debate about “global dimming” and its 
      causes. Measurements by ground-based instruments around the world 
      have shown a decrease of up to 10 percent in sunlight from the late 
      1950’s to the early 1990’s.”

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  dennisambler
October 4, 2021 10:33 am

This reinforces the idea that the last 20-year measurements may be part of a cyclical change that is poorly understood. Assuming that it is only attributable to climate warming shows a lack of due diligence.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
October 4, 2021 2:11 pm

They specifically say, if not show, that there is no solar cyclic component to their observations. Also, they say the change is equivalent to a climatologically significant delta of 0.5 W/m^2, not that it is due to climate change. They don’t write the press releases. Pacific cloudiness, or lack thereof, seems to be a testable hypothesis. Maybe they could look at the PDO while they are at it.

Last edited 14 days ago by D. J. Hawkins
Coach Springer
October 4, 2021 8:06 am

“The recent drop in albedo is attributed to a warming of the eastern pacific, which is measured to reduce low-lying cloud cover and, thereby, the albedo.” They lost me at “is attributed.” Is that short for “we went looking for a cause and this is what we like.” ?

John Wilson
October 4, 2021 8:46 am

I have a question. Since the ocean water contains the bulk of the free CO2 and ocean water releases CO2 as it warms. There must be a known rate at which water releases CO2 PER DEGREE OF TEMPERATURE RISE. WE HAVE APPROXIMATE OCEAN VOLUMES. SO CAN WE CALCULATE QUANTITY OF COW being released due to this. And is it possible this exceeds the amount we are seeing in Hawaii?

dgp
Reply to  John Wilson
October 4, 2021 8:53 am

Henry’s Law.

bdgwx
Reply to  John Wilson
October 4, 2021 10:25 am

Takahashi 1993 is one reference here.

The formula as it appears in the publication is d[ln(C)]/dT = 0.042.

That is a pretty cryptic form though. Rearranging terms we get the simpler form C/Ci = exp(0.042 * dT) where C is the new concentration and Ci is the original concentration. For an SST change of 1K that would be C/Ci = exp(0.042 * 1) = 1.043. So if Ci is 400 ppm then C is 417 ppm for a +17 ppm change. What that means is that there is 17 ppm more CO2 in the atmosphere because SST is 1K higher.

Richard Page
Reply to  bdgwx
October 4, 2021 3:22 pm

The downvote is simply because, once again, you have done a phenomenally piss-poor job of explaining the original formula, your terms and abbreviations used and what it explains in the real world.

I was wondering if you’re the guy that translates Asian user manuals into a form of English?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  John Wilson
October 4, 2021 10:31 am

John,

What you are looking for has been reported here previously, most likely by Englebeen. I’m not going to take the time to chase it down for you.

However, the problem is not simple because there is both surface outgassing, which can be affected by the depth of mixing, and deepwater upwelling, which can be affected by offshore winds.

Brian Bellefeuille
October 4, 2021 9:01 am

Not an expert, just a casual observer. Hasn’t the sun been in a deep solar minimum these last few years, and is just waking up. Could that have anything to do with earthshine, since the Sun is the driver for any light that gets reflected. Less light, less reflection.

Sid
October 4, 2021 9:13 am

It seems to me that Earth’s albedo and the ‘earth shine’ they’re measuring are entirely dependent on solar irradiance as a first order variable. Since solar irradiance is currently declining with the peak of the last solar cycle (around 1998 – conveniently the date of the maximum from the article), it seems the only conclusion one can draw from this article is that because the light from the sun is dimmer, the light of the sun reflected by the earth is also dimmer.

Peer reviewers at Geophysical Letters also seem dimmer than they were in the past, but perhaps that is just my perception. Sigh….

Composite solar irradiance plot can be found here if you want to investigate further:
93620main_sun5m.jpg (576×432) (nasa.gov)

NOTE: taking time to read the article, they say they compared the decline to solar irradiance, but they don’t post any data and just say verbally that there’s no correlation. Using my Mk. I eyeball, they seem perfectly correlated (the vector if not the magnitude). It would be simpler if the authors presented their actual data in the plots with a real-world scale on the graph rather than just a +/- calculated anomaly value, but that’s purely a personal wish.

Last edited 14 days ago by Sid
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Sid
October 4, 2021 1:49 pm

Sid
I agree that the authors should have been more thorough in supporting their claims. The direction of the solar irradiance is in the right direction, and it appears that since 2000 the irradiance decline is of about the same magnitude as claimed by the authors. Unfortunately, your linked graphs cutoff about 2005.

Peta of Newark
October 4, 2021 9:19 am

Have ‘we’ got a correction for the principle that the OCO Sputnik uses – because what they’re doing here is almost exactly what OCO does.
yeah?

OCO looks at the amount of solar energy that CO2 absorbs at wavelengths corresponding to temps of 400°C and 800°C
Solar energy that has come in, been reflected via ‘albedo’ then recorded by OCO – by comparing incoming with outgoing.
These folks are doing the same except by using the Moon as a reflector.

Would variations in the power levels at those wavelengths affect Earthshine?
(Is 400°C nudging ‘red hot’ and 800°C something like ‘white hot’)

Is that where the power has gone…

It gets even worse, much worse so listen up Warmists.

If CO2 is absorbing incoming solar radiation with a very potent heating capability, what happens to that energy?
Would the CO2 molecules not share it out amongst the Oxygen & Nitrogen?
Would that not cause the atmosphere to be at a higher temperature and would any/all temperature rise not be dependant on the relative (to O2 & N2) amount of CO2?

is it then ‘beyond the bounds’ to assert that CO2 warms the atmosphere but by absorbing incoming solar energy rather than outgoing infra-red?
It must surely Shirley be doing that, that is what this story is telling us.
And OCO Sputnik

So now, does less energy at 400°C and 800°C reaching the surface have a warming or cooling effect on the surface = the dirt and water.
NOT anywhere else and esp where thermometers are usually placed= 5ft above the surface.
Before you answer, do be very clear that energy radiated from anywhere in the atmosphere is not, can not, be absorbed by the ‘surface’

Lapse Rate, Josef Stefan, Entropy and The 2nd Law tell you so…..

Last edited 14 days ago by Peta of Newark
Reply to  Peta of Newark
October 4, 2021 9:29 am

If CO2 is absorbing incoming solar radiation with a very potent heating capability, what happens to that energy?

Does it ?? As you can look around at day time, sunlight isn’t absorbed, only the small IR part.

bdgwx
Reply to  Peta of Newark
October 4, 2021 10:16 am

I get about 0.12 W/m2.sr in the 14-16 um band from solar radiation.
I get about 11.8 W/m2.sr in the 14-16 um band from terrestrial radiation.

It’s going to absorb the 0.12 W/m2.sr the same as it will for the 11.8 W/m2.sr. Yes, CO2 shares or thermalizes the captured energy with O2 and N2 regardless of whether it absorbed solar or terrestrial photons. But the solar photon flux in the 14-16 um is quite a bit smaller than terrestrial photon flux in that same band.

If someone could check my math there that would be great.

Last edited 14 days ago by bdgwx
2hotel9
October 4, 2021 9:24 am

My first thought was “warming oceans would increase evaporation would increase clouds and reduce albedo?”. Are the clouds black on top and white on bottom? I don’t know, if they want to convince people this is so why did they not use observations from satellites looking AT the Earth. Would that not give them a better idea of how much energy Earth’s atmosphere is reflecting back into space? And aren’t there better things to be using Big Bear for? And it is awfully close to LA Metro region. Would that not affect their observations, all that light spill over from the city in the lower atmosphere?

Walter Sobchak
October 4, 2021 9:25 am

Oh! No! We’re all gonna die!

The Dark Lord
October 4, 2021 9:44 am

if the sun was a constant source of light you could measure using earthshine … the sun is not therefore using earthshine is a waste of time …

Gordon A. Dressler
October 4, 2021 9:53 am

“The recent drop in albedo is attributed to a warming of the eastern pacific, which is measured to reduce low-lying cloud cover and, thereby, the albedo.”

Hmmm . . . global warming does not increase water evaporation off Earth’s oceans, which would be expected to INCREASE low-lying cloud coverage and thus INCREASE albedo? Who knew!

Also, “The CERES decline is about twice that of earthshine.” Well, golly, that’s not a consensus, is it?

I’m curious as to how the scientists behind these Earthshine measurements know that something as simple as instrumentation drift in measurement accuracy over time is not a significant artifact as they merrily report Earthshine mean albedo changes to a precision equivalent to 0.1 W/m^2!

bdgwx
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
October 4, 2021 10:04 am

I’m not sure what you mean by precision here, but I can say the uncertainty of Earthshine based observations of albedo is 1-2 W/m2 at least according to the publication anyway.

Gordon A, Dressler
Reply to  bdgwx
October 4, 2021 2:39 pm

bdgwx,

Precision is the number of decimal places or, for whole numbers, the number of significant digits one wants to report for any given value. For example, the value for pi can be stated to be 3.14 or 3.14159265, with the second value being more precise.

Accuracy is established by the percentage a reported value differs from “truth” (i.e., the well-established value accepted by “experts” for a given parameter). Hence, for example, the boiling point of pure water at sea-level pressure might be asserted by Person A to be 100.6 °C, while Person B asserts it to be 100.7493 °C . . . in this example Person A is more accurate despite actually being less precise than Person B.

Last edited 14 days ago by Gordon A, Dressler
bdgwx
Reply to  Gordon A, Dressler
October 4, 2021 3:02 pm

Ah…I see. You are using a different definition of precision that only depends on the number of digits you saw on the axis label. That’s a bit misleading because the authors almost certainly used IEEE 754 processing which keeps 15 digits and so by that definition their precision is probably closer to 0.000000000000001 W/m2 for those data points which is not at all representative of uncertainty. Remember, just because IEEE 754 processing provides all of those digits does not mean that the ISO 5725 precision is that low. To assess ISO 5725 precision you must perform statistical analysis on the data. You can’t assume the IEEE 754 significant digits or axis label significant digits has anything to with ISO 5725 precision.

Last edited 14 days ago by bdgwx
Richard Page
Reply to  bdgwx
October 4, 2021 3:29 pm

Ok. So you’re interpretation of precision (leaving aside all discussion of uncertainty and accuracy) is having more digits on the calculators screen when you add all the numbers up? Absolutely nothing to do with a dependence on the decimal places used in the original data or whether, just because you’ve got those extra decimal places, it is correct or justified to use all of them?

bdgwx
Reply to  Richard Page
October 4, 2021 7:40 pm

Ok. So you’re interpretation of precision (leaving aside all discussion of uncertainty and accuracy) is having more digits on the calculators screen when you add all the numbers up?”

No. I literally said the exact opposite of this.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  bdgwx
October 4, 2021 6:23 pm

Have you ever heard of resolution of a measuring device? Resolution controls the precision of a measurement. If I measure a battery with a meter that has 1 digit of resolution I might see 9 V. If I use a high resolution HP meter with six digits of resolution I might measure 8.93137 V. Which has the better precision? Do you see any correlation with temperature measurements?

Understanding Digital Multimeter DMM Accuracy & Resolution » Electronics Notes (electronics-notes.com)

Gordon A, Dressler
Reply to  bdgwx
October 4, 2021 10:10 pm

bdgwx,

Why would you ever assert “. . . because the authors almost certainly used IEEE 754 processing which keeps 15 digits . . .”?

Can you present any objective evidence to support that statement?

I am not aware of ANY scientific paper or article that reports data processing using that standard. Most engineers and scientists (both amateur and professional) realize that it is ridiculous to carry out mathematical calculations and have end results that are reportable to 15 digits to the right of the decimal point.

There is not a single scientific instrument used in climate research that has an accuracy or repeatability approaching 1 part in 10^15.

Therefore, it is sophomoric to imply “processing” data to IEEE 754 standards would somehow make the given data more accurate, more reliable, or more believable than it actually is at far less claimed precision.

Last edited 13 days ago by Gordon A, Dressler
bdgwx
Reply to  Gordon A, Dressler
October 5, 2021 7:24 am

Pretty much every computer and software package in existence today uses IEEE 754.

And I never implied that processing data using IEE 754 would somehow make the given data more accurate, more reliable, or more believable. In fact, I said the exact opposite. I said Remember, just because IEEE 754 processing provides all of those digits does not mean that the ISO 5725 precision is that low.” I am specifically warning you that you can’t look at a number and determine the ISO 5725 precision just be seeing how many digits there are. It doesn’t work that way. So you can’t look at the y-axis labels and proclaim the data has 0.1 W/m2 of precision. Nevermind that the uncertainty range is already provided for you on the same graph.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  bdgwx
October 5, 2021 8:12 am

Of course you can look at the axis labels and where data is plotted to discern the minimum precision. In fact data points are plotted to the 1/100th points. If the precision was the nearest 0.1, then each data point would be at a multiple of 0.1 and not in between.

The uncertainty range is the killer. Any measurement shown within that interval is uncertain and could be any value inside that interval. In fact the data could truly be at either the max or min of that interval.

Gordon A, Dressler
Reply to  bdgwx
October 5, 2021 9:20 am

bdgwx,

Your claim that “Pretty much every computer and software package in existence today uses IEEE 754” is ridiculous and easily falsified.

The are many computers and software programs currently in use that are limited to 32-bit processing. Having values limited to expression in 32 bits means that maximum values (excluding the use of exponentiation) cannot exceed 4,294,967,296 or less than 5E+9 (unless the use of double-precision in mathematical calculations is specifically invoked), nowhere near the 1E+15 normal processing precision of IEEE 754.

This is easily verified by a simple Web search.

Here is one example, dated May 15, 2020 from https://www.engadget.com/windows-10-32-bit-oem-173055990.html :
“This news doesn’t mean that Microsoft will no longer support computers running 32-bit Windows 10. Microsoft says that it will continue to update the OS with new features and security patches, and will still sell it directly to consumers. That said, if you’re still using a 32-bit processor, it may be time to upgrade — the weaker version of Windows 10 has several limitations, like capping out at 3.2GB of RAM and less stringent security measures.”

And here is an excerpt from a more recent post on this issue (dated June 6, 2021, from hackaday.com with the title “Is 32-bits really dead?”):
“While some of us are still clinging onto our favorite 8-bit microprocessors, ARM announced they will be killing off the 32-bit architecture in 2022 and/or 2023. Over on the GaryExplains YouTube channel, [Gary Sims] posted a great review of the current 32- vs 64-bit state-of-affairs — not just for ARM but for Intel and AMD processors as well . . .

“ARM announced last Fall that there would be no more 32-bit support as of 2022, then this March they made a similar announcement but with a 2023 deadline. [Gary] tries to parse these statements, and takes an educated guess at what the disparity means (spoiler alert — he predicts that one more 32-bit core will soon be released).

“[Gary] clearly breaks down the 32-bit situation by operating systems such as Linux, Windows, MacOS, Android, and iOS, and how all of these have been transitioning to 64-bits over recent years. He does a thorough job, and concludes that the transition is already well underway. And while Linux and Windows have not completely dropped 32-bit support, the writing is on the wall.

“Take note, however, that this discussion regards the Cortex-A family of cores found in smart phones, tablets, computers, and powerful embedded applications like autonomous vehicles. The popular 32-bit Cortex-M family of low-cost / low-power cores that are used in so many embedded system designs will remain 32-bits for the foreseeable future.”

I see no need to comment on the rest of your post.

bdgwx
Reply to  Gordon A, Dressler
October 5, 2021 6:19 pm

First, IEEE 754 provides a specification for single float (32-bit) numbers.

Second, IEEE 754 double floats (64-bits) still work on 32-bit processors.

I am literally using Excel on a 32-bit machine today and it handles double floats (64-bit) and 15 significant figures just fine.

I stand by my statement. I also stand by advice that you cannot assume ISO 5725 precision is the same as the number of digits reported to you whether it be on a computer screen, instrument display, or a y-axis label. It just doesn’t work like that.

Gordon A, Dressler
Reply to  bdgwx
October 5, 2021 2:57 pm

I’m going to wrap up this thread and tie a pretty bow around it with the wisdom Aristotle, who is claimed to have said some 2300+ years ago:

“It is the mark of an instructed mind to rest satisfied with the degree of precision which the nature of the subject admits and not to seek exactness when only an approximation of the truth is possible.”

Last edited 13 days ago by Gordon A, Dressler
Jay Willis
October 4, 2021 10:31 am

These data are too inaccurate to make any scientific statement about trends. According to the philosophy of science as explained by Karl Popper, the hypothesis that the trend is rising cannot be falseified by these data. It’s schoolboy stuff – it should not have passed peer review

upTrend.PNG
Ulric Lyons
October 4, 2021 10:42 am

Warmer sea surfaces reduce low cloud cover except in parts of the central tropics and over the Arctic ocean. The warm AMO phase and increased El Nino conditions are normal for a centennial solar minimum, so it’s all an amplified negative feedback.

Bill Powers
October 4, 2021 10:42 am

I stopped reading this fanatical at “The climate change crisis…”

absolutely no point to reading any further. When a so called scientist refers to climate change as a crisis he/she exposes themselves as a political scientist.

Steve Z
October 4, 2021 10:49 am

[QUOTE FROM ARTICLE]”Researchers investigated the Earth’s ‘albedo’ by studying earthshine at the Big Bear Solar Observatory in California between 1998 and 2017—that’s over 1,500 nights of data.” [END QUOTE]

Nineteen years of nights (1998 through the same date in 2017) is a total of 6,940 nights (including 5 leap days), so did they only quote data from less than 22% of the nights during that period? Could some of this data have been cherry-picked to demonstrate a trend?

If they were only taking data on crescent moons over California, then there would be two possible scenarios:

(1) A crescent moon rising shortly before sunrise in the east (waning crescent)

(2) A crescent moon setting shortly before sunset in the west (waxing crescent).

For scenario (1) above, most of the reflected sunlight would be reflecting from continental North America to the east, and the albedo of land tends to fluctuate seasonally (high albedo during snow cover, low albedo when vegetation is active during spring and summer).

For scenario (2) above, most of the reflected sunlight would come from the Pacific Ocean to the west, where the albedo would not fluctuate much seasonally (does warm water reflect sunlight more or less than cool water?).

Did the researchers distinguish between “earthshine” for waning crescent moons rising in the east before sunrise, and for waxing crescent mons setting in the west after sunset?

Richard Page
Reply to  Steve Z
October 4, 2021 3:32 pm

Wouldn’t it have been better to take readings on a new moon, with no contamination from reflected sunlight from the moon at all? Why did you think a crescent moon would be more useful?

Charles Fairbairn
October 4, 2021 10:53 am

I’m puzzled by this. Albedo is a ratio; so where does the Watts/sq.m come from? Could it be something to do with the sun?
Blaming the oceans seems counter intuitive to me; for one would expect cooler oceans to reduce radiation levels. Perhaps it is a bit of both which leaves everything very much in the air.

Never mind there are always other grants out there to keep us going.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Charles Fairbairn
October 4, 2021 1:55 pm

Read the original article. However, basically they are obtaining the 0.5 W/m^2 forcing from multiplying the apparent albedo (unitless ratio) with the solar flux (W/m^2).

Gordon A, Dressler
Reply to  Charles Fairbairn
October 4, 2021 3:24 pm

Charles, try this:

The total effective TOA insolation for the hemisphere of Earth exposed to the Sun is stated be “roughly” 340.3 W/m^2 when averaged over a full year (see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiance).

If Earth’s albedo varied by 1.8 W/m^2 over the 18-year period given in the the above article’s anomaly graph . . . from a high of +0.7 W/m^2 to a low of -1.1 W/m^2 as indicated by the blue dots representing the CERES-measured annual albedo anomalies . . . then that is equivalent to a 1.8/340.3 = 1.76% total variation, assuming the zero-anomaly point is 0.3*340.3 W/m^2 = 102.1 W/m^2 reflected on long term average.

Distilling this further, the conclusion is the CERES folks are claiming their total measurement loop for determining Earth’s albedo is stable to better than 1.76%/18 = 0.098% per year (that is, all of the indicated data variation is real and without any contribution from, say, instrument accuracy drift over time).

I simply ain’t buying what they (or, similarly, the Earthshine measurement folks) are selling.

Last edited 14 days ago by Gordon A, Dressler
Jphn
October 4, 2021 11:28 am

The most startling thing is that people actually read this sh**.

Robert of Texas
October 4, 2021 11:40 am

One would have to bounce a known wavelength (or wavelengths) of laser off the moon and simultaneously measure that intensity versus the Earthshine intensity to know if the change were due to surface and cloud reflectivity or just dust and aerosols in the atmosphere.

It actually would not surprise me if reflectivity has dropped, given the increase in coal burning with inadequate filtration over the same period of time in China, India, and developing nations. The soot from that could easily be changing reflectivity of any permanent snow/ice pack. Also the aerosols created would scatter and reduce visible light leaving the planet.

This assumes that any changes for sunlight variability have already been accounted for.

Measuring the light reflected back from the moon is just another proxy. It isn’t a direct measurement so as in any proxy there are a lot of variables. Therefore while curious it isn’t proof of anything.

I wonder if they measured many different wavelengths of light if that might help identify where the missing light had gone? For example, I expect more of the Earthshine will be green light than in the past. More blue and reds (visible) will be gone becoming plant materials. This is expected when the Earth starts greening up and becoming more compatible with plant life.

Rich Lambert
October 4, 2021 12:49 pm

If the system is 100% hydrogen there are issues. Among them are hydrogen odorization, so people can smell leaks is difficult, small leaks are hard to detect, and hydrogen burns with an almost invisible flame. Additionally, hydrogen does not exist on earth as a free gas. This means it takes more energy to produce than it provides. Politicians are more than willing to waste other peoples’ money on projects in hopes of eliminating an non-existent problem.

Richard Page
Reply to  Rich Lambert
October 4, 2021 3:33 pm

Are you absolutely sure that you posted this to the correct article?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Richard Page
October 6, 2021 7:30 pm

I wonder how mistakes like that happen.

Mike
October 4, 2021 3:12 pm

”The study indicates that our home planet now reflects almost half a watt less light per square metre than it did 20 years ago,….”

”According to the study, the Earth’s brightness has decreased as a result of warming ocean waters.”

Huh? The GAT in 2000 was exactly the same as it was in 2019 – where their graph ends
comment image

Last edited 14 days ago by Mike
David Solan
October 4, 2021 3:48 pm

Guys, I fully understand that on any day an earthshine measurement might be off by several percentage. But these measurements were done continuously for two decades. What makes you think that a one-day error can be systematic over a 20-year timespan? Highly unlikely.
I believe that it is probable, from this data, that they are measuring a real reduction in the albedo of the Earth, albeit a small amount, even over a 20-year period. And it could definitely be coming from some significant percentage of the Earth’s surface waters warming a little bit on net and therefore pumping more water vapor into the air. This would also be consistent with the observed increase in global precipitation over the last 20, if not 120, years. More water coming down can only be possible if more water went up beforehand. The water budget of the Earth is well-documented and we don’t get additions or subtractions to it except for highly, well-characterized inputs and outputs,
Don’t have a hissy fit. This ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT PROVE that the increasing Carbon Dioxide in the air has ANYTHING to do with this slight surface-water warming, nor does it prove that that slight warming represents a net negative impact on our environment. They can be right about this fact of decreasing albedo and yet be spectacularly wrong about all the rest of the mindless hysteria they are peddling. No need to get worked up if they are right on this little issue.

David Solan

Richard Page
Reply to  David Solan
October 4, 2021 4:41 pm

Actually, I wasn’t going to have a ‘hissy fit’ as you so eloquently put it; I was merely going to point out that there has been no discernable trend increase in precipitation over the last 20 or more years. Even the IPCC admits they have low confidence in any increases, which tallies with most regions around the world showing no increase. So, with that in mind, there’s no increase in atmospheric water vapour either unless someone changed the laws of physics so what goes up doesn’t come down?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  David Solan
October 6, 2021 7:35 pm

The real problem is that there are multiple potential explanations that, individually or in aggregate, could explain the decline. However, not invoking Chamberlain’s Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses, they neither acknowledge or formally reject the alternatives. In their mind, it is CO2 all the way down.

stinkerp
October 4, 2021 4:05 pm

In an unrelated story, janitor Ollie Bigowitz replaced the aging fluorescent bulb in the porch light near the detector with a brighter LED bulb 3 years ago.

“It’s sure helped us when we need to check our equipment at night,” astronomer Halley Tosis says. “The difference is like night and day.”

otsar
October 4, 2021 6:24 pm

I would like to see optical spectroscopic data of incoming and outgoing radiation to back up their argument.

Vincent Causey
October 5, 2021 12:31 am

Well, visible light may have diminished slightly, but what about infra red? Do they include that?

Captain climate
October 5, 2021 2:56 am

1. Why are there no error bars around the most recent years and 2. It looks to me like any trend is not statistically significant to 2 sigma.

DHR
October 5, 2021 9:30 am

I am told that the increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere are greening the earth. I am also told that more trees decrease albedo. Could the observed decrease in the earth’s albedo not be due to the greening?

Thomas Black
October 9, 2021 11:17 am

global warming predictions include increased rainfall due to warming, how can that be if there are less clouds?

%d bloggers like this: