[update from a reader 10/23/2021: Message: Regarding the quotation in Kenneth Richards’ Oct 18 article “2001-2019 Warming Driven By Increases In Absorbed Solar Radiation, Not Human Emissions.” While I am a climate skeptic, it worries me to see that the author quotes the Loed, et al report incorrectly. (https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2021GL093047)
The full statement in the report is “This trend is primarily due to an increase in absorbed solar radiation associated with decreased reflection by clouds and sea-ice and a decrease in outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) due to increases in trace gases and water vapor.” Richards left out everything after the word “clouds.” CO2 is one of the trace gases, and according to this report, its heat-trapping propensity in the atmosphere is equally important as a cause of global warming as “decreased reflection by clouds.” I also note that there are theoretical connections between decreased cloud cover and increased levels of CO2.~cr]
Reposted from the NoTricksZone
By Kenneth Richard on 18. October 2021
Three new studies affirm the increase in absorbed solar radiation associated with decreased reflection by clouds (albedo) has been the “root cause” of the positive Earth Energy Imbalance and global warming since the early 2000s.
Scientists (Loeb et al., 2021) have determined the rather uncertain positive trend in Earth’s Energy Imbalance (EEI) from 2005 to 2019, 0.5 W/m² ±0.47 W/m² per decade−1, is “primarily due to an increase in absorbed solar radiation associated with decreased reflection by clouds.”
CERES satellite data indicate clouds and surface albedo account for 89% of the absorbed solar radiation trend in the 21st century, whereas anthropogenic greenhouse gases account for but a tiny fraction of the trends in combined absorbed solar radiation and greenhouse effect forcing (reductions in emitted thermal radiation) during this period.
This very small human emissions/greenhouse gas impact is represented by the red “Other” (“trace gases”) bars in the graph below. In emitted thermal radiation, graph (e) shows the greenhouse gas impact is effectively offset by the cloud influence; both factors are cancelled out by temperature changes. This leaves the increase in absorbed solar radiation shown in graph (d) due to natural variations in clouds and surface albedo (SFC) as the primary driver(s) of top-of-atmosphere (TOA) flux forcing during the last two decades.
Image Source: Loeb et al., 2021
Other scientists (Dübal and Vahrenholt, 2021) have also concluded that the positive TOA net flux (+1.42 W/m²) from increasing downwelling shortwave (SW) facilitated by a drop in cloudiness has been the “major driving effect,” “dominating influence,” and “major heating cause” explaining the 2001-2019 ocean heat content increase (240 ZJ).
The authors note these CERES satellite observations “conflict with the assumption further global warming originates mainly from the LW [longwave] radiation capture caused by greenhouse gases, i.e., a decline in outgoing LW.” In fact, the LW or greenhouse effect impact has been negative; it has contributed a net cooling influence (-1.1 W/m²) over the last two decades.
Image Source: Dübal and Vahrenholt, 2021
The summarizing text from another new study (Ollila, 2021) bluntly asserts the substantial increase in downwelling SW radiation from 2000-2019 demonstrates “there are natural climate drivers that have rapid and significant temperature impacts exceeding the anthropogenic drivers,” and that any temperature increase since 2015-’16 “cannot be due to anthropogenic reasons.”
Image Source: Ollila, 2021
These newer studies affirming the 21st increase in absorbed solar radiation has driven modern warming are further substantiated by a 2020 Nature journal paper (Delgado-Bonal et al., 2020) extending the positive (+3 W/m²) cloud-albedo SW impact back to 1980.
[S]hortwave radiation is the main driver in the dynamics and plays a major role in the energy balance by affecting the longwave radiation field.”
“Our research supports the idea that clouds and albedo, which ultimately determine the SW radiation, are variables of the utmost importance for current climate change, in agreement with previous research about the changes in stratocumulus or energy imbalance in the last four decades for example. An increase in cloud coverage of 0.1 would, on average, lead to a 7% increase in spectrally integrated global average reflectance of shortwave radiation.”
How do these papers stack-up with regard to the peer review process? I’m often hit by the “it isn’t peer reviewed” response when people want to defend the “man-made emissions cause climate change” argument.
This is despite my pointing out that the peer review process is pretty broken, p-hacking and a general lack of statistical understanding among those carrying out the reviews let alone the authors themselves.
I’m assuming these are peer reviewed and that the journals are respected?
They are, you should be able to look yourself, they are linked to the publications.
Not sure why your perfectly valid question was marked down. Have an uptick to compensate
Thanks Redge, it seemed pretty reasonable to me, too. Some people, eh.
The Loeb et al paper is in the highly respected GRL. As far as I am concerned it alone falsified AGW. Since the other two papers essentially verify the Loeb paper it would be hard to argue those journals are relevant.
On assignment without time to read the details an comments. Just wondering if any of this cited the recent papers that ascribe up to half warming in Europe was caused by cleaner skies due to sharply reduced emissions and significantly reduced aerosol optical depth from coal burning power plants. My new 30-year paper to be published in December mentions this factor as a likely cause for increased atmospheric transmission over my Texas site.
This paper and your upcoming paper just show that the science is somehow “unsettled”.
Even though i’m sure i heard it was settled.
Probably a combination of both is the right answer in some areas.
Just so? Actually, it’s quite significant.
A Russian friend who follows a guy who counts polar bears in the Chuchki Sea sent me a picture from Ryrkaypiy comparing 2 years ago to today. Open ocean and beach 2 years ago, frozen beach and lots of ice today.
I hate cold winters.
Nice to know, but there were 88,000 papers saying it was us. This is not going to effect the 99.9 % consensus claim from a recent post.
The specific heat of dry air and CO2 say human emissions are not at fault so this paper is probably correct.
Is it not wiser to see the changes in albedo/clouds as a SYMPTOM of the climatic processes, and not a cause? I’ve tried to follow the logic of why these papers might minimise the role of anthropogenic influences and I fail to see the killer point..
However, it DOES surely point to the effect of greenhouse gases being just one input into a very complex and inscrutable system of climate dynamics which does include what is effectively a thermostat, mediated by the hydrological cycle. It might be possible for additions to GHE to alter the level at which the thermostat is set, and the question is the extent to which it is able to do that. IPCC analysis, in summary, denies or avoids the presence of a thermostat, which is to my way of thinking a huge weakness.
By the way, Kenneth Richard is a brilliant collator or non-alarmist climate papers. Would be good to see more of his stuff here, as it seems to get overlooked just how much scientific material there actually is for sceptics to use.
“I fail to see the killer point”
There isn’t one. AGW does not predict an ongoing positive EEI. It predicts a resistance to outgoing IR, which means an increased temperature difference needed to maintain zero EEI. So the surface warms, and outgoing flux is the same. There is some positive EEI while the ocean temperatures adjust to the warmer state.
What *is* that “warmer state”? Is it higher maximum temps? Is Earth going to become a cinder? Or is it higher minimum temperatures? Will lengthened growing seasons and nighttime plant growth provide more food for humans? Or is it a combination of both.
The Climate alarmists claim the Earth is going to burn up. But I have yet to see a climate model publicized that predicts higher maximum temperatures, just higher average anomalies – which can be driven by higher minimums, higher maximums, or a combination of both.
As Freeman Dyson once said, you have to study the Earth in a holistic manner to actually come to any conclusions about its climates. Average nomalies are not holistic, they don’t actually tell you anything useful about the climate.
I am calling out the use of “surface” as a too generic and unscientific term to describe what is warming. Is it the true surface, e.g., the actual land and ocean or is it the lower troposphere, e.g., the atmosphere?
Yes, there is one. You have the EEI more than explained by solar energy. No need for any added energy from AGW. It essentially tells us we’ve gone 25+ years without any greenhouse warming. It’s definitely a killer point.
I think the “killer point” is 3 papers found essentially the same situation. More solar energy is reaching the surface. This energy MUST cause warming and it turns out enough energy reached the surface to produce even more warming than we have seen.
Now add in the correlation with the PDO found in the Loeb paper and there’s a very solid mechanism. The PDO went positive in 2014 which ended the 17 year pause. Looks like the only reason the pause ended was natural and had nothing to do with the AGW.
All those Anti-Fa, BLM, and other terrorists wearing black.
Black absorbs heat.
Of course the Climate Activists will claim that Warming caused the decrease in low cloud cover…that allowed for more direct surface heating.
But the Climate Crisis DEPENDS on a 3 X’s amplification of warming from increased atmospheric humidity.
More humidity leading to fewer clouds seems unlikely to impossible (possible if negative feedbacks exist that I’m not aware of). Warmer more humid air rises faster and clouds are formed by the condensation of rising moist air…which “moister air” Global Warming MUST PRODUCE in order for CO2 Doubling to cause CATASTROPHE (since CO2’s ~1° C contribution alone is insufficient for Catastrophe).
This looks like a back breaker.
That might be difficult as the Loeb paper shows a strong correlation to the PDO.
I am taking it that someone in there has actually measured a change in the amount/number/thickness of clouds?
But again, not especially important because The One Thing you need to make clouds is water
So is it any surprise that city-building and desertification (places with low-to-zero water) have fewer clouds above them.
(Surely Shirley, that’s not the Urban Heat Island Effect is it?)
We know we are making deserts, the recent dust storm in Sao Paulo and the Life at 50 story from the BBC about a goat farmer in Mauritania.
Ask any farmer why he uses a plough and he’ll say that it is ‘warm the soil and dry it out‘
Now see the picture I’ve added – a sattelite image of where I was earlier today in East Anglia
(Thetford= where Boadicea came from apparently)
This is where it all goes counter intuitive when you look at the patchwork of fields.
Beacuse the lighter coloured patches are ploughed/cultivated/tilled ground, the lighter green bits are grasses and growing crops and the really dark green bits are patches of woodland
You would say that the lighter coloured bits have higher Albedo – but they don’t
I’ve measured it.
Wet ploughed soil has an Albedo of typically 0.10
Dry ploughed soil has an Albedo of between 0.20 and 0.15
Green growing crops have an albedo of between 0.35 and 0.45
Very dark green things have an Albedo of 0.45 to 0.50
Is that not just crazy
Run some Sines and Cosines with a Solar Constant of 1370 Watts per square metre and you will find that the Average Annual (24/7/365) Solar Power hitting 52 degrees North (roughly where Thetford is) is about 210 Watts
Now do an Absorbed Power calculation and you get an absorbed solar power (clear sky) of:
189 Watts for wet ploughed land
116 Watts for healthy green growing plant life (forest or crops)
Even worse, within a few days of ploughing, the ploughed land will have dried out and be vastly much less likely to make a cloud and shield itself. ##
Remind me, how many Watts are these folks quibbling about………
## Whie the dessication, heat and not least solar UV will be destroying the soil bacteria that comprise ‘Soil Organic Matter‘ and ordinary bog standard Oxygen will be swooping in to oxidise their frazzled little corpses and carry them away to a Hawaiian Island volcano
what’s not to like
THANKS FOR THE LINKS
If the authors had paid strict attention to the proper display of significant figures, they would have reported “… 0.5 W/m² ±0.5 W/m² per decade−1,” which is inherently more informative than the uncertainty they did display. That is, the claimed decline is nominally between 0 and 1 W/m², presumably with about 68% probability.
Bear in mind that any measured radiative quantities are a consequence of the Earth system thermodynamic properties.
These properties represent partitioning of TOA available solar radiation to different heat reservoirs.
The radiative measurements depict elements of the atmospheric heat engine which is always striving to maximize the dissipation of surface heat to space (radiative equilibrium).
The atmosphere has infinite degrees of freedom to optimize this process. The most significant of which appears to be cloud fraction which serves to maximize the LW cooling to space.
In this view, cloud fraction is in radiative balance to TOA available solar radiation (for the most part).
As opposed to radiative cooling to space, consider that in the troposphere the boundary layer energy exchange with the surface occurs only by non-radiative transfer. For example, an energy perturbation must result in a change to evaporation and convection.
Thus we see that ‘hydrostatic equilibrium’ regulates the transfer of energy and moisture through the boundary layer in such a way that the net amount maintains the planetary ‘radiative balance’ aloft.
This mechanism has direct implications for cloud formation (and by non-trivial circumstance depends on planetary surface pressure or atmospheric mass).
After having filtered through the various thermodynamic reservoirs, both radiatively and adiabatically, geometric albedo is coupled to TOA solar available.
Counterintuitively thus, clouds seem unlikely to act as an ‘external forcing’. Like most other things, clouds appear to respond to changes in integrated TOA solar available.
One must remember that as H2O precipitates and forms clouds, it is bombarded by near IR from the sun and turns back into vapor. At altitude and low temps it will precipitate again releasing energy. In essence it is a form of albedo, but not just reflection.
Your observation supports the hypothesis. A change of SW incoming is related to a change in cloud fraction. Your observation suggests an inverse change of low cloud fraction. Assuming low clouds have greater radiative impacts this would serve to amplify integrated solar changes.
I recall reading way back when that sulpher dioxide from coal burning power plants caused clouds to be brighter with a higher albedo as well as made rain more acidic. Some 25-30 years ago there were changes to allowed power plant emissions, at least in the US, because more acidic rain was killing vegetation and affecting lakes and streams.
If I remember all this correctly, and if SO2 emissions have been reduced around the world due to emission controls or use of nat. gas instead of coal then maybe that’s why solar radiation absorption has increased. Less SO2 makes clouds less bright?
Earth’s albedo is far lower than being claimed. The Himawari satellite shows a much darker Earth than the oft-referenced “pale blue dot”.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/12/why-albedo-is-the-wrong-measure-of-reflectivity-for-modeling-climate/
The Loeb et al. 2021 has some serious shortcomings. Although the graphs presented in the report are accurate, I have found they have serious errors that results in the paper drawing incorrect conclusions.
If you take a close look at the graphs in Figure 2, they all use data from 09/2002 so that the centred 12 month moving average commences 03/2003. Why do they start this graph at this date when the CERES data commenced in 03/2000? It is because the earlier data showed a strong fall in both SW ‘all sky’ and SW ‘clear sky’. If you include all of the available data from 03/2000 to 07/2021, the graphs take on a completely different flavor. The graphs show that clear sky SW radiation nearly matches the all sky radiation in much of the period from 2000 to 2021, only deviating substantially in 2014 before closing again in 2016 and 2018.
Instead of 62% of the change being attributed to all sky cloud changes, the graphs would show over 75% being attributed to clear sky SW radiation and surface albedo changes with only a small percentage associated with clouds. Why is this important? Because they can no longer attribute the problem to the supposed cloud feedback effect. In addition, since the OLR outgoing longwave radiation has increased, not decreased, they cannot blame the albedo changes to this factor. So if albedo change is the driver, what is causing that? It is not temperature change as there is no longer any mechanism for it. They have the cart before the horse. It is the albedo change that is the cause of the ice melt, not the ice melt causing the albedo change! And they have no idea what is causing the albedo change because they have not looked hard enough.
One further point. In a previous 2018 paper, Loeb et al. attribute this SW clear sky change to pollution reduction efforts by the USA and China (i.e. a strong reduction in the Arctic Haze intensity which has been observed). This explanation has disappeared altogether in the 2021 report in favor of their albedo explanation. Why? As it is evident that the clear sky SW radiation is the predominant cause of temperature rise if all of the data is considered, then the only conclusion that can possibly be drawn is that net zero by 2050 would actually increase warming!
Furthermore, the Loeb et al. 2021 report defines a term ETR emitted thermal radiation as the negative of OLR. Outgoing longwave radiation is just that. It is outgoing. How can LW radiation be emitted toward the ground? The emission is upwards, not the negative of that. By defining ETR as the negative of OLR they have given the IPCC and COP26 something they can quote. “Emitted thermal radiation has decreased” rather than what has actually occurred – outgoing long wave radiation has increased!
The Loeb et al. 2021 paper is at best, misleading and at worst? You be the judge.
When you start with the wrong assumption, your data can lead you to misleading conclusions.
There is considerable supporting evidence that the oceans have gained heat in the last 20 years – both deep ocean temperature measurement and sea level rise due to thermal expansion support the proposition.
The problem here is that the ocean surface temperature, as well as the entire ocean temperature over millennium scales, is an inverse function of the heat input. Extra heat speeds up the water cycle pulling cool water to the surface and less heat slows down the water cycle leaving more heat in the oceans. When heat input is at its maximum in January the water cycle turns over the total atmospheric water almost 1.5 times. Some 60mm of water over the entire land area is transferred from oceans to land.
In July the turnover is much slower with only about 20% the atmospheric water being turned over to land; equivalent to just 11mm over the land area.
Now CERES is calibrated against the ocean heat uptake so it is just showing what has been measured in the oceans but with full global coverage.
The oceans have been losing solar input since 1585 so it should come as no surprise that the water cycle is slowing down and reducing the rate of transfer of water to land.
Interesting….
More albedo and the Earth cools.
Less albedo and the Earth warms.
No albedo and the Earth cooks in the 394 K/121 C/ 250 F solar wind much like the Moon.
That is NOT what the Radiative Green House Effect theory predicts.
That is what Nikolov, Kramm and UCLS Diviner say.
Actually, that the albedo cools the earth is sufficient alone to CONTRADICT and NEGATE RGHE theory!
The “extra” warming energy downwelling (violates SLoT) from the so-called GHGs allegedly originates with the surface upwelling as a BB. (tfk_bams90) As demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science,
That
Is
Not
Possible.
https://principia-scientific.org/debunking-the-greenhouse-gas-theory-with-a-boiling-water-pot/
If either of these points stands, greenhouse theory fails and man caused climate change collapses.
Version 1.0 102021
This is hugely important. The question is, what changed the albedo? Man or some natural cause (actually I think man is part of nature, so all his actions are as natural as a Beavers, or trees creating aerosols).
So, what caused it?
Matthew, the scientists will tell you that a variety of feedback mechanisms to carbon dioxide are at play to cause albedo change (isn’t feedback the most overused term in climate science?). One explanation is increased rainfall but what caused the rainfall to change? The other explanation is ice melt but what caused that?
We need to establish a root cause, a process that some engineers use daily but has never been done by the scientists to my knowledge.
Typically the scientists have assumed that albedo is, by and large fixed, but this is far from the case.
I have undertaken considerable research and have my ideas that need to be confirmed. Unlike the scientists however I will not jump to conclusions nor publish incomplete guesswork.
My current conclusion is natural causes but more work needs to be done.
One further point to stimulate some thought. The CERES data shows the lowered albedo is not just in the arctic. It is found in many areas of predominantly desert and snow covered areas throughout the northern hemisphere including Canada except strangely and importantly the USA which typically shows raised albedo between 2000 and 2020.
Australia and South Africa desert areas have raised albedo too. A brain teaser indeed!
If you go to the paper itself, they discuss changes in the PDO in 2014 that correlate almost perfectly with the decrease in clouds and associated increase in solar energy reaching the surface.
Is there any reason this article crops the net contributions graph from Loeb et al?
The graph simply shows what the article already articulated. The warming is from ASR while net downward IR was reduced. It’s a double hit on the climate cult. This is essentially complete falsification of AGW.
Remember “the pause”? This data show exactly why it ended. It was a shift in the PDO that reduced cloudiness and allow increases in solar energy reaching the surface. It had nothing at all to do with greenhouse gases.
The article claimed that the root cause of recent warming was increased ASR associated with decreased cloud cover, but the graph shows that increased water vapor is the biggest contribution to the net energy imbalance, with clouds being roughly equal to “others” which includes increased CO2. The main reason OLR has increased is due to surface warming over the last couple of decades, with the decrease in cloude cover also playing a part. As the disclaimer at the start of this article acknowledges, Loeb et al, say
I can’t see how any of this falsifies AGW, and this paper certainly doesn’t suggest it does.