Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
I got to messing about with the MODTRAN Infrared Light In The Atmosphere model. From the Help file.
Figure 1. Description of the MODTRAN model.
I was interested in the model because I wanted to see the difference between how much energy escapes from the surface to outer space at the equatorial regions versus the polar regions. So in my usual demented style, I wrote a program that downloads the results of a MODTRAN run so I can analyze them.
What I found was that in clear-sky conditions, subarctic summer, about 70% of the upwelling surface radiation makes it to space. And in clear-sky conditions, subarctic winter, about 81% makes it out. Finally, in the tropics, clear-sky, only about 65% of the upwelling surface radiation makes it to space.
This occurs for a couple of reasons. First, at cold temperatures, more of the energy is in frequencies less absorbed by CO2. And second, the poles are much drier than the tropics, and water is the major greenhouse gas.
Figure 2. Water content by latitude.
Having seen the MODTRAN results, I took a look to see how the MODTRAN numbers agree with the CERES data. Here’s the CERES view of how much of the clear-sky upwelling surface radiation makes it to space.
Figure 3. Global view, percentage of the upwelling radiation going to space. Clear skies only.
This shows the tropics as losing 63.7% of the upwelling longwave surface radiation to space. MODTRAN said 65% … close enough.
For the summer and winter subarctic, the subarctic is generally taken as the area from 50°-70° north latitude. To examine this, I took the summer and winter upwelling longwave percentages by latitude. Figure 4 shows that graph.
Figure 4. Percentage to space of CERES upwelling surface longwave (LW) by latitude and season, and MODTRAN summer and winter SubArctic LW percentage to space. Clear skies only.
Again there is excellent agreement between MODTRAN and CERES. And as you can see, there is a large difference in the amount of escaping LW in the tropics and towards the poles. Values are higher at the South Pole because the South Polar Plateau is quite elevated and extremely dry, and thus is above most of the greenhouse gases.
So why is all this important? That brings us back to the title of this post, “Advection”. As opposed to convection, which is a movement of energy in a vertical direction, advection is the horizontal movement of energy. In specific with the climate it is the energy which is carried horizontally by the physical movement of the ocean and/or the atmosphere. And it is a huge movement. Here’s where the energy is moving from and to—it’s going from the tropics to the poles.
Figure 5. CERES average advection. Positive areas are advecting energy to the negative areas.
And this is important because the energy is moving from the location where less of it escapes to space, to the locations where more of it escapes to space.
Next, I took a look at the change in the total amount of energy advected over time. Figure 6 shows that result.
Figure 6. Increase in the total flow of energy advected (petawatts). Seasonal variations removed.
So … how much extra energy escapes to space from this increase in advection from the equator to the polar regions? To calculate that, we take the increase in petawatts, multiply it by the average increase in longwave escape in the polar regions over the escape in the tropics, and divide it by the surface area of the earth … which gives a result of an increase in top-of-atmosphere upwelling longwave radiation of 0.6 watts per square meter (W/m2).
And how does this increase in escaping longwave compare to other energy flows? Well, any increase in CO2 causes a corresponding decrease in longwave escaping at the top of the atmosphere. How much of a decrease? Assuming that the IPCC is correct in its estimate that a doubling of CO2 reduces top-of-atmosphere longwave by 3.7 watts per square meter (W/m2), the change over the 2000-2021 period shown above is … wait for it … a decrease of 0.6 W/m2.
So over this period at least, the reduction of 0.6 W/m2 in top-of-atmosphere upwelling longwave due to CO2 is exactly counterbalanced by the increase of 0.6 W/m2 in top-of-atmosphere upwelling longwave due to increased advection.
Is this coincidental? It’s quite possible that it is. But if so, it’s an interesting coincidence …
And whether it is a coincidence or not, it goes to show that the standard CO2 theory of surface heating is oversimplified.
That theory says that if CO2 cuts down the amount of upwelling longwave headed out to space, the surface temperature perforce must increase to restore the top of atmosphere balance between incoming and outgoing radiation. Or to be more specific, the theory says that:
• The amount of atmospheric CO2 is increasing.
• This absorbs more upwelling longwave radiation, which leads to unbalanced radiation at the top of the atmosphere (TOA). This is the TOA balance between incoming sunlight (after some is reflected back to space) and outgoing longwave radiation from the surface and the atmosphere.
• In order to restore the balance so that incoming radiation equals outbound radiation, the surface perforce must, has to, is required to warm up until there’s enough additional upwelling longwave to restore the balance.
But this analysis shows that, as I discussed in my post “Unbalanced At The Top“, there are more ways to restore the balance than a surface temperature increase … and thus, the usual CO2 theory is falsified.
My best New Year wishes to all,
w.
PS—For those interested, the other ways of re-establishing the TOA balance include:
• Increased cloud or surface reflections can reduce the amount of incoming sunlight.
• Increased absorption of sunlight by the atmospheric aerosols and clouds can lead to greater upwelling longwave.
• Increases in the number or duration of thunderstorms move additional surface heat into the troposphere, moving it above some of the greenhouse gases, and leading to increased upwelling longwave.
• A change in the fraction of atmospheric radiation going upwards vs. downwards can lead to increased upwelling radiation.
MY USUAL—I choose my own words carefully, and I am happy to defend them. However, I cannot defend your interpretation of my words. So when you comment, please quote the exact words that you are discussing, so we can all be clear on your topic.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I would be interested to see the hemispherical contributions to the trend.
The precession cycle should be shifting the peak energy uptake progressively northward over the last 400 years.
Nicely examined and explained.
IDK, maybe ultra-wet relative-humidity, plays a role from surface to tropopause?
Yeah, I think no one disagrees with that.
While ultra-dry stratospheric relative-humidity air, plays a role from tropopause to surface level?
What if the volume per unit time sinking ultra-dry stratospheric air increased for natural reasons, in a way we have neither seen, nor noticed before?
Which is what’s been occurring since at least Nov-2019, and I have gone to some trouble to illustrate that on Jo Nova’s site.
Incidentally, an ultra-dry sinking stratospheric air input into the lower most troposphere (which is also ‘pooling’ above the 15,000 ft level @ur momisugly 1% rh level, due to convective support holding it up there for longer) during a quiet solar activity period, which drops that ultra-dry air from the regional and seasonal tropopause altitudes, to surface levels, just may drastically dilute the net moisture level in the column of air above it.
And thus create, and also increase OLR anom levels, within said column of air from tropopause to surface level.
Pretty sure that also would also be significantly more important to W/m^2, than the endless fail of CO2 greenhouse-theory OLR energy ‘unbalancing’.
https://joannenova.com.au/2021/12/thursday-open-thread-82/#comment-2504642
Meridional flow?
G’Day Willis,
From “Unbalanced At The Top”.
• In order to restore the balance so that incoming radiation equals outbound radiation, the surface perforce must, has to, is required to warm up until there’s enough additional upwelling longwave to restore the balance.
Shouldn’t that read “so that outbound – equals – incoming”?
I remember that sentence from several weeks ago, and then forgot to ‘comment’ at the time. It seems to my small understanding that it’s the “outbound/upwelling” that varies to match the “incoming”.
Both the upwelling and the downwelling radiation can change. However, standard theory says that the LW must increase to restore the balance. Me, I don’t think that’s true.
w.
Thanks mate. I re-read the sentence, several times. I wasn’t mentally ‘pausing’ long enough at the comma after outbound radiation, – makes more sense now.
(I also need to thank you for your explanation of the lull/reversal of winds at sunrise/sunset. I’ll put the story at “Skating Under The Ice” in a day or three.)
I guess things get warmer. And no increase in radiation.
Willis’ statement that :
“So over this period at least, the reduction of 0.6 W/m2 in top-of-atmosphere upwelling longwave due to CO2 is exactly counterbalanced by the increase of 0.6 W/m2 in top-of-atmosphere upwelling longwave due to increased advection.”
does not appear to be justified. Looking at the CERES data across the entire globe shows that there is a radiation imbalance of between 0.5 and 1 W/m^2, or in other words the earth is getting warmer. So what this analysis shows is that the tropics are warming and are transporting some of that energy polewards but not enough to counteract the overall increase.
Futhermore the claim that the IPCC estimates
”that a doubling of CO2 reduces top-of-atmosphere longwave by 3.7 watts per square meter (W/m2),”
Also seems fairly dubious. First of all if the amount of CO2 doubled then when the climate reached thermal equilibrium the amount of long wave radiation emitted would be exactly the same as it was before since in equilibrium the long wave radiation equals the amount of short wave radiation from the sun which doesn’t change. So while there would be a short term change in the long wave radiation the simplistic calculation made here isn’t valid since the earth is not in thermal equilibrium nor was there a sudden change in CO2 levels. Lastly I am guessing this number of 3.7 W/m^2 is probably a central estimate derived from the climate sensitivity and so could vary by at least 1 W/m^2 meaning that the claim that the increased advection of energy balances the changes in the transmission of long wave energy is due to cherry picking of a number and should be taken with a large grain of salt.
does not appear to be justified. Looking at the CERES data across the entire globe shows that there is a radiation imbalance of between 0.5 and 1 W/m^2, or in other words the earth is getting warmer. So what this analysis shows is that the tropics are warming and are transporting some of that energy polewards but not enough to counteract the overall increase.
What about attribution?
Earth’s climate has always warmed and cooled, for instance over the Holocene, in complex ways and long before humans had any impact.
You are on the right track. Willis needs to take into account other changes. The one you missed is the 1.5% reduction in clouds (albedo) that allowed in more solar energy.
It is a reaction to this warming that produced most (all?) of the .6 W/m2 increase in outgoing LWIR.
What’s interesting is that it appears most of this reaction was produced by advection. However, given the amounts are very similar at both poles and the Arctic has warmed much more than the Antarctic, it appears this advection doesn’t itself cause a lot of surface warming.
That would mean the Arctic warming has another cause. You know, like an AMO induced ice melt allowing ocean energy to warm the atmosphere. Probably not what you wanted to hear.
Izaak Walton January 2, 2022 6:30 pm
I made no claim that it was “enough to counteract the overall increase”. My claim was what you quoted, which says NOTHING about the “overall increase”.
That is indeed the claim of the IPCC for the effect … as you note, this is supposed to be eventually offset by surface warming, but that’s a separate question.
Nope. It is not and never was derived from the climate sensitivity. Here’s IPCC TAR Appendix 9.1:
Willis,
In 2014 you published the following graph. What is your impression, now mellowed over 8 years, with regards to discrepancy between Modtran watts/2xCO2, and IPCC’s 3.7 ?…..FYI, with the Earth being 66% covered by clouds, I tend to use “Mid-latitude summer” at 2.86 as a base case, but it isn’t significantly different from Tropical plus stratus or US Standard.
I’ve just always assumed Modtran was quite good at IR absorption spectrum but it’s parameters for clouds, aerosols, etc. might be off, since its heart is gas IR absorption. I may have to revise my opinion in light of your Ceres comparison here.
Interesting question. I’ll have to revise the graph, especially since the current claim is that it’s 3.7 W/m2. I’ll get back to you when I have time to run the numbers.
w.
Willis
With respect. You use the term advection to mean “horizontal movement of energy” (your words). This is a serious over-simplification of what advection is.
Both advection and convection transport thermal energy by movement of the medium which holds the energy as sensible heat (and latent heat). Movement of thermal energy alone (without the movement of the medium containing the heat) can only take place by conduction or radiation,which obviously don’t apply here.
In your post, you appear to be tacitly assuming that it’s the atmosphere that does the transport. Is it the atmosphere that does the majority of the poleward heat transport, or is it the oceans? I’m thinking that oceans are more important, just because they hold such a vastly greater quantity of heat, and are constantly interchanging it with the atmosphere.
What I’m trying to convey is that your use of the term “advection” implies a simple process, whereas it’s actually a rather complex phenomenon, which may change its character dramatically as oceanic circulation patterns change over time (AMO, PDO, el niño etc.)
I’m having a most curious sense of déja vu. I had (or rather, I tried to have, as a callow and incoherent student) an almost identical conversation with the immortal Tuzo Wilson in 1965, when he was first putting together the plate tectonics model. He talked about mantle plumes as intense, localized “streams of energy” moving vertically from the mantle to the surface (Hawaii was his type example). In fact, what he was describing was the upward movement of hot magma (and possibly vapour phases as well). I tried to take him to task for simplistically proposing the movement of energy without reference to the material medium that held that energy, and actually did the work of transporting it. As I’m now trying to take you to task, all these long and weary years later.
Wishing you the best of the New Year, and I look forward to more of your creative use of public real-world data that “climate science” somehow seems to ignore.
The transfer is done by both the ocean and the atmosphere. I’ve read that ~ the first half of the poleward movement is done by the ocean and the last half by the atmosphere, but I can’t remember where.
And yes, you are correct, advection involves the motion of a physical substance containing the energy. When I get time I’ll update the head post.
w.
I’m another of the greenhouse warming model skeptics, much more
so than Mr. Eschenbach, so I’ll present a few points here.
These models of infrared radiation passing through our atmosphere
bring many fallacies into play. They are not “oversimplified”.
They are just plain egregiously wrong.
First of all, many aspects of these models are “theoretical” in
nature, which means no effort is made to evaluate these particular
aspects using real-world numbers. Throwing in these garbage numbers
with real-world data does not help. Once you poison the stew, no
matter how much you then add marvelous flavors afterward, it’s
still better not to suck it up. For instance, the “spectra” of CO2
and H2O they use are meaningless numbers — they come from the
absorption spectra of these pure gases taken at 0.001 atmospheric
pressures — or less — which have nothing to do with their
absorption spectra intermixed with a very large amount of N2 and O2
at much higher overall pressures, which is what is actually
happening in the real world. And the reason why it has nothing to
do with the real world is because in the real world molecules in
gases at one-atmosphere pressure are constantly forming 2, 3, and 4
molecule transient moieties (through collisions) whose spectroscopic
properties are substantially different than when those molecules are
interacting with electromagnetic radiation as single entities (i.e.,
little collisions). It’s the former we call “blackbody radiation”,
but here, also, the reality is still not close to Planck’s
theoretical projection.
The whole idea of “upward infrared heat flux” is problematic.
The vast proportion of this heat flux is assumed by these models to
be radiation, but, in fact, the “upward” infrared radiation is
nothing of the kind, since, as soon as it is emitted, it is absorbed
again, and therefore has very little net upward thrust. The heat
flux, radiative and otherwise, produced and starting at sea level is
absorbed by the atmosphere (the real atmosphere) very quickly, so
that very little of it actually conducts into the upper atmosphere
by radiative processes, much less makes it directly into outer
space, which is what all these models assume.
The modelers assume that all the radiation they measure at higher
altitudes somehow directly came from the radiation they measure at
lower altitudes. This is why they say such drivel as, “in the
tropics, clear-sky, only about 65% of the upwelling surface
radiation makes it to space”. In fact, assuming that that radiation
was measured at lower altitudes, almost none of it made it to outer
space. Nor would it be important if some of it did.
The vast proportion of the heat flux from the surface of the
Earth to the upper atmosphere is conductive and convective in
nature, as was pointed out by a previous commenter. Take, for
instance, the Moon (with no atmosphere but approximately the same
amount of incoming solar heat flux). The Moon’s land surface is
much hotter than the Earth’s land surface when the sun is out
because, mainly, it doesn’t have an atmosphere to conduct and
convect its heat away. It gives off whatever heat it has ONLY
through radiative processes (without any greenhouse gases to block
those processes) and notice that those processes are not cooling it
very much! An atmosphere first cools a world, but if there is too
much of it (e.g., Venus … and the Earth also), it then keeps that
heat in, but not for lack of radiative processes, and thus warms the
world. All of this is lost to these model builders.
By the way, assuming the Earth, with an atmosphere, nevertheless
did lose its heat through radiative processes (which is not true),
but its day was as long as the Moon (ditto), these suppositions
would have little effect on making the Earth as hot as the Moon
because of the much increased radiative emissions that would
allegedly correspondingly occur from it in an upward direction due
to the radiative, fourth-power Stefan–Boltzmann law. And notice how
this law is practically unmentionable to the global warming “climate
scientists”.
And notice also how nothing I have said has anything to do with
the specific absorption frequencies of H2O or CO2 (or CH4 or N2O or
etc.). The absorption of this specific radiation by the atmosphere
isn’t the forcing process that defeats cooling a world with such an
atmosphere, so none of these “greenhouse” gases are relevant to the
process of outgoing heat flux.
And warm gases at different latitudes do not send their radiative
heat laterally. Rather their heat is sent in whatever direction the
wind takes it. It is a true advective process, but not that that
the global modelers are suggesting. The reason the poles are giving
off more heat to outer space than their surface temperatures would
suggest is that warmer air moves towards the poles at high
altitudes, not because of some radiative “greenhouse effect”.
And, also, incoming sunlight does not get absorbed by the upper
atmosphere to have any consequences with regards to Earth’s climate.
This radiation, after utterly irrelevant absorption of certain
frequencies in the upper atmosphere, actually does go straight
through to the surface of the Earth, where it finally does get
absorbed, and only at the surface, in large amounts, thus the snow
on mountaintops all over the world. Radiation does work in this
direction, but not until the upper, upper atmosphere does it work in
the opposite direction.
David Solan
Ever heard of the “Atmospheric Window”?
Look at Fig 1 which is based on actual measurement of upwelling LW at TOA. The strongly varying radiation temperatures indicates the altitudes at which the LW radiation “escapes” at various wavelengths.
In “the Window” it is from the surface, in the middle of the CO2 absorption band it is as high as the lower stratosphere (the “spike” there is because the temperature rises with altitude in the stratosphere)
In all simplicity:
· There is a vertical wheel that speeds up when the surface is warming: more convection brings more surface energy to higher elevations from where it can be radiated to space
· There is a horizontal wheel that speeds up when the surface is warming: more tropics-to-pole transport brings more tropical energy to the water vapor deficient higher latitudes from where it can be radiated to space
Mr. Rost:
How did you summarize everything I wordily said in 2 minutes and in 2 sentences?
I need you as an editor.
David Solan
All honor to Willis Eschenbach. I am following his posts for years. He does not only know to observe and to draw logical conclusions, but he also knows how to prove his assumptions with data.
I read his post last evening and I woke up with the two sentences written above.
Both of these are true and what I consider to be the longer term reactions to energy imbalances. They are emergent phenomena. However, there’s more to it. When any radiation event takes place in the atmosphere a tiny little wheel tries to reestablish equilibrium.
There are mega-trillions of these events taking place every second and mega-trillions of those tiny little wheels reacting. The atmosphere is always trying to reestablish equilibrium.
The net result is the 3.7 W/m2 that Willis mentions is being immediately countered by these internal little wheels. How much is anyone’s guess but I suspect it is close to 100%.
The reason is that the energy flow to space from the atmosphere/surface is fairly constant and less than the energy flow from the surface. The higher energy flow from the surface is placing a constant “pressure” on the energy flow to space. This is not unlike the pressure seen in molecular situations where we know Newton’s 3rd Law rules.
As a result I suspect a doubling of CO2 creates “an equal and opposite” energy flow of ~3.7 W/m2. The advection increase is part of this reaction.
Richard M: “The net result is the 3.7 W/m2 that Willis mentions is being immediately countered by these internal little wheels. How much is anyone’s guess but I suspect it is close to 100%.”
WR: The 3.7 W/m2 is initial warming. The word ‘initial’ is standard forgotten.
When a complex natural system is in equilibrium and some warming is added, cooling follows. In case of initial cooling: warming will follow.
Given the number of countervailing mechanisms on Earth, you may be right and initial warming might be canceled out for nearly 100%.
To get substantial warming of the surface of the Earth, ‘Big Powers’ should be involved. Powers that change the basic system that is setting surface temperatures. Think about a change in orbit, a change in the position of continents, and think about a fundamental change in the redistribution of tropical heat by oceans. Or a change in the intrinsic qualities of the H2O molecule that is ruling many of processes that together set surface temperatures.
Human influence is not able to change any of the fundamental forces. Man can only create some initial warming or cooling, soon (at the time scale of the Earth) to be canceled out by one of the many countervailing mechanisms.
What remains is Natural Variation, which has always been present. All paleo graphics show.
Why worry about IR from the surface ?
IR directly from the sun warms the atmosphere.
The sun does not radiate very strongly in the IR band. It is too hot.
Good write-up, Willis. Thank you.
Imagine that you could put a satellite in space, stationary in respect to the surface, and just watch what the atmosphere is doing vertically (by color-coding the theoretical “brightness temperature” relation to radiance) and horizontally (by the obvious movement in the image.) This would help to resolve misconceptions about how it all works, would it not?
Here is a link to the animated GOES-East full disk image for “CO2” Band 16 (13.3 micron) longwave radiation emitted to space. The number of 10-minute time-steps in the animation can be selected to higher values for a longer run, up to 40 hours worth. The nominal resolution is 2 km. All bands, 1 (visible – blue) through 16, are available.
The planet, in concept, is a huge array of longwave emitter elements and the output of each element depends on the heat-engine operation of the atmosphere in real time. Cloud formation and dissipation, weather systems, convective cells – all are readily observed this way.
https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/GOES/fulldisk_band.php?sat=G16&band=16&length=12
Imagine more folks watching how it works and grasping the implications. Maybe then the narrative of the static “heat-trapping” effect of GHG’s in the atmosphere would be better understood as incomplete and therefore misleading. It’s not static.
Willis,
Thanks for your clear argument that concludes,
Yes, and if required to mistakenly choose a single cause of the restored balance then my choice would be cloud effects.
Importantly, your analysis supports the existing – but rarely advertised – knowledge that global warming predicted (projected?) by climate models is not happening.
For the benefit of any who may not know,
I write to explain the certain fact that the anthropogenic (i.e. human induced) global warming (AGW) projected by computer models of global climate (known as GCMs) is not happening.
The GCMs are constructed to present the changes to warming of the atmosphere which would result from changes to radiative forcing. And all the climate models show more warming in the upper troposphere than near the surface (especially distant from polar regions) as a result of increased radiative forcing from increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations.
Nobody doubts that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will increase radiative forcing, but AGW-proponents say this will cause the atmosphere to respond in a particular way. The pattern of the proposed response is a ‘fingerprint’ for AGW. Therefore, if a ‘fingerprint’ of AGW is absent then any observed warming is not a result of the AGW the climate models project.
This pattern of warming is known as the tropospheric ‘Hot Spot’.
The Hot Spot is fully described in Chapter 9 of the so-called “scientific” WG1 report of IPCC AR4 that can be read at and downloaded from https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-chapter9-1.pdf
The Hot Spot is shown Figure 9.1.
It is on page 675 and is titled,
“Figure 9.1. Zonal mean atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1999 (°C per century) as simulated by the PCM model from
(a) solar forcing,
(b) volcanoes,
(c) wellmixed greenhouse gases,
(d) tropospheric and stratospheric ozone changes,
(e) direct sulphate aerosol forcing and
(f) the sum of all forcings.
Plot is from 1,000 hPa to 10 hPa
(shown on left scale) and from 0 km to 30 km (shown on right). See Appendix 9.C for additional information. Based on Santer et al. (2003a)
The Hot Spot is the big red blob that is only in plots (c) for wellmixed greenhouse gases, and (f) for the sum of all forcings.
In the Figure the blob is warming of between 2 and 3 times the warming near the surface beneath it.
Furthermore, the plot is of predicted temperature rises “from 1890 to 1999” and the measured temperature rises are for the latter part of the period (since 1958 for the balloon data and since 1969 for the satellite data). Thus, warming measured by balloons and independently by satellites was for when “wellmixed greenhouse gases” were at their highest.
Therefore, if the effect of wellmixed greenhouse gases is as predicted in Figure 9.1 of IPCC WG1 AR4 then the measured warming in the Hot Spot should be MORE THAN 2 to 3 times greater than warming measured near the surface beneath the Hot Spot.
The Hot Spot occurs because of the assumed water vapour feedback (WVF).
Any increase to temperature increases evapouration of water (H2O) from the Earth’s surface. H2O is the major greenhouse gas (GHG) and CO2 is the greatest of the minor GHGs. The models assume CO2 warms the surface and, thus, increases evapouration and, therefore, the warming effects of water vapour in the air: this is known as the water vapour feedback (WVF). The cold at altitude in the troposphere means there is little H2O up there so any increase to the H2O concentration at altitude has large warming effect.
The Hot Spot is missing so the GCMs are known to provide wrong projections of AGW because their assumptions of WVF are observed to be wrong.
In summation, the fine analysis which you provide above, Willis, is additional – and completely independent – confirmation that the AGW predicted by climate models is not happening.
Richard
I see the trolls are out again giving comments negative votes without explanation.
Such votes distort the apparent interest in factual comments and, therefore, there can be no practical purpose to the voting system when they happen. The trolling is especially misinforming when – as in this thread – only net votes are displayed and total votes are not.
Whenever I make this observation the trolls reply that they like to distort information. That, of course, is true: it is what trolls do.
Richard
Any opportunity to disrupt/destroy will eventually be taken advantage of the “woke” trolls.
See what I mean…..
Never mind the decreases over time in mid-tropospheric water vapor levels . . .
Yes, difficult to get a warmer mid to upper troposphere from CO2 increase, when the real GHG on the planet is decreasing in the same part of the atmosphere. CO2 is an irrelevant sideshow, water vapour and clouds completely overpower and override anything it can contribute to altering OLR with time.
“So over this period at least, the reduction of 0.6 W/m2 in top-of-atmosphere upwelling longwave due to CO2 is exactly counterbalanced by the increase of 0.6 W/m2 in top-of-atmosphere upwelling longwave due to increased advection.”
As far as I can tell, this negative feedback loop isn’t included in the climate models.
Using the mark 1 eyeball on the graph of CET versus CO2 concentration from around 1722 until now, if there was any net effect of CO2 on temperature I’d expect to see a noticeable change in rate of rise of temperature since around 1950, and that signal just isn’t there. The reason for using CET rather than the global average temperature is that the CET will have fewer artifacts from homogenisation and infilling, though I also can’t see any obvious CO2 signal on the GAT either. This bit of insight from Willis gives us at least some of the reason for the lack of such a signal.
AFAIK we still don’t know the reason for the LIA, the MWP, or the earlier warm or cooler periods, and (again) looking at the ice-core record of CO2 concentrations suggests that CO2 wasn’t the reason for them. The time-resolution on those measurements might be inadequate to resolve short-term changes, and it’s only really an assumption that the trapped air-samples are representative of the air composition at the time and that diffusion has been limited enough. Still, the most-reasonable deduction is that the global temperature changes happened for some other reason than CO2 changes, and that the most-obvious candidate would be the Sun and our orbit around it, with maybe some influence from space weather either from changes in the Sun affecting the incidence of cosmic rays or from variations in cosmic ray density locally in the volumes of space we’re moving through. Whatever, it looks pretty unlikely that we can affect those changes and thus we need to adapt.
Still, the experimental data tells us the net effect of a CO2 doubling on GAT must be pretty small. It’s nice to have a theoretical reason for that too. Thanks, Willis!