Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
There’s an old saying about models—“All models are wrong, but some models are useful.”
It’s often used to justify the existence of climate models. However, the obvious corollary to the old saying is “All models are wrong, and some models are useless.”
I’ve been told several times that it’s not enough for me to put together my theory that a variety of often-overlapping emergent phenomena act to govern the temperature of the planet. I also need to show that this is not already included in mainstream climate theory and expressed in climate models. And it’s true, I do need to do that. Hence, this post.
Let me digress for a moment to explain my theory. When I began seriously studying the climate 25 years ago now, everyone was looking at why and how much the global average surface temperature was rising. But because of my experience with a variety of heat engines, I was struck by something completely different. I looked at the earth as a gigantic heat engine. Like all heat engines, it has a hot end (the tropics) where the energy enters the system. It then transports the energy to the cold end of the heat engine (the poles), where it is rejected. In the process it converts some of the energy into physical work, driving the endless motion of the atmosphere and the oceans.
Now, when you analyze a heat engine, say to determine its efficiency or any other reason, you have to use the Kelvin temperature scale. That’s the scale that starts at absolute zero (-273.15°C, or -459.67°F). The units of the Kelvin scale are called “kelvins” (not “degrees kelvin”), and one kelvin is the same size as one degree Celsius, which is also called one degree Centigrade. The kelvin is abbreviated “K”.
With that as a prologue, here is the oddity that attracted my attention. Over the entire 20th century, the temperature of the planet varied by less than 1°C, which is to say, less than 1K. And with the surface temperature of the planet being about 288K, that represents a variation of about a third of one measly percent … I found this stability to be quite amazing. The cruise control on your car can’t keep your car speed within that small a variation, well under 1% peak to peak.
Note that this stability is not due to thermal mass, even the thermal mass of the ocean. At 45°N in the mid-Pacific, the sea surface temperature sometimes changes up to 5K (5°C, 9°F) in a single month. And the land changes temperature even faster than the ocean.
So I started thinking about what kind of governing mechanism could keep the temperature so stable over an entire century full of El Nino events and volcanic eruptions and all kinds of things you’d expect to disturb the temperature. Because I was looking for something that would lead to long-term stability, I spent a long time contemplating slow processes like the gradual weathering of the mountain rocks changing the CO2 content of the atmosphere, and the buffering of the CO2 content of the ocean via calcium carbonate precipitation.
During this time I was living in Fiji … hey, the waves aren’t going to surf themselves, someone has to do it. And hanging out outdoors a lot in the tropics, I got to noticing the repeating daily weather pattern. I realized that I was looking at the hour-by-hour emergence of various phenomena that put a cap on how hot it could get. And I realized that if there are emergent phenomena that prevent a day from overheating, they will also prevent a week, a year, or a millennium from overheating
Let me borrow an explanation of what I saw from a previous post of mine.
At dawn, the tropical atmosphere is stratified, with the coolest air nearest the surface. The nocturnal overturning of the ocean is coming to an end. The sun is free to heat the ocean. The air near the surface eddies randomly.
Figure 1. Average conditions over the tropical ocean shortly after dawn.
As you can see, there are no emergent phenomena in this regime. Looking at this peaceful scene, you wouldn’t guess that you could be struck by lightning in a few hours … emergence roolz. As the sun continues to heat the ocean, around ten or eleven o’clock in the morning there is a sudden regime shift. A new circulation pattern replaces the random eddying. As soon as a critical temperature/humidity threshold is passed, local “Rayleigh-Bénard” type circulation cells spring up everywhere. This is the first transition, from random circulation to organized circulating cells that characterize Rayleigh-Bénard circulation.
These cells transport both heat and water vapor upwards. By late morning, the Rayleigh-Bénard circulation is typically strong enough to raise the water vapor to the local lifting condensation level (LCL). At that altitude, the water vapor condenses into clouds as shown in Figure 3.
Figure 2. Average conditions over the tropical ocean when cumulus threshold is passed.
Note that this area-wide shift to an organized circulation pattern is not a change in feedback. It has nothing to do with feedback. It is a self-organized emergent phenomenon. It is threshold-based, meaning that it emerges spontaneously when a certain threshold is passed. In the wet tropics there’s plenty of water vapor, so the major variable in the threshold is the temperature. In addition, note that there are actually two distinct emergent phenomena in the drawing—the Rayleigh-Bénard circulation which emerges prior to the cumulus formation, and which is enhanced and strengthened by the totally separate emergence of the clouds that mark the upwelling columns of air in the circulation.
Note also that we now have several changes of state involved as well, with evaporation from the surface and condensation and re-evaporation at altitude.
Under this new late-morning cumulus circulation regime, much less surface warming goes on. Due to the increasing clouds, the earth’s albedo (reflectivity) increases, so more of the sunlight is reflected back to space. As a result, less energy makes it into the system to begin with. Then the increasing surface wind due to the cumulus-based circulation pattern increases the evaporation, reducing the surface warming even more by moving latent energy up to the lifting condensation level.
Note that the system is self-controlling. If the ocean is a bit warmer, the new circulation regime starts earlier in the morning and it cuts down the total daily warming. On the other hand, if the ocean is cooler than usual, clear morning skies last later into the day, allowing increased warming. The system is regulated by the time of onset of the regime change.
Let’s stop at this point in our examination of the tropical day and consider the idea of “climate sensitivity”, the sensitivity of surface temperature to radiative forcing from either the sun or from CO2. The solar forcing is constantly increasing as the sun rises higher in the sky. In the morning before the onset of cumulus circulation, the sun comes through the clear atmosphere and rapidly warms the surface. So the thermal response is large, and the climate sensitivity is high.
After the onset of the cumulus regime, on the other hand, much of the sunlight is reflected back to space. Less sunlight remains to warm the ocean. In addition to reduced sunlight, there is enhanced evaporative cooling. Compared to the morning, the climate sensitivity is much lower. The heating of the surface slows down.
So here we have two situations with very different climate sensitivities. In the early morning, climate sensitivity is high, and the temperature rises quickly with the increasing solar insolation. In the late morning, a regime change occurs to a situation with much lower climate sensitivity. Adding extra solar energy doesn’t raise the temperature anywhere near as fast as it did earlier.
Moving along through the day, at some point in the afternoon there is a good chance that the cumulus circulation pattern is not enough to stop the continued surface temperature increase. When the temperature exceeds a certain higher threshold, another complete regime shift takes place. Some of the innocent cumulus clouds suddenly mutate and grow rapidly into towering monsters. The regime shift involves the spontaneous generation of those magical, independently mobile heat engines called thunderstorms.
Thunderstorms are dual-fuel heat engines. They run on low-density air. That air rises and condenses out the moisture. The condensation releases heat that re-warms the air, which rises deep into the troposphere.
Figure 3. Afternoon thunderstorm circulation over the tropical ocean.
There are a couple of ways to get low-density air. One is to heat the air. This is how a thunderstorm gets started, as a strong cumulus cloud. The sun plus GHG radiation combine to heat the surface, which then warms the air. The low-density air rises. When that Rayleigh-Benard circulation gets strong enough, thunderstorms start to form.
Once the thunderstorm is started, the second fuel is added to the fire—that fuel is water vapor. Counter-intuitively, the more water vapor there is in the air, the lighter it becomes. The thunderstorm generates strong winds around its base. Evaporation is proportional to wind speed, so this greatly increases the local evaporation.
This, of course, makes the air lighter, and makes the air rise faster, which makes the thunderstorm stronger, which in turn increases the wind speed around the thunderstorm base, which increases the evaporation even more … a thunderstorm is a regenerative system, much like a fire where some part of the fire’s energy is used to power a bellows to make the fire burn even hotter. Once it is started, it is much harder to stop.
This gives thunderstorms a unique ability that, as far as I know, is not represented in any of the climate models. A thunderstorm is capable of driving the surface temperature well below the initiation temperature that was needed to get the thunderstorm started. It can run on into the evening, and often well into the night, on its combination of thermal and evaporation energy sources.
Thunderstorms can be thought of as local leakages, heat pipes that transport warm air rapidly from the surface to the lifting condensation level where the moisture turns into clouds and rain, and from there to the upper atmosphere without interacting with the intervening greenhouse gases. The air and the energy it contains is moved to the upper troposphere hidden inside the cloud-shrouded thunderstorm tower, without being absorbed or hindered by GHGs on the way.
Thunderstorms cool the surface in a host of ways, utilizing a combination of cold water, shade, wind, spray, evaporation, albedo changes, and cold air.
And just like the onset of the cumulus circulation, the onset of thunderstorms occurs earlier on days when it is warmer, and it occurs later (and sometimes not at all) on days that are cooler than usual.
So again, we see that there is no way to assign an average climate sensitivity. The warmer it gets, the less each additional watt per meter actually warms the surface.
Finally, once all of the fireworks of the daytime changes are over, first the cumulus and then the thunderstorms decay and dissipate. A final and again different regime ensues. The main feature of this regime is that during this time, the ocean radiates about the amount of energy that is absorbed during all of the previously described regimes. How does it do this? Another emergent phenomenon … oceanic overturning.
Figure 4. Conditions prevailing after the night-time dissipation of the daytime clouds.
During the nighttime, the surface is still receiving energy from the GHGs. This has the effect of delaying the onset of oceanic overturning, and of reducing the rate of cooling. Note that the oceanic overturning is once again the emergent Rayleigh-Bénard circulation. Because there are no clouds, the ocean can radiate to space more freely. In addition, the overturning of the ocean constantly brings new water to the surface, to radiate and to cool. This increases the heat transfer across the interface.
As with the previous thresholds, the timing of this final transition is temperature-dependent. Once a critical threshold is passed, oceanic overturning kicks in. Stratification is replaced by circulation, bringing new water to radiate, cool, and sink. In this way, heat is removed, not just from the surface as during the day, but from the entire body of the upper “mixed” layer of the ocean.
There are a few things worth pointing out about this whole system.
First, this is what occurs in the tropics, which is where the largest amount of energy enters the hot end of the great heat engine we call the climate.
Next, sometimes increases in incoming energy are turned mostly into temperature. Other times, incoming energy increases are turned mostly into physical work (the circulation of the ocean and atmosphere that transports energy to the poles). And other times, increasing energy is mostly just moved from the tropics to the poles.
Next, note that this whole series of changes is totally and completely dependent on temperature-threshold-based emergent phenomena. It is a mistake to think of these as being feedback. It’s more like a drunk walking on a narrow elevated walkway. The guardrails are not feedback—they are a place where the rules change. The various thresholds in the climate system are like that—if you go over them, everything changes. As one example of many, the ocean before and after the onset of nocturnal overturning are very different places.
And this, in turn, all points to one of the most important control features of the climate—time of onset. How much energy the ocean loses overnight depends critically on what time the overturning starts. The temperature of the tropical afternoon depends on what time the cumulus kick in, and what time the thunderstorms start
With the idea of emergent thunderstorms and cumulus fields in hand, let me note that we can determine where this phenomenon is happening. In areas in the tropics, the warmer it gets, the more clouds appear—first the cumulus fields, then the tropical thunderstorms. As a result, the warmer it gets, the higher the tropical albedo gets, and the more energy is reflected back to space instead of warming the surface. In other words, in the tropics, the albedo and the temperature are positively correlated.
Outside of the tropics, the opposite goes on. The colder it gets, the more we get storms, ice, and snow. As a result, the colder it gets, the higher the albedo gets. Outside the tropics, the albedo and the temperature are negatively correlated.
And this is clearly revealed in the CERES satellite dataset, as shown in Figure 5 below.
Figure 5. Correlation of albedo and surface temperature. Perfect correlation, where both variables move in total unison, has a correlation value of 1.0. Perfect anti-correlation, where one variable increases whenever the other decreases, has a correlation value of -1.0. A correlation of zero means no relationship between the two variables, albedo and temperature.
Some things of note about Figure 5. As predicted by my theory, in much of the tropical ocean the albedo is positively correlated with the temperature, but this is true only in a few isolated areas outside of the tropics. The arctic and antarctic are strongly anti-correlated (negative correlation), with a correlation of ~ -0.6. In the tropics, on the other hand, the average correlation is zero. Land overall has a strong negative correlation, ~ -0.5.
The tropical correlation of zero is of interest because this is what we would expect if the tropics are regulating the temperature—the earth would warm until a slight increase in temperature pushes the albedo/temperature correlation positive, whereupon the earth would tend to cool.
And that brings us to the question of how useful the models are. I went and got the historical runs of the MIROC-ESM model, which covers the period from 1850 to 2005. To compare with the CERES data, I looked at four separate 21-year periods, the same time span as the CERES data. Here is the first of those periods, 1850 – 1870, showing the results in model-world. I’ve included the real-world data (left graphic) for comparison.
Figure 6. As in Figure 5, but using data from the MIROC-ESM climate model
The most obvious difference is that in model-world, the polar and sub-polar regions both have some areas of positive correlation that do not occur in real-world. There is also much less positive correlation in the tropics, model-world correlation of -0.15, versus a real-world tropical correlation of 0.0.
Another way to look at the differences is by averaging the correlation by latitude. Figure 7 shows that result.
Figure 7. Average correlation of albedo and surface temperature, by degree of latitude, CERES and MIROC data.
As you can see, model-world is very, very different from real-world.
My next question was, just how stable over time is this correlation between albedo and temperature, both in the real world and in model-world. To investigate this, here are the first and second halves of the CERES dataset.
Figure 8. Correlation of temperature and albedo, first and second halves of the CERES dataset.
Note that all of the correlations of different geographical areas, and of land and sea, are within 0.01 or so of each other. So this is a very stable relationship. Next, here are four different 21-year periods from the start to the end of the MIROC model output.
Figure 9. Correlation of temperature and albedo, four 21-year periods of the CERES dataset.
As with the CERES data, these are all very close. Here are the average correlations by latitude of the four MIROC model results and the two CERES results.
Figure 10. Correlation between albedo and temperature by latitude, four 21-year periods from the MIROC model results (1850-1870, 1900-1920, 1950-1970, and 1985-2005) and two 10-year periods from the CERES satellite data (2000-2009, and 2010-2019).
The relationship between albedo and temperature in both real-world and model-world is very stable, even over a period as short as 10 years, indicating that this relationship between albedo and temperature provides a meaningful insight into how the climate system actually works. And all of the model results are very different from the CERES satellite data.
• My theory that the temperature control of tropical albedo via emergent phenomena exerts a thermoregulatory effect is supported by these findings.
• The gridcell size of current climate models is far too large to simulate individual thunderstorms. For this among other reasons, it is unlikely that the models incorporate realistic representations of the thermoregulatory effects of tropical thunderstorms.
• At least in the case of the MIROC-ESM model, the model representation of the correlation of temperature and albedo is quite unlike what happens in the real world.
• The geographic stability of the correlations over time, in both the real world and in model-world, indicates that this is a persistent diagnostic feature of the climate.
MY USUAL: I can defend my own words and am happy to do so. I cannot defend your understanding of my words, so please, when you comment quote the exact words you are referring to.
Has anyone ever considered that maybe greenhouse gases do control the temperature, and that the reason we’re in another long pause is because there may be some sort of cooling effect?
Only those associated with Big Oil. /s (lol)
Here is one I really like and is quite eloquent:
The “Global Blue Sun” – Willie Soon
But as Dr. Soon says, it is almost impossible, in this political climate, to get any alternative consider other than Carbon Dioxide. (sigh)
You can think anything you want. However to convince others, bring data.
Walter does not need to bring data, he already has offered a mirror to Willis and likes of you… read this Willis article again and again and again, in the hope that you get it.
Whatever some models are or are not… the Willis imaginary one(s), basically are delusional… same as Dr. Soonbat’s.
Your post is a mess of logical fallacies.
So far, you haven’t proved that anything you have to say is worth consideration.
Alan, am sorry you can not see that Willis imaginary gigantic heat engine model is delusional.
“I looked at the earth as a gigantic heat engine.”
And you just follow the pictoral photos in this article, where radiative forcing drives the Willis gigantic heat engine.
Even CC and AGW science does not claim such a dumb thing.
In contrary that failed science, claims that antropogenic forcing will change the RF and frack up the “heat engine”.
But hey, you can have your ice cream and eat it, cone or no cone.
Heat engines transform heat into mechanical energy. Wind has mechanical energy (that’s why a wind turbine rotates). Where in the world do you think wind energy comes from?
Willis is correct. You’re obviously not conversant in thermodynamics.
The real question is why do you think you should spew forth on a subject that you know nothing about?
Meab, sorry but you can not even read.
Waste of time arguing with you… sorry.
Despite my advice to ppl like you, that can not even read… to simply look at the Sun pictures in this Willis article.
You’re mistaking the fact that you wrote pure nonsense for people not being able to read. Hint: the problem is with you.
Whatever you say, fact checker.
You aren’t arguing. You are just making insulting comments and have nothing valid to say. Go away.
Yes true, I am not arguing.
An illiterate tried to start an argument with me though.
No choice but had to decline it.
Sorry about that, if it hurts your feelings.
Do you know the meaning of the word ‘illiterate’? Your own garbled English does not demonstrate familiarity with the concept.
That´s how evaporation and water vapor cools the surface. Water evaporation is work, displacing mass as water molecules. Evaporation cools both the water surface and the air in the process. Then dumps the heat away from the surface when condensing into clouds while at the same time blocking heat from entering the system. Then cold rain falls and further cools the surface.
Water vapor does not heat the surface, it transfers heat away from the surface.
When a heat engine does work, the work performed always cools the heat engine. First law, dU=Q-W.
whiten January 29, 2022 2:25 pm
The earth has been analyzed as a heat engine by renowned scientists such as Adrian Bejan, along with many others …
Constructal theory of global circulation and climate
Climate change, in the framework of the constructal law
Towards Quantifying The Climate Heat Engine
Climate Change Is Altering the Global Heat Engine
Natural Convection as a Heat Engine: A Theory for CAPE
Watching the World Rev its Heat Engine – NASA Earth …
I could provide you lots more, but I’m sure you can google “climate ‘heat engine'”.
And in the meantime, you can fold your accusation that I’m “delusional” until it’s all corners and gently insert it into the place where solar panels don’t work …
“Alan, am sorry you can not see that Willis imaginary gigantic heat engine model is delusional.”
I was specifically pointing at your model, your own gigantic heat engine model.
Because there is so many others before you approaching or analyzing earth system or climate as a heat engine, does not mean or happen that your own imaginary gigantic heat engine model is valid or anything else but delusional in basic concept.
In the prospect of models, holding in ones mind two competing models to each other as both valid, as per your “theory” claim model versus Milankovitch cycles model, at that given particular point, delusion explains it best.
So simple, state the obvious as I pointed out to you in my other comment to you… or else… you have your own ice cream and eat it on your own pleasure.
Your assertion is that this explanation is a delusion. I assume due to a serious psychotic break. Yet you offer no refutation based in science nor references that show WE’s hypothesis is faulty.
Go home and think about what you are doing.
Common, you offending Willis now.
Follow the comments,.
It is a theory my friend, not a hypothesis, where have you being reading!
You not doing this to upset Willis farther, are you!
What precisely is your disagreement? You disparage the heat-engine but do not say why it is wrong or offer a replacement.
All of meteorology maintains this notion that there is some kind of “heat-engine” in the sky. IMO (and, yes, I am an expert) it is a notion for which there *is* some confirmational evidence. Specifically energetic flow in the atmosphere–especially around storms–has the appearance of being focused or funneled in a manner that is consistent with structure of some kind. And it is this observed evidence of structure that brings people (like Willis) to (somewhat out of desperation) arrive at this notion that there is a “heat-engine” in the sky.
So, if we start from the assumptions that there really is no such thing as a heat engine in the sky we have to acknowledge that there is evidence of some kind of structural entity or process. But what is it?
There is no heat engine in the sky. (Sorry Willis, thermodynamics is the wrong paradigm.) Coming in many different sizes and all interconnected, vortices are the closest thing to an engine in the sky. Vortices are the source of the structure and the flow that appears structural. And the source of the structure itself is the surface tension properties of H2O being amplified by wind shear.
My advice to all of your is to stop chasing your own tails and stop wasting time with your failed paradigm and get onboard with my advanced understanding that will inevitably replace the poorly considered ‘heat-engine” model.
Don’t waste your time with bad thinking. There are engines in the atmosphere. But they have nothing to do with heat or thermodynamics. It has to do with flow and the ability of H2O to facilitate, isolate, and focus this flow over long distances.
The Momentum of the Jetstream is Maintained by Vortices
James McGinn / Genius
Heat engine in the Sky
James McGinn / Genius
hey Willis, It’s Adrian, not Andreas.
Thanks, Dan, fixed.
Orificegami solar panels!
What you are claiming is a complete mystery and not just because of your idiosyncratic use of English.
The weather is run by input/output of energy, and the only type of energy we see is radiation supplying the input/output. Then heat transport in a variety of forms operates internally within the engine. I’d say Willis’s claim of this being a huge heat engine rests on solid ground. In fact, it is not even controversial
Oh well, the rain is wet, who knew!
Great discovery, again.
You obviously have no idea what a heat engine is.
Bla bla bla….. that is my understanding of your evidence/fact free babble.
Sorry Suny, that you find yourself belonging to the group of the illiterates that can not even read.
Evidence/facts that you looking for, are in the very Willis article, the new brand radiative “theory” claim of Willis, with it’s own imaginary model. The radiative best ever climate imaginary model.
You are wasting your time whiten. Willis is a hero on WUWT.
His back radiation BS hypothesis has many admirers.
What it doesn’t have is any evidence to support it.
Somehow, that does not seem to matter.
He does present evidence, which is more than you and whiten can claim. You may dislike Willis, and disagree with his interpretation, but he is presenting evidence. All you and whiten are doing is attempting character assassination by innuendo. Your criticism is not constructive.
So, Clyde Spencer, point me to the evidence that Willis has presented.
You must be a great detective, Clyde, because I have been asking for evidence for the GHE and the ECS for a long time now but as yet have received none.
You are no better than the warmists over at the Guardian with their “overwhelming evidence” claims.
Start with Willis’ own observations in the South Pacific, years of them. Unless you do not believe him at all.
I have seen the clear-cloud-wind-rain cycle in dry locations in Alberta and British Columbia.
All due respect to your comment.
Not arguing with you or trying to have an argument with you.
But just simply stating that I actually do like Willis… believe it or not.
I appreciate considerably a lot of what he does.
Yes strange, is not it.
Besides I am not the one being judgemental here.
Not that there is any thing wrong with being judgmental though…
What do you mean by “back radiation BS”? Radiation from the surface into space is measurable and a fact. Radiation from clouds to Earth is measurable and a fact.
Obviously, your “can not even read” does not refer to literacy, since they so obviously have read, and written, in order for you to respond.
Perhaps you yourself need to be more clearer, so to speak.
Their replies completely irrelevant to my comments.
Even Willis reply, not any better, in that count.
Not sure if that simply really due to illiteracy or an attempt to imply and provoke a senseless argument.
But under the circumstances, got to keep it simple and basic, and consider it illiteracy.
I wasn’t defending Willis at all, just pointing out that you haven’t made a cogent reply to his post until then his post remains unchallenged.
You have offered very little of substance to the thread which is made clear by many here who comment over your empty replies.
I did not say or even imply, in my reply to you, that you were defending Willis.
Do not know where you get that strange idea!
As I have stated in other comments in this thread, from my point of view,
it simply consists as;
“Their replies completely irrelevant to my comments.”
Honestly, I do appreciate the “leitmotif” comment reply to me, but I did not engaged with, simply so ppl like you do not get the wrong impression. like the one you contemplating now.
I can not generalize in motivation of others… just like that… especially when it involves a given position of mine.
When it comes to “illiteracy”, either as a bug or a feature, still it, does not qualify as a motivation…
Well, it is how it is.
This sounds like a bot spouting words with no real meaning.
Obviously, English is not its native language.
I assure you, that is an offense to bots… quite a serious one.
We don’t need your immature troll comments. When you have something intelligent to say come back.
Sorry for infringing in your authority GOV.
“We don’t need your immature troll comments. When you have something intelligent to say come back.”
Translation: We don’t anyone posting comments that contradict the long held hard beliefs of WUWT.
There. Fixed it for you.
No, however your arguments must make sense and be backed by facts. So far, I haven’t seen any from you.
Neither you nor Whiten has made any actual counterpoints to his post nor have either one of you made your own useful comments about the topic.
You have failed to do this utterly; your continual baseless trolling thread derailing comments will get moderated if you continue.
Sorry mate, your ball, your right to kick it, but hey no mea culpa that you fail to learn, or end up deny it, when it comes to delusions.
Oh, well, still you free to blame it on whom ever you chose.. free will free choice world, init!
How you doing with them crystals mate!
And besides, I can not assist your request or needs unless you at least tell me how many of you is there roughly!
Is that it, no?
(You have been given hints then a specific warning with a quote from blog policy, yet you still don’t address the topic at all just make off topic statements now trying to include me in your latest junk reply you are trolling) SUNMOD
The Hawaii temperature series? The State has never seen temperatures greater than 100F. I thought is was a common line of thought that water vapor controls the temperature upper limits. That’s what I thought Walter was on about, so not sure why everyone’s piling on him.
Unless it’s a man-made emissions causes global warming which then causes global cooling BBC shite theory. Over to you Walter.
Whereas on desert temperature goes up towards 130F.
Where have you being for the last 20 years?
Oh, pray do not tell, as no need to know about your absence… of whatever.
One who can’t write, should not accuse others of not being able to read.
wow, that must be the statement of the century.
Good drugs, i assume
” there may be some sort of cooling effect ”
Before asking, define “cooling”, please. In this context, of course. Not trying to explain things by the manichaeistic dual opposition “heating is manmade / cooling is natural”.
Because (have you thought of this?) if there is a natural “cooling effect” that now is high, then you can hypothesize that when the intensity of that “cooling effect” is lower, then you would have … natural heating!
Funny, ain’t it?… The same natural “cooling effect” (NOT the ugly, deleterious, polluting, manmade greenhouse gases) being the “control knob” of the temperature of the planet…
been considered- might be true, might not be true- not yet proven nor disproven
Keeping in mind that the scientific method cannot “prove” anything. It can only disprove alternative hypotheses. Something that I wish all the talking heads would remember.
Agreed. I don’t believe anything anyone says about the climate. I just look at the observations made, hope they are correct and wait for everyone with their explanation of what is causing it – if it’s even ”happening” which in itself is debatable – to bring it. So far, I stick to my own observation…. No one knows what’s happening but some don’t know it in a more complicated way.
Have you considered either (a) posting on topic or (b) submitting your own article with your pet ideas?
Constantly coat racking is pretty crude and isn’t going to cut it here at WUWT. Stop wasting your time and ours. Either criticise the post or add something useful. If you can’t do that, don’t bother posting.
Have a nice day.
He was most recently engaging in passive-aggresive behavior, claiming to be a naive skeptic, and asking a question in lieu of a declarative statement about correlation. I think that he is actually a troll trying to stir the pot.
Ignorance begets ignorance, no supposition, speculation or pretend concern necessary.
You didn’t bother to read Willis’ article, at all.
Which means before you speculate, you need to prove how a few CO₂ molecules manage to heat vast volumes of physical matter (Earth) along with astounding volumes of water. All by overwhelming the vastly more abundant water, ice and water vapor
What is that particular fantasy? Some sort of “Hail Mary” play because you hope everyone else has their brains turned off? So, they’ll buy into nonsense?
Another effect you have to prove after you prove your ‘all of Earth is warmed by ghg’ because greenhouse gases are deity level miraculous molecules fantasy.
Walt, you do know that the whole enterprise was created by non-scientist Maurice Strong a Canadian communist highschool dropout whose stated purpose was to bring down western civilization and supplant it with an unelected Eurocentric global government.
For this purpose he created UNFCC, Earth Summit in Brazil, Kyoto, and finally the IPCC with his marching orders to ‘investigate’ not what makes climate tick, but to determine the harm being done by humans. With the orders went big gov funding fleeced from taxpayers.
He was a high school dropout? And he’s not even an undersized Italian-American actor.
Yes, and no.
The evidence that CO2 has controlled global temperature in the past is weak. Poor to nonexistent correlation in palaeo climate records.
We´re standing on a thin crust that´s less than 1% of the volume of the planet, the rest below is red hot glowing rock. Yes, greenhouse gases maybe controls the temperature in some way, by keeping it low. The structure of Earth is essentially the same as a watercooled engine. Internal heat source dissipating the heat to a water jacket(oceans) which in turn is cooled by the low temperature surrounding air. With some air cooling from land as well, where mountains acts as flanges. The more heat the surroundings(air) of the engine absorbs, the cooler the engine. As GHGs increase heat absorption when concentrations increase, they increase the cooling of the planet. Increased heat absorption is how you cool something.
The amount of heat making it through the crust, either into the ocean, land, or atmosphere, is trivially small. It’s on the order of a tenth of a W/m2. As a result, you’re correct, but it’s a difference that makes no difference, lost in the noise.
There are no such gases as ‘greenhouse gases’! The UN dictatorship grabbed hold of the idea and is using it to undermine the West’s economies to reduce the world’s population and to allow a socialist takeover.
Opponents will always look onto our weakest link.
Beat me to it.
Some can be useful, if only to show you that you really screwed up on the initial hypothesis – they rapidly lose any such usefulness if you continue to use them, however.
If by “some” you mean models, many models run very close to reality, allowing the design and construction of skyscraper (tall buildings), bridges, atomic weapons, and large telescopes, putting satellites around distant planets and dropping navy battleship big gun shells on target. Good models are designed around an understanding (more or less) of physical actions, then corrected and refined but comparing model output to physical measurements. That last step is where so many climate models fall on their face.
Exactly. I would say the the corollary to the original rule is: All models are wrong; most are useless.
Nevertheless he persisted.
The Earth is cooler with the atmosphere/GHGs/albedo not warmer.
Is this correct or incorrect?
The GHGs require “extra” energy upwelling from the terrestrial surface radiating LWIR as a black body. See these graphics which contain egregious arithmetic and thermodynamic errors: https://youtu.be/0Jijw7-YG-U
Is this correct or incorrect?
As explained and demonstrated by experiment the terrestrial surface cannot radiate/upwell “extra” energy as a black body. For the experimental write up see:
“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”
Is this correct or incorrect?
If even one of the above three points is correct the greenhouse effect theory is not.
No GHE, no GHG warming, no mankind/CO2 driven climate change or global warming.
If one accepts your Flat Earth Society definitions of “GHE”, “GHG warming”, and “CO2 driven”, then you are “right on target”……./sarc
Otherwise, one must study more normal definitions to determine that:
“GHE” is about 380 minus 240 watts per sq.M….where 380 is IR from average surface temp. and 240 is IR from Atmosphere to outer space….
GHG warming is about 1.2 C per doubling of CO2, possibly with an addition for added water vapor and a deduction for cloud cover due to that same additional water vapor.
”CO2 driven” is about 3 watts/sq.M….(3×24= 72 watt hours in a day, which is equivalent to about 5 minutes of afternoon sunshine to cloud transition, so is easily compensated by the nightime stratification/daytime convection that Willis talks about in his rather fine description.
“the SI unit of power, equivalent to one joule per second”
Given the above definition of a watt I think your math is off.
No mkelly, I very well know the difference between a joule/second and a joule/sq.M., and how many minutes it takes to accumulate watts into joules….
No matter how you choose to describe the GHE it is irrelevant to Earth’s energy balance. So why bring it up in a discussion that looks at Earths climate and Earth’s temperature – it is a furphy; irrelevant.
You can’t add or subtract or multiply radiative forcings. Get real.
leitmotif January 30, 2022 10:20 am
So your claim is that if you have an object illuminated by one lamp, and you add another lamp, the total radiation absorbed by the object is NOT the radiation absorbed from lamp 1 plus the radiation absorbed from lamp 2?
In addition, your claim is that the total radiation reflected by the object is NOT the radiation reflected from lamp 1 plus the radiation reflected from lamp 2?
Really? That’s your final answer?
Once you accept that there are two temperature regulating processes working over ocean surfaces that limit the temperature range to -1.8C up to 30C, any discussion of the GHE is pointless with regard Earth’s energy balance and climate.
How many fairies can dance on a pinhead – Is the same as asking what role does the GHE have on earths climate. It requires belief in something that has no physical reality.
Your -1.8 to 30 is so ludicrously oversimplified as to be useless. Try Clausius-Clapeyron, convection of water vapor laden air, lapse rate, and cloud formation at 100% RH, Tephigrams or skew-T charts….then you’ll be somewhere discussable….
Rick, playing devil’s advocate, if more heat is retained due to increased back radiation, will there not be just more vigorous/frequent/faster regulating going on while still remaining within your temperature ranges?
You can get more or less ocean surface at 30C as well as more or less sea ice with water under it at -1.8C. The ocean heat is a function of the net water cycle, which is in long-term decline due to perihelion occurring progressively later each year. That reduction will continue for the next 10,000 years.
The heat content is increasing as the net water cycle reduces due to reduced evaporation reducing ocean upwelling.
With ocean warm pools at 30C and high latitude oceans at -1.8C, there is not much opportunity for the ocean average surface temperature to shift from where it is.
The NH has increasing summer sunlight but reducing winter sunlight. So the summer land temperature in the NH is increasing and that is increasing the amount of ocean surface regulating at 30C in the NH. The SH is the reverse but overall global sunlight is in long-term decline as the orbital eccentricity is reducing.
The global energy balance is not the result of some delicate radiative balance upset by trace gasses. The tropical cloud can knock out more than 90% of the ToA sunlight reaching the surface and it is a temperature controlled process. One metre of sea ice halves the thermal loss from ocean water below it at -1.8C. These are powerful energy regulating processes that have nothing to do with the transmissibility of LWIR through the atmosphere.
Climate models are naive constructs that achieve unphysical outcomes like ocean surface exceeding 30C – utter nonsense.
The terrestrial surface most certainly can radiate energy, as any satellite long-wave IR imager will show.
There is a second way beyond grid cell size to show that climate models do not incorporate Tstorms.
One of the three main design goals of ARGO was upper level ocean salinity (it is about constant below 700m) as a way of estimating ocean rainfall. ARGO finds about twice the ocean rainfall as modelled. This also means the model atmospheric water vapor feedback is too high, which is both why models produce a Tropical tropospheric hotspot that does not in fact exist, and also why their ECS is about twice what observational methods estimate.
Grid cells are far too large to model any clouds, not just tropical thunderstorms.
Clouds vary enormously in size, as we’ve all observed, but a typical cumulus cloud is roughy a cubic kilometer in dimensions.
Cumulonimbus thunderstorm clouds are larger. They go three stages in around 30 minutes:
Thanks for the ling to the image. That’s the first that I’ve seen that approaches reality with regards to the updraft at the leading edge of the storm. Consider that the warm updraft is creating its own low pressure as a result of rapid vertical velocity and warmer temp (lower density and pressure) and will direct the storm to follow that direction. It’s another example of an emergent phenomenon as described so often by Willis. Is the energy being fed by LWIR being emitted from hot/warm actual surface temps? Is any given point on the leading base of the cloud being impacted by LWIR from a broad area ahead of the cloud’s track? When a storm collapses/decays would it likely appear on radar to pop up again while in fact the cloud remained intact but simply ‘pulsed’ as the weather radar only picked up the falling rain ? When I ask these questions I think I already have the answer.
During the Winter, all of northern California and southern Oregon can be covered by what is essentially one unbroken cloud. But, yes, ‘cotton candy’ can vary significantly in size.
Just wondering, but in :
we see “Department of Energy’s Energy Exascale Earth System Model,¨
No idea yet how many flops are there…
The ARGO salinity data was not known to me before – I’ve always just looked at the temperature, including at depth. This is an interesting potential refutation of the models, and makes me want to poke into it more – Rud, do you have any references/papers or any of your own work to which you could refer me?
I posted a long piece here about ARGO couple of years ago. I think it was titled something like ARGO-fit for purpose? It contains live links to all the ARGO stuff maintained out at Scripps.
Argo is very fit for its purpose of submarine detection, so very classified that Russian naval vessels shoot them on sight…..
Why do you think this is not incorporated into the models. It seems logical that it would be.
Don’t look for it yourself. Willis should spend his time looking for it 🙂
Thunderstorms themselves are not incorporated in the models, because the gridcells are far larger than the storms. So how could their details be in the models?
Technically it would be a “parametrization”.
CACA spewers always assert that cloud effects are in the models. They’re parameterized.
If high-resolution grid cells now are 100 km x 100 km x 1 km, then computing power needs to increase 10,000-fold actually to model kilometer scale clouds, and 100,000-fold for 100-meter scale.
You cannot model convective instability that leads to tropical storms with more than 100m vertical resolution.
The only parameterisation that matters is a hard limit on open ocean surface temperature of 31C and peak annual average of 30C.
If models were constrained by the actual ocean surface temperature limit. then there would be no alarm about warming.
The real alarm should be about the impending glaciation. Boreal winters are getting less sunlight meaning more winter precipitation on land that is leading to increasing snowfall. That process started 400 years ago but is only in very early stages; 10,000 years ago.
That is a self contradictory statement. Something the started 400 years ago wasn’t happening 10,000 years ago.
A typo “ago” should be “to go”
Another well thought out contribution from Willis, using public domain data in interesting and creative ways.
I would submit that thunderstorms could be included in “the models” – if only by parameterization; and that the reason they aren’t is because the modellers haven’t spent any time out of doors in the tropics. Or if they have, they haven’t actually looked at the weather and wondered if what they see could help to improve their models.
https://turbli.com/maps/world-thunderstorm-map/ has a pretty neat map of real-time thunderstorm activity based on the height of cu-nim cloud tops. Couldn’t see any historical data, but it should be out there somewhere. There’s a lot of maps of cumulative lightning strikes, but those are heavily biased towards land areas, for obvious reasons.
There is no need to parameterise the clouds. Just put a hard daily limit on ocean surface temperature of 31C and yearly limit of 30C. That is what actually occurs.
The temperature limiting process is precise.
G’Day Smart Rock,
“… has a pretty neat map of real-time thunderstorm activity based on the height of cu-nim cloud tops.”
for ‘live’ lightning strikes. It’s possible to zoom in to almost street level and see where the strikes have hit in the past two hours.
I would ask why it is necessary to model a component of a grid cell as long as you can incorporate the effect of that component on the grid cell heat and mass balance. If your grid cell has a forest fire in it, you don’t need to model the fire itself, just the effect of it on the grid heat and mass balance. A grid cell prone to thunderstorms is going to have greater convective heat transfer to a cell above it. A grid cell over a desert would certainly have fewer thunderstorms than one over the tropical ocean, as you have observed.
“I would ask why it is necessary to model a component of a grid cell as long as you can incorporate the effect of that component on the grid cell heat and mass balance.”
What a great idea! Even better, why not reduce the GCMs to a single parameterized grid cell? The savings just in terms of computing needs would be enormous!
Think carefully about what Frank said above but if you want the child stupid version that matches your “understanding” and comments so far.
According to Tom.1 you can represent the Mona Lisa witha single dark gray pixel and you get the full art experience and understanding 🙂
The question is: can you parameterize it? Emergent phenomena tend to be chaotic, and scale is important.
“The question is: can you parameterize it? Emergent phenomena tend to be chaotic, and scale is important.”
Parameterisation comes from what we know and what we’ve seen. We can estimate the energy a storm transfers to the upper atmosphere by observing and measuring many of them in the grid cell and producing averages under various conditions and then applying those averages over time in a GCM.
This produces believable weather and to the average scientist, must seem like a valid solution for the models. Many of them point to weather simulations being very realistic as an argument. Nick Stokes does this frequently.
But what they dont do is produce different results under different conditions and that’s precisely what they need to be able to do because that’s what the model is producing. Different “as yet unseen” conditions.
So the best parameterisations might be great for weather prediction, but no good for climate calculation.
Maybe they could and should in incorporate the models as non-dimensional elements
I still find this argument somewhat unsatisfying. After all, the Ideal Gas Law works very well as an empirical model of gas behavior while not considering at all the behavior of individual gas molecules.
See my post here years ago titled ‘The Trouble with Climate Models’. Contains a very granular explanation.
Thanks, Rud. I assume you’re referring to this one, The Trouble with Global Climate Models. Good stuff indeed.
This is an excellent piece of work, describing the intricacies of our emergent global heat engine threshold phenomena with a story teller’s charm. The compare-and-contrast of climate model outputs vs real data illustrates the inadequacies and outright errors of current climate models succinctly.
The greening of earth appears to be correlated with albedo/ warming.
I explain this here.
I see you still haven’t read any of the responses to your initial post.
There was no measurement from you that I would have to respond to?
The extension of that is none of us care what you think because you are oh so selective about what you answer.
There is an answer for you.
Amazing, is it not?
This seems like something you could recruit some co-authors and publish, with more detailed analysis. That the model and CERES data are in such stark contrast is important, I think, but to prove your point more clearly, I would think you’d want some help to look at a bunch of the models in the usual “ensemble”. If similar, then any average of ensemble results would be similarly flawed, and any sensitivity derived therefrom would be suspect.
And by assigning equal weight to all the results in the ensemble, commonly held views on how the models should work ends up subjectively biasing the ensemble to what most modelers believe, irrespective of how well individual models conform to reality.
And Now for Something Completely Different. A deep meditation on climate modelers and the gravity of their work.
Apologies for the levity, Willis. But when I read you were, “struck by something completely different” the immediate analogy of Monty Python and climate modeler buffoonery was irresistible.
What can we say, for WUWT:
That was completely different.
It makes sense. And what’s nice about it, it links climate and weather very specifically, that is, the daily weather cycle and the long term transfers of heat around the globe. It is proposing a mechanism which could cause an observed phenomenon, stability. And the mechanism proposed is the effect of a phenomenon that anyone who has lived in the tropics will have seen, and which is well known.
It feels, but this is no more than a feeling, that such an explanation with a specific weather mechanism as the driver, is far more convincing than what seem to me (maybe on too little acquaintance) to be the very general accounts relying on such abstractions as global average temperatures. Or daily station measurements which confine themselves to temperature at a given point and don’t capture the intraday changes in over a range of altitudes.
Very nicely done. What would be interesting would be to develop some prediction from the theory which would falsify it. Something that it says should happen, and we can observe whether it does or not, where if it doesn’t, its a falsification.
A bit like the famous hot spot in the upper atmosphere! Or the global medieval warm period. Some kind of test case.
Anyway, well done. A very interesting theory.
Your mention of the global medieval warm period brings an (off-topic) question to my mind:
Might long duration-changes in climate (glacials?) be caused by slowly changing mantle convection? (Rayleigh cells exist there, also!)
The Persian Gulf is the perfect example where the ocean surface temperature limiting mechanism fails. The surface temperature in August can reach 35C rather than the more typical 31C peak in open ocean.
The near surface humidity in the Persian Gulf is high:
But if you look at the humidity above 250HPa, it is always low:
It is rare for convective potential to form over the Persian Gulf to create the cloud that regulates the surface temperature.
Inland lakes do not limit to 30C maximum. The high level moist air diverges to other warmer land.
The most severe thunderstorms with their massive hailstones occur over land because the surface can be warner than 31C – the limit of open ocean surface temperature.
When you look at the Persian Gulf north of the Straits of Hormuz, you see a salt water lake with a mouth to the ocean. It isn’t at all surprising that it would not behave like the rest of the ocean. The Red Sea has some similar qualities, and likewise could easily be modeled as a salt water lake.
The climate models all have the Persian Gulf August temperature much cooler than actually observed. The fact that they get that so wrong indicates that they are not modelling the convective instability that prevents open oceans from warming above 30C.
“As predicted by my theory, in much of the tropical ocean the temperature is positively correlated with the temperature”
As it should. A negative correlation between temperature and temperature would be most unusual.
Thanks, Javier. Simple brain lacunae, corrected.
Umm…the way I read Fig7 and 10 is that between -30 and plus 30 latitudes there is basically zero
correlation whether by model or CERES measurement between surface temp and Albedo….then between 30 and 60 latitudes both the model and measurements become quickly a negative correlation between surface temp and Albedo….then from 60 to pole, the model is seriously in error….just my opinion….the “near zero” correlation between -/+30 seems to run counter to Willis’ tropical thunderstorm theory….
I agree. Willis is very critical of other people hypotheses weak points, but a correlation of 0-0.2 in the tropics means no correlation, not a positive correlation.
Could the issue be the way temperature is measured and used in the calculation?Would a daily average temperature correlated against a daily average albedo even show the effect?
I would imagine there are big computer programming interpretive issues with albedo “duration” and “locality” in the Ceres numbers. When a cloud moves or forms over a patch of ocean, the albedo goes from .1 to .7 at whatever rate the wind is blowing…What is a satellite sensor and subsequent computerized calcs going to come up with for the database entry ? Given that a data “swath” is about 20 Km wide but the sats are geostationary ? There is a good chance that Willis’ thunderclouds build up, go away 3 hours layer, and never really get properly accounted for….
But global warming also causes record cold temperatures. /sarc
The way we measure multiple things in hundreds of thousands of locations, records are bound to be broken continuously just by chance.
I agree wholeheartedly. The /sarc tag means that my comment was written sarcastically.
Koutsoyiannis (Revisiting the global hydrological cycle…): “Evidently, if we choose at random, say, 12000 sites on Earth, then every month we will have, on the average, one catastrophic event of a 1000-year return period in one of the sites.”
griff, did you see this?
What is the distinction that you are making between a theory and a hypothesis, and why is mine one and not the other?
Failed attempts to falsify it. You predicted an observation that you already knew existed. Not wrong, just short of the rigorous testing with observation for a consensus to accept it as a theory in a proper sense.
Don’t get me wrong, I liked it.
I’ve been providing evidence in support of my theory for a couple of decades … see here.
You have a good hypothesis, but its not me who makes up the consensus. TFN was just being pedantic. “theory” should be used like “theorem” in maths.
I wasn’t attempting to falsify anything about my theory. I was showing that at least one model does NOT agree with the reality as shown by the CERES satellite.
For an hypothesis to become a theory, you need to make falsifiable, testable predictions based upon it, then test those predictions by further observation or experiment. If confirmed enough times, and never shown false, then you can call it a theory.
An example: Hawking’s version of Hawking radiation was an hypothesis shown false. Black holes do decay, but not in the way he imagined. He probably knew he was wrong when he first hypothesized thereupon.
OTOH, General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory are repeatedly confirmed, never falsified theories.
Then there is speculation.
The idea that our universe is the inside of a black hole is supported by every measurement of space, time, energy and mass, but doesn’t rate even as an hypothesis, because its predictions can’t be tested.
Yet it’s probably true.
Isn’t the idea of universes inside black holes somewhat Testudinal – it goes on forever. Black holes inside black holes inside black holes as infinitum…
It’s turtles all the way down!
Penrose calls those Aeons :
Correlated “noise” in LIGO gravitational wave signals: an implication of Conformal Cyclic Cosmology
Matt O’Dowd’s YouTube explanation of Penrose’s conformal cyclic cosmology (PBS SpaceTime) was very good. With no matter there’s no size. So when the last baryonic particle finally evaporates into photons – poof! So more distance and another smooth Big Bang.
In the vernacular of T. C. Chamberlain (The Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses), the Black Hole hypothesis is something that should be considered, but then rejected because it can’t be tested.
This is sort of off topic, but since you brought it up… I agree that so far all attempts to falsify the General Relativity Theory have done naught but confirm it, but riddle me this, Batman… seems to me I recall a comment from Einstein himself, when he first introduced his General Relativity Hypothesis (yet to become Theory) that he said, “…as the velocity approaches some constant, which we don’t know but I take to be the speed of light…” (I’m paraphrasing and going from what I remember, I have been unable to find that quote, even though I know I read it some years ago, possibly as much as 50 years, so it should maybe not be in quotes, but I’ll leave that to the grammar police to hash out). So my question, while the results of experiments have in general lent support to the General Relativity Theory, have any of them provided data that could confirm or deny the actual value of “c”? I’m thinking, what if Einstein was just a little bit off, his hypothesis was basically correct, but he misguestimated “c”? What if it is not the speed of light? What if it’s something greater, maybe even a good deal greater? I read a write-up and/or comment of a researcher who found a phenomenon no scientist today could explain away, he observed waves leaving a pulsar traveling at a speed some multiple of the speed of light (I think I remember 10 times the speed of light), so certainly it is possible a higher speed exists. What is that speed limit? (I’m not a physicist, I know not how to go about proving/verifying the speed limit of the universe, any suggestions?)
Thanks for your question.
The speed of light is a well-known constant. Gravity works at so close to the speed of light as to yield high confidence that it obeys the universal speed limit.
This explains the apparently anomalous results from the pulsar:
In any case, it has to do with the Special Theory of Relativity, not the General.
The 13.8 billion year-old universe is some 93 billion light years across because the expansion of spacetime exceeds C, the velocity of a photon moving through the universe.
One prediction from General Relativity was that gravity waves would propagate at the same speed as light. A gravity wave detected by LIGO was accompanied by X-ray detection at about a 2 second time difference for a signal that had been traveling in excess of one hundred million years.
As for WE’s hypotheses/theory, the long term (past million years) temperature records suggest that Willis may be on the right track.The global temperature shows a very soft limit on minimum temperature and a very hard limit on maximum temperature.
According to Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory, the speed of light (in vacuum) is a function of properties of space itself—the permittivity and the permeability.
It was with Special Relativity that Einstein showed how the speed of light is a fundamental limit.
By agreement, c is now a constant that is defined in terms of distance (1 meter) and time (1/(299792458) seconds).
depending upon the medium
In vacuum; e0 and u0 vary inside materials.
Einstein recognized that Maxwell and Newton could not both be right. In the event, Maxwell won. Space and time are relative, not absolute, and gravitation isn’t instantaneous. The latter hypothesis bothered Newton, but it was in his theory.
The Persian Gulf provides the exception if you understand how convective potential develops:
And the resulting cloud persistency.
The moisture above 250hPa in the Persian Gulf is always low in August when the surface temperature can reach 35C:
Compare that with the open oceans where the RH is often above 90%.
Hawking in 2014 : (no kidding) :
Information Preservation and Weather Forecasting for Black Holes
basically showed there can be no black holes, rather ephemeral turbulence.
Then to claim the universe in inside one is an ephemeral claim.
We do not yet have a quantum spacetime theory.
Just to be clear, in the philosophy of science “falsify” means “to show false”, after Karl Popper. Einstein was of like mind, but didn’t coin a term for the process. Please see Feynman’s famous lecture.
Back when universities were interested in truth and education rather than lies and indoctrination. From 15:35 for the money shot:
CACA has achieved the twofer of purveying falsified “data” in the lay sense of the term, while its central hypothesis has also been repeatedly falsified in scientific sense.
Right. I also read that Einstein, when introducing one of his hypotheses, said, “you could prove me wrong by…” and laid out 3 experiments that could be conducted with yes/no type results. If the result was Yes, the hypothesis still stood, if the result was No, the hypothesis was invalid. He also famously said, when someone presented a letter to him signed by “…over 100 scientists…” his only response was, “Why did you need 100 scientists to prove me wrong? One would have been sufficient.” And as I recall, the letter did not cite any data, it only stated, “…we think you’re wrong…”.
“…we think you’re wrong…”.
That sounds like a lot of our resident trolls that hang out under virtual bridges.
In the scientific method, an hypothesis is a “guess” (as per Feynman) which hasn’t yet been confirmed, at least not sufficiently. If it be repeatedly confirmed by testable, falsifiable predictions made upon its basis and not yet shown false thereby, then the idea can be elevated to theory status.
John, see my comment above.
Sadly, this time-tested philosophy of science, supported by old-fashioned white males like Popper, Einstein, Feynman et al, is now under attack on various fronts, including the anti-scientific method claim that “expert consensus” can replace confirmation or falsification by observation and experiment. Other new-fangled philosophers assert that falsification isn’t possible.
Personally, I’m going with Einstein over Oreskes, but maybe that just shows how un-Woke I am.
Einstein in full Popper mode:
“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
While enjoying Feynman’s lectures a lot, I think he evaded somewhat with his ‘guess’ .
As Leibniz famously said, refuting Descartes, Hobbes et al,
“Nihiil est in intellectu, quod non fuerit in sensu, excipe : nisi ipse intellectus.”
Nothing is in the intellect that does not come from the senses, nothing except the intellect.
So where does the ‘guess’ come from? Not from the data.
This is amusing, when one considers Newton’s “Hypotheses non fingo” , I make no hypotheses. This then gets rather hilarious when one claims emergent phenomena – a Newton cameo.
In the particular case of you and climate, you have to accept that your mind blowing science can not qualify as a theory unless you yourself accept that it is another and a different and competing and maybe perhaps a better radiatve theory of climate than the Milankovic Cycles radiative theory of climate… else!!!!
Can you do that… openly declaring that you accept your science of climate is offered as competing alternative to the official orthodox and the only one radiative theory of climate there up to date?!
You will be the first though… oh well maybe after Dr. Soon.
Your trolling is boring, try some new material to beguile us with.
How many of you is there?
Willis is showing emergent phenomena that operate on a relatively small scale. What he suggests complements Milankovic, not competes.
At least one of CMIP6 models, the CAM5, ignores a temperature dependence of the latent heat of water vaporization – https://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/cesm1.0/cam/docs/description/cam5_desc.pdf
This overestimates the energy transfer by evaporation from tropical seas by 3%. In an iterative model such an error is deadly. Nevertheless, it apparently yields results indistinguishable from other models.
Most interesting, George. Just ran the numbers and I get 3% as well.
Odder still, they’ve used the value for seawater at -1°C, rather than at say the average ocean temperature.
Could it be because the average temperature of the globe varies by up to 3 C between the CliSciFi models?
“they’ve used the value for seawater at -1°C”
Or is if fresh water at just above 0 ?
I just checked, Tim, and you’re right. It’s also the value for fresh water at 0.008°C.
Odd to miss this since the heat of vaporization of water as a function of temperature is well known and not controversial. NIST provides it for free via the Chemistry Webbook. The heat of vaporization does need to be from sea water instead of fresh water for accurate work.
“If the specific heats of condensate and vapour is assumed to be zero (which is a pretty good assumption given the small ratio of water to air, and one often made in atmospheric models) then the appropriate L is constant (=L0). (Note that all models correctly track the latent heat of condensate).”
This is a price paid for a simplifying assumption made in this model. A “pretty good” assumption indeed. Not quantified. And not stated openly. Climatology is a pretty special science.
“Counter-intuitively the more water vapor there is in the air the lighter it becomes”. This is mentioned in the transition phase of cumulus clouds to thunderstorms (fig. 3). The cumulus clouds have high albedo and reflect solar energy back into upper atmosphere/space. Here is the complexity of this arrangement: water vapor in the atmosphere increases the density altitude, well-known to pilots, wherein the air is less dense and the aircraft, both engines and lifting surfaces, perform less. The temperature starts to decrease due to reflection of solar energy at cloud tops, however, evaporation of water vapor increases due to lower pressure at the atmosphere-sea water interface. This is a run-away system where evaporation is taken over by pressure decrease exceeding the effect of lower temperature, and this really drives thunderstorm action. Nice report by Willis, a good peek into complexity. Models? HaHa.
Good point. Following the temp vs pressure angle I’ve had my head in the clouds (lol) the past few years and have pondered untold hours as to the effects of upper level pressure vs temps vs phase change vs volume vs density vs heat exchange vs velocity and toss in some IR at altitude. A simple phase diagram (H20) is valuable but it’s most useful when “all things are equal”. But that boundry line beginning at the ‘triple point’ probably needs to be painted with a broad brush in the clouds! I once thought Chess with a worthy player was predictable.
At the temperature and pressure range of the troposphere, the density of air is a function of the temperature, pressure, and average molecular weight. Since water vapor is just water molecules with a molecular weight of 18.0 amu and dry air (mostly composed of nitrogen with a molecular weight of 28.0 amu, oxygen with a molecular weight of 32 amu, and argon with a molecular weight of 39.9 amu) has an average molecular weight of 29.0 amu, as water vapor mixes with dry air, the average molecular weight goes down and the density decreases. This is why humid air rises relative to dry air at the same temperature and pressure. For example, dry air at atmospheric pressure and 25°C has a density of 1.185 kg/m^3 whereas air saturated with water (3.1 mol%) at the same temperature and pressure has a density of 1.171 kg/m^3. This doesn’t sound like much but it makes humid air rise and then form clouds as it cools.
The humid air will not rise beyond the level of free convection until convective potential develops and the water vapour is literally ejected into the denser zone above the level of free convection; observed as cloudburst.
A level of free convection can occur when the precipitable water reaches 30mm but cloudburst does not occur on a cyclic basis until the TPW reaches 45mm.
The level of free convection develops where a moist air parcel will not ascend into dry air above. The altitude depends on the surface temperature, surface pressure and humidity. At the present day surface pressure, a level of free convection depends solely on the TPW reaching 30mm irrespective of the surface temperature and relative humidity.
The finding that models are wrong does not mean that your hypothesis is right. Models are wrong in almost any aspect that one cares enough to check in detail. Models are wrong in so many ways that I find it perplexing that so many climate scientists place any confidence in their projections.
Regarding your hypothesis, I agree with most of what you say. Deep convection has been known as a mechanism to stabilize tropical warm water temperature for a very long time, so it is not new.
However your hypothesis helps explain why the climate is so stable, and it is probably just one of the many mechanisms that does so. It does not provide any explanation for why the world has been warming since the depths of the Little Ice Age, and particularly since the 1920s. In that sense it is not a climate change hypothesis, but a climate non-change one.
It is well known that the climate changes at all time scales. Are you suggesting modern global warming is just a random walk?
Javier January 29, 2022 11:27 am
Didn’t say that. I said that my theory was not already part of accepted climate explanations or models.
As I have told you several times your hypothesis has already been accepted as a climate explanation:
Sud, Y. C., Walker, G. K., & Lau, K. M. (1999). Mechanisms regulating sea‐surface temperatures and deep convection in the tropics. Geophysical research letters, 26 (8), 1019-1022.
“Scientific basis for the emergence of deep convection in the tropics at or above 28°C sea-surface temperature (SST), and its proximity to the highest observed SST of about 30°C, is explained from first principles of moist convection and TOGA-COARE data. Our calculations show that SST of 28–29°C is needed for charging the cloud-base airmass with the required moist static energy for clouds to reach the upper troposphere (i.e., 200 hPa). Besides reducing solar irradiation by cloud-cover, moist convection also produces cool and dry downdrafts, which promote oceanic cooling by increased sensible and latent heat fluxes at the surface. Consequently, the tropical ocean seesaws between the states of net energy absorber before, and net energy supplier after, the deep moist convection, which causes the SST to vacillate between 28° and 30°C. While dynamics of the large-scale circulation embodying the easterly waves and Madden-Julian Oscillations (MJOs) modulate moist convection, we show that the quasi-stationary vertical profile of moist static energy of the tropics is the ultimate cause of the upper limit on tropical SSTs.”
I fail to see how the mechanism described in that article significantly differs from your hypothesis.
One of the bigger tasks of a Ph.D. is the literature search to avoid going over old ground.
The Sud et. al. paper could well be the basis for further analysis.
The discrepancies between the CERES observations and MIROC outputs is certainly one of those “isn’t that interesting?” observation which could lead somewhere.
There would be quite a bit of work involved in determining if this applies more generally to a particular class of models, or even the majority of models.
It may or may not have a material impact on the accuracy of models, but there is quite often a large amount of work involved for small advances.
Not just of a PhD thesis, but of any paper proposing something novel.
The literature search section is critical..Willis’ one puclished paper acknowledges that he didn’t do that, and his thinderstorm hypothesis suffers the same fault.
The heat engine effect of tropical thunderstorms is an obvious truism of climatology. It’s nothing like the be all and end all that unschooled, rookie noob climatologist Willis imagines, out of ignorance of the discipline.
Some of your comments are uncharacteristically harsh, John.
I can see that your comment regarding tropical thunderstorms would apply to meteorology, but the field of climatology is sufficiently broad that many areas seem to have little to do with meteorology.
You are correct.
Because Willis has never had even an undergrad course in climatology, nor done the minimal literature search due diligence required for a peer reviewed paper in the discipline, he still imagines that he has discovered something unknown before. This is demonstrably false, as has been repeatedly shown him by none other than Dr. Spencer.
Furthermore, for Willis’ hypothesis to have any climatological signficance whatsoever, he’d have to show that there has been some change in tropical thuderstorm activity over the past 120 years, to account for the Modern WP following the LIA.
He’s got nothing. Autodidacts can make contributions to science, but first they need to know what has already been shown. Willis has never done that elementary work.
But his critique of the models is valid.
Furthermore, for tropical thunderstron frequency of strength to have any cliamtological significance,they’d have to follow the solar cycle, to which Willis’ religion forbids any importance, contrary to all evidence.
You have a better case with this point because if there is more energy input in the tropics, as opposed to less radiative cooling globally, or changes regionally due to shifting ocean currents, etc., then it follows that the area being limited at the high temperature setpoint by tropical thunderstorms should increase. But is the change in insolation peak to trough in the solar cycle large enough to detect a change in thunderstorms, considering that other factors may be obscuring the effects?
You are blowing smoke hoping to cover something up. Deal with the info in the article and stop the DENIAL that only “climate scientists” are smart enough to deal with science.
To your point about “ he’d have to show that there has been some change in tropical thuderstorm activity over the past 120 years, to account for the Modern WP following the LIA.”
That assertion implies that WE is trying to explain why temperatures have warmed. But if I do not badly misunderstand his point, he is trying to explain why they can only change so much before being limited by the physical properties of water.
Again, if I understood him correctly, the global average temperature can rise without a change in thunderstorm activity by having a warmer temperatures over a larger area while not reaching the limit that sets off thunderstorms. One way for that to happen is to reduce cooling at night due to enhanced GHE.
Why are you choosing to be so abusive in your rhetoric, John? It puts you in a bad light.
I disagree, Mr. Tillman.
Past literature searches are irrelevant, because Mr. Eschenbach’s critiques were specifically of the climate models.
Past literature is not what is driving climate-based policy decisions; it is the predictions from said climate models.
If you agree that the phenomenon cited by Mr. Eschenbach is real, then the only remaining questions are:
1) Is the effect significant? It seems it should be given the dramatic differences in albedo correlation in the tropics vs. elsewhere. Your comment about frequency of thunderstorms is irrelevant; I am fairly certain any given thunderstorm is not precisely like another. They could be larger, last longer, cycle air faster, etc etc.
2) If the effect is significant, then failure to take these into account means the climate models have a significant flaw.
3) This flaw is not theoretical. Mr. Eschenbach has shown that there are documented deviations between climate model global behavior and actual global behavior. It is not proven that the difference is due to the thunderstorm emergent phenomenon (and related other ones like sandstorms etc) but the difference should be of concern.
So thank you for falling back on the tried and true ad hominem attack, but your failure to address the actual issue has discredited yourself.
Javier January 29, 2022 11:53 am
If that were true, then the models would show the same temperature-albedo correlation as the CERES data … but at least this model is a LONG ways from that.
In addition, my hypothesis covers far more than just the warmest part of the tropics, which is all that is covered by that paper.
Finally, we have no evidence that this has been accepted by the larger scientific community—it only has 54 citations, my paper on extinctions has twice that.
“If that were true, then the models would show the same temperature-albedo correlation as the CERES data”
That’s a non-sequitur fallacy. There’s plenty of things known to climatologists that models don’t do right. One outstanding example is multidecadal variability. There are literally thousands of articles on multidecadal variability, but models are unable to reproduce it.
“In addition, my hypothesis covers far more than just the warmest part of the tropics”
But that is the part were the correlation is not negative. If increasing temperature reduces albedo, then your mechanism is not working.
“Finally, we have no evidence that this has been accepted by the larger scientific community”
You can’t have it if you don’t read. Citations are a very poor metric to deduce how accepted is what the paper discusses. Plenty of papers discussing well known things get very poorly cited.
There has been a huge effort to disparage this work. The authors moved on to climate modelling and the associated spoils of becoming true believers.
Ramanathan who published earlier on the same observation would like his contribution quietly buried.
Climate models have tropical oceans reaching absurd temperatures. There is no ocean surface temperature limiting process incorporated in models.
If models had surface temperature upper limit then the only possible warming is more surface reaching the limit. That has been occurring for the last 400 years as perihelion moves progressively later than the austral summer solstice.
Perhaps you can explain why this scientifically accepted phenomenon, which clearly transports some significant amount of heat into space and is thus a possibly major factor in global temperatures, is not accounted for in the climate models.
You’re trying to pedantically argue when you should be considering if such an accepted effect is real, what the scale is and whether the climate models are thus reliable if they fail to take into account a significant accepted effect.
As I have told you several times your hypothesis has already been accepted as a climate explanation:
Your finger-wagging exhortation is naive.
Published does not mean accepted.
In normal science it should mean a degree of acceptance.
But not now, not in post-normal alarmist politicised science.
Now, the fashion is for a paper to show “data” that support the CAGW hymn sheet, such as the Shakun and Marcott palaeoclimate papers, or even Mann’s hockey-stick which they won’t let go of – for such papers to ignore and effectively annhihilate all previous papers on the same topic.
The reality in today’s politicised climate science is that the published research record means less than nothing. Absolutely zilch.
Any day, a new AGW church-sanctioned alarmist paper will appear, and everything previously published on the subject will vanish as if into another universe, as if it had never existed.
This happens with almost every significant new alarmist paper.
Everything that came before in that field is airbrushed out.
You repeatedly have failed to show that. Because you can’t.
To your credit in the lead in to this post you accept that you need to show your “theory” ( pompous presumption) original, but yet again fail even to try.
Here’s Climatology 101, showing yet again that you’ve got nothing in the least bit original.
Only your total ignorance of the discipline allows you to imagine yourself a self-proclaimed polymathic genius. You’re nothing of the sort.
Get over yourself.
John, not sure why you are so arrogant and rude. Willis has been for years building piece by piece an explanation of the limiting factors constraining the climate to a relatively stable upper temperature limit. His explanations are compelling and well backed with fact and evidence, seems like a reasonable theory, no where does he claim that this is an all encompassing theory of the climate. Unlike the so called experts in this field.
Do you feel yourself to be a contender for alpha male status, so you go horn to horn with WE with this rather ugly attack and think you can get the herd to fawn after you instead? Well good luck with that.
You are equally deluded if you think the literature is replete with climate papers based on an emergent thermal homeostasis paradigm. Which also map correlation of albedo with temperature and define a homeostatic role for thunderstorms? Then why don’t you cite a few?
I am not answering you, Javier on behalf of Willis here, but reacting to your comment in a way that I hope you could both comment on.
It seems to me that what Willis proposes does not debunk the greenhouse effect or attempt to explain any observed chang in temperature, but rather predicts that if the energy input (or forcing) is increased for any reason (whether it is a more active sun, an increased GHE, or alien death rays), then the heat engine will run faster, transporting more and more energy to the poles. Likewise, less energy input will slow the heat engine, regardless of the reason for less energy (more aerosols, less active sun, reduced GHE, Luke blowing up the Death Star). This means that there is a narrow band within which temperature will vary, almost regardless of forcing.
Intuitively I imagine that the heat engine runs on the hot end when speeding up, and on the cool end when slowing down. If that proves valid, then an enhanced GHE could push the temperature gauge up toward the higher end of operating range. But it won’t just keep rising indefinitely as long as the cooling mechanisms are still able to work.
Also intuitively there may come some level of forcing that will break the heat engine. That such a level can be reached due to increased CO2 levels when CO2 levels have been orders of magnitude higher in geological timeframes is not logical.
Let me call this my contribution of things-to-consider… WE has stated elsewhere that this effect, these “emergent phenomenon”, put a hard limit on [I forget what exactly, ocean surface temperature? Surface air temperature above an ocean…?] of 30° C. But what if these emergent phenomena are a function of… [multiple physical characteristics] …that under present conditions produce a 30° C limit? But if these [unknown] characteristics change significantly, that limit could be… something else? Which makes it more of a soft hard limit ¿verdad? So, Mr. Eschenbach, you would have a much stronger paper if you could produce some equations that show how/when this emergent phenomenon works, and that would also enable you to make some predictions. Which I think you still lack as well, right? Other than you have predicted 30° C “hard” limit, but can you show that should apply under ALL conditions?
The only variable that can alter the 30C regulation over open oceans is atmospheric mass; that would be observed as increasing sea level pressure. All other parameters involved in the process are bound by physical properties of water and air.
Addition of CO2 has limited impact on the total mass. Increasing surface temperature adds minutely to the amount of precipitable water; unmeasurable in the overall mass. And the process limits the surface temperature so the atmospheric water variation is due to changes in the net divergence of water vapour from oceans to land.
Tropical oceans were limiting to about 33C during the Cretaceous period when atmospheric mass was about 10% higher than present time.
The same temperature limiting process occurs across all tropical oceans every day of every year:
That looks like good support for Mr. Eschenbach, even though it provided an exception, you explain why, so it might actually help strengthen his paper.
But there are things such as extreme solar flares, and even the possibility of a solar nova, that might readily exceed the mechanical limits of the normal heating/cooling process.
Yes, that’s what I had in mind exactly. And going from 0.042% to 0.056% CO2 in the atmosphere isn’t going to be a similar effect, when in the past we’ve seen glaciations at over 0.1%.
Your critique is over-egged.
It is not the purpose, nor necessary for Mr. Eschenbach to provide a complete replacement for consensus climate theory/modeling or global warming.
His point, which you appear to have completely missed, is that there are significant emergent phenomenon which are not in the models.
If these phenomenon are transporting large or significant amounts of heat to space, yet are not modeled, then any conclusions from said models are potentially extremely wrong.
Wrong models = wrong predictions for the future – a future which existing policy is being justified by.
Wrong models also lead to scientific false conclusions like overly high climate sensitivity.
Modern warming certainly could be a random walk. A graph of, for example, 100 random numbers between 1 and 10 can have ups and downs, and an overall rising (or falling) trend.
Nice, but I get the sinking feeling that you just inspired another “It’s worse than we thought” paper. That reduced correlation in the Berring Sea will be another canary in the coal mine (modelling is equivalent to an experimental observation, these days).
See also variations of tropical ocean warmth inflow to polar regions and their impact on global average temperatures.
You say “Some things of note about Figure 5. As predicted by my theory, in much of the tropical ocean the temperature is positively correlated with the temperature, but this is true only in a few isolated areas outside of the tropics. The arctic and antarctic are strongly anti-correlated (negative correlation), with a correlation of ~ -0.6. In the tropics, on the other hand, the average correlation is zero. Land overall has a strong negative correlation, ~ -0.5.”
Is this a typo? “in much of the tropical ocean the temperature is positively correlated with the temperature”. If I’m comprehending the article correctly wouldn’t it be “the temperature is positively correlated with the albedo”
Thanks, Phil. Javier pointed this out above, and I fixed it.
Jordan Peterson upset the modelling club on Joe Rogan’s podcast. He said the models were useless
The response – frothing at the mouth
Useless? Have they not provide a good living for quite a few people?
Not the least of which is the builders of supercomputers. I have to wonder if the use of supercomputers for projections from flawed climate models is any more socially redeeming than ‘mining’ for virtual digital currency.
I’m reminded of a remark that Karl Sagan made during his Cosmos TV series: If Conestoga wagons could have flown, and had headed for the moon in 1850, the Apollo astronauts would have beat the argonauts to the moon. The point being, trying to model climate with today’s technology is probably a Fool’s Errand. There is a lot we don’t know about the climate (in part because of the IPCC mandate to only focus on human influences) and our computers are not up to the task of actually using physics to model all aspects of the models, and the modelers have to resort to subjective paramaterization of clouds.
Great summary Willis… I will use this one to send to friends to describe your theory.
Keep in mind, although these emergent phenomena are driving the behavior in the tropics… to a lesser degree they are playing out all over the globe every summer.
Having spent much of my life in the Colorado front range, I can testify that we see this same behavior almost every day in the summer. If there is enough heat and humidity, thunderstorms spring up all over the front range of the Rockies… and start marching east. Often, a day that will start off quite hot, will turn into a much cooler late afternoon, as thunderstorms and an accompanying blanket of clouds cover the entire region from horizon to horizon. This has to have an effect total heat input into the system for the entire American central plains.
Again, I realize that the total energy involved is probably much less in this part of the globe, but I can’t imagine that it doesn’t have some effect.
It was like that where I grew up on the edge of tropical forest in Kuantan, Malaysia. During the monsoon season, water vapour would ascend skywards from the forest all morning and afternoon, till at the same time every day, around 4-5pm, the thunderclouds would form and the torrential rain came down. We heard it advancing toward us through the trees. It rained hard for half an hour or so then stopped. It was the same water coming down every afternoon.
And when I lived in Vermont in the late-’60s, I came to expect a light, refreshing rain every afternoon in the Summer.
The principle described is that with more energy available there are more boundary layer dynamical fluctuations possible.
The most effective ones will seize their opportunities to act by chance, and their chances are increased in a higher temperature environment. An increase in temperature enables additional mechanisms of surface heat dissipation to space such as those described in the article.
But, as someone who lives in a continental climate to the north, I advise to complete the circulatory cycle.
The processes described, in addition to the enhanced heat dissipation potential of warmer air, results in an increased production of upper tropospheric dry air.
This dry air is advected poleward and down to the surface increasing the extent and depth of descending air.
To complement the author’s ideas and to complete the circulation I propose an associated relative enhancement of the IR window poleward with increased radiative cooling potential of the surface.
From the standpoint of heat, relative humidity tells me f*** all about anything useful if I don’t know the corresponding temperature. If we have both the temperature and the relative humidity I can convert that to specific heat, and then I know something useful about whether or not this old Earth is even warming (if the surface air temperature is increasing at the same time as air moisture levels are decreasing, we have to run some equations but it is not just possible but likely that there has been no increase nor decrease of the Earth’s heat budget, but then you have to investigate the question, why is the moisture level trending?).
I have no interest to tell you anything about enthalpy, specific heat, or total internal energy. Nor do I have interest to partake in your hostility.
If you are interested to investigate your interests for yourself and you’re having trouble finding temperature data for different latitude bands you can start by using the NCEP reanalysis plotting tool. Of course, use reanalysis data at your own risk. https://www.psl.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries1.pl.
My comment is relevant to variable IR window transmittance with respect to the net radiation component of surface flux density.
I didn’t think I was being hostile, but eye of the beholder and all that, so I’ll give a lame excuse me. I’m only hostile that so many people seem to think sensible temperature alone tells you something about heat, but I guess they didn’t all get the thermodynamics and heat transfer classes. I could use local temperature data, I think I know how to access that, but I can’t find moisture data, nor pressure data (to do a conversion correctly I need the pressure, I can’t just assume a constant pressure everywhere). And it has to be taken of more or less the same parcel of air where the temperature was taken, someone offered me moisture data that was of the troposphere, which is nowhere near the surface temperature data readily available. So now what?
My intent is to support Eschenbach’s ideas and to tie it into global climate variables.
Eschenbach’s tropical effects influence upper troposphere moisture content. IR radiation effects are countered by variable IR window. Window variability is greater towards the poles.
This can be supported by NCEP reanalysis seasonally averaged weighted grids. A few quick plots:
Ratio of OLR and Surface Temperature (flux density). Higher values indicate relatively less atmospheric absorption. Eschenbach’s emergent feedback efficiency peaked around year 2000 suggesting a greater amount of available energy.
IR window flux density:
Atmosphere absorbed flux:
Mid troposphere 500mb specific humidity:
500mb specific humidity vs IR window flux
I’ll leave it there. You can check for yourself and see that the IR window variability is greater poleward. I have only generated global values. Overall there doesn’t appear to be any evidence of GHG ‘heat trapping’ enhancement in the plots. This suggests other factors having a greater or equal influence, and provides support for Eschenbach’s ideas.
JCM January 29, 2022 11:49 am
True. However, I like to focus my posts on one subject at a time.
The article presents one half of the process. The full circulation completes the idea. We all tend to focus on areas in which we are most familiar.
WE, years ago Lindzen published a paper ‘Does Earth have an adaptive infrared iris’ concluding something similar to you. Judith and I did back to back posts on it a few years ago. She interviewed Lindzen for the follow up history to the paper, I wrote about a climate model that incorporated his mechanism and brought ECS down to (IIRC) about 2.2 for just the medium case. Another illustration that the climate models do not incorporate Tstorm effects.
Thanks, Rud. I personally think that Lindzen had a valid theory that he backed up with observations, and got dumped on by the usual suspects.
My very best to you, warmest and regards to that good lady,
I often disagree with Willis’ conclusions… but I actually really like Figures 8 through 10. Figure 8 shows that Willis has come upon a diagnostic that is stable over time in the real world (the two patterns are really amazing close for two very different decades). Figure 9 shows that this diagnostic also yields a stable pattern in model world – but a different one. Figure 10 is a nice latitudinal comparison.
I might disagree that this shows that model world is “very, very different” than real-world. “Very, very different” is a subjective term. But there is clearly a difference, particularly in Antarctica, the northern pacific, and the north Atlantic regions. Figure 10 shows that between -60 and 30 degree latitude, the model gets the right pattern, but the wrong magnitude for the peaks and troughs.
I’d be interested in a) comparing this to other models, b) digging into the underlying mechanics, particularly in the north Pacific & Atlantic (getting Antarctica right in models is hard because of weird boundary layer issues with the high altitudes), and finally c) determining the implications of getting it wrong. (a) will help with (c): are there characteristics in common of models that are closer to real-world relative to models that are further? (both at the regional and global levels).
I think this diagnostic is specific enough that a collaboration with a “mainstream” scientist could be useful, though said scientist and Willis might have difficulty coming to agreement on interpretations (e.g., “very, very different”), so that could be a challenge…