Atmospheric Fingerprint

By Andy May

The IPCC believes that the change in solar radiation over the past 60 years nets to zero and has no trend beyond the normal ~11-year solar cycle. Professor David Karoly writes that we can confidently exclude the Sun as a contributor to recent warming because, if it were, the stratosphere would be warming as a result, and instead it is cooling. The cooling of the stratosphere, when the troposphere warms, is sometimes called the “atmospheric fingerprint” of human-caused global warming. Karoly was a pioneer in this area of research (Karoly, 1989) and (Karoly, 1987).

Figure 1. The AR6 chart of the change in effective radiative forcing from 1750 to 2019. They assume the change in solar forcing is essentially zero over the past 270 years and do not consider possible changes in cloud cover at all, other than as a positive feedback to surface warming. The watermark is in the original AR6, even though it is the final version.

Figure 1 shows the AR6 interpretation of the components of global warming since 1750. What is significant about this interpretation is that the Sun, which is a variable star, is assumed to be constant from 1750 to 2019 and that cloud cover is also assumed to be constant, except as a positive feedback to surface warming. Both assumptions are contested, but not thoroughly examined in AR6. The constant Sun assumption is disputed by Ronan Connolly, et al.[1] and the constant cloud cover is disputed by Henrik Svensmark and colleagues.[2]

Cooling of the stratosphere, due to a higher concentration of CO2, is logical. CO2 is a major radiator of thermal radiation in the stratosphere, and more of it should cool that layer. Likewise, if the intensity of solar radiation increased, oxygen and ozone in the stratosphere would absorb more UV (ultraviolet) radiation, which should warm the stratosphere, not cool it.

However, the idea that this pattern “points towards a discernible human influence on global climate” (IPCC, 1996, p. 439) is very controversial. There are alternate explanations for the observed stratospheric cooling, Karoly suggests that “decreases in ozone amount in the stratosphere” (Karoly, 1987) may account for the cooling. There are several other possible explanations or problems with the data used, as described by John Daly (Daly J. L., 1997). A short article in Nature, in 1996, provides a fair summary of the whole “atmospheric fingerprint” controversy, that is still accurate today. Following is a quote from the paper, written by Neville Nicholls:

“The study of Santer et al., and those reported in the IPCC Second Assessment, show that an anthropogenic component of global climate change – the ‘anthropogenic fingerprint’ – may be appearing in the observed data. It must be pointed out, however, that this signal is the complicated pattern of change resulting from the combined effects of stratospheric ozone depletion and increased concentrations of greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols. It does not mean that the effect of any one of these factors has been detected.

Many uncertainties remain in this work and are acknowledged by Santer et al. and in the IPCC Second Assessment. There are uncertainties in estimates of the magnitude and patterns of the various natural and human-induced factors likely to affect climate. Climate models are far from perfect. There are also problems with the temperature observations: much of the similarity between the model and observed changes comes from the asymmetrical pattern of warming between the hemispheres, and the detection of that asymmetry relies on the relatively few observations of tropospheric temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere. Those observations are known to be affected by changes in instrumentation, so further work is needed to eliminate the possibility that the observed asymmetry is the result of such changes.” (Nicholls, 1996)

Neville Nicholls, like David Karoly and Benjamin Santer, was one of the authors of the critical Chapter 8 of the second IPCC report, often called SAR (IPCC, 1996, p. 407). In this chapter, the “atmospheric fingerprint” was used to justify connecting global warming to human greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. As Nicholls writes, the so-called “atmospheric fingerprint” does provide the “clearest evidence yet that humans may have affected global climate.” (italics added) (Nicholls, 1996). However, paraphrasing Nicholls, it does not mean that the effect of human GHGs has been detected. It is logical to assume that increasing GHGs will have this effect, and it is logical to assume that humans have added significant GHGs to the atmosphere, but that is as far as it goes. We have already shown that the climate models predict too much warming in the tropical middle troposphere, if they incorporate human-emitted GHGs into their models (see here). Logical speculation is not proof.

The draft of Chapter 8 that was agreed to by the chapter authors, including Nicholls, Karoly and Santer, in July 1995, did not claim the atmospheric fingerprint showed humans were contributing to global warming. It said that, to date, the warming was within the range of normal climate variability, so a human influence could not be detected. Later that same year, in November, the conclusions of Chapter 8, were changed at the insistence of politicians and without the permission of the scientists that had written the chapter. This is the backdrop behind Nicholls’ statement above and many other protests of the changes to the chapter by scientists (May, 2020c, pp. 230-238).

A government, probably the U.S. government, insisted that Chapter 8 explicitly say that humans caused climate change. The leader of the SAR effort, John Houghton, insisted that the IPCC procedures were followed, and that the governments, that is the politicians, had the final say, not the scientists (Houghton, 1996). The IPCC reports are scientific, or they are political, they cannot be both. The scientists had already agreed that they could not be sure humans controlled the climate, because they did not know how large natural variability was. The politicians insisted this be changed, and it was. This incident, more than any other in the history of the IPCC, destroyed their reputation as an independent and unbiased reporter of the state of climate science. First, the atmospheric fingerprint was not evidence of human influence, then it was. It deserves a close look.

Satellite temperature trends in the lower stratosphere, middle troposphere, and the lower troposphere are shown in Figure 2. Stratospheric air temperatures, shown in blue, are driven by different factors than tropospheric temperatures, thus the large excursions from the trends in the 1970s to early 1990s. Since the mid-1990s, the stratosphere and middle troposphere have had the same pattern. They are both cooling while the lower troposphere is warming. Part of this pattern could be human CO2 emissions; but can we be certain of this? In a word, no. There are many natural factors that contribute to the cooling of the upper atmosphere, including less ozone that helps to warm it by absorbing ultraviolet (UV) radiation.

Figure 2. UAH satellite temperature trends in the global lower stratosphere and lower and middle troposphere.

Benjamin Santer describes a computer model study he performed in PNAS, in 2013.[3] He used the RCP8.5 emissions scenario, which has been discredited. Jianliang Wang showed that sufficient fossil fuels do not exist to carry this emissions scenario out to the year 2100.[4]

Santer, et. al acknowledge that their “All Natural” (no human forcing) models do predict cooling in the stratosphere and warming in the lower troposphere, just as their anthropogenic models do, but says the match to observations is not as good.

As shown in Figure 2, the middle troposphere warms from the middle 1970s to the middle 1990s, and then cools until 2020, along with the stratosphere. The middle troposphere follows the lower troposphere half the time and the stratosphere the rest of the time.

Santer’s models, that include an anthropogenic effect, show the middle troposphere warming rapidly from 2000 on, like the lower troposphere. His “All Natural” model shows it staying quite flat. Neither fit the observations. Thus, his claim that the atmospheric temperature profile “provide[s] clear evidence for a discernible human influence on the thermal structure of the atmosphere” appears to be invalidated. We agree it is logical to expect additional CO2 to warm the lower troposphere and cool the stratosphere, but logical speculation is not evidence. Why does his model get the middle troposphere wrong? Compare Figure 3(B) to Figure 2.

Figure 3. Santer’s models of the (C) lower and (B) middle troposphere and the (A) stratosphere. Red is natural plus anthropogenic, and blue is natural only. The dips in the troposphere and the peaks in the stratosphere are due to modeled volcanic eruptions.

Clearly how warming and cooling are distributed in these three sections of the atmosphere is complex and poorly understood. It is not simply human influence. If the temperature profile contains an anthropogenic signal, it has not been successfully detected or measured to date. Santer claims that his results are statistically significant, but only if we accept his assumptions that the models are robust and the Sun and other natural forcings are insignificant.

David Karoly’s other argument is that an increase in warming due to the Sun, would cause warming to be more intense during the day and in the summer. Yet, we see the opposite, warming is occurring more at night and in the winter, suggesting a warming Sun is not the cause. However, warming in the winter and at night is also consistent with more cloud cover and more cloud cover is likely as the world warms.

The Sun does not only vary in its total radiation output, or “TSI” (total solar irradiance). The Sun’s particle output, or the solar wind also varies, as does the intensity of its magnetic field. Further, TSI encompasses all radiation wavelengths, and the wavelength or its inverse, frequency, matters a lot in how radiation affects the climate. Higher frequency, more energetic UV (ultraviolet) radiation from the Sun varies much more than the total (Krummheuer & Krivova, 2015). All these variations affect Earth’s climate in ways that are poorly understood and vigorously debated.

Further, while the roughly eleven-year solar cycle exists, and is one of the few things all astrophysicists agree on, the long-term variation of the Sun is in dispute. The IPCC, Judith Lean, Leif Svalgaard, and David Karoly believe there is no long-term trend, at least over the last 300 to 400 years. They assume it is very flat, or possibly declining slightly. William Happer, and many astronomers, such as Willie Soon and Nicola Scafetta think there is a long-term or “secular” trend, and that solar variation plays a large role in global warming. We have written about this debate before, for a summary, see here. For an explanation of the various ways the Sun can influence our climate, as well as a discussion of solar activity proxies, see here.

Summary

The debate about the cause of recent global warming of Earth’s surface remains unresolved. There are several reasons why current observations, including stratospheric cooling, are inconclusive. First, the total radiation imbalance, or “forcing,” required to warm Earth’s surface one degree over the past few hundred years is extremely small, just 3-4 W/m2. This is undetectable with current technology; so, our measurements are inconclusive. As was true in 1995, when SAR was being written, we still do not know the magnitude of natural variability. Unless we know what nature can do, and is doing to our climate, we cannot detect a human influence.

Attempts to model natural climate change all assume that there is no long-term natural warming or cooling, and all warming is assigned to human influences. The huge variations in climate before humans evolved belie this assumption.

The second serious problem is we do not know what the long-term trend is in the Sun. Is it increasing its radiation output? Or is it decreasing, or staying flat? Our observations of solar output are not accurate enough to tell. Further, we do not know how the Sun affects our climate. Is the total radiation output the only thing that matters? Unlikely. Undoubtably the solar magnetic field, the frequency mix of the solar output must matter, and the solar wind surely has an influence. But we lack the ability to model these effects as discussed in Connolly, et al.

One thing is for sure, assuming the Sun and solar variability don’t affect our climate, is foolish. Yet, this assumption underlies the IPCC’s conclusion that humans are causing global warming.

The bulk of this post is an excerpt from my latest book, The Great Climate Debate, Karoly v Happer.

The bibliography can be downloaded here.

  1. (Connolly et al., 2021). Connolly, et al. exhaustively examine the peer-reviewed literature on how variations in the Sun affect our climate and show that anywhere from 100% to 0% of the recent warming could be due to solar variability. The IPCC assumption of zero is not “settled science.”

  2. (Svensmark, Force Majeure, The Sun’s role in climate change, 2019) and (Svensmark, Influence of Cosmic Rays on Earth’s Climate, 1998)

  3. (Santer, et al., 2013)

  4. (Wang, Feng, Tang, Bentley, & Höök, 2017)

5 22 votes
Article Rating
249 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
RickWill
March 27, 2022 2:14 pm

 the past 60 years nets to zero and has no trend beyond the normal ~11-year solar cycle. 

This is so naive it is nothing short of total ignorance.

For the last 500 years, the Southern Hemisphere has had declining sunlight intensity while the northern hemisphere has increasing sunlight intensity.

Land only absorbs 52% of the top of the atmosphere sunlight while oceans absorb 71%. The fact that water dominates the SH and is about the same area as oceans in the NH does the rest in terms of the energy balance.

Land is getting warmer while oceans are getting less sunlight. That means net evaporation has declined and oceans are consequently retaining more heat.

As the precession cycle progresses, the NH land masses will receive declining sunlight in winter and that will eventually lead to snow accumulation.

Earth is currently hovering around the lowest net evaporation from the oceans for almost 20,000 years.

Devils Tower
Reply to  RickWill
March 27, 2022 2:28 pm

Been studying ocean evaporation as of late. Their was a major low point in late seventies. Can go back and find sources if need be. Where does your comment about lowest evaporation in last 20k years come from?

Thanks in advance

RickWill
Reply to  Devils Tower
March 27, 2022 2:35 pm

I am only referring to net evaporation – the transfer of water from ocean to land. The best measure of that is global freshwater runoff from land to oceans and it has a declining trend over the past 80 years at least:
https://www.bafg.de/GRDC/EN/03_dtprdcts/31_FWFLX/freshflux_node.html

John Tillman
Reply to  RickWill
March 27, 2022 2:53 pm

More reservoirs (hanging water out to dry) and water consumption by ag, industry and cities?

RickWill
Reply to  John Tillman
March 27, 2022 3:16 pm

Those factors are very small. This paper attempted to quantify them:
https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/24/3899/2020/

Instead of a passive role in assessing hypothetical hydrological impacts based on doubtful climate model outputs, an active role consistent with its history is possible. Indeed, hydrology has much more to offer to societies than prophesies of future catastrophes (cf. Koutsoyiannis, 2020a).

Fred Middleton
Reply to  John Tillman
March 28, 2022 9:28 am

1960 – 3 billion people, 2020 7+ Billion

John Tillman
Reply to  RickWill
March 27, 2022 2:36 pm

NH is 61% ocean and SH 81%.

RickWill
Reply to  John Tillman
March 27, 2022 5:02 pm

NH is 61% ocean and SH 81%.

Yea, In area but not the proportion of the sunlight that the surface and atmosphere above absorb. Oceans absorb 71% of incoming sunlight while land only 52%. The same average factors apply in both hemispheres over a very wide range of solar input.

Reply to  RickWill
March 27, 2022 2:38 pm

Rick
On the prevous open thread I showed you that Tmax is going down the past 40 year. Tmax is a good proxy for solar activity?

DMacKenzie
Reply to  HenryP
March 27, 2022 3:58 pm

Yes, cuz it gets hottest where it’s sunniest.

RickWill
Reply to  HenryP
March 27, 2022 6:06 pm

Tmax is a good proxy for solar activity?

It depends on the location. On land, Tmax is a good indicator of moisture in the soil.

In tropical ocean warm pools the Tmax is almost constant day and night for days on end and never exceeds 30C maximum over an annual average of daily Tmax.

John Tillman
Reply to  RickWill
March 28, 2022 9:53 pm

There are some hotter oceanic spots, often in shallow.areas like the Persian Gulf, but also the deep Red Sea.

The hottest ocean area is in the Persian Gulf, where water temperatures at the surface exceed 90 degrees Fahrenheit in the summer. Another hot area exists in the Red Sea, where a temperature of 132.8 degrees Fahrenheit has been recorded at a depth of about 6,500 feet.

In the open ocean, maximum temperatures occur north of the equator. The zone of maximum water temperatures shifts with the seasons, but in only a few areas does it extend south of the equator.


RevJay4
Reply to  RickWill
March 27, 2022 3:58 pm

Yeah, 20K years ago. I remember that like it was yesterday. That was a tough time to be around. Source for fact, not speculation. Please. Thank you.

RickWill
Reply to  RevJay4
March 27, 2022 5:27 pm

Source for fact, not speculation. 

It is based on calculations anyone with a reasonable understanding of orbital mechanics can carry out.

This page gives you the variation in solar intensity at 65N for the period you select.
https://biocycle.atmos.colostate.edu/shiny/Milankovitch/
I simply do the same calculations for all latitudes and split the land and ocean components – not hard if you understand 3 dimensional geometry.

Stephen Lindsay-Yule
Reply to  RickWill
March 27, 2022 4:09 pm

Solar constant 1363 watts. Of that 400 watts is visible light. 48% of the remaining 963 watts is absorbed at the equator 462 watts, 52% is emitted out 500 watts.
Part of the earth sees sunlight 24hs so 100+ watts is constant. Every latitude north and south is a loss of 3.43 watts -0.71 degree Celsius.(460/134)..A low of -21 degree Celsius at both poles means earth has lost its heat. The sun is furthest in July and tilt is away from Antarctic, is the reason this continent has a large ice shelf. And lot less energy than 230 watts 21 degree Celsius. Meter thick ice can only develop below this temperature. And the stratosphere cools down to 60 watts -90 degree Celsius.

The sun is closes in Jan so the stratosphere is warmest over the Antarctic -6 degree Celsius. Yet over the ice sheet is still below 21 degrees Celsius.

Land has no convection unlike oceans. So the top layer absorbs more heat. Melting the snow, increasing land temperature.

Evaporation is a cooling process. .

meab
Reply to  Stephen Lindsay-Yule
March 27, 2022 6:18 pm

“Evaporation is a cooling process”.

Yes, but when it rains it gives up exactly as much energy as it took to evaporate the water. The hydro cycle moves energy around but it doesn’t create or destroy it.

The Earth’s average lower troposphere temperature (no seasonal smoothing) is warmest in the northern hemisphere summer despite the fact that the Earth is closest to the sun in January. The reason is that there is more land in the NH than the SH and land exchanges solar heating with the atmosphere more than the ocean. It’s not just that the ocean convects heat faster away from the surface as the rate of change of T from NH summer to NH winter is much greater than the rate of change of T over the last 100 years.

Albedo numbers must include the fact that the average cloudiness is higher over the ocean in the tropics than over the land, and the tropics absorb the most sunlight.

JCM
Reply to  meab
March 27, 2022 6:40 pm

when it rains it gives up exactly as much energy as it took to evaporate the water

False. Rain implies water condensing at height, releasing heat aloft.

mkelly
Reply to  JCM
March 28, 2022 6:23 am

What exactly does “height” have to do with giving up the same amount of energy?

JCM
Reply to  mkelly
March 28, 2022 7:10 am

A proportion of latent heat delivered aloft, above the turbulent boundary layer to the free atmosphere during condensation, is not returned to the surface. This transmittance of heat aloft by latent heat has a net cooling effect at the surface. If there is no condensation, there is no net latent heat flux delivery aloft.

https://denning.atmos.colostate.edu/ats761/Lectures/04.SurfaceEnergyBudget.pdf

LE.png
mkelly
Reply to  Andy May
March 29, 2022 5:57 am

But that is not the question at hand. It takes X amount of energy to evaporate water. When that water vapor condensed into rain is the same amount of energy given up in total or not.

Meab said yes JCM said false.

Nobody said condensation doesn’t happen nor which way the energy may travel just the amount.

JCM’s explanation and yours seem to agree with what Meab said.

JCM
Reply to  mkelly
March 29, 2022 7:35 am

Falling rain does not return heat to the surface, it has already condensed at height.

The only downward latent heat flux to the surface can occur at night, as condensation of frost or dew.

LE carries a great deal of heat from the surface to a great height and poleward in the free atmosphere, where the radiation window is wider. Latent heat flux is a net cooling process in any credible surface budget concept.

What’s more, latent heat must be considered in the context of evapotranspiration. Transpiration is a special case where the latent heat of vaporization is higher compared to evaporation from a free surface. The heat dissipation potential is relatively larger per area of vegetation compared to other surfaces.

Changes in terrestrial ecosystems like drainage of wetlands and deforestation modify surface temperature by shifting the energy balance from latent heat (cooling through evapotranspiration) to sensible heat loss (turbulent flux of hot air). This leads to the disruption of water cycles.

Vegetation well supplied with water is able to dampen the vertical exchange of sensible energy and enhance the latent heat flux (evapotranspiration) between the surface and the atmosphere, while the absence of vegetation intensifies the flux of sensible heat to circulate within the mixed boundary layer.

Quantitatively, about of 400 W·m−2 has been shifted from latent to sensible heat flux for days with the highest solar irradiance (Huryna et al. 2014). Thereby, we can assume that more than 175,000 GW of energy has been converted into sensible heat in the territory of the USA, which strongly affects dynamic processes in the atmosphere.

Last edited 1 month ago by JCM
JCM
Reply to  JCM
March 29, 2022 8:19 am

For advanced observers, a key additional factor in the water cycle is the availability of adequate precipitation nuclei to drive latent heat flux aloft. Evapotranspiration does not deliver heat aloft to the free atmosphere if there is not an adequate intensity of condensation. Instead, you get a humid haze of microdrops within the mixed boundary layer, not rain, available to return heat to the surface during periods of net downward turbulent flux. Furthermore, these humid airmasses slam IR windows shut from a surface perspective reducing net LW flux (upwards by -5 W m-2). In terrestrial ecosystems, the primary precipitation nuclei to drive deep convection is hygroscopic bacteria, transpired along with water from leafy veg. Desertized landscapes provide less precipitation nuclei, thereby reducing total latent heat flux potential. Combined with the Bowen ratio (sensible/LE partitioning), each of the aforementioned phenomena directly impact surface temperature and the apparent temperature aloft.

The influence of aerosol-cloud interactions on the hydrological cycle is poorly understood. The level of scientific understanding of these aerosol and cloud effects is very low. Among the various meteorological parameters, precipitation is perhaps the least accurate prognostic variable in global climate models.

JCM
Reply to  JCM
March 29, 2022 8:37 am

On the bright side, these hypothetical processes are proportional to the area of land-clearing and manmade surface drainage enhancement. Thus, the effect eventually levels off, such could be the case at this time in the northern hemisphere. If you want to cool the surface and restore a pleasant precipitation regime, reduce flood and drought, you must restore the surface cooling mechanisms. It all starts with soil moisture retention and transpiring vegetation. The $2 billion per day flowing into green energy tech investment funds is unlikely to achieve an observable result. However, the levelling off of land clearing might appear to coincide with the rapid rate of new energy manufacturing, and so conflating the apparent effectiveness of the consensus solutions.

Last edited 1 month ago by JCM
JCM
Reply to  mkelly
March 28, 2022 7:43 am

From a spaceborne perspective for radiation enthusiasts, dynamic total turbulent flux to the free atmosphere would appear as a variable IR window. A reduction to net latent heat flux aloft would present as apparent systematic waning of IR window flux. Conversely, more heat flux delivery aloft would present as a broadening IR window.

JCM
Reply to  mkelly
March 28, 2022 9:48 am

What exactly does “height” have to do with giving up the same amount of energy?

I am frankly shocked that at least 7 upvoters on this website (of all websites) have not understood latent heat of vaporization related to condensation and evaporation. Stunning!

michael hart
Reply to  JCM
March 28, 2022 2:09 pm

Of course, the First Law must obtain.
But when and where is not always as obvious as it might seem.

The latent heat of evaporation varies by as much as 5% depending on temperature within Earth’s normal parameters. I was appalled when I learned that climate models do not factor this in.

It seems to be another case of ” ummm… well we assume it averages-out, and is just too hard otherwise”.

bdgwx
Reply to  michael hart
March 29, 2022 5:43 am

Which models are you looking at? And why not look at ocean-atmosphere coupled global circulation models that do take into account the latent flux and cloud microphysics like what the CMIP5 and CMIP6 suite of models do?

David A
Reply to  meab
March 28, 2022 3:56 am

The W/L of solar insolation varies more then TSI. IN the SH summer the insolation is partially lost, only to the atmosphere for a time, also contributing to the plus 90W/sqM increase resulting in LOWER global average atmospheric T.
It is lost to the atmosphere for a time because disparate W/L penetrates the surface, up to 800 meters. The upper 200 meters (656 feet) of the ocean is called the euphotic, or ” sunlight ,” zone receives most of this insolation.
The variable residence time of said insolation is CRITICAL to understanding how solar change affects earths energy budget. ( land – atmosphere – AND oceans) In general ocean energy solar received residence time varies from micro seconds, reflective, to centuries.

Only two things affect the energy content of a system in a radiative balance, either a change of input, or a change in the residence time of said input.

The greater the residence time of any input, the greater the system energy content can change. Thus a very small change in input, can have a large change in total energy, if the residence time of said input is very long.

Therefore it would be very useful to KNOW the disparate residence time of various solar W/L inputs, and so understand the total energy loss or gain in earths system or years and or decades of solar flux. Yet we DO NOT know the residence time of disparate solar W/L entering the oceans, nor has anybody calculated the total input change over decadal solar patterns of flux.

For instance, again yes, the atmosphere cools in the SH summer despite plus 90 W/sqM INCREASE, completely dwarfing any theoretical CO2 caused increase. Yet the atmosphere cools because, as you articulated, the NH snow reflects far more radiation ( reduced atmospheric residence time) but also because more received energy, just not to the atmosphere yet, enters the oceans below the atmosphere. Does the earth ( land atmosphere AND oceans) gain or lose energy during the increased input SH summer. None have answered this.

MarkW
Reply to  meab
March 28, 2022 7:10 am

Where it’s evaporating, it’s cooling. Where it’s condensing it warms.
The two locations are not the same.

Mike Jonas(@egrey1)
Editor
Reply to  RickWill
March 27, 2022 4:41 pm

RickWill – you say: Land only absorbs 52% of the top of the atmosphere sunlight while oceans absorb 71%.

Not so. Yes, the oceans absorb sunlight, mostly from the visible spectrum, but land does not absorb sunlight – not in climate terms. Deserts are cold at night, ie. virtuaaly none of the sunlight’s energy is retained for even one night.

RickWill
Reply to  Mike Jonas
March 27, 2022 5:43 pm

Not so. Yes, the oceans absorb sunlight, mostly from the visible spectrum, but land does not absorb sunlight 

The data disagrees with your belief. This image shows the net radiation over the globe for February 2022:
https://neo.gsfc.nasa.gov/view.php?datasetId=CERES_NETFLUX_M
You will see the southern land masses and the atmosphere above them all had positive energy uptake albeit slightly less than the oceans surrounding them.

These two relationships are very good approximations for the absorbed radiation in both hemispheres:
Land. Net Radiation = (ToA insolation * 0.52) – 185 W/sq.m
Ocean Net radiation = (ToA insolation * 0.71) – 230W/sq.m

Scissor
March 27, 2022 2:15 pm

Some think that volcanoes play an important role.

Looks like an eruption in the Azores is coming.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1586916/Azores-earthquake-Portuguese-island-locals-flee-tremors-volcano-eruption-real-possibility

commieBob
Reply to  Scissor
March 27, 2022 2:39 pm

Here’s another link.

I’m not sure what to expect. Given the situation in the Ukraine, I’m kind of leaning toward stockpiling a seven year supply of grain. 🙂

Scissor
Reply to  commieBob
March 27, 2022 3:02 pm

Don’t fill up your bomb shelter.

Derg
Reply to  Scissor
March 27, 2022 4:49 pm

I wonder if the story was true about the guy storing grain in his basement because he felt the price was too low. Later the grain sprouted and knocked his house off the foundation.

Prolly an old wives tale.

MarkW
Reply to  Derg
March 28, 2022 7:11 am

Unlikely unless he installed grow lights in the basement.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  commieBob
March 27, 2022 11:13 pm

In normal circumstances a shortage of a crop is only about 3 years. It takes that long for areas that are no longer uneconomic to plant and harvest. The price may not come back down in that time frame.

markl
March 27, 2022 2:15 pm

Just another attempt to explain away natural climate variability.

RevJay4
Reply to  markl
March 27, 2022 4:01 pm

There ya go. Exactly. And give the grifters something to use to fleece the sheep.

March 27, 2022 2:18 pm

All irrelevant.

Whatever forces seek to destabilise the atmosphere are simply negated by changes in the rate of convective overturning.

https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/12/14/stephen-wilde-the-ignoring-of-adiabatic-processes-big-mistake/

In order to retain an atmosphere it is necessary to maintain hydrostatic equilibrium.

My concept of equally variable (but of opposite sign) diabatic and adiabatic energy transfer loops within atmospheres is the only mechanism available.

The work of myself and Philip Mulholland effectively proves it.

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
March 27, 2022 2:33 pm

I should add that changes in regional climates are the stabilisation process in action and solar variability is the main factor in creating such changes.
Total solar irradiance is not the significant factor but rather the changes in wavelengths from the sun affecting the balance of ozone creation/destruction in the stratosphere.
Natural variability is still present as the authors suggest and nothing observed to date exceeds the normal range of natural variability.

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
March 28, 2022 9:04 pm

To all those red tick commenters I would just point out that planets retain atmospheres indefinitely regardless of the proportion of those atmospheres that is comprised of radiative materials.
The radiative theory of the greenhouse effect has no explanation for that.

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
March 27, 2022 2:43 pm

Hi Stephen
Good to hear from you and Vuk
Would be nice to hear what you guys think of my report?
Click on my name

Vuk
March 27, 2022 2:19 pm

Earlier today on the UK rain records thread I posted and explained possible multidecadal ‘solar-atmospheric link’
comment image
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/03/27/weather-records-shattered-180-years-ago/#comment-3485693

Last edited 1 month ago by Vuk
RickWill
March 27, 2022 2:30 pm

The second serious problem is we do not know what the long-term trend is in the Sun. Is it increasing its radiation output? 

What we do know with great precession is the distance between Earth and the sun and the view the sun has of Earth over any period. Both are constantly changing and are the main drivers of Earths climate due to the distribution of land and water across the surface.

I like this short NASA analysis of the likely temperature of an Earth orbiting satellite:
https://s3vi.ndc.nasa.gov/ssri-kb/static/resources/Preliminary_Thermal_Analysis_of_Small_Satellites.pdf
It estimates a peak temperature of 77C when it is not in Earth’s shadow and Earth is at perihelion. Puts some doubt in the claimed 255K Earth would be if it had no GHE.

Last edited 1 month ago by RickWill
commieBob
Reply to  RickWill
March 27, 2022 2:54 pm

What we do know with great precession is the distance between Earth and the sun …

I don’t care if it’s deliberate or accidental … that is one godawful pun.

Earthling2
Reply to  commieBob
March 27, 2022 9:46 pm

True dat…precession regresses about 1 degree in 72 years, observable on the zodiac in a life time as about two full Moon’s width regression of the Sun on the ecliptic. Nothing stays the same for long, including the intensity of sunlight hitting the good Earth in the same location constantly. Orbital mechanics are the elephant in the room for long term climate change, but always just changing just a little every year, and never two years the same also impacting short term climate change. Slowly, always changing.

RickWill
Reply to  commieBob
March 27, 2022 10:45 pm

Not smart enough to make that pun- purely accidental. I had precession on my mind and that is what came from the keyboard.

DMacKenzie
Reply to  RickWill
March 27, 2022 4:12 pm

…uhhhmmm….remember, that satellite has planet Earth radiating at 255 K taking up a big percentage of its “sky” (view factor)….

RickWill
Reply to  DMacKenzie
March 27, 2022 6:42 pm

Correct – and it also has an internal heat source but I that power comes from surface mounted solar collectors so really does not add power.

What it highlights is the change in radiation during an annual cycle and the impact of conductivity, thermal inertia and albedo.

But here NASA come up with a number of 77C, nothing like what they claim Earth would be without an atmosphere.

Richard M
March 27, 2022 2:35 pm

While the sun may not be producing more energy, that doesn’t mean the amount of solar energy reaching the surface of the Earth is constant. The AMO and PDO appear to affect clouds. Their respective warm phases have recently been tightly correlated to a thinning of clouds.

“The declining TOA SW (out) is the major heating cause (+1.42 W/m2 from 2001 to 2020)” – Radiative Energy Flux Variation from 2001-2020, Hans-Rolf Dübal and Fritz Vahrenholt, October 2021, Atmosphere

The warming seen over the past 45 years is easily explained by these ocean cycles.

The Stratosphere will see cooling from CO2 as you noted. In fact, CO2 also has a cooling influence on the Troposphere. However, that part is countered with warming from pressure broadening at the surface which makes it trivial.

JCM
March 27, 2022 2:56 pm

Conceptually, a reduced magnitude of total turbulent flux also matches observations, whereby a reduced flux from the surface is delivered aloft via low cloud condensation. Net turbulent flux always moves opposite net radiation, where during the day net turbulent flux is delivered upwards, and at night net turbulent flux is delivered downwards. More energy is available to be delivered downwards at night when total turbulent flux aloft is reduced, warming the surface, with apparent cooling aloft at all hours.

Last edited 1 month ago by JCM
JCM
Reply to  JCM
March 27, 2022 3:10 pm

See page 3 in the following chapter notes. This effect is also influenced by seasonality i.e. number of daylight hours and net radiation variability.
https://denning.atmos.colostate.edu/ats761/Lectures/04.SurfaceEnergyBudget.pdf

SEB.png
March 27, 2022 3:02 pm

Andy said:
The IPCC, Judith Lean, Leif Svalgaard, and David Karoly believe there is no long-term trend, at least over the last 300 to 400 years. They assume it is very flat, or possibly declining slightly”

This is not an ‘assumption’. This is what the observations show as I have demonstrated so many times here in this forum. Even the official sunspot number shows that.


Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
March 27, 2022 3:15 pm

I posted on March 13th:
If you read the literature carefully, you’ll discover that the whole ‘debate’ can be cooked down to a single issue: The disparity between the Hoyt & Schatten Group Sunspot Number [GSN] and the official sunspot number [either version 1 and version 2 – the difference dosn’t matter]. There is a ‘jump’ of some 45% in 1882, while the GSN being lower than the SSN before that. This is the cause of the “long-term” trend in solar activity that adherents to the solar-climate relation love so much.
Now, we about a decade ago discovered the reason for that jump. H&S had used a factor of 1.02 between observers Wolf and his successor Wolfer, while the actual factor is 1.65 [simply because Wolfer used a larger telescope than Wolf]. H&S for unknown reasons made the mistake of using the smaller factor [1.02]. I discussed that with [my old colleague] Ken Schatten [the “S” of H&S] and he agreed with me that they had made the mistake [but could no longer remember or reconstruct why or how – after all H&S did their work back in the 1990s] and together we reconstructed the GN without making the mistake and published the result in Svalgaard & Schatten 2014 and 2016. The result agreed nicely with the revised sunspot number [which corrected an unrelated smaller error in 1947]. Both the resulting [and independent] series do not support any long-term trend since ~1700 AD; further substantiated by the geomagnetic and cosmic ray observations.
It is that simple.

Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
March 27, 2022 3:51 pm

more about this in peer-reviewed summary: https://svalgaard.leif.org/research/swsc130003p.pdf
Solar activity – past, present, future Leif Svalgaard a,* W.W. Hansen Experimental Physics Laboratory, Stanford University, CA 94305, California, USA * Corresponding author: leif@leif.org Received 31 January 2013 / Accepted 30 April 2013
ABSTRACT As our civilization depends increasingly on space-borne assets and on a delicate and vulnerable earth-bound infrastructure, solar activity and its potential impact becomes of increasing importance and relevance. In his famous paper on the Maunder Minimum, Eddy (1976) introduced the notion that the Sun is a variable star on long time scales. After the recent decade of vigorous research based on cosmic ray and sunspot data as well as on geomagnetic activity, an emerging consensus reconstruction of solar wind magnetic field strength has been forged for the last century. The consensus reconstruction shows reasonable agreement among the various reconstructions of solar wind magnetic field the past ~ 170 years. New magnetic indices open further possibilities for the exploitation of historic data. The solar wind is a direct result of solar magnetic activity providing an important link to the effects on the Earth’s environment. Reassessment of the sunspot series (no Modern Grand Maximum) and new reconstructions of Total Solar Irradiance also contribute to our improved knowledge (or at least best guess) of the environment of the Earth System, with obvious implications for management of space-based technological assets or, perhaps, even climate. Several lines of evidence suggest that the Sun is entering a period of low activity, perhaps even a Grand Minimum. Average space weather might be ‘‘milder’’ with decreased solar activity, but the extreme events that dominate technological effects are not expected to disappear. Prediction of solar activity has a poor track record, but the progression of the current Cycle 24 is in accordance with its behavior predicted from the evolution of the solar polar fields, so perhaps there is hope.

Javier
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
March 27, 2022 4:01 pm

This is not an ‘assumption’. This is what the observations show as I have demonstrated so many times here in this forum. Even the official sunspot number shows that.

the whole ‘debate’ can be cooked down to a single issue: The disparity between the Hoyt & Schatten Group Sunspot Number [GSN] and the official sunspot number

That is not true. The official sunspot number shows a very clear increase in the number of sunspots per cycle year for the past 400 years, as anybody can check.

comment image

This has nothing to do with the Hoyt & Schatten GSN.

And it is just the final 400 years of the millennial Eddy cycle in solar activity that matches temperature reconstructions, like that of Moberg et al. 2005.

comment image

Reply to  Javier
March 27, 2022 6:27 pm

Thanks for discussing the Eddy cycle. I believe the Bray cycle is also on the increase at present.

Reply to  Javier
March 27, 2022 6:34 pm

Here is the analysis done right.
Even the provider of the sunspot number agrees that there is no long-term upwards trend.

DoneRight.png
Javier
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
March 27, 2022 7:51 pm

Even the provider of the sunspot number agrees that there is no long-term upwards trend.

Opinions do not constitute science. The increase is in the data. It is a very simple matter. Divide the sunspot record in two equal time periods and calculate the sunspot average for each. The difference is huge. A 24% increase in solar activity IIRC.

Reply to  Javier
March 27, 2022 8:31 pm

it is amazing how people can fool themselves.
Some people are good at this. You are the best.
1700-1861 averages are SNv2 74.6 GN 4.44
1862-2021 averages are SNv2 82.1 GN 4.23
The differences are not statistically significant

Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
March 27, 2022 8:45 pm

One can play around with the end-points.
My statement has been “no long-term trend the last 300 years”, so with that we get:
1721-1871 SNv2 81.1 GN 4.69
1872-2021 SNv2 81.0 GN 4.17
So Clette’s judgement [not his ‘opinion’] based on the data seems well founded. Now, go home and stop embarrassing yourself.

Javier
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
March 28, 2022 5:31 am

Clette’s judgement [not his ‘opinion’] based on the data seems well founded.

A judgement is an opinion. That’s why different judges can produce different judgements based on the same facts.

Only the data and evidence constitutes science, as long as it has not been tampered with. That’s why “nullius in verba,” (on the word of no one). I couldn’t care less on what Clette or you say if the data shows otherwise.

Javier
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
March 28, 2022 3:19 am

1700-1861 averages are SNv2 74.6 GN 4.44

1862-2021 averages are SNv2 82.1 GN 4.23

The differences are not statistically significant

It is most curious that you consider a 10% increase in sunspots as non significant. Usually the significance boundary for an effect is set at 2%. The IPCC tells us that +1.4 W/m2 due to the GHGs increase over the same period is significant when it is only a 0.6% increase over the 235 W/m2 of absorved solar energy.

To me a 10% increase is a significant increase. You said there was no change. It is clear you are the one fooling himself.

Last edited 1 month ago by Javier
Reply to  Javier
March 28, 2022 4:50 am

My statement has been “no long-term trend the last 300 years”, so with that we get:
1721-1871 SNv2 81.1 GN 4.69
1872-2021 SNv2 81.0 GN 4.17
A insignificant drop of 0.125 %

Reply to  Javier
March 28, 2022 5:54 am

The standard way to decide if a difference is significant is to calculate the ‘error bar’, so here goes:
first half 1700-1861: avg=74.6, sigma=4.7, avg+sigma = 79.3
last half 1862-2021: avg=82.5, sigma=5.1, avg-sgma=77.4
so the error bands overlap, hence the difference is not significant at the 1-sigma level.

Reply to  Javier
March 27, 2022 9:23 pm

For the number-challenged here is a graph of 300 years of solar activity given by the sunspot number [SN version 2] in red and the group number [GN] in blue. Linear trends are shown by dotted lines. The coefficients of determination are 0.0022 and 0.0027, respectively, which means that none are significant.

300-years-of-solar-activity.png
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
March 27, 2022 11:27 pm

We can also compute the number of average sunspots per year for each cycle during the last 300 years as you did, although it is somewhat dubious what that means instead of simply plotting the number of spots per year as I did in the previous comment, but here it goes: As most people predict that cycle 25 will be similar to cycle 24 we can include a graph with cycle 25. In both graphs we show the trend line and its r^2 which is so close to zero as not being significant.

300-years-of-solar-activity-per-year-of-cycle.png
Javier
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
March 28, 2022 3:48 am

it is somewhat dubious what that means instead of simply plotting the number of spots per year

Considering solar cycles instead of years is more proper. The sun doesn’t know anything about our years.

Reply to  Javier
March 28, 2022 4:59 am

Yet, you compute the number of spots per year over the cycle.
A more honest measure is the average sunspot number for the cycle as I showed here

Cycle-Averages.png
Javier
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
March 28, 2022 5:22 am

A more honest measure is the average sunspot number for the cycle

The length of the cycle is important. Long cycles tend to have lower average activity and they act over climate for longer.

The total number of sunspots per cycle also shows an increasing trend:

comment image

Your group number is as biased as you, and not to be trusted.

Last edited 1 month ago by Javier
Reply to  Andy May
March 28, 2022 5:01 am

Tell that to Javier.
What fit would you suggest?

Javier
Reply to  Andy May
March 28, 2022 5:25 am

A 70-year average shows the Modern Solar Maximum in all its glory.

comment image

Javier
Reply to  Javier
March 28, 2022 6:06 am

Average sunspot number of three equal length periods related to the centennial cycle:
1709-1810 75.8 sunspots/year
1811-1912 73.1 sunspots/year
1913-2014 93.4 sunspots/year
It’s hard to argue with such an increase in the last centennial period.

For the 2015-2116 period my solar model projects 86.8 sunspots/year. Very active, but not as much as the last one.

Reply to  Javier
March 28, 2022 7:26 am

“solar model”?
We have direct observations up to today, so no need to cheat by ending in 2014. In any event he error bars are greater than the differences. Neglecting the error bands is a sure sign of either an activist or an incompetent. Which shall it be?

Javier
Reply to  Andy May
March 28, 2022 6:42 am

The most honest way to determine a change in centennial solar activity is to consider the centennial solar periodicity. There is some ambiguity about the start of the first centennial period, but 1810 (between SC5-6) is clearly the end of F1 (from Feynman centennial cycle) and the beginning of F2, and 2019 is the end of F3 and the beginning of F4, which leaves 1913 as the year between F2-F3. The Feynman cycle has 9-10 Schwabe cycles since the duration of Schawbe cycles is not regular. F1 could have started in 1700 or in 1710. This leaves:

F1 1700-1810 72.7 sn/yr
F1* 1710-1810 77.9 sn/yr
F2 1810-1913 71.7 sn/yr
F3 1913-2019 90.4 sn/yr

Whoever says there has not been an increase in solar activity is fooling himself and/or trying to fool others.

comment image

Reply to  Javier
March 28, 2022 7:29 am

Again, just numerology without error bars.

Reply to  Javier
March 28, 2022 7:57 am

Your solar model shows no trend over four hundred years, fitting well with the long-term constancy of solar output:

Javier-Model-no-trend.png
Reply to  Javier
March 28, 2022 7:22 am

You cut off the high cycles before 1750 to create a false trend.
Oldest trick in the book…

Javier
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
March 28, 2022 7:37 am

You cut off the high cycles before 1750 to create a false trend.

Oldest trick in the book…

I don’t do such thing. I consider all the available data. You accuse people of false things, it must be because you yourself do such things. Personal attacks are your recourse when someone demonstrates how wrong you are.

It is a 70-yr average. The first point is the 1700-1769 data, the next the 1701-1770, and so on.

Reply to  Javier
March 28, 2022 8:37 am

If you did this correctly, the plot should look like this:

70-yr-Averages.png
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
March 28, 2022 9:21 am

And with the large uncertainty and error bars of the sunspot number before 1820 what puny trend you might entertain is not significant. Here is some info about the systematic errors in the early record:

Uncertainties-sunspot-numbers.png
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
March 28, 2022 9:37 am

With the group numbers we are on firmer ground because Hoyt and Schatten found tens of thousands of observations for the early data that was not available to Wolf when he constructed his Wolf Number series. As you can see there is no trend at all:

70-yr-Averages-Groups.png
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
March 28, 2022 10:16 am

Since I pioneered determining the magnetic flux in the Heliosphere (coming from the Sun and impacting the Earth and controlling the cosmic ray flux) way back in 2003, this research are has now become mature and the conclusions generally accepted. The magnetic flux is a true measure of solar activity. Here is what is looks like the last 400 years:

HMF-Reconstruction-Lidia.png
Javier
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
March 28, 2022 10:29 am

what puny trend you might entertain is not significant

F1 1700-1810 72.7 sn/yr
F3 1913-2019 90.4 sn/yr

That’s the 24% increase I was talking about. A 24% increase does not look puny or non significant to me.

If the sunspot record is so untrustworthy that we cannot trust a 24% difference as real then there is no basis for your previous statement that there has been no trend in sunspots for the past 300 years. Anything might have happened and all your work is moot.

Reply to  Javier
March 28, 2022 10:47 am

this work both ways: you cannot claim there is a trend. The error bar on the F1 number is large and must be taken into account. Luckily we have other data that confirm the lack of trend: the group number, the geomagnetic and cosmic ray records.
And, by cherry picking intervals [as you do] one can show almost anything. Let me repeat this image for your consideration:

HMF-Reconstruction-Lidia.png
Javier
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
March 28, 2022 11:25 am

Let me repeat this image for your consideration

That data is based for the 1700-1840 period in sunspot data, that I have already demonstrated that shows an increase.

For cosmogenic isotope data we have Lean 2018 figure that includes Steinhilber et al. 2009 and Roth & Joos 2013 14C data, overlayed with Zheng et al. 2021 10Be data for Antarctica and Greenland.

comment image

They all display an increasing trend in solar activity.

Your claims is unsupported by what you say supports it.

The 1913-2019 period displayed the highest solar activity since at least the MWP.

Javier
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
March 28, 2022 10:41 am

Shows the same difference as my plot. The first peak doesn’t reach 95, the last goes above 105, that’s a 10% increase. Funny that you would refuse to accept your own evidence.

Reply to  Javier
March 28, 2022 11:20 am

Considering the error bars on the early sunspot numbers a 10% change is not significant. Not knowing about nor considering or ignoring error bars is a sure sign of amateurish activism. As I said, the group number benefits by the research of Hoyt and Schatten in uncovering tens of thousands of observations that Wolf didn’t have, so we are on much firmer ground with the group number [after correcting the one single error H&S made]. Let me repeat the plot:

HMF-Reconstruction-Lidia.png
Javier
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
March 28, 2022 11:37 am

It is curious that you think that repeating over and over the same figure showing an alteration of your non-agreed upon sunspot group number should convince anybody.

Reply to  Javier
March 28, 2022 11:53 am

The plot is not ‘my non-agreed upon’ data, but the more and more accepted evolution of solar activity. It is not my plot, but is made by Lidia van Driel-Gesztelyi and Matt Owens in the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Physics.
I show it because, obviously, you don’t get it.
Here is another example of how good science comes from building on the group number series:

Past-Solar-Activity-Science.png
Javier
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
March 28, 2022 11:53 am

And, by cherry picking intervals [as you do] one can show almost anything.

1913-2019 90.4 sn/yr

Go ahead. Pick any 100-110 year period in the official sunspot dataset v2 that includes only complete solar cycles and compare it to this one. Let’s see how high you can get it and if the error bars can accomodate the difference.

If one can show almost anything it shouldn’t be too difficult for you to do it. The problem is that the closest period has about 15% less sunspots. You have to trash the sunspot record to deny the increase in solar activity that it shows.

Reply to  Javier
March 28, 2022 12:14 pm

No, not at all, just realize that the error bars in the early SN are large and must be taken into account when computing trends, in contrast to the group number and the geomagnetic and cosmic ray records. You could benefit from studying this recent paper
https://www.college-de-france.fr/media/edouard-bard/UPL1674046252242152673_Heaton21ScienceX.pdf
especially Figure 3 that illustrates the confidence the authors have in the Group Number Reconstruction. You could improve your outlook by joining them, instead of being stuck in your current rut.

Reply to  Javier
March 28, 2022 8:07 pm

We already did that:
The standard way to decide if a difference is significant is to calculate the ‘error bar’, so here goes:
first half 1700-1861: avg=74.6, sigma=4.7, avg+sigma = 79.3
last half 1862-2021: avg=82.5, sigma=5.1, avg-sgma=77.4
so the error bands overlap, hence the difference is not significant at the 1-sigma level.

Rud Istvan
March 27, 2022 3:04 pm

Andy, nice post. Three observations.

  1. The AGW fingerprint claimed by Santer in SAR should have been unique, like human fingerprints. As you show, it cannot be because of known stuff like ozone depletion. Logic fail. Bad Santer.
  2. There is an AGW signal to natural variation noise problem on a quasi periodic scale of 50-60 years. One NH example is given in essay Northwest Passage in ebook Blowing Smoke. Another NH example is Curry’s co-authored Stadium Wave paper.
  3. There is another global signal/noise problem on a scale of a few centuries, illustrated by the global nature of the MWP and LIA. A Chinese paper (JGR Oceans 2016JC012458)using coral proxies from South China Sea estimated avg MWP 26.5C, 25.1C LIA, and 26.6C for now (with AGW). A USGS paper (J. Palaeo.2010.08.009) using benthic foraminifera also found a difference of about 1C. We are probably warming out of the depths of the LIA; the last Thames Frost (Ice) diarrhea was in 1814.

Since the IPCC AR4 claimed ECS was about 3C after a few centuries, and we are no where near a doubling from about 280ppm CO2 in just one century, the supposed IPCC AGW signal cannot possibly be found yet in the provable natural variation noise.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 27, 2022 3:15 pm

Frost Fair, not Frost diarrhea. Damn spell check. Dunno how that happened.

John Tillman
Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 27, 2022 4:10 pm

F and D are next to each other on a QWERTY keyboard. The I and A were typed reversed. Dreaded autocorrect did the rest.

Marcus
Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 27, 2022 4:54 pm

Auto correct, not spellcheck. Spellcheck does not make changes, only suggestions.

Ron Long
Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 27, 2022 3:58 pm

Rud, diarrhea aside, your point 3 is what me and my geologist friends keep coming back to: the natural variation (before humans even started burning buffalo chips) causes sea level cycles of more than 150 meters, which is tremendous natural variation. The IPCC still can’t define natural variation, and it is outside of their stated mission, so why bother?

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Ron Long
March 27, 2022 5:08 pm

RL.I will continue to bother them until Warmists fade from memory.
When you have been wrong on every prediction over 30 years,you deserve no more oxygen.

Ron Long
Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 28, 2022 3:36 am

Rud, my “why bother” comment is as regards the IPCC continuing their “research” charade without the ability to define natural variation. I hope you continue your good work fighting against the bogus CAGW crowd.

gbaikie
March 27, 2022 3:45 pm

More than 90 percent of the warming that has happened on Earth over the past 50 years has occurred in the ocean.”
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-ocean-heat-content

Isn’t the only question, how can CO2 warm our cold ocean?

It seems the problem with such a question, is it takes a long time to warm the ocean.
And few people appear to understand why a warmer ocean matters.

Javier
Reply to  gbaikie
March 27, 2022 4:06 pm

how can CO2 warm our cold ocean?

By reducing the heat flux from the ocean to the atmosphere, for example.

Bob boder
Reply to  Javier
March 27, 2022 4:24 pm

However the atmosphere has to warm first and that’s not what’s happening.

Javier
Reply to  Bob boder
March 27, 2022 8:19 pm

As far as I know, the 2 m surface temperature has increased a lot more than the ocean temperature. But temperature is not the main factor in ocean-atmosphere heat flux. Atmospheric wind speed and moisture are more important than temperature for evaporation, and thus for latent heat flux. Radiative heat flux is less important than latent heat flux across the atmosphere/ocean boundary.

In theory an increase in the greenhouse effect should increase the energy of the climate system, and therefore affect the ocean temperature, where most of that energy resides. In practice we can’t measure the fluxes properly so we can’t quantify the effect properly.

Climate is so complex that the more I learn about it, the more I discover I don’t know and I become aware how little I know. People that have simple answers to climate change are certainly wrong.

Reply to  Javier
March 28, 2022 1:47 pm

An ocean surface polluted with oil/surfactant or with enough nutrient runoff to lead to lipid release by a phytoplankton bloom will warm. Evaporation reduces, albedo falls wave suppression releases fewer CCNs. Three warming factors.

Look at Lakes Michigan, Baikal, Tanganyika, North Sea, Black Sea, Baltic and especially Marmara.

A study about ocean plastic pollution – one of the authors was called Evans – means there’s a method of quantifying the amount oc ocean smoothed and hence warming.

Would someone please be have a look?

JF

Robert B
Reply to  Julian Flood
March 29, 2022 11:23 pm

What about natural petroleum oil?

gbaikie
Reply to  Javier
March 27, 2022 5:04 pm

Where does CO2 reduce the heat flux from the ocean, the most?
Tropical ocean, or polar ocean, or the other part of oceans?

gbaikie
Reply to  Andy May
March 28, 2022 8:45 am

The tropical ocean is transporting a lot heat to the rest of the world both via atmosphere and oceanic transport of heat.
Also it seems tropical ocean can dump unlimited amount of heat into space- or it seems self-regulating, and has thick slabs of warmed water- would the argument be CO2 makes the slabs thicker [and/or faster]? Or does CO2 prevent/slow the self-regulating natural of tropical ocean?
[It seems to me that the hot spot idea is disproven.]
It seems if the warmth of Gulf Stream were to have it’s heat flux reduced by CO2 and allowing and having more ocean mixing outside of tropics, it might more effect in terms of warming the entire ocean.
It seems to me polar sea ice is major insulating effect in polar region.
So I would guess/pick “the other part of oceans”.

bdgwx
Reply to  gbaikie
March 28, 2022 7:55 am

It reduces the net heat flux from the ocean. Remember, net flux is Fnet = ΣFin – ΣFout. CO2’s DWIR is a component of ΣFin. Fnet increases when ΣFin increases.

bdgwx
Reply to  Andy May
March 28, 2022 1:42 pm

It is well mixed varying by only a few ppm horizontally and vertically. But the magnitude of the radiative effect is driven by the lapse rate. The steeper the lapse rate the stronger the effect. And when the lapse rate reverse the effect reverses. This is sometimes observed in central Antarctica during the winter when it is not uncommon for the stratosphere to be warmer than the troposphere. In such an isolated scenario CO2 actually puts cooling force on the surface directly underneath. This was first observed by Hanel et al. 1972. See Sejas et al. 2017 and Smith et al. 2018 for more information.

RickWill
Reply to  gbaikie
March 27, 2022 6:00 pm

Isn’t the only question, how can CO2 warm our cold ocean?

This is simply accepted by assumption. If there is a surface radiation imbalance then it has to warm the oceans.

The deep oceans have apparently warmed so this supports the hypothesis.

Do not let real physics destroy a solid belief. IT IS LITERALLY PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO WARM DEEP OCEANS FROM THE SURFACE.

In the real world, the physical reality is that oceans have retained more heat because net evaporation has trended strongly down for the last 12,000 years. That is the consequence of the precession cycle. However with perihelion now past the austral summer solstice and getting ever closer to the boreal summer solstice the downward trend is close to reversing. There are already significant changes in monthly solar intensity across the globe.

JCM
Reply to  RickWill
March 27, 2022 6:31 pm

IT IS LITERALLY PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO WARM DEEP OCEANS FROM THE SURFACE

In the real world, the physical reality is that oceans have retained more heat because net evaporation has trended strongly down for the last 12,000 years.

On the surface, these two statements appear to be contradictory.

RickWill
Reply to  JCM
March 27, 2022 10:26 pm

On the surface, these two statements appear to be contradictory.

Yes – it is counter-intuitive. Adding surface heat to oceans reduces the deep ocean temperature because evaporation rate increases.

Deep oceans stay warmer when the surface heat uptake is reducing. That slows the upwelling and the surface heat conducts deeper.

There is a difference between retaining more heat due to reduced cooling than gaining more heat due to increased heat input from the surface. The assumption inherent in climate models is that the latter is possible. It is just another of the many physical impossibilities embodied in climate models.

Last edited 1 month ago by RickWill
Reply to  RickWill
March 28, 2022 2:02 pm

Evaporation rates can be altered by surface pollution.

JF

gbaikie
Reply to  RickWill
March 27, 2022 8:09 pm

“Do not let real physics destroy a solid belief. IT IS LITERALLY PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO WARM DEEP OCEANS FROM THE SURFACE.”

Saltier [denser] warm water can fall. And falls as general thing around the middle east region.

RickWill
Reply to  gbaikie
March 27, 2022 10:37 pm

Such situations are observable in the outflow from the Mediterranean Sea:
comment image

But the lower salinity plumes from the high latitudes toward the equator are proof of the flow channel between 500m to 1500m that feeds the high evaporation zone in the tropics:
comment image
Water evaporated in the tropics eventually gets returned to the surface at higher latitudes to feed the deep, reduced salinity channels.

Salinity changes in the tropical Pacific are now believed to be the trigger for ENSO. But these changes occur above 500m.

bdgwx
Reply to  gbaikie
March 27, 2022 6:45 pm

ghaikie said: “how can CO2 warm our cold ocean?”

CO2 causes a positive planetary energy imbalance.

JCM
Reply to  bdgwx
March 27, 2022 6:48 pm

False, there is no net downward LW flux.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  JCM
March 28, 2022 5:44 am

Thermodynamics doesn’t lie. Too many people have no idea how heat transmission works. As long as the actual surface is the only body absorbing energy from the sun, it will remain the “hot” body supplying energy to the atmosphere which will be the cold body. NET heat MUST flow from the hot body to the cold body.

bdgwx
Reply to  Jim Gorman
March 28, 2022 6:12 am

JG said: “NET heat MUST flow from the hot body to the cold body.”

This is true, but misleading if used to imply that the addition of a thermal barrier cannot also warm a body. With the addition of a thermal barrier heat is still flowing from hot to cold. It’s just flowing at a different rate than it was before. This warms the body on the hot side of the barrier and cools the body on the cold side.

Consider this configuration.

A (hot) ==> B (warm) ==> C (cold)

Now add a thermal barrier.

A (hot) ==> B (warm) ==> barrier => C (cold)

In this situation B warms and C cools. The whole time heat is still flowing from hot to cold. And once a new steady-state is achieved B is still cooler than A and C is still cooler than B. It is consistent with both the 1LOT and 2LOT.



bdgwx
Reply to  JCM
March 28, 2022 6:00 am

I’m curious…How do you think a NDIR sensor works?

JCM
Reply to  bdgwx
March 28, 2022 7:54 am

At any height, ↓LW + ↑LW = 0 + Window Flux (↑)

bdgwx
Reply to  JCM
March 28, 2022 8:37 am

It’s not that simple. The full balance equation at any level is as follows and includes LW, SW, sensible, latent, reflected, etc. fluxes.

0 = ΣFin – ΣFout – imbalance

Anyway, try to explain how NDIR sensors work without invoking a decreasing in upward (toward thermopile) and increase in downward (toward emitter).

Last edited 1 month ago by bdgwx
JCM
Reply to  bdgwx
March 28, 2022 9:32 am

I do not understand what you are challenging me to do. Are you asking about measuring broadband thermal IR, or are you asking about quantifying all flux with some sort of magical instrument?

In the former case, I do not claim to know anything about the mechanisms of NDIR sensors so I can’t say why you’re invoking this challenge.

Conceptually, broadband thermal IR depends on bulk emissivity and temperature within the field of view of the observer. These long waves are emitted in all directions, with a net flux direction = 0 within the atmosphere.

Personally, my view is that far too many here are preoccupied with the minutiae of radiation character, and have lost sight of the earth system.

bdgwx
Reply to  JCM
March 28, 2022 9:56 am

I said: “CO2 causes a positive planetary energy imbalance.”

You said: “False, there is no net downward LW flux.”

If you don’t think CO2 can decrease the upward flux and increase the downward flux then explain how a NDIR sensor works without invoking “no net downward LW flux”.

Since NDIR sensor are not magical instruments I’m hoping that in an effort to try to explain how they work you will come to the conclusion on your own that there has to be a net downward LW flux.

JCM
Reply to  bdgwx
March 28, 2022 10:03 am

there has to be a net downward LW flux

Preposterous. utterly absurd.

bdgwx
Reply to  JCM
March 28, 2022 1:11 pm

Do you think the 1st law of thermodynamics is preposterous and utterly absurd?

JCM
Reply to  bdgwx
March 28, 2022 1:31 pm

Oh goodie!

Do you think the 1st law of thermodynamics is preposterous and utterly absurd?

I am interested to learn more about CO2s special property to preferentially redirect energy downward. Has the CO2 oriented itself in a certain way to be sure it is emitting more downwards? How many CO2 molecules with the special downward flux preference does it take to shift the LW regime to a net downward flux? That sounds pretty powerful.

Last edited 1 month ago by JCM
bdgwx
Reply to  JCM
March 28, 2022 2:17 pm

JCM: “I am interested to learn more about CO2s special property to preferentially redirect energy downward.”

There is no preference to emit downward or in any direction.

JCM: “Has the CO2 oriented itself in a certain way to be sure it is emitting more downwards?”

No.

JCM: “How many CO2 molecules with the special downward flux preference does it take to shift the LW regime to a net downward flux?”

Again. There is no special preference for the downward direction.

JCM: “That sounds pretty powerful.”

Seeing as there is no special preference for direction it is hardly powerful. Just know that this special preference for downward is a concoction of your own making. Don’t ask me to defend it.

What CO2 and other gas species do is absorb photons and either thermalize their energy in-situ or reemit them in random directions with ~50% having downward trajectories and ~50% having upward trajectories.

It is precisely because there is no special preference for direction that the net downward flux must increase as CO2 concentration increases. Remember, of the terrestrial radiation from the surface ~100% has an upward trajectory. In the presence of CO2 only about half the terrestrial photons continue the upward trajectory because they either immediately reemitted in all directions equally or are thermalized first and later reemitted in all direction equally by the various gas species.

I’ll repeat the questions.

Do you think the 1st law of thermodynamics is preposterous and utterly absurd?

How do you think a NDIR sensor works?

JCM
Reply to  bdgwx
March 28, 2022 2:57 pm

net downward flux

There is no net downward flux.

Raise the temperature of anything, for any reason, you will get more LW at your sensor regardless of the direction it’s pointing. Go figure.

Your circular arguments are tiresome. To demonstrate good faith on my end, I will concede a small impact from your CO2 based on HITRAN https://www.mdpi.com/2673-9321/1/2/14/htm

Smirnov has 30% of 1/5th of temperature rise attributable to human emitted CO2. This hypothetical impact is not observable.

In my view, you will not find practical answers within your LW radiation concepts. You are focused on a small detail that is irrelevant to observable climate changes.

Even at 100% of 1/5th you are barely scraping the measurement uncertainty. Is it in you to entertain other hypotheses? If not, ongoing debate is pointless.

Last edited 1 month ago by JCM
bdgwx
Reply to  JCM
March 28, 2022 4:22 pm

JCM said: “Raise the temperature of anything, for any reason, you will get more LW at your sensor regardless of the direction it’s pointing. Go figure.”

And what happens when you raise the CO2 concentration in the cuvette?

Last edited 1 month ago by bdgwx
JCM
Reply to  bdgwx
March 28, 2022 4:54 pm

Your cuvette experiments are meaningless in the context of the Earth system with a turbulent atmosphere. What you are engaging in is not scientific discussion, it is trolling. Good luck in your endeavors.

bdgwx
Reply to  JCM
March 28, 2022 6:24 pm

Or maybe CO2 impedes the transmission of radiation and the 1st law of thermodynamics applies equally regardless of whether it is in the lab or in the Earth system.

JCM
Reply to  bdgwx
March 28, 2022 6:40 pm

You’ll have to excuse me, I cannot continue with this. It is very saddening.

JCM
Reply to  bdgwx
March 28, 2022 3:41 pm

To summarize my perspective, your penguin fart worth of CO2 effect is completely overwhelmed within the dynamics of total turbulent flux. It’s like a grain of sand in a 5 ton sandbox. It wouldn’t be noticeable if it were there or not. You see?

JCM
Reply to  JCM
March 28, 2022 3:47 pm

And to be perfectly crystal, and unpopular on this blog, I do believe humans can have a substantial impact on the 4 W m-2 change in turbulent flux delivery aloft. My deep frustration is with consensus establishment people, such as yourself, continuously barking up the very wrong tree. Mind you, it’s the money making tree, of course. My ideas have much less to do with money making schemes, and more to do with understanding reality. It’s called scientific method. Your global average schematics have nothing to do with real climate impacts, and even less to do with real solutions.

Last edited 1 month ago by JCM
Marcus
March 27, 2022 3:53 pm

Personally, I think everyone is looking in the wrong place. If anyone can figure out what caused the “Little Ice Age”, then they will know why it is ending, hence, why we have some slight warming at present. IMHO

Ireneusz Palmowski
March 27, 2022 4:16 pm

Variability in solar activity not only affects changes in total atmospheric ozone production, but also the distribution of ozone in the stratosphere above the polar circle, which is critical to the pattern of the stratospheric polar vortex and circulation in the upper troposphere. During periods of low solar activity, ozone accumulation is evident in certain regions in high latitudes. These ozone accumulations cause waves in the stratosphere, which weakens the velocity of the polar vortex in these regions. During weak solar winds, ozone accumulates over eastern Siberia, and then excess ozone appears over the Bering Sea to land in Canada during the spring, as we are now seeing.comment imagecomment imagecomment imagecomment image

John Tillman
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
March 27, 2022 8:51 pm

yes, it is not TSI variation which matters, so much as in its UV component, which varies much more than TSI. UV flux is fundamentally different in effect from visible and IR spectra, as it makes and breaks O3 and is absorbed by air.

Reply to  John Tillman
March 27, 2022 11:46 pm

UV varies compared to TSI as the loose coins in Bill Gates pockets varies in relation to his total wealth. The variation of UV is but a tiny fraction of the variation of TSI.

Ireneusz Palmowski
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
March 28, 2022 12:22 am

Let’s look at the current level of UV radiation. There are still very low levels of high-energy UV.comment image
 The Mg II data are derived from GOME (1995-2011), SCIAMACHY (2002-2012), GOME-2A (2007-present), and GOME-2B (2012-present). All three data sets as well as the Bremen Mg II composite data are available (see links below). In late years the GOME solar irradiance has degraded to about 20% of its value near 280 nm in 1995, so that the GOME data have become noisier. The most recent information on our Mg II data can be found in Snow et al. (2014).
https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/gomemgii.html

Nelson
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
March 28, 2022 12:45 pm

Yes. I do wonder however what proportion of ocean heat content comes from UV verse other wavelengths in TSI. The other issue I find interesting is the new research showing that geothermal heat adds 15% of ocean heat content. If accurate, the energy budgets that are typically shown need a rethink. Finally, the issue that no one talks about that may be the bull in the china shop is the rapidly dropping magnetic field of the Earth. Losing 5% per decade recently strikes me as a big deal.

John Tillman
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
March 28, 2022 5:49 pm

UV varies far more than does TSI. It is qualitatively different from less energetic spectra, hence it has an outsized influence on such climatic factors as air pressure and wind speed and direction.

https://www.mps.mpg.de/4017144/PM_2015_07_09_UV-Schwankungen_der_Sonne_unterschaetzt

The fluctuations in the Sun’s irradiance over the course of several years and decades are an important parameter in climate models. Researchers led by the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research (MPS) in Germany have now shown that so far in such models the influence of the of the ultraviolet (UV-) radiation has been underestimated. The UV radiation is considered the part of the solar radiation that is most relevant for climate studies. Instead of almost 30 percent, as previously thought, the UV radiation contributes around 60 percent to the overall variability of solar irradiance. Unlike other approaches, the MPS-researchers determine the solar irradiance on the basis of magnetic processes on the Sun itself: they evaluate the ever-changing number and brightness of bright and dark areas on the solar surface.

Last edited 1 month ago by John Tillman
Ireneusz Palmowski
Reply to  John Tillman
March 29, 2022 3:43 am

“Overall, the intensity fluctuations of solar radiation are small. In long-term average they amount to only the fraction of a percent of the total irradiance. The ultraviolet radiation, however, shows greater fluctuations and is also regarded as particularly climate-effective. Since the Earth’s atmosphere absorbs this radiation to a large extent, it influences critical chemical reactions in the upper layers of the atmosphere. Indirectly, these processes can also affect the temperature at the Earth’s surface.”

Ireneusz Palmowski
Reply to  John Tillman
March 27, 2022 11:51 pm

Diatomic oxygen absorbs the shortest UV radiation at the top of the stratosphere, the molecule is broken down and an ozone molecule can be formed. The condition for the reaction is the presence of another molecule that picks up the excess energy immediately. Ozone, on the other hand, absorbs UV radiation of lower energy. If the ozone level decreases, more UV radiation with lower energies reaches the surface, which we can feel on our own skin. This can cause stronger heating of solid surfaces during periods of high sunlight.comment image

Ireneusz Palmowski
Reply to  John Tillman
March 28, 2022 12:13 am

Arctic cold air covered the entire Great Lakes and the entire northeastern US.
Compare with the current ozone pattern over North America.comment imagecomment image
You can see that ozone is a greenhouse gas in the stratosphere, but because of stratospheric intrusion it is a strong cooling agent at the surface.

Ireneusz Palmowski
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
March 29, 2022 12:12 am

Heavy frost in the northeastern US.comment image

Chris Hanley
March 27, 2022 5:21 pm

Attempts to model natural climate change all assume that there is no long-term natural warming or cooling, and all warming is assigned to human influences …

Given the incalculable human and material costs incurred due to ‘fighting climate change’, it’s difficult to believe the reasoning behind climate attribution analyses can be that inane.

Last edited 1 month ago by Chris Hanley
Frank S.
March 27, 2022 5:33 pm

Ice core sampling from Antarctica and Greenland contain evidence of Earth’s largest volcanic eruptions over the past 60,000 years (though sampling from 500 BCE to 9,000 BCE is sparse due to ice melt). The timing of these eruptions (which causes the atmosphere to cool for sometime afterward) mirrors exactly with other long-term avg global temperature studies.
Compare the graphs in these two articles:
CP – Magnitude, frequency and climate forcing of global volcanism during the last glacial period as seen in Greenland and Antarctic ice cores (60–9 ka) (copernicus.org)

Geologic temperature record – Wikipedia

Javier
Reply to  Frank S.
March 27, 2022 8:02 pm

The relationship is the opposite that you presume. Climate change affects the frequency of volcanic eruptions when it changes the crustal ice load, particularly at deglaciations, but also at glaciations, even partial ones like the LIA. This association has been known for decades. About 40% of the increase in CO2 at deglaciations comes from increased volcanic activity according to Huybers & Langmuir 2009
https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/3659701/Huybers_FeedbackDeglaciation.pdf

March 27, 2022 6:32 pm

Sounds like the IPCC is getting very nervous about their failing predictions, so they are attacking the elephant in the room — the Sun. Too bad CO2 is under-performing.

March 27, 2022 9:03 pm

The claim that the sun and feedbacks have been constant for hundreds of years fails on first principles. Climatic change prior to the measurable effects of CO2 therefore “just happened” without explanation.

Reply to  Will Nitschke
March 27, 2022 11:41 pm

The claim that the sun and feedbacks have been constant for hundreds of years fails on first principles. “
It is not clear what you mean by “first principles”. In science we go with what the data [the observations] show. And the observations show that solar activity has not has any long-term trend the last 300 years. There has been cyclic variations with periods of about 11 year and a longer one of about 100 years, but these just go up and down without any long-term increase or decrease. The sun has, of course, not been ‘constant’ during that that. Solar activity changes from second to second, from day to day, from decade to decade, and from century to century, but has been changing at the same level in every one of the last three centuries.

n.n
March 27, 2022 9:05 pm

A degree, two, perhaps more solar radiative variability. Also, there are terrestrial and extraterrestrial mechanisms that are not completely or sufficiently characterized that distribute, redistribute energy and heat, of which the so-called “CO2 Greenhouse Effect (CO2GHE)” may be one; but, given observation, the so-called CO2GHE likely has net zero effect, and the fraction anthropogenic input even less. That said, go green, not Green [Blight], emit. Choose reliable, biodegradable, high density hydrocarbon energy where it is suited to purpose, and diverse other applications.

Jeremy Poynton
March 28, 2022 1:09 am

Never mentioned.

https://www.mpg.de/research/sun-activity-high

“The Sun is more active now than over the last 8000 yearsAn international team of scientists has reconstructed the Sun’s activity over the last 11 millennia and forecasts decreased activity within a few decades

OCTOBER 28, 2004
The activity of the Sun over the last 11,400 years, i.e., back to the end of the last ice age on Earth, has now for the first time been reconstructed quantitatively by an international group of researchers led by Sami K. Solanki from the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research (Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany). The scientists have analyzed the radioactive isotopes in trees that lived thousands of years ago. As the scientists from Germany, Finland, and Switzerland report in the current issue of the science journal “Nature” from October 28, one needs to go back over 8,000 years in order to find a time when the Sun was, on average, as active as in the last 60 years. Based on a statistical study of earlier periods of increased solar activity, the researchers predict that the current level of high solar activity will probably continue only for a few more decades.”

Ireneusz Palmowski
Reply to  Jeremy Poynton
March 28, 2022 1:45 am

<div><br class=”Apple-interchange-newline”>”In many studies of the origin of solar activity and its potential impact on long-term changes in Earth’s climate, the time interval since 1610 for which systematic records of sunspots exist is far too short. For earlier periods, solar activity levels must be obtained from other data. Such information is stored on Earth in the form of “cosmogenic” isotopes. These are radioactive nuclei formed by collisions of energetic cosmic ray particles with air molecules in the upper atmosphere.”
Note that galactic radiation, depends on the strength of the geomagnetic field and is concentrated in the stratosphere at high latitudes along geomagnetic field lines.comment image
“These particles pose little threat to people and systems on Earth, but they can be measured with sensitive instruments. Earth’s own magnetic field also protects Earth from these particles, largely deflecting them away from equatorial regions, but providing little or no protection near polar regions or above about 55 degrees latitude (magnetic latitude and latitude vary due to the tilt and shift of Earth’s magnetic field relative to its geographic center). This steady rain of GCR particles at high latitudes can cause increased radiation exposure to aircrews and passengers at high latitudes and altitudes. In addition, these particles can easily pass through or stall in satellite systems, sometimes accumulating enough energy to cause errors or damage to spacecraft electronics and systems.”
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/phenomena/galactic-cosmic-rays</div&gt;

Last edited 1 month ago by Ireneusz Palmowski
Jeremy Poynton
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
March 28, 2022 2:19 am

Not to mention their effect on cloud nucleation, hence warming and cooling… viz. Svensmark

https://www.qwant.com/?q=Svensmark&client=brz-brave&t=web

Reply to  Jeremy Poynton
March 28, 2022 4:35 am

Never mentioned”
For the good reason that it is not true.

Jeremy Poynton
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
March 28, 2022 7:33 am

And on cue, who else but… 😉

Ireneusz Palmowski
March 28, 2022 1:14 am

Solar activity (solar wind strength) has a large impact on global weather through its effect on ENSO. Weak solar wind affects the latitudinal circulation, which prevents warming of the eastern Pacific (no El Niño). It is no coincidence that La Niña persists.
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.202203.gifcomment imagecomment image

Ireneusz Palmowski
March 28, 2022 1:26 am

The pattern of the stratospheric polar vortex and the distribution of ozone has a huge impact on the current weather. Excess ozone over Canada will shift the polar vortex over Siberia. The large temperature difference means that the vortex will remain strong, as seen by the isobars. The result will be very cold temperatures in Europe until at least mid-April.comment image

Alexander Vissers
March 28, 2022 2:47 am

Still assuming that humans have not caused some or most of global average surface temperature increase seems even more foolish. Of course if the IPCC holds a claim they have the burden of proof. Just assuming is not good enough.

Mark BLR
Reply to  Alexander Vissers
March 29, 2022 3:25 am

Still assuming that humans have not caused some or most of global average surface temperature increase seems even more foolish.

The usual “bait and switch” is to start from
“Human emissions ’caused’ most [ i.e. > 50% … ] of the warming since 1950 (/ the middle of the 20th century)”
and end up with
“Oh my $DEITY, we’re all gonna diiiiiiiiiiiie ! ! !”.

Question : How much if the GAST increase observed during the “early-20th century warming period” (1910 to 1940/5) was due to anthropogenic GHG emissions, and how much of that “global warming” was due to natural variability ?

NB : See the AR5 WG1 report from 2013 (Chapter 10, page 887) for how the IPCC itself responded to this question 8.5 years ago.

Of course if the IPCC holds a claim they have the burden of proof. Just assuming is not good enough.

My personal favourite extract from the AR6 SPM on the specific point of the definitions of “confidence” comes in paragraph D.1.1, on page SPM-36 :
“This Report reaffirms with high confidence the AR5 finding that there is a near-linear relationship between cumulative anthropogenic CO2 emissions and the global warming they cause. Each 1000 GtCO2 of cumulative CO2 emissions is assessed to likely cause a 0.27°C to 0.63°C increase in global surface temperature with a best estimate of 0.45°C.”

The confidence interval for the “near-linear relationship” they have “assessed” [ = is a result of “expert judgement” = has been “assumed” … ] both has occurred since 1850 and is still occurring with such “high confidence” has a max-to-min ratio that is greater than two

Last edited 1 month ago by Mark BLR
Matthew Sykes
March 28, 2022 3:08 am

Who cares, 2 C warmer is better regardless of the cause. Dont get hung up on the details, just go for the obvious.

David Dibbell
March 28, 2022 4:29 am

Andy May, thank you for this informative article. I find it hard to contemplate that otherwise insightful and capable scientists would suggest we could detect or infer a human “fingerprint” from averaged sensor data. But imagine that you could “watch” the planet in high resolution in near-real-time in the same wavelength band from which the concern arises over greenhouse warming from CO2. What might that tell the observer?

https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/GOES/fulldisk_band.php?sat=G16&band=16&length=12

It tells this observer that the planet is a huge array of longwave emitter elements, all highly variable within a wide range of power outputs. An average over the surface and trends over time simply cannot reliably detect or provide a basis for inference for what a minor incremental increase in CO2 concentration would do to the totalized output. Considering the current sensing and imaging capability from the geostationary satellites, it seems entirely unreasonable to me that such a claim persists. The atmospheric circulation of mass and stored energy from the equator to the poles and from low altitude to high is constantly wiping off any faint “fingerprints.”

Last edited 1 month ago by David Dibbell
David Dibbell
Reply to  David Dibbell
March 28, 2022 9:26 am

FYI – About the color coding of the GOES images: for band 16, a brightness temperature of 50C corresponds to a radiance that is 13 times stronger than the radiance for a brightness temperature of -90C. The conversion formula and constants are from the GOES-R user guide. 416-R-PUG-GRB-0348 Vol 4 Revision 1.2 .

Bob Weber(@coolclimateinfo)
March 28, 2022 5:31 am

The ocean’s fingerprint on the atmosphere is predictably prominent, leaving little room for any possible controlling human fingerprints:

comment image

Man-made CO2 leaves very little in the way of fingerprints in the Mauna Loa CO2 data:

comment image

comment image

Therefore the true climate has virtually no human fingerprints per se.

March 28, 2022 7:12 am

[[Cooling of the stratosphere, due to a higher concentration of CO2, is logical. CO2 is a major radiator of thermal radiation in the stratosphere, and more of it should cool that layer. Likewise, if the intensity of solar radiation increased, oxygen and ozone in the stratosphere would absorb more UV (ultraviolet) radiation, which should warm the stratosphere, not cool it.]]

CO2 radiation cools the stratosphere? Is that like Mister Freeze’s freeze ray? What comic book universe did that physics come from?

When will the IPCC greenhouse gas warming hoax be laughed off by this blog? Every thing they do to give it credibility is an atrocity. CO2’s 15 micron -80C radiation can’t melt an ice cube.

(141) TL Winslow’s answer to What are the features of greenhouse gases? – Quora

Ireneusz Palmowski
Reply to  TL Winslow
March 28, 2022 9:39 am

How the Chapman reaction “warms” the stratosphere.comment imagecomment image

Last edited 1 month ago by Ireneusz Palmowski
griff
March 28, 2022 9:14 am

The debate about the cause of recent global warming of Earth’s surface remains unresolved. 

no it doesn’t. It is human CO2 driving this.

Mark BLR
Reply to  griff
March 28, 2022 9:50 am

It is human CO2 driving this.

“If you thought that science was certain – well, that is just an error on your part.” — Richard Feynman

“Always hear others out and remain open-minded; the day you think you know everything is the day you have the most yet to learn.” — A.J. Darkholme

“It is in the admission of ignorance and the admission of uncertainty that there is a hope for the continuous motion of human beings in some direction that doesn’t get confined, permanently blocked, as it has so many times before in various periods in the history of man.” — Richard Feynman

“The thing is, it’s very dangerous to have a fixed idea. A person with a fixed idea will always find some way of convincing himself in the end that he is right.” — Atle Selberg

“Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.” — Richard Feynman

Reply to  griff
March 28, 2022 10:21 am

I am trying to resolve it. For final.
Read my report and let me know what you think.
Click on my name.

Slowroll
Reply to  griff
March 28, 2022 12:37 pm

Curious, I’ve never seen anything other than models that conjecture that. No emperical evidence at all. And ice cores Establish that CO2 rises after temperatures, not before. AGW is the biggest fraud ever.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Slowroll
March 28, 2022 6:11 pm

No
Griff is

March 28, 2022 9:15 am

Nice discussion here. It felt like the good old days.
Did we all agree now that solar activity is going down, as is the amount of UV coming in?
See also fig 4 of my report
Who or what turned up the heat? | Bread on the water
where I showed that Tmax is going down. I think Tmax is a good proxy for solar radiation coming through the atmosphere.
So if it is not the sun that made earth warmer the past few decades, what is (or was)?
Looking at the data for the northern oceans I think it must be extra volcanic activity underneath the seabed of the arctic. Also, it seems that earth is putting on an extra jacket due to the extra CO2 in the air keeping itself warm.
Let me know what you guys think?

March 28, 2022 9:18 am

climate models predict too much warming in the tropical middle troposphere

Climate models can’t predict anything at all.

March 28, 2022 9:26 am

A government, probably the U.S. government,…

That would be Al Gore, vice-President at the time.

As senator, Al Gore tried to bully Dick Lindzen into agreeing that CO₂ emissions were warming the climate. Lindzen stood up to him, and Gore failed.

An honest history will not be kind to Al Gore.

March 28, 2022 9:39 am

Observe pins. Assume angels. Silence the unbelievers. Vociferously argue the dance.

Consensus climate modeling.

Mark BLR
March 28, 2022 9:39 am

Cooling of the stratosphere, due to a higher concentration of CO2, is logical.

We have already shown that the climate models predict too much warming in the tropical middle troposphere …

As an “extra” to my looking at the MT datasets I noticed the following in the CMIP5 “ensemble means” plots for the LS altitudes.

NB : KNMI has a “taz” array for CMIP5, but not for CMIP6 … so far …

The “cooling of the stratosphere” that is supposed to be “projected” by the climate models as CO2 levels inexorably rise … isn’t !

That “cooling” however, is (indirectly) present in the actual (MSU) measurements.

RCP-taz-RATPAC-MSU_LS-Anoms_1958-2022.png
Mark BLR
Reply to  Mark BLR
March 28, 2022 9:41 am

Follow-up post.

It’s even more flagrant if you limit the plot to the “no major volcanic eruptions / post-Pinatubo / since 1995” period …

RCP-taz-RATPAC-MSU_LS-Anoms_1995-2022.png
Mark BLR
March 28, 2022 10:28 am

Figure 2. UAH satellite temperature trends in the global lower stratosphere and lower and middle troposphere.

As shown in Figure 2, the middle troposphere warms from the middle 1970s to the middle 1990s, and then cools until 2020, along with the stratosphere. The middle troposphere follows the lower troposphere half the time and the stratosphere the rest of the time.

Sorry, you’re going to have to “show your working” here.

1) The UAH (and RSS) datasets start in 1979 (/ November 1978).
They don’t say anything about “the middle 1970s”.

2) Your “trends” start around 1979 and end in 2020.
What length of “sliding window” are you using to calculate your “trends” ?

3) Attached is a plot of the UAH anomalies for the LT, MT and LS datasets.
They show LT and MT being very similar from 1993 all the way to “now” (the last datapoint is for February 2022).

NB : The “y-axis” for the trends on your Figure 2 goes from -0.5 to +1.5 (°C / decade ???).
The “y-axis” for my anomalies plot goes from -0.8 to +2 (°C).

UAH_LS-MT-LT_1979-2022.png
Ireneusz Palmowski
Reply to  Mark BLR
March 28, 2022 12:01 pm

In late years the GOME solar irradiance has degraded to about 20% of its value near 280 nm in 1995, so that the GOME data have become noisier.comment image
The decrease in ozone-producing UV radiation should be counted as a percentage, not in watts. comment image

Last edited 1 month ago by Ireneusz Palmowski
Mark BLR
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
March 29, 2022 2:53 am

The decrease in ozone-producing UV radiation …

I’m assuming this was meant to be a “Reply” to my preceding post (LS flat since the mid-1990s despite rising CO2 levels) ?

The caption to Figure 2 in the ATL article starts “UAH satellite temperature trends …”.

I do not see how the “trends” curves in Figure 2 can (even potentially) be derived from the “raw UAH anomalies datasets” that I plotted, and hence requested clarification on that specific point.

NB : Andy has been kind enough to respond to my “naive / basic” (my words, not his !) questions here at WUWT in the past. It isn’t completely unreasonable to expect some form of response (though there are almost 200 comments total here already to sift through …).

Ireneusz Palmowski
Reply to  Mark BLR
March 29, 2022 3:46 am

“Overall, the intensity fluctuations of solar radiation are small. In long-term average they amount to only the fraction of a percent of the total irradiance. The ultraviolet radiation, however, shows greater fluctuations and is also regarded as particularly climate-effective. Since the Earth’s atmosphere absorbs this radiation to a large extent, it influences critical chemical reactions in the upper layers of the atmosphere. Indirectly, these processes can also affect the temperature at the Earth’s surface.”
https://www.mps.mpg.de/4017144/PM_2015_07_09_UV-Schwankungen_der_Sonne_unterschaetzt
In your graph, the decrease in temperature in the lower stratosphere coincides with the weakening of the sun’s magnetic field (from 1995).comment image

Last edited 1 month ago by Ireneusz Palmowski
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
March 29, 2022 6:52 am

I have the drop in Tmax from 1996.
See my Fig. 4
https://breadonthewater.co.za/2022/03/08/who-or-what-turned-up-the-heat/

But I agree with the date of 1995 where the solar magnetic fields strengths started to turn.

Mark BLR
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
March 29, 2022 8:20 am

My original question : “I’m assuming this was meant to be a “Reply” to my preceding post (LS flat since the mid-1990s despite rising CO2 levels) ?”

Your response : “In your graph, the decrease in temperature in the lower stratosphere coincides with the weakening of the sun’s magnetic field (from 1995).”

My translation of your response : “Yes.”

– – – – –

The fact that the IPCC climate models assume “zero changes in natural variability on ‘climate’ timescales (20+ years, down from 30+ years)”, which includes “changes in TSI”, might contribute to explaining why the CMIP5 (RCP) “projections” are flat from the mid-1990s.

It does not explain that “flatness” when CO2 levels have been rising “exponentially” during that time period.

Modifying the highlighting of the original quote in my preceding “top level” post :
“Cooling of the stratosphere, due to a higher concentration of CO2, is logical.”

My (!) “assumption” would be that if you input “lower TSI levels, especially in UV wavelengths” into the “Atmospheric Chemistry” modules of the various climate models they may well “project” a reduction in the rate of cooling of the (lower) stratosphere.

My question of why the purported “anthropogenic (global warming) fingerprint” — vastly (over- ?) simplified in most media outlets as “when CO2 levels rise the troposphere warms and the stratosphere cools” — is not seen in the “projections” of the CMIP5 models remains.

Ireneusz Palmowski
Reply to  Mark BLR
March 29, 2022 10:55 am

CO2 does not affect the temperature in the stratosphere. The temperature in the stratosphere is affected by O2, which absorbs UV radiation up to 240 nm. The stratosphere is only warmed by UV radiation.

Mark BLR
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
March 30, 2022 2:56 am

CO2 does not affect the temperature in the stratosphere.

The stratosphere is only warmed by UV radiation.

Only looking at the AR6 (WG1 report, from last September) SPM you might be led to believe that that is indeed the IPCC’s (not my !) position.

In paragraph A.1.3, on page SPM-6 :

It is very likely that well-mixed GHGs were the main driver of tropospheric warming since 1979, and extremely likely that human-caused stratospheric ozone depletion was the main driver of cooling of the lower stratosphere between 1979 and the mid-1990s.

Note that their end-point is “the mid-1990s”, while you are focussed on “the weakening of the sun’s magnetic field (from 1995)”.

Looking into the actual “meat” of the AR6 report, however, we find (on page 3-25) :

… in the lower stratosphere, the simulated cooling trend due to increasing greenhouse gases was roughly constant over the satellite era, while changes in ODS [ Ozone-Depleting Substances ] concentrations amplified that stratospheric cooling trend during the era of increasing ozone depletion up until the mid-1990s, with a flattening of the temperature trend over the subsequent period over which stratospheric ozone has stabilised (Section 2.2.5.2).

NB : I am not saying that I agree (or disagree) with the above “assessment”, I am simply pointing out to you what the IPCC is claiming affects (lower) stratospheric temperatures.

On the following page (3-26) the IPCC says :

Mitchell (2016) used regularized optimal fingerprinting techniques to carry out an attribution analysis of annual mid to upper stratospheric temperature in response to external forcings. They found that anthropogenic forcing has caused a cooling of approximately 2-3°C in the upper stratosphere over the period of 1979-2015, with greenhouse gases contributing two thirds of this change and ozone depletion contributing one third.

The overall picture of “human-caused stratospheric cooling” may well be slightly more nuanced than you seem to think it is.

– – – – –

The temperature in the stratosphere is affected by O2

PS : I’m assuming that you meant “O3” (ozone) instead of “O2” (oxygen) ?

Last edited 1 month ago by Mark BLR
Ireneusz Palmowski
Reply to  Mark BLR
March 30, 2022 1:29 pm

No, O2 – check how the Chapman reaction proceeds with heat release. It is the breakdown of O2 by UV radiation to 240 nm that allows the formation of an O3 particle and the transfer of the released energy to neighboring particles.
The stratosphere warms only when exposed to high-energy photons.

Hurricane Willy
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
March 30, 2022 2:10 pm

TSI does not include the incoming LWIR component. The Sun is not a lightbulb in the sky as the silly GHG effect hypothesis requires. The Sun’s atmosphere reaches far beyond Earth’s orbit. It spirals out through the whole solar system. Our atmosphere is not just warmed by photons of light. Solar plasma of super heated hydrogen, oxygen and carbon molecules continually enter our atmosphere and cool and condense into water vapour and CO2.

Last edited 1 month ago by Hurricane Willy
Robert B
March 28, 2022 1:03 pm

“Cooling of the stratosphere, due to a higher concentration of CO2, is logical. CO2 is a major radiator of thermal radiation in the stratosphere, and more of it should cool that layer.”

Not really. T^4 has gone down 2%. CO2 ML has gone up 35%. For a finger print, it’s barely a tenth of a whorl.

michael hart
March 28, 2022 1:45 pm

“Logical speculation is not proof.”

Nailed it.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  michael hart
March 28, 2022 6:07 pm

They want it to be so, therefore it is.

An apt metaphor for modern western society in freefall

Ulric Lyons
March 28, 2022 2:11 pm

Weaker solar wind states since 1995 have driven a warmer AMO which reduces low cloud cover.

Pat from kerbob
March 28, 2022 6:05 pm

As a interested observer in violent agreement with these ideas, the tell for me is that the people who insist natural variability is dead and only human CO2 can explain any changes are the same people who insist on the hockey stick view of the earths temperature and the last couple decades as the hottest ever despite endless physical evidence from all over the world that it was indisputably hotter many times in the past 8000 years

The may even be right about CO2 but it’s impossible to know as they are liars from base principles.

March 28, 2022 10:47 pm

Andy, it seems that arguments over solar produce much heat and little light (sorry, sorry). Is it maybe worth looking at some of the other AR6 forcings.

The albedo forcing looks odd. Is this measured? Far from albedo increasing with framing I’d expect it to drop, the amount depending on the crop and the cultivation cycle — ,maybe that;s because I’m confusing the warmth of farmed area with the evaporation cooled well-vegetated landscape. However, there doesn’t seem to be a section for albedo and evaporation change over the oceans.

“Three quarters of the world’s surface is covered in water.” Say that in a thick German accent and you’ll sound like the intro to the diving programmes by Hans and Lotte Hass way back in the ’50s. They were right, we do not live on a Gaia planet but one ruled by Oceana. Those scuba scientists did much to bring the public’s attention to the underwater world but perhaps the IPCC were too young to have been infected by their love for all things submerged.

Tiny changes to the ocean surface are enough to throw off all the AR6 conclusions. Lord Rayleigh’s oil drop experiment shows how tiny amounts of light oil can s[read over a water surface — the effect was exploited by Siamese pearl divers, Israeli fish farmers used it on their ponds and Chinese rice farmers on their paddies, the former for light transmission, the latter two to get and earlier crop from warmer waters. Oily water smooths. That’s how the CYGNSS data is produced.

My Feynman guess (anyone is allowed a Feynman guess): ocean pollution by oil and surfactant from our civilisation together with lipids produced by sewage/dissolved silica and nitrate agricultural runoff fed phytoplankton are altering ocean ecology, in particular lowering albedo and reducing evaporation. The surface will smooth, reducing salt aerosol production.

A rough idea of the magnitude of ALW (Anthropogenic Local Warming) by ocean pollution should be fairly easy to track:

When there’s plastic or other debris in the ocean, waves are dampened, creating less roughness than expected. “In cleaner waters there’s a high degree of agreement between ocean roughness and wind speed,” said Professor Chris Ruf, principal investigator of the CYGNSS mission and one of the authors of the research. “But as you head into the Great Pacific Garbage Patch you see a bigger discrepancy between wind speed measurements and the roughness of the surface.” Ruf and UM research assistant Madeline Evans compared CYGNSS roughness measurements to NOAA measurements of ocean wind speeds to see where waters were less rough than expected. Using this method, in combination with plastic concentration data from literature, Ruf and Evans mapped daily concentrations of microplastics across the ocean. This microplastics dataset was recently published at NASA’s Physical Oceanography Distributed Active Archive Center (PO.DAAC).”

earthdata.nasa.gov/learn/articles/ocean-plastic

This effect doesn’t replace the CO2 AGW hypothesis but would, if real, ameliorate the damage attributed to CO2, damping down the climate hysteria and giving us the time to address the problem without killing millions of people. Someone should at least look. Ruf and Evans could start by finding out why Lake Michigan is warming more than the global average.

Tom Wigley asked “Why the blip” after vigorously adjusting the data to explain away the temperature excursion from 1940 – 45. I leave the reason as an exercise for the interested reader. Clue: WWII.

JF

Reply to  Julian Flood
March 28, 2022 10:47 pm

Framing, farming, dammit.

JF

Reply to  Julian Flood
March 29, 2022 6:55 am

Julian

I did a test to determine if there is an influence of oil contamination.
The result was negative. I am not sure of my choice of oil could have influenced the result.
https://breadonthewater.co.za/2022/03/08/who-or-what-turned-up-the-heat/

Gordon A. Dressler
March 29, 2022 11:03 am

Andy,

Nice article! However, I think you simplify radiation energy exchange from Earth’s surface, through the troposphere and out of the stratosphere, far too much with these statements made in the third paragraph of your article above:

“Cooling of the stratosphere, due to a higher concentration of CO2, is logical. CO2 is a major radiator of thermal radiation in the stratosphere, and more of it should cool that layer.”

There is no doubt that CO2 has strong absorption bands in the LWIR portion of the EM spectrum, which predominate over the min-max range of temperatures characteristic of Earth’s land and sea surfaces.

However—and this is not generally recognized by many people—the rates for CO2 collisions with N2 and O2 molecules in the lower troposphere (up to about 10 km altitude) are 10^6 to 10^9 times faster than the rates at which CO2 molecules, on average at these conditions, will undergo “photo-relaxation” of any absorbed LWIR energy by spontaneous emission of a photon of equal or lesser energy than the one absorbed. This physical fact has been emphasized by Dr. Will Happer, among others.

Same process and trends apply to water molecules in Earth’s atmosphere, which actually exert a much stronger “greenhouse gas” influence due to being (a) in much high concentration than CO2 over most of Earth’s surface over the range of absolute humidity conditions, and (b) having a much broader integrated-LWIR absorption band than CO2.

What this means physically is that within 10 km of Earth’s surface, atmospheric CO2 at its current level of about 420 ppm (.0004%) will essentially redistribute any LWIR energy absorbed from surface radiation, via collisional energy exchange in vibratory and translational degrees of freedom, to nitrogen and oxygen molecules . . . and just not “carry” LWIR absorbed energy up to the general altitude of the stratosphere.

This “thermal equilibration” (reference Maxwell–Boltzmann distribution and equipartition) of surface energy radiation throughout all atmospheric constituents, due to very rapid collisions of all the mixed gases, in turn means that all atmospheric gases (99.1% being N2 and O2) will radiate thermal energy—since they are at temperatures above absolute zero—either directly to space or via chained collisional energy exchanges up to the level of the stratosphere where they can then radiate directly to space.

All atmospheric gases thermally radiate energy, which originated as Earth LWIR surface radiation energy, through the stratosphere . . . not just CO2 (or water vapor). Due to their much higher relative concentrations, IMHO it is more accurate to state that N2 and O2 are the major radiators of thermal radiation in the stratosphere.

And the reverse is equally true: all atmospheric gases thermally radiate energy, which originated as Earth LWIR surface radiation energy, back towards Earth’s surface . . . not just CO2 (or water vapor or methane or N2O). In this regard, “greenhouse gases” do function as claimed for intercepting LWIR radiation energy from Earth, but they get the underserved bad rap for being the only atmospheric constituents that radiate that energy back to the surface.

Last edited 1 month ago by Gordon A. Dressler
Hurricane Willy
March 30, 2022 1:33 pm

A cooling stratosphere indicates a reduction in overall atmospheric temperature. The lower stratosphere is the effective emission height of the atmosphere. When the atmosphere cools, it shrinks and becomes more dense at the bottom. Because of the ideal gas law, it would be expected that there would be temperature increase in the troposphere while the temperatures in the stratosphere are cooling. PV = nRT.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Hurricane Willy
March 30, 2022 1:58 pm

The ideal gas law, PV = nRT, does not apply to the control volume of any gas wherein the constituents are not in thermal equilibrium and when there is energy exchange taking place across the control volume surfaces.

If you apply a control volume around the troposphere or around the stratosphere—let alone, around both combined—you will find that energy is ALWAYS crossing the control volume surfaces.

Therefore, the ideal gas law cannot be used to “expect” temperature increase in the troposphere when the temperature(s) in the stratosphere are cooling.

Hurricane Willy
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
March 30, 2022 2:33 pm

LTE (local thermal equilibrium) is applicable so it certainly is a close enough approximation to apply to Earth’s atmosphere.

Below you say “There is no doubt that CO2 has strong absorption bands in the LWIR portion of the EM spectrum, which predominate over the min-max range of temperatures characteristic of Earth’s land and sea surfaces

This is also incorrect. CO2 has strong absorption bands around 15μm which according to Wien’s displacement law has a corresponding temperature of minus -80° C. O2 has absorption bands “over the min-max range of temperatures characteristic of Earth’s land and sea surfaces” CO2 does not.

Last edited 1 month ago by Hurricane Willy
Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Hurricane Willy
March 31, 2022 8:42 am

You need to understand that radiation and absorption bands are, by definition of “bands”, relatively broad and a given micron number for a band (e.g., “15μm”) only serves to indicate the center-point of the band. The associated temperatures for such bands are likewise relatively broad.

My sentence that you quoted is absolutely correct, if you take care to read it properly.

As one can see in the attached graphs (extracted from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6174548/ ), Earth would theoretically radiate energy—at temperatures ranging from 210 K to 310 K (i.e., from -63 °C to +37 °C)—across the LWIR spectrum from 3.5 to 70 microns. Within this range, you can note the two strong absorption bands for CO2: one centered a 4.3 microns and the other centered at 14.9 (call it 15) microns.

In reality, Earth only emits surface radiation directly to space over the interval of about 8 to 13 microns (the dark blue segment noted in the right topmost graph) due to the scattering and absorption of the remaining LWIR radiation by atmospheric gases, as noted. Note reference to the “atmospheric window” for this portion of the LWIR spectrum where there is little to zero interference by atmospheric gases.

Contrary to what you stated, O2 does not have any significant absorption bands from 3.5 to 70 microns wavelength (yes, there is a tiny one between 9 and 10 microns).

Of course, across the range from 3.5 to 70 microns, water vapor is seen to be the overwhelming “greenhouse gas” that is absorbing radiation emitted by Earth’s range of surface temperatures.

Earth Radiation Spectra.jpg
Hurricane Willy
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
March 31, 2022 8:55 am

And yet water vapour is a negative feedback mechanism.

4.3μm has a corresponding temperature of just north of 400°C

Last edited 1 month ago by Hurricane Willy
Hurricane Willy
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
March 31, 2022 9:16 am

“Contrary to what you stated, O2 does not have any significant absorption bands from 3.5 to 70 microns wavelength (yes, there is a tiny one between 9 and 10 microns).”

CO2 has no absorption bands at Earth’s ambient temperatures. None at 9-10 microns which corresponds to 48-16°C.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Hurricane Willy
March 31, 2022 12:40 pm

Hurricane Willy stated: “CO2 has no absorption bands at Earth’s ambient temperatures.”

THAT is absolutely fantastic news because it necessarily means that CO2 cannot be a greenhouse gas after all!

Please go shout this revelation from every church steeple and rooftop in the world.

Laissez les bons temps rouler! 🙂

Last edited 1 month ago by Gordon A. Dressler
Hurricane Willy
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
March 31, 2022 2:38 pm

Correct, CO2 is not a “greenhouse gas”, finally you are starting to get it.

The so called greenhouse gas effect” is a 150 year old hypothesis which has never been observed in nature as admitted to in the IPCC’s first repot in 1990 section 8.4 “When Will The Greenhouse Effect be Detected”.

Last edited 1 month ago by Hurricane Willy
Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Hurricane Willy
March 31, 2022 4:10 pm

Hurricane Willy posted “. . . CO2 is not a ‘greenhouse gas’ “.

That is an absurd and scientifically incorrect statement. You need to go back and re-read my OP made above on March 29, 2022 11:03 am in response to Andy May, which clearly explains why CO2 (as well as water vapor and other gases having molecular dipole moments) intercept LWIR emitted from Earth’s surface and then distribute that intercepted photon energy throughout all of Earth’s atmospheric constituents via collisional energy exchanges.

NASA, NOAA, the IPCC and almost all other reputable scientists acknowledge the reality that the “greenhouse effect” from LWIR-active absorbing gas molecules is real, although—as I argue—most do not recognize the “thermal equilibration” of such absorbed LWIR energy amongst all constituents of the atmosphere, and thus the back radiation of ALL atmospheric constituents to Earth’s surface, not just that from GHGs.

I see that you have trouble recognizing a sarcastic remark when you run across such. Pity.

Last edited 1 month ago by Gordon A. Dressler
Hurricane Willy
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
March 31, 2022 9:02 pm

CO2 does not posses a permanent “dipole moment”. It’s main absorption band is 15μm which has a corresponding temperature of -80° C. There is a very good and obvious reason for that. -80° C is the phase change temperature of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere. That is the only reason for the strong absorption band at 15μm. The troposphere is defined by molecules with a temperature of -60° C and above. IR emissions from CO2 @ 15μm cannot cause any warming in the troposphere.

Hurricane Willy
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
March 31, 2022 11:37 pm

The temperature of the troposphere is controlled by the the ideal gas law. All molecular energy below the effective emission height is kinetic. You cannot discus temperature without referring to kinetic energy. Emissions of 15μm IR from CO2 have no warming effect in the troposphere.

PV = nRT not so called “greenhouse gases” determine the temperature of the troposphere.

Hurricane Willy
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
March 31, 2022 2:04 am

Below the effective emission height of the lower stratosphere, the energy of the gas molecules is entirely kinetic. Therefore the ideal gas law absolutely applies. The troposphere is primarily what the ideal gas law was developed to describe. You cannot discus temperature without referring to kinetic energy. Temperature is simply a measure of kinetic energy. Can you see how silly it is to claim that the ideal gas law doesn’t apply to the troposphere?

The troposphere is a very good approximation of an ideal gas.

Last edited 1 month ago by Hurricane Willy
Jim Gorman
Reply to  Hurricane Willy
March 31, 2022 5:38 am

You are both kinda correct. The earth acts more like a tire. As energy is added by the sun, the temperature and pressure increase. Yet due to energy loss, the temperature will drop and in turn so will pressure. However, these are both time related so one must dig deeper into the energy/time relationship. Just picking one brief moment in time won’t suffice. Like so much of climate science this isn’t a simple linear algebra relationship. It really cries for integral calculus with trig functions to properly characterize what is going on. The earth moves in rotation, it’s orbit, and with other phenomena that changes each moment in time.

Hurricane Willy
Reply to  Jim Gorman
March 31, 2022 8:02 am

The point I was making was that when the Earth’s atmosphere is in a cooling cycle, such that the lower stratosphere is cooling, the troposphere will get warmer. When the atmosphere is in a warming cycle, the troposphere gets cooler. In both cases this occurs until equilibrium with the Sun is reached. This process is governed by the ideal gas law. PV = nRT is the process that controls the temperature of the troposphere, not CO2.

This is a simple to understand description of the basic physics of the troposphere. No further analogy required;-)

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Hurricane Willy
March 31, 2022 9:32 am

PV=nRT is only part of the atmospheric system that has involvement by a whole lot of other variables. Don’t think that this simple equation controls the whole thing, it doesn’t.

Hurricane Willy
Reply to  Jim Gorman
March 31, 2022 10:01 am

All molecular energy below the effective emission height is kinetic. PV = nRT is all there is.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Hurricane Willy
March 31, 2022 7:37 am

Let’s see if I can make it even simpler.

The ideal gas law does NOT allow for phase change occurring within a defined control volume of gas as its pressure and temperature vary.

However, throughout most of Earth’s troposphere there is enough water vapor content that clouds will form (i.e., water vapor will condense into the liquid water microdroplets that we see as visible clouds) if the combination of the bouyancy of humid air compared to dry air plus vertical convection movements in the atmospheric are able to lift a control volume of humid air sufficiently high into the troposphere.

There are physical subtleties in this process that relate to the differences between dry adiabatic lapse rate, environmental lapse rate, and moist (wet) adiabatic lapse rate . . . good explanations of these can be found at https://sciencepickle.com/earth-systems/clouds/ideal-gas-law-and-the-troposphere/

The appearance of clouds is commonplace throughout the troposphere, albeit less frequent over desert areas of land. Thus, the ideal gas law cannot be realistically applied throughout the troposphere.

QED.

Last edited 1 month ago by Gordon A. Dressler
Hurricane Willy
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
March 31, 2022 8:16 am

Phase change produces no sensible change in temperature. The energy potential remains zero, the ideal gas law still applies.

QEDOUBLED

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Hurricane Willy
March 31, 2022 8:57 am

Within a control volume that does not have any energy crossing the control volume surfaces, it is absolutely incorrect to state, as you did, that “Phase change produces no sensible change in temperature.”

However, it would be correct to state that under such conditions, total energy is conserved.

You see, phase change does produce a significant change in density which, as you well know (or should know), is equal to the n/V rearrangement of the PV=nRT ideal gas law that you cited.

Can’t have phase change without disturbing those P or T terms in an abrupt (i.e., non-continuous, non-ideal) fashion.

More simply, within the control volume, when condensation occurs, where do you think the latent heat of vaporization goes?

Last edited 1 month ago by Gordon A. Dressler
Hurricane Willy
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
March 31, 2022 10:08 am

I think you’re becoming very confused. Please google the term “latent heat”.

Last edited 1 month ago by Hurricane Willy
Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Hurricane Willy
March 31, 2022 12:43 pm

No. No need.

Hurricane Willy
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
March 31, 2022 8:33 am

The fundamental flaw in your link: “The environmental lapse rate (rate of temperature decrease with altitude) for the U. S. standard atmosphere is 6.5ºC/km within the troposphere.”

This is a common mistake. The environmental lapse rate begins at the Earth’s equilibrium temperature which is -18° C and works down to the surface. -18°C is the temperature of the lower stratosphere, the effective emission height. This is confirmed by radiosonde data. Locate the temperature of -18°C in any radiosonde data, add 6.5°C/km from that point down to the surface to get the surface temperature within 1°C or so. It makes no difference if -18°C is found for example at 4km or 5km. This predictive ability confirms that the lapse rate should be considered as a top down, not bottom up phenomena.

Last edited 1 month ago by Hurricane Willy
Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Hurricane Willy
March 31, 2022 8:51 am

HW, I highly recommend that you contact the folks at sciencepickle.com to get this corrected ASAP.

BTW, got any credible data for your assertion that Earth’s “equilibrium temperature” is -18 °C? First I ever heard that.

Hurricane Willy
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
March 31, 2022 9:53 am

The same as the equilibrium temperature of the Moon which is more or less the same distance from the Sun. No reason why they should be different. It is, as I have already stated, also confirmed in the radiosonde data.

Last edited 1 month ago by Hurricane Willy
Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Hurricane Willy
March 31, 2022 1:07 pm

Just incredible: “. . . No reason why they should be different.”

Ummm, a couple of hints for you:

1) Earth has an atmosphere; the Moon doesn’t.

2) Earth has liquid oceans (with attendant ice-liquid water and liquid water-water vapor phase changes occurring within the range of its surface temperatures); the Moon doesn’t have oceans nor any liquid water on its surface.

3) Earth has a highly variable visible-spectrum albedo (averaging about 0.30 over a year or more, but variable from 0.06 for open ocean water to about 0.1 over dry land with no cloud coverage to about 0.9 over land covered by ice and snow); the Moon’s visible spectrum albedo is constant at about 0.12 since it has no clouds, snow or ice (excluding minor amounts of surface water ice in permanently shadowed craters near its poles).

And there is this additional fact for Item 3:
“Generally, increased cloud cover correlates to a higher albedo and a lower absorption of solar energy. Cloud albedo strongly influences the Earth’s energy budget, accounting for approximately half of Earth’s albedo.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_albedo#:~:text=Generally%2C%20increased%20cloud%20cover%20correlates,approximately%20half%20of%20Earth's%20albedo.

Just a few facts you may want to think about.

Last edited 1 month ago by Gordon A. Dressler
Hurricane Willy
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
March 31, 2022 2:54 pm

The only factors to consider when understanding the equilibrium temperature of the Earth v’s the Moon is the surface temperature of the Sun and the distance of each from the Sun. Nothing else matters.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Hurricane Willy
March 31, 2022 2:04 pm

Hmmm . . . according to https://www.weather.gov/jetstream/layers#:~:text=called%20the%20stratopause.-,Stratosphere,the%20temperature%20increases%20with%20height. “The Stratosphere extends around 31 miles (50 km) down to anywhere from 4 to 12 miles (6 to 20 km) above the Earth’s surface.”

However, the US Standard Atmosphere establishes the atmospheric temperature of -18 °C to exist only at an altitude of 5.08 km within the troposphere. That’s below the lower limit defined above for the stratosphere, I do believe.

Furthermore, if I apply a lapse rate of +6.5 °C/km, as you suggest, down those 5.08 km to Earth surface I then get a surface temperature of 15 °C (59 °F).

The surface temperature predicted by your technique seems to be a bit too cold for topical oceans and tropical lands and much too warm for polar oceans and polar lands. And by more than “1°C or so” in both regions.

Now, you were saying something about “common mistakes” and “predictive ability” . . .

Hurricane Willy
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
March 31, 2022 2:50 pm

Look at the radiosonde data, you will see that the altitude at which you find -18°C obviously varies by location and time of year. I think slowly the penny will drop for you. Keep at it, it will all make sense.

Hurricane Willy
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
March 31, 2022 3:15 pm

The Earth’s average temperature is 15°C, therefore the altitude of 5.08 km is also an average. Hope that helps!

Remember, it’s all in the radiosonde data, you just have to go and look.

Last edited 1 month ago by Hurricane Willy
Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Hurricane Willy
March 31, 2022 4:25 pm

“. . . therefore the altitude of 5.08 km is also an average.”

No, per your reference to the Standard Model atmosphere of the Earth, it is defined as the altitude at which the associated temperature is exactly -18 °C, which your yourself established to be a critical, exact temperature. It is NOT defined to be an average temperature per the Standard Model for the atmosphere.

BTW, I grow tired of the numerous corrections I’m having to make to your posts . . . I have much better things to do with my time . . . so goodbye and have a good life. Further discourse between us is obviously pointless.

Last edited 1 month ago by Gordon A. Dressler
Hurricane Willy
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
March 31, 2022 9:20 pm

I see what you did there! You deliberately conflated the altitude with the temperature so you could falsely claim I am wrong. This has been a pattern throughout our exchanges. In every case I have exposed your relentless word games. It’s been a pleasure!

For the record I said the altitude at which -18°C is found in the atmosphere is variable depending on location and time of year, but it is always -18°C.

PV = nRT controls the temperature of the troposphere, not CO2.

Last edited 1 month ago by Hurricane Willy
Oddgeir
March 30, 2022 1:44 pm

“The IPCC believes that the change in solar radiation over the past 60 years nets to zero and has no trend beyond the normal ~11-year solar cycle.”

You do a calculation of the average 11 year cycle backwards and become flabbergasted…

It’s crashing (aqll as low as the 1895-1905 bottom).

Oddgeir