Is there really a climate crisis? NASA Knew Better #NASA_Knew
David Dibbell
Looking toward space from the surface, the radiative warming effect of the atmosphere is a real thing in the static sense of absorption and emission of longwave energy by greenhouse gases (GHGs). But the atmosphere is not static. It is also the working fluid of its own dynamic heat engine operation, putting mass and stored energy into motion.
Consider that the attribution of warming on land and in the oceans to increasing concentrations of non-condensing GHGs could have arisen from too much emphasis on the static concept and too little on the observed dynamics. Must we expect heat energy to accumulate down here to harmful effect by what non-condensing GHGs do? That is how the problem statement is best framed.
To address this question, I refer to “Climate and Earth’s Energy Budget,” an article published January 14, 2009 on NASA’s EarthObservatory website. It is worth reading, to understand that both the static and dynamic aspects of the climate system are addressed. It is still available here: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/EnergyBalance
NASA expressed the static sense in the final paragraphs of that article, concluding with this: “However, as long as greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise, the amount of absorbed solar energy will continue to exceed the amount of thermal infrared energy that can escape to space. The energy imbalance will continue to grow, and surface temperatures will continue to rise.”
But the dynamic nature of mass and energy flow had already been covered in earlier sections of the article about how the atmosphere and ocean work. Key quotes:
“The net heating imbalance between the equator and poles drives an atmospheric and oceanic circulation that climate scientists describe as a ‘heat engine.’”
So NASA understood this strong heat engine response, aside from the question of rising GHG concentrations. The global-scale circulation patterns in the atmosphere are the result.
“This coupled atmosphere and ocean circulation is known as Earth’s heat engine.
The climate’s heat engine must not only redistribute solar heat from the equator toward the poles, but also from the Earth’s surface and lower atmosphere back to space.”
So NASA also knew that the localized motions of the atmosphere are responses to absorbed energy and the resulting temperature differences. Heat engines run because there is a heat source, a heat sink, and a working fluid. Consider convective weather in this context, with its powerful updrafts to high altitudes.
“Satellite measurements indicate that the atmosphere radiates thermal infrared energy equivalent to 59 percent of the incoming solar energy.”
The total thermal radiation had already been given as 71 percent of incoming solar energy. So NASA knew that, by far, most of the longwave energy emitted to space is from the atmosphere itself. This means that analysis of rising GHG concentrations must consider what happens to the effectiveness of the working fluid as an emitter, and to the circulation rate. What happens to the effectiveness of surface emission directly to space through the “atmospheric window” would be less of a factor.
“At an altitude of roughly 5-6 kilometers, the concentration of greenhouse gases in the overlying atmosphere is so small that heat can radiate freely to space.”
So NASA knew that the “greenhouse effect” diminishes with altitude to the point that “heat can radiate freely to space.” This implies that circulation from the bottom half of the atmosphere to the top half matters greatly to the disposition of absorbed energy. 5-6 km is about at the 500 mb level, so about half the mass is below this altitude; global circulations reach much higher than that, and localized convective weather can top out at 15 km or more. The same non-condensing GHG molecules that absorb and emit looking down, also emit upward through the diminishing overlying mass of the atmosphere as altitude increases.
“The amount of heat a surface radiates is proportional to the fourth power of its temperature. If temperature doubles, radiated energy increases by a factor of 16 (2 to the 4th power). If the temperature of the Earth rises, the planet rapidly emits an increasing amount of heat to space. This large increase in heat loss in response to a relatively smaller increase in temperature—referred to as radiative cooling—is the primary mechanism that prevents runaway heating on Earth.”
So NASA knew better than to expect runaway climate conditions, based on the 4th power relationship of radiated energy to temperature. It is worth noting that the Earth is obviously not actually a single emitter. The figures in the article show a wide range of averaged radiative outputs over the surface of the planet. Hold that thought.
What else did NASA know? There are several references in the article to the CERES satellite measurements of outgoing longwave emission and shortwave reflection. (Note: this essay does not discuss the validity of using CERES data to estimate an overall planetary heat balance. That is a separate issue.)
In Figure 1, the observed TOA (top-of-atmosphere) outgoing longwave hourly values (in W/m^2) are plotted for all of 2008 for a mid-latitude 1 degree x 1 degree gridpoint near where I live. In Figure 2, the shortwave reflection is plotted for the same gridpoint. The shape of such plots varies from the tropics to the poles, but the point is the same: NASA knew that from space, each gridpoint is observed to perform as a highly active emitter/reflector. The variable output is not what one would expect from a passive radiative insulating layer. And if powered rather than passive, then it is the heat engine operation that must be driving this highly variable performance. Cloud variation, no doubt, resulting from the motion of the atmosphere, promotes this effect in respect to both longwave emission and shortwave reflection.
Figure 1. CERES hourly Syn1deg TOA observed longwave emission, W/m^2, for 73.5W 42.5N for all of 2008.
Figure 2. CERES hourly Syn1deg TOA observed shortwave reflection, W/m^2, for 73.5W 42.5N for all of 2008.
(The data plotted in figures 1 and 2 originates from this web portal, where the relevant citation statements are available: https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/data/#synoptic-toa-and-surface-fluxes-and-clouds-syn )
Discussion
These plots illustrate that NASA knew that the planet, as observed from space, appears as a huge array of powered, highly variable emitter/reflector elements. They knew that the outgoing longwave energy from every location at every time interval originates from 4th-power radiative emission, mostly from the atmosphere itself. This is consistent with the heat engine nature of the atmosphere’s motion and the importance of altitude described in the article.
Still, NASA ended the article with emphasis on the static sense of what to expect: “The energy imbalance will continue to grow, and surface temperatures will continue to rise.” Why? Maybe this was to deflect potential objections, considering the obvious implications of the heat engine concept. Even so, the article presented the dynamic sense of the atmosphere’s operation for future readers to consider, and avoided the language of crisis or danger.
So do increased concentrations of non-condensing GHGs end up inhibiting the variable emission of longwave radiation to space? The actively powered emitter that matters most is at altitude, not at the surface, and altitude is not fixed. The heat engine motion of the working fluid supplies the energy from below. Down lower, the working fluid experiences an incrementally stronger radiative coupling of the atmosphere to the surface. This energy – the static GHG “forcing” – cannot be accumulated at the surface. It is much too easily transferred to the working fluid of the heat engine, to circulate to whatever altitude is needed. The mass flow rates will be whatever is required as the working fluid responds to the input of solar energy in real time and to its own stored energy. Just enough heat energy ends up being emitted back to space as longwave radiation, and just enough cloud activity reflects incoming sunlight to manage the energy input. Taken together, it is highly self-regulating as a dynamic response to surface temperatures.
Conclusion
Are we in a warming crisis due to non-condensing GHGs? The evidence of how the atmosphere works does not support such a claim. The minor incremental static warming effect from slowly increasing concentrations of GHGs is readily overwhelmed by the performance of the heat engine. The highly variable longwave emitter output and the active shortwave reflector performance observed from space provide direct evidence. At the time this article was written, NASA knew better than to use the language of crisis or catastrophe. They also knew that the static concept of GHG forcing/imbalance/rising surface temperatures would be misleading without the further explanation of the atmosphere and ocean circulations as dynamic responses to temperature differences.
David Dibbell
11-24-2021
From the beginning, I have blogged that far more has been written about the processes of thinks getting warmer than things getting colder, following the theme of global warming. Since the global system is at fairly constant temperature for as far back as we can measure, it is inescapable that heat in equals heat out, that the warming process is eventually overcome by a cooling process. Often I complained about too much emphasis on static and not enough on dynamic mechanisms. I have noted that it is fine to consider CO2 molecules getting hot by photon absorption, but what happens as they cool? Not knowing the answers in detail, I simply asked again and again for links to research, with little result.
David, Dibbell, I am therefore i agreement with the thrust of your essay. Thank you for it.
Here is another question., Convection requires energy to make molecules move. Question is, what is the magnitude of such energy, compared with the energy coming in from sunlight and reacting with CO2 molecules? In other words, can the heat obtained by CO2 photon capture be fully dissipated by the energy taken to circulate air and shift portions of it to altitudes where most emitted photons can go straight to space? Is the single factor of convection taking out enough energy to fully offset the heating by CO2 photon absorption?
Geoff S
Goeff Sherrington, thank you very much for your comment.
Let me first jump to the conclusion about CO2 molecules and longwave emission in the band of wavelengths which gets so much attention about the “heat-trapping” effect. Please see this comment I entered on a recent post here at WUWT.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/05/09/climate-models-have-not-exaggerated-global-warming-except-when-they-do/#comment-3513911
About the magnitude of energy transformations going on in the atmosphere, consider a one-inch-per-hour rate of rainfall in a thunderstorm. This represents a 17,600 W/m^2 conversion of the latent energy of water vapor to produce motion and to perform work on the atmosphere surrounding a convective cell. This is thousands of times more intense than the incremental static warming effect of, say, a doubling of CO2 concentration since preindustrial times.
One way to illustrate the power of energy transformations is to track the total energy state of the atmosphere over a location on the surface of the planet through time. The huge changes in short intervals are impressive. Please see this open thread comment from a few months ago.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/01/30/essay-contest-results-delayed-a-bit-and-open-thread/#comment-3443611
I hope this helps. I still have a lot of research to do in this direction. Models can be good at something, and in this case the relatively fine-grid ERA5 reanalysis produces a very long list of values at hourly intervals for the bulk energy properties of the atmosphere.
Geoff says:
“I have noted that it is fine to consider CO2 molecules getting hot by photon absorption, but what happens as they cool? Not knowing the answers in detail, I simply asked again and again for links to research, with little result.”
Geoff, the mechanisms you are talking about here are very well known atmospheric physics. If you have supposedly had “little result” in finding answers to your questions, then I think you simply haven’t been trying.
What do you think happens when CO2 molecules “cool”?
Heat engines were first described and quantified by Carnot at the start of the 19th century. I would have thought by now the science would have become well known. The Hadley cell is a giant heat engine driving earths weather with the atmosphere as the circulating fluid. The hot junction is the equator- the hottest point in the cycle. The cold junction is the coldest point in the cycle at it is NOT 5-6 km altitude but rather the tropopause at 10-12 km altitude. The gas circulates between the hot junction and the cold junction. Note, the tropopause is the coldest point in the atmosphere completely surrounded by warmer regions. How does it stay cold? Clearly only by radiating energy to a still colder sink ie: space. If the cold junction was at 5-6 km the circulation would stop at that altitude. Only energy coupled into the working fluid contributes to the heat engine. Radiation directly from the surface to space is the equivalent of an uninsulated boiler. It plays no part in the heat engine . Further proof – the Nimbus plots show radiation to space with black body temperature overlays. Now a gas of sufficient optical thickness will always radiate as a black body and that is certainly the case for atmospheric GHG’s so the black body temperature is in effect the actual temperature of the emitting gas. For the CO2 wavelengths around 14.7 microns this is clearly the temperature of the tropopause. For H2O emission at longer wavelengths it may appear the emission temperature is higher (ie: lower altitude) but what must be considered is that at these wavelengths there are a huge number of very closely spaced lines like a picket fence. The IR spectrometer does not have the resolution to separate these so it gives a blurred result. With higher resolution one would see something closer to tropopause emission on the lines and surface emission between the lines.
Interesting point, without GHG’s there would be no cold junction and thus no heat engine and that means no weather at all. No rain, no wind, no clouds. The result would be a climate very close to that of the moon – over 100C every day during the day and far far below freezing at night. Also GHG’s do not raise Earths average temperature by 33C as claimed because without GHG’s there would be no clouds and thus greater insolation. In fact the net impact of GHG’s is to raise the average temperature (whatever that means) by about 9 C.
I have a question about your graphs. In both of your figures, you do not label the x axis. I am guessing it is data point number or something. Should this not be time of day or something that might vary regularly?
Other than that criticism, I really liked the logic.
Thank you. Each of the figures is simply an hourly time series plot along the x-axis. 2008 was a leap year, so there are 8784 hours in the series. The index number of the data point is what is shown. I was not making a point relating to the date or time of day, so there was no need to put anything more. I hope that helps.
How does this relate to the Weather Service chart that shows the measured temperatures at altitude? That chart shows a standard 3.5 degree decrease in temperature for each thousand feet of altitude gained from the Earth’s surface. This is an indication that there is nothing noticeably effecting air temperature except distance from the Earth’s surface.
It does not relate, so I have not made any point concerning temperature profiles in the atmosphere. The values in these two figures represent the energy being emitted to space as longwave radiation and the shortwave energy being reflected back to space. The point of these plots is to emphasize the rapid and large variations in both longwave emission and shortwave reflection. It is actively powered, not passive. This helps us see that the concept of the atmosphere as a static radiative insulating layer is incomplete and therefore misleading as to where to expect the absorbed solar energy to end up – will the incremental energy associated with static GHG “warming” be stored down here, or emitted back to space? The heat engine concept explains how it doesn’t make sense to expect this energy to accumulate down here to harmful effect, in the form of warming, from what GHGs do.
Replying again in case I misunderstood your question. In the sense of my whole essay, not just the plots, the heat engine motion of the atmosphere would indeed keep the standard temperature profile from differing much or any at all as GHG concentrations slowly rise.
I am in no position to question the validity of your paper. As a layman I am interested in having the public presented with information that gives them an easy-to-understand explanation why a CO2 level of one twenty-fourth of one percent of the atmosphere is not driving the Earth’s temperature or climate. Your paper seems to indicate that you would be capable of doing that.
I see. I appreciate that you think so. You can use this link to download a stand-alone pdf of my essay if you wish to share it with others.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EXNZohCFCRO33rYfNNhvbeQcS3XFmtfZ/view?usp=sharing
I will think about your suggestion.
Bill says:
“As a layman I am interested in having the public presented with information that gives them an easy-to-understand explanation why a CO2 level of one twenty-fourth of one percent of the atmosphere is not driving the Earth’s temperature or climate.”
Translation: I am interested in finding someone who can make up pseudo-scientific LIES, that sound like a convincing argument, that will fool a gullible, scientifically illiterate public.
Fact is, Bill, CO2 at these levels does drive changes in earth’s temperature and climate. Pretending otherwise is nothing but lying. Even your propaganda puppet master, Anthony Watts himself, admits this.
The current CO2 level is microscopic. A six- foot- tall man reduced to the same fraction of size as the CO2 level would be slightly less than 1/32d of an inch tall. A microscope would be needed to determine what he was. If you think this level of CO2 is driving the Earth’s temperature and climate you need an overhaul of your sense of proportion. You, and others with similar views have constructed a tiny scientific World that fits the size of the tiny man I described.
Here we go yet again with this tired old, long refuted “bu bu bu bu its too small to do anything” anti-science, anti-reality, lying denier canard.
Very small amounts of certain substances can have huge effects. For example: put .04% cyanide in your blood stream and then come back and report the results.
Oh never mind. You’d be dead.
“its too small to do anything” is nothing but ignorant and shameful stupidity.
And like I said before, Bill, even your propaganda puppet master, Anthony Watts himself, admits that the warming from the CO2 we’ve put into the air is real.
It’s time to stop living in a fairy tale world of denier delusions, Bill. It’s time to finally accept reality.
Nothing is more tired than these poison analogies. They are poor analogies since we are not talking about killing a human but rather warming a planet. Your failure to see this relates, once again, to your need for a sense of proportion overhaul. All the talk of forcings, flux and energy transfer regarding CO2 contain no apparent recognition of the minute size of the CO2 presence. No recognition that what they are saying is “a tempest in a teapot.” Face it, the CO2 presence in the atmosphere does not represent a heat blanket as much as it does a mosquito net.
re: “All the talk of forcings, flux and energy transfer regarding CO2 contain no apparent recognition of the minute size of the CO2 presence.”
Sorry, but still totally false. The energy transfer calculations fully recognize the size of the CO2 presence, and have done so from the very, very beginning, when these calculations were first done way back in the 19th century.
And again, as already stated multiple times now, even Anthony Watts himself admits that the warming effect of CO2 is real. Pretending otherwise remains every bit as silly as pretending that oxygen “doesn’t” support combustion.
Sorry, but this is one of the more ridiculous spews of pseudo-scientific garbage I’ve seen on the topic of climate change. It is pure nonsense trying to masquerade as “science”.
Specifically, Dibbell claims that:
“The minor incremental static warming effect from slowly increasing concentrations of GHGs is readily overwhelmed by the performance of the heat engine”
Wrong. Totally, laughably wrong.
This claim has already been refuted by the very fact that we’ve already had a significant greenhouse warming trend. If Dibbell’s claim were really “true”, then this warming trend we’ve been in over the past many decades should never have happened in the first place! It should already have been “readily overwhelmed by the performance of the heat engine”.
But as we all know, it hasn’t. Dibbell’s entire “argument” therefore goes completely down in flames.
Specifically, Dibbell’s “argument” is wrong because he conflates dynamic convection processes, which move energy within the earth’s heat engine, with radiative processes, which are the only process by which energy is moved out of the earth’s heat engine and into space. Dynamic convection processes cannot move energy out of the earth’s heat engine and into space. Dibbell’s lack of understanding on this point seems to be his downfall.
One can’t also help but object to Dibbell’s writing style; using “what else did NASA know?” “what else did NASA know?” “what else did NASA know?” over and over and over again. It is just SO disingenuous.
Dibbell is trying to falsely imply to the reader (i.e. LIE) that NASA has been trying to “hide” things that they knew long ago, apparently in order to promote some kind of nefarious warming “agenda”. For example, Dibbell implies that NASA had been trying to “hide” the 4th power radiative emissions versus temperature law. Oh please. How could NASA ever be trying to “hide” what has been well known scientific fact for almost 150 years? Such ludicrous garbage.
But what is the most ridiculous thing here is WUWT actually publishing this ignorant clap trap and even giving it some kind of Runner Up “award”. And reader after ignorant WUWT reader blindly lapping up this nonsense hook, line, and sinker.
The only “award” this essay deserves is as a prime example of the shameful pseudo-scientific hand waving fairy tale nonsense that WUWT denier cultists are so blindly willing to believe.
MGC, Thank you for taking the time to read my essay and to compose a comment. We obviously disagree. I look forward to reading your own essay entry on the theme “Is there really a climate crisis?” as WUWT invited last year. Perhaps it will come around any day now. I also invite you to re-read my essay to comprehend that I credit NASA with maintaining the web access to the article from which I quoted. I have not leveled a charge of “lying” nor of hiding things. I simply “opened the box” and reasoned from what was understood at that time to what must obviously still be so now. Have a good day.
Dibbell says: “I have not leveled a charge of “lying” nor of hiding things”
Oh please. Who do you think you are kidding. The very title of your essay “NASA Knew Better” exposes this claim as a lie. Your essay even includes an opening Pinocchio nose graphic for pete’s sake.
Several readers also commented here on what they saw in “reading between the lines” of your essay: charges of supposed NASA “lying” and “fraud” … and you actually thanked them for those kinds of comments. You never once corrected a single one of them.
Your statement “I simply opened the box” is nothing but intentionally obfuscating jibber jabber in order to dishonestly deny (i.e. lie about) the fact that yes, you are most certainly accusing NASA of “lying” and “hiding things”.
But NASA has not “hidden” anything, nor are they “lying”. NASA’s positions are backed by decades of carefully considered evidence and are supported by every major scientific organization in the entire world. You childishly imagine otherwise because you have only a ridiculously incorrect, pseudo-scientific “understanding” of what is occurring.
All in all, just another sorry example of the tragic ignorance and shameful dishonesty of WUWT content.
“However, as long as greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise, the amount of absorbed solar energy will continue to exceed the amount of thermal infrared energy that can escape to space. The energy imbalance will continue to grow, and surface temperatures will continue to rise.”
They got that upside down an THEY KNOW IT. The piece should have read
However, as long as the amount of absorbed solar energy will continue to exceed the amount of thermal infrared energy that can escape to space, as ocean temperatures continue to increase and CO2 solubility decrease, CO2’s partial pressures will find a balance ocean-atmosphere, and atmospheric CO2 concentrations will continue to rise.”
Oddgeir
Another WUWT nutter blindly parroting the lying denier fairy tale that the increase of CO2 in the air is due to “CO2 solubility decrease” in the oceans.
What the lying denier propaganda puppet masters never mentioned to Oddgeir is that the amount of CO2 in the oceans has been measured and is actually increasing. This data totally refutes this lying denier propaganda notion that the CO2 increase in the air is “not” because of human emissions.
Never A Straight Answer
“If temperature doubles, radiated energy increases by a factor of 16 (2 to the 4th power). If the temperature of the Earth rises, the planet rapidly emits an increasing amount of heat to space.”
This sounds a lot like Richard Lindzen’s “atmospheric iris effect” theory. If the atmosphere heats, more IR energy gets released to space.
This is not like Lindzen’s totally incorrect “Iris effect”.
Lindzen tried to pretend that his so-called “Iris effect” would somehow “prevent” temperatures from rising. The increase of heat emissions to space mentioned here, however, only occurs after warming has already taken place.
It’s apparent that you have not studied Lindzen’s work. I apologize to all for awakening the troll. I will no longer reply to this person.
Lindzen’s so-called “work” on his so-called “Iris Effect” cannot possibly be correct. If it were correct, then the much warmer temperatures during the dinosaur age could never have occurred. But they did. His “Iris Effect” was refuted before it was even published.
Folks will notice the head graphic for the post has been changed to show a NASA satellite for the CERES mission. I don’t want to give any more of those nasty trolls any reason to think that the point of my essay was to expose or imply lying. The more neutral factual point is that the NASA of past impressive technical accomplishment in space expressed its understanding of the climate system regarding the heat engine and related concepts, even while in some parts of the organization the static GHG warming alarm dominated the thinking.
Thanks to CtM for changing the graphic. It just doesn’t seem right to me to give the vocal detractors any unnecessary avenues of attack.
And to repeat myself: I greatly appreciate that my essay was posted here at WUWT.
I’ll also ask about this conclusion, that I’d commented on earlier:
“The minor incremental static warming effect from slowly increasing concentrations of GHGs is readily overwhelmed by the performance of the heat engine.”
If this claim were actually correct, then the warming trend we’ve observed to date should already have been “readily overwhelmed by the performance of the heat engine”, shouldn’t it? But it hasn’t been “readily overwhelmed”. Why not?
And what about the large and historically rapid PETM warming episode of 55 million years ago, that was also driven by release of large amounts of greenhouse gases into the air? Shouldn’t it have been “readily overwhelmed by the performance of the heat engine” as well? Why wasn’t it?