A Balancing Act

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

I’m a visual guy. I understand numbers, but not in tables. I make them into graphs and charts and maps so I can understand what’s going on. I got to thinking again about total absorbed radiation at the surface. Total radiation absorbed by the earth’s surface is a mix of longwave (thermal) and shortwave (solar) radiation. In my last post, Putting It Into Reverse, I looked at the correlation of that absorbed radiation with temperature.

So, being a visual guy, I created a global map of where this total radiation is being absorbed at the surface. But before showing that result, let me digress for a moment about the downwelling shortwave (solar) and downwelling longwave (thermal) radiation. (Note that “downwelling radiation” is radiation headed toward the Earth’s surface and “upwelling radiation” is headed to space.)

Solar radiation starts out as relatively constant at the top of the atmosphere. It’s around 340 watts per square meter (W/m2) as a 24/7 global average. It only varies about ± 0.1 W/m2 over the sunspot cycle.

Next, at any given time and location, somewhere between a little and a lot of the incoming solar is reflected by clouds and aerosols. The amount reflected varies by date, season, temperature, location, altitude, and local weather.

Next, of the remaining solar after reflection at that location, somewhere between a little and a lot of the downwelling solar radiation is absorbed in the atmosphere, mostly by clouds, water vapor, and aerosols (smoke, haze, volcanic aerosols, mineral dust). Again, the amount absorbed varies by date, season, temperature, location, aerosol type, and local weather.

Finally, when the sunshine reaches the surface, somewhere between a little and a lot of it is reflected back into space by the surface itself. Again, the amount reflected varies by date, season, water state (liquid vs ice vs snow), windiness, ground cover, location, altitude, and local weather.

In short, the amount of sunshine absorbed by the ground varies hugely in space and time on all scales.

Downwelling thermal radiation, on the other hand, is radiation emitted by several things in the atmosphere above us—by greenhouse gases such as water vapor and CO2, by aerosols, and by clouds.

The big variations in downwelling radiation are due to varying amounts of clouds, water vapor, and aerosols. CO2 is a fairly well-mixed gas, while on the contrary, water vapor can vary in a short distance from almost none to amounts large enough to condense. Again, the amount of thermal radiation emitted by water vapor, greenhouse gases, aerosols, and clouds varies by date, season, windiness, location, and local weather.

And as with solar radiation, clouds are the big variable. Clouds are almost a perfect blackbody with respect to thermal radiation. On a clear winter night when a cloud comes over, you can instantly feel the warmth. And as above, the amount of thermal radiation emitted by clouds varies by date, season, temperature, location, and local weather.

In short, just as with sunshine, the amount of thermal radiation absorbed by the ground varies hugely in space and time on all scales.

So with that as prologue, here is Figure 1, showing the total amount of radiation (shortwave + longwave) absorbed by the surface of the earth.

Figure 1. A 1° latitude by 1° longitude map of the total amount of radiation absorbed by the earth’s surface.

I gotta admit, I looked at that graphic when I first made it, scratched my head, and said “How very curious!”. I love surprises in science, and this was one of them.

Here’s what I found odd. The southern hemisphere is mostly water, with a block of ice-covered rock at the bottom. It’s very different from the northern hemisphere, which has much more land, and water instead of icy rock at the top.

From Figure 1, per square meter, the ocean is absorbing about 20% more downwelling radiation than the land. So you’d think that the southern hemisphere, with significantly more ocean, would be absorbing significantly more energy than the northern.

But it’s not. In fact, the two hemispheres are the same to the nearest tenth of a W/m2 … which is why I scratched my head and said “How very curious”.

Naturally, I wanted to know whether this was just a coincidence, or whether this hemispheric equality is an enduring feature of the climate system. So I looked at the changes over time. Here are annual averages for the period of the CERES satellite data.

Figure 2. Annual averages, total absorbed radiation, shortwave, and longwave.

Curiouser and curiouser. Year after year, the annual northern and southern total energy absorbed are nearly identical—half of the years, the two hemispheres were within a tenth of a percent (~ half a watt per square meter) of each other.

The longwave and shortwave components are equally interesting. Every single year, slightly more longwave radiation than shortwave is absorbed in the northern hemisphere. However, the reverse is true for shortwave radiation. Possibly because of the larger amount of ocean, in the southern hemisphere, more solar energy is absorbed than longwave. In any case, when longwave and shortwave are added, the total radiation absorbed by the two hemispheres are nearly identical.

Now, I started out by saying that because both solar and thermal radiation are functions of a variety of factors, with clouds leading the pack, they constantly vary in time and space. So a priori, we have no reason to assume that the two hemispheres would absorb the same radiation at the surface, and every reason to assume that they would not.

I mean, we have volcanoes and floods and droughts and forest fires and a whole bunch of things that affect downwelling longwave and shortwave radiation … and despite that, each hemisphere receives the same amount of radiation as the other, year after year.

Setting that oddity aside for a moment, the climate can be profitably analyzed as a giant heat engine. It turns incoming solar energy into the endless physical work of driving the motion of the oceans and the atmosphere against turbulence and friction. These oceanic and atmospheric movements carry heat polewards from the tropics, where it is radiated into space.

This unexpected stability over time of the total energy absorbed by the surface clearly indicates that this is a heat engine with a governor. And not only is there a governor. The governor works in part by controlling the climate heat engine’s throttle.

A “throttle” is any mechanism that regulates the amount of energy entering a heat engine. In your car, the throttle is what is controlled by your gas pedal. The clouds perform that function for the climate. They control the amount of energy entering the system by rejecting some of that incoming solar energy back into space. And not just a small amount. Hundreds of watts per square meter. Here’s an example, a day’s record from a moored TAO buoy on the Equator at 110° West (eastern Pacific Ocean).

Figure 3. Downwelling solar energy by the time of day, December 30, 1998.

You can see the clouds changing the amount of downwelling solar energy by several hundred watts per square meter within an hour or so.

And this throttling of the incoming solar energy must be a major part of what is behind the year-after-year stability of the amount of solar energy absorbed by each hemisphere individually and by both hemispheres together.

My hypothesis is that a hierarchy of emergent climate phenomena, mainly in the tropical oceans but elsewhere as well, regulate incoming energy. As can be seen in Figure 3 above, a typical tropical day starts out clear.

Figure 4. Typical tropical ocean early morning conditions. Cloudless sky.

Once a certain temperature threshold is passed, a cumulus cloud field is quickly established. This immediately reduces the amount of solar energy making it to the surface.

Figure 5. Typical tropical ocean late morning conditions. Cumulus field is developing. Cumulus clouds form at the top of the ascending parts of the circulating cells of air.

Then, when a higher temperature threshold is passed, some of the cumulus clouds develop into towering thunderstorms. These cause further reflective losses, as well as directly refrigerating the surface.

Figure 6. Typical tropical ocean afternoon to night conditions. Thunderstorm field develops.

All of these emergent transitions increase the amount of sunlight that is either reflected back to space or absorbed before it gets to the surface. And the timing of emergence, the number, and the strength of those phenomena are all temperature-threshold regulated.

The net result of all of this is that as temperatures go up, clouds form in response and cut down the total energy being absorbed by the surface. The following graph shows a gridcell by gridcell scatter plot of the temperature versus the surface net cloud radiative effect (CRE). The surface net cloud radiative effect (CRE) is the average change in total surface downwelling radiation that results from the presence of clouds.

Figure 7. Scatterplot, gridcell by gridcell temperature versus net cloud radiative effect (CRE). Gridcell size is 1° latitude by 1° longitude. There are a total of 64,800 gridcells shown above.

As you can see, when the temperature gets high, the clouds act strongly to reduce the energy reaching the surface. In many gridcells, clouds are cutting out more than 50 W/m2 of downwelling energy at the surface.

In any case, that’s my explanation for why, despite the hugely variable nature of clouds, water vapor, and aerosols, both in time and space, about the same amount of total radiation is absorbed by the two hemispheres every year. Temperature-threshold-dependent emergent climate phenomena act to cap the possible energy absorbed.

I’m more than happy to hear alternate theories for the unusual stability of the absorbed radiation at the surface. Please don’t say “thermal inertia” unless you can explain how “thermal inertia” is controlling the amount of downwelling solar energy.


Late summer afternoon here in our clearing in the redwood forest. Can’t see the ocean today, foggy at the coast, but no clouds here. My nine-month-old grandson cries in the kitchen, my daughter consoles him. My three-year-old granddaughter explains how she dropped her sock in the cat water. She wants me to play Arlo Guthrie’s “City of New Orleans” on the computer. Done, little lady, done.

The sun is slanting across the house clearing to the tall redwood forest trees visible through my window.

Bedtime for the girlie. She wants to fade out to “Mercury Blues“. I’m not complaining.

My best to each and every one of you, may your lives be full and overflowing.

w.

PS—When you comment, please QUOTE the exact words you are discussing. I can defend my own words. I can’t defend your restatement of them. Thanks.

5 39 votes
Article Rating
198 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Doug
August 25, 2022 10:23 am

Willis. I wish I had you as a resource when I was teaching science … As we know climate studies cover a wide spectrum of scientific disciplines , as your explanation above does. Hoping your family is well and you are blessed by it . I recently became a great grandfather twice, and one mor coming in October .

leitmotif
Reply to  Doug
August 26, 2022 12:42 pm

Willis. I wish I had you as a resource when I was teaching science

What have you got against science, Doug?

ResourceGuy
August 25, 2022 10:26 am

So are cosmic rays and clouds intermediaries for solar cycles?

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
August 25, 2022 11:44 am

Time to review Henrik Svensmark’s salient research on reducing solar activity allowing more cosmic rays through, prompting more cloud cover–and cooling.
Otherwise, an interesting article.

DMacKenzie
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
August 25, 2022 2:32 pm

Willis, your Fig. 7, when I saw it first a few months back, really made the light come on for me as to what controls the average temperature of the planet……answer of course is the variability of cloud cover with surface temp….Climate science owes you a huge debt for the intuitive way your graph clarifies the cloud feedback issue.

Frank from NoVA
August 25, 2022 10:39 am

Hmmm. Doesn’t look like CO2 is the ‘principal control knob governing Earth’s temperature’ now, does it?

Reply to  Frank from NoVA
August 25, 2022 7:38 pm

CO2 is one of many climate change variables
No one knows exactly what each variable does.
A lot of people claim to know

Coeur de Lion
August 25, 2022 10:41 am

Are we saying that there’s some sort of cloud-forced limit to global temperature?

Richard Page
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
August 25, 2022 12:59 pm

Well, a cloud based limit to solar energy.

Richard Page
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
August 25, 2022 1:52 pm

Would the relative humidity of the air change the way it forms or the timing of this system, Willis? Just wondering if drier air would cause the clouds to form later than more humid air, all other factors being equal(ish)?

John R T
Reply to  Richard Page
August 25, 2022 3:41 pm

When water vapor, among the lighter atmospheric components, cools enough, water/rain falls. Elemental O (~ 20% of sea-level air) comes along: fresh, sometimes bracing, fuel – for aerobic life.
Above the purple mountains, low pressure and temperature maintain our blue and green surface.
Eat hearty mate, and fear not.

Richard Page
Reply to  John R T
August 25, 2022 4:39 pm

I appreciate your comment but was really thinking about the situation over Europe and UK this summer when (here in the UK) we had dry air moving up from Africa, then about 2-3 days of increasing temperatures before the clouds formed and the air cooled with thunderstorms and rain. Willis’ article got me thinking that it was a similar process but over a longer period of time than he describes for the tropics.

mal
Reply to  Richard Page
August 25, 2022 5:11 pm

I live in Arizona we had a very active monsoon; we went for over a month of not hitting out normal highs of 107 F. We had more days this summer where we did not hit 100 F as opposed to the days, we were above 110. Yet the patch of ground that I own missed out on most of the rain.

gbaikie
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
August 25, 2022 2:32 pm

Most energy Earth surface absorbs is within the ocean, and tropical ocean absorbs most of energy. And tropical ocean has some sort of cloud-force limit.

We have been in an ice house climate for 33.9 million years [called Late Cenozoic Ice Age]
Our ocean has average temperature 3.5 C. We in a ice house global climate because we have a cold ocean.
The average global surface air temperature of about 15 C, is due to ocean surface temperature which has average surface temperature higher than average surface temperature of the land. Global land surface temperature is about 10 C. During a day land surface temperature can heat up quickly and then cool down quickly at night. Ocean surface takes longer to warm up and cool down.
Ocean surface waters can transported poleward.
Tropical ocean surface waters are transported upward towards Europe which increase the surface land temperatures Europe.
And heat from tropical surface waters warms global atmosphere- and is known as the global heat engine.
The average ocean temperature of 3.5 C is largely about keeping polar water warmer.
Or simply, if you had average ocean temperature of about 5 C. there would be no polar sea ice. And having polar ocean surface being liquid rather than frozen, keeps polar regions warmer.
Earth is warmest during interglacial periods, and warmest average temperature ocean gets is about 4 C.
Though we in coldest times of the Late Cenozoic Ice Age, millions of years ago the ocean average temperature could reached 5 C, and most of the 33.9 million year was with ocean 5 C or warmer. And were the ocean to have average ocean temperature of 10 C, we would not
be in an ice house global climate.

tty
Reply to  gbaikie
August 28, 2022 10:28 am

And were the ocean to have average ocean temperature of 10 C, we would not
be in an ice house global climate.”

Which is not going to happen as long as East Antarctica is ice-covered and the katabatic winds off the ice-cap keeps creating more AABW (Antarctic Bottom Water)

August 25, 2022 10:44 am

So can we infer that rising temperature due to longwave radiation from CO2 would only achieve the result of decreasing the amount of solar shortwave and longwave radiation reaching the surface?

Mike
August 25, 2022 10:52 am

Thanks for this.

The warmist claim that increasing atmospheric CO2 results in a positive temperature feedback loop with water vapor is patently absurd and was one of the first obvious lies that made me question “global warming” decades ago. As an engineer we learn in first year that systems governed by positive feedback are unstable and fall apart very quickly. Historic CO2 levels have been orders of magnitude higher than they are today. If the assumed positive feedback actually existed we would have become Venus long before humans came along.

What you are describing is, of course, a negative feedback that helps to keep the system stable.

Any engineer that believes in global warming should have their accreditation revoked.

D Thomas
Reply to  Mike
August 25, 2022 11:02 am

the Northern Hemisphere seems to be experiencing significant drought conditions in areas of North America, Europe, and Asia this summer. Is this more likely to be happening in a warming hemisphere or a cooling hemisphere?

Mike
Reply to  D Thomas
August 25, 2022 12:26 pm

I have no idea. My (admittedly limited) research on droughts indicates they are highly variable and have not shown a distinct pattern of increasing or decreasing over the past several decades. The US experienced significantly higher drought conditions in the 1930s than what they are experiencing today. This appeared to correspond to higher overall temperatures in the 30s until those temperatures were “corrected”.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  D Thomas
August 25, 2022 1:10 pm

Much of the areas that are experiencing drought today, at least in the US, are classified as semi-arid deserts. They have *always* had droughts. That’s why the prairie grasses of the Great Plains evolved with root systems that go 8′ or more deep looking for water. It’s why cactus and desert flowers developed the way they are today.

Nothing new under the sun?

roaddog
Reply to  Tim Gorman
August 25, 2022 1:29 pm

Exactly.

Old Man Winter
Reply to  D Thomas
August 25, 2022 1:52 pm

“the Northern Hemisphere seems to be experiencing significant drought
conditions in areas of North America, Europe, and Asia this summer”

As usual, the first step is to verify whether what the MSM reports
is accurate. The Southern Plains were having a heat wave & drought
but those seem to have broken a bit. This spring, N US & S Canada &
the UK had a very late, cold spring. The MSM’s reporting there’s also
drought in New Mexico & Arizona. Both states are getting record
rains so the reports are Fake News. What’s happened in Europe &
Asia has happened before & will happen again.

The Arctic & Greenland are also doing just fine so the lie
of massive ice loss is falling apart & they need the
heat/drought hype to keep up the scare factor. Since the
MSM are known serial liars, it’s more than likely at least
some of what they say isn’t true and/or they’re not reporting what doesn’t fit their narrative!

https://realclimatescience.com/2022/08/not-hype-or-exaggeration-2/

https://realclimatescience.com/2022/08/inverted-journalism/

Last edited 3 months ago by Old Man Winter
John R T
Reply to  Old Man Winter
August 25, 2022 4:12 pm

2Q winter sports: favorable conditions – persisted later in NH, commenced earlier in SH.
? Recipe: drought (less water) downwind < longer ski-season (ice and snow) upwind?

mal
Reply to  Old Man Winter
August 25, 2022 5:16 pm

I had a good friend say the drought in Europe was from global warming. He did not know how to answer the warning from the 13th century that was carved into the rock on the river bottoms in Europe. Yet they had remained unread until now.

Reply to  mal
August 26, 2022 4:35 am

Would you have a link to these? What did they say?

Richard Page
Reply to  Alastair Brickell
August 26, 2022 5:02 am

There’s some good articles on the net, lots of history of them even though they’re only from a very small stretch of the Elbe on the German/Czech border and on the Rhine. One says “If you see me, weep” (1616) another had “When you see this stone again, you’ll cry, so shallow was the water in the year 1417” others: “Girl, don’t cry and moan when it’s dry, water the fields instead” from the 1930’s, “When this stone submerges, life becomes more cheerful again”. The earliest known stone is from 1115 and, predictably, Greenpeace got in on the act in 2018 having one inscribed “When you see me, the climate is in crisis” despite the obvious evidence that this has been happening quite often for over 900 years.

Reply to  Richard Page
August 28, 2022 5:42 am

Thanks Richard.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Alastair Brickell
August 26, 2022 5:49 am

if u can rd ths u can b a sctry and get a gd jb?

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Alastair Brickell
August 26, 2022 9:06 am

https://nypost.com/2022/08/23/dinosaur-tracks-discovered-in-texas-after-drought-dries-up-river/

While it is certain that other geological factors were at play it appears that climate has also been a factor, e.g. the amount of rain in the area over a long period of time. The tracks were laid down in a period of low surface water depth and then covered during higher levels of surface water depth. They have now emerged. So the climate must have been about the same as today over time or the tracks would have disappeared sooner or later.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Old Man Winter
August 26, 2022 6:35 am

The MSM’s reporting there’s also drought in New Mexico & Arizona. “

Both of these are semi-arid or arid deserts. Guess what happens in those type of environments?

Kalsel3294
Reply to  D Thomas
August 25, 2022 2:41 pm

Whatever is happening in any part of the planet has to be considered together with what is happening on the other side of the planet. Currently Australia is in a period of above average rain and floods. A friend recalled how Utah was experiencing floods in 1981, at that time Australia was entering a period of below average rain leading to widespread drought in 1982-1983.

Robert W Turner
Reply to  D Thomas
August 25, 2022 3:37 pm

Well the glacial periods are much dryer than interglacial periods that we are in, so cooling.

Robert W Turner
Reply to  Robert W Turner
August 25, 2022 3:38 pm

Not to mention a more likely scenario when the Pacific is in La Nina.

AntonyIndia
Reply to  D Thomas
August 25, 2022 8:20 pm

Not in Pakistan or India: regional floodings.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Mike
August 25, 2022 2:08 pm

Was a drought, still is to some extent but it has been a relatively wet year here on the canadian prairies as evidenced by the rolling fields everywhere
And as noted previously every day when I open my weather radar app i see rain all across the USA west except for the coast.

Seems to me like the drought in much of the west might be over, although I’m sure that too is the fault of us as well.

How could it not be, everything is

Steve Z
Reply to  Mike
August 25, 2022 2:29 pm

The people claiming that additional CO2 in the atmosphere would create a positive feedback loop with water vapor have overlooked one of the basic tenets of engineering: at the start of a problem, do a mass and energy balance.

If additional CO2 in the atmosphere is supposed to (according to warmist theory) lead to more water vapor in the atmosphere, the additional water vapor has to come from somewhere, presumably by evaporation from a body of liquid water. Evaporating water requires a large amount of heat–about 580 calories per gram of water at 25 C. By comparison, warming a cubic meter of dry air at 25 C and sea level-pressure by 1 degree C requires only about 290 calories.

Suppose that a rise in CO2 level led to a cubic meter of air being heated by 1 C, thereby absorbing 290 calories. This would be enough heat to vaporize 0.5 grams of water, which would increase the humidity (mole fraction water vapor) in that 1 m3 of air by 0.068%, and the air is back to its original temperature.

The mass of air over a square meter of ocean is equivalent to a column of air about 10.3 km high at sea-level pressure. Even if the additional water vapor is distributed only over the bottom 3 km (above which it would likely condense and form clouds), if the entire column of air is warmed by 1 C, it would provide heat to vaporize enough water to increase the humidity by 0.068% / 3000 = 0.000023%.

Since the air over the tropical oceans usually contains at least 2% water vapor, this would only increase relative humidity by about 0.001%, so that the “positive feedback” of IR absorption from additional water vapor in the air would be extremely weak. The heat required to vaporize the water represents a strong NEGATIVE feedback, tending to suck heat out of the air over bodies of water.

By the way, I am a chemical engineer, and the above calculations are based on the ideal-gas law and thermodynamic properties of air and liquid and vapor water, which most engineers learn during their freshman year. Why is it that the geniuses at IPCC never learned them?

Richard Page
Reply to  Steve Z
August 25, 2022 4:48 pm

I would have considered CO2 to be completely irrelevant to the amount of water in the atmosphere. As to your last point, most ‘climate scientists’ no longer study courses that would give them the answers because, apparently, the maths is too difficult. Instead their courses just give them overly simplistic statistics and ‘cos it’s CO2’ answers to regurgitate at will.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Richard Page
August 26, 2022 10:12 am

That is because half of the incoming solar is near IR and readily absorbed by water and very little by CO2.

solar_radiation_spectrum.jpg
Tim Gorman
Reply to  Steve Z
August 26, 2022 7:41 am

Far too many climate “scientists” are mathematicians, statisticians, and computer programmers. Many of today’s climate scientist-physicists never learn any thermodynamics beyond what is Physics 101, they would be able to use a set of steam tables if their life depended on it.

If they learned to use enthalpy in their models instead of a linear regression of temperature, they might get closer to actually understanding the biosphere. But that’s *never* going to happen, too much money is at stake.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
August 26, 2022 10:07 am

they would wouldn’t be able to use a set of steam tables if their life depended on it.”

Fixed it for you.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Jim Gorman
August 26, 2022 12:40 pm

Thank you.

Krishna Gans
August 25, 2022 10:59 am

A different way to explain the Earth’ thermostat that you explained much earlier.

Edim
August 25, 2022 11:02 am

Very nice Willis. Could you please make three separate graphs out of your figure 2? It would be nice to see the variability and the trends (with different y axis scale).

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
August 25, 2022 3:44 pm

Willis, I’ll second Edim’s comment that this is very nice work. As it’s been five hours since you posted this piece, I’m curious that none of our GCM friends have yet to respond. Specifically, I would have expected something along the lines of ‘nothing to see here, our models show the same NH / SH equivalence’. So a question for those more quantitative than me is ‘are the GCMs consistent with your findings’?

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
August 25, 2022 4:28 pm

Short simple answer, since I looked at CMIP4, 5, and to the extent available 6—NO. They are not consistent.
Clouds wrong.
Rainfall wrong factor 2x.
Tropical troposphere hotspot modeled where none exists thanks to mechanisms WE yet again shows.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
August 26, 2022 10:19 am

Confessions of a climate scientist by Mototaka Nakamura is enlightening about the lack of science on the oceans in the GCM’s. It is on Amazon for free. Search for his name or try this link. Although it is in Japanese, he has included a lot of English sections.

https://www.amazon.com/kikoukagakushanokokuhaku-chikyuuonndannkahamikennshounokasetsu-Japanese-Nakamura-Mototaka-ebook/dp/B07FKHF7T2/ref=zg_bs_8407550011_sccl_1/140-8548110-5661532?pd_rd_i=B07FKHF7T2&psc=1

You will quickly see why GCM’ists don’t want to address the shortcomings.

Wim Röst
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
August 25, 2022 9:56 pm

Willis: “That’s the subject of a future post.”

WR: It would be interesting to know temperature, SW and LW for 10N-10S on the one hand and 80N-90N and 80S-90S on the other hand. Seasonal data also will be interesting given the relationship with temperature.

August 25, 2022 11:08 am

So kind of a self-governing system. Makes sense for me. the planet’s been occupied by various lifeforms for very long time, and they haven’t fried yet.

Felix
Reply to  Derek Wood
August 25, 2022 1:00 pm

And with variable and increasing sun output the whole time.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Felix
August 25, 2022 1:33 pm

Along with major variations of atmospheric CO2 levels that have NEVER shown ANY influence on the Earth’s temperature.

Ben Vorlich
August 25, 2022 11:19 am

The BBC has had an item on several News broadcasts complaining about Google changing their method of calculating the climate impact of your flight. In particular they (Rowlatt was the reporter I think) were concerned because contrails have an impact on warming, by implication a permanent effect a la CO2. Now I thought that the 9-11 flight grounding for three days showed the effect of contrails was to reduce the range between day-night temperatures.
The UK Government website says there’s been a fivefold increase in air travel in the last 30 years, I assume that this is passengers rather than flights and more efficient engines mean the increase in contrails is not fivefold.

Does your data go back far enough to show any effect, as I’d expect the Northern Hemisphere to have been affected more than the Southern?

David L. Hagen
August 25, 2022 11:25 am

Willis. Compliments! Fascinating uniformity in North vs South hemispheres from earth’s heat engine between warm equator and cold poles – especially with such large variations in the cloud, land, and ocean components!
I would welcome your further explorations & discussion as to why areas from -4C to -60C are Warming per Fig. 7 “temperature versus net cloud radiative effect (CRE)”

Last edited 3 months ago by David L. Hagen
Sweet Old Bob
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
August 25, 2022 2:59 pm

And , if I understand Big Joe B . , polar warming is due to increased humidity from “global” warming .

Arctic warming only occurs in winter , from DMI site.

Last edited 3 months ago by Sweet Old Bob
Dave Fair
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
August 26, 2022 8:28 am

Willis, could that be a driver of Polar Amplification?

M Courtney
August 25, 2022 11:32 am

OK. So it looks like clouds.,
But let’s try and think of anything else it could be.

How about plants (or algae)? The more down-welling radiation hits the surface the more the colour changes. Maybe the reflectivity too.

Can anyone think of anything else to consider?

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
August 25, 2022 12:53 pm

Fascinating!

I wonder what happened in the geological past when there were/was no plankton?

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Alastair Brickell
August 25, 2022 1:27 pm

That would have been a VERY long time ago. The Great Oxidation Event (aka GOE or the ‘Rusting’) took place between about 2.4 and 2 billion years ago. The oxygen was produced by oceanic phytoplanckton and blue/green algal mats as shown by the stromatolites they left behind

Reply to  Rud Istvan
August 25, 2022 3:17 pm

Yes, Rud, you’re quite right. It would have been VERY, VERY long ago with the first stromatolites appearing almost 3.6 billion years ago! I guess there’s been life of one sort of another in the oceans affecting the climate since then. It’s obviously all their fault! We’re off the hook.

H. D. Hoese
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
August 25, 2022 2:28 pm

New experiment on ocean surface boundary, darn surfactants.
Rahlff, J. et al. 2019. Oxygen Profiles Across the Sea-Surface Microlayer—Effects of Diffusion and Biological Activity. Front. Mar. Sci., Sec. Marine Biogeochemistry. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00011

“Thereby, we found that plankton, but not neuston metabolic activity was the main driver of O2 gas exchange across the SML, although neuston activity may exceed plankton activity by one order of magnitude……While transferability from laboratory to field proves difficult, studying O2 profiles across the air-water boundary might further elucidate biological and physical aspects that act on gas fluxes.”

M Courtney
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
August 25, 2022 11:58 pm

Thank you for the reply. Very interesting.
But it does make the similarity between North and South even more curious.

Richard M
Reply to  M Courtney
August 25, 2022 1:01 pm

There’s another more immediate feedback that pretty much eliminates the claimed warming effect of CO2. I mention it every now and then. Let’s call it boundary layer feedback.

The boundary layer (lowest ~1 km of the atmosphere) is known to exist in thermal equilibrium with the surface. Hence, any IR transmitted from within the boundary layer and absorbed by the surface has minimal or no warming effect on the surface.

The reason is that the surface will almost immediately respond to any warming by moving energy from the surface back into the boundary layer. This is a requirement for two bodies in thermal equilibrium.

A very high percentage of back radiation from atmospheric CO2 which reaches the surface comes from the boundary layer. Probably close to 99%. Instead of producing warming, the energy is transmitted back into the boundary layer via conduction, radiation and enhanced evaporation.

Think of the boundary layer and the surface exchanging energy constantly. Probably 1000s of W/M2. It doesn’t produce warming because it goes in both directions. The change from doubling CO2 of 3.7 W/M2 just changes the directional exchange rate slightly.

Richard M
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
August 26, 2022 6:23 am

Willis, nothing really changes if the sea surface is slightly warmer. There’s an energy flow balance maintained to create a stead state. Because of the direct contact of the two elements under consideration, any changes to that steady state would lead to changes in the flow of energy. Thus, you still get a return of energy to the atmosphere in addition to higher evaporation rates.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Richard M
August 26, 2022 6:40 am

Kind of like the inner and outer wall of an outside wall. As long as the inside temp is constant and the outside temp is constant the flow of energy from inside to outside (or vice versa) remains the same.

Do I have this right?

Richard M
Reply to  Tim Gorman
August 26, 2022 7:23 am

Yes, that’s a reasonable analogy. The big difference would be the speed at adjusting to changes. The atmospheric boundary layer quickly responds due to direct contact.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
August 26, 2022 10:32 am

This is what Planck calls compensation. It occurs because one body is radiating more than the other, i.e., hot and cold. The hot body radiates at its temperature continuously regardless of what energy is absorbed from the cold body. The net radiation is what we know as the S-B equation where (Th^4 – Tc^4) controls the net. What happens is the cooling gradient of the hot body is reduced so it continues to radiate at Th for a longer time?

That’s why at equilibrium, radiation is just passed equally back and forth with no net.

John Sandhofner
August 25, 2022 11:49 am

Well done Willis. Fairly easy to track what you were saying. Makes sense.

dk_
August 25, 2022 12:02 pm

Interesting. Maybe it is just my faulty perception, but your discussion seems to have some correspondence to Andy May Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis III article.

What might be the comparative rates, between land and ocean, at which absorbed energy is re-radiated into space?
For how much time per day does a surface absorb radiation and how much time does it emit thermal radiation?
Is there a breakover (triple, quadruple?) point of incoming radiation, air density, air pressure, humidity, at which a material stops absorbing and begins emitting?
Is there a stability between the two states or is there a sharp cutover?

tgasloli
August 25, 2022 12:16 pm

Water controls the climate. Water is why the climate is stable. Water and a stable climate is why there is life on earth.

Climate science & the climate hysteria treats the normal variation of the stable climate as catastrophic events which must have a “cause”. The money to be made says the “cause” is CO2.

Joachim
August 25, 2022 12:25 pm

One thing is missing: About half of absorped radiation over oceans goes into the oceans below 20 meters depth. And nobody can say what the time lag is until this energy appears measurably in C/F on the water surface/global temperature. It may be decades or centuries? -There also was, years ago, the topic of the “missing heat”, when tghe heat was “hiding in the depth”. Nobody knows when this heat is about to appear in the atmosphere and affect the weather/climate..
Therefore: Absorption is one side only, global warming effect has a time lag, which needs to be assessed.

Robert W Turner
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
August 25, 2022 4:11 pm

the upper ocean loses about as much energy every night as it gained during the day”

The key word is “about” as much.
Over longer periods, the vertical ocean currents could matter. The upwelling currents in the Pacific especially seem to have a large impact on the radiation balance.

Yooper
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
August 26, 2022 3:59 am

Don’t forget the effect of the DLS’s daily up/down migration. That’s millions of tons of living matter moving in/through the mixed layer every night.

taxed
August 25, 2022 12:26 pm

Over recent years l have noticed there has been a increase in jet stream activity over the tropics. With increased jet stream activity comes the chance of increased wind shear.
Am wondering if increased wind shear at the top of the head of storm clouds makes them more efficient at removing from the surface ?. As this forces the storm to work harder and with wind shear the heat that is pumped up into the upper air by the storm is more likely to be spread over a larger area and so become more efficient at losing this heat.

taxed
Reply to  taxed
August 25, 2022 12:31 pm

” makes them them more efficient at removing heat from the surface ?.

Is what l should have wrote

Rud Istvan
August 25, 2022 1:06 pm

WE, an interesting supporting factoid to your figure 1 is that observationally the northern and Southern Hemisphere albedos are almost exactly identical despite great differences in ocean/land ratios. This was shown in a paper by Dateris and Steven’s in AGU Advances in 2021. Easy to find on line. Just Google hemispheric albedos.

JCM
August 25, 2022 1:22 pm

Plotting Figure 1 divided by surface temperature over the CERES period will yield the spatial variation of surface dissipation in units of W m-2 per K. Or the amount of radiant energy used per unit of K.

roaddog
August 25, 2022 1:30 pm

Brilliant. Thank you. The comments about family are appreciated as well.

Bob
August 25, 2022 1:37 pm

Very nice, easy to understand.

Stephen Wilde
August 25, 2022 1:42 pm

A good post with useful information.
The reality is that it is a variable rate of convective overturning within atmosphere and oceans that keeps the system so stable and that variability neutralises any thermal effect from radiative material in the atmosphere.
The clouds and all other emergent phenomena are simply the visible manifestation of that variability in convective overturning.
Willis’s hypothesis is perfectly correct but the underlying mechanism is the variable rate of convection.
Indeed, as shown by the articles posted by me and Philip Mulholland the so called greenhouse effect is actually a product of convective overturning within atmospheres and not due to back radiation at all.
Any excess energy created within an atmosphere by radiative gases or particulate material simply accelerates local convection.
Since what goes up must come down there is an instant enhancement of descent elsewhere so that additional energy is simultaneously delivered back to the surface in that other location.
Having been returned to the surface beneath the descending column it is immediately radiated to space thereby neutralising the thermal effect of additional energy within the rising column.
Convection both creates and modulates the greenhouse effect so as to indefinitely maintain hydrostatic equilibrium for the atmosphere as a whole. If it were not so then very few planets would have atmospheres but we know that virtually all of them do and they have infinitely variable proportions of radiative gases.
The radiative greenhouse proposition is, quite simply, bad science.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
August 25, 2022 2:24 pm

“Any excess energy created within an atmosphere by radiative gases or particulate material simply accelerates local convection.”

That’s what it looks like.

No Run-a-way Greenhouse effect.

Robert W Turner
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
August 25, 2022 4:59 pm

Any excess energy created within an atmosphere by radiative gases or particulate material”

Yes the fact that there is no observed ‘super radiative feedback’ from the particulate material of the Sahara/Arabian Deserts is one of several direct observations that disprove the back radiation feedback hypotheses. Instead, these regions lose more energy to space than they get from the sun.

eyesonu
August 25, 2022 2:10 pm

Willis,
Not much if anything I can add other than to say you’ve got it covered. I know, I know I’m just being a chearleader but the clouds are what does it! And the phase change is what does the clouds.

arjan duiker
August 25, 2022 2:15 pm

Dear Willis, about “Curiouser and curiouser.” It’s indeed very curious both NH and SH equally absorbing electromagnetic radiation when averaged over long period of time, because of the reasons you’ve mentioned.

The question I have for a long time w.r.t. all your analyses is, how confident are you about the certainty that your input indeed represents the physical quantities you presume you’re dealing with? I mean, there’s quit some data processing required from the radiation that’s been picked up by satellite sensors and a fit for purpose data file representing quantities like LW, SW, temperature, moist level etc.

Please don’t get me wrong, I consider your analyses (I’ve read most of them for the past 8 years) highly valuable, most interesting and must more worthwhile than all GCM’s and IPCC reports combined! But, is there any chance (or risk) that there might be a screw-up due to for instance data processing that contains iteration or circular reasoning? Might be a silly question, but I’m just a layman. I’m sure you’ve got an answer. Thanks in advance.

arjan duiker
Reply to  arjan duiker
August 25, 2022 2:17 pm

typo….much more worthwhile

arjan duiker
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
August 27, 2022 12:18 pm

Clear, thanks for taking the time to respond.

David Dibbell
August 25, 2022 2:20 pm

Thanks for this excellent post, Willis. Very interesting about the NH and SH equal absorption at the surface.

Pat from kerbob
August 25, 2022 2:22 pm

You know, not trying to suck up here but I sure like WE posts and follow up answers.

Seems like how it should be done. Done care if he might be 100% wrong, seems to be following the process.

That counts for a lot.

Should do a clockwork orange thing on Mikey Mann, strapped to a chair with eyes propped open, forced to read all these posts in an endless loop until he gets its.
In the end he curls up on the ground throwing up whenever someone says consensus or settled science.

I know, he never will.
Added bonus points.

Last edited 3 months ago by Pat from Kerbob
Kalsel3294
August 25, 2022 2:32 pm

That it is accepted that CO2 is a well mixed gas is something I wonder about. Why is it so?
I can understand how H2O can move in and out of the atmosphere given how it changes state in the natural variations of temperature, but what is the mechanism for CO2. Given that all life on earth is carbon based, the natural residence of CO2 should be at the earths surface.
Is it just by random that any CO2 molecule happens to find itself captured when it comes too close to the surface much as insects are captured in a trap or is there some other mechanism that ensures that any that is sequestered is replenished, or is it that the current low inventory of CO2 in the atmosphere is not really a standard condition in the evolution of life on earth?

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Kalsel3294
August 25, 2022 2:51 pm

It is not perfectly well mixed, as the CO2 sensing satellite shows. But for all practical purposes over any significant extent and time it is, via wind and weather.
The opposite of water vapor, very low at the poles and over deserts, over 4% over tropical oceans.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Rud Istvan
August 26, 2022 7:46 am

Upper atmosphere CO2 may be well-mixed. I’ve never seen anything that actually proves that assumption for the first 6′ of the atmosphere. Gravity is going to create a CO2 gradient from the surface upwards. The high end of that gradient will be at the earth’s surface and, therefore, dependent on the generation of CO2 at the surface which is not equal everywhere.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Kalsel3294
August 26, 2022 7:43 am

Think gravity. What does gravity do to a CO2 molecule?

Eng_Ian
August 25, 2022 3:02 pm

Is it a type, third paragraph. Shouldn’t the incoming radiation at the top of the atmosphere be 1340W/m2?

Eng_Ian
Reply to  Eng_Ian
August 25, 2022 3:03 pm

typO. Damn sticky fingers, or is it spell check?

OweninGA
Reply to  Eng_Ian
August 25, 2022 3:33 pm

In climate science they try to integrate sunlight over the 24 hour day (half of which is dark) and say it is an “average” that is about 1/4 of the instantaneous noontime whole. 1/4 is actually a pretty close first order estimate of that integral.

leitmotif
Reply to  Eng_Ian
August 25, 2022 3:58 pm

Not a typo. That’s what proponents of the 4 weak suns hypothesis believe. They add, subtract, multiply and divide solar fluxes They even add radiations of different wavelengths together. It’s great fun.

Don’t even ask what they do with temperatures and their intensive properties.

RickWill
Reply to  Eng_Ian
August 25, 2022 7:36 pm

Area of a circle is pi * r^2. Area of a sphere is 4 * pi * r^2. The Sun’s “view” of Earth is a circle. The ratio of the entire surface area to the view circle is 4 times. The solar constant is taken as something like 1360W/m^2 at Earth’s average distance from the sun over the perpendicular “view” surface. That becomes 340W/m^2 when averaged over the surface area.

It is just geometry. You can test it out with a solar panel watching how the output varies as the angle shifts relative to the line to the sun or any light source.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  RickWill
August 26, 2022 10:46 am

Not exactly. Your explanation means everywhere gets the same average radiation from the poles to the equator. That isn’t true. The radiation absorbed varies by latitude and longitude. A point on the earth doesn’t begin absorbing the “average” at sunrise and doesn’t continue to absorb the average until sunset. It wouldn’t matter if there wasn’t that T^4th term in the radiation equation. There are sin and cos terms that must be applied to apportion the radiation accurately to each point on the earth so that temperature and enthalpy variations can be explained.

James Davidson
August 25, 2022 3:24 pm

Willis: The Sun emits radiation in the electromagnetic spectrum which runs from long wavelength radio waves to short wavelength gamma radiation. You say: ” Downwelling thermal radiation is radiation emitted by several things in the atmosphere above us.” In fact, of the light that reached the Earth’s surface from the Sun, infrared radiation makes up about 50%, visible light makes up about 40% and about 10% is ultraviolet radiation. This 10% UV radiation is enough to sterilize the surface of the Earth were it not reduced by about 70% in the ozone layer. Planck”s equation states that the energy of a photon depends on it’s frequency ( e=hf,) It is the more energetic UV-B and UV-C which are absorbed by the ozone layer. Ozone, O3, is very reactive and would quickly disappear if it was not continuously renewed by photosynthesis. So we have the anomaly that life on Earth could not exist until there was life on Earth. Even so, a photon of UV-A has an energy of about 4 electron volts. ( a photon of infrared has an energy of 0.04 electron volts.) Which do you think will cause more heating? (A wee hint: which gives you sunburn? ) And what about the energy of UV-A and UV-B? That goes to make the thermopause and the thermosphere. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that heat will only flow down a temperature gradient, from a warmer body to a colder body. Implicit in this is the fact that the rate of heat loss depends on the temperature difference between the warmer body and the cooler body. The presence of the thermosphere, it seems to me, implies that the rate of cooling of the Earth is slowed down. We see this on a cloudy day, (or night.) As water vapor condenses, it releases the latent heat of evaporation, about 540 cals per gramm of water vapor condensed to a gram of liquid water. This raises the temperature at the cloud condensation level, and reduces the rate at which the Earth cools, ( something er have all experienced!) So I think you were wrong to say that downwelling thermal radiations is radiation emitted by several things in the atmosphere above us. Of the bandwidth of solar radiation, about 50% is infrared (thermal) radiation. Presumably this solar IR is also captured by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and re-radiated in random directions, and it would be impossible to say which downwelling IR radiation originated on the Earth and which on the Sun

leitmotif
August 25, 2022 3:35 pm

Solar radiation starts out as relatively constant at the top of the atmosphere. It’s around 340 watts per square meter (W/m2) as a 24/7 global average.

What is the significance of this statement? How does a global average solar radiation (W/m2) have any meaning?

I switch my 2kW electric fire on for an hour, then off for 2 hours, then on at half heat 1kW for 2 hours. So the average over the 5 hours is 800W. But the average is not what I did and neither did the sun.

From Figure 1, per square meter, the ocean is absorbing about 20% more downwelling radiation than the land. So you’d think that the southern hemisphere, with significantly more ocean, would be absorbing significantly more energy than the northern.

But it’s not. In fact, the two hemispheres are the same to the nearest tenth of a W/m2 … which is why I scratched my head and said “How very curious”.

Or it could be that the DLR part of the Downwelling Radiation Absorbed is just more back radiation BS.

Figure 2. Annual averages, total absorbed radiation, shortwave, and longwave.

Earlier, you were averaging solar fluxes and now you are adding together radiation with different wavelengths. You’ve taken apples and oranges and made a fruit cocktail.

Figure 3. Downwelling solar energy by the time of day, December 30, 1998.

That’s the reality. That’s what really happens. That’s what evidence looks like.

Christopher Chantrill
August 25, 2022 4:26 pm

You know, Willis. This is what I call Science.

Making things as simple as possible, but no simpler.

RickWill
August 25, 2022 4:26 pm

All of these emergent transitions increase the amount of sunlight that is either reflected back to space or absorbed before it gets to the surface. And the timing of emergence, the number, and the strength of those phenomena are all temperature-threshold regulated.

The thresholds observed over oceans are:
30C ocean surface is WOT for the atmosphere. It is the point where cloud persistence limits the available energy to the heat engine to drive the convective towers. It can go higher over land because the surface temperature can respond in a day. Once the open ocean surface reaches 30C the surface energy flux is zero. All the surface solar input goes into evaporation at the hot end of the heat engine.

26C is where the surface sunlight reaches its maximum. SST is negatively correlated with solar EMR when surface gets above 26C. This is due to low level divergence to warm pools. It is the lower limit of the Nino34 region because it is either a divergent zone below 30C or a convergence zone at 30C.

22C is where you will observe change in clouds because that is the temperature where the atmosphere above the LFC can be fully saturated and where cloudburst forming anvil towers can occur.

15C is required to produce an LFC where the clouds transform from grey and lifeless to fluffy.

4C is the sea ice limit. Water cooler than this on average will form sea ice annually and that dramatically reduces the heat loss.

More details here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/07/23/ocean-atmosphere-response-to-solar-emr-at-top-of-the-atmosphere/

Deep convection is the process that regulates Earth’s energy balance. It has nothing to do with a “greenhouse effect”.

The most important question to answer is – why do oceans ever have clear skies. Why aren’t oceans in thermal equilibrium with their atmosphere and the atmosphere fully saturated? There are thousands of kilometres of open water from any significant land mass and yet oceans still get clear skies. Why isn’t the atmosphere over oceans always fully saturated?

Last edited 3 months ago by RickWill
Wim Röst
Reply to  RickWill
August 26, 2022 9:56 pm

RickWill: “why do oceans ever have clear skies”

WR: Oceans can have clear skies because of descending dry air that warms when it descends. Because of the Hadley Cell or, more generally, because of convection elsewhere.

P.S. A request: please stop using uncommon abbreviations. For a foreigner, all abbreviations in languages that are not his/her mother tongue are a disaster: we have to learn an extra ‘secret language’ for each writer who makes his own abbreviations. The standard rule for an author: every new abbreviation makes you lose 80 or 90% of the understanding of your audience. For the individual reader: a lot of his brain cells have to be used for trying to find back the exact meaning of the abbreviations used: a lot of abbreviations have tenths of different meanings, depending on the place they are used and the language used. I prefer to use my brain cells for the content, not to try to find the meaning of abbreviations that could have been avoided.

I love to read Willis’ plain language: I can use all of my brain cells to couple what he is writing with my image of reality.

Abbreviations in science look intelligent, but they are stupid. A kind of secret language.

(The above is not meant personally to you, but sometimes I feel the need to say this again. I hope all authors will use real words. There is no reason why they shouldn’t.)

Robert W Turner
August 25, 2022 4:40 pm

Interesting as always, and surprising.

Isn’t there an imbalance between the total radiation flux for the hemispheres?

And I’ve always assumed that clouds had a net warming effect now because hot-house periods on Earth and Venus.
Hot-house periods likely have more clouds because the climate is generally wetter. Same goes for glacial periods and interglacial periods where there is certainly more clouds during the warmer interglacial period.
So either the system warms despite the feedback or something causes the CRE to rise and it has something to do with forcing the cycles.

RickWill
Reply to  Robert W Turner
August 25, 2022 7:21 pm

Isn’t there an imbalance between the total radiation flux for the hemispheres?

No the solar intensity is different but both hemispheres average the some energy.

Spring to fall equinox in the NH takes 186 days compared with 179 days for the SH in the present era. Earth orbit around the sun slows down when it is further from the sun and speeds up when it is closer.

In the present era, with perihelion occurring early January, the SH gets the higher solar intensity but the average energy over an annual cycle is near enough to the same.

Robert W Turner
Reply to  RickWill
August 26, 2022 3:30 pm

I’m talking about the net energy in and out.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320918200_Measurement_of_the_Earth_Radiation_Budget_at_the_Top_of_the_Atmosphere-A_Review

Figure 2. The deserts in the Northern Hemisphere receive energy from elsewhere and emit it into space. There doesn’t seem to be a SH equivalent to offset this.

KentN
August 25, 2022 4:55 pm

Willis, Your figure 3 has some interesting implications. Time/cloud dependent control of rejected heat. If you could make a graph like that which is the average of a large number of buoys, probably separated by season or latitude, etc, you could quantify the instrumental result of your hypothesis. If most of the buoys have a similar characteristic most of the time, you could put a number on how much heat is not being accounted for in models.

Izaak Walton
August 25, 2022 6:01 pm

Willis,
Judging from your analysis of the CERES data your statement that
In short, the amount of sunshine absorbed by the ground varies hugely in space and time on all scales.”
is false. What the CERES data shows is that all the effects you describe average out over timescales greater than a month or so. And as for why the northern and southern hemispheres are so similar the answer would be because the amount sunlight reaching each hemisphere is identical.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Izaak Walton
August 25, 2022 7:33 pm

Maybe read it again
Land and sea absorb and reflect differently, and the north has much higher ratio of land to water than the south, hence different.
Because …… different.
With the same amount of sunlight.
Or should be

Izaak Walton
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
August 26, 2022 8:35 pm

Pat,
most of the land in the Northern Hemisphere is realatively far north. Looking at the tropics where the sun is most intense the proportion of land in each hemisphere is quite equal. Since the surface receives less sunlight the further from the equator you go the extra land in the northern hemisphere is perhaps not as significant as you think.

ferdberple
August 25, 2022 6:10 pm

Below 500mb the atmosphere is opaque to incomming and outgoing SW. It is convection and conduction that does the leg work.

That is why the hemispheric radiation appears balance. It ignores the true origion of the energy flux. For all intents and purposes the radiative surface of the earth is 500 mb. Ingoing and outgoing radiation are balanced at that altitude.

Alexy Scherbakoff
Reply to  ferdberple
August 25, 2022 6:43 pm

How do we see?

RickWill
Reply to  ferdberple
August 25, 2022 6:54 pm

Below 500mb the atmosphere is opaque to incomming and outgoing SW

Does the SW refer to short wave? If it does then I wonder why we get SUNburnt.

Randy Bork
August 25, 2022 6:19 pm

So I just went to the CO2 graph from the Mauna Loa website and see that, for the period of time on your figure 2, CO2 is shown to have risen from approx 380 ppm to 420. A nearly 10% rise didn’t seem to cause a blip on the absorbed radiation anywhere. Can we cue the band to start the funeral march for the war on carbon yet?

Carlo, Monte
August 25, 2022 6:22 pm

Willis, there is something I don’t understand about climate science: the usage of the term “energy”. It is invariably given in units of W/m2, but a Watt is the unit for power not energy, which is Joules.

RickWill
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
August 25, 2022 7:00 pm

The data is given a time frame from 2001 to 2021. What Willis is showing is a power flux average for those 21 years. The 508.7W/m^2 is from the make-believe world where “greenhouse effect” exist and the “laws” of physics get tossed aside.

Willis has 340W/m^2 coming in from the sun and the atmosphere amplifies that to 508.7W/m^2. Such amplification, without a nuclear reaction, only occurs in climate “physics”.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
August 26, 2022 9:20 am

A watt is: (kg-m^2) / t^3

A joule is a (kg-m^2) / t^2

So a watt is joule/sec.

Divide a watt by m^2 and you get kg/t^3.

Divide a joule by m^2 and you get kg/t^2

That’s some kind of density measurement? E.g. kg/t = mass flow rate. So what would flow-rate/t^2 be? Divide the joule and you get flow-rate/t. What is that?

Last edited 3 months ago by Tim Gorman
Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Tim Gorman
August 26, 2022 12:02 pm

This should be easy, but I’m drawing a blank…

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Tim Gorman
August 26, 2022 6:34 pm

“So a watt is joule/sec” = dW/dt.

Joule is the unit for work = force x distance or
W = (integral)F ds = (integral) ma ds.

(something)^3 units like this can pop up when taking derivatives. An example is the derivative of irradiance (W/m2) with respect to wavelength, which is spectral irradiance. Strict SI usage would require this quantity to be W/m3, but this unit is very inconvenient and never used. On paper it looks like a volumetric density unit, but it isn’t. Instead it is done as W//m2/um or /nm.

How “work” comes out of electromagnetic radiation is the key.

RickWill
August 25, 2022 6:31 pm

Figure 1 shows the total surface power flux in your world being 508.7W/m^2. And yet you state it started out at 340W/m^2 entering the system.

I love the way your world can create energy. It is able to convert a surface average 340W/m^2 at top of the atmosphere to surface average 508.7W/m^2 by the time it gets to the surface.

The only way energy can be created is by the conversion of matter to energy. So your atmosphere must be a nuclear reactor – I doubt this is so.

Alexy Scherbakoff
Reply to  RickWill
August 25, 2022 7:13 pm

It’s quite simple really. It’s how I heat my room. I have 6 flat surfaces and each emits. Five surfaces emit to the sixth. Many watts per square meter.

RickWill
Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
August 25, 2022 8:08 pm

Five surfaces emit to the sixth. 

In Australian homes, we are not permitted to build “rooms” that do not have windows or vented to the outside. Do you think this is a deliberate government mandate so we have higher energy bills?

How do you stop the temperature from running away in your fully closed rooms? Surely it is dangerous running the risk of thermal runaway.

Alexy Scherbakoff
Reply to  RickWill
August 25, 2022 8:23 pm

I use an air conditioner to prevent the runaway effect.
Seriously though, my room doesn’t self-heat. The math says it should work but it doesn’t. Maybe my walls are emitting fake radiation or I shouldn’t be summing things when it’s inappropriate.

Last edited 3 months ago by Alexy Scherbakoff
RickWill
Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
August 25, 2022 9:45 pm

The maths of climate physics might say the room will self heat but climate physics do all sorts of wonderful things that defy observations. Climate scientists are busy rewriting the laws of physics to suit their models.

It doesn't add up...
Reply to  RickWill
August 25, 2022 7:24 pm

You are omitting the cosine effect of latitude, as modified by the tilt of the earth’s axis and orbit around the sun. Start with the earth viewed as a disc from distance, which has an area of πr^2, defining the area of solar energy flux it intercepts. However, the overall average is about a quarter of this, because rotation ensures that the surface of the sphere, some 4πr^2 is rotated to face the sun each day. But latitudes near the poles are not vertically under the sun’s rays: they hit at an angle that depends on latitude and time of year (and of day), spreading them out over a wider area and slicing through more atmosphere obliquely, reducing intensity by the cosine of latitude adjusted for axial tilt.

In the tropics where the sun gets to be directly overhead, its rays travel more directly to ground, and are not spread out save by seasonal axial tilt if there were no tilt or atmospheric absorption/reflection then the equatorial region would receive an average of half the TOA radiation – nothing at night, and then a cosine effect average over the day. Meanwhile at the poles the insolation would be close to zero.

Alexy Scherbakoff
Reply to  It doesn't add up...
August 25, 2022 9:04 pm

Willis states that 340 watts/sq M (solar) is at TOA. This is before albedo and other effects. His graphic says 508.7 watts/sq M is the average ABSORBED by the surface.
That is Rick’s questioning.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  It doesn't add up...
August 26, 2022 9:37 am

The sun’s altitude is with respect to the center of the earth is
sin(α)=sin(L)sin(δ)+cos(L)cos(δ)cos(h)
where L is the latitude, δ is the declination, and h is the hour-angle for the location.

You only get full radiation at the point directly under the sun.

path_of_the_sun.PNG
Frank from NoVA
Reply to  RickWill
August 25, 2022 8:25 pm

‘I love the way your world can create energy.’

It doesn’t. The only requirement is that SW energy absorbed (surface or atmosphere) has to equal LW energy out at TOA. By most accounts this is true. The difference between LW emitted by surface and LW energy out at TOA is the so-called GHE.

RickWill
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
August 25, 2022 9:53 pm

The difference between LW emitted by surface and LW energy out at TOA is the so-called GHE.

You need to clarify this – with actual numbers.

As far as I can determine you are suggesting that the surface takes in 508.7W/m^2 and the top of atmosphere rejects close to the same 508.7W/m^2.

However there was only 340W/m^2 available at the top of the atmosphere. So you appear to be suggesting that the Earth’s atmosphere is an energy creator. Same as Willis has done.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  RickWill
August 26, 2022 7:25 am

Ok. LW out at TOA equals SW absorbed by atmosphere and surface, equals about 239 w/m^2. And LW emitted by the surface equals about 398 w/m^2, so the so-called GHE is about 159 w/m^2. (All globally averaged numbers per the IPCC). The net SW / LW flux at TOA is balanced, so there is no energy being created by the Earth’s atmosphere.

Note, this is not to kowtow to the IPCC. On the contrary, per Howard Hayden, it’s one aspect of the Earth’s energy balance that has to be satisfied to lend credence to the IPCC’s surface temperature and ‘forcing’ projections for increased CO2 – and the short answer is that they fail to do so, as shown here:

http://www.sepp.org/science_papers/Climate%20Physics%204.pdf

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
August 26, 2022 11:54 am

This just doesn’t work.

If the earth absorbs 239 from the source (sun) it will emit 239. This based on kirchoff’s Law that emissivity and absorptivity are equal. Remember, atoms and molecules tend toward a neutral state and do not remain in an excited state indefinitely.

Planck proved that a hot body receiving energy from a cold body “compensates” by immediately reradiating the cold bodies absorbed energy within the radiation it is already emitting.

What happens? The hot body DOES NOT RADIATE MORE, it simply COOLS AT A SLOWER RATE.

Climate science has turned this upside down by adding fluxes as you have also done. S-B tells you that the net radiation is controlled BY THE DIFFERENCE IN TEMPERATURE, not the sum.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Jim Gorman
August 26, 2022 1:09 pm

‘If the earth absorbs 239 from the source (sun) it will emit 239.’

Tim,

I’m about 99 44/100% sure that’s what I said. Boundary conditions are important. TOA is one that we seem to have a pretty good handle on. The Earth’s surface is much more complicated, but S-B applies and tells us what the average surface emitted LW has to be given some estimate / assumption of GAST.

There’s a lot ‘going on’ between these two boundaries, including the so-called GHE, which is strictly a long-wave phenomenon. What I like about Hayden’s approach, and I think he understands Planck, is that it requires the alarmists to make internally consistent physical predictions to be credible.

For example, if they say that doubling CO2 will result in a 3C increase in surface temperature, they need to come up with about 16.5 w/m^2 of combined ‘forcing’ and/or reduced albedo to be physically consistent. But they can’t demonstrate this, which means all of their alarmism is just hand waving.

Frank

Last edited 3 months ago by Frank from NoVA
Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
August 26, 2022 1:26 pm

Whoops, I meant ‘Jim’ not ‘Tim’. Sorry!

RickWill
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
August 26, 2022 3:50 pm

None of this shows how Willis ends up with his energy multiplier taking the 340W/m^2 that is available at the top of the atmosphere becomes 508.7W/m^2 by the time it gets to the surface. Energy multiplication only happens in climate scientology.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  RickWill
August 26, 2022 6:04 pm

‘None of this shows how Willis ends up with his energy multiplier taking the 340W/m^2 that is available at the top of the atmosphere becomes 508.7W/m^2 by the time it gets to the surface.’

I’m don’t see any multiplication here. Looks like he’s adding 161 W/m^2 SW (340 W/m^2 TOA less 79 W/m^2 absorbed by atmosphere less 100 W/m^2 reflected from surface and atmosphere) and 342 W/m^2 downwelling LW, or thereabouts.

leitmotif
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
August 28, 2022 3:01 pm

The steel greenhouse was debunked by Joseph Postma many years ago.

https://climateofsophistry.com/2014/11/18/the-pseudoscientific-steel-greenhouse-debunks-the-climate-greenhouse-effect/

This was the Joseph Postma that you couldn’t remember although you were all over his blog.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05/05/surface-response-to-increased-forcing/

Joseph Postma is an astrophysicist. You are not.

As Postma pointed out, you have no training.

August 25, 2022 7:36 pm

An excellent well written Willie E. article.

If CO2 impedes Earth’s ability to cool itself, and a warmer troposphere holds more water vapor, as a positive feedback, then something must limit that positive feedback to prevent eventual runaway global warming. A logical answer would be more clouds, limiting incoming solar energy.
Where do I apply for a Nobel Prize?
Or at least a participation trophy?

Alexy Scherbakoff
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 25, 2022 7:40 pm

I don’t think they have a category for stating the bleeding obvious.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
August 25, 2022 8:27 pm

True. But unfortunately they award prizes for the ‘bleeding’ incorrect. For example, they recently awarded the prize in economics to a group of Keynesian Klowns who ‘overturned’ the law of downward sloping demand

Last edited 3 months ago by Frank from NoVA
RickWill
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 25, 2022 8:25 pm

Where do I apply for a Nobel Prize?

Syukuro Manabe was awarded the 2021 Nobel Prize in physics for his work creating climate models that connect global warming to CO2.

Can you imagine the amount of sacred cows that would need to be slaughtered to award a Nobel prize to someone pointing out that it CANNOT be CO2 and other “greenhouse” gasses because it would cause thermal runaway. All the existing high priests of the climate religion will need to die off before physics re-enters the realm of climate scientology.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 25, 2022 9:13 pm

‘Where do I apply for a Nobel Prize?’

No prizes for you! But if you’re willing to lighten up a bit on the climate howlers, they might be able to get you a sinecure with a small, but corrupt, energy company in eastern Europe.

Reply to  Frank from NoVA
August 26, 2022 12:18 am

I’ll change my last name to “Biden”
Then the money will flow !

Jimwpdx
August 25, 2022 8:57 pm

Yes indeed, Willis. Lovely stuff.

The ocean is warmed by solar irradiation at SW, which penetrates to maybe 800 meters – most as you said in the top 10 meters or so. The IR (back-radiation and solar) to the surface warms the top few microns of water (71% of the earth’s surface) which then evaporates, removing 540 cal/gm – 2257 J/gm – from the surface water, and deposits that heat in the upper troposphere by condensation, where it is easily transmitted out to space, mostly by CO2, virtually the only GHG in the stratosphere.

Warming of the land raises its temperature and disproportionately raises its IR transmission upwards (minor conduction downwards) at the fourth power of the increase in temperature, the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. So a 0.3% increase in land temperature of 1K (288K-289K) will produce a 1.3% increase in outgoing IR.

Not a bad brake on “runaway”, “tipping point”, eh? A little rise in temp produces a lot of cooling. Thus energy back-absorbed is radiated out at the fourth power. Like a bucket that leaks faster the more water you add to it.

And then there’s that exponential decline in the GHG effect of CO2, noted by Arrhenius, with the math now correct. 50% of GHG in the first 20 ppm, declining logarithmically. See Modtran at U of Chicago.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Jimwpdx
August 26, 2022 11:54 am

“”deposits that heat in the upper troposphere by condensation, where it is easily transmitted out to space, mostly by CO2, virtually the only GHG in the stratosphere.””

Why do you say only CO2 is the only gas that radiates? As water vapor condenses it too radiates, a lot. Since the radiation is a spherical EM wave, some energy is downward but at least the same (actually more at altitude) is radiated to space.

Lit
August 25, 2022 11:03 pm

DLR, “measured” with pyrgeometers. This is the raped S-B equation that pyrgeometers use:

Ts=surface
Ta=atmosphere

DLR=σ(Ta^4-Ts^4+Ts^4)

For example:

DLR=σ(255^4-288^4+288^4)

This is not how the SB-equation works.In the case of heat transfer it should be:

σ(Ts^4-Ta^4) for transfer from surface to the atmosphere

and

σ(Ta^4-Ts^4) for transfer from atmosphere to surface

It calculates the temperature of the atmosphere from the rate of heat transfer from the instrument, and then infers that it´s DLR.

You can see for yourself here, download instruction sheet under downloads:

CGR 3 Pyrgeometer – Kipp & Zonen (kippzonen.com)

People don´t know that a pyrgeometer is essentially a thermometer, it has no ability to detect radiation from low temperature. The sensor is a thermopile, when a thermopile is directed towards a low temperature like the atmosphere, it only measures the heat transfer FROM the instrument. From that measurement it can determine the temperature of the measured object, but that´s not radiation from the atmosphere.

It´s fascinating to see how many climate “scientists” use pyrgeometer data to support their argument, but they don´t even know how the instrument works.

Willis, a thermopile doesn´t have the ability to measure heat transfer from a cold atmosphere, it can only measure heat transfer FROM the instrument in that case. A thermopile can measure heat transfer from a HOTTER object, but not a cold object.

Your whole reasoning is bunk, it´s based on your lack of understanding of the instrument.

Last edited 3 months ago by lifeisthermal
RickWill
Reply to  Lit
August 26, 2022 1:41 am

Climate scientists are rewriting the laws of physics so their physics is consistent with their models. Observation is a thing of the past. The only real data comes from climate models.

Wouldn’t it be great to have a broad spectrum EMR panel that could convert all that 508.7W/m^2 that is reaching the surface to electric power?

leitmotif
Reply to  Lit
August 26, 2022 1:55 am

Excellent.

It´s fascinating to see how many climate “scientists” use pyrgeometer data to support their argument, but they don´t even know how the instrument works.

Roy Spencer bases his whole hypothesis of back radiation on this misunderstanding.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Lit
August 26, 2022 6:59 am

The problem here is the window material, which is silicon, a semiconductor with a 1.14eV bandgap. This translate to a wavelength of about 1200nm, so the instrument cannot respond to shorter wavelengths.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Lit
August 26, 2022 7:25 am

According to the NASA information (https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/instruments/), the CERES data is not from thermopile instruments like a pyrgeometer. Although not stated explicitly, these are very likely all semiconductor instruments.

Chrism
August 25, 2022 11:57 pm

As always, a thoughtful and curious exposition, thanks again Willis.

Richard Lindzen proposed an ‘iris’ and I’m trying to recall how that was put.
This reminds me of whatever that was that I read … (looks for files…)

I can’t wait for someone to claim that this mechanism, of course, mostly relates to human emissions, and please send more money… (!)

(I always wondered what the W/m^2 meant – at the equator with clear sky sun exactly overhead would have parallel lines of solar radiation and a meter square at TOA is just that, a meter squared; it very slightly diverges from 1 x 1m to 1.000001 x 1.000001m at sea level, say, – but at the pole it must be tangentially reaching a very large area; and sine/cosine function between those points ; point being I’m surprised at the substantial amount of incident shortwave plus longwave- said to be 175 W/m^2 in graph above for Antarctica – and I assume that is mostly longwave)

It doesn't add up...
Reply to  Chrism
August 26, 2022 2:15 am

You are forgetting the earth’s axial tilt. In summer at the poles when there is continuous sunshine the sun angle reaches 23 degrees. If you want a graphic illustration, try setting your location as close to a pole in e.g. Stellarium and fix it to centre the view on the sun. Run it speeded up.

Greg
August 26, 2022 2:20 am

Thanks Willis. The equality is rather counter to simple expectation. Maybe geometric hemispheres is not relevant cutoff. We can clearly see the trace of ITCZ in figure 1, somewhat above the equator over the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. Indian ocean less clear. Anything south of that line is in the climatic southern hemisphere. Any heat absorbed in the NH stip below ITCZ is going into the southern hemisphere climate system.
Is the position of ITCZ part of the natural balancing act ?

Last edited 3 months ago by Greg
Greg
August 26, 2022 2:31 am

Figure 7 is the killer graph here. This is the most clear and undisputable proof of what Willis has be suggesting for years. Almost 90% of the Earth’s surface is covered by the “cooling” part of the graph. There have been many attempts to muddy the waters on this by saying that different types of cloud act differently at different heights and for different wavelengths and we don’t really know what the net effect is. This graph shows that we clearly do know the net effect of all cloud cover globally.

It is also interesting that where it crosses from warming to cooling is about -4 degrees C: the freezing point of sea water.

Last edited 3 months ago by Greg
Greg
August 26, 2022 2:45 am

In Willis’ fig 7 there are some interesting loops from 5-25 deg C. a bit like a rib cage. These are a clear and persistent feature over a significant portion of the Earth’s surface. It may be worth trying to determine what this tells us about the cloud/temperature relationship.

This is a scatter plot of all data, plotting points with a colour indicating some third variable, like year, or latitude may give some useful insight what is causing these loops.

UAH date shows decadal length humps in surface temperate. Is that what is causing this, or is it cloud patterns shifting in latitude from year to year in a repetitive way?

Last edited 3 months ago by Greg
Bill T
August 26, 2022 4:01 am

Has anyone explained the inflection points at about -15, 0, and + 25C?

Geoff Sherrington
August 26, 2022 4:16 am

Willis,
I would appreciate a more detailed description of absorbed radiation and how it is measured practically.
Many have been claiming that IR hardly penetrates water and some also claim that it evaporates a skin, so causing evaporative cooling. Does this have any place in your description of absorption?
Ta. Geoff S

Thomas Fuller
August 26, 2022 5:40 am

Willis, this is very, very good.

Carlo, Monte
August 26, 2022 7:22 am

Looking at https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/instruments/ it would seem that surface absorption is a calculation, and probably a rather complex one.

Jim Gorman
August 26, 2022 9:52 am

Ah! Arlo Guthrie. I had a record of him and Pete Seeger in concert. Also, several Arlo records. They got put in a donate/trash container when we moved to a much smaller house. I have managed to get some on mp3 but need to do more.

Nice article by the way. Goes along with the recent articles on enthalpy and temperature. You explain why we need to move to something more that just temperature. Temps don’t explain total energy in the atmosphere very well.

Greg
Reply to  Jim Gorman
August 26, 2022 4:34 pm

Temperature is not a measure or a metric of energy. Averaging temperatures is non scientific.

leitmotif
August 26, 2022 12:27 pm

Looks like Willis has headed for the hills.

Too much back radiation can do that to you.

Why do you lukewarmists continue to give credibility to climate change warmist alarmists?

leitmotif
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
August 27, 2022 3:24 am

 I’ve chosen not to discuss these matters with you. 

That’s what usually happens when you have no evidence to back your claims.

When are you going to produce evidence that back radiation is a real forcing and can raise the surface temperature?

Or do you consider that request an insult, too?

leitmotif
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
August 27, 2022 12:38 pm

I’ve provided scads of evidence—”back radiation” is routinely measured all over the world. 

So where is this evidence? Why did you not reply to Lit’s post on pyrgeometers in this post? Did you forget?

Lit said about you, Willis, “Your whole reasoning is bunk, it´s based on your lack of understanding of the instrument.”. But Roy Spencer agrees with you Willis so I suppose that makes you feel empowered.

None of this has made the slightest difference to your warped world view.

Would that be the warped world review that requires evidence when someone makes an assertion?

The world is currently something on the order of 50°C warmer than we’d expect due to Stefan-Boltzmann equations (as can be verified by looking at the temperature of the moon). I have no clue how you explain that. I and most every other person studying the subject say it’s because of greenhouse gases.

The Stefan-Boltzmann equations cannot be used for gases. If you think that then you are an idi0t.

Heck, you can feel the effect of downwelling longwave radiation (aka “back radiation”) on any clear night in the winter when a cloud comes over. Because the cloud is radiating more downwelling longwave than the atmosphere, you can feel the warmth immediately. I’ve felt it many times.

NURSE!!!

It’s because you are completely and totally impervious to evidence.

Good one Willis. Produce a rebuttal that accuses me of what I accuse you of.

Willis, why do you keep repeating this sophistry about the DLR being a real forcing that increases surface temperature.?

I admire your energy but not your application. You are like a spaniel chasing a leaf in the wind. You are never gonna catch that leaf.

leitmotif
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
August 28, 2022 1:57 pm

Thanks, Leitmotif. You’ve provided a perfect example of why I’ve chosen not to discuss this with you.

Thanks, Willis, you’ve provided a perfect example why you are the back radiation bullsh1tter of the 21st century.

Either provide some evidence that back radiation (DLR) is a real forcing that increases the surface temperature or shut up for good. I am sick of you bringing out these ridiculous posts every few months which amount to no more than sophistry.

I CHALLENGE YOU!

I expect to see a post from you with that evidence in September or I will just assume you cannot produce it.

I am sure lots of people on this blog would be interested in seeing you drilling me into the ground. What a victory that would be for you, Willis.

Are you up for that challenge, Willis, or will you just fall back on your “He’s too rude to argue with. He’s hurt my feelings. Woe is me.”

Somehow I think you will do what you always do, Willis, duck out.

leitmotif
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
August 29, 2022 11:59 am

Leitmotif, AS I POINTED OUT, downwelling IR is routinely measured worldwide. 

Did you read Lit’s post on here about pyrgeometers? Did you understand it?

He said, ““Your [you Willis] whole reasoning is bunk, it´s based on your lack of understanding of the instrument.”.”

Maybe you don’t read all the comments in your post, Willis, but I have already pointed out further up this thread where you offer The Steel Greenhouse as evidence in a reply to rick will

The steel greenhouse was debunked by Joseph Postma many years ago.

https://climateofsophistry.com/2014/11/18/the-pseudoscientific-steel-greenhouse-debunks-the-climate-greenhouse-effect/

This was the Joseph Postma that you couldn’t remember although you were all over his blog.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05/05/surface-response-to-increased-forcing/

Joseph Postma is an astrophysicist. You are not.

As Postma pointed out, you have no training.”.

This is the original debunking of your ridiculous Steel Greenhouse.

https://climateofsophistry.com/2013/03/08/the-fraud-of-the-aghe-part-11-quantum-mechanics-the-sheer-stupidity-of-ghe-science-on-wuwt/

You double the output of the sphere to 470W/m^2 and then you stop at one iteration. You do not understand that you cannot add, subtract, multiply or divide forcings. You are a plank who doesn’t understand Planck. You are a total disaster for sceptics.

And then you continue to try and defend this ridiculous piece of junk by claiming victory because of the attitude of Joseph Postma and other experienced posters when they point out your shortcomings. I actually felt embarrassed for you.

I’ve never seen a better example of sophistry than your Steel Greenhouse. What a load of old junk.

And what is worse, the lukewarmists on WUWT agree with you. Because that is what lukewarmists do.

leitmotif
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
August 30, 2022 1:34 pm

Pass. You’re free to believe that the people measuring downwelling longwave radiation around the planet are all totally deluded and wrong about what they are measuring.
Me, not so much.

Duh, isn’t that what this is all about. For the last time did you read Lit’s post on pyrgeometers? Did you understand it? Did you accept it? If not then you are just a warmist numpty like all of your supporters.

Funny how originally you didn’t want to converse with me and now you just can’t get enough of me?

Willis, you were the same 8 or 9 years ago, still holding on to your sophistry.

You had the sphere emitting 470W/m2 after it was enclosed in a shell! I laughed so much I nearly bought my own beer. You created 235W/m2. First law of thermodynamics instantly trashed.

As to Joe Postma, Astrophysicist, I pointed out the errors in his reasoning at the time. Rereading it, I see he claims that the atmosphere cannot radiate energy to the surface of the earth, viz:

But you didn’t, did you? You were totally ridiculed not just by Joe but by CW and Rosco who have been a feature on that blog as long as I can remember.

Joe said, “the shell doesn’t pass any heat to the sphere since it is passive, and, it is cooler than the sphere. The shell doesn’t lose any energy with internal emission since internally it is an enclosed space. The only loss of power from the shell occurs on its exterior.”

You, Willis, disagreed. All you did was concentrate on how small in area increase the shell was over the sphere. DISTRACTION!

Willis: When someone like Joe Postma and CW starts attacking my history, I know I’ve won the argument. If they actually had scientific arguments, they’d bring them up …
Game over, guys.

Joe: First law of thermodynamics: When energy passes, as work, as heat, or with matter, into or out from a system, its internal energy changes in accord with the law of conservation of energy.

Does the shell pass energy as work, heat, or matter, to the sphere? Alternatively, does the sphere pass additional energy as work, heat, or matter to itself? No.

Therefore the presence of the shell can’t cause the sphere to increase in temperature beyond its actual active internal heat source.

Do the math. Energy is neither created nor destroyed. Instead, the “shell” reduces the heat loss from the planet. This leaves the planet warmer than it would be without the shell.

No. See above, numpty.

I will gladly leave it to the reader as to which of us is right.

Oh, Willis has got a new scientific method – THE READER!

Keep going, Willis, I’m loving this exchange.

Willis, the guy who controls the First Law of Thermodynamics. The sphere doubles its output then stops dead on the first iteration when accordingly it should keep increasing.

First Perpetual Motion Machine is on its way.

Do a course in Thermodynamics, Willis, your degree in Psychology is sadly lacking.

leitmotif
August 26, 2022 12:40 pm

PS—When you comment, please QUOTE the exact words you are discussing. I can defend my own words. I can’t defend your restatement of them. Thanks.

Willis, you can only defend BS with gas masks. Get an education in thermodynamics then we can talk sense. Otherwise continue to talk b0ll0cks.

Remember when Joe Postma took you down all those years ago?

Classic!

August 26, 2022 1:55 pm

Willis

Maybe earth itself also has a gas throttle?
https://breadonthewater.co.za/2022/08/02/global-warming-how-and-where/

August 26, 2022 5:09 pm

Looks to me like you graphed how CRE changes with temperature, but you did not show how a change in climate state (say an increase in GMST of 1 C) would affect that curve. That’s the part you should be interested in. I don’t believe you calculated that there was any cloud throttling of temperatures when GMST increases beyond a certain threshold.

We can see from paleoclimate studies that GMST isn’t throttled. The last time CO2 was 400 ppm, for instance, temperatures were actually warmer than today. And with an energy imbalance of ~0.8 W/m^2, more warming is built into current CO2 levels.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2008EO490001

Also, while cloud feedbacks are difficult to quantify, it appears significantly more likely that cloud feedbacks are a net positive feedback.
https://www.pnas.org/content/118/30/e2026290118

I don’t think you calculated what you believe you calculated, and I think there’s substantial evidence that there’s no threshold above which warming is throttled.

Ulric Lyons
August 27, 2022 11:17 am

If the average global total shortwave plus longwave is 508.7W/m^2. what global average surface temperature would that drive?

Ulric Lyons
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
September 1, 2022 5:22 pm

Sounds like a trick answer.

Svend Ferdinandsen
August 27, 2022 2:51 pm

I have saved your post. The cloud effect and the temperature shows to me that clouds reduces the downwelling radiation when the temperature is above 0 c, what it is for most of the surface. Only in the polar regions it gives more downwelling.

A joke with unexpected result.
I made a very simple calculation of the global temperature if all the CO2 was replaced by a glass spherel. No absorbtion for shortwave and full absorbtion for IR, but with holes in it like the atmospheric window (25%). The temperature would be 14 degr C. Solar radiation to ground is 239W/m2 because of albedo.
Funny that all the simplifications apparantly cancel each other. Is the climate really that simple????

LAShaffer
Reply to  Svend Ferdinandsen
August 27, 2022 4:59 pm

Not quite, your “window “ should be 33.3%.

Svend Ferdinandsen
Reply to  LAShaffer
August 28, 2022 9:50 am

The window was taken from blackbody radiation from 8 to 12 um and all else fully absorbed. One of the many simplifications.

Willis found a lot of interesting results, that i would like to digest from time to time.
I have to be carefull, because even 4W to 5W difference means 1K in temperature.

Bob Weber
August 27, 2022 4:28 pm

“Solar radiation starts out as relatively constant at the top of the atmosphere. It’s around 340 watts per square meter (W/m2) as a 24/7 global average. It only varies about ± 0.1 W/m2 over the sunspot cycle.”

This seems to be some kind of honest mistake. If this value of ± 0.1 W/m2 was reported somewhere I’d like to know please, otherwise, a fine conveyance of the earth’s balancing act.

The solar cycle TOA TSI varies by more than ± 0.1 W/m2 because of the annual ±3.5% orbital variation that changes the TOA TSI seasonally, and from the sun’s actual TSI range during the solar cycle, which last time varied by at least 1.7 W/m2. Divide by four to get a >0.4 W/m2 variation for the 24/7 global average just from solar cycle #24 variation alone.

comment image

Bob Weber
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
August 28, 2022 7:20 am

Thanks Willis. The cumulative effect of the decadal swings in TSI that appear lost in the noise make all the difference between La Nina/El Nino and cooling/warming.

The following images show tropical SST step-changes in sync with the solar minima and maxima over the last nine solar cycles. The odds of this sequence occurring are 1.9(10^11):1, basically impossible without solar forcing.

comment image

August 29, 2022 3:14 pm

Here’s an old gem from Roger Pielke about chaos, attractors and Lyapunov stability in climate. This gives a nice basis for cloud based emergent homeostasis. It is back in 1993 so must be Pielke senior I guess?

https://journals.ametsoc.org/downloadpdf/journals/bams/74/4/1520-0477_1993_074_0631_ctaiat_2_0_co_2.pdf

%d bloggers like this: