Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Buoyed by equal parts of derision and praise for my last post, “Surface Radiation: Absorption And Emission“, I once again venture into the arena. I had an odd thought. The temperature has been generally rising over the period 2000-2021. I wondered if there was a way I could measure the efficiency of the greenhouse effect to see if the warming was due to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs). If the GHGs were the cause, then the greenhouse effect would need to be more efficient in terms of warming the surface.
A Prologue: The earth is much warmer than the moon, which receives the same amount of solar energy per unit area. It’s generally accepted, including by me, that the warmth is from the very poorly named “greenhouse effect”, which has nothing to do with greenhouses.
Now, if you don’t think the “greenhouse effect” exists, this is NOT the thread for you. There are lots of places to make that argument. This isn’t one of them. We know the earth is warmer than expected. Nobody has ever come up with an explanation for that except the greenhouse effect.
If you are unclear about how the greenhouse effect works, the physical basis of it has nothing to do with CO2 or with the atmosphere at all. I explain this in my posts “People Living In Glass Planets“, and “The Steel Greenhouse“.
To reiterate: PLEASE do not post your opinions here on why the greenhouse effect isn’t real, or why there’s no such thing as downwelling radiation, or that scientists don’t understand the instruments that measure IR. The web is a very big universe. Somewhere out there is the perfect place to make those arguments.
This is not that place.
To return to the question at hand, which is the efficiency of the greenhouse effect, here’s the temperature change during the period of the CERES satellite data.
Figure 1. Surface temperature changes, CERES data. It is a conversion of the CERES surface upwelling longwave data to units of degrees Celsius using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. It agrees well with e.g. the MSU lower tropical temperature, with a residual standard error of about a tenth of a degree C.
So the question, of course, is why did it warm over that period?
I thought, well, what the greenhouse effect does is to increase the surface temperature. The greenhouse effect starts with a certain amount of energy entering the climate system, and it ends with the surface being warmer and thus emitting more thermal radiation than would be expected if one were to look at say the moon, which gets the same energy from the sun as does the earth.
So … I figured that I could express the efficiency of the greenhouse effect by comparing the upwelling longwave radiation from the surface with the amount of solar energy entering the system. This measures the “end-to-end” efficiency of the entire system, including all feedbacks and interactions. I’ve chosen to express it as a “multiplier”—for every W/m2 of solar input, how many W/m2 of upwelling surface radiation do we get?
The amount of solar energy at the top of the atmosphere is about 340 watts per square meter (W/m2). However, about 100 W/m2 is reflected by the clouds and the surface. This means that the solar energy entering the system is on the order of 240 W/m2.
Upwelling longwave from the surface, on the other hand, is on the order of 400 W/m2. This means that the average greenhouse multiplier is approximately:
400 W/m2 / 240 W/m2 ≈ 1.66
In other words, for every watt per square meter of solar input, we get ~ 1.7 watts per square meter of upwelling surface radiation.
Now, we can run this calculation for each month, looking at the amount of thermal radiation emitted by the surface divided by the solar energy entering the system. Figure 2 shows that result. Remember that for increased greenhouse gases to be responsible for the warming, the greenhouse multiplier needs to increase.
Figure 2. Greenhouse multiplier. The multiplier is calculated as upwelling longwave surface radiation divided by incoming solar radiation (after albedo reflections). A multiplier of 2 would mean that the surface would be radiating two W/m2 of energy for each one W/m2 of solar energy actually entering the system. This shows that the greenhouse has increased the incoming solar radiation by about two-thirds, as measured at the surface.
Now, this is a most interesting finding. The efficiency of the planetary greenhouse has decreased slightly over the period—not significantly, but not increasing either.
In fact, the stability over the period is of interest in itself. Note that the standard deviation of the multiplier is 0.004 W/m2. Over the period, the end-to-end efficiency of the entire greenhouse system hardly varied at all. I’ve written before about the amazing stability of the system. This is another example.
So given the evidence above that the increase in upwelling surface radiation cannot be due to a change in greenhouse efficiency from increased CO2 or any other reason, what is the cause of the temperature increase? Here are the graphs of the two datasets that make up the greenhouse multiplier—the upwelling surface radiation, and the incoming solar radiation.
Figure 3. Upwelling surface thermal radiation (yellow, left panel), and incoming solar radiation after albedo reflections (red, right panel). Blue/black lines are LOWESS smooths of the data.
In Figure 3, we can see why the efficiency of the system hardly varied—the upwelling surface longwave was increasing pretty much in lockstep with the incoming solar energy actually entering the system.
Conclusions: We have observational evidence that the temperature increase from 2000-2021 was not due to an increase in greenhouse gases, or any increase in the efficiency of the greenhouse effect from any cause. The efficiency has been very stable over the period, with a standard deviation of 0.2% and no significant trend.
On the other hand, the change in incoming solar energy is both adequate to explain the increase in warming, and has the same shape as the change in surface radiation (blue LOWESS smooths in both panels in Figure 3). While there are undoubtedly other factors in play, the main cause of the warming is clearly the increase in the amount of solar energy after reflections from the clouds and the surface.
And once again, the clouds rule … go figure …
w.
Math Note: I tend to use “upwelling longwave surface radiation” and “temperature” interchangeably. Yes, I know that radiation varies as the fourth power of temperature, T4. However, the difference is trivial in the narrow range shown in e.g. Figure 3.
Figure 4 shows a comparison of the upwelling longwave shown in Figure 3 and the Stefan-Boltzmann derived temperature. Basically identical in form.
Figure 4. Temperature (yellow, left scale) and surface upwelling radiation (red, right scale)
Policy Note: I was 100% serious about asking people to refrain from commenting about things like how downwelling radiation doesn’t exist and the greenhouse effect isn’t real. Don’t make me tap the sign.
My Usual Request: Misunderstandings abound in communication. When commenting, PLEASE quote the exact words you are discussing, so we can all understand exactly who and what you are responding to.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
WE says:”In other words, for every watt per square meter of solar input, we get ~ 1.7 watts per square meter of upwelling surface radiation.”
I am at a loss to understand what physical mechanism in nature multiplies energy. How does the dirt beneath my feet increase energy?
It just gets more surreal every time Willis posts, mkelly.
It is not about multiplying energy. It is about the energy added to the system related to the energy in the sytem (or more precicely the flux)
There is an other example:
You may add 100W/m2 of heating in your insulated house in order to reach a temperature leading to 500W/m2 of heat radiaton from the inner walls.
mkelly refers to the energy of the dirt beneath his/her feet but he/she is really referring to the upwelling energy emitted by that dirt as in his/her quote “1.7 watts per square meter of upwelling surface radiation.”
Energy is measured in Joules and is a state property.
Power, as in upwelling energy, is measured in Watts which is Joules per second and is energy in motion.
mkelly wonders where the extra energy in the dirt beneath his/her feet comes from.
If a 100 W/m2 heater warms up a room this is because the heater is continuously adding heat and the most of the heat isn’t allowed to leave.
Not so with the atmosphere. The heat is allowed to leave: balloon data tells us that very clearly.
mkelly September 2, 2022 1:52 pm
I say again, since you don’t understand the greenhouse effect, read the two posts linked to at the top of the head post, “People Living In Glass Planets“, and “The Steel Greenhouse“.
w.
[SNIPPED—Personal attack only, science-free. w.]
@mkelly. I’m glad that I’m not the only person a bit troubled/confused by the apparent violation of Conservation Of Energy in Willis’ numbers. I actually don’t think Willis methodology and conclusions are wrong. Neither do I think COE is violated. My guess is that we’ve got two similarly named quantities that you (and I) are confusing. FWIW Trenberth 2009 has downwelling radiation at 340,2 W/m2 and upwelling radiation at between 233.3 and 253.9 W/m2 — depending on which of a half dozen sources one chooses to believe. Those numbers seem likely to be not too far from what COE dictates. My plan is to go off and think about all this. Most likely the truth will eventually surface. … And I’ll learn something.
In order to maintain a stable atmospheric temperature only 1 W/m^2 of that upwelling surface radiation can leave the top of the atmosphere so 0.7 W/m^2 are recycled back to the planet/atmosphere.
Very interesting figures Willis!
Looks like the negative feedback’s keep the earth’s temperature in narrow limits…
I’d say the physics of the atmosphere limits the warming effect of GHGs. Well mixed GHGs have an almost constant warming effect.
I know there are a near infinite number of people who are smarter than I am on this site, and that’s before we even limit the discussion to the field of climate.
Would it not be possible to analyze data on nighttime cooling? If CO2 causes a lag ibn heat loos from the surface, it should show up as a higher morning temperature as CO2 accumulates and increases. That effect should show up at every level as one rises through the atmosphere.
Greenhouse gases mainly affect TMIN when people are sleeping, not TMAX in the afternoon. That has been true since the 1970s. Also, more effect in higher, colder N.H. latitudes in the coldest six months of the year. More CO2 has the most effect where there is little water vapor in competition. Think of warmer winter nights in Siberia as the global warming “poster child”, How is that a climate emergency? That sounds like good news to me.
Then think that the same warming pattern did not happen in the Southern Hemisphere since the 1970s= climate science is not settled. And there was no warming from 1940 to 197 as CO2 levels increased.
You don’t need science or scientists to know how it felt to live with global warming since 1975. We loved it here in SE Michigan and want more. A climate emergency would be if global warming stopped, and global cooling began. Those are the two trends — pick the one you like best and be happy if your favorite is global warming. The climate on our planet does not get much better than it is today. Not in the past 5,000 years. Celebrate the current climate ! Don’ fear the future climate.
“ The Moon is much cooler than the Earth.” At mid day on the lunar equator the rocks reach a temperature of 130C. At night these rocks can radiate directly to apace and their temperature drops to -170C. The Moon is both colder and hotter than the Earth. The difference lies in the Eart’s two oceans: the ocean of water that covers 7/10ths of the Earth’s surface to an average depth of 4 kilometres: and the ocean of air which envelops the entire Earth to a depth of about 100 kilometres.
My bad, Jim. I should have said on average the moon is much cooler than the earth—according to the Diviner Mission data, the moon has an average temperature of ~ minus 77°C. See “The Moon Is A Cold Mistress” for a discussion of the issues.
w.
Which shows that averaging temperatures says so little about living conditions..aka climate.
Rather have 20to30C than 0to50C.
Ja. Ja. I told you. It is not the CO2. It is not the sun either as Tmax (global) is still going down.
Now I know there some who claim that the geothermal factor is only 90 milliW/m2.
I think something is wrong there. According to my old books T is going up 3K per km down. Come down in a goldmine here and soon you will have sweat pouring from your face.
That means I only need an internal shift of 1/3 = 334 meters of the inside of earth to get a raise of 1 degree Tmin in the NH.That is not much?
otoh
The movement of the magnetic northpole inherently means a lower Tmin in the SH.
THAT EXPLAINS THE RESULTS I AM SEEING
https://breadonthewater.co.za/2022/08/02/global-warming-how-and-where/
Henry,
Let’s look at the basic equation for conduction heat transfer:
q = k * A * DeltaT / DeltaX
Re-arranging, we get
q/A = k * DeltaT / DeltaX
The thermal conductivity of most rocks is about 2 W/m/K
The geothermal gradient is about 30 (not 3) K per km.
So we get:
q/A = 2 (W/m/K) * 30 (K) / 1000 (m) = 0.06 W/m2 = 60 mW/m2
It does seem surprisingly small, doesn’t it?
You probably need to get some new books, in the S African goldmines the rock temperature get as high as 60ºC 4km down.
Why is the Incoming Solar Radiation increasing over the last couple decades? I don’t understand. It seems like it might increase or decrease slightly due to orbital eccentricity throughout the year (a single orbit of the sun) and perhaps in relation to the 11-year solar cycle (roughly 0.07%). I can’t see why incoming radiation at the top of the atmosphere would increase over the last 22 years. Could you explain?
This is measuring incoming solar radiation after absorption/reflection. So these changes are not due available solar radiation (changes in sun output, orbits, etc.) but more likely changes to albedo. There has been literature showing a reduction in cloud cover over this same time period which correlates well to the increase in temperature.
https://wjarr.com/content/clouds-independently-appear-have-much-or-greater-effect-man-made-co2-radiative-forcing
This analysis from Willis seems to me to corroborate those findings. Changes is solar radiation driving temperature changes, not CO2.
Changes in cloud coverage
Best to read Dubal/Vahrenholt 2021. The cloud changes appear to be related to ocean cycles.
I 100% disagree with this statement. “We know the earth is warmer than expected.” Expected by who? and what is their basis of determining what the temperature should be.
Other than that, it is always back to the same answer: Its the SUN stoopid!.
More than expected if we look at the moon’s surface temperature.
The moon gets the same amount of solar energy as the earth. And it is less reflective (grey) than the earth (lots of white) so it absorbs more energy. Despite that, the average lunar temperature per the Diviner Mission spacecraft is -72°C.
w
In fact , this period of 20 years is too short to see a significant change in greenhouse multiplier !
The greenhouse effect has increased by 1 watt/m2 in 30 years , compared to the total Natural of 150 watts/ m2 .
Even the amount of 3.3 watts/m2 of anthropogenic greenhouse since the industrial revolution has a small impact on this multiplier !!
That’s not the right factor to analyse …
Hi Willis
Just one comment: it looks like more energy is coming out of the system than is being put into it.
When you calculate the W/m2 is the wavelength and intensity distribution taken into account? The incoming (visible) light has more energy per photon than the outgoing (LW) radiation. Is this already inherent in the CERES data ? Does the W unit really reflect the energy coming in and out of the system ?
I have always been clear on this. The “greenhouse effect” plays no role in Earth’s energy balance so why does it even come up in any discussion on climate?
[SNIPPED—Contained personal attacks only, science-free. w.]
Snipped by Willis.
Don’t believe this man.
He snips or gets snipped those who disagree with him.
(No more discussion of moderation actions!) SUNMOD
leitmotif September 2, 2022 4:41 pm
You flatter yourself, leit. I’m not snipping you because I disagree with you.
I’m snipping you because this post is not the place for the discussion you want to have. You are acting like an entitled child, endlessly demanding that everything revolves around your fundamental orifice, and we should all discuss what you want to discuss.
Sorry, but this post doesn’t revolve around you …
Now, everyone can see that you were asked politely to stick to the topic of the thread, and that you have flatly refused to do so.
I told you not to make me tap the sign.
w.
WUWT cowards
(Hold for Administrator considerations and all the others below this moderated post) SUNMOD
Of course they are because the ULW is inferred from the temperature. It is not a measurement of power flux.
Like my wood moisture meter, it indicates moisture but actually reads a current and voltage to determine a resistance, which is correlated to moisture..
Someone else who thinks that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is just a good idea …
w.
S-B is an approximation that can be applied in a constrained reference frame. It is not applicable when heat transport is dominated by other processes. For example an ocean warm pool has no SW radiation leaving the surface. All heat is transported by latent heat of evaporation.
You should not be surprised by the correlation – that is how the instrument is calibrated. It simply takes the temperature and applies the S-B equation. It is inferring a radiated power flux from temperature. Your chart simply verifies the calibration. But is is not measuring a radiated power flux.
There are other approximations used in appropriate reference frames. For example the gravity field. It is a field with time component as Einsien determined but we approximate the force between two bodies to a simple constant and the inverse of distance squared.
Michael Mishchenko is one of the best authors on the physics of EMR relative to Earth’s atmosphere. He understands field theory and has made efforts to apply it to climate science.
Are you seriously claiming that if water is evaporating from the surface, it stops radiating away? (I presume you meant LW radiation). Really?
This afternoon, I will find a nearby rock that has been in the sun all day and is hot enough that I can feel the radiation from it. Then I will pour a little water on it, which will immediately start evaporating. I will check to see if it stops radiating. Not holding my breath…
“For example an ocean warm pool has no SW radiation leaving the surface. All heat is transported by latent heat of evaporation.”
I’m sure Mishchenko didn’t say anything this stupid!
The most important question to answer is why are there ever clear skies over oceans?
Once you can answer that, you begin to understand how the energy balance is controlled.
So wouldn’t less cloud cover infer a cooling ocean?
Because heat, manifested as temperature, is not entirely defined by quanitity W/m2. Intensity and emissivity play a significant part.
A few minutes of UV versus LWDR (15um) on your skin will prove.
“The temperature has been generally rising over the period 2000-2021″
Which temperature?
Global surface temperature. Take your pick.
w.
This is a question, not a criticism. Why not include and use the UAH record? From a long time (albeit as a non – scientist) reading WUWT I have reached the conclusion that UAH is the most reliable record as it avoids the various distortions inherent in land based temperature measurement.
The UAH temperature is the one labeled “MSU” (Microwave Sounding Unit) in the graphic above, shown in violet. As you can see, it’s quite similar to the other records.
w.
It’s nice to see that Willis was able to reproduce essentially the same results seen in Dubal/Vahrenholt 2021. I like the greenhouse efficiency idea. It appears to support the Miskolczi 2010 constant opacity concept.
I’ve been bringing this up every now and then. Most skeptics seemed to accept the claims that Miskolczi was wrong. We can’t say he was precisely right, but it appears he had the general concept right.
Miskolczi analyzed 70 years of NOAA data and found the greenhouse effect was a constant. Willis has now found a similar result over the past 20 years. The chances both of these could be wrong is pretty small.
This means that climate science got it completely wrong. It also means luke-warmers got it wrong. There is no warming due to doubling of CO2.
There’s real physics involved. I’ve explained why boundary level feedback counters DWIR warming. I’ve also explained why the effective emission altitude is a constant. Time for skeptics to quit looking for feedbacks to warming and consider why the warming never occurs.
“On the other hand, the change in incoming solar energy is both adequate to explain the increase in warming, and has the same shape as the change in surface radiation (blue LOWESS smooths in both panels in Figure 3). While there are undoubtedly other factors in play, the main cause of the warming is clearly the increase in the amount of solar energy after reflections from the clouds and the surface.
And once again, the clouds rule … go figure …”
There are other scientists whose work completely supports your statement, Willis.
Japanese researchers at the University of Kobe arrived at similar results as the Turku team, finding in a paper published in early July that cloud coverage may create an “umbrella effect” that could alter temperatures in ways not captured by current modeling.
A pdf (1.7MB) for download is available at
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf
Also to note is a recent paper called
‘No experimental evidence for the significant anthropogenic climate change’
Jyrki Kauppinen, Pekka Malmi
(Submitted on 29 Jun 2019)
Abstract
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165TWITTER
In this paper we will prove that GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 fail to calculate the influences of the low cloud cover changes on the global temperature. That is why those models give a very small natural temperature change leaving a very large change for the contribution of the green house gases in the observed temperature. This is the reason why IPCC has to use a very large sensitivity to compensate a too small natural component. Further they have to leave out the strong negative feedback due to the clouds in order to magnify the sensitivity. In addition, this paper proves that the changes in the low cloud cover fraction practically control the global temperature.
CERN: Cosmic Rays Influence Cloud Formation
Aug 25, 2011
http://www.sci-news.com/physics/cern-cosmic-rays-influence-cloud-formation.html
http://bit.ly/2Gml0xC
CERN
CLOUD discovers new way by which aerosols rapidly form and grow at high altitude
https://home.cern/news/news/physics/cloud-discovers-new-way-which-aerosols-rapidly-form-and-grow-high-altitude
https://bit.ly/3QUYtKa
The resultant particles quickly spread around the globe, potentially influencing Earth’s climate on an intercontinental scale
18 MAY, 2022
Another Climate Scientist with Impeccable Credentials Breaks Ranks: “Our models are Mickey-Mouse Mockeries of the Real World” – Electroverse
September 26, 2019
http://bit.ly/33p7OSa
Dr. Mototaka Nakamura received a Doctorate of Science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and for nearly 25 years specialized in abnormal weather and climate change at prestigious institutions that included MIT, Georgia Institute of Technology, NASA, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, JAMSTEC and Duke University.
In his book The Global Warming Hypothesis is an Unproven Hypothesis, Dr. Nakamura explains why the data foundation underpinning global warming science is “untrustworthy” and cannot be relied on:
“Global mean temperatures before 1980 are based on untrustworthy data,” writes Nakamura. “Before full planet surface observation by satellite began in 1980, only a small part of the Earth had been observed for temperatures with only a certain amount of accuracy and frequency. Across the globe, only North America and Western Europe have trustworthy temperature data dating back to the 19th century.”
From 1990 to 2014, Nakamura worked on cloud dynamics and forces mixing atmospheric and ocean flows on medium to planetary scales. His bases were MIT (for a Doctor of Science in meteorology), Georgia Institute of Technology, Goddard Space Flight Center, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Duke and Hawaii Universities and the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology.
He’s published 20+ climate papers on fluid dynamics.
There is no questioning his credibility or knowledge.
I just read the albedo article at the centre of this post
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2021GL094888
The Earthshine project showed a 0.5W/m2 decrease over 20 years. The CERES satellite showed 1.5W/m2.
The authors seem to discount the satellite data and stick with the 0.5W/m2.
They say models say 0.6W/m2 increase from CO2 and pollution. So together 1.1W/m2.
Why discount 1.5? If really 1.5, then 0.6 models are wrong, just curve fitting to an alleged 0.5W/m2 albedo.
Also, the albedo change is said to be from melted ice loss in Arctic and less clouds over a warmer Pacific. But could this explanation be from confirmation bias? That they have cause and effect reversed?
If global warming models are curve fitting to an unknown reason for albedo changes, the whole global warming narrative fails. The models are based on an assumption we understand the variables heating the planet’s atmosphere.
A variable we don’t know we don’t know doesn’t get put it the model. The other variables are then tweaked to account for it.
Maybe I’m missing something.
One of the key data items that supports CERES over Earthshine is the high correlation of the temperature computation Willis did from the LW data and the UAH data. Two different approaches and almost identical results.
The albedo change of 0.5 or 1.5 W/m2 is 15% or 42% of the alleged equivalent forced by 2X CO2 of 3.5W/m2. Which is supposed to be 3 or 4*C in the scary scenarios. Which strikes me as the entire reason for the planetary warming of the past 20 years.
Again, cause and effect inversion due to not knowing what we don’t know is going on?
Again, what am I missing?
You’ve got it nailed. The CO2 increase over those 20 years would yield only about 20% of the 3.5 W/m2 claimed warming which is only half of the 1.5 W/m2 of solar warming. In fact, we’ve seen significant longwave cooling which reduced the amount of warming we have seen.
Willis.
There is some problems with the “greenhouse effect”.
You should take all the energy in, and all the energy out from the earth surface. It is the energy budget that matters.
From Loeb et al 2021: Trend in EEI During the CERES Period
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/documents/STM/2021 05/35_Loeb_contrib_science_presentation.pdf
For the radiation at the earth
s surface we have the following numbers (Wild et al. 2019):<br />Solar radiation absorbed: 160 W/m2 with an increasing trend.<br />Longwave cooling from increased temperature: -56W/m2 with an increasing trend.<br />Evaporation, without presentation of trend: -82W/m2<br />Sensible heat, conduction/ convection from surface: -21W/m2t make much difference, and Methane stands for 22,9 % of trace gas warming, we get:<br>Earth Energy Imbalance measurements tell us that there is a warming of 0,51 W/m2/dec from change in these variables, SWsurf down, LWsurf up, Evaporation, Sensible heat. The components behind these changes are Temperature change, Albedo change, Cloud radiation change, Water vapor Change, and Trace gases change. These are also the feedback components of climate change.
<br>Loeb et al, 20 years of energy imbalance from 2000 to 2020:<br />Temperature surface radiation, Net LW cooling: -0,51 W/m2/dec<br />Albedo reduction. SW solar warming: 0,19 W/m2/dec<br />Cloud LW cooling (less clouds) -0,23 W/m2/dec<br />Cloud SW decreased absorption 0.44 W/m2/dec<br />Water vapor LW warming 0,33 W/m2/dec<br />Water vapor SW warming and latent heat. 0,05 W/m2/dec<br />Trace gas, aerosole LW warming 0,237 W/m2/dec<br />Trace gas, aerosole SW warming 0,002 W/m2/dec<br />If we assume that most trace gases and aerosols don
CO2 LW warming 0,185 W/m2/dec
Methane LW warming 0,055 W/m2/dec
https://scienceofdoom.com/2017/12/24/clouds-and-water-vapor-part-eleven-ceppi-et-al-zelinka-et-al/#comment-175994
Sorry for the font shift
The net LW cooling is change in the difference between longwave radiation up and the downwelling radiation, so there is a “backradiation” cooling. The downwelling doesn`t compensate for the surface warming radiation (Planck feedback).
Much of the data used in Loeb et al 2021, which tries to compensate for the obvious problems the raw CERES data represents, is based on “estimates”, “guesses” and “models”. It looks very suspicious.
It reminds me of all the adjustments to surface data and the continued divergence of that data from satellite data.
Nice again Willis. As you probably know, there are already several papers showing that the recent warming is caused by increased absorbed solar radiation, but they speculate that it’s a feedback to CO2 warming (epicycles IMO).
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009GL037527
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4250165/
Btw, the Earth’s atmosphere has an insulating effect on the surface. Greenhouse effect just sounds dumb and unscientific.
So given the evidence above that the increase in upwelling surface radiation cannot be due to a change in greenhouse efficiency from increased CO2 or any other reason
≠==========
This is strong evidence that the so called greenhouse effect is NOT due to CO2.
Willis, maybe I missed something, but it sure looks to me like you have proven that the greenhouse multiplier is not the result of CO2. That something else must be the cause.
It only takes 1 confirmed false finding to prove a theory false.
Question. What about the energy that leaves and enters the surface via conduction and convection? This affects outgoing radiation and is unlikely to be net zero because it delays cooling and interacts with ghg at altitude.
Conduction/convection from surface 21W per m2
Evaporation from land and ocean surface 82W per m2
Net longwave radiation, surface emission minus backradiation 56W per m2
All these are cooling the surface, giving energy to the atmosphere and radiated out to space.
From Martin Wild et al.
Conduction, convection (and evaporation) are key to the negative feedback for increases in DWIR. They counter the warming effect from CO2 increases immediately. No warming at the surface. I call this boundary layer feedback.
Willis wrote: “..the increase in upwelling surface radiation cannot be due to a change in greenhouse efficiency from increased CO2 or any other reason….”
=========
Thus, given that GHG was increasing during that period, while the greenhouse efficiency did not, either the greenhouse effect is not caused by greenhouse gas or there is an error in your work.
There cannot be causation without correlation.
The CO2/CH4 greenhouse effects are saturated which means their effect can no longer increase. The alarmist invention of an “enhanced greenhouse effect” is what Willis has shown to be pseudo-science.
At an altitude of 500mb, the air temperature is the predicted temperature of the earth without GHG.
50% of the atmospheric mass lies above 500mb and is cooler. 50% of the atmospheric mass lies below and is warmer.
Only the sun moves the 500mb line, so the only way to increase the greenhouse efficiency would be to reduce the water vapor in the atmosphere. See formula for lapse rate. Adding CO2 will not do it because it is non condensing.
A decreasing greenhouse efficiency as Willis has identified at a time of increasing CO2 tells me that CO2 does not affect greenhouse efficiency because CO2 is non condensing. Rather, the decrease in greenhouse efficiency is due to an increase in atmospheric water vapor, flattening the lapse rate. The obvious cause is burning, agriculture, irrigation and land use changes.
No, it has little to do with water vapor. The greenhouse effect is saturated. Nothing else is required.