[More about how the “science is settled”, yawn –cr]
Weizmann Institute scientists offer a solution to this 50-year-old mystery
WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE
When looking at the Earth from space, its hemispheres – northern and southern – appear equally bright. This is particularly unexpected because the Southern Hemisphere is mostly covered with dark oceans, whereas the Northern Hemisphere has a vast land area that is much brighter than these oceans. For years, the brightness symmetry between hemispheres remained a mystery. In a new study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), Weizmann Institute of Science researchers and their collaborators reveal a strong correlation between storm intensity, cloudiness and the solar energy reflection rate in each hemisphere. They offer a solution to the mystery, alongside an assessment of how climate change might alter the reflection rate in the future.
As early as the 1970s, when scientists analyzed data from the first meteorological satellites, they were surprised to find out that the two hemispheres reflect the same amount of solar radiation. Reflectivity of solar radiation is known in scientific lingo as “albedo.” To better comprehend what albedo is, think about driving at night: It is easy to spot the intermittent white lines, which reflect light from the car’s headlights well, but difficult to discern the dark asphalt. The same is true when observing Earth from space: The ratio of the solar energy hitting the Earth to the energy reflected by each region is determined by various factors. One of them is the ratio of dark oceans to bright land, which differ in reflectivity, just like asphalt and intermittent white lines. The land area of the Northern Hemisphere is about twice as large as that of the Southern, and indeed when measuring near the surface of the Earth, when the skies are clear, there is more than a 10 percent difference in albedo. Still, both hemispheres appear to be equally bright from space.
In this study, the team of researchers, led by Prof. Yohai Kaspi and Or Hadas of Weizmann’s Earth and Planetary Sciences Department, focused on another factor influencing albedo, one located in high altitudes and reflecting solar radiation – clouds. The team analyzed data derived from the world’s most advanced databases, including cloud data collected via NASA satellites (CERES), as well as data from ERA5, which is a global weather database containing information collected using a variety of sources in the air and on the ground, dating back to 1950. ERA5 data was utilized to complete cloud data and to cross-correlate 50 years of this data with information on the intensity of cyclones and anticyclones.
Next, the scientists classified storms of the last 50 years into three categories, according to intensity. They discovered a direct link between storm intensity and the number of clouds forming around the storm. While Northern Hemisphere and land areas in general are characterized by weaker storms, above oceans in the Southern Hemisphere, moderate and strong storms prevail. Data analysis showed that the link between storm intensity and cloudiness accounts for the difference in cloudiness between the hemispheres. “Cloud albedo arising from strong storms above the Southern Hemisphere was found to be a high-precision offsetting agent to the large land area in the Northern Hemisphere, and thus symmetry is preserved,” says Hadas, adding: “This suggests that storms are the linking factor between the brightness of Earth’s surface and that of clouds, solving the symmetry mystery.”
Could climate change make one of the hemispheres darker?
Earth has been undergoing rapid change in recent years, owing to climate change. To examine whether and how this could affect hemispheric albedo symmetry, the scientists used CMIP6, a set of models run by climate modeling centers around the world to simulate climate change. One of these models’ major shortcomings is their limited ability to predict the degree of cloudiness. Nevertheless, the relation found in this study between storm intensity and cloudiness enables scientists to assess future cloud amounts, based on storm predictions.
Models predict global warming will result in a decreased frequency of all storms above the Northern Hemisphere and of weak and moderate storms above the Southern Hemisphere. However, the strongest storms of the Southern Hemisphere will intensify. The cause of these predicted differences is “Arctic amplification,” a phenomenon in which the North Pole warms twice as fast as Earth’s mean warming rate. One might speculate that this difference should break hemispheric albedo symmetry. However, the research shows that a further increase in storm intensity might not change the degree of cloudiness in the Southern Hemisphere because cloud amounts reach saturation in very strong storms. Thus, symmetry might be preserved.
“It is not yet possible to determine with certainty whether the symmetry will break in the face of global warming,” says Kaspi. “However, the new research solves a basic scientific question and deepens our understanding of Earth’s radiation balance and its effectors. As global warming continues, geoengineered solutions will become vital for human life to carry on alongside it. I hope that a better understanding of basic climate phenomena, such as the hemispheric albedo symmetry, will help in developing these solutions.”
Other collaborators in conducting this study include Dr. George Datseris and Prof. Bjorn Stevens of Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Germany; Dr. Joaquin Blanco and Prof. Rodrigo Caballero of Stockholm University, Sweden; and Dr. Sandrine Bony of Sorbonne University, France.
Prof. Yohai Kaspi is head of the Helen Kimmel Center for Planetary Science. His research is supported by the Yotam Project and Rene Braginsky.
JOURNAL
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Maybe convection works to keep the temperature stable and clouds are part of the mechanism ?
In fact, the seasonal latitudinal shifting of the clouds of the Inter tropical convergence zone could well be the balancing mechanism.
“Earth has been undergoing rapid change in recent years, owing to climate change.”
Stopped reading right after this ignorant statement.
They have to say these magic words to keep the grants coming.
That is indeed the case, as established by leading cloud researchers:
Compensation of Hemispheric Albedo Asymmetries by Shifts of the ITCZ and Tropical Clouds, Voigt och Stevens, et al, 2014, https://10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00205.1
“Clouds adapt to compensate the imposed asymmetries because the intertropical convergence zone (ITCZ) shifts into the dark
surface hemisphere. The strength of this tropical compensation mechanism is linked to the magnitude of the
ITCZ shift. In some cases the ITCZ shift is so strong as to overcompensate the hemispheric asymmetry in
clear-sky albedo, yielding a range of climates for which the hemisphere with lower clear-sky albedo has
a higher all-sky albedo.”
What a silly notion. Clouds are parameterised quantities that have no association with the surface temperature
I up-voted as the sarcasm was self-evident and it amused me.
But then I remembered how many people miss sarcasm, so this comment is to clarify that I appreciate your wit and not that I am witless.
Peter Webster (Judith’s husband) published a paper on this (N/S hemispheres have surprisingly equivalent albedos—and he also gave reasons having to do with cloud composition despite the difference in land/ocean. So this is not a new thing.
You might refer to Stephens et al. 2015. Directly from the abstract:
Stephens, G.L., O’Brien, D., Webster, P.J., Pilewski, P., Kato, S. and Li, J.L., 2015. The albedo of Earth. Reviews of geophysics, 53(1), pp.141-163.
This is to me one of the best articles on albedo out there, and they keep saying how badly models get albedo. If they don’t get albedo, they can’t get climate.
Sadly, the need to publish relevant science has turned many scientists into used-car salesmen. This car is almost new, except it isn’t.
Javier, I have a question I have never seen addressed before so I hope you have an answer.
More than 50% of the sun’s energy is outside the visible range. Albedo only seems to look at visible. How much of the IR from sun is reflected? If any is reflected how does a satellite tell difference between reflected and earth emitted IR?
Sunlight is outlined by the 5525 degree hump on the left. Albedo refers to how much of that hump is reflected to outer space. IR is outlined by the by the 210-310 K humps.
The satellite detectors use various filters and compute the wavelengths they are sensing to determine whether the energy they sense are reflected sunlight or planet emitted IR.
The purple is IR which escapes through the atmospheric window to outer space. The rest is absorbed by clouds, water vapour, and CO2 and is emitted as lower temperature IR. Heat entering must equal heat leaving.
Seriously think about whether this common graph from Wikipedia shows that heat in=heat out, which would be when the areas under the curves (as measured by the satellite sensors) are equal.….
Thank you both.
I was unaware that there were filters.
So what I hear you say is the sun does not emit energy in the mid to long IR range. No overlap.
Thanks again.
As the spectra peak shows in DMac’s pic above, solar IR is shortwave IR, while Earth’s IR is longwave IR. They are very easy to distinguish by satellites at over 99% efficiency.
Thank you for the lead-in Javier.
And this shows what satellite sensors actually “see”with their IR sensors, 3 different locations and dates. Courtesy Dr Happer’s slideshow. 10,000/wavenumber=micron wavelength on above Spectral Intensity graph.
“As global warming continues, geoengineered solutions will become vital for human life to carry on alongside it. I hope that a better understanding of basic climate phenomena, such as the hemispheric albedo symmetry, will help in developing these solutions.”
No! BAD researchers!
A better understanding of basic climate phenomena begins with observation. If we are observing hemispheric albedo symmetry, and think it must be natural, then WHY IS THERE ANY MENTION of “geoengineered solutions”???
Leave it alone. The climate system is exhibiting a highly self-regulating characteristic, which is exactly what we would want.
The first thing I really appreciated here at WUWT was Willis Eschenbach’s emphasis on “emergent climate phenomena.” Yes. Watch and learn. And now we can “watch” from space in near real time. Search “NOAA GOES East” and check out the images and animations in the visible and IR bands.
Designing “solutions” to poorly understood problems is bad engineering and doomed to failure.
Exactly. And in this case, it is an imaginary problem to begin with.
And bad policy also.
That’s assuming the problem exists in the first place.
A solution to a non-existant problem more often than not creates an actual problem
“geoengineered solutions…”, I saw that movie, it didn’t end well.
Everyone died, ice age, cannibalism.
Or Heaven, if you ask Mickey Mann
“The North Pole warms twice as fast as Earth’s mean warming rate.”
This difference is clearly unsustainable in the long term, like centuries.
They are making a simple, but big error by taking a snapshot of a short interval and presuming it will continue on global climate period scales.
Then, there are the funny reviews showing all.ost everywhere on our globe is warming faster than the global average. Too many “me too” researchers have been caught exaggerating. It pays more.
Polar regions are well known to be difficult for temperature measurements. There is a lot of dodgy extrapolation from distant weather stations, there are stations under snow at times, there is less satellite coverage than elsewhere. You cannot make predictions about future changes if some of your basic data are invented, made-up infills of missing data based on convenient assumptions that are likely to be erroneous.
Geoff S
Earth has been warming at half the warming rate of the North Pole.
Sounds like half a problem at most.
Everybody likes to extrapolate. It is in our nature. Despite knowing by experience it almost never works.
You write about extrapolated data being ‘made up’, I recall a commenter on this website some years ago writing that they had served on the ‘DEW Line’ in northern Canada. One of their jobs was going out to record the temperature at the weather station, sometimes they just made up the numbers rather than risk freezing to death or being eaten by a polar bear!
G’Day Jim,
“…sometimes they just made up the numbers …”
Nothing new. In the 1800’s when telegraph lines were run to US Army installations in Arizona Territory, it was the telegraphers duty to take a midday temperature reading and transmit that to Army HQ. Walk out to the thermometer in that heat? “It feels like 113°, that’s what I’ll send.”
And as GCMs do not handle clouds well, yet another reason why the models do not reflect reality.
They even said it!
One of these models’ major shortcomings is their limited ability to predict the degree of cloudiness. Nevertheless…
Nevertheless we used them anyway!
Cutting animals open to examining their entrails is no longer an accepted method of future divination. Now we have models that do not harm animals.
OK, so:
The models predicted AGW.
The predictions of AGW were used to claim CO2 is BAD.
The prediction that CO2 is bad lead to demonization of fossil fuels.
The demonization of fossil fuels lead to the glorification of “renewable” electricity sources.
The glorification of “unreliable” energy sources lead governments to subsidize construction of solar and wind “generation” capacity.
The clearing of land for solar harmed animals by disrupting their natural habitat.
The clearing of land and construction of roads for the installation of BIRD CHOPPERS and the BIRD CHOPPERS themselves definitely harmed animals.
Therefore the models HAVE harmed not only animals in the general sense, but mankind also, by in addition to killing LOTS OF BIRDS, wasting massive amounts of resources, both mineral and human, for the “renewable” “energy” folly.
They don’t say how they measured this ‘albedo’, but my guess is that they used IR sensing. If that is correct, then it stands to reason that both hemispheres are alike, since the EARTH itself is a black body radiator (or nearly so) and they are not even measuring albedo, but the IR signal from earth, which would naturally match both hemispheres.
They refer to the NASA CERES satellites. https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/instruments/#:~:text=Seven%20CERES%20instruments%20on%20five,NPP%2C%20NOAA%2D20).
One of the instruments senses 0.3-5 micron radiance (Shortwave) which is a direct measure of reflected sunlight.
Yes they are only measuring albedo. Reflected (so outgoing) short wave incoming solar. About 31%. Remarkable thing is equivalent in both hemispheres. But that was known a decade ago.
Yeah, but they can get more grants (including university overheads – subsidies) when they use the magic words “climate change” in the study.
I wonder how they compensated for reduced data availability going back in time in relation to both storms and cloudiness?
Using UN IPCC CliSciFi models is a big no-no. It is also not clear if they cited the results of the CMIP6 runs that use the notorious RCP 8.5 scenario.
I also wonder how they got away with talking about geoengineering? It is my understanding that warmunists are really afraid of geoengineering.
At the end of the “Climate Data” sub-section of their “Materials and Methods” section, on page 6 of the 7-page PDF file :
NB : The “old / CMIP5” RCP 8.5 pathway is neatly bracketed by the “new / CMIP6” SSP3-7.0 and SSP5-8.5 pathways (see the AR6 WG-I extract below).
In the standard “blurb” at the start of their paper :
The IPCC released the “subject to final copy-editing” version of the AR6 WG-I report way back in September 2021.
One section that did not change in the “Final / Approved” version of August 2022 was 1.6.1.4, “The likelihood of reference scenarios, scenario uncertainty and storylines”.
Specifically, on page 239 :
Both the paper’s authors and the journal’s “peer reviewers” completely missed that the IPCC now says that for an actual “worst-case / no additional Climate Change Acts” scenario they should have used SSP2-4.5 instead of the “counterfactual” SSP5-8.5.
One of the instruments senses 0.3-5 micron radiance (Shortwave) which is a direct measure of reflected sunlight.
So, they are sampling only a tiny fraction of the spectrum and then assume that is representative of the whole?
“So, they are sampling only a tiny fraction of the spectrum and then assume that is representative of the whole?”
No. The 0.3 to 5 micron part of the spectrum captures the part of the outgoing radiation from earth that is reflected sunlight. That is what “albedo” means. Another instrument measures the total outgoing radiation over the wider 0.3 to 200 micron band, which gives essentially the whole spectrum of outgoing radiation from earth, i.e. it includes all shortwave reflection and longwave emission. I hope that helps.
jshotsky comment assumes equilibrium temperature?
Per NASA
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/Clouds
This study shows that cooling by clouds is caused by increased storms caused by warming?
And just what are these “rapid changes in recent years, owing to climate change?” Just list a couple please. Anybody?
Oh, sorry, wait, those are the things that changed so we can appease that spiteful god of climastrology…
I got to, “Earth has been undergoing rapid change in recent years, owing to climate change,” and I stopped.
Facts not in evidence.
Gotta love the conclusion. It basically says “We’re not sure which way the frog is gonna jump. The hemispheric symmetry is unchanged, but it might possibly change”, so one of the authors says …
“Geoengineered solutions will become vital for human life to carry on.”
Yeah, that makes perfect sense.
One of the authors also says:
“It is not yet possible to determine with certainty whether the symmetry will break in the face of global warming,”
What wimps. You can’t determine anything about the climate future “with certainty”. But here’s what we do know.
Per the head post, the first measurement of the symmetry was made in “the 1970s”. Here are 22 years of CERES records of the symmetry.
So we have seen the symmetry persist through the entire half-century of warming from the 1970s all the way up to 2022 with no change … call me crazy, but I’m gonna say further warming won’t affect it.
w.
Oh dear, checking the actual data. Certain people certainly do think that is crazy – much better just to feel today’s truth.
Just eyeballing that graph and taking incoming solar at 1,350Watts, I see Earth absorbing an extra 8.1Watts
Meanwhile, the source of most contemporary grief, CO2, is/has:
Thus CO2 is radiating at a power of 0.18Watts – none of which can be or is absorbed at any point below where it was radiated from. Spent/waste heat cannot heat or reheat the thing it was originally radiated from.
If it changed that much in 20 years, what was Earth’s albedo 50, 100 or 200 years ago?
Random thoughts:
Is it completely beyond the BoundsOfPossibility that ‘random thoughts’ have more to do with observed temperature rises than exaggerated imaginings about carbon oxide?
The difference between 8 and 0.18 is pretty major yet the smaller one has the major effect.
What am I missing?
(That was rhetorical – this world is transfixed by magical thinking and junk science – it needs help but not with the climate. But the fixation on CO2 precludes examining anything else – magical thinking minds are OneTrackMinds)
Peta of Newark February 26, 2023 8:03 pm
Incoming solar is measured in W/m2, not watts. And it’s divided by 4 to allow for 24/7 average, which gives a solar value of 340 W/m2
Albedo has dropped by about half a percent. So that’s 1.7 W/m2 extra at the top of the atmosphere. But only about two-thirds of that makes it to the surface, which brings us down to just over 1 W/m2 increase at the surface.
Regards,
w.
w. ==> Any idea WHY albedo has been dropping overall? Earth getting “darker”? Less clouds?
I have no idea….but it is interesting. (One or two years would be a blip, but 20 years is beginning to look like a trend.)
Yes downtrend stands out. We need a time machine to start collecting data way earlier.
Kip,
I throw this out (totally unchecked by personal calculations, sorry)…
but taller vegetation has much less reflectance than short vegetation. Sort of the photon entering a small hole into a velvet black box idea. Part of that albedo reduction could be a result of the “global greening”. Boreal forest, rocky tundra growing the odd lichen, deserts growing the odd blade of grass, other plants just being “greener”, just an armchair thought….
On a trip across Syria to the Iraq/Turkey border, I observed the Syrian desert where shepherds were grazing sheep. I was astonished that there were flocks, based on what we normally called pasture back home. Close up, it looked like nothing was growing, but at low angles to the horizon, you could see it was actually green.
Those types of places might be a lot greener now, 40 years later.
Sorry, Kip, I’m in a clue-free zone on that question. “Settled science” strikes again …
w.
“We’re not sure which way the frog is gonna jump.” I appreciate that they allowed the truth.
When both hemispheres are snow or ice covered a good part of the year the brightness will remain or be enhanced. This is due to the upcoming climate change…. to a colder one.
So much to discuss in one paragraph (but I am not a scientist, climate or otherwise)
‘rapid changes in recent years’ – good/bad/indifferent? Fewer cyclones is not a bad thing, is it?
‘owing to climate change’ – natural or anthropogenic?
‘a set of models’ to ‘simulate climate change’ – as mentioned by many, this is not data, just assumptions of the modelers
‘limited ability to predict the degree of cloudiness’ – one of the ‘pick a number, any number’ assumptions put into the models useless for prediction
‘Nevertheless’ – don’t look behind the curtain
‘the relation found’ – again, model outputs are not data so difficult to find anything with any certainty
Would someone with more knowledge than me like to parse this paragraph to glean some truth?
“Fewer cyclones is not a bad thing, is it?” Treat the question as a question. To whom is the question most important? What might drive their answer?
I was tempted to comment that it wasn’t very bright to assign this study to dimwits, but on reflection I decided I’m above that.
You are clearly just a shadow of your normally illuminating self there, RHS….
Despite the normal shroud waving and claims that, just because the sky hasn’t fallen yet – it sure is likely to fall in future, the study actually shows there has been ‘little change so far, dammit!’
OK, I get that they’d rather keep their cushy jobs and pay the mortgage, than to flip burgers for the rest of their miserable lives.
But the obvious ‘null hypothesis’ is that very little has changed in 50 years and they had to resort to adding in a great big dollop of ‘Climate Models’ to make it look as if it even MIGHT do something unusual. One day. Perhaps.
Not looking promising for a reason why we need to have children panicking to justify spending tens of trillions on Ruinable Energy, which makes things worse, not better.
From the article: “Earth has been undergoing rapid change in recent years, owing to climate change.”
No, Earth has not undergone rapid change in recent years owing to [human-caused] climate change. There is no evidence for this. This claim is just another alarmist unsubstantiated assertion. it’s ridiculous how much they distort the truth.
I copied same sentence, and now find it pasted by someone else for a 4th time this morning. Their assumption jumps off the page.
Those are the same words the AI bot used.
From the article: “As global warming continues,”
They are still living in 2016. Here’s a clue for them: It has cooled 0.7C since 2016. When will this global warming you speak of, continue? Will it continue? Perhaps the alarmists assume too much.
Sounds like WE is right about clouds and self limiting atmosphere
Who knew
Except him and everyone here
“It is not yet possible to determine…”
I wish I had a dollar for every time I’ve read something like that in one of these sorts of studies.
The most important bit of the study barely gets a mention.
They say “One of these models’ major shortcomings is their limited ability to predict the degree of cloudiness. Nevertheless, the relation found in this study between storm intensity and cloudiness enables scientists to assess future cloud amounts, based on storm predictions.“.
Correction needed – the correct version is:- “One of these models’ major shortcomings is their limited ability to predict the degree of cloudiness. The models therefore cannot be used to predict future cloud amounts.“. The logic is extraordinarily straightforward: If you can’t predict cloudiness, then you can’t predict cloudiness.
I think my paper on clouds, as reported in WUWT a while back (Clouds Haven’t Behaved the Way the IPCC Or the Models Say), also makes that quite clear.
“The logic is extraordinarily straightforward: If you can’t predict cloudiness, then you can’t predict cloudiness.”
Written 100s of times on a chalkboard please.
Holy schist!
Who knew?
First photos of Earth from space were in mid-1940s.
Soon thereafter anyone that cared to look would know this.
I hope we didn’t have to pay for this.
Who would have thought that ice in the atmosphere, commonly referred to as clouds, would control the amount of solar EMR thermalised in the climate system.
The crazy part is they then go on to use climate models, that do not resolve clouds in any physical process, to draw conclusions about the future.
These clowns deserve stupidity awards.
What they deserve …… What they get is highly-paid government sinecures, tenure protection (job security), lavish pensions with early retirement, fully-paid exotic travel, large cash and other awards, worldwide recognition & etc. Eat your hearts out skeptics; life ain’t fair.
Al Gore got a seat on the Apple Board of Directors.
Just one more reason I’ve never purchased an Apple product from its beginning.
Models predict global warming will result in a decreased frequency of all storms above the Northern Hemisphere and of weak and moderate storms above the Southern Hemisphere.
So, where is this climate emergency and why do all the media and politicians blame climate change whenever there is an outbreak of inclement weather?
As the bullshit piles up, they are having trouble keeping their stories straight.
Can’t get any scientific paper published these days without forcing in a climate change angle.
I have been looking for a career change, this albedo puzzle they have resurrected might be ideal?
I will draw up the grant application for the necessary equipment to study the ‘problem’.
I am thinking a 150 ft Sunseeker type cruiser say $20million with a crew of qualified staff to look at the ‘problem’ of albedo. A chef a steward or three maybe a spare captain and first officer. Then there is the provisioning staff, the bar won’t stock itself. A few engineers and a coms officer would be advantageous. I think $5million/yr should cover it. The project will take the ship across the oceans spending time in study destinations like the South Pacific and into the fjords of the Northern latitudes and maybe time in the fjords of remote spots like New Zealand just to ensure research is wide ranging.
I am thinking this will be a long term study maybe ten years with annual reports of progress.
When we are done sorting out albedo stability, I am thinking a field study to measure the size of islands to check how reduced they are from sea level rise. The grant request for that, will of course note the redeployment of resources already funded to do this new study. I am thinking a base for the research somewhere in Polynesia might be appropriate…..
I wonder what I should call the boat?
The Rentseeker?
The Spirit of Grant Farmer?
The Red Herring?
Don’t forget you’ll need at least one extremely attractive secretary to do the paperwork.
*Daydreams*
Maybe call the vessel, LIbido…..:)
Rod ==> In my cruising experience, most of boats that big (150′) have a permanent crew 2/3 pretty boys and 1/3 pretty girls — plus a couple of grizzled old qualified real mariners (Capt, 1st Mate, Engineer, Bosun).
The Boys and Girls are not real “ship’s crew” but are really playthings — toys.
2/3 to 1/3? Who the hell is doing the staffing?
You forgot the woke hiring requirement of nubile females. Of course, a bunch of females with harry testicals might barge in. Like that female admiral suffering from male-pattern baldness.
I was wondering why this guy is plagiarising old news, when I came upon the aforequoted quotable quote.
Oh, the trauma, growing up to be a conspiracy theorist, only to find out it is all true!
First they renamed the “non-existant, all-in-your-head, tinfoil-hat” Chemtrails, as Tropospheric Particulate Injection.
Next, they renamed UFOs as Unexplained Aerial Phenomena, evading little green men without admitting the electrical nature and geophysical effects.
Now they openly admit to altering the atmosphere, WITHOUT ACCOUNTING FOR IT IN THEIR PROPAGANDA, or even just their stupid models, where it is hidden as ‘Particulates’.
Well, now the propaganda has caught up with the conspiracy, how nice…
Why do the bulbs that write this kind of drivel seem to get ever dimmer?
Serious question. Why has temperature (an energy proxy) been elevated to a primary consideration when energy flux balance (or imbalance if you like) is the true issue in warming?
It seems to me that we are measuring the speeds at a race track by assaying rubber left on the asphalt.
Clouds. My reflexive answer to the headline question, before beginning to read the article. Wow, some mystery.
Next topic.
(of course, their real point was to try and frighten us with baseless speculation that climate change could upset the balance. WE’RE DOOMED, I tell you.)
I see a planet where the dark oceans and bright continents are visible along with white clouds. And the sun shines equally on all. What am I missing?
“the sun shines equally on all. ”
Does it?
It’s worse than we thought.
The article describes how they are symmetrical, but not why.
For this one must take a step back – to recognize that the clouds are not external to the system, but that they are coupled to equilibrium process.
Not by albedo, but by equilibrium cloud cover fraction (and cloud height).
The observed albedo is a consequence of cloud cover fraction and cloud height equilibrium process.
The equilibrium OLR is the sum of Surface Net IR Transmission and Cloudy Sky Net IR emission.
The observed albedo is the consequence of the equilibrium all sky atmospheric emission i.e. equilibrium cloud cover and cloud height.
The current hypotheses are flawed because the energy balance requirement is described in the form Solar (1 – albedo)/4 = OLR = solar absorbed.
Where the albedo is disconnected from equilibrium process, as an ad-hoc externality.
For clarity:
the northern hemisphere is better at transmitting surface IR flux, due to relative dryness and surface properties.
The southern hemisphere is likely less effective at transmitting surface IR flux, due to surface properties.
The southern hemisphere equilibrium process has “decided” it does better through cloud emission.
The equilibrium process is optimized through factors of maximum entropy production principles.
Temperature will be minimized within the physical constraints of the system, while the entropy production is maximized. The system has many degrees of freedom and possibilities to achieve this.
“Models predict global warming will result in a decreased frequency of all storms above the Northern Hemisphere and of weak and moderate storms above the Southern Hemisphere.”
So the models predict LESS storms yet the media and the watermelons trumpet we’re all going to die from MORE storm activity.
No climate consensus, and no integrity either!
Stephens and O’Brien, 2015, is an earlier paper with the same findings.
Which is CLOUDS.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2014RG000449
In late 2015 I blogged about the Ralph Ellis online paper ” Albedo regulation of Ice Ages, with no CO2 feedbacks.”
http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri15/ralph_ellis_oct15.html
Ralph was drawing attention to the effect of dust.
My blog was http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=4019
In Jan 2016 Ellis published a paper which I blogged about in Jan 2016.
This study is the answer to a question no one asked.