Foreword: Climate sensitivity is the central point of all climate change arguments, yet it is still undefined. As we point out in our Everything Climate reference page:
Declaring future predictions of global warming “settled science” requires a fairly precise calculation of future temperatures. However, since climate sensitivity was first identified more than 40 years ago, scientists and climate models have produced a very broad range of potential future temperature patterns. Calculations for a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide range from 0.8°C warming to 6.0°C future warming by 2100.
So, this thought experiment, a genre Einstein was so fond of, really isn’t any better than any of those guesses. Channeling Kevin Trenberth we can say this: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of a known climate sensitivity value at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” – Anthony
By Bob Irvine
Is it possible to simplify the climate sensitivity debate? Einstein was famous for solving the most difficult problems on the back of an old envelope. Without pretending to be in the same league as the great man, is it possible to follow his example, take a sharp pencil and on the back of an old envelope write the following words.
“There are only two things that contribute to the energy content of a body or system. They are input energy and energy residence time within that system.” (David’s Law, Thanks David)
All the complex changes to energy pathways, changes of state and movement of molecules can be summarised and simplified with these words. They give us a base from which important conclusions can be drawn.
If there were room on the back of that envelope, we might also write the corollary,
“It follows that a positive-feedback to any increase in system energy content from any cause will, by definition, further increase the residence time of that energy within the system while a negative-feedback will effectively reduce that residence time.”
There is, of course, nothing controversial about these statements. We put a jacket on, and our body heat is retained for longer. We warm up.
Solar radiation better penetrates a matt black steel ball and consequently remains within the ball for longer than it would in a shiny and reflective silver steel ball. It is understood that no reflection is perfect, and also understood that energy residence time determines that the temperature at the centre of the black ball will be higher assuming similar solar input energy. (See Note B)
HOW DOES THIS APPLY TO THE CLIMATE SENSITIVITY DEBATE?
Essentially, the Green House gases (GHG) absorb and reemit a small fraction of long wave radiation that would otherwise have found its way to space more quickly. GHGs increase energy residence time as discussed above and consequently warm the global surface.
Equilibrium is still eventually reached at the Top of the Atmosphere (TOA) but this equilibrium takes a little longer. Hansen (2) “..show analytically, with ocean mixing approximated as a diffusive process, that the response time (TOA) increases as the square of climate sensitivity.”
None of the statements so far are controversial in any way. These are now followed by another uncontroversial statement. Energy reemitted by CO2 sometimes strikes the ocean surface and is almost totally absorbed within the first 0.015mm and within the evaporation layer of that ocean surface and from there is returned very quickly to the atmosphere and space as latent heat of evaporation. Consequently, equilibrium at the TOA is restored relatively quickly.
An uncontroversial consequence of all this is that energy reemitted by CO2 will, on average, act somewhere in the atmosphere while short wave solar energy will, on average, act at a depth of some meters below the ocean surface. This is a physical consequence of the different wave lengths involved and is not disputed.
The agreed forcing for a doubling of CO2 is approximately 3.7 w/m^2 at the surface. A similar solar forcing increase of 3.7 w/m^2 would, on the other hand, be absorbed on average a number of meters below the ocean surface. Although it is not a gas, water has a much stronger greenhouse effect than do the GHGs. By the time that solar energy on average reaches the surface it has been delayed significantly, all the time adding to its residence time in the system.
The whole GHG debate relates to surface temperature as it effects our day-to-day activities at the global surface. A 3.7w/m^2 increase in solar forcing will have a much bigger effect on surface temperature than a similar 3.7w/m^2 increase in CO2 forcing that, on average, acts in the atmosphere. As noted, equilibrium will still be restored at the TOA but will simply take longer for an equivalent solar forcing.
Or to put it another way, the consensus is that a doubling of CO2 is consistent with a forcing increase of about 3.7 w/m^2 and, by calculation, a surface temperature increase of about 1.2C before the atmospheric feedback has acted.
A 3.7 w/m^2 change in solar forcing, on the other hand, would already have been subject to significant delay and consequently strong positive ocean feedback by the time it on average caused a surface temperature change. That surface temperature change would then be subject to various atmospheric feedback and could conceivably be up to 10C or more (my best guess is about 5.2C with significant error bars) at equilibrium, and consequently should change our approach to all reality-based Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) studies as they apply to GHG forcing.
I define ECS here as the surface temperature change after an extra 3.7 w/m^2 (CO2 doubling equivalent) of any type of forcing has been applied and the climate system is allowed to attain equilibrium. The point being made here is that ECS at the global surface will be higher for an incremental change in solar forcing than it would be for a similar sized change in CO2 forcing.
CONCLUSION
Nothing written in this essay to date is controversial except my ECS surface temperature guess of 5.2C (approx.) for a 3.7w/m^2 increase in solar forcing. (See Note C) I am proposing here a solar ECS of about 5.2C and a CO2 ECS of about 1.3C because, when applied in tandem, they reproduce with surprising accuracy our best estimates of global surface temperatures for the last century and millennium. They are a guide only but do have a physical basis that is relatively uncontroversial.
Note A; It is important to note here that an incremental change in solar forcing is generally believed to have the same warming affect at the global surface as does a similar change in CO2 forcing. General opinion, including that of the IPCC and many sceptics, concedes that the oceans will delay that temperature change at the surface for solar forcing but maintains that the surface temperature change will still eventually be approximately the same. This essay argues that not only will the oceans delay that temperature change but that they will also enhance that change as a result of that delay. This point or mechanism is well described by Forster (1) in the following quote;
“Imagine, for example, that the atmosphere alone (perhaps through some cloud change unrelated to any surface temperature response) quickly responds to a large Radiative Forcing to restore the flux imbalance at the TOA (Top Of Atmosphere), yielding a small effective climate forcing. In this case the ocean would never get a chance to respond to the initial Radiative Forcing, so the resulting climate response would be small, and this would be consistent with our diagnosed “Effective Climate Forcing” rather than the conventional “Radiative Forcing.”
Note B; A slightly more detailed analysis of the black ball/reflective silver ball example might be that, while the temperature in the centre of the two balls differs, the surface of the two balls are actually the same temperature. The surface of the black ball only feels hotter due to higher conductivity. In the Earth’s case, the surface of the globe or ball is the average emission height, and this also stays at the same approximate temperature after a forcing increase, while the temperature in the interior and importantly, on the surface where we live, is warmed by increased energy residence time.
Note C; It is, of course, quite possible that my estimated global average of 5.2C for solar ECS due to increased relative residence time is too high, the difference being made up with various solar multipliers and or other feedback in an extremely complex and chaotic climate system.
Note D; The consensus argument that CO2 atmospheric warming will act as a blanket and consequently slow ocean cooling is not being disputed here. This insulation affect is insignificant when compared to the fact that solar energy is absorbed, on average, meters below the ocean surface and in this way is overwhelmingly responsible for the temperature profile of the earth’s oceans.
Note E; In support, changing radiative penetration has been shown to have a significant effect on Ocean Heat Content. For example, radiative transfer is significantly affected by oceanic pigment as discussed by Gordon [3] and Morel [4]. Ohlmann [5] showed that the heating rate of a 20-meter mixed layer can be changed by about 0.33°C per month by a solar radiative penetration that can reach 40w/m2 in the tropical ocean. Siegel [6] concluded that a 10 w/m2 change in penetrative solar flux at 20 meters can result from a 0.10 mgm-3 change in phytoplankton concentration.
Forcing efficacy is discussed here;
http://www.witpress.com/Secure/elibrary/papers/HT14/HT14024FU1.pdf
REFERENCES
- Forster, P.M.F., & Taylor, K.E., – Climate Forcings and Climate sensitivities Diagnosed from Climate Model Integrations Coupled. Journal of Climate, 6183, 2006.
- Hansen, J., Sato, M., Kharecha, P., von Schuckmann, K., – Earth’s Energy Imbalance & Implications. Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss, 11, 27031-27105, pp 19-21, 2011.
- Gordon, H.R., & Morel, A., – Remote assessment of ocean color for interpretation of satellite visible imagery, – A review. Spring–Verlag. 114pp, 1983.
- Morel, A., – Optical modelling of the upper ocean in relation to it’s biogenous matter content (case 1 waters). – J. Geophys. Res., 93. 10749-10768. 1988.
- Ohlmann, J.C., Siegel, D.A. & Gautier, C., – Ocean mixed layer radiant heating and solar penetration. A global analysis. J. Climate. 9, 2265-2280. 1996.
- Siegel, D.A., Ohlmann, J.C., Washburn, L., Bidigare, R.R., Nosse, C., Field, E. & Zhou, Y. – Solar radiation, phytoplankton pigments, and radiant heating of the equatorial pacific warm pool. – J. Geophys. Res., 100, 4885-4891. 1995.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Confirmation bias?
dk
How do you think every other reality based sensitivity estimate is arrived at?
Good food for thought, Bob. I think it makes some sense in that net IR at surface is about 50 watts upward and surface solar is about 160 watts so a ratio of about 3…so if you use a CO2 ECS of 1.3 solar will be a similar multiple depending on whether you use insolation, TOA, below cloud, etc. for your solar variation. The T^4 Planck effect through the atmospheric window probably doesn’t allow one to take this as far as 5.2 degrees, but my old HP-41doesn’t work until I’ve had my morning coffee.
Just drinking my coffee now so I’m still a bit unreliable. Your multiple of 3 may be better than my estimate.
I only chose 4 because I could better create the NOAA 20 th century temp and the last millennium.
The NOAA temp may be wildly inaccurate so you may well be correct
That’s not confirmation bias, it’s probably the most unbiased and sensible way to check the estimates. It’s hard to think of a less cherry-picking-like way of checking.
Then it isn’t cirucular reasoning to state that the historical estimates of surface temperature that we use to calculate ECS can be used to validate our estimates of ECS?
From the article: “I am proposing here a solar ECS of about 5.2C and a CO2 ECS of about 1.3C because, when applied in tandem, they reproduce with surprising accuracy our best estimates of global surface temperatures for the last century and millennium.”
What are you talking about here with “our best estimates of global surface temperatures”? The bogus Hockey Stick chart?
I hope you are not basing anything on a Hockey Stick chart because Hockey Stick charts don’t represent reality.
Tom,
Exactly whose post are you objecting to, mine (which twice quote the same line as you do) or the author’s?
I never said anything about a hockey stick. Maybe the good Mr. Irvine does, I can’t tell.
Einstein engaged in reasoning by analogy in order to check for illogic. I’m asking if this line in the source article isn’t evidence of illogic.
dk_, I wrote: “From the article:”.
I was commenting on what was said in the article, not what you wrote.
I probably should have not placed my comment under yours. 🙂
Tom,
I think we agreed, then. But I didn’t realize at the time that the author agreed, too.
Still struggling with what Bob Irvine was trying fo accomplish here. Guess I’m not the only one.
Yes, I was actually supporting your comments, which is why I put the post in this place.
It’s far worse than just a circular reasoning logical fallacy. It is a methodology that can not be used to estimate or verify an ECS of CO2 guess.
There is no global average temperature for the 1800s. There were very few measurements outside the N.H. and even there mainly in ocean shipping lanes. The data are far from being global , with more infilling than actual measurements.
Potential accuracy begins in 1979 with satellites, and even then the numbers can be adjusted to be “popular” (RSS)
But even if we had VERY accurate global average temperatures since 1850, we would still have no idea what percentage of the warming since 1850 was caused by CO2. The ECS of CO2 would be still impossible to know.
But with such accurate measurements, that do not exist, a rough worst case ECS of CO2 estimate could be calculated by assuming all the warming after 1850 had been caused by manmade CO2 emissions.
But then the 1850 CO2 level is just a guess, not measured.
The bottom line is historical temperature statistics do NOT give us a methodology for an ECS of CO2 estimate.
The author’s statement was:
“when (my ECS guesses are) applied in tandem, they reproduce with surprising accuracy our best estimates of global surface temperatures for the last century and millennium.”
This is worse than just the obvious circular reasoning. In the past few thousand years the ONLY global warming observations that could be blamed on CO2 were after 1975, with a +27% increase of CO2 through 2023. The +7% estimated increaser of CO2 from 1940 to 1975 was accompanied by global cooling. Prior to 1940 manmade CO2 emissions were almost irrelevant for the warming trend since the 1690s.
The +27% increase of CO2 from 1975 to 2023 was manmade
The average temperature increase was about +0.7 degrees C. depending on whose statistics you believe.
There is no way to determine the percentage of the +0.7 degrees C. warming that was caused by the +27% CO2 level increase/
Therefore, historical temperature data, no matter how accurate, can NOT be used to calculate or verify an ECS of CO2 guess.
The Honest Climate Science and Energy Blog
Good synopsis.
On the other side, one variable affects everything, it rules, so says Jane Fonda.
It is possible that all warming since 1975 was manmade, from:
CO2 emissions
Reduced SO2 emissions
Land use changes
UHI increasing
Inaccurate global average temperature measurements and/or global average statistics
All those could explain 100% of the warming since 1975
But there is evidence of more sunlight being absorbed by the ground from changes of cloudiness in addition to lower SO2 emissions and increasing UHI
After 4.5 billion years of ONLY natural climate changes, you can’t declare that natural climate changes stopped or are just
noise” as the IPCC arbitrarily declared in 1995. That’s junk science to support a political agenda … which appears to be the entire purpose of the IPCC/
I disagree. This is an entirely different approach to anything the IPCC has done. For starters, it distinguishes between wavelengths, which the IPCC crowd do not. Secondly, it is primarily not about CO2 but about sunlight. Thirdly, it doesn’t introduce spurious feedbacks. Considerations of CO2 flow only from the sunlight analysis and the difference between sunlight and CO2. This should have been in the IPCC analysis from the start, and then we wouldn’t have any of the garbage we have to contend with now.
Excellent comments, Richard! Right on the money.
Using historical temperatures to check estimates of the effect of radiation based on the physics of the ocean surface is OK. Using historical temperatures to check estimates based on historical temperatures is circular.
Mike,
Thanks, I think so, too.
But then I would question that paragraph opening statement beginning “Nothing written in this essay to date is controversial except my ECS surface temperature guess…” Since those “historical” data guesses are certainly contested, as our friends Messrs Abbott and Greene seem to support
The assumption, that those data were generally accepted, led to my question if Mr Irvine’s conclusion (too often quoted in this thread already) indicate confirmation bias. I’m still not convinced that it does not, but I accept that you assert that it doesn’t.
It wasn’t the only assumption that I question in this text, others seem to have jumped on most of them.
Dk I think you’re misinterpreting the word “estimates”. The author is (I believe) referring to our best reconstruction of historical global temperatures. He doesn’t mean our best guess from a model begging the question of what ECS is. He means trying to estimate what the trend of global average temperature anomaly has been despite sparse data.
Rich,
I don’t believe that is correct. I visited the linked 2014 article:
A comparison of the efficacy of green house gas forcing and solar forcing
R.A. Irvine
SRG Industries, Queensland, Australia
Revised version received 21st June 2015
Appendix 2 gives the inputs to the Irving models, describing the NOAA series, above, with derived values for GHG and Solar radiation.
Appendix 3 tells how the values above were derived. In part:
IMO the author’s description of a system model is based entirely on CIMP5 and NOAA’s temperature series. NOAA’s temperature series is surely controversial in some venues, but is absolutely used by the author as a model input.
As far as CIMP5 is concerned, in 2019 Dr. Roy Spencer detailed ongoing controversy between CIMP5 and the observed record since 1979.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/12/13/cmip5-model-atmospheric-warming-1979-2018-some-comparisons-to-observations/
CMIP5 Model Atmospheric Warming 1979-2018: Some Comparisons to Observations
Dr. Spencer concludes
Perhaps I am cherry picking, but I don’t think so. The notes extracted from the 2014 paper seemed to me to be summary. Read it yourself, and don’t use my link but the author’s.
I submit that using a estimated time series from a limited number of unreliable samples for the entire earth with an unverifiable greenhouse gas model as input to achieve a similar output isn’t simplifying anything, or even a thought experiment. Repeating several times that the claims in the essay are not controversial is misleading, designed to avoid explanation and defer question, not to validate the claims. The reasoning seems as circular, to me, as is the timeworn formula “Garbage In – Garbage Out.”
dk
I agree that the temperature series used are garbage but they were all I had. I personally think they exaggerate the 20th century warming. If that is the case then my CO2 ECS is too high and will likely be less then. 1C.
This is of course a side distraction and not real relevant to the post other than by pointing out the failure of all other EBM models. Whatever temperature series you come up with can be reproduced only if the Efficacy of solar forcing is significantly higher the CO2 efficacy.
This should completely change our approach to developing climate sensitivity estimates.
The point of my post and backed by solid physics
Bob,
I admit I’m still struggling with it all. For instance, your statement
“There are only two things that contribute to the energy content of a body or system. They are input energy and energy residence time within that system.” (David’s Law, Thanks David)
…seems to be a conflation of at least two of the laws of thermodynamics:
1st and 2nd laws courtesy Wikipedia:[links removed]
The first law of thermodynamics states that, when energy passes into or out of a system (as work, heat, or matter), the system’s internal energy changes in accordance with the law of conservation of energy.
The second law of thermodynamics states that in a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems never decreases. A common corollary of the statement is that heat does not spontaneously pass from a colder body to a warmer body.
I guess my confusion, other than the name you give for it, is based on your inclusion of a time factor for “energy residence” in a body. I’d thought that “energy changes IAW the law of conservation of energy” and “entropies never decrease” in laws 1& 2 covered that, and any factor of delay in the process must come be contained in the conservation of energy.
I tried to look up “David’s Law” and only found reference to U.S. House of Representatives HR-68, which seems to be concerned with cyber bullying.
I won’t paste in your corollary, but not understanding your use of “Dave’s Law,” I can’t follow to your second statement.
I admit that from there I was drawn to the apparent circular reasoning in the conclusion — which is where I asked the original question.
Maybe you can help me to understand why we need Dave’s Law to understand your thesis? Can it be stated in terms of thermodynamics?
dk
Thanks for the detailed response.
There are from memory about 21 distinct climate zones and each of these will have different climate response to any change in energy forcing.
These different responses in general relate to the time needed for equilibrium to be restored at the TOA. This will change depending on the physical characteristics encountered by the energy forcing.
The IPCC applies a lower efficacy to a forcing that acts higher in the atmosphere. TOA equilibrium is restored quickly.
They attribute a higher efficacy to a forcing that acts on the polar regions because that slows energy transfer from the tropics and equilibrium is delayed.
These forcing efficacy changes also apply to small areas. For example water pigment changes have an effect as discussed in the post.
All this complexity can be understood as changes in the residence time of energy within a system.
This may be a leap but needs to be taken into account when trying to estimate sensitivities.
It should be one of the main considerations and is completely consistent with all thermodynamic laws.
Bob,
I think I agree. But after the statement.
Your essay seems to first emphasize, but then discard time as a factor, and never characterizes how long the additional energy remains in the system, even in the abstract.
This is reinforced, my impression, by repeated reference to GHGs or CO2 as insulators, directly and by analogy (“jacket” reference). The hypothetical observer must watch his stopwatch and simultneously sense the sytsem total energy in order to determine how much energy is in the system.
The first and second laws don’t require consideration of time. Put much more simply (than e.g. David’s Law)(my formulation): “The energy of a system is the starting state, plus the energy added, minus the energy removed from the system.”
Treating GHG and/or CO2 as both a source of increased radiation and an insulator makes the dynamics of the system more complex and harder to imagine, IMO not simpler.
Similarly, the black body analogy is useful, but how important is it when the body is also simultaneously energy into space with the energy input?
The clasic black body imagines energy absorbed into the system uniformly from all directions. But the earth receives maximum radiation input near the equator, at noon, then less so across all lit surfaces, then radiates that energy away at night as it rotates, and over several different material regimes (not a uniform material or shape). GHGs receive energy mostly from the direction of the sun, but re-emit that energy in all directions, and not much of that to the surface. In darkness, GHG/CO2 continue to receive radiation from the rest of the system, and re-radiate them in all directions — not much of that to the surface. The differences in energy and rotation (and tilt, and distance, and tidal forces) create energy and material flows, transferring it from hot to cold, and radiating it into space.
Insulation is a property of either a vaccuum or of materials that do not transfer heat quickly. If a material is flowing it is transferring energy and not storing it.
Again, from your essay,
But water vapor is treated as a gas, and conducts heat from the surface to the stratosphere. Condensing, or condensed, frozen water is also a reflector of energy, reflecting energy back into space. Phase change of water from gas to liquid, liquid to ice, ice to liquid uses energy — still in the system (Law 2) but “moved.”
I don’t think that you mean that energy only flows into the oceans and remains there in stasis. It cools off, at least from dusk to dawn and everywhere at the surface where the temperature is less than that of the air.
The analogy for GHG variation in evaporation, as you illustrated in your 2014 experiments, actually demostrates an increase of the radiation of heat from the ocean through increase of the volume of water vapor exchange of heat into the upper atmosphere – the hydrologic cycle. The effects include cooling of the water surface from evaporation, and cooling the surface from condensed water returning to (or near to) the surface.
Increasing ocean heat increases ocean and atmospheric flows from the tropics to the poles, increases radiation into space, and doesn’t do so evenly because of the geography, rotation, seasonal incline, and a host of other factors.
In considering a time factor to the influx of energy, as in David’s Law, are you trying characterize thermal storage without loss? Doesn’t this add, but not address, complexity?
How do we evaluate or measure the change (if any) of energy loss from the system over time? Doesn’t that add complexity?
How do we charactarize the effect of changing flow of energy within the sytstem? Do we assume that added energy does not affect transfer? Do we assume that delta in does not affect delta out?
How do we characterize the rate of energy loss by GHG/CO2 from the system (in can’t all only flow to the surface)? Do they continue to force energy gains to the system in the absence of sunlight?
Is it a simplification to ignore complexity?
dk
My language has obviously confused the issue.
The jacket reference was only meant to illustrate the point about residence time.
”Is it a simplification to ignore complexity?”
In this case we have a completely different mechanism to separate solar and CO2 forcing efficacy. It is completely ignored by the IPCC despite the physics behind it being uncontroversial.
Its a simplification in that we don’t have to argue complex cosmic ray theories or jet stream changes etc to explain the strong solar influence on climate. Doesn’t mean these and other ideas aren’t relevant.
W/M2 do not always have the same impact on Earths temperature, in fact they probably never have the same impact in a complex system like the Earths physical environment and climate.
I’ll go one step further and defy anyone to make an Energy Balance Model that matches the last century and millennium without giving solar forcing a much higher efficacy than CO2 forcing.
Thanks for the thoughtful questions
At this we can agree. But I’m also pretty sure that we won’t reconcile the routes by which we arrived at the same place. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
Bob, try your estimation on the Hansen 1999 chart.
That is the chart that represents the real temperature profile of the planet.
The Hansen 1999 chart is the least bastardized U.S. chart that can be found. After the cooling began in 1999, the climate alarmist decided they needed to “adjust” the temperature profile to fit their climate alarmist narrative. So 1999 is the best we can do from the official record. After that, the official records have been bastardized all to hell.
Try it out. See what your ECS estimation is then, using Hansen 1999. I am real curious to know that number.
Here is Hansen 1999:
“The forcing model has an R2 of 0.89 suggesting a significantly better fit than the HadGEM2 CMIP5 model which has an R2 of 0.16. The model (Figure 1) accurately reproduces the slope of the temperature rise from 1910 to 1940, the cooling from 1940 to 1970, the slope of the temperature rise from 1970 to 1998 and the temperature hiatus of the last decade or more.”
Below is a comparison of the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick chart (on the right) next to a U.S. regional surface temperature chart (Hansen 1999), on the left.
The claim above is that the bogus Hockey Stick chart matches the fit of his estimation of ECS, yet if that’s the case, then his fit does not match the U.S. surface temperature chart because the temperature profiles of the two charts are completely different.
The U.S. chart shows cyclical cooling and warming equivalent to a 2.0C range, whereas the bogus Hockey Stick chart shows the temperatures getting hotter and hotter and hotter, for decade after decade, and shows we are now at the hottest time in human history.
One of those charts is wrong. The one this author uses to make his comparisons.
The author should try fitting his estimation of ECS to the U.S. temperature chart profile, which is the real temperature of the globe (no unprecedented warming).
Tom
I agree that temperature histories have likely been manipulated.
From the Hansen graph it appears that CO2 would be a minor player with solar having a strong influence.
Estimating more accurate sensitivities from this graph would be time consuming but probably worth doing.
“From the Hansen graph it appears that CO2 would be a minor player with solar having a strong influence.”
That’s what I’m thinking, too, Bob. 🙂
“Essentially, the Green House gases (GHG) absorb and reemit a small fraction of long wave radiation that would otherwise have found its way to space more quickly.”
Essentially, evaporation and convection at the surface do the same, transfer the heat to the atmosphere that would otherwise found its way to space more.
*more quickly
And this non-radiative heat transfer between the surface and the atmosphere ‘traps’ more heat (~85%) than the radiative heat transfer (~15%).
As the percentage of the total surface heat loss (including the direct radiation to space), it’s:
Non-radiative ~64%
Radiative ~11%
Not trapped ~25%
Just for information :
Yes, that’s my point. That’s why I used the diagram that uses the radiative heat transfer s->a, not the individual radiative fluxes, to make the ‘thought experiment’ as simple (and clear) as possible. The so-called (natural) greenhouse effect is not only a radiative effect. It’s an insulative effect – the whole of the atmosphere (not just ‘ghg’ gases) provide resistance to heat flow.
Any estimate of ‘climate sensitivity’ without this understanding will be wrong.
Like R.W. Wood in his ‘Note on the Theory of the Greenhouse” noted:
“The solar rays penetrate the atmosphere, warm the ground which in turn warms the atmosphere by contact and by convection currents. The heat received is thus stored up in the atmosphere, remaining there on account of the very low radiating power of a gas. It seems to me very doubtful if the atmosphere is warmed to any great extent by absorbing the radiation from the ground, even under the most favourable conditions.”
From the modern observations:
On average, the atmosphere is warmed by absorbing the radiation from the ground to the extent of ~15%, by ‘contact and radiation currents’ from the ground ~85%. He was pretty much spot on.
*convection currents, not radiation currents
“the whole of the atmosphere (not just ‘ghg’ gases) provide resistance to heat flow.
Any estimate of ‘climate sensitivity’ without this understanding will be wrong.”
Good point.
It seems to me very doubtful if the atmosphere is warmed to any great extent by absorbing the radiation from the ground, even under the most favourable conditions.”
_________________________________________________
A search for the absorption spectrum of Nitrogen and Oxygen turns up only Oxygen with its small blip around 10μ. Apparently, Nitrogen is quite transparent. So 78% of the atmosphere isn’t going to warm up from radiation and another 21% isn’t going to warm very much. So water vapor and the other 1% have some heavy lifting to do.
Anyone who goes outside on a windy winter day without their mittens knows how fast your hands get very cold from contact with all that fast moving N2 and O2.
And a black body that radiates predominately at 15μ where CO2 absorbs has a temperature similar to a block of dry ice.
So when Dr. James Hansen says in Chapter 8 of the IPCC’s AR4 page 631 (pdf 43):
“…the climate response to a doubling of
atmospheric CO2 … with no feedbacks
operating would be around 1.2°C”
do I believe that? Yes, I do. (-:
This raises a question about the very ECS definition :
Therefore :
“There are known knowns.
These are things we know that we know.
There are known unknowns.
That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know.
But there are also unknown unknowns.
There are things we don’t know we don’t know.”
Donald Rumsfeld
Steve Case, we should note here that Donald Rumsfeld’s own personal experience clearly demonstrates that if we continue to breath air containing 420 ppm CO2, sooner or later, we will be dead.
BINGO! (unless you are a climate scientist)
Excellent questions.
What goes into figuring up an ECS?
It appears it can be different things to different people.
Not very definitive. Just like everything else concerning CO2 and its interaction with the Earth’s atmosphere.
People who claim the climate science is settled, don’t know what they are talking about. They don’t understand the science they claim is settled.
What a revolting development this is (Curly)!
In my post, “some energy is indeed absorbed in the lower tropopause (5%)”
must be read :
“some energy is indeed absorbed in the lower troposphere (5%)
Why is the effective radiating height of the earth’s atmosphere the same height as 500mb pressure about 5.5 km altitude?
500mb is the half mass of the atmosphere. Colder above warmer below.
The atmospheric lapse rate intersects this at -18C temperature, the temperature calculated for heating of the earth by the sun m.
Add the lapse rate of about 6 C per km and you get a surface temp of 15C
Unless someone can move the effective radiating height away from 500mb the earth’s temp is not going to change.
I’ve wondered that too, and it’s also true for other planets with atmospheres, even CO2-greenhouse posterchild-planet Venus. The blackbody temp is reached at the altitude of center of mass of the atmosphere, also where the air pressure is half the surface pressure – without regard to the composition of the air. It’s like the atmosphere acts like a blackbody itself but the heat gets concentrated at the surface because of gravity.
I know in my engineer’s heart that CO2 absorbs and re-emits IR, but the evidence says it doesn’t act as global blanket.
It’s like the atmosphere acts like a blackbody itself but the heat gets concentrated at the surface because of gravity.
Finally people are starting to see the reality !!
Now there is a question that Greta should be asked to explain and failing any comprehensible answer, maybe ask her teacher Al Gore to tell us.
Indeed, one of the (many) AGW fallacies lies in the comparison of the theoretical earth’s surface (Z = 0 meter) emission (based on the wrongly applied Stefan’s law since the earth surface is not a black body and where there are other competing heat transfers as conduction, convection, evaporation/condensation) and the emission of the atmosphere as measured by satellites.
So we are comparing a theoretical emission at the surface (Z = 0 meter) to a measured atmospheric/ground emission which takes place at a mean altitude of 5100 meters (at a temperature of -18°C according to the Stefan’s law which may eventually apply when measuring the atmohphere/ground emission from the space).
The GHG hypothesis is based on the difference of this two values which it is supposed to explain.
This makes no sense :
I thought the science was settled. 🙂
ECS isn’t even settled, yet our politicians are ruining our economies because of it.
The Temperature Data Mannipulators are responsble for this.
Politicians are not ruining our economy because of ECS. They are pretending to worry about ECS in order to ruin our economy.
They are using ECS as their vehicle to ruin the economy.
And they don’t even have the ECS nailed down. The estimate is between 1.5C and 4.5C! And they don’t have any idea where the real figure lands.
But, they are destroying our economies despite this.
It’s not about CO2 or ECS for a lot of them. It’s about power, and money and control.
The height of 500 millibars varies with temperature. The atmosphere puffs out in the tropics and shrinks down at the poles. What does the lapse rate do when TOA is higher up and thus 500mb is higher up? If it remains the same, then the surface is hotter.
I think it is possible to simplify this debate much more easily.
One side of the debate has always been happy to participate in genuine debate, examine factual evidence, compare alleged “projections” with real, measured outcomes.
The other side, enormously financed and privileged by incompetent politicians using taxpayers’ money and Billionaires with agendas, has lied, fiddled evidence on a massive scale, destroyed reputations, refused to discuss and blatantly pursues agendas to destroy the economies of the West.
Who are you inclined to believe?
Neither of them. Please hear me out though.
The first side is perfectly happy to let me examine their data, explain me their reasoning so I can understand what they’re saying and doing.
The other side is forcing me to place faith in opaque studies that don’t add up once you reason through them; they appeal to authority and brook neither questioning nor debate nor doubt.
Since this entire debate has to be understood rather than believed I’ll believe neither, but I find it easier to understand the first and reject the other.
so to simplify as much as possible, one side says the case is closed and the other says no way!
it’s always hard to have a debate in a situation like this
Even worse. As more and more local and regional stations are being examined more closely, it is apparent there are a large number that have low or even no warming. One needs to explain how a well mixed gas, CO2, and a sun that traverses the earth every 24 hours like clockwork, can have such a variance in temperatures. The other thing that strikes me when animations are shown is how the hot areas migrate all around. Again, a well mixed CO2 and constant sun, how does this occur. If the GLOBE is warming, it should all be warming. Something is fishy!
The small change in residency also applies to conduction and convection.
As the earth rotates the non ghg nitrogen absorbs heat energy fron the solar warmed surface which is carried into the sky. Then at.night as the surface cools convection and conduction return this energy stored in the nitrogen back to the surface
Since 80% of the atmosphere is nitrogen this approximately 12 hour increase in residency is the main driver of surface temperature.
Yes, see the articles on this site by me and Philip Mulholland. Convective overturning of atmospheric mass is the only cause of the enhanced surface temperature beneath a gaseous atmosphere. Any other destabilising influence is neutralised by a change in the rate of overturning.
Damn! And here’s me thinking that the Sun warmed the surface, which then cooled in the absence of sunlight.
Maybe the 44TW of energy the Earth loses accounts for cooling – slow but inexorable.
The sun does warm the (land) surface, but the land does not retain the heat – deserts are cold at night. For climate, you have to look at the ocean, and specifically you have to look at the radiation that penetrates into the ocean, and that is sunlight not GHG radiation.
…
Deserts are cold at night because there is no water vapor in the overlying atmosphere–they are dry. Tropical forests at the same Latitude are much warmer at night because of the presence of water vapor.
Notice also, that the levels of CO2 are essentially identical in both regions. So the difference can’t be due to CO2.
It’s not always true, but in late Fall a clear night may have frost where a cloudy night won’t. And I’m talking about the Northern Hemisphere. The Southern Hemisphere has opposite Seasons.
It seems to me the term feedback is often inappropriately used when discussing climate related topics. It would be great to see the authors or others idea of what feedback is.
The usual idea of feedback is that some of the output of a system is fed back into the input of the system. You can hear feedback in action when you hear a public address system squealing.
I think we have heard of “Every action has an equal and opposite reaction”
Perhaps a reaction could be suitable.
The point of my essay seems to have been misunderstood.
Energy from solar forcing stays in the system for longer than Energy remitted by CO2 and it therefore will have higher efficacy.
A lot of study has gone into finding solar multipliers like cosmic ray effects etc. in an attempt to explain the historical relationship between solar forcing and temperature.
The question I was trying ask is, “could this higher efficacy also play a part?”.
If it is significant then we can have a much better understanding of climate sensitivity.
I was not trying to estimate climate sensitivity. That is a very complex area. I was simply suggesting possible sensitivities if this efficacy difference is taken into account as an example.
I would be interested to hear any thoughts on this efficacy issue. I’m yet to hear a cogent argument against it. This doesn’t mean there isn’t one of course.
It’s about time someone spelled out clearly the difference in effect between wavelengths, as you have done in this article. I await a counter argument with interest.
Yes Mike. There are currently 52 comments on this thread and yours is the only one that addresses the issue discussed in the essay.
Forcing efficacy could potentially make a huge difference to our understanding of climate sensitivity.
It is however a little unorthodox and requires a leap into a poorly understood complex area. The IPCC won’t take that leap, but I was hoping some of the scientists here could offer an opinion at least.
indeed. The difference in effect between wavelengths is quite extreme and hidden in numbers for watts per sq. meter radiation estimates.
The energy of earthshine is a small fraction of sunshine energy.
I have many times noted the much greater penetration of UV and light into the oceans.
We should also be looking at shifts in the amounts different frequencies, because even in the UV band, ocean penetration is very frequency dependent.
“Energy from solar forcing stays in the system for longer than Energy remitted by CO2 and it therefore will have higher efficacy.”
Energy from the Sun warms the surface. At night, all that energy is radiated to space. CO2, like all other matter, absorbs and emits energy. “Efficacy” is just more jargon in this context.
What you say about the (land) surface is correct. But the article is about the oceans not the land.
Mike Jonas,
it’s true about the ocean surface too.
No Trenberthian heat hiding in the depths.
The Mr. Irvine who wrote the article stated:
“I am proposing here a solar ECS of about 5.2C and a CO2 ECS of about 1.3C”
The Mr. Irvine who wrote this comment stated:
“I was not trying to estimate climate sensitivity”
Is his “solar ECS of about 5.2C” also reasonable? This topic is way over my head.
Perhaps you could flesh out your question a little better.
I understand that you believe–and I accept for the purposes of discussion–that energy received as short-wave radiation resides longer than energy received as long-wave radiation. But how would that imply greater sensitivity?
If all the long-wave energy is delivered right at the surface, the surface heats more quickly than if the delivery were spread through some depth, so presumably the energy radiates away more quickly. In the long-wave case, that is, the surface gets hotter but cools more quickly, whereas in the short-wave case the surface cools more slowly but wasn’t as hot to begin with. To me it’s not self-evident that those effects don’t cancel out and leave climate sensitivity unaffected.
Here’s another observation to give you a sense of my difficulty. I don’t think it’s residence time per se that causes the greenhouse effect so much as the fact that that the same energy is “counted” more than once. To oversimplify: without the greenhouse effect a quantum of energy the surface receives as radiation directly from space gets re-emitted back to space. With the greenhouse effect, on the other hand, the same quantum bounces between the atmosphere and the surface a few times before it returns to space and thereby is responsible for higher radiation power than without the greenhouse effect: by Stefan-Boltzmann, a higher temperature. Yes, there’s more residence time, but what’s central to the effect is that the same quantum is “counted” more than once.
Could explain where in your proposal the multiple counting comes in?
Fair question. Bear in mind that this article is not primarily about the greenhouse effect, it is about the different effects of different wavelengths. The shorter wavelengths from sunlight warm the oceans over a long period, and that’s relevant to climate. The energy from the longer wavelengths goes straight back into the atmosphere and is soon lost to space. The estimation in the article that in the long term the short wavelengths have about four times as much effect on climate as long wavelengths seems pretty reasonable. But I don’t think that anyone is claiming that this is the last word.
Thanks Joe
Yes the quantum is counted more than but is also measured more than once and that is the definition of temperature.
Effective Radiation Forcing is a well understood concept and depends on residence time. See the papers referenced in the post.
As far as I know this not controversial.
It is the way I see it. Doesn’t mean it’s correct of course.
Thanks for the response. I can’t take the time right now to completely rule out the possibility that you’re on to something. But at this point it looks to me as though you’ve confused residence time as a result with residence time as a cause.
I’m perfectly comfortable with the notion that sensitivities to different types of forcing differ. But at first glance it appears that the particular writing on which you rely merely postulatse some lower effective forcing, i.e., some degree of decoupling between surface and top-of-the-atmosphere temperature responses. (“Imagine, for example, that the atmosphere alone (perhaps through some cloud change unrelated to any surface temperature response) quickly responds to a large Radiative Forcing to restore the flux imbalance at the TOA (Top Of Atmosphere), yielding a small effective climate forcing.” And, although the term quickly is used, to me it seems that it’s a result of the lower effective forcing he’s postulated (“Imagine”) rather than its cause.
Again, though, I haven’t taken enough time with this to be sure I’m right.
I think the most important and interesting point being addressed in this essay is the timing of the earth system response to energy flow, and the different absorbing characteristics of land and ocean.
Please consider the points made in these three videos and the accompanying text descriptions on YouTube.
https://youtu.be/Yarzo13_TSE
Yes, the land responds very quickly to the pulses of daytime solar heating. Oceans not so much. In any case, the question about CO2 is whether one should ever expect to be able to isolate the effect of incremental CO2 for reliable attribution. I think not.
https://youtu.be/I0OCzxUyMqQ
Similar point, with images for CONUS instead of Full Disk.
https://youtu.be/hDurP-4gVrY
Concerning the atmosphere’s operation, it becomes clear that energy conversion acts very quickly. This leads me to conclude that the ECS of CO2 or any other non-condensing GHG cannot be reliably differentiated from zero in the real atmosphere. I don’t take issue with the estimates of the static radiative effect of, say, 2XCO2, and the corresponding theoretical temperature response of ~1.3C. But the atmosphere is not static. The physics of compressible fluid flow overwhelm the static radiative effect.
Thank you for asking for our thoughts.
David
I agree that the climate, if viewed as a massive heat engine, will move an enormous amount of energy and act as a strong negative feedback as you say.
This may, as you say, largely negate any GHE. The GH effect is approximately 33C at the surface so it is still relevant.
Your point, when we drill into it, is based on residence time as mine is so the arguments have a lot in common.
There’s a couple of problems in your description. I realize you are just using climate science claims. However, they have problems.
The 3.7 watts/m2 of DWIR at the surface does not cause any warming. You correctly point out that some of that energy goes into evaporative cooling. The rest of the energy is simply conducted back into the atmosphere due to the 2LOT. The end result is that energy cools the surface.
The only warming of the atmosphere comes from ~3 watts/m2 of increased absorption at the edges of the 15 mm frequency band. That is energy which would have been radiated out through the atmospheric window.
The added water vapor then induces stronger convection currents which leads to thicker clouds and a reduction in high altitude water vapor. Both of these are cooling effects which counter the increased energy released during condensation as well as the increased energy absorption from the atmospheric window.
The resulting ECS is likely to be very close to zero.
I can believe this for the oceans. Not so much for land surfaces. Land loses heat from conduction, evaporation, and radiation. Land obviously has more mass than CO2 and the radiation from that mass is lost based on temperature. SB is ok for black bodies but doesn’t really apply unless you also include the specific heat and masses of the bodies being warmed and cooled. CO2 just can’t be cause. H2O can be the cause. This upsets your thought experiment and CAGW because it acts differently from CO2.
The concepts of radiative forcings, feedbacks and climate sensitivity are pseudoscientific nonsense that are derived from an oversimplified one dimensional equilibrium or steady state climate model. The basic model was first introduced by Arrhenius in 1896. He used a uniform air column with a single start temperature (288 K). This was illuminated by a fixed 24 hour average solar flux. The surface was a partially reflective blackbody with zero heat capacity. When the CO2 concentration was increased, the surface temperature had to increase to maintain the steady state flux balance imposed in the model. Any warming was a mathematical artifact of the simplified model calculations. In 1967 Manabe and Wetherald (MW67) copied this basic model and added a 9 or 18 layer radiative transfer model with a fixed relative humidity distribution (MW67). They also constrained the lapse rate to 6.5 K km-1. Given the limited spectral data available to M&W, the radiative transfer algorithms were quite reasonable. Unfortunately, they chose to force their model back to a steady state condition after the CO2 concentration was changed. At each step in their model integration, a very small temperature increase was allowed to accumulate. The initial CO2 induced warming artifacts were then amplified by a ‘water vapor feedback’. This was a second mathematical artifact created by the fixed relative humidity assumption. It took a year of integration time (step time multiplied by the number of steps) to force the model back to a steady state so that the flux balance was restored at the top of the model and the air layer temperatures were stable. When the CO2 concentration was doubled from 300 to 600 ppm, the increase in temperature for clear sky conditions was 2.9 °C (from Table 5 of MW67). This is the original source of the ‘climate sensitivity’.
This model was blindly copied by the NASA Goddard group in 1976 (H76) and 10 more minor IR species were added including methane and nitrous oxide. (Chlorofluorcarbons were first added by Ramanathan in 1975.) All of the warming was created by the mathematical artifacts from the simplified MW67 model. The MW 67 model was ‘improved’ by Hansen’s group in 1981 (H81). They added a ‘slab’ ocean, a CO2 doubling ritual and the calculation of a global mean temperature record. The H81 model was tuned so that the ‘climate sensitivity for a doubling of the CO2 concentration from 300 to 600 ppm produced an increase in temperature of 2.8 °C. H81 provided the foundation for the climate modeling fraud we have today.
The surface temperature is determined at the surface by four main interactive, time dependent flux terms, the absorbed solar flux, the net LWIR cooling flux, the moist convection (evapotranspiration) and the subsurface thermal transport.
It is impossible for the change in long wave IR (LWIR) flux produced by a so called greenhouse gas forcing to cause any kind of climate change. Any temperature increases are too small to measure. There can be no climate sensitivity. There are five parts to this analysis:
1) It is impossible for the small decrease in LWIR flux (radiative forcing) at the top of the atmosphere to couple to the surface because of molecular line broadening effects in the troposphere.
2) There is no thermal equilibrium or steady state, so a change in flux has to be interpreted as a change in the rate of cooling (or heating) of a set of coupled thermal reservoirs. In the troposphere, at low to mid latitudes, a doubling of the CO2 concentration from 300 to 600 ppm produces a maximum decrease in the cooling rate, or a slight warming of +0.08 C per day. This is too small to measure in the normal temperature variations found in the turbulent boundary layer near the surface.
3) Over the oceans, the penetration depth of the LWIR radiation is less than 100 micron (0.004 inches). Here it is fully coupled to the wind driven evaporation or latent heat flux. At present the annual increase in average CO2 concentration is near 2.4 ppm per year. This produces an increase in the downward LWIR flux to the surface of approximately 0.034 W m-2 per year. There can be no ‘water vapor feedback’ in the evaporation process at the ocean surface. Any increase in ocean surface temperature increase produced by an increase in CO2 LWIR flux is too small to measure.
4) Over land, almost all of the absorbed solar flux is dissipated within the same diurnal cycle in which it is received. There is a convection transition temperature each evening when the convection stops and the surface continues to cool more slowly by net LWIR emission. This transition temperature is reset each day by the local weather system passing through. Any surface warming produced by an increase in downward LWIR flux from CO2 is too small to measure.
5) There can be no CO2 signal in the global temperature record. The main term is temperature change from ocean oscillations, mostly the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). There is an obvious peak near 1940 from the warming phase of the AMO (See figures 3 and 5 in H81). In addition, there is heating from urban heat island effects, changes to the weather station rural/urban mix and ‘adjustments’ related to homogenization.
More information on climate pseudoscience is available at:
https://venturaphotonics.com/files/VPCP_032.1_ClimateAlgebra.pdf
A more detailed discussion of climate energy transfer is provided in the recent book ‘Finding Simplicity in a Complex World – The Role of the Diurnal Temperature Cycle in Climate energy Transfer and Climate Change’ by Roy Clark and Arthur Rörsch. A summary and selected abstracts including references relevant to this discussion are available at:
https://clarkrorschpublication.com/.
…this is the stuff I lurk around this site for!
Me, too. I want to see a good debate on ECS.
Climate alarmists claim the “science is settled” but obviously it is not.
Alarmist climate science is a House of Cards.
Useful history.
The fundamental error arose in 1976 when the Arrhenius model was used by NASA as a base for subsequent models.
That left out the effects of conduction and convection in a mobile atmosphere because the small scale Arrhenius model could not replicate the effect of the exponential rate of decline in density and temperature with height observed in the real world.
None of the models currently in use are fit for purpose.
NASA knows a lot about radiation of energy but apparently nothing much about meteorology.
Well, the written, historical temperature record doesn’t show any effects from more CO2 in the atmospehre. It’s no warmer today than in the recent past, yet there is much more CO2 in the air today than then. Increased CO2 has had no discernable effect on the temperatures.
“Increased CO2 has had no discernable effect on the temperature”
That claim is total BS
CO2 alone could explain the entire change of temperature since 1940 based on the expected warming from lab spectroscopy measurements and a small water vapor positive feedback..
It would be difficult to explain the increased greenhouse effect since 1975 without using CO2 emissions as a cause because the only other cause would be more night cloudiness, for which we do not have accurate global average data.
The exact causes of the warming since 1975 are unknown.
Those who claim only CO2 are guessing. Those claiming CO2 did nothing are guessing too. Both are guesses by fools. The right answer is we do not know.
The evidence so far suggests a mix of manmade and natural causes of the post 1975 warming, with more evidence of manmade causes.
We do not know is still the correct answer, which you missed.
Oh what a load of made-up crap. The temp FELL from 1940 to ’75. Since then there has been half a degree of warming – meaningless. Since 1940 much less. Even more meaningless. How can you possibly extract a human signal from that?
…oh, oh, oh, add the bit where their entire argument for warmunism rests on temperature records that are regularly “adjusted” to conform to their theory, plus the bit about siting weather stations on paved land, plus the shenanigans with the actual physical operation of their probes, plus the fraud they commit in recording those fraudulently quoted probes (this issue with their probes has been extensively discussed by people knowledgeable in a variety of field specialities, on this site, repeatedly and in great detail, when I say fraud, the evidence exists).
“CO2 alone could explain the entire…” is a careless philosophy.
I don’t think there has been any warming since the Early Twentieth Century.
If you look at historic temperature charts, instead of bastardized Hockey Stick charts, they all show it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today, so there is very little, if any warming, going on in the world, and the United States has been in a temperature downtrend since the 1930’s.
James Hansen said the 1930’s were the hottest decade, and 1934 was the hottest year, and 1934 was 0.5C warmer than the year 1998, which makes it 0.4C warmer than 2016, and 0.2C warmer than Hunga Tonga.
RG: “It would be difficult to explain the increased greenhouse effect since 1975 without using CO2 emissions as a cause because the only other cause would be more night cloudiness, for which we do not have accurate global average data.”
The increased greenhouse effect? I beleive you mean an increase in temperatures since 1975, and are unconsciously attributing that to the greenhous effect.
The temperature increase from the 1910’s to the 1940’s was of the same magnitude as the current temperature increase from 1979 to today.
There was less CO2 in the air from 1910 to 1940, than there is now from 1979 to today, but the temperature increases were the same.
What caused the warming from the 1910’s to the 1940’s?
What caused the warming from the 1850’s to the 1880’s, which warming was also of the same magnitude as the subsequent warmings?
RG: “The exact causes of the warming since 1975 are unknown.”
Mother Nature is the cause of warming until proven otherwise, and it has not been proven otherwise, as of today.
“4) Over land, almost all of the absorbed solar flux is dissipated within the same diurnal cycle in which it is received.”
The stead-state, average value of radiation does not consider that the nighttime temperature curve is an exponential decay (or more closely a polynomial decay). That means that if the heat absorbed during the day causes the starting temp of the decay to increase then the amount of radiation at the start of the decay is higher. Thus more heat gets radiated per unit of time. The proper way to evaluate this is to integrate the nighttime temperature decay curve to obtain total heat radiated. As daytime heat absorbed goes up so will the amount of heat radiated at night.
Averages *always* lose information needed to properly understand physical processes. Climate science “averages” are no different.
You suggest “ECS surface temperature guess of 5.2C (approx.) for a 3.7w/m^2 increase in solar forcing”.
What would you suggest for a 94 w/m^2 increase in solar forcing? In other words, 25 times your 3.7. That is the difference in solar forcing between the Earth’s aphelion and perihelion. The impact on global temperature is zero. Check any tropical island such as Kiribati and you will find the temperature is constant year round.
‘What would you suggest for a 94 w/m^2 increase in solar forcing?’
An excellent question.
I note that the difference between summer-winter insolation was also (way too) briefly mentioned in the Wijngaarden & Happer (2023) paper (page 7) that was recently discussed here on WUWT:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/11/21/atmosphere-and-greenhouse-gas-primer/
Given that 1) climate alarmism ‘requires’ feedbacks on the initial CO2 forcing of 3 – 3.7 W/m^2 in order to scare us into submission, and 2) these feedbacks should supposedly operate regardless of the source of the initial forcing (CO2, insolation, etc.), the alarmists really need to tell us why the above difference in solar forcing doesn’t matter but our consumption of fossil fuels does.
Actually, it is much simpler.
The only delay in energy residence time that matters is that involved in convective overturning of atmospheric mass. That is the time taken for surface kinetic energy to be converted to atmospheric potential energy and back again.
Every other factor that might influence that residence time is neutralised by a change in the rate of such overturning via local or regional changes in the lapse rate slope.
The ocean heat content is similarly constrained by local or regional changes in the evaporation rate and that rate averaged globally is fixed by the weight of atmospheric mass bearing down on the ocean surface.
Thus the equilibrium sensitivity to anything other than atmospheric mass is zero.
There will however be changes in atmospheric air circulation which will show up as shifts in the boundaries positions and intensities of the permanent climate zones. In the case of CO2 such changes would be indiscernible from natural variations.
What did the 2nd Law do to deserve such hideous mistreatment.
What is it that propels folks to ignore *everything* they see and feel around themselves, every second of every day, about how warm and cold objects interact.
>>When ‘energy’ (as in infra-red or visible light) interacts with ‘substance’ so as to raise the temperature of ‘substance’, electromagnetic energy is being converted to mechanical energy = the Brownian motion of the molecules/atoms of substance.
The atoms and molecules are having their momentum changed
i.e. They are being accelerated, it takes ‘force moving through distance‘ to do that
That is the working principle of any and all Heat Engines = ‘energy’ of some form or other is becoming Mechanical Energy = Motion
As such Carnot’s Heat Engine Equation applies
It is simplicity itself, all you need to know is the input temperature of your engine and its output temperature.
Using only those 2 numbers and then you can calculate the efficiency of the engine = how much of your input energy becomes mechanical energy and how much is lost to ‘Entropy’
We do NOT need to know what form that energy is in.
Carnot as attached, from here
For Sol heating Earth’s surface: (using the calculator at the link)
Input temp =5,500 Kelvin
Output temp = 15°C = 288Kelvin
Efficiency = 94.7%
i.e Sol is very efficient at heating Earth’s surface, only 6% of the energy is lost to entropy
For a coal fired power station
Input temp (to the steam turbine) = 200°C = 473Kelvin
Output temp of the turbine (= the cooling tower) =30°C = 303Kelvin
Efficiency = 36%. (a figure we all should recognise)
64% of the energy in the coal is lost- Power stations are ‘not the best‘
For the surface heating the atmosphere
Input temp = 288 Kelvin
Output temp = 258 Kelvin (the generally accepted figure for the average temp of the troposphere = minus 15°C)
Efficiency = 10.4%
Earth’s surface is a very poor heater of the atmosphere – 90% of the energy is lost
For Earth’s atmosphere heating the Earth’s surface
Input temp = 258Kelvin
Output temp = 288 Kelvin
Efficiency = minus 11.6%
i.e. The idea that the atmosphere heats the surface is absurd
It does the exact opposite, the 2nd Law, Entropy, Carnot and even Stefan all say as much
Or try it another way: The greenhouse effect is akin to you covering all the internal walls of your house with mirrors and expecting it to become toasty warm inside
try to understand why not
And mirrors are 95+% efficient at reflecting all the electromagnetic energy that hits them yet that reflected energy CAN NOT (re) heat the object/substance/stuff/thing that emitted it.
CO₂ ‘reflects’ at best 50% of the miniscule (pulled out of someone’s ass: 3.7Watts) it absorbs
If that tiny amount is absorbed by Earth surface, it equates to a heat engine with negative efficiency as the CO₂ will be, at best, at the average temp of the troposphere = minus 15°C
Will someone please tell us what an engine with negative efficiency looks like – Show us pictures please or it didn’t happen
The atmosphere cools the surface via upward convection during the day but reduces the cooling rate via downward convection during the night.
The net effect is an increase in energy residence time.
Due to rotation the effects are masked by the upward and downward motions being spread around the entire surface.
Instead of a rising cell on the day side and a falling cell on the night side we see the Hadley, Polar and Ferrel cells smeared meridionally around the globe.
I’m sure everyone is now feverishly working out the efficiency of Earth’s atmosphere heating outer/deep space
Two situations: Before ‘warming’ and after ‘warming’
Before warming
Input temp = minus 15°C or = 258 Kelvin
Output temp = 4 Kelvin
Efficiency = 98.4496%
After 5 degrees of ‘warming’
Input temp = minus 10°C or = 263 Kelvin
Output temp = 4 Kelvin
Efficiency =98.4791%
IOW, Global warming means that the atmosphere becomes more efficient (better) at heating deep space.
What does that mean, how do you interpret that?
I see Earth’s atmosphere losing, in real terms and in real Joules, more energy than before.
iow. I see Global Cooling
I think if we throw it all together, we’ll find an atmosphere that dynamically expands and contracts under electrostatic tension so that any temperature anomalies are compensated for by the basic pressure/ temperature relation in all gasses.
Measuring the brightness of a radiating body )(at a specific wavelength, to top it all!) gives you no information other than brightness, the rest is all inferred, and our understanding of the geosphere is far too limited to make those inferences totally trustworthy.
Oh, and “Lithosphere”. You ain’t gonna make sense until you include the lithosphere. Have to insert the lithosphere there somewhere. And weather modification programmes, still have to see them represented in the models…
“The second half of 2023 will be the warmest six months in at least 5000 years.”
Where’s the evidence for that?
The evidence is based on averaged climate reconstructions that have not been able to prove any period in the past 5000 years was warmer than the past 10 years. That does not mean a hocky stock existed. It just means we do not have accurate global average data, and the data we have can’t prove any warm periods in the past 5000 years were warmer than the last half of 2023.
The Holocene Climate Optimum reconstructions, from 5000 to 9000 years ago, when averaged, do show at least +1 degree warmer than the past 10 years. Other warm periods reconstructions when averaged show no more than +0.5 warmer than the past ten years, which is certainly below the margin of error in the estimates.
The last six months of 2023, hot from the El Nino, will be the hottest six months in the post-1979 UAH temperature record, helped by an El Nino starting in June, unusually early in the year
The climate reconstructions are LOCAL educated guesses. When average together to create a fake global average temperature, the variations are smoother (reduced).
There is no evidence of any warmer six month period than the last six months of 2023.
And that’s good news
Warm is good
Cold is bad
Do you actually believe your own drivel? Do you believe that centuries of a warm arctic for periods of centuries 1000 and 2000 years ago was only regional? The trees below were under the ice from between 1000 and 2000 or more years. They were between 100 and 300 years of age before they were covered. You Michael Mann enthusiasts are really becoming tiresome.
I specifically wrote there is no proof of a hockey stick trend and wrote that averaged LOCAL climate reconstructions are not accurate enough to PROVE any period in the past 5000 years was warmer than the second half of 2023 will be.
Science requires data. Conclusions require appropriate data. Guesses do not.
My comments are not drivel — You need better reading skills
Arctic reconstructions are local. They prove nothing about the global average temperature. You cannot assume one local reconstruction represents a global average.
I believe Michael Mann is a fraud
I also believe consensus climate science is not 100% wrong and many climate questions have the correct answer of “We do not know that”
“The evidence is based on averaged climate reconstructions that have not been able to prove any period in the past 5000 years was warmer than the past 10 years.”
You must not be paying attention.
Hansen 1999 proves it was warmer in the 1930’s in the United States that it is now.
And written, historical Tmax charts and Tavg charts from all over the world show it was just as warm or warmer in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today.
I’ve posted those charts numerous times in trying to make this same case.
So, you don’t believe in the written, historical temperature records? Do you just blank them out of your mind when you consider temperatures? I don’t get it. You are ignoring the evidence right in front of your eyes that shows it is no warmer today than in the recent past.
Let’s simplify it even further. If one assumes (not unreasonably) that deep space, being infinite and rather cold, has an infinite capacity to absorb heat, then any additional heat in the Earth’s atmosphere will eventually end up there, the rate of transfer being a function of the temperature difference between the two. Earth’s temperature is, effectively, self-regulating, as Willis Eschenbach has demonstarted.
“The idea that the atmosphere heats the surface is absurd”
Your statement is absurd.
Radiation that heats the surface, called back radiation, is the greenhouse effect. It is measured 365 days a year and you deny that it exists. You are a science denier, claiming there’s no greenhouse effect, contradicting more than 99.9% of scientists living on our planet and measurements of back radiation too.
You are applying some wacky kind of thermoDUMBnamics “principles” that you have obviously invented all by yourself.
All objects at temperatures less than absolute zero emit radiation.
Because greenhouse gas molecules radiate heat in all directions, some of it spreads downward and ultimately comes back into contact with the Earth’s surface, where it is absorbed.
The temperature of the surface becomes warmer than it would be if it were heated only by direct solar heating.
This supplemental heating of the Earth’s surface by the atmosphere is the natural greenhouse effect.
Richard,
“The temperature of the surface becomes warmer than it would be if it were heated only by direct solar heating.”
No. The atmosphere prevents 30% or so of the Sun’s radiation from reaching the surface. On the airless Moon, receiving 100% of the Sun’s radiation, temperatures after the same exposure time can reach about 125 C, compared with 60 C on Earth.
The atmosphere can radiate all it likes, but if it is cooler than the surface, no surface heating occurs. Even when the atmosphere is warmer, at night with a low level inversion, say, the surface still cools.
The Earth has cooled considerably since it was molten. Accept reality.
It is obvious that quoted statement means the sunlight that reaches earth’s surface, but you had to be an annoying nitpicker
Do you deny the greenhouse effect too?
The “greenhouse effect” is pseudo-science. It ignores several aspects of our atmosphere. I realize it is not easy. There really is DWIR towards the surface. And no, it does not result in any warming. In fact, at the surface it results in cooling. Science is hard.
“All objects at temperatures less than absolute zero emit radiation.”
less than absolute zero???
Disregard the minus sign you use for low temperatures based on the freezing point of water. I think he means that if absolute zero is the lowest you can go, anything that is not that low is less.
I meant higher than absolute zero.
I proofread after I publish a comment and then desperately search for an edit button which I could not find. I expected to get a hard time, but that’s what the internet is for.
“Radiation that heats the surface, called back radiation, is the greenhouse effect. It is measured 365 days a year and you deny that it exists.”
Can you show me this measurement? Because if you are referring to pyrgeometer measurements, the values they measure are negative at night.
“greenhouse gas molecules radiate heat in all directions”
No they don’t. That’s not what “heat” means.
Richard says:”It is measured 365 days a year and you deny that it exists.”
So what! Please demonstrate why it is important.
“Everything that can be counted does not necessarily count; everything that counts cannot necessarily be counted.” -Albert Einstein.
CO2 water vapor and night clouds al impede upwelling radiation (Earth trying to cool itself) heading toward the infinite heat sink of space.
Any radiation coming down, especially at night, when it is easiest to measure, is the result of the greenhouse effect.
There are many ways to measure back radiation:
The Amazing Case of “Back-Radiation” | The Science of Doom
And please don’t mention Einstein
I knew Albert Einstein. Albert Einstein was a friend of mine. mkelly, you’re no Albert Einstein.”
Insufferable arrogance, blended with mindless lukewarmer ignorance.
Hilarious. !! 🙂
The effect of back your back radiation warming the earth.
“There are many ways to measure back radiation:”
All of the ways of measuring “back radiation” power (from colder objects such as the atmosphere) produce negative measurements. But you knew that, right?
Once again, you confuse energy flow with temperature and even worse, you cherry pick only part of the energy flow. While the larger view is more complex, it’s requires no special physics.
Mmmmmmm,
How does one get “temperatures less than absolute zero” that you claim “emit radiation”.
Just askin,
Cheers,
Bill
Richard simply can’t accept any conclusions that go against his predetermined view. He obviously didn’t even read the science Roy Clark presented above. His response is always the same, a combination of name calling and appeal to authority.
Bravo! I would only add that as the mass of the atmosphere increases due to added CO2 it takes some amount additional input energy just to get back to even. CO2 can’t heat itself.
“In the Earth’s case, the surface of the globe or ball is the average emission height, and this also stays at the same approximate temperature after a forcing increase, while the temperature in the interior and importantly, on the surface where we live, is warmed by increased energy residence time.”
Complete nonsense. The surface is the surface. “Forcing” is GHE cultist gobbledegook. The temperature in the interior is due to the interior being hot from residual heat and radioactivity. There is no “increased energy residence time”. During the night, the surface loses all the heat of the day, plus a little of the Earth’s interior heat.
Hence, four and a half billion years of cooling, to the Earth’s present temperature.
Nothing mysterious. No GHE required or evident.
I was going to offer half an upvote, when I started thinking the third time; I think this whole war can be fought better, if we start using decent language. I offer your quoted quote as example:
Could the guy not say: ” if you turn the heat up, the thing will warm up until it settles at the new temperature, same for colder.”?
Needlessly haughty language is a great barrier between the working masses, and those supposedly thinking for them (on taxpayer subsidy, 9/10)
“Needlessly haughty language… ”
The signature of all priesthoods.
Entropy.
In the wacky world of modern climate science, everyone is entitled to one guess of CO2’s ECS.
We may have a different guess for r each climate scientist
The obvious answer is no one knows the actual ECS of CO2 in the atmosphere. And no one can knw. because there are many climate change variables so the effect of CO2 alone can not be derived from global average temperature statistics.
Unfortunately, “we don’t know” is an unacceptable answer to a climate question even though it is the right answer for many climate questions.
The best guess is to start with the effect of CO2 alone from lab spectroscopy in the HITRAN or MOTRAN databases, and then maybe add a modest water vapor positive feedback to it.
Scientists using these databases with and without a modest water vapor feedback have estimated a ECS of from 0.75 to 1.5 degrees C. I’nm not sure why the large range of guesses. Perhaps he lower ECS numbers have no positive feedback and the higher numbers have a positive feedback that forms over several hundred years.
While the author’s guess of +1.3 C. is a middle of the road, it can not be taken seriously because real science requires four or more decimal places.
My own submission in the Guess the ECS Contest is real science: +1.2749 degrees C. +/- 0.5 degrees C. (my model had seven decimal places but my dog ate my papers and I could only remember four of them)
My model is not a hat filled with scraps of paper with random numbers on them.
The exact ECS, with many decimal places, of CO2 is VERY important because we know for sure the climate will get warmer in the future, unless it gets colder.
Details of my two climate models
The Honest Climate Science and Energy Blog: Appropriate attire for adaptation to global warming
“And no one can knw. because there are many climate change variables so the effect of CO2 alone can not be derived from global average temperature statistics.”
Nailed it. So there can’t be any such thing as ECS. There ought to be some much more complex formula relating all the variables but that’s for the future to determine.
There is an ECS
You can take an ECS guess
Others will claim more, or less
On ECS, not much progress
Guessing is very stressing
I have to confess
I entered a guess ECS contest
Didn’t win
Then I was depressed
Needed lots of bedrest
The subject is complex
That’s why everyone’s perplexed
”There is an ECS”
Just because co2 is a radiative gas does not mean there is an ECS.
Are you ”sensitive” to feather on your shoulder?
“The obvious answer is no one knows the actual ECS of CO2 in the atmosphere. And no one can know. because there are many climate change variables so the effect of CO2 alone can not be derived from global average temperature statistics.”
That’s is the basic truth of the matter.
We are a long way from settling the science of the Earth’s climate and its interaction with CO2.
And the more we look, the more it seems that CO2 is just a benign gas that has no discerable effect on the Earth’s climate.
We should stop killing ourselves over an unreasonable, unwarranted fear of CO2.
We could just observe the effect of CO2 in lab spectroscopy and the actual climate change in the past 50 years … and declare that CO2 is something we need more of in the atmosphere.
And a little more global warming with the timing and pattern experienced since 1975 would be good news too.
We love our warmers winters here in SE Michigan with a lot less snow. In the past two winters we shoveled snow off the driveway just three times each winter. In the 1970s shoveling was required about once week rather than once a month.
Warm is good
Cold is bad
More CO2 is good
Less CO2 is bad
That is known as cherry picking. A better approach is to try and understand the physics involved. Of course, that is difficult and requires some thought. But, it does include radiation physics. So, one should try and understand it too.
For example,
-How far does the average ~15 mm surface emitted photon travel before being absorbed in the atmosphere?
-How far does the average photon emitted from any layer of the atmosphere travel before reabsorption?
-How often does energy absorbed by a gas get immediately remitted vs. passed on to other atmospheric molecules via kinetic collisions?
-What is the most common form of energy transfer by atmospheric molecules and surface molecules?
As it turns out, not knowing the answer to these questions (and many others) can easily lead you astray. Do you now see why your approach might be wrong?
“We put a jacket on, and our body heat is retained for longer. We warm up.”
Bad example. We warm up because our internal body heat continues to create warmth, not so with non heat producing objects. If you put a jacket on a sun warmed log, the jacket only retards the cooling of the log but does not increase it’s warmth above what it already was.
So, the premise of this discussion is: “Is it possible to simplify the climate sensitivity debate?”
After reading the essay and 61 comments, it appears it’s premise is not yet resolved. As we all know, though much of the world doesn’t, the science ain’t settled. At least we bother to debate/discuss it.
That the adiabatic lapse rate is an equilibrium property is a fundamental law for the climate scientist, never to be questioned. Thermal gradients exist due to convective equilibrium, but are independent of convective energy fluxes. This might seem a bit odd to one somwhat aquainted with dissipative descriptions of electric and fluid flow, mais chacun à son Kool-Aid.
Both are a radiative force of 3.7 W/m2. Ceteris paribus both require the same radiative response (surface temperature increase) to restore the balance at TOA. The question is…does solar forcing result in more feedbacks than does CO2 forcing? What would those feedbacks be?
You’ve misrepresented my post. The solar forcing is on average, not absorbed at the surface but some meters below the ocean surface. It’s greater residence time in the system means it will have a greater effect on surface temperature than CO2 that is absorbed on average some where in the atmosphere.
Effective Radiative Forcing is a well studied concept and depends on residence time for its conclusions.
Not on a water planet and not when the depth of energy absorption is different.
The other important variable is, where did the energy come from? Energy from outside the “system” will warm the “system”, while energy simply moving around inside the “system” won’t.
‘Both are a radiative force of 3.7 W/m2.’
I’ll buy that the same feedbacks should operate pursuant to ‘both’ types of forcing. Question for you: Why don’t we see such feedbacks when the TOA solar insolation varies by about 90+ W/m^2 each year?
Very interesting calculations but would the same theories, reasoning and conclusions regarding Co2 and global warming work on the planet Mars? After all that atmosphere is more than 95% Co2.
That is some really bad reasoning here. First of all, “not controversial” will not mean perfectly right. Yes, there are different perspectives, some of them defendable, others less. But such isolated perspectives are not “the truth”. Rather you will need a multitude of different perspectives, that if consistent, will give a better understanding.
Soon enough the argument becomes somewhat surreal. How does water have a greenhouse effect?
“Although it is not a gas, water has a much stronger greenhouse effect than do the GHGs.”
Spoiler alert: there is NO GHE in water! To be fair, I transpired this idea as well, a couple of years ago. I soon enough understood how it was nonsense. The problem was that I had not yet understood the GHE. The author here obviously has the same problem. In fact all these consideration over how deep radiation penetrates water is a logical road to nowhere.
The relevant questions, like where the 3.7W/m2 comes from, how it is based on unreasonable assumption, how evaporation reduces the GHE, or the optical properties of water – all remain untouched.
The author claims that :
“Energy reemitted by CO2 sometimes strikes the ocean surface and is almost totally absorbed within the first 0.015mm and within the evaporation layer of that ocean surface and from there is returned very quickly to the atmosphere and space as latent heat of evaporation.”
That claim misses two things. The extra evaporation adds more water vapor to the surface boundary layer of the atmosphere. That H2O vapor is less dense than N2 and O2, which drives stronger vertical convection, moving more energy toward the Tropopause. Stronger vertical convection would change the lapse rate and increase the altitude of the Tropopause, particularly in the Tropics. Adding water vapor, a strong greenhouse gas, increases the net Greenhouse Effect beyond that due only to increasing CO2, closing part of the “atmospheric window” to deep space.
Bob, you wrote “The agreed forcing for a doubling of CO2 is approximately 3.7 w/m^2 at the surface.”
Can you show me where I can measure this 3.7 W/m^2? Or any other “forcing”?
(I don’t dispute your central point, which is that different wavelengths of radiant energy travel and are absorbed differently in different parts of Earth’s environment, such as air, land, and oceans. I do have an issue with the term “forcing” and the so-called “radiant greenhouse effect” though)
its a chaotic system … continuing to try and find a pattern in the chaos is a fools errand …
or simply put …
The idea that there is a direct correlation between CO2 and temperature i.e. sensitivity … is a fantasy created by the global warming crowd … stop accepting their delusion …
the back of Einstein’s envelope would be blank in this case … he wouldn’t bother to try…
Very true, well said.
But attribution models!!
Climate sensitivity to doubling CO2 is arguably the most confused concept in climate science. It refers to at least four very different things typically without clarification.
First there is the warming abstractly expected from the forcing if nothing else happens. The spread is small but this is in no way a forecast just an abstraction.
Second is the warming in a given model which typically assumes large positive feedbacks happening. The spread is huge.
Third is the supposedly empirical measure where people somehow claim to know just how much of observed warming is due to the CO2 increase. The spread is smaller than the models because there has not been much warming.
Fourth is the absurdly claimed precise amount of warming that will come from specific future emissions. For example this version is used to specify a supposedly precise value for the carbon budget we are supposed to live under. This one is nonsense because future temperatures are not determined solely by CO2 emissions. They may not even be affected by our emissions.
What is really big is the spread among these four very different concepts. Yet the term climate sensitivity is often used without saying which is meant. This systemic confusion is of course useful to alarmism.
Wojick, this is a lot of common sense logic, but you missed the boat. You failed to give us your ECS guess. Everyone is required to guess the ECS. Only then can one call oneself a climate scientist.
How about another CFACT article?
The articles there have been mediocre following your last article.
My ECS guess is 1.2875
Four decimal places
That’s real science.
My next article is on NERC ignoring extreme weather when evaluating risk to the grid.
ECS does not exist because climate is a far from equilibrium system. My estimate of CS is zero because there is no sign of GHG warming in the entire UAH record. All the warming is due to super El Niños.
https://www.cfact.org/2021/01/15/the-new-pause/
With a new step up likely given the big spike.
El Ninos redistribute Pacific Ocean heat.
They are offset by La Ninas in the 30 to 50 years long run ofthe ENSO cycles.
Your climate science claims here are claptrap
If you are claiming the effects of CO2 in indoor lab air are completely different than the effects of CO2 outdoors, you are contradicting a century of science with a 99.9% consensus today.
If warming was only caused by El Ninos, which is false, then there can be no warming in non-El Nino years, and that is also not true.
If the ocean releases some heat to the atmosphere, then the atmosphere will be warmer and the ocean will be cooler: No net chage.
Ignoring La Ninas while focusing on El Ninos is convenient data mining.
If you are claiming there is no greenhouse effect, or that more CO2 is not increasing the greenhouse effect, then you are a science denier.
If the oceans are releasing heat at approximately five year intervals, then how did that extra heat get into the ocean? If you say from underseas volcanoes like Jumpin’ Joe Bastardi falsely claims, I’m going to start laughing.
The consecutive La Niña years of 2022 and 2021 both rank among the top 10 hottest years on record—all of which have occurred since 2010. This suggests that the short-lived global cooling effect of La Niña has not been enough to even briefly mask human-caused warming.
The UAH anomaly chart clearly shows a rising average temperature trend since 1979 with some sharp temporary peaks and troughs most likely from El Ninos and La Ninas. Each large ENSO event is followed by a reversion to the mean … and the slow +0.14 degrees C. per decade rise of the UAH temperature continues.
There is no proof that ENSO cycles cause ANY global warming or cooling in the long run.
Your false data free claim that all global warming is caused by El Ninos is Forrest Gump junk science and I can never trust your CFACT energy articles again.
Do you actually read what you write?
Define ”the long run”
CO2 has been identified as a greenhouse gas in a lab OVER a century ago. Those who claim CO2 is not a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere have had over a century to refute the lab spectroscopy data and THEY HAVE FAILED.
The long run for the ENSO cycles is 30 to 50 years, which I said in a prior comment.
There is no evidence that ENSO cycles are increasing earth’s average temperature in the long run.
The cycles have a temporary short term effect on the average temperature and weather patterns, but they do NOT cause the entire rising average temperature trend since 1975 as some Forrest Gump climate science buffs claim.
As no one knows why ENSO develops, you do not know that to be a fact. There may be lag periods spaning many decades.
I guess real science ain’t settled.
Earlier you posted a different 4decimal value. Which is it?
After the following revisions:
infilling,
homogenization,
pasteurization,
rounding, on Thursdays and Fridays
smoothing,
time of day adjustments,
seasonal adjustments
and a fudge factor to reach the EVS number demanded by my boss (the wife), which changes every day, there was a slight change to my four decimal place ECS of CO2. In the name of science.
I am currently working on a four decimal place margin of error. My BS degree has not being wasted.
Note that I follow the NASA-GISS process for determining the global average temperature, although the boss there is not my wife.
Interesting simplification suggestion, Bob, but can any simplification lead to a better grasp of this issue? There is a lot to speak about here, but first, I have some dispute with this…
I agree partially, and MODTRAN calculations back this up, that a doubling of CO2 produces a forcing of around 3.7W/m^2 noted at the top of atmosphere initially. What happens at the surface, below an IR active atmosphere is another matter. If a person takes most surface materials as having an effective emissivity of 1 (MODTRAN uses 0.97), then 3.7 W/m^2 produces 0.7C of warming at the surface, but that extra 3.7 watts emitted power (emitted power is upward from surface according to SB and irradiance is integrated downward IR intensity at the surface) at the surface warms the atmosphere leading to additional IR net flux at the surface (a feedback of the present atmosphere) which warms the surface further, etc. This is a function of the water vapor structure of the atmosphere which is a local issue (more in the tropics, less at higher latitudes). Fussing with MODTRAN would lead a person to some insight into this issue, but a quick calculation leads to an effective emissivity of the present atmosphere treated as a surface coating. This is 0.62. Using this leads to a surface temperature increase of 0.7/0.62=1.2C; thus the 1.2C figure already contains the feedback of the present atmosphere. It’s the additional water vapor feedback that is not yet included and this is a point of general contention.
At any rate, once equilibrium is re-established at TOA, what goes on at the surface is something like an additional 5-6 W/m^2 of new emitted power and this makes Forster’s statement wrong. The ocean will most certainly respond to this enhanced IR irradiance.
Want to hear something really simple. Suppose Atmospheric CO2 concentrations are not even controlled by emissions input. Suppose atmospheric CO2 concentration is controlled a balance between the atmospheric CO2 concentration and the vast ocean sink. This sounds outlandish but data tells me it may well be true. I will be happy to send a write up of my analysis esebesta@comcast.net.
Warming oceans since 1850, without any manmade CO2 emissions might explain a +17ppm increase of atmospheric CO2
Ocean warming/degassing CO2 emissions can explain none of the CO2 increase since 1850, because approximately +250ppm of manmade CO2 emissions since 1850 explains all +140ppm of the atmospheric CO2 increase since 1850, while nature, including oceans is a net CO2 absorber of about 110ppm.