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.
In reality, the whole idea of a climate sensitivity, defined as a constant change in energy absorbed in W/m2 for a doubling of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, is contrary to the laws of physics.
Let’s do another thought experiment: imagine that someone had developed a wonderful machine to suck all the CO2 out of the atmosphere and convert it to solid carbon and oxygen gas. According to climate sensitivity theory, if doubling the CO2 concentration increases the energy absorbed by 3.7 W/m2, then halving the CO2 concentration decreases the energy absorbed by 3.7 W/m2.
Starting at 400 ppm, halving to 200 ppm decreases energy by 3.7 W/m2. Halving again to 100 ppm, another 3.7 W/m2 removed, for a total of 7.4 W/m2. Halving again to 50 ppm, another 3.7 W/m2 removed, for a total of 11.1 W/m2. Repeating this process another 5 times brings the CO2 concentration down to 0.78125 ppm, and the total energy removed to 29.6 W/m2. Repeating this process another 20 times brings the CO2 concentration below 1 part per trillion, with an energy decrease of 103.6 W/m2, or nearly 1/3 of the net energy received from the sun.
The problem with climate sensitivity theory is that CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs some of the infrared radiation from earth, and converts it to kinetic energy of molecules expressed as an increased temperature, but removing CO2 from the atmosphere cannot reject any of this energy, but merely fail to absorb it. An atmosphere containing no CO2 cannot reject solar energy back to space, and the water vapor in the atmosphere would continue to absorb IR energy in a CO2-free atmosphere. The energy absorbed by CO2 in a CO2-free atmosphere would be zero, not some very large negative number!
In reality, absorption of infrared radiation by a gas obeys the Beer-Lambert law, where the intensity of the IR radiation passing through the gas is given by
I = Io exp (-aCz) [Equation 1]
where Io = initial intensity at a given wavelength, W/m2
a = absorption coefficient at the same wavelength
C = concentration of gas in molecules / m3
z = distance in meters.
The concentration in molecules / m3 can be calculated from the ideal-gas law:
C = NPy/RT [Equation 2]
where N = Avogadro’s number
P = absolute pressure (Pa)
T = absolute temperature, K
R = ideal gas constant
y = mole fraction absorbing gas (CO2)
Substituting equation 2 into equation 1 results in
I = Io exp (-aNPyz/RT) [Equation 3]
In the atmosphere, both atmospheric pressure P and absolute temperature T decrease with altitude z, but for simplification we will assume that the P/T ratio remains constant. If we define K = NP/RT, Equation 3 can be re-written
I = Io exp (-aKyz) [Equation 4]
If we assume that infrared energy is emitted by the earth at an intensity Io at a given wavelength, then the energy absorbed in the atmosphere at altitude z (in W/m3) is given by
Ea(z) = -dI/dz = Io * aKy * exp (-aKyz) [Equation 5]
As a function of CO2 concentration y, the energy absorbed is the product of a linear term and a decaying exponential term, NOT a ln (y) dependence which would lead to a constant climate sensitivity.
The CO2 absorption spectrum contains some wavelengths with very high absorption coefficients, and other wavelengths where CO2 is nearly transparent, so that the absorption coefficient (a) can vary with wavelength over several orders of magnitude.
If we arbitrarily assume z = 10 meters, we can calculate the ratio of Ea / Io from Equation 5 for various absorption coefficients (expressed as the product aK) and CO2 concentrations of 400, 800, 1600, and 3200 ppm (y = 0.0004, 0.0008, 0.0016, and 0.0032, respectively).
Values of Ea / Io for z = 10m
aK 400 ppm 800 ppm 1600 ppm 3200 ppm
1 0.000398 0.000794 0.001575 0.003099
2 0.000794 0.001575 0.003099 0.006003
5 0.001960 0.003843 0.007385 0.013634
10 0.003843 0.007385 0.013634 0.023237
20 0.007385 0.013634 0.023237 0.033747
50 0.016375 0.026813 0.035946 0.032303
100 0.026813 0.035946 0.032303 0.013044
200 0.035946 0.032303 0.013044 0.001063
500 0.027067 0.007326 0.000268 <.000001
1000 0.007326 0.000268 <.000001 <.000001
Average 0.012791 0.012989 0.013049 0.012613
The values of Ea / Io in the first column (400 ppm) represent the present situation. The maximum absorption occurs for aK = 200 m^-1, then actually decreases for higher absorption coefficients. This means that, for the highest absorbing wavelengths, most of the IR radiation was already absorbed at altitudes below 10 meters, and there is little radiation left to be absorbed at higher altitudes.
The net effect of doubling the current CO2 concentration can be estimated by comparing the columns labeled 400 ppm and 800 ppm. For low absorption coefficients (up to about aK = 50), doubling the CO2 concentration nearly doubles the energy absorbed. The incremental increase reaches a maximum of about Ea / Io = 0.01 between aK = 50 and aK = 100, but for aK > 200, the energy absorbed at 800 ppm is actually less than at 400 ppm.
This means that, at the highest-absorbing wavelengths, most of the available energy is absorbed at lower altitudes (closer to the ground) for higher CO2 concentrations than at lower concentrations. This is the exact opposite of the predictions of the IPCC model, with a high-altitude “hot spot” over the tropics. The Beer-Lambert law would predict the “hot spot” close to the ground with higher CO2 concentrations, with the upper atmosphere becoming slightly colder.
In the table above, the maximum increment in Ea / Io occurs for aK = 50, with an increment of 0.010438 between 400 and 800 ppm. If we multiply this by an assumed IR radiation rate of 340 W/m2, this would come out to a “sensitivity” of 3.55 W/m2 for that value of aK, which agrees closely with Bob Irvine’s assumed value of 3.7 W/m2.
But the absorption coefficients for CO2 across the entire IR spectrum vary widely around this “optimum” value of aK. At lower values of aK, the increase in energy is nearly linear with CO2 concentration, but actual increments in Ea / Io are much lower due to the low absorption coefficients. At higher values of aK, most of the available energy is already absorbed at 400 ppm, with very little additional energy available to be absorbed.
If we take the average value of Ea / Io for the ten values of aK considered (last row), the average increment is 0.000198 from 400 ppm to 800 ppm. Assuming Io = 340 W/m2, this results in a “sensitivity” of about 0.067 W/m2. From 800 to 1600 ppm, the increment in the average Ea/Io is 0.000060, for a “sensitivity” of about 0.021 W/m2. From 1600 to 3200 ppm, this “sensitivity” is actually negative at -0.15 W/m2 per doubling.
The numbers in the table above are approximate, since they were evaluated at only one altitude, and a more accurate model would require integrating over the entire CO2 absorption spectrum, and integrating over all altitudes, taking into account the variation of pressure and temperature with altitude.
However, any model purporting to show an energy increase in the atmosphere due to IR absorption by CO2 must be based on the Beer-Lambert law, and must also take into account “interference” from water vapor, which also absorbs some IR radiation at the same wavelengths as CO2.
The Beer-Lambert law includes a linear term multiplied by a decaying exponential term, where the decaying exponential term dominates at high absorption coefficients and/or CO2 concentrations. This demonstrates the “saturation” effect when nearly all the energy available at a given wavelength is already absorbed at low altitudes, and additional CO2 does not absorb additional energy, establishing an upper bound on the energy absorption and temperature rise.
The “climate sensitivity” concept based on a constant energy increase per doubling is fundamentally flawed and also unbounded, and not based on the laws of physics concerning absorption of IR radiation.
Your post is rather large. I’ll only comment regarding halving of CO2 thought experiment. Remember, the canonical 3.7 W/m2 figure for CO2 is confined primarily to the range of CO2 concentrations between 300 and 1000 ppm. Your thought experiment will need to take into account that the sensitivity figure in W/m2 may be much lower once you’ve completed two or more halving or doublings. [Myhre et al. 1998]
I’m really impressed that you read the whole tedious “lecture”.
This is Piled High and Deep
In 1896 Arrhenius completed a laborious numerical computation which suggested that cutting the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by half could lower the temperature in Europe some 4-5°C (roughly 7-9°F) — that is, to an ice age level.
He started the logarithmic theory over a century ago which has since been refined by lab spectroscopy with data in the HITRAN ans MODTRAN databases.
Those data are accepted by even 99.9% of “skeptic” scientists, such as William Happer and Richard Lindzen, as a starting point for CO2 ECS estimates.
The different water vapor positive feedback assumptions help cause a large range of ECS guesses … but they are all better than your claptrap claim that there is no ECS of CO2
“but they are all better than your claptrap claim that there is no ECS of CO2″
I don’t believe that is what he is saying.
He says: “The “climate sensitivity” concept based on a constant energy increase per doubling is fundamentally flawed and also unbounded, and not based on the laws of physics concerning absorption of IR radiation.”
Stating the climate sensitivity is based on a constant energy increase per doubling is fundamentally flawed is far from saying that there is no climate sensitivity at all.
The fact that the climate models use a physics that reduces to an unbound value is a big clue that something is wrong with the physics being used. If the theory is wrong, then it is wrong and needs to be redone. It’s just that simple. Remember Feynman.
Your thought experiment is well formed and internally consistent. It raises issues that need to be addressed by climate science.
But it will fall on deaf ears. Most refutations of what you say will be based on the argumentative fallacy of Argument by Dismissal without providing justification for the dismissal or by the argumentative fallacy of putting words in your mouth. Or even worse, there won’t be any refutation at all, your assertions will just be ignored, just like climate science ignores that averaging distributions with different variances without some kind of treatment makes their averaging dubious at best.
The estimated ECS of CO2 is determined by lab spectroscopy. The effect is described as logarithmic.
For over a century, scientists have had the opportunity to prove, or at least provide evidence that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas with a logarithmic effect in the atmosphere, unlike in a lab.
THEY HAVE FAILED.
That’s why scientists have a 99.9% consensus there is a greenhouse effect, manmade CO2 is part of it and CO2 has a logarithmic effect. This consensus is based on data.
Argument by Dismissal is claptrap
This is a hypothetical theory coming from some armchair pretend to be a climate scientist guy, hiding behind a moniker, pontificating some unique theory, with some math no one will doublecheck, which is not supported by any experiment or data. Just a hypothetical word salad with a bizarre he’s right unless you can prove him wrong attitude of some fans.
This is actually disagreement based on lab data, aimed at someone who implies that they are right and 99.9% of real climate scientists are wrong about the most basic climate science.
There was a natural experiment conducted in 2020 when the pandemic hit and countries of the world had lockdowns and people were trying to avoid crowds.
During 2020, human CO2 emissions dropped 6 percent according to the IEA, yet the increases in CO2 continued at the same rate, at least to the eye.
https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-review-2020/global-energy-and-co2-emissions-in-2020
https://www.co2.earth/monthly-co2
CO2 emissions fell 4.6% or 5.4% in 2020, depending on who you believe, not 6%
CO2 also continued rising during the 1973/4 recession and 2008/9 recession too.
Possible reasons:
(1) Inaccurate CO2 level measurements (I doubt it)
(2) Inaccurate CO2 emissions estimates
(3) The growth in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 was within the normal range of year-to-year variation caused by natural processes.
The “2020 claim” usually leads to a claim that the increase of CO2 since 1850 is mainly natural, which you didn’t say, but that is malarkey.
That’s not surprising. Man-made CO2 is a small fraction (estimated to be in the 3-5% range) so a small decrease of a small fraction is pushing the precision envelope.
It is also not surprising as CO2 has not driven temperature in the past so it makes no sense to believe that it suddenly can do so. The oceans emit a large fraction of the natural emissions and that is strongly temperature dependent both in the modern era and before. The fact that CO2 levels follow temperature eliminates it as a cause for increased temperature. If the opposite were true global temperature would have increased 50% or so instead of rising 4% since the late 1800s.
AGW is a hoax but the people at the UN organizations and partners, including WEF and IPCC, use it to further their agenda.
I was not expecting such a silly reply so fast. Mutiple climate myths in one comment. You are one reason why conservatives get called science deniers … for good reason. You know nothing about climate science.
Manmade CO2 emissions of about +250ppm since 1850
Atmospheric CO2 up +140ppm
That is no coincidence
You are among the 3% to 5% Berry and Harde climate fraud cult dingbats.
That’s nonsense 3rd grade arithmetic. Assuming +250 is right what is the ppm for natural? How do you get +140 due to manmade? Are you assuming that natural is constant when we know that it is temperature dependent. Are you saying that CO2 sinks preferentially differentiate between natural and manmade and selectively remove 1/2 of the manmade? If so, I’ll guess that you cannot provide any physics or chemistry or data that supports that.
Yes, Berry is right. If you are convinced he is not you should submit a rebuttal.
Sorry the response below was for scvblwxq. I clicked the wrong reply button.
Repost (hopefully to correct comment.
That’s not surprising. Man-made CO2 is a small fraction (estimated to be in the 3-5% range) so a small decrease of a small fraction is pushing the precision envelope.
It is also not surprising as CO2 has not driven temperature in the past so it makes no sense to believe that it suddenly can do so. The oceans emit a large fraction of the natural emissions and that is strongly temperature dependent both in the modern era and before. The fact that CO2 levels follow temperature eliminates it as a cause for increased temperature. If the opposite were true global temperature would have increased 50% or so instead of rising 4% since the late 1800s.
AGW is a hoax but the people at the UN organizations and partners, including WEF and IPCC, use it to further their agenda.
Same claptrap repeated again.
If every commenter was like yours this website would be Climate Comedy Central.
This is where the whole concept of GHE falls apart and why it has no bearing on Earth’s energy balance no matter how it is defined.
Clouds closely reflect surface condition. So much so that the ocean surface temperature is regulated to a sustainable maximum of 30C. Only altered by the atmospheric mass.
So Earth’s ocean surface temperature has an upper limit that will be reached if the ToA solar input is 420W/m^2 or higher for a month. Once the solar input reaches that level the atmospheric water will build up resulting in the development of convective potential that regulates the persistence of the clouds to limit surface insolation. Convective instability provides an extraordinarily powerful feedback mechanism.
Is it possible to simplify the climate sensitivity debate?
Yes it is. There was no warming from 1940 to 2015. Not very sensitive.
YOU statement is a lie.
There was no warming from 1940 to 1975.
There was warming from 1975 to 1979 based on surface data,
In the UAH data there was about +0.7 degrees C. warming from 1979 to 2015 … and a little more warming by the end of 2023,
July 2023 was the hottest month in the UAH dataset since 1979.
Dear Bob Irvine,
Rather than being a thought experiment, the debate around climate sensitivity seems to be a self-perpetuating game of blind-man’s bluff. At the very heart of the question is whether temperature measured at weather stations is actually increasing vs. whether T-data has been made to be warmer.
The second question leading on from that, is whether there is a mechanism that short-circuits what is often portrayed as a flat-earth view of the supposed radiation imbalance – does shortwave radiation minus long-wave emissions at the top of the atmosphere equal zero in the long-term.
In relation to the first question, having carefully analysed some 300 of Australia’s maximum temperature datasets using physically-based, objective protocols (BomWatch protocols), I can find no warming (i.e., no temperature increases over time) that is not specifically attributable to site and instrument changes. Data for some stations go back to the 1850s to early 1900s. Furthermore there is ample evidence of data fiddling (homogenisation), as evidenced by, photographs, maps plans etc. held by The National Library and National Archives of Australia. Examples include Townsville, Queensland, and also Marble Bar in Western Australia (https://www.bomwatch.com.au/data-quality/climate-of-the-great-barrier-reef-queensland-climate-change-at-townsville-abstract-and-case-study/ and https://www.bomwatch.com.au/data-quality/part-2-marble-bar-the-warmest-place-in-australia-2/).
If there is no warming that has not been manufactured by the Bureau of Meteorology and other like agencies that use basically the same homogenisation techniques, arguments about climate sensitivity fall to pieces, they are simply one theory vs. another.
So where does the energy go; how does it get back to space as radiation?
Exemplified by sea surface temperature (SST) measured by the Australian Institute of Marine Science along the Great Barrier Reef, a heat-pump operates in the southern hemisphere between November and March (between the equinoxes) that cools SST north of Latitude 13.5 degS. The heat-pump is the Monsoon, which kicks into gear once SST approaches 30 degC, usually between December and mid-March. This has been explained here by Richard Willoughby (https://www.bomwatch.com.au/bureau-of-meteorology/ocean-surface-temperature-limit/) and also in several posts on WUWT (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05/23/ocean-surface-temperature-limit-part-1/).
The Monsoon removes energy as latent heat from warm pools at the ocean surface and eject it as long-wave radiation from cumulonimbus towers high in the stratosphere, where the clouds condense, eventually to fall as heavy rain (minus embedded heat). This process moves across the equator from north to south and back lagging the sun’s regular progression from Tropic to Tropic.
I’ve shown using AIMS data (Quote) “toward its northern extremity (Bramble Cay, Latitude ‑9.08o, for which there is no useful AIMS data), while SST increases steadily from 01 November to mid-December, from then until March, SST does not exceed between 29o and 30oC. The curvilinear response evidenced an upper-limit to SST, which is rarely or only briefly exceeded.”
“Average monthly SST attains a plateau in late November that persists until the cooling phase commences in March. SST in the range 27oC to 29oC from November to late March provides a five-month growing season for corals, which combined with the minimum of around 20oC in July (North Keppel Island) defines the ecotone limit of Reef ecosystems.” And also:
“Sea surface temperatures reported by AIMS are no warmer than they were in November and December 150 years ago in 1871. As solar radiation increases in summer, SST north of Latitude -13.5o is cooled by the monsoon and remains in the range of 29oC to 30oC. AIMS SST data shows no evidence that the process has broken-down or is likely to break down in the future.”
My question is: If there is no trend in maximum temperature data, and no warming of the tropical ocean, why are talking and debating so-called climate sensitivity, instead of forcing a debate on them?
Yours sincerely,
Dr Bill Johnston
http://www.bomwatch,com.au
I agree Bill. The BOM has some questions to answer.
I did an exercise a few years ago the showed that the magnitude of the change in station temperatures due to the BOMs homogenisation process had a strong correlation with the amount of warming at each individual station.
To my mind, this proved unequivocally that the BOMs homogenisation process has added non climatic warming to Australia’s temp record since 1910.
Johnston data mining arguments
Australia only
(1.5% of earth’s surface)
All climate change variables
Claims Australia surface temperature number are corrupt
Claims there was no warming of Australia if the if the temperature had been accurately measured in the first place
Implying that what YOU claim for Australia applies to the entire planet
THE IRVINE article
Global average temperatures for 100% of earth’s surface not 1.5%
CO2 only, not every climate change variable
Lab measurements of CO2 as further evidence
Any implication that global warming since 1975 was not real, but was only deliberate or accidental measurement or statistical errors, is COMPLETE CLAPTRAP
Argumentative fallacy known as Argument by Dismissal. You didn’t actually refute anything Mr. Johnston posted, you just dismissed it as claptrap.
+100
I agree Bill. There can’t be an accurate estimation of ECS without controlling for actual surface temperature at the site of measurement. To boot, IMO, the computation will have to take into account the heat capacity of the medium at the site. An additional 2.6 W/m2 downwelling to ocean surface is not going to change the temperature as much as an additional 2.6 W/m2 downwelling to sand, nor those two mediums cool at the same rate.
I’m not convinced that a flat earth approach wouldn’t be more appropriate. More like a rotating cylinder. The earth is NOT a steel ball bearing with uniform temperature throughout, which seems to be the case for viewing climate as a sphere. I’d think it more appropriate to calculate it as a flat surface with a wave action, where the surface is constantly cooling, but receives charging as a wave as the sun passes over.
Bob,
If IR is emitted by CO2 to the oceans, and if the oceans return energy towards space, is that returned energy visible or IR? You claim latent heat of evaporation, that would be mostly visible, would it not? How is the TOA balance restored when the mix of IR and visible changes between incoming and outgoing? Or do you just average out the energy each way irrespective of wavelength composition? That balance calculation is hard if different wavelengths have different residence times. Maybe equilibrium at TOA is not exactly achieved in practise.
The processes of emission, interaction and re-emission can end, it is said, with concepts like photons ending up in space. (But space emits back to Earth, or we would not be able to measure its effective temperature.) You end up with a series with (roughly) half the emissions going down, interacting, re-emitted up, interacting with CO2, emitting, half going down, repeat, repeat. Is this type of mechanism a consideration?
IMO, that number of 3.7 W/sq m for doubling CO2 needs more intensive analysis. It is central to the whole control knob story, but I have not seen it given the third degree. I got part way a few years ago then ran out of brain. Geoff S
the energy absorbed in oceans from solar radiation is heating deeper water (than CO2) which thus causes a more delayed heating response (than CO2 IR)
such deeper water heating is likely to alter mixing rates with deeper waters and with high latitude waters; and will increase water vapour, particularly in tropics, possibly with a negative feedback on solar input via increased clouds
I can’t imagine the differential equations required to solve these flows but suspect clouds are the ghost in the machine
Let me try to further simplify the logic:
1.Measurements show that CO2 increases FOLLOW temperature increases.
2.Same for decreases.
3.Same for all timescales.
4.A cause CANNOT FOLLOW ITS EFFECT.
Therefore CO2 has zero effect on climate.
Thanks
JK
.”Measurements show that CO2 increases FOLLOW temperature increases.”
Measurements do not show that
Climate proxies show ocean CO2 reacts to changes in ocean temperatures. The process is small and slow
Measurements show adding manmade CO2 to the atmosphere impedes earth’s ability to cool itself, causing a higher average temperature mainly affecting night lows (TMIN)
Your claims are bassackwards.
My collection shows that CO2 follows temperature. Even the CRU climate criminals admit this on Realclimate.org.
CO2 FOLLOWS temperature, thus it cannot cause temperature rise
On Hens, Eggs, Temperatures and CO2: Causal Links in Earth’s Atmosphere–https://www.mdpi.com/2413-4155/5/3/35
————
Coherence established between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature
Abstract
The hypothesis that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is related to observable changes in the climate is tested using modern methods of time-series analysis. The results confirm that average global temperature is increasing, and that temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide are significantly correlated over the past thirty years. Changes in carbon dioxide content lag those in temperature by five months. https://www.nature.com/articles/343709a0
————–
CO2 FOLLOWS temperature https://judithcurry.com/2023/09/26/causality-and-climate/
————-
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/co2climate.html\
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/CO2_lags.html
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/VostokGraph.html#800years
https://www.c3headlines.com/2022/09/joe-biden-democrats-climate-doomsday-extremists-who-ignore-noaas-real-world-evidence.html
A little off topic:
https://notrickszone.com/2022/01/13/nearly-140-scientific-papers-detail-the-minuscule-effect-co2-has-on-earths-temperature/
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/co2_facts.html
———–
https://search.aol.co.uk/click/_ylt=Awr.gk_Xj21lZR0vN.kECmVH;_ylu=Y29sbwNpcjIEcG9zAzEEdnRpZAMEc2VjA3Ny/RV=2/RE=1701707864/RO=10/RU=https%3a%2f%2fedberry.com%2fwp-content%2fuploads%2fCourtney_NY_2008.pdf/RK=0/RS=0k0EB6KQatFXGQiBl.jMaJEHbPg- In which, in year 2008, I explained this finding of Rorsch, Courtney & Thoenes published in the formal literature in 2005 that says,
“In the light of all the above considerations it would appear that the relatively large increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere in the twentieth century (some 30%) is likely to have been caused by the increased mean temperature that preceded it. The main cause may be desorption from the oceans. The observed time lag of half a century is not surprising.”
Theory can be fun, I guess. Meanwhile, back in the real world, we know that a good part of the so-called “warming” is likely due to a faulty temperature record. Much of the remaining warming is likely simply a natural recovery from the LIA. Some small, indeterminate amount of warming is likely due to the increase in CO2. Whatever that small amount is though, is both impossible to measure as well as inconsequential. Natural forces can easily negate it.
Seems like just another example of pulling a number from one’s posterior: “I am proposing”.
Meanwhile, no mention of Stephen Botzman’s law for blackbody radiation (a warm body radiates a LOT more energy—4th pawer impact) or Wein’s law for soectral displacement. Not a breath about the logarithmic decay of the impact for marginal increases in CO2 concentration. And all while exploiting the reputational authority of Albert Einstein.
I haven’t heard of David’s Law and nor has Google.
The residency time for energy in silver or black ball is the same time as it is illuminated, once it has attained equilibrium. This can be infinite. At equilibrium, one watt incoming is matched by one watt outgoing. The outgoing cannot deviate from that unless the incoming varies.
Mac
We are talking here about an incremental change in input. The black ball will take longer to reattain equilibrium and consequently will warm more in its centre.
Even at equilibrium the input energy will be absorbed on average deeper within the black ball and remain in the ball for longer.
Assuming there is no atmosphere the surface of the balls will be the same temperature but the black ball will feel hotter due to higher conductivity. At least that is how I see it.
Bob
Sorry for the long delay in writing this but I needed time to think about it.
I was impressed to read that you are describing water heating by insolation but did not describe it as that specifically. What you described is insolation heating the water in the same way the land is.
The relevances are multiple so I have to think about all the implications. The black ball/silver ball analogy, to me, fails conceptually because there is convection heat transfer at the surface and with any value of convection heat transfer to the balls (at all) the black ball is going to be cooler as it has a greater ability to radiate energy.
The problem I have with your thesis in toto is that warming of the atmosphere “at the surface” meaning at 2 m altitude, is there are two contributors to the raising of the temperature which are conventional GHG radiation and absorption plus heat convection from hot surfaces or to cold surfaces.
Insolation being absorbed by the oceans you have observed but it is explained that the water cools by evaporation and that sends water vapour into the air as a GHG, but there is no mention of the heat transferred by contact. You captured the IR physics well and the visible light, but there is heat transfer to the air by contact.
When looking at land the convection is far more pronounced: insolation heats the surface, depending on its emissivity, and there is massive heat transfer to the air that does not involve radiation. In short there are two distinct mechanisms heating the air at the surface: radiation captured incoming and outgoing and convective heat transfer from the surface.
It is postulated that increasing insolation by some Watt per sq m will have this and that effect but convective heat transfer from the surface to the air is not mentioned. Why?
So I had a squizz at some numbers to get a grip on the magnitudes. Incoming insolation reaching the surface is about half what it would be without any GHGs at all. If it increased by one Watt, half a Watt extra would reach the surface, of which a portion would heat the air by contact. It doesn’t matter for the moment what the % is. The argument presented deals only with radiation + ocean warming but not land warming. I think this omission matters.
How to demonstrate that?
Suppose GHGs were greatly reduced or increased – what would happen to the air temperature? According to the radiation promoters, the temperature would go up and up with the claim that we would become “Venus”, ignoring the fact that at 1 atmosphere depth and 95% CO2 the temperature is the same as Earth now at 0.04%. So that claim makes no sense – at all. Something else is going on.
If we go the other way, reducing the concentration to a low value, what do we find? The emissivity of the atmosphere would plummet (turning the black ball into a silver ball), the insolation reaching the surface would double, and the convection to the air directly would similarly double.
As described above, the incoming radiation absorbed by the atmosphere would tend to zero, the capture of IR from the surface by the atmosphere would tend to zero (no receivers), and the cooling capacity of the atmosphere would similarly drop due to an absence of GHGs.
This is the part that is missing from the usual descriptions: the heating of air by the surface would continue at twice the previous rate, and whatever energy was left, would be lost by radiation to the sky (from the surface).
So how does the heated air, which would do a really good job taking heat energy from the hot surface, be lost to space? This heating process would definitely continue because it is part and parcel of the pair of contributions to the air temperature – as you have implied using the water-absorbed insolation.
With low GHG concentration and high convection to the air, what is the mechanism for cooling the atmosphere if it cannot cool by radiation? And what would the air temperature be?
I suggest that as it is unable to cool effectively by radiation the main mechanism will be by convective heat transfer to the surface at night. The surface would be cooling by radiation at night and eventually be cooler than the air, so the air would lose heat to the surface whereupon it would be radiated to space. At some point the system would be in equilibrium. What would the air temperature be at that time? Certainly above 100 C.
If greatly increasing the GHG concentration provides nearly no increase in the air temperature and greatly reducing the concentration provides a rapid increase in air temperature, there is a fundamental flaw in the idea that all warming above -18 C is due to GHGs and also that doubling the CO2 concentration will create radiative changes alone. Increased insolation would not create radiative changes alone.
Your proposal that we consider a change in insolation of 5 W/m^2 creates a useful case to explore. However any analysis must consider convection AND radiation if we are trying to predict the air temperature because such a change would affect both contributors.
I invite you to contact me directly and copy Kip Hanson as we have been discussing some of this off-list. The explanation provided by the IPCC (and many others) is fundamentally flawed. Full stop. The surface temperature of the moon with no atmosphere has no relevance to the air temperature of the Earth with and without GHGs.
Sincerely
Crispin, actually in Tucson
Hi Crispin
I’m flat out with the grandkids today. I hope to give you a detailed reply tomorrow morning. Regards
Hi Crispin
Interesting approach.
To my way of thinking as GHGs are removed the emission height is lowered and eventually the surface or close to it becomes the emission height at 255 C. The average emission height is always the same temperature and in this situation the surface would be close to a black body and lose energy almost entirely by radiation. The surface would be cold and convection would be minimal.
It’s food for thought. I could easily be wrong as these are difficult issues.
Either way energy residence time in the system is a good way to summarise the effect of any forcing change. It works with your analogy and with mine.
The IPCCs approach is that if a forcing acts in the upper atmosphere it will typically have low efficacy as TOA equilibrium is attained relatively quickly.
Residence time is minimal.
If on the other hand a forcing acts on the poles then energy transport from the tropics will be slowed, increasing energy residence time and consequently this forcing will have high efficacy.
That solar energy has a higher residence time than energy remitted by CO2 to me is hard to argue with. It follows that solar changes will have larger effect the earths climate particularly average temperature.
In our current state I think the convection has a huge influence and is likely a large negative feedback to any warming.
To some extent the earths atmosphere is a massive heat engine. When input energy is increased the energy moves more quickly through the system. A hugely important negative feedback.
Have a good Xmas
If the specific heat and absorptivity of the surface and the atmosphere are different you would probably still see some convection, at least I would think so.
Thanks for the KISS presentation. It’s nice to be able to understand without the hassle of getting a degree in whatever.
A question occurred to me, what role does physical collision of molecules play in the delaying of upward energy transfer, and if significant, would the increase in co2 density also contribute towards increasing the delay?
Happy Christmas Bob Irvine, long may you write intelligent articles.