How Bogus Arctic Warming Attribution Enabled the Climate Crisis Scam

As regards the Arctic, Yes, of course there is a considerable effect of the major oceanic influx on the mostly shallow small pond of small thermal capacity that is the land surrounded Arctic ocean, with relatively low thermal capacity hence higher sensitivity to perturbations from serious oceans. The main ocean heat has strong effect at scale. As do any causes relative to the response to the same perturbation in the Southern hemisphere with double the ocean whci is most of the surface heat capacity. Obs.

But this is at the poles, where a very small proportion of the heat enters and leaves the Earth so any regional effect is relatively small ona planetary scale.

BUT, my problem with all this is with yet another inadequate description of how the Earth’s overall climate control system works at scale. sic: “Net outgoing infrared radiation is determined by the difference between outgoing infrared and the recycled infrared from the greenhouse effect.”

I am not even sure what that even means in terms of the planetary system. As summarised by NASA in the global heat balance. Because the system is somewhat more complicated than just outgoing LWIR radiation and some GHE scattering on its way to the tropopause, or whatever altitude it leaves for space at. And the natural feedback dominates the small perturbations to it.

Let’s look at that heat flux analytically. Using the NASA heat budget, which is fine at scale for our purposes.

For a start, the largest amount of the heat energy transported to the radiative boundary with space is transferred there by convection of the latent heat of water vapour from cooling ocean evaporation, a far more responsive feedback to warming than radiative feedback by Stefan Boltzmann radiative cooling of the surface – which ALSO happens – so the Stefan Boltzmann radiative effect on land and at sea is complementary to the water vapour transport from the oceans . The other effects are all smaller, especially the relatively small perturbation of changing CO2, never a control, always a small change in the atmospheric transfer function for radiative enrgy of particular wavelengths, which is easily balanced by the dominant radiative rebalancing effect of a fraction of a deg of SST change, as below.

ALSO there is an albedo feedback to the the average 340W/m^2 of insolation incident on Earth. There is 100W/m^2 of reflective visible EMR albedo from the surface and clouds. c.50W/m^2 of this is reflected by the Tropospheric clouds….which negative feedback increases as oceans get more heated and create more clouds, that further cool the surface, the net variability of tropospheric cloud albedo is problematic, because there are positive feedback from surface heat retention at night, but certainly the ent effect is net negative in the tropics.

The cooling of Earth by the total outgoing 240W/m^2 of LWIR created by the absorbed EMR is poorly described above, in terms of either the overall system feedback, or its variability with temperature, which variability provides the self evidently dominant control of Earth’s thermal equilibrium, at whatever temperature that requires.

There is no ideal temperature. Th natural equilibrium temperature is that which the energy balance creates, at which heat in equals heat out. The idea of a lasting imbalance or “tipping point” of a positive feedback in such a strongly controlled system is also an idea only a very stupid head can hold for longer than an instant in the knowledge of the well known basic numbers. The natural and strongly controlled state is equilibrium, at whatever temperature delivers that, from the natural feedbacks for a given heat input.

The numbers break down as follows:

The dominant cooling effect is 104W/m^2 from the convection of latent heat of cooling ocean evaporation to the troposphere, mainly in the tropics where most of the energy is deposited. This is then released to space as LWIR from the troposphere as the vapour condenses to form clouds. It is transported there by 18W/m^2 per deg K of adiabatic convective transport. All this heat transfer is in addition to any direct radiative feedback from the surface. As regards variability of this effect , the rate of latent heat release as water vapour in air varies by 7% per deg, over a wide range of temperature and RHI around 288 deg K, and this very sensitive feedback provides the dominant control of Earth climate, from the 70% ocean surface beneath the radiative TOA, The high sensitivity delivered by the phase change of water means the range of temperature variability required to rebalance any perturbation is much lower compared to a planet or moon with a rock surface, where only radiative feedback is available.

I suggest the water vapour effect delivers at least 7W/m^2 per deg K of control. And there is more…

The whole surface returns LWIR directly to space , radiatively, more negative feedback :

-58W/m^2 in total, of this…..

-40 W/m^2 of LWIR from the land and ocean surface passes directly to space.

-18W/m^2 of LWIR from the surface, mainly the oceans where the water is, is scattered by GHE on its way to space. 2/3 of this scattering effect is by water vapour, most of the residual is by CO2. <10% of it is due to the 1.6W/m^2 AGW effect, per the IPCC. Not a lot. See pie chart breakdown.

This effect does not warm the atmosphere, even if NASA says it does, that is false.

Rather the surface is not cooled so much, less radiation leaves the Earth at the CO2 scattering frequencies. Because less of the LWIR energy from the surface is released to space when the raduative interface is higher up where its colder (because of Stefan Boltzmann), so the surface temperatures needs to rise to increase losses across the spectrum to compensate.

The total radiative loss to space, from the land and ocean, by whatever means, from the surface or TOA at whatever effective altitude that is, varies by c.1% per degree K on the Stefan Boltzman relationship, (289/288)^4

So that’s 2.4W/m^2 per deg K additional negative feedback, give or take.

And then there is some additional negative feedback from cloud albedo

From this we must subtract the positive feedback from water vapour GHE at 2W/m^2 per deg K per NASA

All this is non negotiable, but the absolute net feedback of clouds needs work……

All the above is from the known physics and data well observed by NASA satellite and applying simple applied phsyics – yet rarely understood by people who just repeat what others tell them. Few think for themselves or consider the basic empirical analysis of the primary and dominant heat flows of the whole Earth system. But I do …… and did above. Probably.

Also, modellers don’t understand basic physics, thermal equilibrium and control systems, especially the functioning idiot Hansen who claims to, and instead of performing a simple energy balance and varying the dominant effects according to their natural variability that science understands, they just make it up in over complicated models using fluid dynamics and pointlessly complex calculations, based on their guesses as to what sensitivities and variable interactions might be, to guess how it all might work IF their chosen perpetrator was responsible on theirown, and nithing else changed, so there was no natural feedback or natural change as there has been in the past, and probably still is. SO NOT HOW IT MIGHT REALLY WORK IN NATURE.

The computer then forces the data to fit the facts, equivalent to beating the data out of a framed fall guy based on obviously fake evidence, relying on a stupid jury and corrupt judge, who read out a forced confession, or climate science, as its called by the UN and grant funding bodies..

In particular the modellers assume the change in radiative imbalance accounts for ALL the temperature change observed in nature, based on their guessed ECS sensitivity. Made up.. There is no basis for such a presumption. And most of the change is probably natural, per the similar rate, range and period of the current natural record it is not measurably different from.

The modeller’s ECS sensitivity guess is unrelated to any provable reality of radiative perturbation on the whole earth system in terms of SST change. And they really, really, don’t even try to evaluate this from the empirical evidence of the physics and observations of the known system.

To be clear….. The CO2 Greenhouse effect, in terms of its radiative perturbation, is presented as 1.6W/m^2 since 1850. This will be STRONGLY controlled by the much larger, hence dominant, negative feedback that must be caused by the radiative imbalance. If net feedback is 10W/m^2 the actual SST effect required will be c. 0.16 deg.

0.16 deg is the SST change required to dissipate that much extra LWIR from the Troposphere to space and rebalance the thermal equilibrium of Earth. Hardly detectable.

All so obvious, unless you’re a climate scientist. in denial of the laws of phsyics for your grant money. Or just a lying moron recycling the Department’s approved beliefs that government expects for their grant money. It’s not science, for sure.

FACT: I suggest the above explains why CO2 GHE is an overtly TINY perturbation to the overall radiative balance of the well studied climate system, which has rebalanced much larger events in the last 500Ma.

The dominant negative feedback is evaporative cooling of over 7W/m^2 when the latent heat is released in the troposphere as LWIR, PLUS additional cloud albedo reflecting EMR feedback …. PLUS the 2.4W/m^2 per deg radiative feedback together must dominate such a change, and can evidentially from the natural record do this at whatever rate and extent is required by the perturbation to rebalance the system. As in interglacial warmings of TEN degrees in 7Ka at the poles. And the slower cooling. Not a problem. No climate action required.

It’s obvious. Isn’t it? The EARTh climate system is strongly controlled by natural feedbacks which dominate small perturbations such as CO2 and can only cause a fraction of a degree change in temperature for the current levels of radiative perturbation.

It’s so obvious, anyone with High school physics can do the energy balance. But climate modellers are not clever enough to understand how to do such things from first principals, just regurgitate papers on how to reduce CO2 as if it was really a problem, which if course it isn’t.

So they can’t prove it is. And the hard empirical science above explains why. It’s made up, not real, no facts support it.

Perhaps I have missed something, if so please explain what’s wrong with my dynamic energy balance approach, which I suggest has to be an error in absolute amplitude, sensitivity of response in terms of deg per W/m^2, or missing contributions to a positive or negative feedback.

I consider ths analysis to be of the essence in quantifying the consequences of a perturbation to the planetary control system,

Your witness.(Ref:

)

Story tip?