By Andy May
My new paper (May, 2025) emphasizes that while many of the underlying observations used to build weather reanalysis datasets, such as ERA5 (European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts or ECMWF Reanalysis v5) (Soci et al., 2024) or MERRA-2 (Modern-Era Retrospective analysis for Research and Applications, Version 2) (Gelaro et al., 2017), are from radiosondes, weather reanalysis models are still models and have the same problems that other models have. Thus, they are not observations or measurements, like those in radiosonde data repositories such as IGRA2, and should not be treated as such. The reanalysis models assimilate surface measurements and satellite data in addition to radiosonde data and blend the measurements together into a global or regional grid using a general circulation atmospheric model. Weather reanalysis models produce reasonably consistent, physics-based periodic (usually every 6 to 12 hours) estimates of the global atmospheric state (Bloom et al., 1996), but they are not observations. Dr. Hans Hersbach of ECMWF (European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts) provides us with figure 1 below which is an illustration of the data assimilation process in ERA5.
Although like climate models in their structure, weather reanalysis models deal with shorter time periods, and they are constantly being updated with new data. This is good in that each new data item assimilated forces the model to be more realistic. However, data does not come into the model evenly, it arrives in uneven batches. There are several ways of dealing with this problem, but the most common is called incremental analysis updating or “IAU” (Bloom et al., 1996). IAU introduces new data to the model in a gradual manner.
There are numerous problems with adding new data to a model, one of the main problems is the new data will almost always differ from the computed model state at the time of the measurement to some degree. This causes “data shock” where the model must make a sudden, and non-physical, adjustment to accommodate the new data. Because the shock is unphysical and it doesn’t match the physics programmed into the model, the model can wander into an unstable state that takes time to recover from. MERRA-2 uses an IAU system to add new data (Gelaro et al., 2017).
ERA5 uses incremental “4D-Var” data assimilation (Lavers et al., 2024) to minimize new data shock. At each analysis point, usually every 12 hours, 4D-Var simulates both forward and backward in time to find the central 12-hour analysis state that minimizes total error. It inserts all the new data at once and at each data item’s precise measurement time and not gradually like the IAU process. It uses the model physics to choose the appropriate 12-hour analysis, thus the model physical state suffers less than it does with IAU, although it still has some spin-up data shock (Bernsen et al., 2008) to recover from after each 12-hour analysis just like all models do. In short, neither ERA5 nor MERRA-2 exactly honor all the measurements, but no model approximation can.
Conservation of Mass and Energy
Due primarily to the data assimilation processes, model approximations (or parameterizations), and finite resolution, reanalysis models do not perfectly conserve global or domain-wide energy and mass over long integrations. Model parameterizations are algorithms that estimate average critical climate quantities for the grid cells that cannot be modeled at the scale required, like cloud cover. ERA5 has a grid cell size of about 31 km and MERRA-2 about 50 km. The parameterized quantities, like cloud cover, require a much smaller scale (millimeters or less) to model using first principles.
As a result, over long periods of time these reanalysis climate models do not “close.” Closure refers to the degree to which the integrated budgets (sum of mass and energy fluxes, storage changes, and divergences) balance over time, ensuring the initial totals match the final totals after a long simulation run, after accounting for external forcings and inputs. Perfect closure is theoretically required to honor mass and energy conservation laws but never achieved in practice.
The error in atmospheric mass from the beginning of simulation runs to the end can be measured in terms of mm of water because the total dry mass of the atmosphere does not change with time, only the water content. Early models sometimes lost or gained dry atmospheric mass, but ERA5 and MERRA-2 are constrained so that dry mass is conserved (Gelaro et al., 2017), (Mayer et al., 2021), and (Wild & Bosilovich, 2024).
ERA5 generally exhibits tighter closure globally due to its higher resolution and advanced assimilation, while MERRA-2 shows improvements over its predecessor (MERRA) but larger residuals in some cases, particularly from cloud and aerosol effects.
Most modern studies of the troposphere rely mostly on weather reanalysis grids, thus any weaknesses in the weather reanalysis models carry over into these studies. Weather reanalysis models do not capture precipitation, radiation in and out of the climate system, cloud cover, wind speed, cyclones, extreme temperatures, or the double tropopause frequency very well, among other problems. For a summary of the problems with ERA5 and MERRA-2 compiled by Grok, download this report. Yet, even with all these problems, most published studies use weather reanalysis models because they are spatially and temporally continuous and they incorporate global quality-controlled radiosonde data (Xian & Homeyer, 2019).
ERA5 Imbalances
The ERA5 global TOA mean radiative energy imbalance from 2000-2020 is 0.68 ± 0.6 Wm-2, versus the CERES EBAF satellite observations, after they have been corrected to match the ocean heat content changes, of 0.73 ± 0.7 Wm-2 (Loeb et al., 2022). Positive values are a net input of energy into the climate system and negative values are net outgoing (cooling). The agreement between the two global numbers is better than the regional agreement, CERES and ERA5 differ substantially in the eastern Pacific off North America.
The ERA5 model does a good job with the total global water vapor balance and loses almost none over the period (2001-2014). It does less well with precipitation, it overestimates total precipitation by 0.1 to 0.2 mm and most of the error is in the tropics (Lavers et al., 2024). Reanalysis models often have a precipitation “wet bias” that is most pronounced in the tropics. Lavers, et al. mention that the precipitation match has been improved in the latest versions of ERA5.
MERRA2 Imbalances
MERRA-2 is produced by NASA’s Global Modeling and Assimilation Office (GMAO). It is a global atmospheric reanalysis spanning 1980 to the present at ~50 km horizontal resolution with 72 vertical levels. MERRA-2 enforces a global dry atmospheric mass constraint, ensuring near-perfect dry mass conservation (~0.01% error per cycle), but its energy budget does not balance well.
MERRA-2’s all-sky reflected shortwave flux is ~7 Wm-2 higher than CERES EBAF’s, resulting in a net TOA flux imbalance of -4 Wm-2 for 2001-2015 (Hinkelman, 2019). This is a substantial bias, after all the entire human impact on climate from 1750-2019 is estimated to be only 2.72 Wm-2 (IPCC, 2021, p. 959). While MERRA-2 performs better on trends and variability, this absolute difference should worry everyone.
At the surface, high clear-sky downward shortwave fluxes indicate that the MERRA-2 atmosphere is too transmissive. MERRA-2’s all-sky shortwave radiation down and longwave radiation up energy flux terms agree reasonably well with CERES EBAF, but its net flux agreement is poor (-4.7 Wm-2) mainly because it overestimates cloud reflectivity. Analysis by region and surface type gives mixed outcomes. Clouds are overrepresented over the tropical oceans in MERRA-2, and somewhat underrepresented in marine stratocumulus areas. MERRA-2 also overestimates cloudiness in the Southern Ocean. The model also has problems in the polar regions, where the effects of snow and ice cover are important (Hinkelman, 2019).
Discussion
In general, ERA5 is a better weather reanalysis model than MERRA-2, but both have problems. Generally, ERA5 has a better resolution and a better methodology of integrating new data, but neither model has the resolution required to model clouds properly and, as a result, they do not estimate either cloudiness or precipitation well in key areas, like the tropics. Both models are poor at modeling tropical cyclones due to their large grid sizes, but ERA5 is a bit better at this than MERRA-2. Temperature prediction is very poor in the Arctic and Antarctic regions.
Weather reanalysis model products are very useful, but they cannot be considered data or observations, or used as such, as they often are, for example in AR6 figure TS.2 (IPCC, 2021, p. 50). There are places in AR6 that concede weather reanalysis model products are not observations, but some parts of the report treat them as observations. There is poor agreement between various models of radiosonde data in tropospheric temperature trends as shown in figure 2, from AR6 figure 2.12.
Figure 2 shows the tropospheric warming trend by altitude from radio occultation, using data from the infrared satellite instrument AIRS (Qian et al., 2025), and corrected and homogenized radiosonde data (RICH and RAOBCORE). All the measurements in figure 2 are from models, there are no direct measurements in the plot, although RICH and RAOBCORE (Haimberger et al., 2012) are the least removed from the actual radiosonde measurements (Haimberger et al., 2012). As figure 2 makes clear, the models match one another fairly well below about 10 km, but above 10 km there is little agreement and the match in the tropics from 10-17 km is poor.
Figure 3 compares the CMIP6 climate models to ERA5 and the RICH and RAOBCORE homogenized radiosonde results in the tropics (20°S to 20°N). The model results are in red, with the mean and the model spread indicated. Model runs with the actual sea surface temperature (SST) forced are in blue. The black and grey are the ERA5, RICH, and RAOBCORE model results.
Figure 3 demonstrates that not only is the match between ERA5 and the CMIP6 climate models poor, it is getting worse with time, since the post 1998 match is worse than the other time periods shown. The difference between forcing the SSTs (blue) and not forcing them (red) suggests that the models are not doing a very good job over the oceans, which cover 71% of Earth’s surface.
The greenhouse effect is strongest in the tropics due to the higher humidity in this region. Some researchers have suggested that the CMIP6 climate models have overestimated the climate sensitivity to CO2 and greenhouses in general, and this is the cause of the mismatch in figure 3 in the tropical middle and upper troposphere (Mauritsen & Stevens, 2015), (McKitrick & Christy, 2020), and (Po-Chedley et al., 2022). McKitrick and Christy present evidence that the most straightforward way to reduce the mismatch in tropospheric warming rates in figure 3 is to lower the climate sensitivity to CO2 in the climate models.
We would also suggest that a necessary validation step would be to select the best radiosonde data and check the nearest climate model grid cells against the actual radiosonde data, rather than the RICH, RAOBCORE, and ERA5 models. Just as the best way to compare the present to that past is to compare modern data to well selected proxies, the best way to compare radiosonde measurements to climate models is to find the best radiosonde data and compare the models to it, at the location of the radiosonde data.
Works Cited
Bernsen, E., Dijkstra, H. A., & Wubs, F. W. (2008). A method to reduce the spin-up time of ocean models. Ocean Modelling, 20(4), 380-392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2007.10.008
Bloom, S. C., Takacs, L. L., Silva, A. M., & Ledvina, D. (1996). Data Assimilation Using Incremental Analysis Updates. Monthly Weather Review, 124(6), 1256 – 1271. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1996)124<1256:DAUIAU>2.0.CO;2
Dee, D. P., Balmaseda, M., Balsamo, G., Engelen, R., Simmons, A. J., & Thépaut, J.-N. (2014). Toward a Consistent Reanalysis of the Climate System. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 95(8). https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00043.1
Gelaro, R., McCarty, W., Suárez, M. J., Todling, R., Molod, A., Takacs, L., & Randles, C. A. (2017). The Modern-Era Retrospective Analysis for Research and Applications, Version 2 (MERRA-2). Journal of Climate, 30(14), 5419 – 5454. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0758.1
Haimberger, L., Tavolato, C., & Sperka, S. (2012). Homogenization of the Global Radiosonde Temperature Dataset through Combined Comparison with Reanalysis Background Series and Neighboring Stations. Journal of Climate, 8108-8131. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00668.1
Hersbach, H., Bell, B., Berrisford, P., Hirahara, S., Horányi, A., & Muñoz-Sabater, J. (2020). The ERA5 global reanalysis. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 146(730), 1999-2049. https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3803
Hinkelman, L. M. (2019). The Global Radiative Energy Budget in MERRA and MERRA-2: Evaluation with Respect to CERES EBAF Data. Journal of Climate, 32(6), 1973 – 1994. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0445.1
IPCC. (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. In V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S. L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, . . . B. Zhou (Ed.)., WG1. Retrieved from https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/
Lavers, D. A., Hersbach, H., Rodwell, M. J., & Simmons, A. (2024). An improved estimate of daily precipitation from the ERA5 reanalysis. Atmospheric Science Letters, 25(3). https://doi.org/10.1002/asl.1200
Loeb, N. G., Mayer, M., Kato, S., Fasullo, J. T., Zuo, H., Senan, R., . . . Balmaseda, M. (2022). Evaluating twenty-year trends in Earth’s energy flows from observations and reanalyses. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 127. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JD036686
Mauritsen, T., & Stevens, B. (2015). Missing iris effect as a possible cause of muted hydrological change and high climate sensitivity in models. Nature Geoscience, 8, 346-351. Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2414
May, A. (2025). The Molar Density Tropopause Proxy and its relation to the ITCZ and Hadley Circulation. https://osf.io/eq75t/overview, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/KBP9S
Mayer, J., Mayer, M., & Haimberger, L. (2021). Consistency and Homogeneity of Atmospheric Energy, Moisture, and Mass Budgets in ERA5. Journal of Climate, 34(10), 3955 – 3974. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-20-0676.1
McKitrick, R., & Christy, J. (2020). Pervasive Warming Bias in CMIP6 Tropospheric Layers. Earth and Space Science, 7. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020EA001281
Po-Chedley, S., Fasullo, J., Siler, N., Labe, Z., Barnes, E., Bonfils, C., & Santer, B. (2022). Internal variability and forcing influence model–satellite differences in the rate of tropical tropospheric warming. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 119(47). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2209431119
Qian, W., Wen, Y., Gao, S., Li, Z., Kisembe, J., & Jing, H. (2025). Evaluation of Near-Surface Specific Humidity and Air Temperature From Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) Over Oceans. Earth and Space Science, 12(4). https://doi.org/10.1029/2024EA003856
Soci, C., Hersbach, H., Simmons, A., Poli, P., Bell, B., Berrisford, P., . . . Buontempo, C. (2024). The ERA5 global reanalysis from 1940 to 2022. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 150(764), 4014–4048. https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.4803
Wild, M., & Bosilovich, M. (2024). The Global Energy Balance as Represented in Atmospheric Reanalysis. Surveys in Geophysics, 45, 1799–1825. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10712-024-09861-9
Xian, T., & Homeyer, C. R. (2019). Global tropopause altitudes in radiosondes and reanalyses. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 19(8), 5661–5678. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos12111439
Hopefully not. As the Earth cooled over the past four and a half billion years, energy was being continuously lost to space, as Fourier pointed out. Otherwise, no cooling!
Well, no. Actually, the highest surface temperature do not occur in the tropics (if that’s what you mean by the “greenhouse effect”). They occur where water vapour in the atmosphere is least – places like Death Valley or the Lut desert.
All irrelevant, I guess, as any “model” trying to predict future atmospheric states is doomed to failure, as even the IPCC agrees – “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
I think the author was slightly confused and meant “atmospheric states”, as climate is the statistics of, and dependent on, weather observations.
Not to worry, hopefully you agree that all the time, effort, and money wasted on the fantasy that future outcomes of a chaotic can be predicted from its past, simply demonstrate the ignorance and gullibility of the wasters.
You and I are obviously too knowledgeable and wise to believe that adding CO2 to air could possibly make thermometers hotter, unlike the great mass of the ignorant and gullible who believe that it does!
Keep up the good work!<g>
The author did not say that the highest temps in the world were in the tropics . The author said the GHE was highest in the tropics. Two completely different things.
As for your continued deliberate mischaracterization of Tyndall’s experiment It showed nothing about adding CO2 to air. It showed that CO2 could block IR. What happens to the energy blocked by the CO2 was not part of the experiment.
That’s why I said “Actually, the highest surface temperature do not occur in the tropics (if that’s what you mean by the “greenhouse effect”)”.
No, Tyndall showed that increased CO2 and H2O in air between a heat source and a thermometer reduced the temperature of a thermometer. Anyway, it doesn’t matter, does it? People who believe that adding CO2 to air makes thermometers hotter are simply ignorant and gullible, aren’t they?
Maybe you could try another diversion?
No, Tyndall showed that increased CO2 and H2O in air between a heat source and a thermometer reduced the temperature of a thermometer.
No, he did not. The thermometer is cooling, at all times (SB Law), except if it is receiving energy from some source that maintains or increases its temperature. Tyndall demonstrated that an IR heat source maintaining the thermometer’s temperature could be interrupted by CO2, resulting in the thermometer’s normal cooling taking place. This does not mean that adding CO2 to the air made the thermometer cooler. No CO2 was added to the air. The CO2 was contained in a tube with IR transparent sealed ends. The CO2 was never in contact with the thermometer nor with the air. The only conclusion you can draw from Tyndall’s experiment was that CO2 blocked IR.
“The only conclusion you can draw from Tyndall’s experiment was that CO2 blocked IR.”
Or that it diffused the heat in all directions leaving such a small part going toward the thermometer that the resolution of the thermometer was too wide to register it.
Fair enough!
Exactly. Just as a thermometer on the surface of the Earth will respond by “normal cooling” when CO2, H2O, or even an atmosphere of gas is interposed between the thermometer and the Sun.
Maybe you should read the last publication of Tyndall’s book “Heat – a mode of motion”. In it, you will discover that Tyndall went to great pains at one stage to remove CO2 and H2O from the air of his sample tube. He discovered that the amount of “luminiferous rays” reaching the thermometer increased. More heat, higher temperature!
His mountaineering activities demonstrated the same effect, because less atmosphere (containing both CO2 and H2O) is between the sun and a surface thermometer.
That’s why Death Valley and the Lut desert are so hot. Little H2O, so maximum sunlight reaches the ground – not even in the tropics!
CO2 and H2O absorb some downwelling frequencies just as they absorb some upwelling frequencies. As the amount of energy absorbed from upwelling frequencies is larger, the net effect is warming.
You can twist the words any way you want, the GHE still exists and the high temps in places like Death Valley are related to factors other than the GHE. Your bloviating amounts to nothing.
As does all other matter. Adding CO2 to air does not make thermometers hotter. Try it.
Of course. There is no GHE. Are you trying to imply that the GHE doesn’t exist in Death Valley because it’s too hot? Pardon me while I laugh. I suspect others might join me.
You really are ignorant and gullible, aren’t you?
Are you trying to imply that the GHE doesn’t exist in Death Valley because it’s too hot? Pardon me while I laugh. I suspect others might join me.
It takes an absurd reading of my comments to come to that conclusion. All you have is twisting other people’s words to contort some conclusion that you can then ridicule. You’ve no actual science discussion to offer.
That’s a typical response of someone who has no facts to offer, so tries to divert the conversation. I don’t blame you for trying to pretend that the thermometer at Death Valley doesnt respond to heat – like all other thermometers do!
You said –
You refuse to name any of them, of course. It’s pretty simple – more energy from sunlight reaches the thermometer, the temperature is higher. Even at Death Valley, the temperature drops at night. Lack of sunlight, you see.
Your belief that adding CO2 to air makes thermometers hotter is characteristic of people who slavishly follow their cult leaders, promoting a GHE whose properties are so sacred and mysterious that they cannot be described in any consistent and unambiguous fashion. <g>
Keep trying to complain that your implications are misunderstood. You’re still going to be viewed as ignorant and gullible for believing in something you can’t even describe. That’s religion, not science.
OMG! You are so full of it that your eyes have turned brown.
A thermo-electric pile does not operate on IR.
Tyndall was still operating on the definitions of the times of Sensible Heat and Heat Radiation and not having been aware of the discovery by Eunice Foote.
Oh yes it does!<g> (Unless our definitions of infrared radiation differ).
Tyndall’s thermopile exploited the Seebeck effect, and could reliably detect differences in temperature of 1/50,000 C. Try that with your modern non-contact thermometer!
From a NIST publication around 1910 (from memory), a thermopile of the Tyndall type had a sensitivity of “ . . . a deflection of one scale division indicated a temperature 1.1° X 10 ^-6”, or about 1 millionth of a degree, with an observation that commercial instruments didn’t achieve this standard of accuracy.
Apologies for going on, but many people have no clue about the precision of early instruments, and the lengths early experimenters went to make sure their results were valid.
Of course, if you immerse yourself to that degree, you absorb many ancillary bits of knowledge along the way. Tyndall certainly did – finding that the green dye in his insulation was magnetic, for example! Almost immeasurably so, but enough to affect the calibration of his galvanometer.
A couple of Tyndall’s observations about the transparency of lamp black to IR seem odd, but I believe his experimental results while differing with his explanations.
Ain’t science (the search for truth) grand!
.
Tyndall had a thermometer that measured temperature, by what means is immaterial.
“The greenhouse effect is strongest in the tropics”
Of course it is, just as H2O is the strongest greenhouse gas. Just as you confused “greenhouse effect” with warming, you confused it with the “CO2 greenhouse effect.” I do not discuss CO2 in this post anywhere, except briefly at the end, that wasn’t the point.
I used the phrase “atmospheric state” in the sense of an equation of state, not as a state of the weather or climate, those are separate issues. “Equation of state” is a modeling term and applies to any model of anything. “Climate state” does not equal “atmospheric state.” “Atmospheric state” means a state where all the variables in the model (pressure, volume, temperature, mass, etc.) balance properly with physical and chemical laws. It is the instantaneous state of the weather reanalysis model after all the new data is added and it has run to equilibrium, the “data shock” is over, approximately 4 hours or so after the new last item is added.
Andy, one problem is that you can’t provide a consistent and rigorous definition of this “greenhouse effect”, can you? You imply that there exists a “CO2 greenhouse effect” (which you can’t describe), which in turn implies there is another “greenhouse effect “ which you also can’t describe. All very mysterious, designed to obscure the fact that you don’t actually know what you are talking about.
Another problem is that your statement “I used the phrase “atmospheric state” in the sense of an equation of state, not as a state of the weather or climate, those are separate issues.” is just an attempt to get out of an awkward situation.
is just meaningless gobbledegook. The atmosphere does not come to any equilibrium, being chaotic in nature. That is why future states are entirely impossible to predict any more skillfully than a reasonably intelligent 12 year old could do.
No GHE at all, due to CO2, H2O, or secret sauce! There is just no getting around the fact that the Earth has cooled in spite of four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight.
Reanalyzing worthless models won’t change facts.
Einstein did not believe that God “played at dice”. Heisenberg disagreed. I’m with Heisenberg.
Michael, So many problems in a short comment!
CO2 is a ghg gas and it does have an effect. Near the surface it absorbs ~15 um IR radiation, becomes excited and warms the air around it. See here:
https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/2025/02/01/energy-and-matter/
Andy, appealing to your own “authority” is pretty pathetic, especially when your link is essentially garbage.
All matter above absolute zero emits IR. All matter absorbs energy from hotter matter. For example, oxygen at 1K emits IR. It will absorb energy from nitrogen at 2K, and get hotter.
You are just demonstrating ignorance and gullibility by believing that adding CO2 to air will make thermometers hotter.
As I said, “equation of state” and “atmospheric state” are modeling terms, I was not referring to climate, but to climate and weather models.
You do realise that climate is the statistics of weather observations, I hope?
Modelling “weather” is nonsense. What do you mean by “weather”? Wind speed and direction? Temperature? Absolute or relative humidity? Cloud type and cover? Precipitation? Barometric pressure?
And of course, climate is the statistics of these and other weather observations.
Not to the gullible and ignorant of course, like “climate scientists”, and their deranged followers.
Total nonsense, of course the greenhouse gas effect exists. We just don’t know how strong it is, personally I think the effect is small, but it does exist.
Ah, I see. It’s the “greenhouse gas effect” now is it? Whatever happened to the “greenhouse effect”?
No matter, you can’t describe either in any consistent and rigorous way.
Adding CO2 to air does not make thermometers hotter. You don’t have to accept reality if you don’t want to.
Thanks for all the information, Andy
You are very welcome.
Summary: We’ve quantified the fossil fuel era: roughly 300 years from start to finish as we transition to nuclear. By 2180, humanity will burn less fossil fuel than in 1880. By 2240, nearly all anthropogenic CO₂ will be harmless bicarbonate in the oceans, slowly turning into limestone—a blink in geologic time. So why the panic over a tiny energy imbalance?
The Debate: 0.7 W/m² vs 0.07 W/m²
Climate models often assume an Earth energy imbalance of ~0.7 W/m², but uncertainty ranges mean it could be closer to 0.07 W/m². That’s a tenfold difference in impact.
Analogy That Makes Sense
Forget alarmist bomb comparisons. Think hair dryers on a football field:
Narrative Over Time (1850–2150)
If 0.7 W/m² persisted for 300 years, cumulative energy gain could drive multi-degree warming and ice melt.
The fossil fuel era is a short-lived spurt in Earth’s history. Whether the energy imbalance is 0.7 or 0.07 W/m² changes the story from “urgent crisis” to “modest adjustment.” Before we rewrite civilization for a fraction of a watt, let’s acknowledge the uncertainty—and keep perspective.
The energy imbalance is based on ocean heat retention. The radiation instruments do not have the accuracy to establish fractions of a watt per square metre.
The measured change in ocean heat is predominantly occurring in the temperate zones of each hemisphere so it is the result of increased poleward advection.
?fit=1040%2C720&quality=75&ssl=1
Tha increased advection is associated with seasonal changers in sunlight. It has nothing to do with burning carbon.
This year had above trend advection in the Northern Hemisphere hence above trend snowfall this boreal winter.
Look up and play into that math the measurement errors defined by NASA for the CERES experiment.
The energy imbalance is smaller than the measurement tolerance.
360 terawatts steadily pumped into the oceans for 300 years would raise the temperature of the top 2,000 meters by 1.23 C. I don’t think that constitutes an emergency.
Harold The Organic Chemist Says:
ATTN: Andy
RE: CO2 Does Not Cause Warming Of Air
RE: Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity Is Zero
Shown in the chart (See below) are plots of the average annual seasonal temperatures and a plot of the average annual temperatures at the Furnace Creek weather station in Death Valley from 1922 to 2001. In 1922 the concentration of CO2 in dry air was 303 ppmv (0.60 g CO2/cu. m. of air), and by 2001 it had increased to 371 ppmv (0.73 g CO2/cu. m. of air), but there was no corresponding increase in air temperature at this remote desert. In 2001 Tavg was 25.1° C.
The simple reason that there was no increase in air temperature with increasing CO2 concentration at this arid desert is quite simple: There is too little CO2 in the air to absorb out-going long wavelength IR light emanating from desert surface to heat up the air. Since plots of temperatures are fairly flat, this indicates that the equilibrium climate sensitivity is zero.
The mostly likely reason that there was no increase in air temperature is that the absorption of the out going IR light by CO2 is saturated i.e., increasing the concentration of CO2 above a certain concentration will not result in an increase in air temperature. For CO2 the threshold for saturation is 300 ppmv which occurred in1920. For info on the saturation effect see:
“The Saturation of the Infrared Absorption by Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere” by Dieter Schildknecht available at:
URL: arxiv.org/pdf/2004.00708v1
URL: arxiv.org/labs/2004.00708
To obtain recent Death Valley temperature data, I went to:
https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com/cities/death-valley/average-temperature-by-year. The Tmax and Tmin data from 1962 to 2025 are displayed in a table. For 2025 the computed Tavg is 26.1° C. This sight increase of 1° C is within the range of Tavg. This recent data confirms that CO2 has not caused any warning of at this desert.
The above empirical data and calculations falsifies the claim by the IPCC that CO2 causes warming of air and hence global warming.
PS: The chart was taken from the late John L. Daly website:
“Still Waiting For Greenhouse” available at http://www.john-Daly.com. From the home page go to the end and click on “Station Temperature Data”. On the “World Map” click on “NA” and page down to U.S.A.-Pacific. Finally scroll down and click on “Death Valley”. Click on the back arrow to return to the list of weather stations. Click on the back arrow again for display of the “World Map”. John Daly found over 200 weather station that showed no warming up to 2002. Be sure to go Oz and check out the chart for Adelaide which shows no warming since 1857.
NB: If you click on or near the chart, it will expand and and become clear. Click on the “X” in circle to contact chart and return to Comments.
Glad you mention Oz. This is the temperature effect just under surface. Check out the day/night range. Frequency and emissivity matter. CO2 is well down the list, especially near surface.
Thanks for this. *This* is what climate science should be tracking. But they have left it to agricultural science instead. Climate is more tied to the ground than to someplace high up in the troposphere. Heat in the atmosphere goes up because of buoyancy forces. Sooner or later that heat gets to space in some fashion from somewhere. Once it’s headed up toward space it’s impact on the surface gets less and less.
It is the kind of analysis you show that allowed ag science to identify the lengthening growing seasons globally – climate science would *never* have tumbled to it with their “models”. It’s the same with the CO2 concentrations increasing crop yields – climate science would never have tumbled to it, they would just be whining about crop failures even more than they do today.
One of the largest criticisms Freeman Dyson leveled against the climate science and their models was that they are not holistic in any way, shape, or form. It’s nothing but doom and gloom from start to finish while the Earth goes ahead and prospers.
The actual data aligns well with the solar forcing.
The trend in peak daily solar at 10N is 0.63W/m^2/century. At Equator it is 0.59W/m^2/century and 10S 0.35W/m^2/century.
The big failure with models is assuming the regional Solar forcing does not change.
The only region on Earth where the peak daily solar is declining is South of 45S. Guess where you look if you want to find a cooling trend – the Southern Ocean between 55S to 65S declining at 0.1C/decade this century.
Thank you Andy! Good writeup. And keep up the good work on the topics you have chosen.
To me, the best thing about ERA5 is that it allows private individuals to download the values of a long list of computed parameters. Those parameters relate to long-established meteorological theory and its mathematical implementation in the development of numerical weather prediction models. Therefore we can find out what the modelers know with good confidence about how the atmosphere performs as the compressible working fluid of its own circulation.
For example, I use the “vertical integral of energy conversion” hourly parameter to directly demonstrate that the risk of harmful “warming” from emissions of CO2 is negligible in the proper context of the energy dynamics.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1PDJP3F3rteoP99lR53YKp2fzuaza7Niz?usp=drive_link
Therefore the bottom line, as I see it, is that the MODELERS KNOW that the computed static radiative influence of rising concentrations of CO2, CH4, N2O, and similar IR-active trace gases, is massively overwhelmed by dynamic energy conversion within the general circulation.
It cannot be otherwise. The physical fundamentals of the atmosphere, expressed mathematically, are what make numerical weather prediction possible to begin with.
So I offer a big THANK YOU to ECMWF for their ERA5 reanalysis model. Well done.
Thank you for listening.
Well said! Thank you for sharing.
Andy, nice article.\
I do have to question a couple of things. If the reanalysis models can’t do a good job on clouds, then how do they do a good job on humidity and precipitation. The actual energy in the atmosphere must be measured by enthalpy which means the humidity must be well known. At least they conserve the dry mass, but errors in humidity levels would make the energy determination pretty uncertain. Is that why the large uncertainty values for radiative imbalances?
I suspect you are correct. Clouds, humidity, and precipitation are the keys to weather and climate, yet they all must be modeled at a microscopic scale, way below model resolution. These are all serious problems in the climate model world and the source of large errors in the models. This error is reflected in their radiative imbalance problems that must be forced in the models themselves. They can’t even use satellite data directly; they have to use satellite data after it has been forced to match ocean heat content changes (eg. EBAF). All climate models are houses of cards held together with chewing gum and bailing wire. Pull out the water vapor kludges and they would all fall apart.
I originally got interested in the precipitable water data from Albany NY because it was the closest weather balloon launch site to where I live. So from the soundings worldwide, in my opinion, there is pretty good input data on humidity up through the atmosphere for the weather models to be initialized, and therefore also for the reanalysis models to be kept close to reality in this particular aspect.
https://www.spc.noaa.gov/exper/soundingclimov2/
The problem isn’t the availability of good data. The problem the models have with water vapor, clouds, etc. is resolution. These things change at very small scales and cannot be captured with 30 km + resolution properly.
The “problem” with the models is that are completely and utterly pointless.
That might sound a bit harsh, but it’s true. An example is say, 131 models with different outputs, showing that at least 130 of them are wrong. But which 130 (at least)?
Quite apart from the fact that predicting the output of a fully deterministic chaotic system is impossible.
The problem with “climate models” is that they have been designed by the ignorant and gullible, and are still slavishly accepted by even more of the ignorant and gullible. That’s my opinion of course, and you probably prefer your own, considering it to be at least as valuable as mine.
“is to lower the climate sensitivity to CO2 in the climate models.”
Ad hoc. Put in by hand. Just like the tuning of model parameter sets.
The underlying physics is deficient. Model outputs are neither explanations nor predictions.
Chris Essex pointed out in 1991 that model parameters are ad hoc conservation laws. Now we are told that ERA5 and MEERA-2 do not converge (neither do the ocean models in AOGCMs). Meaning that their incorrectly simulated climate state is itself ambiguous.
Model runs are the modern version of Biblical exegesis. Speculations elaborating beliefs.
“Just like the tuning of model parameter sets.”
In 2013, Judith Curry quoted extensively from Edward Lorenz “on the detection of anthropogenic global warming.”
About the use of models, I note this paragraph she quoted:
“This somewhat unorthodox procedure would be quite unacceptable if the new null hypothesis had been formulated after the fact, that is, if the observed climatic trend had directly or indirectly affected the statement of the hypothesis. This would be the case, for example, if the models had been tuned to fit the observed course of the climate. Provided, however, that the observed trend has in no way entered the construction or operation of the models, the procedure would appear to be sound.”
https://judithcurry.com/2013/10/13/words-of-wisdom-from-ed-lorenz/
So like Essex, Lorenz had something fundamental to say about the use of models in the investigation.
David, it would be great if you contact Tom Nelson and offer to be interviewed on his podcast series.
Your ERA5 energy conversion video is brilliant and deserves wide notice. You’ll have the opportunity to describe the ideas and present data and graphics, including running your video to the audience.
Tom is a good interviewer, and has done dozens about the abuses of consensus AGW.
Thanks for the encouragement, Pat. And please keep up the good work.
What this statement basically says is that the in-coming and out-going radiative energy might be balanced, or the imbalance might be as great as twice the estimated nominal value. When an average value is of the same magnitude as the uncertainty, the nominal or average value is not very informative. The point of an investigation is to determine the likely value of a measurement (or estimate) and constrain it to a range that is much smaller than the nominal value so that we are only arguing about the precision or resolution, not the sign. When the nominal value and uncertainty are of the same magnitude, one isn’t even sure of the accuracy.
When the mean and the standard deviation are about equal that typically means you have a skewed distribution or an exponential distribution. In either case it indicates a highly variable set of data or that one is measuring an unstable measurand.
I still question the ability to state the radiative energy imbalance in terms of W/m^2. A fixed flux intensity by itself does not indicate how much heat is lost over time. I want to know how many joules of heat are input into the system over a diurnal period versus how many joules are lost over that same diurnal period. That would be the true measure of balance vs imbalance.
“A fixed flux intensity”
You have literally no clue what that means. Should electromagnetic “flux” be measured in Watts, or Newtons, Tim, and why?
Which of these claims do you want to stand by:
“Radiation is a FLUX”
“Radiation is NOT radiant flux”
Sit down and stay in your lane. It isn’t physics.
Tim and Steve,
Tim’s comment isn’t wrong in spirit (total heat accumulation is ultimately what matters), but it is misguided in implying that W/m² is somehow inadequate or misleading on its own.
W/m2 if computed correctly over a long period of time is a good number and measures the average gain or loss of joules in the climate system over a specific period of time.
The problem is the Earth’s energy imbalance (EEI) is a very small residual value and the difference between two large numbers that are not known accurately. This is why the satellite measured incoming and outgoing radiation cannot give us the EEI, it has to be computed by measuring the change in ocean temperature, which also is not known very well. Further, the energy imbalance changes minute-by minute and yearly, so it is sensitive to the period over which it is averaged. From a climate perspective we don’t have enough data to determine a long term “climate” EEI.
Right now, it clearly changes with surface temperature which is the opposite of what the CAGW theory would have us believe. Complex subject.
Andy, thanks for that. I don’t disagree with anything you wrote. Indeed it is a complex subject, and of course none of the alarmism is backed up by reliable evidence, which is the most important take-away.
What I am doing here in particular, though, is trying to continue (from previous threads) to teach Tim what EM radiation is, but sadly he is an atrociously rude, ignorant, and execrably insufferable student, much like his fellow engineers (particularly his equally voluble and idiotic clone Jim). Rather than learn his physics, he would rather contradict himself, lie, hallucinate, insult and slander me, and then of course simply leave in a huff, violating much of Anthony’s site behaviour policy in the process. (And naturally he’s not about to apologize for any of that. You know, like a gentleman.) The two contradictory quotes of his that I provided are probably the most concise encapsulation of his awful confusion and lack of logic, shared by many other non-physicists here, with the second-best example being this:
“The simple truth is that flux is measured in Watts”
“Don’t read the textbook chapter I gave you about flux being measured in Newtons!!!” (paraphrased)
So, in short, neither he, nor anyone else, has any business yammering about “flux” in contradiction to standard and measurable laws of physics, when they can’t define that word consistently. Or, indeed, define anything else consistently. We have higher standards than that here. At least I like to think we do. And if we can’t define our terms, no one will know what we are trying to say – including ourselves!
Steve, if you have a particular reason for disagreeing with Fourier’s statement that the Earth loses all the heat it receives from the sun to space, plus a little internal heat, you certainly aren’t giving it.
If you agree with Fourier’s statement, then there is an “energy imbalance” which results in the Earth gradually cooling. No GHE.
If you don’t, I would certainly be interested in finding out the reason for your disagreement, as four and a half billion years of history (plus current physical knowledge) support Fourier.
I agree with Fourier, but I am prepared to change my view.
I’m not disagreeing with Fourier, Michael. Nor with Andy. I’m disagreeing with Tim when he can’t define “flux”, or indeed a “Watt”, while throwing these words around like confetti, and meanwhile claiming that EM radiation somehow simultaneously IS and ISN’T the same as “flux”. Or that “flux” is simultaneously measured in Watts and Newtons. Or that radiation is simultaneously both “pressure” and “power”. Or that a “100 watt [radio] signal” definitely “exists”, yet is inexplicably measured (by him!) in Volts. That’s my issue with him. And then, of course, that he would rather contradict himself, lie, slander me, and run away than actually bother to learn his physics (or logic) properly. Because this is WUWT, after all, and not Skeptical Science or The Conversation.
His confusion, like that of all the other engineers (and lawyers and fishermen) around here, is that “radiation” and “power” are interchangeable concepts. They are not. Physics doesn’t work like that. Fourier certainly knew that. So did Planck. And Stefan, and Boltzmann, and Maxwell. Yet this knowledge seems to have failed to penetrate beyond the rarefied circles of physics professors into the rest of the world…. and I am doing my best to fix that. It’s an uphill battle 🙂
Read the post I just made to you. An EM can have both a flux value (W/m²) and a power value (flux integrated over time) depending on what is measured.
Your attempt to play with measurements is a waste of everyone’s time! If you had any real knowledge, you would post the mathematical definitions of what you are asserting.
The confusion you are referencing is due to YOU refusing to explicitly define your your terms in SI units.
Define in SI units the term “Radiation” and the term “Power” in reference to EM waves. Give references for the definitions that are accessible on the Internet, not some obscure textbook costing hundreds of dollars. Do not use Wikipedia.
You say the terms are different, so they must have different SI units. Prove it!
If your endeavor is to educate ignorant people, then you are failing badly. You refuse to use any math in your explanations therefore you are attempting to indoctrinate, not teach.
When you can tell me how many joules are in a 100 watt signal vs how many joules are in a 1000 watt signal then I’ll start replying to you.
Until you can do that all you are doing is flapping your gums.
“Or that a “100 watt [radio] signal” definitely “exists”, yet is inexplicably measured (by him!) in Volts.”
This statement alone shows that you have absolutely no understanding of Maxwell. You don’t even know enough to remember that I said “Volts/meter”.
Radiation *IS* power. It is measured in W/m^2. POWER is the rate of energy transfer. Until you can get that concept in your head there is nothing else to consider.
Thank you for complement.
Tell you what, instead of asking a question and simply declaring an answer wrong. Why don’t you show the evidence and appropriate mathematics that refute Maxwell’s partial differential equations that define EM wave radiation.
That will give a definitive description of what you are describing.
If what you are declaring is an accepted science physical truth, then you should have no problem finding online resources that substantiate your assertions.
From:https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/University_Physics/University_Physics_(OpenStax)/University_Physics_II_-_Thermodynamics_Electricity_and_Magnetism_(OpenStax)/16%3A_Electromagnetic_Waves/16.04%3A_Energy_Carried_by_Electromagnetic_Waves
Notice the need for integrating the flux to obtain the intensity (power).
Also, another form of the intensity is:
E₀ = electric field magnitude
B₀ = magnetic field magnitude
μ₀ = permeability of vacuum
Notice the momentary energy flux is not the same as power delivered on time.
He’s never going to get it. All he knows is “radiation is joules”. Yet he can’t define how many joules there are in the radiation based on the power in the radiation.He’s a troll. Nothing more.
“All he knows is “radiation is joules””
That’s because that’s what it is. Radiation is a form of energy, and energy is measured in Joules. Any claim to the contrary is unmeasurable and hence pure hallucination.
A more intuitive visualization than just “Joules”, though, could be the one you gave us earlier, which describes radiation as being like pressure, i.e. force. Which is emitted by objects possessing Joules of (thermal) energy.
“power in the radiation.”
You mean the “power” you measured in Volts? With your field strength meter?
“He’s a troll”
You mis-spelled “physics teacher” again. And you’re still violating Anthony’s site policy. And contradicting yourself. While inadvertently supporting my position (which is the measurable physics one).
“Thank you for complement.”
You’re welcome.
“Maxwell’s partial differential equations”
There’s nothing wrong with them, but if you look closely you will see that there are no Watts in them, either.
“energy flux” (referring to the Poynting vector)
Yes, energy can be transferred (work done) by electromagnetic waves. But you can also have electric, magnetic, and hence electromagnetic fields without transmitting, or expending, any energy. In other words, the Poynting vector can have a magnitude of 0 (Watts), despite the presence of nonzero electric and magnetic field energy. This is the situation inside a closed box of uniform temperature, for example.
That is because, as Tim told us, EM radiation is like pressure. It is a force. Thus electric (and of course magnetic) field “flux” is measured in Newtons. That is not the same as power. (This word “flux” is being used to mean different things in different contexts to different people, so you had better make sure you specify which type of “flux” you are referring to whenever you use it – i.e. the “power” kind or the “force” kind. In particular, an object can emit “force flux” but not “power flux”. Power doesn’t work like that.)
Of course there is not. They are fundamental equations from which joules can be derived.
https://www.mit.edu/~ashrstnv/radiation-pressure.html
This is a deflection from the statement that a transmitter can create an EM wave with E and B field magnitudes capable of exerting force based on the power used to generate it.
https://www.mit.edu/~ashrstnv/radiation-power.html
One can not have an EM WAVE with a Poynting vector of zero. That would mean that either E = 0 or B = 0. The cross-product S = E × B would be zero. In other words, no propagation and S would have no magnitude.
https://www.mit.edu/~ashrstnv/poynting-vector.html
From;
https://www.rp-photonics.com/poynting_vector.html
You still refuse to show any math. Show us how the cross product can be zero.
“This is a deflection from the statement that a transmitter can create an EM wave with E and B field magnitudes capable of exerting force based on the power used to generate it.”
I’m not deflecting anything. A “[radio] transmitter” (AC voltage amplifier connected to an antenna) can indeed create an EM (classical) wave consisting of alternating E and B fields capable of exerting force (or, in a more modern description, collection of quantized photons each containing a characteristic energy corresponding to their frequency, and each also composed of alternating E and M fields of force). I never said anything different up to that point. But now, what conditions need to be met in order for that force to perform work? And therefore, power to be dissipated from the originating amplifier? (this question is independent of the electromagnetism aspect of physics per se, if that helps)
“One can not have an EM WAVE with a Poynting vector of zero.”
Why not?
“Show us how the [Poynting vector] cross product can be zero.”
Like you said, the E and/or B fields would have an “intensity” (“energy flux”, or “power”) of 0. But could still have a nonzero “field flux”, i.e. force. These are different concepts, as is explained (albeit none too clearly) in the textbook.
Probably the simplest way to visualize this difference is to picture a magnet suspended above another magnet with like poles facing each other. If you can keep the top magnet from falling sideways, the two magnets will exert “[magnetic] field flux” on each other, countering the force of gravity, for all eternity, without doing any work at all. No energy is being transferred or expended in order to maintain this configuration. Thus no “energy flux” is present, only “field flux”. (No, it’s not my fault that the word “flux” is used to refer to two totally different concepts, and someone should really fix that)
For the Poynting vector in particular, what do you think is the magnitude (and direction) of the Poynting vector at any point inside a closed box of uniform non-zero temperature? (make it a vacuum inside for simplicity, and make the box out of a perfect blackbody material, or if you don’t have one of those lying around, just concentrate on the frequencies the box is opaque to)
Another real-world example is the case of a thick fog at night, at the surface of the Earth. No energy is transferred from the ground to the air/fog, or vice versa, meaning that the Poynting vector, for longwave IR frequencies, has a magnitude of 0. But electromagnetic radiant field force is still present, as always, when the temperature is above 0 K.
You should rethink this. As fog forms, vapor is precipitating to a liquid, radiation is being created in the process. The earth radiates continually based on its temperature. Some of that is absorbed by water drops (fog).
“As fog forms, vapor is precipitating to a liquid,”
I was thinking more of the steady-state situation, for simplicity – i.e. after all the vapour that was going to condense has condensed and is just sitting there. And for this configuration to be stable, the ground temperature has to be very close to the temperature of the fog (and when this happens, both are usually going to be pretty cold, close to 0 C). I suppose I should have specified all that, to avoid confusion. But the point of this experiment is to demonstrate the notion of equilibrium. In this situation, power in every direction is 0 Watts. Just like in the closed box. If fog is too complicated, just think about the box instead. There are no phase changes involved in that example.
“The earth radiates [force] continually based on its temperature.”
Sure it does. So does the fog. Each exerts the same electromagnetic (and kinetic) force on the other (at the same temperature, for a given range of frequencies that they interact with). The net force is zero, despite electromagnetic field energy (“field flux”) being present. No work is done, and the Poynting vector has a magnitude of 0.
The earth/atmosphere is never in equilibrium. Insolation, temperatures, absorption, emissions, etc. varies exponentially.
For the Poynting vector to be zero, exact frequency, phase, E amplitude, H amplitude, direction, etc. must be opposite. Even then energy isn’t destroyed, a standing wave is created.
The real world is not a “box”. It might be fun to analyze on a blackboard or in a climate model. Your use of it to start an argument shows that you are not interested in serious discussion. You are only interested in telling folks how stupid they are!
“The earth/atmosphere is never in equilibrium”
Experimental evidence demonstrates the opposite. Because sometimes, under certain conditions, parts of it are. A thick fog at night, with no breeze, is one of them. Temporarily. Keep trying to wriggle out of the example and miss the point, though, by all means, if it makes you feel better.
“For the Poynting vector to be zero, exact frequency, phase, E amplitude, H amplitude, direction, etc. must be opposite.”
Since the classical “EM Wave” is an aggregate of quantum photon behaviour, this is not as difficult to achieve as you seem to think. You don’t even need coherent lasers. Just an ordinary box will do. Or a fog.
The point of both the fog and the box (and the magnets above) are to demonstrate that electromagnetic field energy (force) can exist without any measurable work being done or power being developed. Just like any other kind of energy and force. Right?
“The real world”
In physics (or any) class we always start with simple examples to learn the principles. You can’t begin to grasp the real world properly if you’ve never bothered to learn the principles first. Why not start now?
“start an argument”
You mis-spelled “demonstrate a point”.
Do you think Anthony started this website on the principle that we should just let people spout whatever nonsense they wish? Or was his founding motivation the exact opposite of that?
“You are only interested in telling folks how stupid they are!”
That is quite the tantrum, I must say. Are you stamping your feet too? I can just picture that. How old are you, anyway? Six?
No, I’m interested in squashing fake physics, because this is a science website. If you can’t see the difference after I explain it to you, with evidence, then yes, you are indeed stupid, because there’s no other word for it, and perhaps this forum isn’t for you.
But you don’t have to leave. Just sit down and pay attention when I teach you your physics. It’s not that difficult. But it can be quite counterintuitive, that’s for sure. Especially when you’ve been brainwashed with fake “engineering fizix” your entire life. That part absolutely wasn’t your fault. But rejecting the truth when it’s shown to you, and then insulting your teacher (while throwing a temper tantrum, to boot) certainly is.
Show the evidence you are quoting. Otherwise you have nothing to support your claim. I suspect anything claiming this will be using averages and models to support it. Those are not experimental evidence.
Dew point precipitation occurs when air can no longer hold the water vapor in it. It is a process with no stable equilibrium. Latent heat is released from the water vapor warming the air so it again can hold more water. It is a continuous process.
At some point, one must move from the black board jungle into the real world. That is what engineering education allows one to do. `As above, show the real world evidence you have prior to telling someone they are wrong.
You can’t teach me anything because you never show any mathematics or resources. You never reference any textbook with quotes from it by taking images. You never show an internet resource that confirms your assertions.
If you teach physics, what textbook do you teach from? Show us images supporting your assertions. Show us the math and the problems you use in your teaching. Otherwise, you are not believable.
“Show the evidence you are quoting”
That is from pyrgeometer readings. I can find the pyrgeometer paper I was looking at, with a bit of effort, if you really need it – I didn’t bookmark it. But you are free to make your own reading too, and that’s a better option. Don’t take my word for it – or anyone else’s!
You don’t need a pyrgeometer to grasp this principle, though. What do you think is the magnitude of the Poynting vector inside a closed box?
“move from the black board jungle”
You never started at the physics blackboard jungle, did you? So you aren’t ready to “move from” it yet.
“You never reference any textbook”
The one you sent me is perfectly fine. I don’t need any others. It tells you that EM fields exert force. Not power. That is the entire lesson here. All the textbooks will tell you the same thing. And it happens to match one of Tim’s many contradictory claims, too, namely this one: “EM radiation is like pressure”. Try to remember that. You’ll sound a lot smarter if you do.
“you never show any mathematics”
Mathematics isn’t your fundamental problem. It won’t help you.
“Show us the […] problems you use in your teaching.”
I did, and you ignored it. Several times. Here it is again: what do you think is the magnitude of the Poynting vector inside a closed box?
Here are two ways to confirm the night-time reading of a pyrgeometer in the fog, if you don’t have one lying around, or if it isn’t dark and foggy outside right now (specifically I mean the actual thermopile power measurement, i.e. rate of work or energy transfer, which is not what pyrgeometer “scientists” generally report as a final “data” product, because none of them are physicists either):
1) Ask Google AI. Use a query like this: “pyrgeometer measurements at night in fog”. If you are logged in, the AI will summarize the literature for you. Look for the “0 Watts/m^2” in the summary.
2) Read an actual paper such as this one:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atot/15/1/1520-0426_1998_015_0046_aisrms_2_0_co_2.pdf
On page 51, figure 6, you will see the upward-facing thermopile reading (ᵘSₗw) (*), which, depending on the time of day and fog conditions, indeed hovers right around 0 W/m^2, exactly as you would expect. Well, as you would expect if you knew anything about physics, anyway.
Naturally you will get exactly the same result if you stick a thermopile inside a closed box. Try it and see!
(*) if that Unicode rendering doesn’t work, it is supposed to be “superscript u” “capital S” “subscript lowercase L W” (the subscript lowercase W isn’t even in the Unicode standard yet, so I just substituted a regular lowercase w for now)