Fasullo & Trenberth (2008) build a closed, observation‑based annual energy budget for Earth’s climate system, partitioned into the top of the atmosphere (TOA), atmosphere, land, and ocean. They combine satellite radiation measurements, weather reanalyses, a stand‑alone land model, and several ocean temperature products. Over the oceans, they diagnose the net surface flux as a residual of the TOA and atmospheric budgets and compare it to independently derived ocean heat content and its trend.
Their logic is:
The TOA imbalance is measured with satellite radiation data, after tuning.
Atmospheric storage and heat transfer are estimated with weather reanalysis models.
Ocean surface net energy flux (radiation + evaporation + sensible) is estimated as the difference of the change in total atmospheric heat content + atmospheric transport of heat minus the TOA net radiative flux.
Global ocean heat content and its trend are defined as the net surface energy flux integrated over the whole ocean.
Thus, if atmospheric and land storage are assumed to be small, over the study period, the global TOA imbalance is assumed to be equal to the global ocean heat (or thermal energy) uptake. All energy diagrams, like the NASA one shown in figure 1, make the same assumption. As shown in figure 1, over 60% of the thermal energy leaving Earth’s surface is in the form of latent heat (evaporation) and conduction of sensible heat, whereas all the energy leaving the TOA is in the form of radiation. Fasullo and Trenberth assume that these alternate forms of energy transfer are net zero (or close enough to it) and merely move heat about and are already accounted for at a global scale over their time period. While it is true that surface energy movements are net zero over some period of time, it is not true over all time periods due to nature’s tendency to reorganize local heat storage, the argument I present here.
Figure 1. NASA energy flow diagram. It illustrates a TOA and surface energy imbalance of 0.6 W/m2. This is despite the fact that the energy (or heat) transfer mechanisms at the surface are very different from the TOA. After NASA here.
To justify the simplifying assumption that Ocean Heat Content (OHC) thermal energy changes = net TOA radiation flux, they emphasize the law of energy conservation in the full atmospheric column, and they show that atmospheric and land thermal energy storage is small. However, when they compare OHC estimates from ocean measurements over a mean year to satellite-measured incoming and outgoing radiation they find substantial differences. Overall ocean temperature changes imply a substantially larger annual cycle of ocean heat content than can be accounted for by either TOA or surface radiation changes from satellite measurements. In simpler terms, the oceans are storing and releasing energy on their own time frame, independently of the TOA. The Fasullo and Trenberth dataset only covered the years 1985-1989 (ERBE) and 2000-2004 (CERES), and importantly, these ten years are much shorter than the natural AMO or PDO ocean oscillations.
PDO
The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) is 60-70 years long, from trough to trough, and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) is 20-30 years long. The oscillations each have a “warm” period when the respective oceans expel excess stored heat and a “cold” period when they store atmospheric heat. They accomplish this by moving heat up and down in the ocean column.
Fasullo and Trenberth, as well as later studies, (Johnson et al., 2016), (Loeb et al., 2009), and (Loeb et al., 2018), compute a variety of Earth Energy Imbalances (EEIs) that fall between 0.5 and 1.0 W/m2. This is a range of 0.2 to 0.4 PW, which in terms of Ocean Heat Content (OHC) is 7 – 14 x 1022 Joules.
The observed magnitude of upper ocean heat content swings due to the PDO are 5-15 x 1022 Joules over a decade and some analyses show swings of 20 x 1022 Joules during strong shifts like 1976-77 and 1998-2013 (Meehl et al., 2011) and (England et al., 2014). Figure 4 of England et al. (2014) shows that intensified Pacific trade winds drove an additional ~8 × 10²² J of global 0–700 m ocean heat uptake between 1992 and 2011, with ~5–6 × 10²² J occurring in the Pacific and ~1–2 × 10²² J in the Indian Ocean. See the drop in the PDO over this period in figure 2.
Figure 2. The PDO index from the ERSST v5 dataset. Both the year-to-year index is displayed and the 9-year smoothed index. Data from here.
A negative PDO phase is associated with surface cooling and a deeper ocean heat uptake. This phase leads to stronger trade winds which pump heat below 125 meters and cause surface cooling. England argues that this is heat redistribution and not a slowdown in planetary heat uptake.
England et al. (2014) show that intensified Pacific trade winds during the negative PDO phase caused a loss of −3.8 × 10²² J from the upper 125 m of the Indo‑Pacific, while simultaneously increasing subsurface heat content by +5.0 × 10²² J. This vertical redistribution produced a net gain of only 1.2 × 10²² J, illustrating that decadal PDO variability can generate large upper‑ocean heat content swings. However, only the ocean skin layer emits infrared radiation, evaporates, and conducts heat to the atmosphere. If thermal energy is redistributed deeper in the ocean column, it is not warming the atmosphere or detected by satellites. Furthermore, the ocean temperature measurements that are used to compute ocean heat content are highly dependent upon the depth where the readings are taken.
AMO
Robson et al. compute a time derivative of ocean heat content of a sudden AMO shift in the mid-1990s of over 1 x 1022 J/year. The entire AMO upswing extends from ~1975 to ~1998 (see figure 3), a period of 23 years, so the total change could be as much as 23 x 1022 Joules. Chen and Tung found that shifts in surface temperature and heat content in the Atlantic and the Southern Ocean are more extreme than found in the Pacific. They also present evidence that the major reorganization of OHC in the mid-1990s was global and helped to cause the pause in warming observed between 1998 and about 2014. The linearly detrended AMO region SST anomalies are shown in figure 3.
Figure 3. The linearly detrended AMO from ERSST v5 data. After May & Crok (2024).
EEI (Earth Energy Imbalance)
Loeb et al.’s 2018 estimate of the TOA Earth Energy Imbalance is 0.71 W/m2. When this is expressed in terms of Ocean Heat Content (OHC) it is roughly 8.9 x 1022 Joules. Loeb et al. assume that OHC can be used to set a TOA EEI absolute value, like Fasullo, Trenberth and others do, to calibrate their satellite incoming and outgoing radiation measurements. However, upper ocean heat content has more drivers than TOA EEI, especially over the long-term (>10 years). TOA EEI is just incoming and outgoing radiation flux, ocean surface flux is also a function of evaporation, wind speed, and direction. These latter factors manifest themselves as the major climate oscillations, especially the AMO and PDO. Table 1 shows the impact of AMO and PDO climate oscillations compared to Loeb et al.’s assumed TOA EEI of 0.71 W/m2. Which is a function of OHC data, his “in-situ value” (Johnson et al., 2016):
“A one-time adjustment to shortwave (SW) and longwave (LW) TOA fluxes is made to ensure that global mean net TOA flux for July 2005–June 2015 is consistent with the in situ value of 0.71 W m⁻² (Loeb et al., 2018).”
Event
OHC Change (J)
Duration
Equivalent W/m²
Source
EEI (Loeb 2018)
8.9 x 1022 J
11 yr
0.71 W/m²
Loeb (2018)
PDO (England 2014)
8 x 1022 J
(0–700 m anomaly)
20 yr
~0.32 W/m²
England et al. (2014)
AMO (Robson 2012)
10-20 x 1022 J
10–15 yr
~0.5–1.0 W/m²
Robson et al. (2012)
Table 1. A comparison of Loeb et al.’s OHC determined EEI values and changes due to the AMO and PDO.
Table 1 compares the Loeb et al. assumed EEI to the equivalent net flux at the ocean surface due to the extremes of the AMO and PDO in recent decades. Loeb’s period of measurement is roughly 2005-2015 and he used a variety of measurements, but his main source for the 0.71 W/m2 value was the change in OHC (Johnson et al., 2016). During this period, the AMO was rising (see the undetrended AMO in figure 2 of May & Crok, 2024) and the PDO was falling (figure 2), these oscillations can produce an impact on shallow ocean OHC that is as large or larger than the anthropogenic greenhouse effect on EEI as estimated in AR6 (IPCC, 2021, p. 925) and (Li et al., 2024). His calculations may not reflect an anthropogenic greenhouse effect at all, just the net global ocean natural surface oscillation. We simply can’t tell with the data we have today, the data time period is too short.
The PDO and AMO contributions to OHC change in table 1 are redistributions of energy, not a planetary gain or loss of energy, like the TOA EEI. The problem is these, and other ocean oscillations, contaminate OHC-tuned EEI calculations and make the EEI calculation in figure 1 or in the other sources mentioned above inaccurate.
Loeb et al.’s methodology
As explained by Norman Loeb and colleagues (Loeb et al., 2009), the average global net radiation at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) is defined as the difference between the energy absorbed and emitted by the planet. If the planet is at equilibrium, the global net TOA radiation is zero. However, Earth is never at equilibrium, as attested to by the major long-term ocean oscillations like ENSO, the AMO, the PDO and so on. Earth’s oceans have an enormous heat capacity and the thermal energy content changes, especially the upper ocean heat content, over multidecadal periods.
Global net radiation at the TOA should be in phase with, and of similar magnitude, as global ocean heat storage. However, ocean heat content (OHC) responds to changes in the energy imbalance at the ocean surface and not necessarily to the energy imbalance at the TOA. The ocean surface is separated from the TOA by the atmosphere and its thick convective troposphere.
The TOA and ocean surface fluxes are not equal and are only partially connected to one another. All thermal energy fluxes at the TOA are via radiation and in figure 1, only 36% of surface heat transfer is via radiation. The heat transfer mechanisms are different, and the atmosphere has heat capacity, whereas space does not. Even so, Loeb and NASA assume that the energy imbalance at the surface is the same as the energy imbalance at the TOA over very short time periods.
Energy conservation requires that over long enough periods, where internal variability is not a factor, that the surface energy fluxes should approximately equal the fluxes at the TOA. I don’t argue this point, only that given the periods of the AMO and PDO, the time period used in these recent studies is too short, 20 years of data is not enough.
CERES Data
Loeb et al. 2018 write that without adjustments to the CERES shortwave (SW) and longwave (LW) data the TOA net imbalance is about 4.3 W/m2, much larger than expected and probably not possible. This is a known calibration issue and not a measurement of the true TOA radiation imbalance. They then go on to explain that to avoid this problem they adjust the SW and LW fluxes within their ranges of uncertainty to force the satellite measurements to reflect the imbalance calculated using ocean heat content. As mentioned above, in CERES EBAF (“Energy Balanced and Filled”) version 4, the global annual mean values are adjusted such that the July 2005– June 2015 mean net TOA flux is 0.71 ± 0.10 W/m2, which is from Johnson et al. (2016) and an update from the previous value of 0.58 W/m2.
We used the CERES EBAF data to map the TOA net radiation trend from 2001-2024 for the globe, the map is shown in figure 4. Much of the map is near zero (light yellow), but there are areas, in the Pacific and over the continents where the trend is negative, that is more outgoing radiation than incoming. All the energy transfer at the TOA is via radiation, none is stored or transferred via other mechanisms.
Figure 4. TOA Net Radiation in W/m2 per year from CERES EBAF data. Reddish areas are where incoming energy is greater than outgoing and blueish areas are the reverse.
Figure 5 shows the EBAF surface net radiation (SW + LW) trend map for the same years. Although this data is corrected using the assumption that the Earth Energy Imbalance at the ocean surface is the same as the Earth Energy Imbalance at the TOA, the resulting trends are different. This is expected since the atmosphere intervenes in several ways as shown in figure 1. It absorbs or reflects (154.1 W/m2 or 45%) of the incoming sunlight, and it cools the surface through evaporation (latent heat, 86.4 W/m2 or 36%) and by absorbing some of the surface heat via conduction (18.4 W/m2 or 8%). Only about 58 W/m2 of surface infrared emissions are sent to space, the rest are recycled via the atmosphere. Due to all the interference from the atmosphere, as well as changing heat storage, the cooling and warming areas are different, and the surface is showing more warming than at the TOA.
Figure 5. The CERES EBAF surface net radiation trend in W/m2 per year.
Figure 6 plots the latitude corrected means of both the TOA EEI and the net surface radiation (SW + LW) over the 2001-2024 period with CERES EBAF data after converting the net radiation flux values to anomalies from the respective means. I converted the net energy fluxes to anomalies because the magnitudes of the raw radiation fluxes are different due to the atmosphere.
Figure 6. Surface net radiation (SW + LW), incoming is positive, as an anomaly from 2001 to 2024 in red and TOA net flux, also incoming is positive, in blue. The difference in the trends is mostly due to atmospheric effects and changing ocean storage. The time period shown is too short to achieve balance between the two.
Conclusions
Using variations in upper ocean heat content to calibrate the satellite measured TOA EEI is a good idea, but unfortunately, ocean heat content has many more drivers than just radiation-in minus radiation-out. Upper‑ocean heat content is strongly influenced by multidecadal internal variability, and because CERES absolute fluxes are tuned to OHC, current EEI estimates may reflect a mixture of forced and internal variability. Longer, more stable OHC records are needed before EEI can be used as a robust indicator of anthropogenic forcing.
This does not eliminate the possibility of a long-term human-caused imbalance, it just makes detecting it very difficult or impossible over short periods of time. We need to understand the ocean oscillations better than we do or wait until we have enough data to account for their swings in thermal energy storage.
We have decent data for this calculation since about 2005, but the ocean cycles contaminating the EEI calculation are not related to greenhouse gas emissions or other possible anthropogenic drivers of climate change since the oscillations pre-date any possible anthropogenic influence (Gray et al., 2004). Therefore, attributing any portion of EEI to anthropogenic forcing is premature. Longer, more stable OHC datasets are required to cleanly separate anthropogenic forcing and interval variability.
The average temperature and salinity below 700 meters is essentially constant, causally driven by the high salinity very cold seawater downwelling as the North and South poles freeze every year, exuding saline water to form essentially freshwater ice. ARGO floats use those facts to calibrate their instruments every 10 day ‘dive’ to 2000 meters before sampling along the way to the surface to report the measurements.
The average time for deep thermohaline circulation to resurface somewhere is between 800 and 1200 years, depending on location and estimation. So it should logically take on the order of 800 years to fully ocean calibrate the now nearly 30 years of CERES radiation budget estimates. Not possible to get there from here. Andy’s post is fundamentally correct.
Separate observation. Many years ago, I looked into the individual estimate uncertainties in the famous flux diagram provided as figure one here. Assuming they simply sum rather than compound (a dubious assumption) it is ‘only’ about 10x the net balance estimate—so the thing always was statistically meaningless.
As I have ‘splained in numerous postings this graphic and its clones are trash.
Refer to annotated copy attached.
400 W/m^2 upwelling requires the surface to radiate as a BB at 16 C and exceeds 342 W/m^2 ISR violating LoT 1
This is simply not possible.
A BB requires ALL the energy leaving to do so by radiation.
The kinetic thermals and latent render this impossible.
Nicholas, if there was no GHG effect, as you assume, then the 210 W/m2 absorbed by the surface in balance should give 210 W/m2 IR emission back to space. With the S-B equation, that is the outgoing radiation for a “black body” surface at a temperature of 247 K or -26°C…
160 arrives at the surface, 160 is all that can leave. Your 210 is ToA not surface.
IR instruments do not measure flux, they are calibrated to measure a comparative, referenced temperature assuming the target is a BB. When the target is not BB the operator is advised to mimic BB w black tape or paint or a known value. Read the instructions.
Emissivity is the ratio between the energy leaving a system by radiation to the energy were the system a BB at system temperature. 16 C = 396 W/m^2. TFK_bams09: 63/396=0.16. The 396 BB/333 “back”/63 2nd duplicate net is incorrect. Erase this set from the graphic and the balance still holds.
All these measurements are using the wrong emissivity based on a surface BB and to conform to GHE.
Everyone was wrong about caloric, phlogiston, luminiferous ether, et al “everybody”, SURFRAD & USCRN can be just as wrong.
By tweaking the emissivity on my IR thermometer, the instrument displays energy that clearly is not there. As demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
The instruments used by Feldman were not simple overall IR measurements, that were full spectrum line by line measurements comparing the outside downwelling with two built-in black bodies: one at ambient temperature and the other at a fixed temperature. The cell itself is cooled to near 0 K to minimize radiation from the equipment itself.
The measurement chip can be compared to a solar cell, which converts one photon of sufficient energy to one electron passing the electronic barrier between the two layers of the cell.
The cell converts incoming IR photons to electrons over the full range measured, the measured voltage is in exact ratio to the number of incoming photons per wavelength.
As each wavelength has an exact energy content per photon, one can calculate the total incoming energy of the whole spectrum and that was over 300 W/m2…
“You still have to explain how there is more energy leaving the surface, 396, than arrived from the Sun, 342.”
Referring to my figure 1 from NASA, the IR upward and downward in the diagram are mostly recycled. Up to the atmosphere and then immediately down to the surface. It is one of the most misleading cartoons I’ve ever seen. The net flux to space is only 57.9 W/m2, the 398.2 up and 340.3 down are confusing red herrings. Most of the energy leaves the surface as latent or sensible heat. I hate these stupid diagrams.
I’ve always felt that those yellowish up and down 396 and 333 arrows should be a single 63 up arrow labelled “net IR’ with a footnote saying that it consists of 396 and 333 from Planck’s [TGround^4-Tsky^4] relation. That would avoid back-radiation-challenged individuals like NS from invoking their twisted interpretation of the second law of thermo…
396 and 333 in the cartoon are “electromagnetic radiation”. They aren’t classical “HEAT” until absorbed. Illustrative examples: lasers, microwave ovens…
The net of 396-333=63 is the IR leaving the surface… and at “surface”the 160 of sunlight absorbed on the far left balances at
“Tweaking” your IR thermometer emissivity is no different than sliding the glass tube on your thermometer up and down on the scale backing. Viola, temperature that’s not really there !
You obviously expect the SB equation to be the controlling relation in these calculations. Consequently, the controlling factor is the incoming insolation from the sun. That is all the energy that enter the system every day.
Since the equation “I = σT⁴” is built upon a black body and Planck’s equation is also, then then the relations in the Trenberth diagram should be built upon this same assumption.
If the surface of the earth is a black body, the surface should radiate at whatever energy it absorbs. 160 in, 160 out. If the atmosphere is a black body and is warmed by the radiation from the earth, the same relation should hold. 160 in, 160 out. At equilibrium, the net radiation should be zero between the surface and the atmosphere.
This conclusion does not hold. Why? The bodies we are examining are not black bodies. Truthfully, they are heat sinks. Neither the surface (land and ocean) nor the atmosphere are homogenous or isotropic. The stored heat released from them occurs at various intervals and rates.
Andy has shown that OHC does not follow a constant release of heat to the atmosphere. That means there is a constant imbalance. Land is no different. In general, it stores additional heat every day in spring and summer and releases some extra heat in fall and winter. Annually, there is also a variance. Again an imbalance.
Averaging is a smoothing action. Trying to determine a physical change from an average ignores the variance that exists in a distribution. It is an easy trap to fall into. The next time you see mean value ask yourself what is the variance of the data. As Andy shows, it may take multiple decades to recognize a pattern.
Practically all surfaces of the earth are near black bodies, even white snow is a near black body in the IR spectrum: between 0.97 and 0.99…
That means that with 160 W/m2 out at equilibrium, the earth’s average temperature would be around -42°C. That is all.
As the real surface temperature in average certainly is (much) higher, that means that much more energy is emitted than directly received from the sun. Which is impossible without some extra input from whatever source.
That extra source is measured (not guessed, modeled or fantasied) by quite accurate line by line spectral analysis at several places and many simpler instruments all over the earth. All these measurements show downwelling radiation in the IR spectrum of over 300 W/m2.
Gases are not black bodies. Some are nobodies in the IR spectrum: O2 and N2 don’t radiate or absorb any IR, no matter their temperature. Thus any energy exchange between surface and atmosphere with only O2 and N2 is by conduction and convection, not by radiation. With only O2 and N2 in the atmosphere, the 160 W/m2 IR out from the surface simply would pass the atmosphere and the earth would be a snowball.
Some are GHGs and absorb and emit IR in very specific wavelengths, independent of their own “temperature” or that of the surrounding. These absorb outgoing IR and either distribute that energy to the surrounding O2 and N2 molecules by collisions, increasing the overall vibration energy (“temperature”) or re-emit IR at the same wavelength as absorbed. In the latter case, in all directions, thus near half in the direction of the surface.
Even if only 10% of the outgoing IR is absorbed and sent back to the surface, that adds to the total energy received by the surface and the net result is that the surface must warm up to get a new equilibrium between incoming (SW from the sun and LW from GHGs) and outgoing energy, thus more outgoing IR. With GHGs in the atmosphere then again more downwelling,…
As measured: over 300 W/m2 is recycled in that way and therefore we live in a world that sustained life in many forms…
Well said and exactly why I wrote this post. 340 W/m2 is recycled, the net heat content is 58 W/m2 and it is out to space. Add that 58 to the 105 transfered as latent and sensible heat content and you nearly equal the incoming solar radiation of about 163 W/m2.
Yes, it is, explain why you think it isn’t. The 340 W/m2 of downwelling radiation is a one-way flux, it is not heat-transfer, it is not comparable to the 163 W/m2 of incoming energy from the Sun or the outgoing 104.8 W/m2 of energy via evaporation and conduction.
The 340 W/m2 is only a part of an outgoing net heat transfer of 58 W/m2. The orange arrows are very misleading because they cannot be compared to the other arrows, which are real energy transfers.
Because physics doesn’t work like that. Of course, you wouldn’t know that, because you’re not a physicist, are you?
“The 340 W/m2 of downwelling radiation is”
a mathematical fiction that no one has ever measured.
“net heat transfer”
There’s no such thing. Please define “gross heat transfer” for us, if you would be so kind. And show us how to measure it, so we can tell that you are not simply hallucinating. Thanks!
Hmmm! Yes, it does, this makes me think you do not know much about physics. No real physicist would ever say anything like that.
You are treating power as if it were: always unidirectional always describing net energy transfer and therefore incapable of being decomposed into components. This is simply not how thermodynamics or radiative transfer works.
You are mixing up: Power (a rate: J/s) Energy transfer (a process) Radiative fluxes (bidirectional components) Net flux (the algebraic difference of two opposing fluxes)
You are trying to argue that because work is unidirectional, therefore power must be unidirectional, therefore radiative fluxes cannot be decomposed into incoming and outgoing components.
That is a category error.
“net” is absolutely correct in radiative physics.
Radiation is not like conduction or convection. It is inherently bidirectional because every surface emits according to its temperature and absorbs according to the incident field.
Thus:
Net = incoming – outgoing
This is not optional. It is literally the structure of the radiative transfer equation.
Every radiometer, bolometer, pyrgeometer, CERES instrument, and radiative transfer model uses gross fluxes and net fluxes. This is not controversial; it’s the foundation of the field.
You are confusing: radiation (a mechanism) radiative flux (a measurable quantity) net heat transfer (the thermodynamic consequence)
This is about net heat flow, not about radiation.
Radiation is not heat.
Radiation is not work.
Radiation is a mechanism that transports energy.
Heat is the net energy transferred due to temperature difference.
You’re trying to apply the unidirectionality of heat flow to the bidirectional nature of radiation, and that’s why your statements don’t make any sense. Bottom line: Retake your basic physics class.
“Yes, it does, this makes me think you do not know much about physics. No real physicist would ever say anything like that.”
How many “real physicists” do you know, Andy? Because all of them will agree with me. All of my statements are straight out of the physics textbook (not the engineering textbook, mind you), and all of them are backed up by every measurement we have ever made. Your claims, on the other hand, are hallucinations.
“You are treating power as if it were: always unidirectional always”
Correct. This is closely related to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, with which you are obviously unfamiliar.
“net energy transfer”
There’s no such thing. Please define “gross power” for us, and show us which physics textbook you are getting that definition from. And how to measure it. Thanks!
“Every radiometer, bolometer, pyrgeometer, CERES instrument, […] uses gross fluxes and net fluxes.”
No they don’t. As any physicist can tell you, each of these instruments measures unidirectional work. Nothing else. Have you ever used one?
“and radiative transfer model”
Fiction
“This is not controversial; it’s the foundation of the field.”
It’s the foundation of a fake field, affectionately known as “climate fizix”. And within that field, you are right, these claims are “uncontroversial”. But this fake field has nothing to do with real physics, except that they use the same words – and they use them wrong. You can tell because they can’t measure any of the things they talk about. They can only hallucinate them.
You’re not a physicist, Andy, and unfortunately you’ve been lied to this whole time. It’s a crying shame, really.
Ferdinand, while researching whether the generally accepted zero absorption of O2 and N2 was actually correct when one considers UV in sunlight and so on… I ran into a very informative article that includes those and for other gases as well.
For example, I have used graphics from their Fig. 1 to present more realistic numbers when some one says something ridiculous like “methane is 86 times as bad as CO2 and since 2 1/2 percent of it leaks, it’s actually worse than burning coal”. When they go “ad hominem”, send them the full article…
Thanks! Indeed very informative… Seems that the collisions doe have an effect on some extra absorption, but I don’t see anything of re-eadiation at first glance, maybe only extra absorption resulting in more vibration/temperature?
“Even if only 10% of the outgoing IR is absorbed and sent back to the surface, that adds to the total energy received by the surface”
Why does everyone ignore the fact that the IR that has been absorbed and sent back to the surface represents heat that HAS ALREADY BEEN LOST BY THE SURFACE?
What the surface gets back HAS ALREADY BEEN LOST. Heat transfer is a TIME FUNCTION.
You simply can’t say that if Body1 radiates away 100 joules and gets 100 joules back from reflective Body2 that Body1 temperature will be greater than it was at the point Body1 radiated away 100 joules.
In the case of the Earth, it will radiate away 100 joules but only get a percentage of that amount reflected back, not 100%.
This is why any HEAT BALANCE for the earth *has* to be done using joules and not joules/sec. The temperature of the earth is decided by the TIME FUNCTIONS involved. You have to integrate the radiation-in and radiation-out over TIME in order to figure out what the temperature of the earth will be.
A theoretical black body changes temperature immediately upon receiving radiation from an external source. A theoretical black body does not have a specific heat capacity or thermal inertia. THAT IS NOT THE EARTH. It doesn’t matter what the emissivity of the earth is. The emissivity only describes what the earth radiates a specific temperature, it tells you *nothing* about what the temperature of the earth will be at any specific time. That temperature is a function of the joules-in and joules-out over a period of time. If this wasn’t the case then the earth would lose more heat over 24 hours than it can possibly take in over the 12 hours of sun insolation. The surface of the earth simply cannot receive more heat than the sun can provide. CO2 is *NOT* a heat source, it is a reflective body. CO2 can only reflect back heat that has already been lost, it can’t increase the amount of heat received by the emitting body.
This means that “radiative balance” is a phantom, non-physical theory. The joules/sec in and the joules/sec out will NEVER balance. It’s another one of those garbage, non-physical assumptions that climate science is famous for. Like the meme that all measurement uncertainty is random, Gaussian, and cancels. Again, earth is *NOT* a black body and emissivity does *not* define what temperature will be at any point in time but only what will happen at a certain temperature.
Steve,
You appear to be very confused. What he is saying is that radiation is not the same thing as energy (or heat) transfer. You appear to be confusing radiation flux with energy transfer, they are not the same thing, which was the point of my post. Radiation is a mechanism, it isn’t energy.
No, Andy, I am not the one who is confused. Tim contradicted himself, and he has no idea why, because he’s not a physicist.
“Radiation is a mechanism, it isn’t energy.”
And what, precisely, does this “mechanism” do? And what units should we denote it in, and why?
You’re not technically wrong that the phenomenon of EM radiation is a “mechanism”, or as I would more likely call it, a “process”. But what does this process do, if not “transmit the ability to do work, i.e. energy, across the universe at the speed of light”? Indeed, that’s what we measure it doing, because that’s what it is.
No, the confusion is entirely among those who think that “radiation” and “power” are the same thing. They are not, neither by definition, nor by measurement. That’s how you can tell scientifically that that idea is simply wrong. Anyone who tells you otherwise is, demonstrably, flat-out lying.
Radiation isn’t energy; it’s the transport mechanism for energy.
Electromagnetic waves carry energy, and the rate at which that energy crosses a surface is what we measure as radiative flux, in W/m². That’s power per unit area, not energy, it is power density.
Energy is measured in joules. Power is in Watts which are Joules/second.
Radiation is the process that moves those joules from one place to another.
steve just can’t accept that heat transfer is measured in joules, not in joules/sec. It is the joules-in over time, and its resulting distribution throughout a body, that determines the temperature of the body. The emissivity of a body is related to that temperature, not to the intensity of the in-bound radiation.
It’s a fact than in the sun-earth system, you will *never* see a radiation balance inward and outward associated with the earth. What you *will* see is an equilibrium point between the joules-in and the joules-out from the earth.
Since the joules-in is pretty much a constant over a given time interval and joules-out is an exponential decay (even during the day) over a different time interval than for joules-in, it is highly unlikely that the average of the two will ever be equal, even if normalized to the same time interval.
Since the total joules inward and the total joules outward should be close to equal, you *can* divide the total joules outward by the same time interval as for the joules inward to get a hokey, non-physical average for the average radiation outward but it will *not* equal the average of the exponential decay outward.
And I will note once again, that if you’ve already calculated the total joules in and total joules out in order to find an “average” value, why not just show flows in terms of total joules per diurnal period? Why calculate a hokey, non-physical “average” for outbound radiation? That hokey, non-physical average will *NOT* give you an accurate average temperature for the Earth since it’s based on a constant value outward instead of the average of an exponential decay.
“steve just can’t accept that heat transfer is measured in joules, not in joules/sec.”
What a bizarre claim. I never said that, of course. You can, naturally, measure either the total quantity of heat (energy transferred) in Joules, or the rate, in Joules/sec. Both are valid physics concepts. Andy’s “gross flux”, though, is not. That’s the point here, which apparently went right over your head. As usual.
Of course, this particular misguided complaint is coming from the fellow who said:
“Radiation is a FLOW, it is a FLUX”
followed by
“Radiation is NOT radiant FLUX”
Brilliant. Also the same fellow who tried to measure a “100 watt signal” with his VOLTmeter. Equally brilliant. And then he panicked and told me NOT to read the part of his textbook that describes electric and magnetic field “flux” in Newtons, rather than, say, Watts. Sit down, Tim.
“You can, naturally, measure either the total quantity of heat (energy transferred) in Joules, or the rate, in Joules/sec. Both are valid physics concepts. Andy’s “gross flux”, though, is not. That’s the point here, which apparently went right over your head. As usual.”
Malarky. Joules-in is based on the radiation-flux-in. Joules-out is based on the radiation-flux-out. The radiation-flux-in and the radiation-flux-out each represent a GROSS flow. The NET flow is the difference between the two. Joules/sec in vs joules/sec out determines the net flow.
The radiation-flux-in does *NOT* determine the radiation-flux-out until the objects generating the different flux are in equilibrium. The joules-in, i.e. the integration of radiation-flux-in over time, does *not* determine the actual temperature of the receiving body, not even for a black-body. For a black-body it determines the immediate ΔT of the black-body but for a non-black-body that has thermal inertia it does *not* determine the immediate ΔT of the non-black-body.
Emissivity is irrelevant for determining balance on an instantaneous basis. Emissivity is based on temperature, not on radiation-flux-in. There need not be balance between radiation-flux-in and radiation-flux-out. There *does* need to be balance between joules-in and joules-out for equilibrium – it just requires that the time interval where the radiation-flux-in is less than the time interval for radiation-flux-out
Climate science likes to assume that radiation-flux-in equals radiation-flux-out even when a two-body system is not in equilibrium. That’s the whole idea behind the radiative flux balance paradigm. It’s non-physical. It’s been simplified so far that it doesn’t make any realistic sense.
Radiation is not a quantified value. Radiant flux is a quantified value specifying how fast radiative energy is flowing, e.g. joules/sec-m^2. . I’ve told you this before. Yet you keep ignoring it.
Find a different dead horse to beat on. Your continued beating on this one just makes you look ignorant.
“Radiation is not a quantified value. Radiant flux is a quantified value”
So, “radiation” must not be the same as “radiant flux”.
But you said “Radiation is a FLOW, it is a FLUX”.
So if “radiation” is a “flux”, but is not the same as “radiant flux”, then what, precisely, is the difference between “radiation [i.e. flux]” and “radiant flux”?
Are you simply making up malarkey as you trundle along in your blissful ignorance?
“radiative energy”
This is the first correct phrase you have used so far. Now, what units should we measure “radiative energy” in, Tim?
“dead horse”
I’m not the one who’s contradicting myself, Tim. Or hallucinating. Something’s definitely dead around here, but it isn’t my horse.
“So if “radiation” is a “flux”, but is not the same as “radiant flux”, then what, precisely, is the difference between “radiation [i.e. flux]” and “radiant flux”?”
The definitions are simple and easy to understand. Both Andy and I have given them to you.
The difference is that one is a non-quantified mechanism and the other is a quantified flow. It’s like “sunshine” and “insolation”. My guess is that you don’t understand the difference between those either.
You are still beating a dead horse and just making the surrounding environment smell bad.
“The definitions are simple and easy to understand. Both Andy and I have given them to you. ”
No you haven’t. Both of you are hallucinating and contradicting yourselves. As well as all the measurements. And the physics textbooks.
I’m still waiting for Andy to give me definitions for “gross power” and “Joule per second”, as well as “radiant energy”. Can you help him? The poor fellow’s completely out of his depth and floundering badly.
“The difference is that one [radiation flux] is a non-quantified mechanism”
Who told you that? Are you just pulling this definition out of your fundament? Because it certainly smells like it. What is a “non-quantified flux”, and why do you call both a mechanism and a flow by the same word “flux”? That doesn’t sound very scientific of you, not to mention rational.
“and the other [radiant flux] is a quantified flow.”
Sure, if you say so.
” It’s like “sunshine” and “insolation””
For you, it’s more like “ignorance” and “stupidity”, isn’t it?
Please answer my question. The one you conveniently ignored. What units should we measure “radiative energy” in, Tim?
“I’m still waiting for Andy to give me definitions for “gross power” and “Joule per second”, as well as “radiant energy”.”
Both he and I have given you the definitions. Neither of us can make you read them and understand them.
Again: “radiation” is is EM energy in general. Think “wind”.
“radiant flux” is the rate of energy flow in Watts, i.e. joules/sec. Think “wind speed” in miles/hour. .
“radiant flux density” is the radiant flux per area.
Gross power is Watts. Gross power can be in or out. The same as radiant flux.
Watts are joules/sec.
Net power is (Flux-in)-(Flux-out). Same as (Watts-in) – (Watts-out). If Watts-in > Watts-out for an object during a unit time interval then it is warming because more joules are entering than leaving for a unit time interval. If Watts-in < Watts-out for an object during a unit time interval then it is cooling because more joules are leaving then entering for a unit time interval.
Your misunderstanding of these concepts is highlighted by your inability to answer the question: “how many joules in a 100 watt signal”.
Think of it all in this manner:
An engine on a lawn mower has three basic power inputs and outputs. The energy generated by burning fuel appears as 1. mechanical work in turning the engine shaft, 2. as work on the air molecules exiting the exhaust pipe, i.e. kinetic energy, 3. conductive flux to the surrounding environment, and 4. radiative flux to the surrounding environment.
For the earth and space system the only applicable items are basically 2, 3, and 4. The energy received by the surface from the sun is converted into conductive flux to the atmosphere, to radiative flux outward, and to air flux (wind) via the conductive path as well as the radiative path (similar to the exhaust of the lawn mower engine).
The work done by the surface on the environment is a major contributor to the imbalance between sun insolation and radiant flux from the surface over the same unit time interval (as well as the thermal inertia of the varied components).
You are still beating a dead horse and stinking things up. Andy understands what Watts are, what radiant flux is, and what a joule is. You are having to tie yourself in knots trying to prove otherwise.
“Both he and I have given you the definitions [of gross power and radiant energy].”
No, Andy never defined “radiant energy”. Please show me where you think he did. And neither of you attempted to define “gross power” previously, as far as I can tell, until you did, just now. Let’s see:
“Gross power is Watts”
Fascinating, Tim. Where did you get that from? It obviously didn’t come from a physics textbook. Let’s check the Wikipedia definition: “The watt (symbol: W) is the unit of power”. Hmmm… now just where, precisely, do you see the word “gross”? Because I don’t see it. Nor does anyone else. That’s because you hallucinated it, isn’t it? Of course it is.
““radiation” is is [sic] EM energy”
Yes it is. That is indeed my entire physics lesson, which you have spent literally years and thousands of words deliberately ignoring. But you finally figured it out! Congratulations! We’re on our way to being able to call you a physicist. But we’re not quite there yet! There are a few more important lessons. Let’s keep going…
(In the process of learning this lesson, you have managed to flatly and hilariously contradict what Andy said, which is, slightly paraphrased, “radiation is not energy, you misinformed idiot, it is power“. Can the two of you please get your story straight? Maybe you can help me teach him this lesson now.)
Now, the $64,000 question, which you continue to studiously ignore: what units do we measure “energy” in, Tim?
And I suppose we should also ask you the related $128,000 question while we are here: is “energy” the same as “flux”, Tim? Because, of course, you previously told us that “Radiation is a FLOW, it is a FLUX”.
“Think wind”
What I’m thinking is that all of your fake definitions and self-contradictory mental gyrations are indistinguishable from “passing wind”, yes. Good analogy.
“your inability to answer the question: “how many joules in a 100 watt signal”.”
I can’t answer a question based on a fictional concept. Neither can you, or anyone else, of course. Is the “100 watt signal” in the room with us right now? Is it, perhaps, the one you measured with your field strength VOLTmeter?
“Andy understands what Watts are”
No he doesn’t. He has never demonstrated that. (Nor have you.) Please show me where you think he did.
Who told you that? It certainly wasn’t a physicist.
“it’s the transport mechanism for energy”
You mean like a bus? With wheels? And a driver? Or more like some sort of “aether”? You know that physicists don’t think like that any more, right? Not for more than a century.
I would rather put it as simply “energy propagating itself”. That’s what physicists would say, because that’s what we observe. This is equivalent, of course, to “the capacity to do work, propagating itself”.
“Electromagnetic waves”
Is the “electromagnetic wave” in the room with us right now, Andy? How can you tell?
“Radiation is the process that moves those joules from one place to another.”
That’s not a bad phrasing. I certainly won’t argue with it. And note that there is no need for the words “net” or “gross” in this definition, of course. So now, what does the Second Law of Thermodynamics tell us about the direction in which joules are going to be transferred? Have you ever seen joules being “moved” from a colder object to a hotter one, for example? By any passive mechanism whatsoever?
I’m still waiting for your definition of the following terms, too:
1) “Gross power”, or what you referred to as “gross flux”
2) “Radiant energy”, which you apparently lied that you had already defined for me, but hadn’t
And on a related note, I’m also waiting for your response to the pyrgeometer measurements that I sent you. Where is the “gross flux” or “net flux” in the “uSlw” measurement in their figure 6? I don’t see any of that. It’s just W/m^2. As it should be. Because that’s physics. And thus, it looks to me like your claim that pyrgeometers, among other instruments, use “gross flux” and “net flux” was simply false. A hallucination. Physics doesn’t work like that.
No, Andy, I am not “confused”. You can tell because I am not hallucinating, like you. Nor “denying” any actual measurements. And I would be making plenty of sense if you knew anything about physics. I’m still waiting for you to find a real physicist who agrees with you. Not a “climate scientist”, or an engineer, mind you. A physicist.
“Radiation isn’t energy; it’s the transport mechanism for energy.”
But EM energy doesn’t really need a “transport mechanism”, like a bus, or “ether”, Andy. Electromagnetic fields transport themselves, under the right conditions. As if by magic! But it’s not magic, of course. It’s science.
“Electromagnetic waves”
Is the “electromagnetic wave” in the room with us right now, Andy? How would you know?
“moves those joules from one place to another.”
When was the last time you saw a Joule being moved from a colder object to a warmer one, please?
You ignored all my questions from before. That’s not very scientific or rational of you. Can you just answer at least one of them, please? What is your disagreement (if any) with the pyrgeometer measurement I sent you?
As a practical engineer all my working life, I have looked at measurements, less at theories, be it with enough knowledge of theory to know what happens within these instruments (and why these sometimes went wrong,..).
In your example, you forgot that body 1 still receives 100 Joules continuously from one source and that the “reflected” 100 Joules from body 2 is additional: thus body 1 then receives 200 joules and certainly must heat up to get rid of 200 Joules, that again is reflected by body 2 and makes 300 joules input, etc…
If I remember well, Anthony has once made a test with an old filament bulb, working with mirrors and showed that the filament temperature of a few thousand °C did increase with the reflected energy…
——————————
The surface measurements show some 160 W/m2 direct input from the sun and some 396 W/m2 IR from the sky. Measurements, not theories or models.
The only calibration done of the AERI instrument that measures downwelling IR, is frequent (every 8 minutes) self calibration by comparing the incoming W/m2 with the W/m2 from two black bodies at different temperatures.
As one of the two black body temperatures is fixed, one knows the exact W/m2 of that black body and can measure the corresponding voltage of the photovoltaic cell, for every wavelength over the full range.
The second is at ambient temperature and also will give a fixed W/m2 input to the instrument for the temperature of the moment for every wavelength that is measured.
Both together make a calibration curve, where the sky W/m2 can be compared with for every wavelength that is measured.
That instrument gives you the exact downwelling absolute amount of energy from the sky, as every photon of a certain wavelength contains a fixed amount of energy. Energy, not “heat”.
So my question to you: if that is not “recycled” energy, originally coming from the surface, even if that was 1000 times recycled within a second, what then is its origin?
BTW, they use the same calibration principle that is used to measure CO2 in the atmosphere: two calibration mixtures per hour to make a reference curve for that hour and in the case of CO2, a third one every 25 hours as check…
“In your example, you forgot that body 1 still receives 100 Joules continuously from one source and that the “reflected” 100 Joules from body 2 is additional:”
No, it is *not* additional, it is “replacement”. According to Planck, reflected heat is re-emitted by NEW rays. Those NEW rays make up part of the total emitted radiation. Since the total emitted radiation is fixed by the temperature, the part of the total emitted radiation from the pre-existing energy becomes less. That means less *cooling*, not more heating.
Nor is the sun a constant input of energy to the Earth. The Earth actually radiates away more heat during the day than it does at night because it is at a higher temperature. The sun is like a furnace whose output times are fixed rather than controlled by a temperature controlled thermostat. If you add insulation to a house with a furnace injecting a fixed amount of heat into the house each time period, does the temperature go up in the house because of “back-heat” from the insulation or because of slower cooling? Does the maximum temperature in the house go up or does the minimum temperature go up?
The proof of all this is that we see average minimum temperatures going up more than average maximum temperatures. That means we see less cooling, not more warming.
If CO2 *added* heat it would do so doing the day when it was also being warmed by the sun and we would see maximum temperatures soaring higher and higher as heat buildup would happen in the system. CO2 is *passive*, it is *not* a heat source.
The temperature of the earth is simply *not* high enough for its radiation flux out to balance the radiation flux in. The only balance that matters is the joules in over time and the joules out over time. The joules out over time *has* to be calculated in order to normalize it to the same time period that joules in occurs. Why not just calculate the joules in since you already know the joules out? And show that in a balance diagram?
Do you really think such a diagram would show CO2 contributing joules-in over and above the amount of joules-in contributed by the sun? I.e. CO2 as a heat source independent of the sun?
Since the total emitted radiation is fixed by the temperature, the part of the total emitted radiation from the pre-existing energy becomes less. That means less *cooling*, not more heating.
You just described what gradients are used for in this situation. If a reflection results in a change in the warm body from -10K/second to -9K/second, warming has not occurred. What has happened is that equilibrium will take longer to achieve between the warm body and the cold body. Guess what the curve toward equilibrium looks like?
What is worse is ignoring the fact that if the object cools less because of reflected heat that it means more heat is actually emitted over the same time period.
The longer a body remains at a higher temperature because of slower cooling the more heat it actually emits over time. The heat-out is related to T^4. If over a second the body cools from 10K to 9K it will emit a certain amount of heat, say H1. If, because of reflected heat, the body only cools from 10K to 9.5K, say H2, guess what? The integral of the T^4 curve for H2 will emit *MORE* heat than the integral for the T^4 curve for H1.
I’m still not sure where climate science takes this simple fact into account when calculating their “radiative balance”.
“The surface measurements show […] some 396 W/m2 IR from the sky.”
No they don’t. Stop lying, Ferdinand. Here is the actual measurement from a pyrgeometer. See figure 6, third line down, labeled “uSlw”, the output from the thermopile.
That means that with 160 W/m2 out at equilibrium, the earth’s average temperature would be around -42°C. That is all.
Doesn’t that give you pause? That the sun can only heat the earth to -42°C. What about the folks that say the base temperature is 255K or -18°C?
even white snow is a near black body in the IR spectrum: between 0.97 and 0.99…
However, snow absorbs little visible light, insolation, It’s albedo is 80% plus. It is highly reflective. Snow does not act like a black body. A black body absorbs all energy impinging upon it. The earth does not operate in that fashion with insolation. The earth only absorbs the normal component of an impinging EM wave. The remainder is reflected. Even snow obeys this law which means little of the sun’s energy is absorbed due the latitudes where snow exists.
Here is a portion of a meteorology textbook, Practical Meteorology, ROLAND STULL, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
And here is a graph of one day’s insolation and air temperature at my station.
Even if only 10% of the outgoing IR is absorbed and sent back to the surface, that adds to the total energy received by the surface and the net result is that the surface must warm up to get a new equilibrium between incoming
This tells me you are operating on the assumption that the sun’s insolation and the atmosphere’s downwelling IR are additive. This is not the case. Let’s examine this using the heat equation Q = mcΔT.
How many Joules would need to be transferred to soil to raise its temperature 1K. Assuming a square meter of soil 4 inches deep is about 140 kg and its specific heat is 1000 J/kg·K. That gives:
Q = 140 x 1000 x 1 = 140,000 Joules
to heat that volume of earth 1K or 1°C.
Let’s calculate the ΔT required from CO2 to reach that amount. We’ll use the equation:
ΔT = Q / mc
A column of air 1 m² and 1000 m high has a CO2 mass of about 0.761 kg and its specific heat is about 849 J/kg·K at the surface. So we have:
ΔT = 140,000 / (7.61×10⁻¹ x 849) = 216K
You can see the problem here. CO2 does not have the mass required to supply the amount of heat to warm the earth with downwelling radiation. It’s required temperature drop simply can not occur in our atmosphere. Remember, the whole column of air 1000 m tall would need to have that much of a temperature drop.
Let us talk about energy, not “heat” or “specific heat”, these only obscure the discussion.
Ultimately, the earth’s radiation balance must be in equilibrium as an average, no matter if that is at 160 W/m2, 210 W/m2 or 1,000 W/m2… That some parts of the surface or atmosphere get warmer or colder over a day or month or year is of secondary interest.
The difference between around 160 W/m2 (surface balance) and around 210 W/m2 (surface + atmosphere balance) is the difference in where the incoming SW from the sun is absorbed. If the atmosphere was only N2 and O2, then the full 210 W/m2 would get absorbed by the surface and the temperature would be -18°C in balance.
With GHGs, there is a shift in absorption between surface and atmosphere for the absorption side and far more important, a part of the outgoing IR is sent back to the surface from the emission side.
That snow does reflect incoming SW and water does that from a certain angle is calculated and in the diagram marked as “reflected from the surface ” energy at around 23 W/m2. In the IR range, it acts as near a black body, as almost all surfaces on earth: both for receiving as for emitting IR.
“This tells me you are operating on the assumption that the sun’s insolation and the atmosphere’s downwelling IR are additive.”
For a black body surface both the SW from the sun and IR from the atmosphere are for 100% absorbed, Thus all energy contained in these wavelengths are added to the real, near black body, surface (except what is reflected) , or you are destroying energy.
It doesn’t matter what the material of the surface is or the depth of the receiving surface, that only matters for the time that is needed to reach a new equilibrium: ultimately the sum of SW and LW must be met as outgoing LW, thus anyway the surface must heat up to reach the new equilibrium.
“Let’s calculate the ΔT required from CO2 to reach that amount. We’ll use the equation”
That tells me that you are looking at heat, not at what a GHG does: the heat content of CO2 or air is completely irrelevant for the GHG effect: the GHG effect is about radiation: outgoing IR radiation gets absorbed by GHGs and partly reflected back to the surface, no matter its own temperature or that of the surrounding gases.
Even if a water or CO2 molecule is at -70°C, it absorbs a photon from the surface at +40°C and may send it back to the surface, where it is absorbed and thus adds energy to the surface, which must heat up to get rid of the constant 160/210 W/m2 from the sun + what is sent back as IR from the atmosphere…
It is all about radiation energy and that has nothing to do with mass or heat or specific heat to reach the ultimate radiation balance…
“Ultimately, the earth’s radiation balance must be in equilibrium as an average,”
Nope. The radiation-in is a constant over 12 hours. The radiation-out is an exponential decay over 24 hours.
The average value of a constant over 12 hours is the constant. The average value of an exponential decay is *NOT* a constant and is not at the mid-point of the time interval. The average value of an exponential decay will *not* be the same as the average value of a constant.
You can calculate a hokey, non-physical average radiation-out by integrating the exponential decay over 24 hours to get a total quantity of joules-in and then divide that total joules-in by 12 hours.
But that hokey, non-physical average value of radiation-out will *NOT* give you the right answer for the average temperature of the Earth because it will *not* equal the actual average of the exponential decay representing the physical radiation-out profile.
The calculation will have just added a huge component to the uncertainty of the average temperature of the earth. It will probably be large enough to totally subsume any difference between in and out radiation that one thinks they can identify. In other words, you can’t really tell if the radiation balance actually exists!
Tim, I don’t think that it makes much difference: over a period of time the incoming and outgoing energy must be in balance, or the earth will warm up or cool down.. That may be less difficult to measure than a radiation balance, although certainly not easy at all…
It makes a BIG difference in determining the average temperature of the Earth.
” over a period of time the incoming and outgoing energy must be in balance, or the earth will warm up or cool down..”
Absolutely. But it is important to understand how that balance is achieved. If the final result is going to be put forth as an indicator of imbalance, then it is also important to accurately address the size of the imbalance.
“That may be less difficult to measure than a radiation balance, although certainly not easy at all…”
Both are difficult because it is physically impossible with today’s technology to continuously monitor global outgoing radiation or heat output. If a sample is going to be used to calculate either outgoing radiation or total heat loss then it is imperative to analyze that sample properly. That means treating outgoing radiation/heat loss as an exponential decay instead of a linear decay or a constant. Otherwise a significant inaccuracy is introduced, probably large enough to make any balance imbalance impossible to identify.
Ferdinand, there is no “measured downwelling IR”. Physics doesn’t work like that, as Nicholas says. You are not a physicist, remember? Sit down and stay in your lane.
FE
Stevekj is obviously unaware of standard instrumentation. And hopelessly deluded by “Schroeder Physics” claims of no BB, No GHE, back-radiation breaking the second law of thermodynamics, and whatever other garp Schroeder comes up with weekly.
Postma devotes his life to making it easy for scientifically literate people to dismiss climate realists as kooks. His crackpottery is very useful to the climate industry.
Roy Spencer does his best to undo the damage which Postma does:
Thanks David, was not aware of that comment by Roy Spencer…
I still wonder why some skeptics accuse the CAGW people of bias, that they “adjust” the data that don’t fit their theory, while doing exact the same: if the date don’t fit their theory, the data must be wrong…
Dr. Spencer can’t tell you what a Watt is either. Are you sure you are listening to the right scientists?
(I have no opinion on Postma one way or the other, I haven’t read much by him, but I know that Spencer is the wrong guy to talk to about radiation physics)
I asked Google AI, and it told me that, “A ‘Zeta 5th Columnist’ refers to a person or group working secretly within a community, media outlet, or government to support the interests of Los Zetas, a notoriously violent Mexican drug cartel.” 😮 🚨 ☠ 💉
Steve,
I suspect all of us know what a Watt is. Why don’t you tell us what you think it is and why you think we don’t know what it is. That might be simpler.
No you don’t. Otherwise you wouldn’t post pictures full of fake Watts. That’s not science, and this is supposed to be a science blog.
“Why don’t you tell us what you think it is”
That’s not difficult. A Watt is a unit of power. Power is defined as the rate of doing work. Work involves the expenditure or transfer of energy, and is invariably accompanied by an increase in entropy. Note that there is no “net” in any of these definitions, nor does there need to be. Because energy can only ever be “expended”, or “transferred”, in one direction along a given entropy pathway at a time. So anyone who attaches the word “net” to the words “work” or “power” is using those terms incorrectly, in other words unscientifically.
And, clearly, with these standard definitions, anyone who claims that [thermal] power can be developed against a temperature gradient obviously doesn’t know what “power” means. Because physics doesn’t work like that, and indeed no one has ever measured that it did. See?
Now it is pretty clear that your education in physics is very poor. No real physicist would ever say anything like that.
You are treating power as if it were:
always unidirectional always associated with entropy production always describing net energy transfer and therefore incapable of being decomposed into components. This is simply not how thermodynamics or radiative transfer works.
You are mixing up:
Power (a rate: J/s) Energy transfer (a process) Radiative fluxes (bidirectional components) Net flux (the algebraic difference of two opposing fluxes)
You are trying to argue that because work is unidirectional, therefore power must be unidirectional, therefore radiative fluxes cannot be decomposed into incoming and outgoing components.
That is a category error.
“net” is absolutely correct in radiative physics
Radiation is not like conduction or convection. It is inherently bidirectional because every surface emits according to its temperature and absorbs according to the incident field.
Thus:
Net = incoming – outgoing
This is not optional. It is literally the structure of the radiative transfer equation.
Every radiometer, bolometer, pyrgeometer, CERES instrument, and radiative transfer model uses gross fluxes and net fluxes. This is not controversial; it’s the foundation of the field.
You are confusing:
radiation (a mechanism) radiative flux (a measurable quantity) net heat transfer (the thermodynamic consequence)
You write:
“Power is defined as the rate of doing work. Work involves the expenditure or transfer of energy, and is invariably accompanied by an increase in entropy.”
This is wrong in multiple ways:
1. Power is not defined only as “rate of doing work.”In thermodynamics, power is the rate of energy transfer, regardless of whether that energy transfer is work or heat.
Heat transfer has power.
Radiation has power.
Electrical dissipation has power.
None of these are “work” in the mechanical sense.
2. Entropy production is not required for power to exist.
Reversible processes have power transfer with zero entropy production.
3. Power can absolutely be decomposed into components.Electrical engineers do this constantly:
real power
reactive power
apparent power
Radiative physicists do it too:
upward flux
downward flux
net flux
Your claim that “power cannot be netted” is simply false.
You write:
“Because energy can only ever be ‘expended’ or ‘transferred’ in one direction along a given entropy pathway at a time.”
This is a statement about net heat flow, not about radiation.
Radiation is not heat.
Radiation is not work.
Radiation is a mechanism that transports energy.
Heat is the net energy transferred due to temperature difference.
Thus:
Radiation: two-way
Heat: one-way (net)
Power: rate of energy transfer (can be decomposed)
You are collapsing all three into one.
You mix up radiation, energy transfer, and thermodynamic work. Radiation is a mechanism that transports energy in both directions simultaneously. That’s why radiative flux is measured in W/m² and why we speak of incoming, outgoing, and net fluxes. Only the net flux determines the direction of heat flow.
Power is the rate of energy transfer, not only the rate of doing mechanical work. Heat transfer has power. Radiation has power. And power can absolutely be decomposed into components—every radiometer and radiative transfer model on Earth does exactly that. You’re trying to apply the unidirectionality of heat flow to the bidirectional nature of radiation, and that’s why your definitions don’t match any standard thermodynamics text.
Bottom line: Retake your basic physics class. You didn’t get it the first time.
“Now it is pretty clear that your education in physics is very poor. No real physicist would ever say anything like that.”
Both of those claims are false. You can tell because I am not the one who is hallucinating.
“ Retake your basic physics class. “
Why? My statements all match the textbook and the measurements. Yours do not.
The rest of your false claims have been addressed in my earlier comment upthread, but I can go over this pile of nonsense point by point again, if you wish.
Let’s just do this one for now:
“incapable of being decomposed into components.”
Nothing is “incapable of being decomposed”, but the “components” are fictional. You can’t measure any of them. They are, essentially, hallucinated. Imaginary. Not real.
The AERI instrument is not a simple pyrgeometer, it is a line by line spectrometer measurement, composed of a photovoltaic cell that converts photons of sufficient energy to a voltage over the cell that can be measured.
Calibrated every 8 minutes cycle against two black bodies at different temperatures.
As each photon at a certain wavelength contains a fixed amount of energy and for each wavelength there is a fixed ratio between number of photons and resulting electrical energy of the instrument, one can calculate the absolute incoming energy from downwelling IR.
“The AERI instrument is not a simple pyrgeometer,”
I never said that it was.
“calculate the absolute incoming energy from downwelling IR.”
That’s a mathematical fiction. Not physical reality. You can tell because it can’t be measured. Only “calculated”, using fake assumptions. Such as, in this case, the assumption that Earth’s surface temperature is about 70 K, the same as that of the AERI sensor.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and are simply making more of a fool of yourself by continuing with this. IR is measured as Joules/second/meter^2. That is the amount of energy delivered per second per meter squared or in Ferdinand’s words: “calculate the absolute incoming energy from downwelling IR.”
Steve, I have been working with different systems to detect water vapor, chlorine, etc in air and other gases (excess chlorine in HCl gas, made from H2+Cl2), all systems based on specific spectral lines of these molecules.
While I am not a physicist by education, in chemistry, that is one of the basics to be an all-round engineer.
And I have looked at the way the AERI instrument works: that measures the voltage directly caused by the number of photons at a lot of wavelengths over a wide range of IR. As each photon at a certain wavelength has a fixed amount of energy, the incoming energy from the total IR range can be quite exactly calculated.
Feldman could measure the effect of +/- 5 ppmv CO2 in the atmosphere over each season over a period of 10 years. If you think that it is impossible, be my guest to explain what is wrong with that measurement.
“Steve, I have been working with different systems”
Sure you have. But you still don’t know what a Watt is.
“While I am not a physicist by education,”
No you are not. That’s why I recommended that you should sit down and stay in your lane. You’ll sound a lot smarter.
“And I have looked at the way the AERI instrument works”
Yes you have, as have I, with my substantially better background in physics than yours. And so we both know that that instrument only works (measuring positive incoming power) when it is colder than the target it is measuring. This, of course, is in accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Any other configuration would not be.
“Feldman could measure the effect of +/- 5 ppmv CO2 in the atmosphere”
Sure he could, as long as his instrument was much colder than the atmosphere. In other words, he was “pretending” to look at the atmosphere from, essentially, the conditions of outer space, even though his instrument was on the ground. Therefore, what he is showing us is that as CO2 levels increase, more energy is released from those molecules to outer space. But not to the ground, because the ground is warmer than the atmosphere. Right? Of course it is.
(The same observation will be true for water vapour, naturally, which also interacts with longwave IR, and of course there is a lot more of it in the air than CO2, so I don’t know what all the fuss is about, personally)
stevekj, who apparently slept through his high school science classes, and who doesn’t believe in downwelling IR because he can’t see it with his 37°C eyes, wrote to a brilliant scientist, “…my substantially better background in physics than yours.”
“doesn’t believe in downwelling IR because he can’t see it with his 37°C eyes,”
Sit down, Dave. This is not your field, and you’re making a terrible mess of it.
The correct statement, of course, is “there is no such thing is downwelling IR power, because no one has ever measured it, and it would violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics if they did”.
“there is no such thing is downwelling IR power, because no one has ever measured it, and it would violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics if they did”.
Downwelling IR is measured as power/m^2 (~power density) or Joules/second/m^2 by people all the time. They measure the downwelling (one-way) power transfer, then they can measure the upwelling and take the difference to determine heat transfer.
A much better one than you have, obviously. Since I am not the one who is hallucinating. Scientists don’t like to hallucinate. Engineers, on the other hand, simply don’t care. As long as the final answer is close enough to keep the bridge from falling down. Most of the time. Right?
“Downwelling IR is measured as power/m^2”
No it isn’t. It’s hallucinated. See my actual measurement from a pyrgeometer paper below.
No, Andy, I am not confusing anything. What do you think “radiation” is? What do you think “electromagnetism” is? Remember, nothing I have said contradicts any physics definitions or scientific measurements.
Indeed, no less a “scientific genius” than our own Willis has told us that “radiation is energy”. Would he be wrong?
———————————
You are confusing: radiation (a mechanism) radiative flux (a measurable quantity) net heat transfer (the thermodynamic consequence)
———————————
You can’t seem to get this into your head for some reason.
Your definition of radiation:
—————————————————– In physics, electromagnetic radiation (EMR) or electromagnetic wave (EMW) is a self-propagating wave of the electromagnetic field that carries momentum and radiant energy through space —————————————————-
is a perfect example of what Andy told you but you can’t seem to understand it.
The QUANTITY of radiant energy involved is the integral of the radiant flux over time. The QUANTITY of radiant energy-in and the QUANTITY of radiant energy-out determines the NET heat transfer. The term “radiation” quantifies nothing.
Thus the instrument measures downwelling IR, the surface at 1 meter besides the instrument at 290 K doesn’t receive downwelling IR in your reasoning as that is too hot. Thus the CO2 and H2O molecules in the sky know exactly where to send their IR photons: only to the cold chip in the AERI instrument.
So we have here the gospel of the “slayers” that a colder object can’t exchange energy with a warmer object. That is true for the NET energy transfer between two objects, no matter if that is by conduction or radiation.
Q = σ*A*(T1^4 – T2^4)
For black bodies and similar areas and T1 > T2
For radiation one may split that formula in radiation from 1 to 2 and reverse, from 2 to 1:
Q = σ*(T1^4) – σ*(T2^4)
The second term, radiating photons (thus energy) from the colder object 2 to the warmer object 1, is impossible for the Slayers and Steve:
“Therefore, what he is showing us is that as CO2 levels increase, more energy is released from those molecules to outer space. But not to the ground, because the ground is warmer than the atmosphere. Right? Of course it is.”
For the warmer black body object, it doesn’t make any difference if it receives photons from a colder or warmer object: a photon doesn’t contain any information about its source and a black body absorbs all photons (thus energy) of whatever wavelength. Including from the sky at temperatures much lower than the ground.
The point is that there is no difference in mathematics for the non-split and split formula: it gives exactly the same result: the net energy transfer is from the warmer to the colder body.
But that all seems way over your head as a “physicist”?
There is no such thing as “NET energy transfer”, Ferdinand, except in your head, and on a piece of paper. But mathematical formulae and physics are not the same thing, are they? Anyone who told you they were, was lying.
Why don’t you try to define “GROSS energy transfer” for us, please? Make sure you define it in such a way that we can measure it, so we know you aren’t just hallucinating.
Steve, That is physically wrong on so many levels:
You wrote:
“There is no such thing as “NET energy transfer”, Ferdinand, except in your head, and on a piece of paper. But mathematical formulae and physics are not the same thing, are they? Anyone who told you they were, was lying.
Why don’t you try to define “GROSS energy transfer” for us, please? Make sure you define it in such a way that we can measure it, so we know you aren’t just hallucinating.”
You are denying the existence of gross radiative fluxes, even though every radiometer, every radiative‑transfer equation, every climate dataset, and every physics textbook is built on them.
Gross radiative flux is the total incoming or outgoing radiative power per unit area. It is measured by pyranometers or pyrgeometers, and by other devices. Net radiative flux is the difference between the incoming and outgoing, that is literally the definition of radiative heat transfer.
You are confusing radiation with heat. Radiation is a bidirectional mechanism that transports energy both ways simultaneously. That’s why radiative flux is measured as incoming and outgoing components in W/m². Those are gross fluxes, and every radiometer on Earth measures them.
Heat transfer is the net of those opposing fluxes. That’s not “in my head”; it’s the definition used in thermodynamics, radiative‑transfer theory, and every satellite dataset. If you deny gross fluxes, you’re denying the measurements themselves.
No, Andy, because I am not the one who is hallucinating, am I? Of course not.
“You are denying the existence of gross radiative fluxes,”
Correct.
“, even though every radiometer”
False.
“every radiative‑transfer equation,”
Fiction
“every climate dataset”
Mostly false and/or fictional
“and every physics textbook is built on them.”
Entirely false. Please show me the definition of “gross power” in your nearest physics textbook. I’ll wait here.
“Heat transfer is the net of those opposing fluxes. That’s not “in my head”;”
Yes it is. “Heat” isn’t fictional, of course, but “net” is.
“definition used in thermodynamics”
No it isn’t.
“radiative‑transfer theory,”
Fiction
“every satellite dataset.”
Only after “adjustments”, which are fiction
“you’re denying the measurements themselves.”
False. Here are some measurements you can peruse, which I’m not “denying”, because they are actual measurements. See figure 6, and especially the “uSlw” line, which is an actual measurement from a thermopile. Note that it hovers around 0 W/m^2, after multiplying for sensitivity of the pile, because that is the actual work being done – i.e. none at all, in this case.
Steve, for an “expert” in physics, you do know clearly nothing about the physics of radiation or semi-conductors…
One of my (too) many hobbies is electronics (built my first transistor radio at age 15) and I followed the birth and “physics” of semi-conductors, including solar cells.
Someone called Max Planck “theorized” that each photon is a package of energy, with a fixed amount of energy for each photon for each wavelength:
E = hc/lambda
Energy expressed as Joules.s or electron volt.
Semiconductors are materials of two or more layers with different “dopes”, which give a potential difference, a barrier between the layers, that only can be passed by electrons of sufficient energy.
In solar cells that energy is provided by incoming sunlight: if a photon with sufficient energy hits an electron, that can be pushed over the barrier and provide a voltage difference that can be used as an energy source to do some work. The electrons that were hit with insufficient energy to pass the barrier nevertheless absorbed the extra energy and that is translated into more molecular vibration, thus temperature.
No energy can be destroyed, no energy created form nothing.
Total yield: between 10-20% (or nowadays more) energy from the photons gets into electric power, the rest is warming the solar cells.
The cell in the AERI instrument does exactly the same: counting the electrons pushed over the semiconductor barrier as an increase in voltage over the cell, but then in the IR spectrum. That amount is directly proportional to the number of photons that hit the cell for each wavelength.
There is zero influence from the temperature of the sender: a photon emitted by a H2O or CO2 molecule at -90°C high in the stratosphere has exactly the same energy content as from +40°C at a few meters above the surface at the same wavelength.
There is some influence by the temperature of the equipment itself: as all solid material above 0 K emits some radiation, one need to reduce that noise as much as possible by cooling it to very low temperatures. That has zero influence on the working of the cell (within large margins), only reduces the number of photons from the casing of the equipment hitting the cell.
In conclusion: the AERI instrument measures one-way incoming IR energy quite exactly and if used in reverse (or similar instruments) the one-way outgoing energy. The difference between both is the net energy that heats up or cools down the objects involved in the energy transfer…
nitpick – the electron isn’t “pushed over” the energy barrier. The increase in energy makes it statistically more likely for that electron to “tunnel” through the energy barrier. Like I said, it’s a nitpick – the final state is the same.
Thanks…
Indeed, doesn’t make any difference…
Anyway it seems difficult to convince Steve of the difference in physics between conduction and radiation…
“There is zero influence from the temperature of the sender:”
No, I’m not the one who is getting his physics wrong. See how many “photons” an AERI sensor, or any other sensor, can “count” from the atmosphere if the sensor is warmer than the atmosphere. Go ahead and try it. Report back here, please.
Steve, if you can enlighten me why a CO2 laser with an IR beam at a wavelength that is the peak wavelength of a solid object at -80°C, coming from a device at maximum temperature of 100°C can’t melt steel at 1200°C, according to your “reasoning”, then we can have a real discussion…
All these photons hitting the steel are from a much colder source than the steel that it melts…
As I said before: a photon doesn’t contain any information about the temperature of the sender: it can come from a CO2 or H2O molecule at 50 K in the stratosphere, or at 310 K at 2 meter above ground. These are both counted by the AERI (or other) instrument(s), as they contain exactly the same energy for the same wavelength…
We aren’t talking about lasers, Ferdinand. They are complex devices and do not emit thermal radiation. Why don’t you try to learn classical thermodynamics first? You know, like those theoretical physicists were trying to teach you back in the day? And you ignored them, didn’t you? Why? Is it because you wanted to sound like an untutored buffoon? Well, it worked.
The radiation from a CO2 laser is exact of the same wavelength of one of the bands emitted by a CO2 molecule high in the sky with a temperature of 50 K or a CO2 molecule at 313 K near ground. These photons have exactly the same energy content.
The only difference is in the number of photons at that wavelength emitted by the laser, hitting a steel object with 1,000 W/mm2, a very small surface, and these are all absorbed, thus increasing the steel’s temperature up to melting at that spot.
For the AERI or other meters, that are much fewer photons, hitting the chip with over 300 W/m2, quite a difference in energy density, but exactly the same principle…
And so starts Shroeder’s weekly Gish gallop of anti-GH garbage. His last couple of weeks of garp and responses are here…to save one much time retyping previous responses to his nonsense:
That is why I had a lot of work (in my long ago working life) to put these theoretical physicists with their two feet back on the ground to understand what happens in the real world…
Followed by a bunch of mathematical formulae, but no actual real-world measurements? Are you listening to yourself, Ferdinand?
I pointed out that you are the one with your head in the clouds, and no measurements to back you up. In reply, you spouted a bunch of math you didn’t understand, but no measurements. And now you are accusing me of being unrealistic??
Steve, you obviously have not the slightest idea how radiation works:
Radiation is a specific form of transfer of one-way (!) energy.
Radiation can be measured in different ways, where the AERI instriment is one of the most accurate on the market.
If you think that is impossible, while every solar panel in your neighborhood is a clear example of that principle, then you have clearly missed some of your physics classes.
“Steve, you obviously have not the slightest idea how radiation works:”
No, Ferdinand, I am not the one who is hallucinating, am I?
“Radiation is a specific form of transfer of one-way (!) energy.”
Well, that’s actually an accurate statement. In fact, it is a concise summary of my entire physics lesson. So now, can you tell me how to guess which one direction energy will flow in a radiant field? To make it simple, let’s consider only the radiant field between two objects, one at 200 K and one at 300 K?
Then please help me explain to Andy why most of the arrows in his top diagram are fake. Thanks!
Steve, please don’t misread my words:
Radiation works one-way from any object to any other object or even to space, no matter their own temperature or that of the other object.
There is no information going from any object to any other object about its temperature, not from the warmer to the colder and not from the colder to the warmer.
Thus the “net” transfer of energy is a matter of two unidirectional energy transfers by radiation, whatever their individual temperatures, not by some theoretical formula, as you use…
Now just a minute, Ferdinand. You told us that radiation is a one-way transfer of energy, which it is. Where did “net” come from? Did you hallucinate it?
When incoming sunlight varies from 1360 to zero from day to night…at the same time as it varies 1360 from equator to pole….the amount actually hitting the ground subject to reflection from cloud cover that varies from 0 to 100% and can change by 10% in 15 minutes
and averages 65%…with instruments that have maybe 3% accuracy….it is truly miraculous to have .6 or .7 net imbalance….in fact one might think the answer is fudged to match somebody’s global warming assumptions….
https://www.kippzonen.com/Download/33/CG-4-Manual. See pages 17 and 18, of course if you have a thousand of them you can claim 1/sqrt(1000)x 7.5=0.237 watt accuracy if you are a bad statistician….
Consider the angle of incidence based on latitude and longitude. Angle of incidence based on longitude changes second by second as the planet rotates.
Reflection is affected by angle of incidence and it is not on a vertical vector.
Ceres as good as it it cannot physically record all outgoing EM radiation.
Note: Ceres bandwidth in 99.95% of the total spectrum. Details matter.
DMacKenzie, I agree. The worst thing about that NASA diagram is that it shows no confidence intervals / uncertainties. That omission is worsened by the fact that they show the estimated fluxes to ridiculous precision.
The AR5 / NCA4 version is better in that respect. It has other problems, but at least it shows reasonable CIs.
For the estimated energy imbalance they show a range of 0.2 to 1.0 W/m². This is their diagram, with my commentary about the radiative imbalance added in dark pink:
From the above article: “4. Global ocean heat content and its trend are defined as the net surface energy flux integrated over the whole ocean.”
I daresay that there is no such possibility of integrating the “net surface (solar) energy flux over the (mass of) of the whole ocean.”
First, the system of Argo floats is mostly confined to the first 2,000 m depth of the world’s oceans, albeit a new generation of Argo “Deep Floats” is now able to sample ocean water temperature profiles down to 6,000 meters depth. Those numbers should be put into comparison with the fact that the average depth of the world’s oceans is about 3,700 meters.
Second, one would need to integrate the radiative and evaporative/convective heat losses from the world’s oceans as a function of local ocean surface temperature, sea state, surface wind velocity and near-surface underwater currents . . . something I understand has never been accomplished at fine detail.
Third one would need to account for the changing integral of the latent heat of fusion in both the NH and SH, as sea ice varies to/from seawater with the seasons as Earth orbits the Sun—paying full respect to the difference between ocean heat content and water temperature—something I understand has also never been performed accurately/consistently.
So, scientists actually know very little about the current OHC, making it problematic that they can calculate any heat transfer reliably to a precision equivalent to 0.6 watts/m^2 out of 340 watt/m^2 = 0.2%, as implied by the Fasullo & Trenberth graphic lead-in given in the above article.
“So, scientists actually know very little about the current OHC”
Exactly!
We can do a decent job estimating the net surface flux on the surface of the ocean, but that is all from the skin layer! The deeper ocean is pretty much a mystery.
It’s true that OHC, and changes in it, are poorly constrained. It can’t be measured, it can only be inferred from temperatures, and we’ve had very little ocean temperature data except from the surface until the 21st century and the Argo floats, and even that is rough, and sparsely sampled.
Even now, with the Argo floats fully deployed, we only have about one float per 100,000 km² of ocean.
Before about 2005 we had some convenience samples of surface layer temperatures, and almost nothing else—certainly not at 700m or 2000m depth. But climate.gov and similar sources nevertheless graph OHC all the way back to 1955, as if the numbers were actually known.
The most charitable word I can think of to describe that is “deceptive.”
To infer OHC changes from temperature measurements requires very, very precise temperature measurements, from basically everywhere in the oceans where temperatures could have changed significantly. From prior to about 2005 we had almost none of the needed measurements. Now, thanks to the Argo floats, we actually have some data, but determining OHC changes from it is still challenging.
Do you remember Josh Willis? He’s the guy who fixed the “problem” with the Argo float data, so that they measured warming, rather than cooling. That should cause eyebrows to raise.
I’m not suggesting that Dr. Willis is dishonest. But he’s an ardent climate alarmist, who calls climate change The Apocalypse. People tend to find what they are looking for, and they tend to overlook what they don’t expect. That’s called confirmation bias, and the stronger your opinions are the more likely you are to be affected by it.
So when the Argo floats found cooling instead of warming, Dr. Willis was sure it had to be wrong. So he looked hard for an error to explain it — and he found one. Does anyone think he would he have looked as hard for the opposite error?
Changing topics…
The depth at which radiation is absorbed or admitted from the ocean doesn’t matter for energy balance calculations. All LW IR absorbed and emitted by the ocean is to and from the skin layer, as is energy loss by conduction/convection and evaporation, but that doesn’t matter: the energy exchange between the skin layer and the water beneath is so rapid that they stay within a fraction of a degree of the same temperature.
What’s more, the ocean is constantly churning & mixing, almost always. But even in still water, in just one microsecond a skin layer water molecule will, on average, have moved hundreds of molecular diameters, so it will no longer be in the skin layer, just due to Brownian motion.
What’s more, the water molecules collide with one another at sub-picosecond intervals, exchanging energy with their neighbors.
So it doesn’t matter that the molecules which absorb or release energy to or from the ocean are in the skin layer.
“The depth at which radiation is absorbed or admitted from the ocean doesn’t matter for energy balance calculations.”
I disagree. It does matter because the electromagnetic skin layer that absorbs nearly all the incoming IR is a very thin (micrometers) layer within the viscous skin (~1 mm) on the ocean surface. The high viscosity of the viscous skin layer prevents this water from mixing with the deeper water and the net flux is always to the atmosphere, meaning no net thermal energy travels to the deeper water. Virtually all the IR that hits the surface, is reemitted, as shown in figure 1. Almost all the sunlight that hits the surface is absorbed. The net IR flux from the surface is out to space (~57.9 W/m2).
I agree that all EM radiation emissions from water come from the skin layer.
The skin layer is the closest approximation to the ideal black body model on earth.
I disagree that the incoming EM radiation stops at the skin layer. EM skin depth calculations used in radar are contrary to that conjecture.
H2O is a fascinating molecule involved in several complex interactions with electromagnetic fields and waves.
As an aside, non of the down welling radiation calculations account for a spherical surface interacting with a spherical EM wave. No where on the planet can 100% of the down welling radiation interact with the surface.
“So it doesn’t matter that the molecules which absorb or release energy to or from the ocean are in the skin layer.”
That might be true for an ideal body of water having a perfectly still, smooth skin layer, but that is not the normal state of the surface layers in the world’s oceans. Most ofter the “sea state” is one of having wind-induced surface waves of various peak-to-valley amplitudes. Such waves, when not “breaking”, involve a degree of water recirculation (i.e., rotation of water molecules from surface layer to subsurface depth). See
“The Physics of Water Waves” at https://www.youtube.com/shorts/FHJygRM5jJE (starting at the 0m33sec time hack), and
“How do waves work?” at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9BV4RGhwaE (starting at the 6m18sec time hack).
Furthermore, if there are “breaking” surface waves leading to “white capped” ocean areas—as there frequently are in open sea areas under tropical storms/hurricanes/typhoons, thunderstorms, or advancing strong weather fronts—then there is great exchange and mixing of surface water with water to depths of 5 feet or more.
Andy wrote, “Virtually all the IR that hits the surface, is reemitted, as shown in figure 1.”
That is incorrect. For the ocean, >98% of the LW IR which hits the surface is absorbed.
That radiation is not reemitted. As shown in Fig. 1, the surface does emit a great deal of LW IR, but the rate at which it does so is not equal to the rate at which LW IR is absorbed. Instead, it is governed by the surface temperature.
For the ocean, that’s the sea surface temperature. The rate of radiative emissions from the water surface is unaffected by the rate at which the surface absorbs LW IR radiation (except indirectly, as the absorption of radiation affects the water temperature).
Technically, it’s the “skin layer” temperature which governs the emission rate, but since that tracks the temperature of the water immediately beneath it very closely, that’s a distinction without much difference.
Andy wrote, “Almost all the sunlight that hits the surface is absorbed.”
Yes, for the ocean, on average about 94-95% of incident sunlight is absorbed, depending on conditions.
When you see whitecaps on the ocean, that’s visible light being scattered, rather than absorbed. Most sources say an average of 5-6% of incident sunlight is reflected or scattered from the ocean surface.
That doesn’t happen as much with LW IR. Only 1-2% of incident LW IR is scattered or reflected from the ocean surface.
So LW IR is actually slightly more effective at warming the sea than is sunlight of the same intensity.
That is not quite right Dave. According to Fairall and Wong and Minnett, GHG IR is absorbed in the skin layer and that does warm the skin layer, producing more IR emissions. Conduction and evaporation of latent heat are controlled mainly by wind speed, but temperature plays a minor role.
Heat is not radiation, heat is an energy transfer from a warm body to a cool body, and the net heat flux is from the ocean surface to the atmosphere. It also causes the ocean cool skin to form. This skin directs heat to the atmosphere. The viscous skin layer prevents mixing of the water in the skin with the water in the mixed layer, so very little conduction downward and no net heat flux downward.
Breaking waves do momentarily break the viscous layer, but it repairs itself quickly, breaking waves make little difference.
Andy wrote, “GHG IR is absorbed in the skin layer and that does warm the skin layer, producing more IR emissions.”
No it does not, not significantly.
The LW IR emission rate from the water is controlled by the water temperature. It is unaffected by how the water got to that temperature.
We know that absorbing LW IR does not cause the water to “produce more IR emissions” because we know that the skin layer never gets significantly warmer than the water immediately beneath it.
Absorbing LW IR radiation could only produce more IR emissions if the absorption of LW IR warmed the skin layer to a temperature significantly above the temperature of the water immediately beneath it. But it doesn’t.
Water is moderately thermally conductive: about 25× more thermally conductive than air, and 4× as thermally conductive as oil. So the skin layer temperature stays very close to the temperature of the water immediately beneath it, usually within a small fraction of a degree of being identical. To the extent that there may be a tiny difference of temperature, the skin layer temperature is usually cooler, not warmer.
So the LW IR emission rate is independent of the rate at which the water absorbs LW IR, except to the extent that the water is warmed by it.
Andy wrote, “Heat is not radiation, heat is an energy transfer from a warm body to a cool body,”
That’s one of the two definitions. The noun “heat” can mean either “heat flow” (“net heat flux”), or it can mean “heat content.”
“Heat flow” means “change in heat content.”
Heat content is synonymous with “thermal energy.” Heat flow refers to a net change (movement) of that thermal energy, by any of several mechanisms.
Andy wrote, “It also causes the ocean cool skin to form. This skin directs heat to the atmosphere.”
The so-called “skin” (the boundary between air and water) does not “direct heat to the atmosphere.” The energy fluxes are all bidirectional.
Through it, the water both gains an loses energy by three distinct means: radiation (in both directions), conduction (in both directions), and evaporation/condensation (in both directions).
Andy wrote, “The viscous skin layer prevents mixing of the water in the skin with the water in the mixed layer,”
That’s wrong. Unless there’s an oily film on the water, the skin layer is not more “viscous” than any other water, and it does not prevent mixing of the water in the skin with the water beneath.
It does have surface tension, but that’s not due the skin layer molecules having different viscosity, it’s due to the cohesive forces between the water molecules. It does not impede mixing between water molecules at the surface and water beneath.
In one microsecond, a water molecule will, on average, have moved hundreds of molecular diameters, just due to Brownian motion, regardless of whether it is in the skin layer or anywhere else.
Andy wrote, “so very little conduction downward and no net heat flux downward.”
That’s wrong. Not only are the water molecules in the skin layer continually and very rapidly being exchanged with the water molecules beneath, they are also continually exchanging energy with adjacent water molecules, by collision. Each water molecule collides with other water molecules at sub-picosecond intervals, exchanging energy with them.
“That’s wrong. Not only are the water molecules in the skin layer continually and very rapidly being exchanged with the water molecules beneath”
Spring turnover of ponds and lakes would seem to require some kind of heat conduction between the skin layer and the water below it. The oceans can’t be much different.
Tim wrote, “Spring turnover of ponds and lakes… The oceans can’t be much different.”
The oceans are very different.
Spring turnover only happens on freshwater ponds and lakes that are stilled in winter by ice coverage, which melts in springtime. Fresh water has greatest density at 4°C, so when the temperature of the meltwater warms from 0°C to 4°C it sinks: Spring turnover.
Seawater doesn’t do that. It reaches its maximum density at its freezing point, which is at about -2°C.
And most of the ocean is never stilled by winter ice coverage.
“So it doesn’t matter that the molecules which absorb or release energy to or from the ocean are in the skin layer.”
That might be true for an ideal body of water having a perfectly still, smooth skin layer, but that is not the normal state of the surface layers in the world’s oceans. Most ofter the “sea state” is one of having wind-induced surface waves of various peak-to-valley amplitudes. Such waves, when not “breaking”, involve a degree of water recirculation (i.e., rotation of water molecules from subsurface to surface layer).
Furthermore, if there are “breaking” surface waves leading to “white capped” ocean areas—as there frequently are in open waters areas under tropical storms/hurricanes/typhoons, thunderstorms, or advancing strong weather fronts—then there is great exchange and mixing of surface water with water to depths of 5 feet or more.
“Such waves, when not “breaking”, involve a degree of water recirculation (i.e., rotation of water molecules from subsurface to surface layer).”
According to Wong and Minnett and Fairall, if the waves do not break, the viscous layer prevents mixing of the bulk ocean and the skin. This makes a lot of sense, the EM skin is at the top of the viscous skin layer, it is the source of surface emissions, conduction and evaporation, it is pretty isolated from the bulk ocean. It is the “cool skin.”
Breaking waves are different, they do cause mixing, but only momentarily, the viscous skin quickly reforms.
I doubt any claims coming from “Wong and Minnett and Fairall” are superior to the science presented in those two videos.
Of course, their terms for “viscous layer” and “bulk ocean” and “skin” might be completely different from those commonly used in oceanography and hydrodynamics. /sarc
“I don’t see anything in video that is relevant to this discussion.”
Please look again at the video:
“How do waves work?” at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9BV4RGhwaE
(starting at the 6m18sec time hack and continuing at least through the 7m30sec time hack).
In that video, you can observe how the water molecules at the ocean’s “surface” circulate to below the surface with the passage of each non-breaking surface wave. Furthermore, the wave-induced recirculation cells progress to significant ocean depth, as portrayed in the simulations, and the Stokes drift also shows that the “skin layer” is transported slowly in the direction of the prevailing surface waves, thereby implying that the “skin layer” does NOT remain undisturbed, thereby directly rebutted the claims of Wong and Minnett and Fairall.
“(starting at the 6m18sec time hack and continuing at least through the 7m30sec time hack).”
Interesting cartoon, but I still do not see the relevance to Wong/Minnett/Fairall. What you are looking at is the movement of molecules in the bulk ocean with normal water viscosity. Above that is the viscous layer which contains the EM skin, the TSL, and the cool skin. This uppermost layer is so viscous mixing does not occur, except when waves break. Stokes would not have had the equipment to analyze that part of the upper ocean.
Wong/Minnett/Fairall’s discoveries are quite new, another reason I am writing these posts on it. Your cartoon is fine but predates their work and is on another subject entirely.
Boundary layer theory (BLT)—even laminar BLT in a viscous medium— indicates that for shear across a boundary layer, in this instance being defined as the upper layers of water molecules in the atmosphere-water “skin” layer transitioning to deeper, underneath layers of water molecules, there has to be relative movement of molecules (i.e., vorticity) across said “skin layer” if it is considered to be more than one molecule thick.
Add to this the fact that conservation of mass requires that the wave propagation-direction cross-sectional curvature length of the layer of molecules that define the ocean-air interface of the “skin layer” must be greater to cover an unbreaking-wave’s peak and valleys compared to the cross-sectional length of the approximately-linear transitions from peak-to-valley and valley-to-peak. This means the number of molecules per unit length in the “skin layer’s” uppermost surface must compress and expand with each wave . . . this parameter cannot not remain constant.
And finally, the known principle of “Stokes drift” says that even with unbreaking surface waves the “skin layer” of the ocean is always disturbed—forced into horizontal movement with associated viscous shear and associated vorticity—whenever there is wave action of any magnitude.
However, let’s us just agree that there can be different interpretations of the physics that are involved with the ocean’s interface to the atmosphere (aka “skin layer”) and not spend more time debating the details of such.
I agree that the molecules must move horizontally in the skin layer in tune with the wave movement. I’m not sure that Wong/Minnett/Fairall even discuss this, but it must happen.
Their main point is that net radiation flux and net heat flow is from the ocean to the atmosphere and it passes through a cool skin layer. This means there is no net heat transfer from the GHG IR radiation striking the ocean surface to the bulk ocean. There is thermal communication between the atmosphere and the bulk ocean through mixing (storms, breaking waves, etc.) and via shortwave radiation, but not through GHG IR. GHG IR only affects the TSL, which in turn changes the upper ocean temperature profile, sometimes causing the bulk ocean to retain more heat.
Andy wrote, “According to Wong and Minnett and Fairall, if the waves do not break, the viscous layer prevents mixing of the bulk ocean and the skin. This makes a lot of sense,”
It’s just plain wrong. The “skin layer” is no more viscous than the other seawater, and it is not impeded from mixing with the water beneath.
Andy wrote, “net radiation flux and net heat flow is from the ocean to the atmosphere and…”
That would only be correct if you were talking about averaged overall, over the entire Earth, and over the the course of a year.
Net radiation flux is SOMETIMES from the ocean to the atmosphere, and SOMETIMES from the atmosphere to the ocean.
Net heat flow is SOMETIMES from the ocean to the atmosphere, and SOMETIMES from the atmosphere to the ocean.
Andy wrote, “…and it passes through a cool skin layer.”
The temperature of the skin layer is very nearly identical to the temperature of the water beneath, because of the efficient heat transport between the skin and the water beneath. It averages only a small fraction of a degree less than the temperature of the water beneath.
Andy wrote, “This means there is no net heat transfer from the GHG IR radiation striking the ocean surface to the bulk ocean.”
That’s completely wrong. Even though there are often huge asymmetrical energy fluxes between the skin layer and the air (with net heat transport in either direction!), the temperature of the skin layer stays nearly identical (within a small fraction of a degree) to the temperature of the water beneath.
That fact proves that there is very rapid and efficient heat transport between them.
So LW IR absorbed by the skin layer and heat from moisture condensing from the air both warm the upper ocean. Likewise, LW IR emitted by the skin layer and evaporation from the skin layer both cool the upper ocean. The effect is not confined to the skin layer.
Moving water is very good at moving heat, which is why it is often used to cool internal combustion engines.
Bob Weber
March 31, 2026 4:32 pm
“Longer, more stable OHC records are needed before EEI can be used as a robust indicator of anthropogenic forcing.”
Prediction: future OHC records will indicate there is no robust indicator of anthropogenic forcing.
The main wrong climate assumption is the ocean absorbs ‘excess’ AGW heat from the atmosphere.
Despite uncertainties, CERES EBAF TOA can be used with other data to refute this assumption.
In June 1978 I went by Road 58 from Tehran, over the Alborz mountains, north nearly to the Caspian Sea and back. I took 20 colour slides over about 4 hours each way.
Yesterday I viewed 2 hours of a recent video of much the same trip. An immediate visual difference was the amount of recent vegetation at all altitudes to the roughly 3,800 metres maximum on distant high peaks. This might have been from more farming in some small cases such as close to villages, but mostly appeared to be natural growth from bare desert to more grass, more low shrubs and more (but rare) trees, especially at higher altitudes.
What caused more green growth over that 50 years?
It raises some of the same concepts that Andy May wrote about above.
Tantalising question: is this a visual sign of CO2 fertilization?
If so, an expectation is that physics/meterology concepts such as surface temperature and emissivity and moisture content should change with more vegetation. As a logical thought exercise, these concepts should change TOA energy balance, but we lack the required accuracy of TOA measurement as calculated by Loeb. We simply do not know what is going on with enough understanding to be useful. We should continue measurements to cope with multi decade changes, but we should not yet be confident that we now know enough to adopt current ideas as final.
Geoff S
sherro01 asked, “…more grass, more low shrubs and more (but rare) trees, especially at higher altitudes. What caused more green growth over that 50 years?”
Elevated CO2 surely gets at least some of the credit. Elevated CO2 improves water use efficiency and drought resilience of plants, through reduced stomatal conductance.
The effect has been heavily studied in crops, but it applies to all, or almost all, terrestrial plants. Here are some papers about it:
De Souza, A.P. et al. (2015). “Changes in Whole-Plant Metabolism during the Grain-Filling Stage in Sorghum Grown under Elevated CO2 and Drought.” Plant Physiology, 169(3), Nov 2015, 1755–1765. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.15.01054
Fitzgerald GJ, et al. (2016). “Elevated atmospheric [CO2] can dramatically increase wheat yields in semi-arid environments and buffer against heat waves.” Glob Chang Biol. 22(6), 2269-84. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13263
Chun, J.A. et al. (2021). “Effect of elevated carbon dioxide and water stress on gas exchange and water use efficiency in corn.” Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 151(3), 378–384, ISSN 0168-1923. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2010.11.015
EXCERPT: “There have been many studies on the interaction of CO2 and water on plant growth. Under elevated CO2, less water is used to produce each unit of dry matter by reducing stomatal conductance.”
Greener landscapes are one happy consequence of rising CO2 levels, but a more important consequence is drought mitigation and famine prevention.
Famines, usually triggered by drought, used to kill more people than war or plagues. That’s how the Hebrews ended up in bondage, in Egypt. Famine was the Third Horseman of the Apocalypse.
But now, for the first time in human history, catastrophic famines are fading from living memory, and elevated CO2 is one of the reasons.
It is impossible to overstate the magnitude of that blessing. Consider: in 1876-78, with CO2 levels down around 289 ppmv, a drought and famine which devastated three continents killed an estimated 3.7% of the entire human race. For comparison, Covid-19 killed about 0.1%.
Yes, the Irish potato famine was about 30 years before the drought and famine of 1876-78, and the 1918 “Spanish flu” (which was first seen in America, not Spain) was about 40 years after the drought and famine of 1876-78.
These are the estimates which I’ve found:
● COVID-19 killed about 0.1% of the world’s human population.
● The catastrophic 1918 flu pandemic killed about 2% of the world’s population.
● WWII (the most deadly war in history) killed about 2.7% of the world’s population.
● The three-continent drought and famine of 1876-78 is estimated to have killed about 3.7% of the world’s population.
However, estimates vary a lot. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of those estimates are wrong by as much as a factor of two (in either direction).
NASA has satellite vegetation data starting in 1979, which shows significant greening of the earth all over the world, including Iran and the Sahara
Increased CO2 ppm, increases flora and fauna, reduces desert areas, such as the Sahara, and increases crop yields per acre to better feed 8 billion people.
Current CO2 levels are near the lowest levels in 600 million years.
Anyone or entity advocating super-expensive Net-Zero by 2050 and using no fossil fuels are Media brainwashed and/or self-serving criminals
As more greenery appears, two reactions occur. More red and blue is absorbed due to photosynthesis and more green is reflected away from the earth. Just another process that adds to daily imbalances.
This makes very good points about the short times involved, considering the longer-term ocean oscillations.
“Longer, more stable OHC records are needed before EEI can be used as a robust indicator of anthropogenic forcing.”
“Therefore, attributing any portion of EEI to anthropogenic forcing is premature. Longer, more stable OHC datasets are required to cleanly separate anthropogenic forcing and interval variability.”
I would encourage a far more skeptical view of any timeline to expect the core concept of “anthropogenic forcing” from incremental CO2, CH4, N2O to be reliably confirmed. It makes no sense from physical considerations to assume at the outset that rising concentrations must operate as a climate “forcing” at all. No matter how long we wait, dynamic energy conversion within the general circulation, throughout the depth of the troposphere, will still massively overwhelm any tendency toward sensible heat gain down here from a minor static GHG radiative “imbalance.” The resulting influence on the climate system is best understood as imperceptible. Negligible.
In this recent Open Thread comment I discussed ERA5 “vertical velocity” at three different pressure altitudes and plotted them. I also present scatter plots of those vertical velocities against the “vertical integral of energy conversion” I have often posted about. I show that Simpson and Brunt were correct in their comments to Callendar in 1938 as to why the proposed attribution of reported warming to rising CO2 should be reconsidered.
Don’t get me wrong – a warming ocean, if true, could be a strong indicator of a trivially valid TOA radiative imbalance. But attribution of that imbalance to anthropogenic emissions of CO2 and other trace gases cannot be reliably established in any case.
Another way to say this: the valid null hypothesis is that OLR, which is mostly from the atmosphere itself and from clouds, is not suppressed by the incremental IR absorbing power of CO2 and the other trace gases. That null hypothesis has not been rejected in all the decades of observation and modeling so far. The dynamic processes in the atmosphere just obliterate any attempt to isolate that minor theoretical influence for positive attribution.
‘Using variations in upper ocean heat content to calibrate the satellite measured TOA EEI is a good idea, but unfortunately, ocean heat content has many more drivers than just radiation-in minus radiation-out.’
Exactly right, Andy. Not only does OHC have many drivers, but the uncertainties of these drivers are enormous. The entire EEI narrative has been goofy from day one, but it really reached comical levels once it became dependent on climate models (circular reasoning, anyone?) and OHC.
Btw, you’re in good company, as John Clauser also called out the EEI nonsense:
Yep. I am amazed at how many people point to this calculation of EEI at the TOA and say: “See that is anthropogenic warming!”
They just are not thinking.
John Clauser is correct!
conrad ziefle
March 31, 2026 6:27 pm
I’m just throwing this out there without any calculations or deep understanding, but it seems that if the green house gases were a solid plate, i.e. if we lived in a global within a globe, once equilibrium was reached, back radiation would only be 50% of the energy emitted from the planet surface, yet they show it at 85%. Since the green house gases are actually porous, not solid, the actual back radiation should be less than 50%, not more. Also, if you call the surface of the planet to be a control volume, i.e. the atmosphere is outside the control volume.Then water which turns to vapor extracts about 950 BTUs/lbm, which does not return to the control volume when it rains. Where does it go? If it stays in the atmosphere, then the atmosphere would grow to an extremely high temperature. Obvioiusly that heat is radiated to space by the clouds of water vapor. This is a huge temperature relief valve.Other words the water cycle controls the planet’s temperature, not CO2.
It is true that the water cycle is the main control on the planet’s surface temperature. Figure 1 is misleading because they choose to make the arrows of IR emissions from the surface and IR emissions to the surface very big. It is actually a big loop of the same energy going around and around. The important part of that is the 57.9 W/m2 that goes to space, the rest of the IR is recycled. The net IR out is the 57.9.
On land, the downwelling IR has a transitory effect on surface temperature, but in the oceans it has little to no effect on total ocean heat content because it cannot penetrate the surface, it just goes back into the atmosphere and some of it comes back down, an endless loop.
As for latent heat in water vapor, it goes up until it condenses into clouds. It releases heat when it condenses and some of that heat goes to space from the cloud tops and some warms the atmosphere in the clouds, causing a minor temperature inversion. Cloud tops are major emitters.
That they use IR ins some places and full spectrum EM in others is attempting to blame IR exclusively, and therefore CO2 exclusively, and allows them to define IR as “heat.”
Conrad – You are proposing what atmospheric physics textbooks call the “single shell model”, or what Willis Eschenbach popularized on this site many years ago as the “steel greenhouse”:
These models provide a basic conception of the type of effects, but very rough.
If you read through Willis’ post, you will see that he finds, as you do, that a “single shell” is not enough to describe what happens on earth. So he introduces a second shell to increase the effect.
As you suspect, solid shells are not that good a model for what is going on, and a better model (though still very imperfect) is a large number of porous shells.
Dave Burton
March 31, 2026 8:14 pm
Great job, Andy!
Thank you for pointing out that key (Leob 2018) quote, for the edification anyone who thinks that CERES actually measures radiation imbalance:
“A one-time adjustment to shortwave (SW) and longwave (LW) TOA fluxes is made to ensure that global mean net TOA flux for July 2005–June 2015 is consistent with the in situ value of 0.71 W m⁻².”
(One tiny typography nit: the close quote-mark should be before the “(Loeb et al., 2018)” citation.)
I think that it’s inexcusable that NASA’s diagram contains no confidence intervals / uncertainties. That omission is worsened by the fact that they show the estimated fluxes to ridiculous precision. The AR5 / NCA4 version at least shows reasonable CIs, For the estimated energy imbalance they show a range of 0.2 to 1.0 W/m².
This is their diagram, with my dark pink commentary added about the radiative imbalance:
I built an online calculator / spreadsheet, where you can calculate your own estimates of ECS climate sensitivity and Earth’s radiative energy imbalance, from other evidence:
When I plug in my best estimates, I calculate a radiative energy imbalance of about 0.33 W/m², and ECS of 1.5 °C / doubling of CO2. Estimates of >2°C for ECS are difficult to reconcile with recorded temperature records.
Why don’t you see what you get? Just adjust the values in the yellow cells, then press the Tab key [↹] to recalculate.
Yes, greenhouse gases (GHGs) absorb infrared radiation (heat) emitted from the Earth’s surface and re-radiate it in all directions. While some radiation escapes to space, a significant portion is radiated downward, warming the surface and lower atmosphere
The Earth’s atmosphere radiates thermal infrared energy in all directions, a process driven by greenhouse gases. These gases, such as CO2 and water vapor, absorb outgoing surface radiation and re-emit it both back toward the surface—trapping heat—and out to space. This process keeps the planet roughly 33 C warmer than it would be otherwise.
Gases in the atmosphere are not black bodies so don’t radiate thermal radiation due to temperature. CO2 has three emission frequencies. Almost nothing you wrote in your post is true.
A volume does radiate in all directions. Granted, an individual molecule radiates in one direction each time depending on its dipole orientation. However, over a time period it ends up radiating in all directions.
Planck resolved this by using a volume he calls “dτ” that contains sufficient emmitters to result in equal radiation in all directions in any time frame. That allows one to treat macro phenomena without worrying about atomic variations. A one cubic meter of air should contain a sufficient number of molecules to realize this.
IR thermometers rely on this or one would need to measure all sides of a volume to obtain the proper radiation temperature.
Modern instruments measure the full spectrum and one can separate that in origin for clear sky conditions. Not for cloudy conditions, as the water drops reflect the full IR spectrum that is radiated by the surface.
Feldman measured an increase of 0.2 W/m2 in the specific bands of CO2 for 22 ppmv increase 2000-2010: https://escholarship.org/content/qt3428v1r6/qt3428v1r6.pdf
One must also appreciate that Ceres measures EM radiation and via a model calculates the temperature equivalence. At identical temperatures, different matter radiates different energy levels. Engineering materials science has been on this for decades. I use that when doing thermal management for electronic space systems.
BTW, if you look up that (Leob 2018) paper, this sentence is their sole justification for choosing that 0.71 W/m² estimate of radiative imbalance as the figure to which they adjusted their data to match:
“According to Johnson et al. (2016), Earth’s energy imbalance during July 2005–June 2015 is 0.71 ± 0.10 W m⁻² (uncertainties at the 95% confidence level).”
Here’s the reference for Johnson et al. (2016):
Johnson, G. C., J. M. Lyman, and N. G. Loeb, 2016: Improving estimates of Earth’s energy imbalance. Nat. Climate Change, 6, 639–640, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3043.
If you look that up, it is just a letter to the editor of Nature Climate Change: 524 words + a graph & caption.
It is not clear whether it was peer-reviewed. Nature says, “Correspondence may be peer-reviewed at the editors’ discretion.”
However, Nature also says, “This format may not be used for presentation of research data or analysis,” a rule which they obviously ignored in this case. So who knows?
Actually, the Johnson et al Letter doesn’t even appear to have been carefully proofread, let alone peer-reviewed. Note the apparently contradictory end-dates mentioned in these two sentences:
“This in situ estimate was made from 2005 (the year the Argo array of profiling floats achieved sparse near-global coverage) to 2010 by combining observed ocean heat uptake over 0–1,800 m with published estimates of energy uptake by the deeper ocean, lithosphere, cryosphere, and atmosphere.”
“Here, we update our calculations (Fig. 1), and find a net heat uptake of 0.71 ± 0.10 W m⁻² from 2005 to 2015 (with 0.61 ± 0.09 W m⁻² taken up by the ocean from 0–1,800 m; 0.07 ± 0.04 W m⁻² by the deeper ocean4 ; and 0.03 ± 0.01 W m⁻² by melting ice, warming land, and an increasingly warmer and moister atmosphere¹)”
The entire letter is just 13 sentences long (plus the graph caption), but they still managed to make two of the 13 sentences inconsistent. After re-reading it a couple of times, I think the “2010” date was intended to refer to their previous paper, but that’s not the most obvious meaning.
So that was probably just sloppy prose. However, this is a bigger problem:
“We previously estimated³ the EEI at 0.58 ± 0.38 W m⁻² (expressed here in terms of average heat uptake applied over Earth’s surface area with 5–95% confidence intervals).”
I looked up their reference #3; here it is:
Loeb, N., Lyman, J., Johnson, G. et al. Observed changes in top-of-the-atmosphere radiation and upper-ocean heating consistent within uncertainty. Nature Geosci5, 110–113 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1375
It says, right in the abstract:
“We combine satellite data with ocean measurements to depths of 1,800 m, and show that between January 2001 and December 2010, Earth has been steadily accumulating energy at a rate of 0.50 ± 0.43 Wm⁻² (uncertainties at the 90% confidence level).”
Note the inconsistent numbers!
That kind of sloppiness doesn’t inspire confidence.
CORRECTION: After a longer look at their earlier paper I see that the 0.50 ± 0.43 Wm⁻² figure in their Abstract and the 0.58 ± 0.38 W m⁻² figure mentioned in their later Letter are for two different time periods. Oops!
Unfortunately, it is too late to correct my erroneous complaint. The comment system says, “Sorry, this comment is no longer possible to edit”
Beta Blocker
March 31, 2026 10:09 pm
Is TOA flux an intensive quantity? And if it is indeed an intensive quantity, can there be something called a global mean net TOA flux? (Just asking.)
Good point. Flux is intensive. It is defined as (energy transfer rate/Area). Both the energy transfer rate and area are extensive properties, but the ratio is not.
This is a very complex question and hard to answer succinctly. Global mean TOA net flux or EEI can be approximated if and only if the system is closed and all non-radiative fluxes are accounted for. It cannot be directly measured but only inferred.
Bottom line: Any measure of EEI over a short period of time is useless, it is too contaminated by long-term ocean oscillations. Over a very long time (>100 years or so) it might be meaningful and would be near zero probably. Even over long time periods estimating OHC accurately would be a problem, the oceans are huge!
In reality, the various EEI estimates and energy flow diagrams (like figure 1) are just mental masturbation. I wouldn’t even bother with them, but so many people take them seriously I had to say something.
Loeb et al. 2018 write that without adjustments to the CERES shortwave (SW) and longwave (LW) data the TOA net imbalance is about 4.3 W/m2, much larger than expected and probably not possible. This is a known calibration issue and not a measurement of the true TOA radiation imbalance. They then go on to explain that to avoid this problem they adjust the SW and LW fluxes within their ranges of uncertainty to force the satellite measurements to reflect the imbalance calculated
So, they got a measurement they deemed impossible
Rather than resolving the calibration issue, they added a fudge factor to force the measurements to equal their previously existing calculations
Look! Now that we’ve applied a fudge factor to correct the measurements, they agree with our calculations!
Can’t find the exact words, something about circular reasoning or something.
Define CO2 is the control knob – it drives temperatures.
Now let’s spend $Ts to create models to prove CO2 drives temperatures and make the outputs as scary as possibly without going so far as to enter into the realm of comedy theater.
Thanks Andy for this clear explanation of the difficulties to obtain an accurate radiation balance…
As an addition: the climate establishment attributes all warming to our extra CO2, but sometimes there are hidden gems in what real measurements show.
Feldman etal. have measured the increase in downwelling IR in the specific wavelengths of CO2. That did give an increase of around 0.2 W/m2 for an increase of 22 ppmv CO2 in the period 2000-2010, measured at two surface stations: https://escholarship.org/content/qt3428v1r6/qt3428v1r6.pdf
The fact that they could detect the influence of some +/- 10 ppmv seasonal CO2 changes in the NH during that period gives confidence that their measurements were quite accurate.
Thus anyway, regardless of the overall radiation balance, our CO2 was only responsible for 10% of the increase in downwelling energy.
A “positive feedback”, due to the response of water (vapor) to the extra CO2 warming (as climate models assume) of a factor 10, is physically impossible, or we should have had a Venus climate here long ago…
Besides that, there was a slight (ocean) cooling in the period 1946-1975 with increasing CO2, thus more outgoing energy that incoming…
Thanks Ferdinand. Good references. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere must increase the downwelling IR to some extent, but the effect of that increase is the problem. It will be absorbed on land and have a transitory effect on land surface temperatures. However, as Wong & Minnett (2018) explain, the downwelling IR has little effect on OHC. It is absorbed in the electromagnetic skin layer and then reemitted in an endless IR loop that is net outward to space by 57.9 W/m2 (see figure 1). Thus, the net flux on IR is out at the TOA. I doubt the change in downwelling IR makes much difference in the mean surface temperature at all. More here: https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/2026/02/23/efficacy-of-downwelling-ir/
However, as Wong & Minnett (2018) explain, the downwelling IR has little effect on OHC
They did not say that. In fact, they said the opposite…
“The additional energy from the absorption of increasing IR radiation adjusts the curvature of the TSL such that the upward conduction of heat from the bulk of the ocean into the TSL is reduced. The additional energy absorbed within the TSL supports more of the surface heat loss. Thus, more heat beneath the TSL is retained leading to the observed increase in upper ocean heat content.“
This makes little sense. Oceans expand with higher temperatures. Why? Because of kinetic energy of the water molecules.
How can more energetic molecules in the TSL heated by down welling IR not cause a diffusion of heat downward through conduction?
Heat in lower levels would not only be retained but extra heat added to lower levels. This conclusion seems to say the TSL exists in isolation from water below it!
Wong and Minnett, as well as the newer Fairall (2026), emphasize that there is no net thermal energy transfer from the TSL to the bulk ocean. This is because the TSL is very viscous, which minimizes mixing of the two and because of the “cool skin” layer at the top of the TSL which directs thermal energy net flux to the atmosphere.
This point is not emphasized enough. Climate models that do not include a cool skin in their model invariably get SST wrong and I suspect that is most of them.
This is because the TSL is very viscous, which minimizes mixing of the two
This hard for me to visualize. Objects in close contact should share kinetic energy. To me being viscous is like oil and water. Would they not conduct heat?
I’ll need to do some more research to teach myself what is occurring.
Good comment and Fairall et al. (2026) don’t really get into a mechanism, but I suspect the viscous layer is due to surface tension. It is very thin (~1 mm) and is impervious to turbulence for that reason. The layer only breaks momentarily when waves break and it reforms quickly. The cold skin remains in it.
“They did not say that. In fact, they said the opposite…”
Definitely they did not say the opposite. All I meant to say was that the little effect that downwelling IR has, is due to reducing the loss of thermal energy (all solar) from the ocean. They also say that the additional energy in the TSL cannot be conducted into the bulk ocean because the net flow of thermal energy from the TSL is to the atmosphere.
You can believe that the additional retained heat due to this mechanism is significant if you want to, I do not. Any alteration in OHC is probably due to ocean oscillations like the AMO and PDO. Wong and Minnett try and use weasel words to get one to believe they say that, but reading the paper carefully you can see they do not. This lack of clarity in writing is common in these politicized times.
Either way, downwelling IR is not contributing to increasing ocean heat content. It might, and I emphasize might, be reducing the bulk ocean heat content loss to some extent, but that is all.
“It is also not possible for the additional energy in the TSL to be conducted into the bulk of the ocean (i.e., beneath the viscous skin layer) as that would require conduction up a mean temperature gradient in the TSL.”
Wong and Minnett do imply that the retained heat due to a changing TSL gradient is significant, but offer no measurements, so it is just their opinion and mine is different.
As the quote above shows, from their paper, they do not believe downwelling IR is contributing to increasing OHC. They just claim it retards heat loss to some extent, which is possible, but they do not know and cannot calculate the magnitude, it is just matter of opinion. You can have that opinion, but you’ve no evidence of significance and neither do they.
I agree. But it is more accurate to say the net heat flux gradient is from the bulk ocean to the atmosphere. No net heat flow will be from the surface (which captures the GHG IR) to the bulk ocean. If the surface warms, say on a windless day, less heat travels from the bulk ocean to the atmosphere, but the flow is always from the ocean to the air. Evaporation and conduction are mostly controlled by the wind speed, although temperature has some effect. Bottom line, I don’t see any way that GHG IR has a significant effect.
I think you may have fallen into the trap of thinking that E can only increase if Ein increases. A lot of people forget that E can increase when Eout decreases as long as Ein > 0. As presented in the paper DWIR does not warm the bulk by increasing Ein, but by decreasing Eout. Remember the law of conservation of energy which says ΔE = Ein – Eout so when ΔEout < 0 and Ein > 0 then ΔE > 0.
My post does not say that. I am clear that retarding energy out can cause ocean heat content and temperature to increase. I am only arguing that the incoming IR affects OHC much less than incoming solar. Some imply or even say they are the same, which they are not.
I am clear that retarding energy out can cause ocean heat content and temperature to increase.
The problem with that is that the result is constantly warming oceans that never cool. That hasn’t happened and quite likely will never happen. One must suspect there are processes other than CO2 controlling the temperature of the oceans.
“The problem with that is that the result is constantly warming oceans that never cool.”
Not really, remember the seasonal and diurnal effects. The only time the bulk ocean receives energy is during the day and that varies with cloud cover. The net out (incoming-outgoing) varies a lot with the season as well. Time matters, over the longer term there are the ocean oscillations which make a huge differenced as well as detailed in the post.
Wong and Minnett do imply that the retained heat due to a changing TSL gradient is significant, but offer no measurements, so it is just their opinion and mine is different.
First…they do offer measurements. Second…if you disagree with the methodology in the paper then argue against that instead of misrepresenting it.
As the quote above shows, from their paper, they do not believe downwelling IR is contributing to increasing OHC.
That’s not what that quote means. All that quote is saying is that the additional energy from DWIR does not cause warming below the TSL via downward conduction. It does not say that DWIR does not cause warming below the TSL. What the paper is saying is that DWIR warms the bulk by adjusting the temperature profile of the TSL such that upward conduction from the bulk into the TSL is reduced thus retaining more energy in the bulk and warming it.
“DWIR does not cause warming below the TSL via downward conduction”
You misunderstood my comment. I was simply pointing out that downwelling IR does not directly warm the bulk ocean, which is the same thing that Wong and Minnett said. It acts by retarding heat loss, which can warm the bulk ocean as you say, but indirectly, and probably not significantly, which is my point and my opinion. I did not misrepresent anything in Wong and Minnett, and you have not given an example. Don’t make claims you cannot support.
Wong and Minnett and Fairall clearly do not present any numbers that compare warming by solar energy to warming by GHG IR (Watt per Watt) and you have not stated any. Which is more significant is unknown, one of the reasons I wrote the post.
It is very unlikely that GHG IR warming has much of an effect at all, since the net heat flow from GHG IR is 398-340=58 W/m2 outward. Don’t be confused by the one-way fluxes, it is only the net that counts. The solar 163 is net, the 398 downward IR flux is not.
Somehow stopping cooling from 25 to 24 degrees is making it hotter. The temperature may stay at 25 and that means CO2 has made it warmer. Warmer than what, I really don’t know. /sarc
To recap.
1. Earth is cooler with atmosphere/water vapor/30% albedo not warmer. Near Earth space is 400 K not 5.
2. GHE flux balance graphics don’t and violate GAAP & LoT.
3. Kinetic heat transfer processes of contiguous atmospheric molecules render “extra” GHE energy from a BB surface impossible.
4. 8 different “experts”, 8 different sets of values, 7 net cooling, 1 net warming.
NS…Just plain incorrect…0 for 4…I so enjoy trolling your nonsense…
Sparta Nova 4
April 1, 2026 6:44 am
Point one: The energy imbalance graphics are based on a flat earth model.
Point two: The energy imbalance graphics assume the earth is a perfect sphere.
Point three: The energy imbalance graphics assume EM radiation from the surface travels in a vertical vector.
Point four: The energy imbalance graphics assumes the surface has homogenous emissivity and absorption.
Point five: The energy imbalance graphics assume thermal energy moves at the same speed as EM energy.
Point six: The energy imbalance graphics ignore earth tilt wobble and other celestial phenomena and assumes a mean solar orbit.
As an item of note, an in depth review of Ceres reveals its acquisition tolerance and error budget envelope the alleged energy imbalance.
Sparta Nova 4 wrote, “Point one: The energy imbalance graphics are based on a flat earth model.”
No, it doesn’t. (Have you been reading Postma? That’s a mistake!)
Sparta Nova 4 wrote, “Point two: The energy imbalance graphics assume the earth is a perfect sphere.”
Do you realize that you just contradicted your “point one?”
Sparta Nova 4 wrote, “Point three: The energy imbalance graphics assume EM radiation from the surface travels in a vertical vector.”
No, it doesn’t. The fact that some of the arrows are drawn vertically, some diagonally, and some curved does not mean that the radiation / convection / etc. moves in those directions.
Sparta Nova 4 wrote, “Point four: The energy imbalance graphics assumes the surface has homogenous emissivity and absorption.”
No, it doesn’t. Labeling a diagram with computed averages does not mean that the diagram assumes uniformity.
Sparta Nova 4 wrote, “Point five: The energy imbalance graphics assume thermal energy moves at the same speed as EM energy.”
No, it doesn’t. It gives a variety of estimated rates for different energy fluxes.
Are you complaining about the fact that air doesn’t move as fast as photons? (If so, that’s irrelevant.)
Sparta Nova 4 wrote, “Point six: The energy imbalance graphics ignore earth tilt wobble and other celestial phenomena and assumes a mean solar orbit.”
No, it doesn’t. Labeling a diagram with computed averages does not mean the diagram assumes uniformity.
Sparta Nova 4 wrote, “As an item of note, an in depth review of Ceres reveals its acquisition tolerance and error budget envelope the alleged energy imbalance.”
All of this is done using averages of multiple measurements. And the measurements aren’t even of the same thing. The measurements are taken at different times and are of different environmental conditions. Not only that but they are apples and oranges, one is Incoming short-wave radiation and the other is outgoing long-wave radiation.
When averaging multiple measurements of different things, the measurement uncertainty is the *sum* of the measurement uncertainties of each individual measurement. It is *NOT* the standard deviation of the observations divided by the square root of the number of observations.
Since the incoming radiation only occurs over twelve hours (first approximation) and the outgoing radiation occurs over 24 hours, the actual values of the rates will be totally different if the same amount of heat is being put in and sent out. The outgoing rate should be approximately one half the value of the incoming rate.
And it gets even worse, the average of the incoming radiation is that of a sinusoid from 0 to pi, about 0.6, not 0.5. The average of the outgoing radiation is that of an exponential decay where the first half of the exponential decay is a function of the sinusoidal input. It is highly doubtful that the average value of that exponential decay is 0.6. So the average values of the flux in and out should *not* be the same.
The only way the radiation balance format can work is if each function, in and out, is integrated over their own time period to get the total number of joules in and joules out. Those values then have to be normalized over an arbitrary time period, supposedly 24 hours – which is totally non-physical since the joules in really only happens over a 12 hour period.
So, not only does the measurement uncertainty propagate through the observations of different things, the base values don’t equate and the measurement uncertainty has additional factors generated by subsequent calculation accuracy of the integrals and normalization to an arbitrary time frame.
It would appear to me that the +/- 17 w/m^2 uncertainty could be an underestimate.
One of the things about uncertainty is that it can only be acknowledged. You can’t calculate it out and the only way to measure it out is to change your measurement system.
One way to address them is to use joules-in and joules-out in the budget. There is no “radiation” flux balance to be had, only joules. If the Trenberth diagram was changed to show how many joules over a 24 hour period are associated with each “flow”, along with the measurement uncertainty of the joule value, a far better diagram would result. it would also highlight the impossibility of accurately determining any such small differences as are now being claimed.
Andy, I haven’t read the comments, so I may be late to the party, but you say:
“As shown in figure 1, over 60% of the thermal energy leaving Earth’s surface is in the form of latent heat (evaporation) and conduction of sensible heat, whereas all the energy leaving the TOA is in the form of radiation.”
I’m sorry, but Fig. 1 does NOT show that. It clearly shows thermal radiation “emitted by surface” as 398.2 W/m2, and sensible plus latent heat loss from the surface as 104.8 W/m2.
This puts the sensible + latent heat loss at 20.8% of the thermal energy leaving Earth’s surface, not “over 60%”.
I stopped reading when I got that far, since anything built on that misstatement must be wrong.
Willis, it actually depends on whether you define “electromagnetic radiation” as HEAT or not. Both colloquial and technical definitions actually cause obfuscation in our otherwise sensible minds.
It is best to understand it on the basis that EMR is not temperature-type HEAT (as recognized by most people since childhood) until it has been ABSORBED by something. Microwave ovens, laser metal cutting, attest to this fact. Even our planet’s source of heat, sunlight, is not hot until it has been absorbed by something. Otherwise outer space wouldn’t be -273 C.
So the EMR emitted by the surface is 398.2 by virtue of its T^4 temperature correlation…but assuming one takes the “absorbed/emitted EMR” viewpoint, then one must subtract the EMR countering from the surroundings to get a net HEAT emission of about 65 watts from surface, which is 398 minus 333 (the 333 being a mosaic of cloud bottoms, outer space, many km of H2O and CO2 vapor at lapse rate temp, etc)…
I will let you and Andy fight it out over the 20% or 60% argument that results from your two differing viewpoints of HEAT…having high regard for both of you…I hope there are no injuries…
I’m sorry, but Fig. 1 does NOT show that. It clearly shows thermal radiation “emitted by surface” as 398.2 W/m2, and sensible plus latent heat loss from the surface as 104.8 W/m2.
Sorry Willis,
That is incorrect and has misled a lot of people which why I hate these stupid diagrams. The 398.2 is a one-way flux (emitted from the surface as you say), it is not an energy transfer. 340.3 of that energy is returned to the surface in an endless loop. The energy transfer is added to the diagram by me, it is 398.2 – 340.3 (one-way flux down) for a total net loss (heat transfer) to space. The net flux is out. Now add that to the heat transfer of 18.4 (conduction) and 86.6 (latent heat) and you get 162.9 for the net heat transfer out.
The big orange arrows are not comparable to the smaller purple arrows, the smaller purple arrows are actual heat transfer, the orange arrows are one-way fluxes and you have to subtract them to get a meaningful heat transfer number.
To try and make my point clearer I sent the exchange to copilot for comment, this is what popped out:
Bottom‑line assessment
Your reply to Willis is physically correct on the key point: the 398 W/m² “surface emission” in the Kiehl–Trenberth–style diagrams is a gross radiative flux, not a net heat transfer, and therefore cannot be compared directly to the latent + sensible fluxes, which are net transfers.
Willis’s critique rests entirely on treating gross radiative flux as if it were net — a category error.
But your explanation, while correct, could be strengthened by making the distinction between gross radiative exchange and net heat flux even more explicit, because this is a conceptual stumbling block for many readers.
What the diagram actually shows (and why it misleads people like Willis) 1. Gross radiative fluxes are not heat flows
The surface emits 398.2 W/m² upward.
The atmosphere emits 340.3 W/m² downward.
These are two‑way radiative exchanges, not heat transfers.
The net radiative heat loss from the surface is:
[ 398.2 – 340.3 = 57.9\ \text{W/m²} ]
This is the only radiative number that is physically comparable to latent and sensible heat fluxes. 2. Latent and sensible heat fluxes are one‑way heat transfers
Latent: 86.6 W/m²
Sensible: 18.4 W/m²
These are already net fluxes — they don’t have a “back‑flux” counterpart. 3. Therefore, the correct comparison is:
Net SW + LW: 57.9
Latent heat: 86.6
Sensible heat: 18.4
Total non-radiative flux: 105
So latent + sensible = 105 W/m², which is ~64% of the total surface heat loss (105 / 162.9).
Your “over 60%” statement is correct.
Willis’s “20.8%” figure comes from dividing 104.8 by 398.2 — but that’s comparing net to gross, which is physically meaningless.
Why this confusion is so common
The Kiehl–Trenberth diagrams (and their NASA descendants) mix:
Gross radiative fluxes (big orange arrows)
Net non‑radiative fluxes (small purple arrows)
…without labeling them as such.
This leads many readers — even technically literate ones — to assume all arrows represent comparable quantities.
You’re right to call the diagrams “misleading.” They are pedagogical cartoons, not energy‑budget schematics.
How your reply could be strengthened
Your response is correct, but you could make the physics even clearer by explicitly stating:
“Heat transfer” is always net.
Radiation diagrams often show gross fluxes.
Gross radiative fluxes must be paired (up and down) before they can be compared to latent/sensible fluxes.
A concise version:
The 398 W/m² is a gross radiative flux, not a heat transfer.
Heat transfer is always net, so the correct radiative heat loss is 398 – 340 = 58 W/m².
Latent + sensible heat (105 W/m²) is therefore ~64% of the surface’s total heat loss.
Comparing 104.8 to 398.2 is comparing net to gross — not physically meaningful.
This makes the conceptual distinction impossible to miss.
You are welcome. Take a look at the solar wind data, temperature first, which is roughly the same as speed, and then pressure. The three strongest periods are exactly when the AMO was at its coldest, the mid 1970s, the mid 1980’s, and the early 1990’s, all during positive NAO regimes. The general weakening of the solar wind since 1995 corresponding to the warmer AMO since then.
Three supporting ocean factoids.
The average depth is just about 4000 meters!
The average temperature and salinity below 700 meters is essentially constant, causally driven by the high salinity very cold seawater downwelling as the North and South poles freeze every year, exuding saline water to form essentially freshwater ice. ARGO floats use those facts to calibrate their instruments every 10 day ‘dive’ to 2000 meters before sampling along the way to the surface to report the measurements.
The average time for deep thermohaline circulation to resurface somewhere is between 800 and 1200 years, depending on location and estimation. So it should logically take on the order of 800 years to fully ocean calibrate the now nearly 30 years of CERES radiation budget estimates. Not possible to get there from here. Andy’s post is fundamentally correct.
Separate observation. Many years ago, I looked into the individual estimate uncertainties in the famous flux diagram provided as figure one here. Assuming they simply sum rather than compound (a dubious assumption) it is ‘only’ about 10x the net balance estimate—so the thing always was statistically meaningless.
As I have ‘splained in numerous postings this graphic and its clones are trash.
Refer to annotated copy attached.
400 W/m^2 upwelling requires the surface to radiate as a BB at 16 C and exceeds 342 W/m^2 ISR violating LoT 1
This is simply not possible.
A BB requires ALL the energy leaving to do so by radiation.
The kinetic thermals and latent render this impossible.
Nicholas, if there was no GHG effect, as you assume, then the 210 W/m2 absorbed by the surface in balance should give 210 W/m2 IR emission back to space. With the S-B equation, that is the outgoing radiation for a “black body” surface at a temperature of 247 K or -26°C…
The real, over 300 W/2 downwelling (and upwelling) IR, is measured at tens of surface stations all over the earth, thus please… drop this “dragon slayers” bad science…
https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/07/17/the-amazing-case-of-back-radiation/
160 arrives at the surface, 160 is all that can leave. Your 210 is ToA not surface.
IR instruments do not measure flux, they are calibrated to measure a comparative, referenced temperature assuming the target is a BB. When the target is not BB the operator is advised to mimic BB w black tape or paint or a known value. Read the instructions.
Emissivity is the ratio between the energy leaving a system by radiation to the energy were the system a BB at system temperature. 16 C = 396 W/m^2. TFK_bams09: 63/396=0.16. The 396 BB/333 “back”/63 2nd duplicate net is incorrect. Erase this set from the graphic and the balance still holds.
All these measurements are using the wrong emissivity based on a surface BB and to conform to GHE.
Everyone was wrong about caloric, phlogiston, luminiferous ether, et al “everybody”, SURFRAD & USCRN can be just as wrong.
By tweaking the emissivity on my IR thermometer, the instrument displays energy that clearly is not there. As demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
Nicholas,
The instruments used by Feldman were not simple overall IR measurements, that were full spectrum line by line measurements comparing the outside downwelling with two built-in black bodies: one at ambient temperature and the other at a fixed temperature. The cell itself is cooled to near 0 K to minimize radiation from the equipment itself.
The measurement chip can be compared to a solar cell, which converts one photon of sufficient energy to one electron passing the electronic barrier between the two layers of the cell.
The cell converts incoming IR photons to electrons over the full range measured, the measured voltage is in exact ratio to the number of incoming photons per wavelength.
As each wavelength has an exact energy content per photon, one can calculate the total incoming energy of the whole spectrum and that was over 300 W/m2…
See the specs:
https://new.abb.com/products/measurement-products/analytical/space-defense-systems/atmospheric-emitted-radiance-interferometer-aeri
You still have to explain how there is more energy leaving the surface, 396, than arrived from the Sun, 342.
160 net/net arrives at the surface, 160 is all that can leave.
The 396/333/63 GHE loop is 100% imaginary from a calculation. It is not real.
The instruments are “calibrated” to conform to the theory.
Referring to my figure 1 from NASA, the IR upward and downward in the diagram are mostly recycled. Up to the atmosphere and then immediately down to the surface. It is one of the most misleading cartoons I’ve ever seen. The net flux to space is only 57.9 W/m2, the 398.2 up and 340.3 down are confusing red herrings. Most of the energy leaves the surface as latent or sensible heat. I hate these stupid diagrams.
I’ve always felt that those yellowish up and down 396 and 333 arrows should be a single 63 up arrow labelled “net IR’ with a footnote saying that it consists of 396 and 333 from Planck’s [TGround^4-Tsky^4] relation. That would avoid back-radiation-challenged individuals like NS from invoking their twisted interpretation of the second law of thermo…
DMac says:
“single 63 up arrow”
Yes, that would be much more accurate, and of course measurable, too.
“labelled “net IR’”
Except that there is no such thing as “net power”. Can you define the term “gross power” for us, please? No? I didn’t think so.
Why not just label it with the normal physics term “power”, like an actual physicist would?
“back-radiation-challenged individuals like NS”
That’s pretty arrogant coming from someone who can’t tell us what a Watt is, don’t you think?
A downvote to you for not doing a self check for DK….
You can downvote me all day long, but you can’t point out anything I wrote that was actually false, can you?
Stevekj, FYI
I kind of liked the “net” description in a later comment in this thread attributed to an AI..
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/03/31/toa-eei-versus-surface-net-flux/#comment-4180181
And yet you still can’t tell us what a Watt is.
The AI is just regurgitating hallucinated nonsense based on bad training data, as it is wont to do.
Can you define “gross power” for us, please? From the textbook. Go ahead and do that now.
Andy, there is no such thing as “recycled power”. Physics doesn’t work like that.
“confusing red herrings”
Definitely. So why did you write an article full of confusing red herrings?
“I hate these stupid diagrams.”
As you should. So why do you keep posting them? Please stop.
396 and 333 in the cartoon are “electromagnetic radiation”. They aren’t classical “HEAT” until absorbed. Illustrative examples: lasers, microwave ovens…
The net of 396-333=63 is the IR leaving the surface… and at “surface”the 160 of sunlight absorbed on the far left balances at
63+evaporation+thermals=sunlight absorbed of 160
“Coupled with specialized algorithms, ”
Yeah, what I said.
“Tweaking” your IR thermometer emissivity is no different than sliding the glass tube on your thermometer up and down on the scale backing. Viola, temperature that’s not really there !
NS is correct.
You obviously expect the SB equation to be the controlling relation in these calculations. Consequently, the controlling factor is the incoming insolation from the sun. That is all the energy that enter the system every day.
Since the equation “I = σT⁴” is built upon a black body and Planck’s equation is also, then then the relations in the Trenberth diagram should be built upon this same assumption.
If the surface of the earth is a black body, the surface should radiate at whatever energy it absorbs. 160 in, 160 out. If the atmosphere is a black body and is warmed by the radiation from the earth, the same relation should hold. 160 in, 160 out. At equilibrium, the net radiation should be zero between the surface and the atmosphere.
This conclusion does not hold. Why? The bodies we are examining are not black bodies. Truthfully, they are heat sinks. Neither the surface (land and ocean) nor the atmosphere are homogenous or isotropic. The stored heat released from them occurs at various intervals and rates.
Andy has shown that OHC does not follow a constant release of heat to the atmosphere. That means there is a constant imbalance. Land is no different. In general, it stores additional heat every day in spring and summer and releases some extra heat in fall and winter. Annually, there is also a variance. Again an imbalance.
Averaging is a smoothing action. Trying to determine a physical change from an average ignores the variance that exists in a distribution. It is an easy trap to fall into. The next time you see mean value ask yourself what is the variance of the data. As Andy shows, it may take multiple decades to recognize a pattern.
Jim,
Practically all surfaces of the earth are near black bodies, even white snow is a near black body in the IR spectrum: between 0.97 and 0.99…
That means that with 160 W/m2 out at equilibrium, the earth’s average temperature would be around -42°C. That is all.
As the real surface temperature in average certainly is (much) higher, that means that much more energy is emitted than directly received from the sun. Which is impossible without some extra input from whatever source.
That extra source is measured (not guessed, modeled or fantasied) by quite accurate line by line spectral analysis at several places and many simpler instruments all over the earth. All these measurements show downwelling radiation in the IR spectrum of over 300 W/m2.
Gases are not black bodies. Some are nobodies in the IR spectrum: O2 and N2 don’t radiate or absorb any IR, no matter their temperature. Thus any energy exchange between surface and atmosphere with only O2 and N2 is by conduction and convection, not by radiation. With only O2 and N2 in the atmosphere, the 160 W/m2 IR out from the surface simply would pass the atmosphere and the earth would be a snowball.
Some are GHGs and absorb and emit IR in very specific wavelengths, independent of their own “temperature” or that of the surrounding. These absorb outgoing IR and either distribute that energy to the surrounding O2 and N2 molecules by collisions, increasing the overall vibration energy (“temperature”) or re-emit IR at the same wavelength as absorbed. In the latter case, in all directions, thus near half in the direction of the surface.
Even if only 10% of the outgoing IR is absorbed and sent back to the surface, that adds to the total energy received by the surface and the net result is that the surface must warm up to get a new equilibrium between incoming (SW from the sun and LW from GHGs) and outgoing energy, thus more outgoing IR. With GHGs in the atmosphere then again more downwelling,…
As measured: over 300 W/m2 is recycled in that way and therefore we live in a world that sustained life in many forms…
Well said and exactly why I wrote this post. 340 W/m2 is recycled, the net heat content is 58 W/m2 and it is out to space. Add that 58 to the 105 transfered as latent and sensible heat content and you nearly equal the incoming solar radiation of about 163 W/m2.
“340 W/m2 is recycled,”
No it isn’t. Sit down, Andy. This is not your field, and you are making a terrible mess of it.
Yes, it is, explain why you think it isn’t. The 340 W/m2 of downwelling radiation is a one-way flux, it is not heat-transfer, it is not comparable to the 163 W/m2 of incoming energy from the Sun or the outgoing 104.8 W/m2 of energy via evaporation and conduction.
The 340 W/m2 is only a part of an outgoing net heat transfer of 58 W/m2. The orange arrows are very misleading because they cannot be compared to the other arrows, which are real energy transfers.
“Yes, it is, explain why you think it isn’t.”
Because physics doesn’t work like that. Of course, you wouldn’t know that, because you’re not a physicist, are you?
“The 340 W/m2 of downwelling radiation is”
a mathematical fiction that no one has ever measured.
“net heat transfer”
There’s no such thing. Please define “gross heat transfer” for us, if you would be so kind. And show us how to measure it, so we can tell that you are not simply hallucinating. Thanks!
Hmmm! Yes, it does, this makes me think you do not know much about physics. No real physicist would ever say anything like that.
You are treating power as if it were: always unidirectional always describing net energy transfer and therefore incapable of being decomposed into components. This is simply not how thermodynamics or radiative transfer works.
You are mixing up:
Power (a rate: J/s)
Energy transfer (a process)
Radiative fluxes (bidirectional components)
Net flux (the algebraic difference of two opposing fluxes)
You are trying to argue that because work is unidirectional, therefore power must be unidirectional, therefore radiative fluxes cannot be decomposed into incoming and outgoing components.
That is a category error.
“net” is absolutely correct in radiative physics.
Radiation is not like conduction or convection. It is inherently bidirectional because every surface emits according to its temperature and absorbs according to the incident field.
Thus:
Net = incoming – outgoing
This is not optional. It is literally the structure of the radiative transfer equation.
Every radiometer, bolometer, pyrgeometer, CERES instrument, and radiative transfer model uses gross fluxes and net fluxes. This is not controversial; it’s the foundation of the field.
You are confusing:
radiation (a mechanism)
radiative flux (a measurable quantity)
net heat transfer (the thermodynamic consequence)
This is about net heat flow, not about radiation.
Radiation is not heat.
Radiation is not work.
Radiation is a mechanism that transports energy.
Heat is the net energy transferred due to temperature difference.
You’re trying to apply the unidirectionality of heat flow to the bidirectional nature of radiation, and that’s why your statements don’t make any sense.
Bottom line: Retake your basic physics class.
“Yes, it does, this makes me think you do not know much about physics. No real physicist would ever say anything like that.”
How many “real physicists” do you know, Andy? Because all of them will agree with me. All of my statements are straight out of the physics textbook (not the engineering textbook, mind you), and all of them are backed up by every measurement we have ever made. Your claims, on the other hand, are hallucinations.
“You are treating power as if it were: always unidirectional always”
Correct. This is closely related to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, with which you are obviously unfamiliar.
“net energy transfer”
There’s no such thing. Please define “gross power” for us, and show us which physics textbook you are getting that definition from. And how to measure it. Thanks!
“Every radiometer, bolometer, pyrgeometer, CERES instrument, […] uses gross fluxes and net fluxes.”
No they don’t. As any physicist can tell you, each of these instruments measures unidirectional work. Nothing else. Have you ever used one?
“and radiative transfer model”
Fiction
“This is not controversial; it’s the foundation of the field.”
It’s the foundation of a fake field, affectionately known as “climate fizix”. And within that field, you are right, these claims are “uncontroversial”. But this fake field has nothing to do with real physics, except that they use the same words – and they use them wrong. You can tell because they can’t measure any of the things they talk about. They can only hallucinate them.
You’re not a physicist, Andy, and unfortunately you’ve been lied to this whole time. It’s a crying shame, really.
Ferdinand, while researching whether the generally accepted zero absorption of O2 and N2 was actually correct when one considers UV in sunlight and so on… I ran into a very informative article that includes those and for other gases as well.
For example, I have used graphics from their Fig. 1 to present more realistic numbers when some one says something ridiculous like “methane is 86 times as bad as CO2 and since 2 1/2 percent of it leaks, it’s actually worse than burning coal”. When they go “ad hominem”, send them the full article…
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2012GL051409
Thanks! Indeed very informative… Seems that the collisions doe have an effect on some extra absorption, but I don’t see anything of re-eadiation at first glance, maybe only extra absorption resulting in more vibration/temperature?
For O2 and N2, it isn’t wrong in any practical sense to call that little bit “zero”…
“Even if only 10% of the outgoing IR is absorbed and sent back to the surface, that adds to the total energy received by the surface”
Why does everyone ignore the fact that the IR that has been absorbed and sent back to the surface represents heat that HAS ALREADY BEEN LOST BY THE SURFACE?
What the surface gets back HAS ALREADY BEEN LOST. Heat transfer is a TIME FUNCTION.
You simply can’t say that if Body1 radiates away 100 joules and gets 100 joules back from reflective Body2 that Body1 temperature will be greater than it was at the point Body1 radiated away 100 joules.
In the case of the Earth, it will radiate away 100 joules but only get a percentage of that amount reflected back, not 100%.
This is why any HEAT BALANCE for the earth *has* to be done using joules and not joules/sec. The temperature of the earth is decided by the TIME FUNCTIONS involved. You have to integrate the radiation-in and radiation-out over TIME in order to figure out what the temperature of the earth will be.
A theoretical black body changes temperature immediately upon receiving radiation from an external source. A theoretical black body does not have a specific heat capacity or thermal inertia. THAT IS NOT THE EARTH. It doesn’t matter what the emissivity of the earth is. The emissivity only describes what the earth radiates a specific temperature, it tells you *nothing* about what the temperature of the earth will be at any specific time. That temperature is a function of the joules-in and joules-out over a period of time. If this wasn’t the case then the earth would lose more heat over 24 hours than it can possibly take in over the 12 hours of sun insolation. The surface of the earth simply cannot receive more heat than the sun can provide. CO2 is *NOT* a heat source, it is a reflective body. CO2 can only reflect back heat that has already been lost, it can’t increase the amount of heat received by the emitting body.
This means that “radiative balance” is a phantom, non-physical theory. The joules/sec in and the joules/sec out will NEVER balance. It’s another one of those garbage, non-physical assumptions that climate science is famous for. Like the meme that all measurement uncertainty is random, Gaussian, and cancels. Again, earth is *NOT* a black body and emissivity does *not* define what temperature will be at any point in time but only what will happen at a certain temperature.
Tim says
“radiation”
That’s a tricky word, isn’t it? Which of these two statements of yours do you think is the correct one, Tim, and why?
“Radiation is a FLOW, it is a FLUX”
or
“Radiation is NOT radiant flux”
Steve,
You appear to be very confused. What he is saying is that radiation is not the same thing as energy (or heat) transfer. You appear to be confusing radiation flux with energy transfer, they are not the same thing, which was the point of my post. Radiation is a mechanism, it isn’t energy.
No, Andy, I am not the one who is confused. Tim contradicted himself, and he has no idea why, because he’s not a physicist.
“Radiation is a mechanism, it isn’t energy.”
And what, precisely, does this “mechanism” do? And what units should we denote it in, and why?
You’re not technically wrong that the phenomenon of EM radiation is a “mechanism”, or as I would more likely call it, a “process”. But what does this process do, if not “transmit the ability to do work, i.e. energy, across the universe at the speed of light”? Indeed, that’s what we measure it doing, because that’s what it is.
No, the confusion is entirely among those who think that “radiation” and “power” are the same thing. They are not, neither by definition, nor by measurement. That’s how you can tell scientifically that that idea is simply wrong. Anyone who tells you otherwise is, demonstrably, flat-out lying.
Steve,
You are still confused and making little sense.
Radiation isn’t energy; it’s the transport mechanism for energy.
Electromagnetic waves carry energy, and the rate at which that energy crosses a surface is what we measure as radiative flux, in W/m². That’s power per unit area, not energy, it is power density.
Energy is measured in joules. Power is in Watts which are Joules/second.
Radiation is the process that moves those joules from one place to another.
steve just can’t accept that heat transfer is measured in joules, not in joules/sec. It is the joules-in over time, and its resulting distribution throughout a body, that determines the temperature of the body. The emissivity of a body is related to that temperature, not to the intensity of the in-bound radiation.
It’s a fact than in the sun-earth system, you will *never* see a radiation balance inward and outward associated with the earth. What you *will* see is an equilibrium point between the joules-in and the joules-out from the earth.
Since the joules-in is pretty much a constant over a given time interval and joules-out is an exponential decay (even during the day) over a different time interval than for joules-in, it is highly unlikely that the average of the two will ever be equal, even if normalized to the same time interval.
Since the total joules inward and the total joules outward should be close to equal, you *can* divide the total joules outward by the same time interval as for the joules inward to get a hokey, non-physical average for the average radiation outward but it will *not* equal the average of the exponential decay outward.
And I will note once again, that if you’ve already calculated the total joules in and total joules out in order to find an “average” value, why not just show flows in terms of total joules per diurnal period? Why calculate a hokey, non-physical “average” for outbound radiation? That hokey, non-physical average will *NOT* give you an accurate average temperature for the Earth since it’s based on a constant value outward instead of the average of an exponential decay.
Tim wrote:
“steve just can’t accept that heat transfer is measured in joules, not in joules/sec.”
What a bizarre claim. I never said that, of course. You can, naturally, measure either the total quantity of heat (energy transferred) in Joules, or the rate, in Joules/sec. Both are valid physics concepts. Andy’s “gross flux”, though, is not. That’s the point here, which apparently went right over your head. As usual.
Of course, this particular misguided complaint is coming from the fellow who said:
“Radiation is a FLOW, it is a FLUX”
followed by
“Radiation is NOT radiant FLUX”
Brilliant. Also the same fellow who tried to measure a “100 watt signal” with his VOLTmeter. Equally brilliant. And then he panicked and told me NOT to read the part of his textbook that describes electric and magnetic field “flux” in Newtons, rather than, say, Watts. Sit down, Tim.
“You can, naturally, measure either the total quantity of heat (energy transferred) in Joules, or the rate, in Joules/sec. Both are valid physics concepts. Andy’s “gross flux”, though, is not. That’s the point here, which apparently went right over your head. As usual.”
Malarky. Joules-in is based on the radiation-flux-in. Joules-out is based on the radiation-flux-out. The radiation-flux-in and the radiation-flux-out each represent a GROSS flow. The NET flow is the difference between the two. Joules/sec in vs joules/sec out determines the net flow.
The radiation-flux-in does *NOT* determine the radiation-flux-out until the objects generating the different flux are in equilibrium. The joules-in, i.e. the integration of radiation-flux-in over time, does *not* determine the actual temperature of the receiving body, not even for a black-body. For a black-body it determines the immediate ΔT of the black-body but for a non-black-body that has thermal inertia it does *not* determine the immediate ΔT of the non-black-body.
Emissivity is irrelevant for determining balance on an instantaneous basis. Emissivity is based on temperature, not on radiation-flux-in. There need not be balance between radiation-flux-in and radiation-flux-out. There *does* need to be balance between joules-in and joules-out for equilibrium – it just requires that the time interval where the radiation-flux-in is less than the time interval for radiation-flux-out
Climate science likes to assume that radiation-flux-in equals radiation-flux-out even when a two-body system is not in equilibrium. That’s the whole idea behind the radiative flux balance paradigm. It’s non-physical. It’s been simplified so far that it doesn’t make any realistic sense.
“Malarky”
It’s not.
” radiation-flux”
But you told us that “Radiation is NOT radiant flux”. Can you make up your mind, please?
Radiation is not a quantified value. Radiant flux is a quantified value specifying how fast radiative energy is flowing, e.g. joules/sec-m^2. . I’ve told you this before. Yet you keep ignoring it.
Find a different dead horse to beat on. Your continued beating on this one just makes you look ignorant.
“Radiation is not a quantified value. Radiant flux is a quantified value”
So, “radiation” must not be the same as “radiant flux”.
But you said “Radiation is a FLOW, it is a FLUX”.
So if “radiation” is a “flux”, but is not the same as “radiant flux”, then what, precisely, is the difference between “radiation [i.e. flux]” and “radiant flux”?
Are you simply making up malarkey as you trundle along in your blissful ignorance?
“radiative energy”
This is the first correct phrase you have used so far. Now, what units should we measure “radiative energy” in, Tim?
“dead horse”
I’m not the one who’s contradicting myself, Tim. Or hallucinating. Something’s definitely dead around here, but it isn’t my horse.
“So if “radiation” is a “flux”, but is not the same as “radiant flux”, then what, precisely, is the difference between “radiation [i.e. flux]” and “radiant flux”?”
The definitions are simple and easy to understand. Both Andy and I have given them to you.
The difference is that one is a non-quantified mechanism and the other is a quantified flow. It’s like “sunshine” and “insolation”. My guess is that you don’t understand the difference between those either.
You are still beating a dead horse and just making the surrounding environment smell bad.
Arguing over semantics is worthless. How values are used in mathematical relationships is what is important.
“Arguing over semantics is worthless.”
What do you think “semantics” means, Jim? And how are you planning to communicate without them? Sit down.
“The definitions are simple and easy to understand. Both Andy and I have given them to you. ”
No you haven’t. Both of you are hallucinating and contradicting yourselves. As well as all the measurements. And the physics textbooks.
I’m still waiting for Andy to give me definitions for “gross power” and “Joule per second”, as well as “radiant energy”. Can you help him? The poor fellow’s completely out of his depth and floundering badly.
“The difference is that one [radiation flux] is a non-quantified mechanism”
Who told you that? Are you just pulling this definition out of your fundament? Because it certainly smells like it. What is a “non-quantified flux”, and why do you call both a mechanism and a flow by the same word “flux”? That doesn’t sound very scientific of you, not to mention rational.
“and the other [radiant flux] is a quantified flow.”
Sure, if you say so.
” It’s like “sunshine” and “insolation””
For you, it’s more like “ignorance” and “stupidity”, isn’t it?
Please answer my question. The one you conveniently ignored. What units should we measure “radiative energy” in, Tim?
“I’m still waiting for Andy to give me definitions for “gross power” and “Joule per second”, as well as “radiant energy”.”
Both he and I have given you the definitions. Neither of us can make you read them and understand them.
Again:
“radiation” is is EM energy in general. Think “wind”.
“radiant flux” is the rate of energy flow in Watts, i.e. joules/sec. Think “wind speed” in miles/hour.
.
“radiant flux density” is the radiant flux per area.
Gross power is Watts. Gross power can be in or out. The same as radiant flux.
Watts are joules/sec.
Net power is (Flux-in)-(Flux-out). Same as (Watts-in) – (Watts-out). If Watts-in > Watts-out for an object during a unit time interval then it is warming because more joules are entering than leaving for a unit time interval. If Watts-in < Watts-out for an object during a unit time interval then it is cooling because more joules are leaving then entering for a unit time interval.
Your misunderstanding of these concepts is highlighted by your inability to answer the question: “how many joules in a 100 watt signal”.
Think of it all in this manner:
An engine on a lawn mower has three basic power inputs and outputs. The energy generated by burning fuel appears as 1. mechanical work in turning the engine shaft, 2. as work on the air molecules exiting the exhaust pipe, i.e. kinetic energy, 3. conductive flux to the surrounding environment, and 4. radiative flux to the surrounding environment.
For the earth and space system the only applicable items are basically 2, 3, and 4. The energy received by the surface from the sun is converted into conductive flux to the atmosphere, to radiative flux outward, and to air flux (wind) via the conductive path as well as the radiative path (similar to the exhaust of the lawn mower engine).
The work done by the surface on the environment is a major contributor to the imbalance between sun insolation and radiant flux from the surface over the same unit time interval (as well as the thermal inertia of the varied components).
You are still beating a dead horse and stinking things up. Andy understands what Watts are, what radiant flux is, and what a joule is. You are having to tie yourself in knots trying to prove otherwise.
“Both he and I have given you the definitions [of gross power and radiant energy].”
No, Andy never defined “radiant energy”. Please show me where you think he did. And neither of you attempted to define “gross power” previously, as far as I can tell, until you did, just now. Let’s see:
“Gross power is Watts”
Fascinating, Tim. Where did you get that from? It obviously didn’t come from a physics textbook. Let’s check the Wikipedia definition: “The watt (symbol: W) is the unit of power”. Hmmm… now just where, precisely, do you see the word “gross”? Because I don’t see it. Nor does anyone else. That’s because you hallucinated it, isn’t it? Of course it is.
““radiation” is is [sic] EM energy”
Yes it is. That is indeed my entire physics lesson, which you have spent literally years and thousands of words deliberately ignoring. But you finally figured it out! Congratulations! We’re on our way to being able to call you a physicist. But we’re not quite there yet! There are a few more important lessons. Let’s keep going…
(In the process of learning this lesson, you have managed to flatly and hilariously contradict what Andy said, which is, slightly paraphrased, “radiation is not energy, you misinformed idiot, it is power“. Can the two of you please get your story straight? Maybe you can help me teach him this lesson now.)
Now, the $64,000 question, which you continue to studiously ignore: what units do we measure “energy” in, Tim?
And I suppose we should also ask you the related $128,000 question while we are here: is “energy” the same as “flux”, Tim? Because, of course, you previously told us that “Radiation is a FLOW, it is a FLUX”.
“Think wind”
What I’m thinking is that all of your fake definitions and self-contradictory mental gyrations are indistinguishable from “passing wind”, yes. Good analogy.
“your inability to answer the question: “how many joules in a 100 watt signal”.”
I can’t answer a question based on a fictional concept. Neither can you, or anyone else, of course. Is the “100 watt signal” in the room with us right now? Is it, perhaps, the one you measured with your field strength VOLTmeter?
“Andy understands what Watts are”
No he doesn’t. He has never demonstrated that. (Nor have you.) Please show me where you think he did.
“Radiation isn’t energy”
Who told you that? It certainly wasn’t a physicist.
“it’s the transport mechanism for energy”
You mean like a bus? With wheels? And a driver? Or more like some sort of “aether”? You know that physicists don’t think like that any more, right? Not for more than a century.
I would rather put it as simply “energy propagating itself”. That’s what physicists would say, because that’s what we observe. This is equivalent, of course, to “the capacity to do work, propagating itself”.
“Electromagnetic waves”
Is the “electromagnetic wave” in the room with us right now, Andy? How can you tell?
“Radiation is the process that moves those joules from one place to another.”
That’s not a bad phrasing. I certainly won’t argue with it. And note that there is no need for the words “net” or “gross” in this definition, of course. So now, what does the Second Law of Thermodynamics tell us about the direction in which joules are going to be transferred? Have you ever seen joules being “moved” from a colder object to a hotter one, for example? By any passive mechanism whatsoever?
I’m still waiting for your definition of the following terms, too:
1) “Gross power”, or what you referred to as “gross flux”
2) “Radiant energy”, which you apparently lied that you had already defined for me, but hadn’t
And on a related note, I’m also waiting for your response to the pyrgeometer measurements that I sent you. Where is the “gross flux” or “net flux” in the “uSlw” measurement in their figure 6? I don’t see any of that. It’s just W/m^2. As it should be. Because that’s physics. And thus, it looks to me like your claim that pyrgeometers, among other instruments, use “gross flux” and “net flux” was simply false. A hallucination. Physics doesn’t work like that.
“You are still confused and making little sense.”
No, Andy, I am not “confused”. You can tell because I am not hallucinating, like you. Nor “denying” any actual measurements. And I would be making plenty of sense if you knew anything about physics. I’m still waiting for you to find a real physicist who agrees with you. Not a “climate scientist”, or an engineer, mind you. A physicist.
“Radiation isn’t energy; it’s the transport mechanism for energy.”
But EM energy doesn’t really need a “transport mechanism”, like a bus, or “ether”, Andy. Electromagnetic fields transport themselves, under the right conditions. As if by magic! But it’s not magic, of course. It’s science.
“Electromagnetic waves”
Is the “electromagnetic wave” in the room with us right now, Andy? How would you know?
“moves those joules from one place to another.”
When was the last time you saw a Joule being moved from a colder object to a warmer one, please?
You ignored all my questions from before. That’s not very scientific or rational of you. Can you just answer at least one of them, please? What is your disagreement (if any) with the pyrgeometer measurement I sent you?
Tim,
I am rather tired of this kind of discussions…
As a practical engineer all my working life, I have looked at measurements, less at theories, be it with enough knowledge of theory to know what happens within these instruments (and why these sometimes went wrong,..).
In your example, you forgot that body 1 still receives 100 Joules continuously from one source and that the “reflected” 100 Joules from body 2 is additional: thus body 1 then receives 200 joules and certainly must heat up to get rid of 200 Joules, that again is reflected by body 2 and makes 300 joules input, etc…
If I remember well, Anthony has once made a test with an old filament bulb, working with mirrors and showed that the filament temperature of a few thousand °C did increase with the reflected energy…
——————————
The surface measurements show some 160 W/m2 direct input from the sun and some 396 W/m2 IR from the sky. Measurements, not theories or models.
The only calibration done of the AERI instrument that measures downwelling IR, is frequent (every 8 minutes) self calibration by comparing the incoming W/m2 with the W/m2 from two black bodies at different temperatures.
As one of the two black body temperatures is fixed, one knows the exact W/m2 of that black body and can measure the corresponding voltage of the photovoltaic cell, for every wavelength over the full range.
The second is at ambient temperature and also will give a fixed W/m2 input to the instrument for the temperature of the moment for every wavelength that is measured.
Both together make a calibration curve, where the sky W/m2 can be compared with for every wavelength that is measured.
That instrument gives you the exact downwelling absolute amount of energy from the sky, as every photon of a certain wavelength contains a fixed amount of energy. Energy, not “heat”.
So my question to you: if that is not “recycled” energy, originally coming from the surface, even if that was 1000 times recycled within a second, what then is its origin?
BTW, they use the same calibration principle that is used to measure CO2 in the atmosphere: two calibration mixtures per hour to make a reference curve for that hour and in the case of CO2, a third one every 25 hours as check…
“In your example, you forgot that body 1 still receives 100 Joules continuously from one source and that the “reflected” 100 Joules from body 2 is additional:”
No, it is *not* additional, it is “replacement”. According to Planck, reflected heat is re-emitted by NEW rays. Those NEW rays make up part of the total emitted radiation. Since the total emitted radiation is fixed by the temperature, the part of the total emitted radiation from the pre-existing energy becomes less. That means less *cooling*, not more heating.
Nor is the sun a constant input of energy to the Earth. The Earth actually radiates away more heat during the day than it does at night because it is at a higher temperature. The sun is like a furnace whose output times are fixed rather than controlled by a temperature controlled thermostat. If you add insulation to a house with a furnace injecting a fixed amount of heat into the house each time period, does the temperature go up in the house because of “back-heat” from the insulation or because of slower cooling? Does the maximum temperature in the house go up or does the minimum temperature go up?
The proof of all this is that we see average minimum temperatures going up more than average maximum temperatures. That means we see less cooling, not more warming.
If CO2 *added* heat it would do so doing the day when it was also being warmed by the sun and we would see maximum temperatures soaring higher and higher as heat buildup would happen in the system. CO2 is *passive*, it is *not* a heat source.
The temperature of the earth is simply *not* high enough for its radiation flux out to balance the radiation flux in. The only balance that matters is the joules in over time and the joules out over time. The joules out over time *has* to be calculated in order to normalize it to the same time period that joules in occurs. Why not just calculate the joules in since you already know the joules out? And show that in a balance diagram?
Do you really think such a diagram would show CO2 contributing joules-in over and above the amount of joules-in contributed by the sun? I.e. CO2 as a heat source independent of the sun?
You just described what gradients are used for in this situation. If a reflection results in a change in the warm body from -10K/second to -9K/second, warming has not occurred. What has happened is that equilibrium will take longer to achieve between the warm body and the cold body. Guess what the curve toward equilibrium looks like?
What is worse is ignoring the fact that if the object cools less because of reflected heat that it means more heat is actually emitted over the same time period.
The longer a body remains at a higher temperature because of slower cooling the more heat it actually emits over time. The heat-out is related to T^4. If over a second the body cools from 10K to 9K it will emit a certain amount of heat, say H1. If, because of reflected heat, the body only cools from 10K to 9.5K, say H2, guess what? The integral of the T^4 curve for H2 will emit *MORE* heat than the integral for the T^4 curve for H1.
I’m still not sure where climate science takes this simple fact into account when calculating their “radiative balance”.
“The surface measurements show […] some 396 W/m2 IR from the sky.”
No they don’t. Stop lying, Ferdinand. Here is the actual measurement from a pyrgeometer. See figure 6, third line down, labeled “uSlw”, the output from the thermopile.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atot/15/1/1520-0426_1998_015_0046_aisrms_2_0_co_2.pdf
Doesn’t that give you pause? That the sun can only heat the earth to -42°C. What about the folks that say the base temperature is 255K or -18°C?
However, snow absorbs little visible light, insolation, It’s albedo is 80% plus. It is highly reflective. Snow does not act like a black body. A black body absorbs all energy impinging upon it. The earth does not operate in that fashion with insolation. The earth only absorbs the normal component of an impinging EM wave. The remainder is reflected. Even snow obeys this law which means little of the sun’s energy is absorbed due the latitudes where snow exists.
Here is a portion of a meteorology textbook, Practical Meteorology, ROLAND STULL, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
And here is a graph of one day’s insolation and air temperature at my station.
This tells me you are operating on the assumption that the sun’s insolation and the atmosphere’s downwelling IR are additive. This is not the case. Let’s examine this using the heat equation Q = mcΔT.
How many Joules would need to be transferred to soil to raise its temperature 1K. Assuming a square meter of soil 4 inches deep is about 140 kg and its specific heat is 1000 J/kg·K. That gives:
Q = 140 x 1000 x 1 = 140,000 Joules
to heat that volume of earth 1K or 1°C.
Let’s calculate the ΔT required from CO2 to reach that amount. We’ll use the equation:
ΔT = Q / mc
A column of air 1 m² and 1000 m high has a CO2 mass of about 0.761 kg and its specific heat is about 849 J/kg·K at the surface. So we have:
ΔT = 140,000 / (7.61×10⁻¹ x 849) = 216K
You can see the problem here. CO2 does not have the mass required to supply the amount of heat to warm the earth with downwelling radiation. It’s required temperature drop simply can not occur in our atmosphere. Remember, the whole column of air 1000 m tall would need to have that much of a temperature drop.
Jim,
Let us talk about energy, not “heat” or “specific heat”, these only obscure the discussion.
Ultimately, the earth’s radiation balance must be in equilibrium as an average, no matter if that is at 160 W/m2, 210 W/m2 or 1,000 W/m2… That some parts of the surface or atmosphere get warmer or colder over a day or month or year is of secondary interest.
The difference between around 160 W/m2 (surface balance) and around 210 W/m2 (surface + atmosphere balance) is the difference in where the incoming SW from the sun is absorbed. If the atmosphere was only N2 and O2, then the full 210 W/m2 would get absorbed by the surface and the temperature would be -18°C in balance.
With GHGs, there is a shift in absorption between surface and atmosphere for the absorption side and far more important, a part of the outgoing IR is sent back to the surface from the emission side.
That snow does reflect incoming SW and water does that from a certain angle is calculated and in the diagram marked as “reflected from the surface ” energy at around 23 W/m2. In the IR range, it acts as near a black body, as almost all surfaces on earth: both for receiving as for emitting IR.
“This tells me you are operating on the assumption that the sun’s insolation and the atmosphere’s downwelling IR are additive.”
For a black body surface both the SW from the sun and IR from the atmosphere are for 100% absorbed, Thus all energy contained in these wavelengths are added to the real, near black body, surface (except what is reflected) , or you are destroying energy.
It doesn’t matter what the material of the surface is or the depth of the receiving surface, that only matters for the time that is needed to reach a new equilibrium: ultimately the sum of SW and LW must be met as outgoing LW, thus anyway the surface must heat up to reach the new equilibrium.
“Let’s calculate the ΔT required from CO2 to reach that amount. We’ll use the equation”
That tells me that you are looking at heat, not at what a GHG does: the heat content of CO2 or air is completely irrelevant for the GHG effect: the GHG effect is about radiation: outgoing IR radiation gets absorbed by GHGs and partly reflected back to the surface, no matter its own temperature or that of the surrounding gases.
Even if a water or CO2 molecule is at -70°C, it absorbs a photon from the surface at +40°C and may send it back to the surface, where it is absorbed and thus adds energy to the surface, which must heat up to get rid of the constant 160/210 W/m2 from the sun + what is sent back as IR from the atmosphere…
It is all about radiation energy and that has nothing to do with mass or heat or specific heat to reach the ultimate radiation balance…
“Ultimately, the earth’s radiation balance must be in equilibrium as an average,”
Nope. The radiation-in is a constant over 12 hours. The radiation-out is an exponential decay over 24 hours.
The average value of a constant over 12 hours is the constant. The average value of an exponential decay is *NOT* a constant and is not at the mid-point of the time interval. The average value of an exponential decay will *not* be the same as the average value of a constant.
You can calculate a hokey, non-physical average radiation-out by integrating the exponential decay over 24 hours to get a total quantity of joules-in and then divide that total joules-in by 12 hours.
But that hokey, non-physical average value of radiation-out will *NOT* give you the right answer for the average temperature of the Earth because it will *not* equal the actual average of the exponential decay representing the physical radiation-out profile.
The calculation will have just added a huge component to the uncertainty of the average temperature of the earth. It will probably be large enough to totally subsume any difference between in and out radiation that one thinks they can identify. In other words, you can’t really tell if the radiation balance actually exists!
Tim, I don’t think that it makes much difference: over a period of time the incoming and outgoing energy must be in balance, or the earth will warm up or cool down.. That may be less difficult to measure than a radiation balance, although certainly not easy at all…
“ I don’t think that it makes much difference”
It makes a BIG difference in determining the average temperature of the Earth.
” over a period of time the incoming and outgoing energy must be in balance, or the earth will warm up or cool down..”
Absolutely. But it is important to understand how that balance is achieved. If the final result is going to be put forth as an indicator of imbalance, then it is also important to accurately address the size of the imbalance.
“That may be less difficult to measure than a radiation balance, although certainly not easy at all…”
Both are difficult because it is physically impossible with today’s technology to continuously monitor global outgoing radiation or heat output. If a sample is going to be used to calculate either outgoing radiation or total heat loss then it is imperative to analyze that sample properly. That means treating outgoing radiation/heat loss as an exponential decay instead of a linear decay or a constant. Otherwise a significant inaccuracy is introduced, probably large enough to make any balance imbalance impossible to identify.
Ferdinand, there is no “measured downwelling IR”. Physics doesn’t work like that, as Nicholas says. You are not a physicist, remember? Sit down and stay in your lane.
FE
Stevekj is obviously unaware of standard instrumentation. And hopelessly deluded by “Schroeder Physics” claims of no BB, No GHE, back-radiation breaking the second law of thermodynamics, and whatever other garp Schroeder comes up with weekly.
https://www.kippzonen.com/ProductGroup/1/Solar-Instruments
Certainly influenced by the “dragon slayers”, not my best friends after several discussions…
Here what their boss did write about me:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2023/01/31/ferdinand-engelbeen-another-zeta-5th-columnist/
I had no idea what a “Zeta 5th Columnist” was, but fortunately others were aware of these creatures to enlighten me…
BTW, Kipp & Zonen is a well known firm in The Netherlands…
Postma devotes his life to making it easy for scientifically literate people to dismiss climate realists as kooks. His crackpottery is very useful to the climate industry.
Roy Spencer does his best to undo the damage which Postma does:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/on-the-flat-earth-rants-of-joe-postma/
Thanks David, was not aware of that comment by Roy Spencer…
I still wonder why some skeptics accuse the CAGW people of bias, that they “adjust” the data that don’t fit their theory, while doing exact the same: if the date don’t fit their theory, the data must be wrong…
Dr. Spencer can’t tell you what a Watt is either. Are you sure you are listening to the right scientists?
(I have no opinion on Postma one way or the other, I haven’t read much by him, but I know that Spencer is the wrong guy to talk to about radiation physics)
I asked Google AI, and it told me that, “A ‘Zeta 5th Columnist’ refers to a person or group working secretly within a community, media outlet, or government to support the interests of Los Zetas, a notoriously violent Mexican drug cartel.” 😮 🚨 ☠ 💉
“standard instrumentation”
What instrumentation, DMac? Because pyrgeometers do not measure “downwelling IR [power]”, if that’s what you were brainwashed into believing.
And can you tell us what a “watt” is, please?
Steve,
I suspect all of us know what a Watt is. Why don’t you tell us what you think it is and why you think we don’t know what it is. That might be simpler.
“I suspect all of us know what a Watt is.”
No you don’t. Otherwise you wouldn’t post pictures full of fake Watts. That’s not science, and this is supposed to be a science blog.
“Why don’t you tell us what you think it is”
That’s not difficult. A Watt is a unit of power. Power is defined as the rate of doing work. Work involves the expenditure or transfer of energy, and is invariably accompanied by an increase in entropy. Note that there is no “net” in any of these definitions, nor does there need to be. Because energy can only ever be “expended”, or “transferred”, in one direction along a given entropy pathway at a time. So anyone who attaches the word “net” to the words “work” or “power” is using those terms incorrectly, in other words unscientifically.
And, clearly, with these standard definitions, anyone who claims that [thermal] power can be developed against a temperature gradient obviously doesn’t know what “power” means. Because physics doesn’t work like that, and indeed no one has ever measured that it did. See?
Now it is pretty clear that your education in physics is very poor. No real physicist would ever say anything like that.
You are treating power as if it were:
always unidirectional always associated with entropy production always describing net energy transfer and therefore incapable of being decomposed into components. This is simply not how thermodynamics or radiative transfer works.
You are mixing up:
Power (a rate: J/s)
Energy transfer (a process)
Radiative fluxes (bidirectional components)
Net flux (the algebraic difference of two opposing fluxes)
You are trying to argue that because work is unidirectional, therefore power must be unidirectional, therefore radiative fluxes cannot be decomposed into incoming and outgoing components.
That is a category error.
“net” is absolutely correct in radiative physics
Radiation is not like conduction or convection. It is inherently bidirectional because every surface emits according to its temperature and absorbs according to the incident field.
Thus:
Net = incoming – outgoing
This is not optional. It is literally the structure of the radiative transfer equation.
Every radiometer, bolometer, pyrgeometer, CERES instrument, and radiative transfer model uses gross fluxes and net fluxes. This is not controversial; it’s the foundation of the field.
You are confusing:
radiation (a mechanism)
radiative flux (a measurable quantity)
net heat transfer (the thermodynamic consequence)
You write:
This is wrong in multiple ways:
1. Power is not defined only as “rate of doing work.”In thermodynamics, power is the rate of energy transfer, regardless of whether that energy transfer is work or heat.
Heat transfer has power.
Radiation has power.
Electrical dissipation has power.
None of these are “work” in the mechanical sense.
2. Entropy production is not required for power to exist.
Reversible processes have power transfer with zero entropy production.
3. Power can absolutely be decomposed into components.Electrical engineers do this constantly:
real power
reactive power
apparent power
Radiative physicists do it too:
upward flux
downward flux
net flux
Your claim that “power cannot be netted” is simply false.
You write:
This is a statement about net heat flow, not about radiation.
Radiation is not heat.
Radiation is not work.
Radiation is a mechanism that transports energy.
Heat is the net energy transferred due to temperature difference.
Thus:
Radiation: two-way
Heat: one-way (net)
Power: rate of energy transfer (can be decomposed)
You are collapsing all three into one.
You mix up radiation, energy transfer, and thermodynamic work. Radiation is a mechanism that transports energy in both directions simultaneously. That’s why radiative flux is measured in W/m² and why we speak of incoming, outgoing, and net fluxes. Only the net flux determines the direction of heat flow.
Power is the rate of energy transfer, not only the rate of doing mechanical work. Heat transfer has power. Radiation has power. And power can absolutely be decomposed into components—every radiometer and radiative transfer model on Earth does exactly that.
You’re trying to apply the unidirectionality of heat flow to the bidirectional nature of radiation, and that’s why your definitions don’t match any standard thermodynamics text.
Bottom line: Retake your basic physics class. You didn’t get it the first time.
“Now it is pretty clear that your education in physics is very poor. No real physicist would ever say anything like that.”
Both of those claims are false. You can tell because I am not the one who is hallucinating.
“ Retake your basic physics class. “
Why? My statements all match the textbook and the measurements. Yours do not.
The rest of your false claims have been addressed in my earlier comment upthread, but I can go over this pile of nonsense point by point again, if you wish.
Let’s just do this one for now:
“incapable of being decomposed into components.”
Nothing is “incapable of being decomposed”, but the “components” are fictional. You can’t measure any of them. They are, essentially, hallucinated. Imaginary. Not real.
Steve,
The AERI instrument is not a simple pyrgeometer, it is a line by line spectrometer measurement, composed of a photovoltaic cell that converts photons of sufficient energy to a voltage over the cell that can be measured.
Calibrated every 8 minutes cycle against two black bodies at different temperatures.
As each photon at a certain wavelength contains a fixed amount of energy and for each wavelength there is a fixed ratio between number of photons and resulting electrical energy of the instrument, one can calculate the absolute incoming energy from downwelling IR.
Ferdinand,
“The AERI instrument is not a simple pyrgeometer,”
I never said that it was.
“calculate the absolute incoming energy from downwelling IR.”
That’s a mathematical fiction. Not physical reality. You can tell because it can’t be measured. Only “calculated”, using fake assumptions. Such as, in this case, the assumption that Earth’s surface temperature is about 70 K, the same as that of the AERI sensor.
Oh good grief Steve, stop.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and are simply making more of a fool of yourself by continuing with this. IR is measured as Joules/second/meter^2. That is the amount of energy delivered per second per meter squared or in Ferdinand’s words: “calculate the absolute incoming energy from downwelling IR.”
Now stop! You are embarrassing yourself.
“Oh good grief Steve, stop.”
Why? I am not the one who is hallucinating. That would be you, wouldn’t it? Of course it would. I’m not going to stop until you stop hallucinating.
“IR is measured as Joules/second/meter^2.”
Only from a hotter object to a colder one.
“Now stop! You are embarrassing yourself.”
No, I’m teaching you physics. As it is written in the textbook.
Steve, I have been working with different systems to detect water vapor, chlorine, etc in air and other gases (excess chlorine in HCl gas, made from H2+Cl2), all systems based on specific spectral lines of these molecules.
While I am not a physicist by education, in chemistry, that is one of the basics to be an all-round engineer.
And I have looked at the way the AERI instrument works: that measures the voltage directly caused by the number of photons at a lot of wavelengths over a wide range of IR. As each photon at a certain wavelength has a fixed amount of energy, the incoming energy from the total IR range can be quite exactly calculated.
Feldman could measure the effect of +/- 5 ppmv CO2 in the atmosphere over each season over a period of 10 years. If you think that it is impossible, be my guest to explain what is wrong with that measurement.
Ferdinand says:
“Steve, I have been working with different systems”
Sure you have. But you still don’t know what a Watt is.
“While I am not a physicist by education,”
No you are not. That’s why I recommended that you should sit down and stay in your lane. You’ll sound a lot smarter.
“And I have looked at the way the AERI instrument works”
Yes you have, as have I, with my substantially better background in physics than yours. And so we both know that that instrument only works (measuring positive incoming power) when it is colder than the target it is measuring. This, of course, is in accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Any other configuration would not be.
“Feldman could measure the effect of +/- 5 ppmv CO2 in the atmosphere”
Sure he could, as long as his instrument was much colder than the atmosphere. In other words, he was “pretending” to look at the atmosphere from, essentially, the conditions of outer space, even though his instrument was on the ground. Therefore, what he is showing us is that as CO2 levels increase, more energy is released from those molecules to outer space. But not to the ground, because the ground is warmer than the atmosphere. Right? Of course it is.
(The same observation will be true for water vapour, naturally, which also interacts with longwave IR, and of course there is a lot more of it in the air than CO2, so I don’t know what all the fuss is about, personally)
stevekj, who apparently slept through his high school science classes, and who doesn’t believe in downwelling IR because he can’t see it with his 37°C eyes, wrote to a brilliant scientist, “…my substantially better background in physics than yours.”
Dave says:
“doesn’t believe in downwelling IR because he can’t see it with his 37°C eyes,”
Sit down, Dave. This is not your field, and you’re making a terrible mess of it.
The correct statement, of course, is “there is no such thing is downwelling IR power, because no one has ever measured it, and it would violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics if they did”.
Do you have any scientific education at all??
Downwelling IR is measured as power/m^2 (~power density) or Joules/second/m^2 by people all the time. They measure the downwelling (one-way) power transfer, then they can measure the upwelling and take the difference to determine heat transfer.
“Do you have any scientific education at all??”
A much better one than you have, obviously. Since I am not the one who is hallucinating. Scientists don’t like to hallucinate. Engineers, on the other hand, simply don’t care. As long as the final answer is close enough to keep the bridge from falling down. Most of the time. Right?
“Downwelling IR is measured as power/m^2”
No it isn’t. It’s hallucinated. See my actual measurement from a pyrgeometer paper below.
Steve,
You are still confusing radiation with energy, a common problem unfortunately.
No, Andy, I am not confusing anything. What do you think “radiation” is? What do you think “electromagnetism” is? Remember, nothing I have said contradicts any physics definitions or scientific measurements.
Indeed, no less a “scientific genius” than our own Willis has told us that “radiation is energy”. Would he be wrong?
The definition from Wikipedia looks like this:
—
In physics, electromagnetic radiation (EMR) or electromagnetic wave (EMW) is a self-propagating wave of the electromagnetic field that carries momentum and radiant energy through space
—
What do you think “radiant energy” means?
Already answered elsewhere.
“Already answered elsewhere.”
If by this you mean that you gave me a definition of “radiant energy”, I don’t see it. Can you point it out to me, please?
Learn to read!
Andy told you this:
———————————
You are confusing:
radiation (a mechanism)
radiative flux (a measurable quantity)
net heat transfer (the thermodynamic consequence)
———————————
You can’t seem to get this into your head for some reason.
Your definition of radiation:
—————————————————–
In physics, electromagnetic radiation (EMR) or electromagnetic wave (EMW) is a self-propagating wave of the electromagnetic field that carries momentum and radiant energy through space
—————————————————-
is a perfect example of what Andy told you but you can’t seem to understand it.
The QUANTITY of radiant energy involved is the integral of the radiant flux over time. The QUANTITY of radiant energy-in and the QUANTITY of radiant energy-out determines the NET heat transfer. The term “radiation” quantifies nothing.
Still waiting for you to back up this claim of “already answered elsewhere” with some evidence, Andy. Where is it?
Steve,
The AERI instrument measurement cell is kept at 78 K (to avoid radiation from the instrument itself as much as possible). Is that is cold enough to measure any downwelling IR from the sky.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atot/21/12/jtech-1662_1.xml
Thus the instrument measures downwelling IR, the surface at 1 meter besides the instrument at 290 K doesn’t receive downwelling IR in your reasoning as that is too hot. Thus the CO2 and H2O molecules in the sky know exactly where to send their IR photons: only to the cold chip in the AERI instrument.
So we have here the gospel of the “slayers” that a colder object can’t exchange energy with a warmer object. That is true for the NET energy transfer between two objects, no matter if that is by conduction or radiation.
Q = σ*A*(T1^4 – T2^4)
For black bodies and similar areas and T1 > T2
For radiation one may split that formula in radiation from 1 to 2 and reverse, from 2 to 1:
Q = σ*(T1^4) – σ*(T2^4)
The second term, radiating photons (thus energy) from the colder object 2 to the warmer object 1, is impossible for the Slayers and Steve:
“Therefore, what he is showing us is that as CO2 levels increase, more energy is released from those molecules to outer space. But not to the ground, because the ground is warmer than the atmosphere. Right? Of course it is.”
For the warmer black body object, it doesn’t make any difference if it receives photons from a colder or warmer object: a photon doesn’t contain any information about its source and a black body absorbs all photons (thus energy) of whatever wavelength. Including from the sky at temperatures much lower than the ground.
The point is that there is no difference in mathematics for the non-split and split formula: it gives exactly the same result: the net energy transfer is from the warmer to the colder body.
But that all seems way over your head as a “physicist”?
Ferdinand, you wrote:
“NET energy transfer”
There is no such thing as “NET energy transfer”, Ferdinand, except in your head, and on a piece of paper. But mathematical formulae and physics are not the same thing, are they? Anyone who told you they were, was lying.
Why don’t you try to define “GROSS energy transfer” for us, please? Make sure you define it in such a way that we can measure it, so we know you aren’t just hallucinating.
Steve,
That is physically wrong on so many levels:
You wrote:
You are denying the existence of gross radiative fluxes, even though every radiometer, every radiative‑transfer equation, every climate dataset, and every physics textbook is built on them.
Gross radiative flux is the total incoming or outgoing radiative power per unit area. It is measured by pyranometers or pyrgeometers, and by other devices. Net radiative flux is the difference between the incoming and outgoing, that is literally the definition of radiative heat transfer.
You are confusing radiation with heat. Radiation is a bidirectional mechanism that transports energy both ways simultaneously. That’s why radiative flux is measured as incoming and outgoing components in W/m². Those are gross fluxes, and every radiometer on Earth measures them.
Heat transfer is the net of those opposing fluxes. That’s not “in my head”; it’s the definition used in thermodynamics, radiative‑transfer theory, and every satellite dataset. If you deny gross fluxes, you’re denying the measurements themselves.
“That is physically wrong on so many levels:”
No, Andy, because I am not the one who is hallucinating, am I? Of course not.
“You are denying the existence of gross radiative fluxes,”
Correct.
“, even though every radiometer”
False.
“every radiative‑transfer equation,”
Fiction
“every climate dataset”
Mostly false and/or fictional
“and every physics textbook is built on them.”
Entirely false. Please show me the definition of “gross power” in your nearest physics textbook. I’ll wait here.
“Heat transfer is the net of those opposing fluxes. That’s not “in my head”;”
Yes it is. “Heat” isn’t fictional, of course, but “net” is.
“definition used in thermodynamics”
No it isn’t.
“radiative‑transfer theory,”
Fiction
“every satellite dataset.”
Only after “adjustments”, which are fiction
“you’re denying the measurements themselves.”
False. Here are some measurements you can peruse, which I’m not “denying”, because they are actual measurements. See figure 6, and especially the “uSlw” line, which is an actual measurement from a thermopile. Note that it hovers around 0 W/m^2, after multiplying for sensitivity of the pile, because that is the actual work being done – i.e. none at all, in this case.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atot/15/1/1520-0426_1998_015_0046_aisrms_2_0_co_2.pdf
Steve, for an “expert” in physics, you do know clearly nothing about the physics of radiation or semi-conductors…
One of my (too) many hobbies is electronics (built my first transistor radio at age 15) and I followed the birth and “physics” of semi-conductors, including solar cells.
Someone called Max Planck “theorized” that each photon is a package of energy, with a fixed amount of energy for each photon for each wavelength:
E = hc/lambda
Energy expressed as Joules.s or electron volt.
Semiconductors are materials of two or more layers with different “dopes”, which give a potential difference, a barrier between the layers, that only can be passed by electrons of sufficient energy.
In solar cells that energy is provided by incoming sunlight: if a photon with sufficient energy hits an electron, that can be pushed over the barrier and provide a voltage difference that can be used as an energy source to do some work. The electrons that were hit with insufficient energy to pass the barrier nevertheless absorbed the extra energy and that is translated into more molecular vibration, thus temperature.
No energy can be destroyed, no energy created form nothing.
Total yield: between 10-20% (or nowadays more) energy from the photons gets into electric power, the rest is warming the solar cells.
The cell in the AERI instrument does exactly the same: counting the electrons pushed over the semiconductor barrier as an increase in voltage over the cell, but then in the IR spectrum. That amount is directly proportional to the number of photons that hit the cell for each wavelength.
There is zero influence from the temperature of the sender: a photon emitted by a H2O or CO2 molecule at -90°C high in the stratosphere has exactly the same energy content as from +40°C at a few meters above the surface at the same wavelength.
There is some influence by the temperature of the equipment itself: as all solid material above 0 K emits some radiation, one need to reduce that noise as much as possible by cooling it to very low temperatures. That has zero influence on the working of the cell (within large margins), only reduces the number of photons from the casing of the equipment hitting the cell.
In conclusion: the AERI instrument measures one-way incoming IR energy quite exactly and if used in reverse (or similar instruments) the one-way outgoing energy. The difference between both is the net energy that heats up or cools down the objects involved in the energy transfer…
nitpick – the electron isn’t “pushed over” the energy barrier. The increase in energy makes it statistically more likely for that electron to “tunnel” through the energy barrier. Like I said, it’s a nitpick – the final state is the same.
Thanks…
Indeed, doesn’t make any difference…
Anyway it seems difficult to convince Steve of the difference in physics between conduction and radiation…
“the difference in physics between conduction and radiation…”
For someone who can’t tell us what a Watt is, that’s a pretty bold claim, Ferdinand. And we aren’t talking about conduction right now.
“There is zero influence from the temperature of the sender:”
No, I’m not the one who is getting his physics wrong. See how many “photons” an AERI sensor, or any other sensor, can “count” from the atmosphere if the sensor is warmer than the atmosphere. Go ahead and try it. Report back here, please.
Steve, if you can enlighten me why a CO2 laser with an IR beam at a wavelength that is the peak wavelength of a solid object at -80°C, coming from a device at maximum temperature of 100°C can’t melt steel at 1200°C, according to your “reasoning”, then we can have a real discussion…
All these photons hitting the steel are from a much colder source than the steel that it melts…
As I said before: a photon doesn’t contain any information about the temperature of the sender: it can come from a CO2 or H2O molecule at 50 K in the stratosphere, or at 310 K at 2 meter above ground. These are both counted by the AERI (or other) instrument(s), as they contain exactly the same energy for the same wavelength…
“CO2 laser’
We aren’t talking about lasers, Ferdinand. They are complex devices and do not emit thermal radiation. Why don’t you try to learn classical thermodynamics first? You know, like those theoretical physicists were trying to teach you back in the day? And you ignored them, didn’t you? Why? Is it because you wanted to sound like an untutored buffoon? Well, it worked.
Steve, if you even don’t know that not one gas emits full spectrum thermal radiation, then it is you who need to go back to your books…
See the first answer to a relevant question here, it may enlighten your rusted knowledge:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/222092/blackbody-or-characteristic-emission-of-radiation
The radiation from a CO2 laser is exact of the same wavelength of one of the bands emitted by a CO2 molecule high in the sky with a temperature of 50 K or a CO2 molecule at 313 K near ground. These photons have exactly the same energy content.
The only difference is in the number of photons at that wavelength emitted by the laser, hitting a steel object with 1,000 W/mm2, a very small surface, and these are all absorbed, thus increasing the steel’s temperature up to melting at that spot.
For the AERI or other meters, that are much fewer photons, hitting the chip with over 300 W/m2, quite a difference in energy density, but exactly the same principle…
“Steve, if you even don’t know that not one gas”
We aren’t talking about “gases”, Ferdinand. I never said anything about them. Please try to stay on topic, which is thermodynamics. Thanks.
And so starts Shroeder’s weekly Gish gallop of anti-GH garbage. His last couple of weeks of garp and responses are here…to save one much time retyping previous responses to his nonsense:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/03/08/open-thread-180/#comment-4172712
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/03/22/open-thread-182/#comment-4176910
“weekly Gish gallop”
Really, DMac? Have you been able to learn what a Watt is, yet?
Sit down and stay in your lane. That’s engineering, remember? Not physics.
That is why I had a lot of work (in my long ago working life) to put these theoretical physicists with their two feet back on the ground to understand what happens in the real world…
“what happens in the real world…”
Followed by a bunch of mathematical formulae, but no actual real-world measurements? Are you listening to yourself, Ferdinand?
I pointed out that you are the one with your head in the clouds, and no measurements to back you up. In reply, you spouted a bunch of math you didn’t understand, but no measurements. And now you are accusing me of being unrealistic??
Steve, you obviously have not the slightest idea how radiation works:
Radiation is a specific form of transfer of one-way (!) energy.
Radiation can be measured in different ways, where the AERI instriment is one of the most accurate on the market.
If you think that is impossible, while every solar panel in your neighborhood is a clear example of that principle, then you have clearly missed some of your physics classes.
“Steve, you obviously have not the slightest idea how radiation works:”
No, Ferdinand, I am not the one who is hallucinating, am I?
“Radiation is a specific form of transfer of one-way (!) energy.”
Well, that’s actually an accurate statement. In fact, it is a concise summary of my entire physics lesson. So now, can you tell me how to guess which one direction energy will flow in a radiant field? To make it simple, let’s consider only the radiant field between two objects, one at 200 K and one at 300 K?
Then please help me explain to Andy why most of the arrows in his top diagram are fake. Thanks!
Steve, please don’t misread my words:
Radiation works one-way from any object to any other object or even to space, no matter their own temperature or that of the other object.
There is no information going from any object to any other object about its temperature, not from the warmer to the colder and not from the colder to the warmer.
Thus the “net” transfer of energy is a matter of two unidirectional energy transfers by radiation, whatever their individual temperatures, not by some theoretical formula, as you use…
“Thus the “net” transfer of energy”
Now just a minute, Ferdinand. You told us that radiation is a one-way transfer of energy, which it is. Where did “net” come from? Did you hallucinate it?
Sigh, I did not anywhere say “between two objects”, that is what your imagination makes of it…
“Sigh, I did not anywhere say “between two objects””
How do you get a “transfer” without a “sender” and a “receiver”, though? That’s two, by my count. Sigh indeed….
When incoming sunlight varies from 1360 to zero from day to night…at the same time as it varies 1360 from equator to pole….the amount actually hitting the ground subject to reflection from cloud cover that varies from 0 to 100% and can change by 10% in 15 minutes
and averages 65%…with instruments that have maybe 3% accuracy….it is truly miraculous to have .6 or .7 net imbalance….in fact one might think the answer is fudged to match somebody’s global warming assumptions….
https://www.kippzonen.com/Download/33/CG-4-Manual. See pages 17 and 18, of course if you have a thousand of them you can claim 1/sqrt(1000)x 7.5=0.237 watt accuracy if you are a bad statistician….
Consider the angle of incidence based on latitude and longitude. Angle of incidence based on longitude changes second by second as the planet rotates.
Reflection is affected by angle of incidence and it is not on a vertical vector.
Ceres as good as it it cannot physically record all outgoing EM radiation.
Note: Ceres bandwidth in 99.95% of the total spectrum. Details matter.
DMacKenzie, I agree. The worst thing about that NASA diagram is that it shows no confidence intervals / uncertainties. That omission is worsened by the fact that they show the estimated fluxes to ridiculous precision.
The AR5 / NCA4 version is better in that respect. It has other problems, but at least it shows reasonable CIs.
For the estimated energy imbalance they show a range of 0.2 to 1.0 W/m². This is their diagram, with my commentary about the radiative imbalance added in dark pink:
From the above article:
“4. Global ocean heat content and its trend are defined as the net surface energy flux integrated over the whole ocean.”
I daresay that there is no such possibility of integrating the “net surface (solar) energy flux over the (mass of) of the whole ocean.”
First, the system of Argo floats is mostly confined to the first 2,000 m depth of the world’s oceans, albeit a new generation of Argo “Deep Floats” is now able to sample ocean water temperature profiles down to 6,000 meters depth. Those numbers should be put into comparison with the fact that the average depth of the world’s oceans is about 3,700 meters.
Second, one would need to integrate the radiative and evaporative/convective heat losses from the world’s oceans as a function of local ocean surface temperature, sea state, surface wind velocity and near-surface underwater currents . . . something I understand has never been accomplished at fine detail.
Third one would need to account for the changing integral of the latent heat of fusion in both the NH and SH, as sea ice varies to/from seawater with the seasons as Earth orbits the Sun—paying full respect to the difference between ocean heat content and water temperature—something I understand has also never been performed accurately/consistently.
So, scientists actually know very little about the current OHC, making it problematic that they can calculate any heat transfer reliably to a precision equivalent to 0.6 watts/m^2 out of 340 watt/m^2 = 0.2%, as implied by the Fasullo & Trenberth graphic lead-in given in the above article.
ROTFL.
Exactly!
We can do a decent job estimating the net surface flux on the surface of the ocean, but that is all from the skin layer! The deeper ocean is pretty much a mystery.
It’s true that OHC, and changes in it, are poorly constrained. It can’t be measured, it can only be inferred from temperatures, and we’ve had very little ocean temperature data except from the surface until the 21st century and the Argo floats, and even that is rough, and sparsely sampled.
Even now, with the Argo floats fully deployed, we only have about one float per 100,000 km² of ocean.
Before about 2005 we had some convenience samples of surface layer temperatures, and almost nothing else—certainly not at 700m or 2000m depth. But climate.gov and similar sources nevertheless graph OHC all the way back to 1955, as if the numbers were actually known.
The most charitable word I can think of to describe that is “deceptive.”
To infer OHC changes from temperature measurements requires very, very precise temperature measurements, from basically everywhere in the oceans where temperatures could have changed significantly. From prior to about 2005 we had almost none of the needed measurements. Now, thanks to the Argo floats, we actually have some data, but determining OHC changes from it is still challenging.
Do you remember Josh Willis? He’s the guy who fixed the “problem” with the Argo float data, so that they measured warming, rather than cooling. That should cause eyebrows to raise.
I’m not suggesting that Dr. Willis is dishonest. But he’s an ardent climate alarmist, who calls climate change The Apocalypse. People tend to find what they are looking for, and they tend to overlook what they don’t expect. That’s called confirmation bias, and the stronger your opinions are the more likely you are to be affected by it.
So when the Argo floats found cooling instead of warming, Dr. Willis was sure it had to be wrong. So he looked hard for an error to explain it — and he found one. Does anyone think he would he have looked as hard for the opposite error?
Changing topics…
The depth at which radiation is absorbed or admitted from the ocean doesn’t matter for energy balance calculations. All LW IR absorbed and emitted by the ocean is to and from the skin layer, as is energy loss by conduction/convection and evaporation, but that doesn’t matter: the energy exchange between the skin layer and the water beneath is so rapid that they stay within a fraction of a degree of the same temperature.
What’s more, the ocean is constantly churning & mixing, almost always. But even in still water, in just one microsecond a skin layer water molecule will, on average, have moved hundreds of molecular diameters, so it will no longer be in the skin layer, just due to Brownian motion.
What’s more, the water molecules collide with one another at sub-picosecond intervals, exchanging energy with their neighbors.
So it doesn’t matter that the molecules which absorb or release energy to or from the ocean are in the skin layer.
I disagree. It does matter because the electromagnetic skin layer that absorbs nearly all the incoming IR is a very thin (micrometers) layer within the viscous skin (~1 mm) on the ocean surface. The high viscosity of the viscous skin layer prevents this water from mixing with the deeper water and the net flux is always to the atmosphere, meaning no net thermal energy travels to the deeper water. Virtually all the IR that hits the surface, is reemitted, as shown in figure 1. Almost all the sunlight that hits the surface is absorbed. The net IR flux from the surface is out to space (~57.9 W/m2).
The total skin layer accommodates changes in incoming radiation by changing its shape and temperature profile, but has very little, if any impact on OHC, see figure 1 here:
https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/2026/02/23/efficacy-of-downwelling-ir/
IR emissions detected from the ocean surface are all from the skin layer, which can be very misleading.
I agree that all EM radiation emissions from water come from the skin layer.
The skin layer is the closest approximation to the ideal black body model on earth.
I disagree that the incoming EM radiation stops at the skin layer. EM skin depth calculations used in radar are contrary to that conjecture.
H2O is a fascinating molecule involved in several complex interactions with electromagnetic fields and waves.
As an aside, non of the down welling radiation calculations account for a spherical surface interacting with a spherical EM wave. No where on the planet can 100% of the down welling radiation interact with the surface.
That might be true for an ideal body of water having a perfectly still, smooth skin layer, but that is not the normal state of the surface layers in the world’s oceans. Most ofter the “sea state” is one of having wind-induced surface waves of various peak-to-valley amplitudes. Such waves, when not “breaking”, involve a degree of water recirculation (i.e., rotation of water molecules from surface layer to subsurface depth). See
“The Physics of Water Waves” at https://www.youtube.com/shorts/FHJygRM5jJE (starting at the 0m33sec time hack), and
“How do waves work?” at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9BV4RGhwaE (starting at the 6m18sec time hack).
Furthermore, if there are “breaking” surface waves leading to “white capped” ocean areas—as there frequently are in open sea areas under tropical storms/hurricanes/typhoons, thunderstorms, or advancing strong weather fronts—then there is great exchange and mixing of surface water with water to depths of 5 feet or more.
Andy wrote, “Virtually all the IR that hits the surface, is reemitted, as shown in figure 1.”
That is incorrect. For the ocean, >98% of the LW IR which hits the surface is absorbed.
That radiation is not reemitted. As shown in Fig. 1, the surface does emit a great deal of LW IR, but the rate at which it does so is not equal to the rate at which LW IR is absorbed. Instead, it is governed by the surface temperature.
For the ocean, that’s the sea surface temperature. The rate of radiative emissions from the water surface is unaffected by the rate at which the surface absorbs LW IR radiation (except indirectly, as the absorption of radiation affects the water temperature).
Technically, it’s the “skin layer” temperature which governs the emission rate, but since that tracks the temperature of the water immediately beneath it very closely, that’s a distinction without much difference.
Andy wrote, “Almost all the sunlight that hits the surface is absorbed.”
Yes, for the ocean, on average about 94-95% of incident sunlight is absorbed, depending on conditions.
When you see whitecaps on the ocean, that’s visible light being scattered, rather than absorbed. Most sources say an average of 5-6% of incident sunlight is reflected or scattered from the ocean surface.
That doesn’t happen as much with LW IR. Only 1-2% of incident LW IR is scattered or reflected from the ocean surface.
So LW IR is actually slightly more effective at warming the sea than is sunlight of the same intensity.
That is not quite right Dave. According to Fairall and Wong and Minnett, GHG IR is absorbed in the skin layer and that does warm the skin layer, producing more IR emissions. Conduction and evaporation of latent heat are controlled mainly by wind speed, but temperature plays a minor role.
Heat is not radiation, heat is an energy transfer from a warm body to a cool body, and the net heat flux is from the ocean surface to the atmosphere. It also causes the ocean cool skin to form. This skin directs heat to the atmosphere. The viscous skin layer prevents mixing of the water in the skin with the water in the mixed layer, so very little conduction downward and no net heat flux downward.
Breaking waves do momentarily break the viscous layer, but it repairs itself quickly, breaking waves make little difference.
Andy wrote, “GHG IR is absorbed in the skin layer and that does warm the skin layer, producing more IR emissions.”
No it does not, not significantly.
The LW IR emission rate from the water is controlled by the water temperature. It is unaffected by how the water got to that temperature.
We know that absorbing LW IR does not cause the water to “produce more IR emissions” because we know that the skin layer never gets significantly warmer than the water immediately beneath it.
Absorbing LW IR radiation could only produce more IR emissions if the absorption of LW IR warmed the skin layer to a temperature significantly above the temperature of the water immediately beneath it. But it doesn’t.
Water is moderately thermally conductive: about 25× more thermally conductive than air, and 4× as thermally conductive as oil. So the skin layer temperature stays very close to the temperature of the water immediately beneath it, usually within a small fraction of a degree of being identical. To the extent that there may be a tiny difference of temperature, the skin layer temperature is usually cooler, not warmer.
So the LW IR emission rate is independent of the rate at which the water absorbs LW IR, except to the extent that the water is warmed by it.
Andy wrote, “Heat is not radiation, heat is an energy transfer from a warm body to a cool body,”
That’s one of the two definitions. The noun “heat” can mean either “heat flow” (“net heat flux”), or it can mean “heat content.”
“Heat flow” means “change in heat content.”
Heat content is synonymous with “thermal energy.” Heat flow refers to a net change (movement) of that thermal energy, by any of several mechanisms.
Here’s the American Heritage Dictionary, showing both definitions:
https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=heat
Here’s the Cambridge dictionary:
heat n. 1. thermal energy / heat content:
https://web.archive.org/web/20230308091122/https://www.ccmr.cornell.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/03/Heat-Thermal-Energy-Reading.pdf
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/heat#:~:text=Heat%20is%20also%20a%20form%20of%20energy%20that%20a%20substance%20has%20because%20of%20the%20movement%20of%20its%20molecules%20or%20atoms
heat n. 2. heat flow / net thermal energy flux:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/heat#:~:text=a%20type%20of%20energy%20that%20moves%20from%20one%20object%20or%20substance%20to%20another%20because%20of%20their%20difference%20in%20temperature
Andy wrote, “It also causes the ocean cool skin to form. This skin directs heat to the atmosphere.”
The so-called “skin” (the boundary between air and water) does not “direct heat to the atmosphere.” The energy fluxes are all bidirectional.
Through it, the water both gains an loses energy by three distinct means: radiation (in both directions), conduction (in both directions), and evaporation/condensation (in both directions).
Andy wrote, “The viscous skin layer prevents mixing of the water in the skin with the water in the mixed layer,”
That’s wrong. Unless there’s an oily film on the water, the skin layer is not more “viscous” than any other water, and it does not prevent mixing of the water in the skin with the water beneath.
It does have surface tension, but that’s not due the skin layer molecules having different viscosity, it’s due to the cohesive forces between the water molecules. It does not impede mixing between water molecules at the surface and water beneath.
In one microsecond, a water molecule will, on average, have moved hundreds of molecular diameters, just due to Brownian motion, regardless of whether it is in the skin layer or anywhere else.
Andy wrote, “so very little conduction downward and no net heat flux downward.”
That’s wrong. Not only are the water molecules in the skin layer continually and very rapidly being exchanged with the water molecules beneath, they are also continually exchanging energy with adjacent water molecules, by collision. Each water molecule collides with other water molecules at sub-picosecond intervals, exchanging energy with them.
“That’s wrong. Not only are the water molecules in the skin layer continually and very rapidly being exchanged with the water molecules beneath”
Spring turnover of ponds and lakes would seem to require some kind of heat conduction between the skin layer and the water below it. The oceans can’t be much different.
Tim wrote, “Spring turnover of ponds and lakes… The oceans can’t be much different.”
The oceans are very different.
Spring turnover only happens on freshwater ponds and lakes that are stilled in winter by ice coverage, which melts in springtime. Fresh water has greatest density at 4°C, so when the temperature of the meltwater warms from 0°C to 4°C it sinks: Spring turnover.
Seawater doesn’t do that. It reaches its maximum density at its freezing point, which is at about -2°C.
And most of the ocean is never stilled by winter ice coverage.
That might be true for an ideal body of water having a perfectly still, smooth skin layer, but that is not the normal state of the surface layers in the world’s oceans. Most ofter the “sea state” is one of having wind-induced surface waves of various peak-to-valley amplitudes. Such waves, when not “breaking”, involve a degree of water recirculation (i.e., rotation of water molecules from subsurface to surface layer).
Furthermore, if there are “breaking” surface waves leading to “white capped” ocean areas—as there frequently are in open waters areas under tropical storms/hurricanes/typhoons, thunderstorms, or advancing strong weather fronts—then there is great exchange and mixing of surface water with water to depths of 5 feet or more.
I agree. That’s the point I was trying to make when I wrote, “What’s more, the ocean is constantly churning & mixing, almost always.”
Perhaps I should have elaborated.
According to Wong and Minnett and Fairall, if the waves do not break, the viscous layer prevents mixing of the bulk ocean and the skin. This makes a lot of sense, the EM skin is at the top of the viscous skin layer, it is the source of surface emissions, conduction and evaporation, it is pretty isolated from the bulk ocean. It is the “cool skin.”
Breaking waves are different, they do cause mixing, but only momentarily, the viscous skin quickly reforms.
I will just again invite you to view the videos:
“The Physics of Water Waves” at https://www.youtube.com/shorts/FHJygRM5jJE
(starting at the 0m33sec time hack), and
“How do waves work?” at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9BV4RGhwaE
(starting at the 6m18sec time hack).
I doubt any claims coming from “Wong and Minnett and Fairall” are superior to the science presented in those two videos.
Of course, their terms for “viscous layer” and “bulk ocean” and “skin” might be completely different from those commonly used in oceanography and hydrodynamics. /sarc
Relevance? I don’t see anything in video that is relevant to this discussion.
Please look again at the video:
“How do waves work?” at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9BV4RGhwaE
(starting at the 6m18sec time hack and continuing at least through the 7m30sec time hack).
In that video, you can observe how the water molecules at the ocean’s “surface” circulate to below the surface with the passage of each non-breaking surface wave. Furthermore, the wave-induced recirculation cells progress to significant ocean depth, as portrayed in the simulations, and the Stokes drift also shows that the “skin layer” is transported slowly in the direction of the prevailing surface waves, thereby implying that the “skin layer” does NOT remain undisturbed, thereby directly rebutted the claims of Wong and Minnett and Fairall.
Interesting cartoon, but I still do not see the relevance to Wong/Minnett/Fairall. What you are looking at is the movement of molecules in the bulk ocean with normal water viscosity. Above that is the viscous layer which contains the EM skin, the TSL, and the cool skin. This uppermost layer is so viscous mixing does not occur, except when waves break. Stokes would not have had the equipment to analyze that part of the upper ocean.
Wong/Minnett/Fairall’s discoveries are quite new, another reason I am writing these posts on it. Your cartoon is fine but predates their work and is on another subject entirely.
Boundary layer theory (BLT)—even laminar BLT in a viscous medium— indicates that for shear across a boundary layer, in this instance being defined as the upper layers of water molecules in the atmosphere-water “skin” layer transitioning to deeper, underneath layers of water molecules, there has to be relative movement of molecules (i.e., vorticity) across said “skin layer” if it is considered to be more than one molecule thick.
Add to this the fact that conservation of mass requires that the wave propagation-direction cross-sectional curvature length of the layer of molecules that define the ocean-air interface of the “skin layer” must be greater to cover an unbreaking-wave’s peak and valleys compared to the cross-sectional length of the approximately-linear transitions from peak-to-valley and valley-to-peak. This means the number of molecules per unit length in the “skin layer’s” uppermost surface must compress and expand with each wave . . . this parameter cannot not remain constant.
And finally, the known principle of “Stokes drift” says that even with unbreaking surface waves the “skin layer” of the ocean is always disturbed—forced into horizontal movement with associated viscous shear and associated vorticity—whenever there is wave action of any magnitude.
However, let’s us just agree that there can be different interpretations of the physics that are involved with the ocean’s interface to the atmosphere (aka “skin layer”) and not spend more time debating the details of such.
I agree that the molecules must move horizontally in the skin layer in tune with the wave movement. I’m not sure that Wong/Minnett/Fairall even discuss this, but it must happen.
Their main point is that net radiation flux and net heat flow is from the ocean to the atmosphere and it passes through a cool skin layer. This means there is no net heat transfer from the GHG IR radiation striking the ocean surface to the bulk ocean. There is thermal communication between the atmosphere and the bulk ocean through mixing (storms, breaking waves, etc.) and via shortwave radiation, but not through GHG IR. GHG IR only affects the TSL, which in turn changes the upper ocean temperature profile, sometimes causing the bulk ocean to retain more heat.
Andy wrote, “According to Wong and Minnett and Fairall, if the waves do not break, the viscous layer prevents mixing of the bulk ocean and the skin. This makes a lot of sense,”
It’s just plain wrong. The “skin layer” is no more viscous than the other seawater, and it is not impeded from mixing with the water beneath.
Andy wrote, “net radiation flux and net heat flow is from the ocean to the atmosphere and…”
That would only be correct if you were talking about averaged overall, over the entire Earth, and over the the course of a year.
Net radiation flux is SOMETIMES from the ocean to the atmosphere, and SOMETIMES from the atmosphere to the ocean.
Net heat flow is SOMETIMES from the ocean to the atmosphere, and SOMETIMES from the atmosphere to the ocean.
Andy wrote, “…and it passes through a cool skin layer.”
The temperature of the skin layer is very nearly identical to the temperature of the water beneath, because of the efficient heat transport between the skin and the water beneath. It averages only a small fraction of a degree less than the temperature of the water beneath.
Andy wrote, “This means there is no net heat transfer from the GHG IR radiation striking the ocean surface to the bulk ocean.”
That’s completely wrong. Even though there are often huge asymmetrical energy fluxes between the skin layer and the air (with net heat transport in either direction!), the temperature of the skin layer stays nearly identical (within a small fraction of a degree) to the temperature of the water beneath.
That fact proves that there is very rapid and efficient heat transport between them.
So LW IR absorbed by the skin layer and heat from moisture condensing from the air both warm the upper ocean. Likewise, LW IR emitted by the skin layer and evaporation from the skin layer both cool the upper ocean. The effect is not confined to the skin layer.
Moving water is very good at moving heat, which is why it is often used to cool internal combustion engines.
“Longer, more stable OHC records are needed before EEI can be used as a robust indicator of anthropogenic forcing.”
Prediction: future OHC records will indicate there is no robust indicator of anthropogenic forcing.
The main wrong climate assumption is the ocean absorbs ‘excess’ AGW heat from the atmosphere.
Despite uncertainties, CERES EBAF TOA can be used with other data to refute this assumption.
Thanx for the informative article.
You are very welcome.
In June 1978 I went by Road 58 from Tehran, over the Alborz mountains, north nearly to the Caspian Sea and back. I took 20 colour slides over about 4 hours each way.
Yesterday I viewed 2 hours of a recent video of much the same trip. An immediate visual difference was the amount of recent vegetation at all altitudes to the roughly 3,800 metres maximum on distant high peaks. This might have been from more farming in some small cases such as close to villages, but mostly appeared to be natural growth from bare desert to more grass, more low shrubs and more (but rare) trees, especially at higher altitudes.
What caused more green growth over that 50 years?
It raises some of the same concepts that Andy May wrote about above.
Tantalising question: is this a visual sign of CO2 fertilization?
If so, an expectation is that physics/meterology concepts such as surface temperature and emissivity and moisture content should change with more vegetation. As a logical thought exercise, these concepts should change TOA energy balance, but we lack the required accuracy of TOA measurement as calculated by Loeb. We simply do not know what is going on with enough understanding to be useful. We should continue measurements to cope with multi decade changes, but we should not yet be confident that we now know enough to adopt current ideas as final.
Geoff S
I agree.
sherro01 asked, “…more grass, more low shrubs and more (but rare) trees, especially at higher altitudes. What caused more green growth over that 50 years?”
Elevated CO2 surely gets at least some of the credit. Elevated CO2 improves water use efficiency and drought resilience of plants, through reduced stomatal conductance.
The effect has been heavily studied in crops, but it applies to all, or almost all, terrestrial plants. Here are some papers about it:
De Souza, A.P. et al. (2015). “Changes in Whole-Plant Metabolism during the Grain-Filling Stage in Sorghum Grown under Elevated CO2 and Drought.” Plant Physiology, 169(3), Nov 2015, 1755–1765. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.15.01054
Fitzgerald GJ, et al. (2016). “Elevated atmospheric [CO2] can dramatically increase wheat yields in semi-arid environments and buffer against heat waves.” Glob Chang Biol. 22(6), 2269-84. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13263
Chun, J.A. et al. (2021). “Effect of elevated carbon dioxide and water stress on gas exchange and water use efficiency in corn.” Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 151(3), 378–384, ISSN 0168-1923. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2010.11.015
EXCERPT: “There have been many studies on the interaction of CO2 and water on plant growth. Under elevated CO2, less water is used to produce each unit of dry matter by reducing stomatal conductance.”
Greener landscapes are one happy consequence of rising CO2 levels, but a more important consequence is drought mitigation and famine prevention.
Famines, usually triggered by drought, used to kill more people than war or plagues. That’s how the Hebrews ended up in bondage, in Egypt. Famine was the Third Horseman of the Apocalypse.
But now, for the first time in human history, catastrophic famines are fading from living memory, and elevated CO2 is one of the reasons.
It is impossible to overstate the magnitude of that blessing. Consider: in 1876-78, with CO2 levels down around 289 ppmv, a drought and famine which devastated three continents killed an estimated 3.7% of the entire human race. For comparison, Covid-19 killed about 0.1%.
Source: https://ourworldindata.org/famines
As I recall, the Irish potato famine was approximately in that timeframe, beginning in 1845, ending in 1849.
Spanish flue in 1918-1920 killed an estimated 2.7% to 5% of the human population.
We seek that which cannot be gained. Absolute safety.
Yes, the Irish potato famine was about 30 years before the drought and famine of 1876-78, and the 1918 “Spanish flu” (which was first seen in America, not Spain) was about 40 years after the drought and famine of 1876-78.
These are the estimates which I’ve found:
● COVID-19 killed about 0.1% of the world’s human population.
● The catastrophic 1918 flu pandemic killed about 2% of the world’s population.
● WWII (the most deadly war in history) killed about 2.7% of the world’s population.
● The three-continent drought and famine of 1876-78 is estimated to have killed about 3.7% of the world’s population.
However, estimates vary a lot. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of those estimates are wrong by as much as a factor of two (in either direction).
NASA has satellite vegetation data starting in 1979, which shows significant greening of the earth all over the world, including Iran and the Sahara
Increased CO2 ppm, increases flora and fauna, reduces desert areas, such as the Sahara, and increases crop yields per acre to better feed 8 billion people.
Current CO2 levels are near the lowest levels in 600 million years.
Anyone or entity advocating super-expensive Net-Zero by 2050 and using no fossil fuels are Media brainwashed and/or self-serving criminals
One might claim those idiots are advocating genecide.
Couple your thoughts with the 25km grid used in climate models. How accurate can those models be?
As more greenery appears, two reactions occur. More red and blue is absorbed due to photosynthesis and more green is reflected away from the earth. Just another process that adds to daily imbalances.
This makes very good points about the short times involved, considering the longer-term ocean oscillations.
“Longer, more stable OHC records are needed before EEI can be used as a robust indicator of anthropogenic forcing.”
“Therefore, attributing any portion of EEI to anthropogenic forcing is premature. Longer, more stable OHC datasets are required to cleanly separate anthropogenic forcing and interval variability.”
I would encourage a far more skeptical view of any timeline to expect the core concept of “anthropogenic forcing” from incremental CO2, CH4, N2O to be reliably confirmed. It makes no sense from physical considerations to assume at the outset that rising concentrations must operate as a climate “forcing” at all. No matter how long we wait, dynamic energy conversion within the general circulation, throughout the depth of the troposphere, will still massively overwhelm any tendency toward sensible heat gain down here from a minor static GHG radiative “imbalance.” The resulting influence on the climate system is best understood as imperceptible. Negligible.
In this recent Open Thread comment I discussed ERA5 “vertical velocity” at three different pressure altitudes and plotted them. I also present scatter plots of those vertical velocities against the “vertical integral of energy conversion” I have often posted about. I show that Simpson and Brunt were correct in their comments to Callendar in 1938 as to why the proposed attribution of reported warming to rising CO2 should be reconsidered.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/03/15/open-thread-181/#comment-4174555
More here about the ERA5 “vertical integral of energy conversion” itself.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1PDJP3F3rteoP99lR53YKp2fzuaza7Niz?usp=drive_link
Don’t get me wrong – a warming ocean, if true, could be a strong indicator of a trivially valid TOA radiative imbalance. But attribution of that imbalance to anthropogenic emissions of CO2 and other trace gases cannot be reliably established in any case.
Another way to say this: the valid null hypothesis is that OLR, which is mostly from the atmosphere itself and from clouds, is not suppressed by the incremental IR absorbing power of CO2 and the other trace gases. That null hypothesis has not been rejected in all the decades of observation and modeling so far. The dynamic processes in the atmosphere just obliterate any attempt to isolate that minor theoretical influence for positive attribution.
Thank you for listening.
True.
‘Using variations in upper ocean heat content to calibrate the satellite measured TOA EEI is a good idea, but unfortunately, ocean heat content has many more drivers than just radiation-in minus radiation-out.’
Exactly right, Andy. Not only does OHC have many drivers, but the uncertainties of these drivers are enormous. The entire EEI narrative has been goofy from day one, but it really reached comical levels once it became dependent on climate models (circular reasoning, anyone?) and OHC.
Btw, you’re in good company, as John Clauser also called out the EEI nonsense:
Yep. I am amazed at how many people point to this calculation of EEI at the TOA and say: “See that is anthropogenic warming!”
They just are not thinking.
John Clauser is correct!
I’m just throwing this out there without any calculations or deep understanding, but it seems that if the green house gases were a solid plate, i.e. if we lived in a global within a globe, once equilibrium was reached, back radiation would only be 50% of the energy emitted from the planet surface, yet they show it at 85%. Since the green house gases are actually porous, not solid, the actual back radiation should be less than 50%, not more. Also, if you call the surface of the planet to be a control volume, i.e. the atmosphere is outside the control volume.Then water which turns to vapor extracts about 950 BTUs/lbm, which does not return to the control volume when it rains. Where does it go? If it stays in the atmosphere, then the atmosphere would grow to an extremely high temperature. Obvioiusly that heat is radiated to space by the clouds of water vapor. This is a huge temperature relief valve.Other words the water cycle controls the planet’s temperature, not CO2.
It is true that the water cycle is the main control on the planet’s surface temperature. Figure 1 is misleading because they choose to make the arrows of IR emissions from the surface and IR emissions to the surface very big. It is actually a big loop of the same energy going around and around. The important part of that is the 57.9 W/m2 that goes to space, the rest of the IR is recycled. The net IR out is the 57.9.
On land, the downwelling IR has a transitory effect on surface temperature, but in the oceans it has little to no effect on total ocean heat content because it cannot penetrate the surface, it just goes back into the atmosphere and some of it comes back down, an endless loop.
As for latent heat in water vapor, it goes up until it condenses into clouds. It releases heat when it condenses and some of that heat goes to space from the cloud tops and some warms the atmosphere in the clouds, causing a minor temperature inversion. Cloud tops are major emitters.
That they use IR ins some places and full spectrum EM in others is attempting to blame IR exclusively, and therefore CO2 exclusively, and allows them to define IR as “heat.”
Snake oil salesmen are jealous.
Conrad – You are proposing what atmospheric physics textbooks call the “single shell model”, or what Willis Eschenbach popularized on this site many years ago as the “steel greenhouse”:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/17/the-steel-greenhouse/
These models provide a basic conception of the type of effects, but very rough.
If you read through Willis’ post, you will see that he finds, as you do, that a “single shell” is not enough to describe what happens on earth. So he introduces a second shell to increase the effect.
As you suspect, solid shells are not that good a model for what is going on, and a better model (though still very imperfect) is a large number of porous shells.
Great job, Andy!
Thank you for pointing out that key (Leob 2018) quote, for the edification anyone who thinks that CERES actually measures radiation imbalance:
(One tiny typography nit: the close quote-mark should be before the “(Loeb et al., 2018)” citation.)
I think that it’s inexcusable that NASA’s diagram contains no confidence intervals / uncertainties. That omission is worsened by the fact that they show the estimated fluxes to ridiculous precision. The AR5 / NCA4 version at least shows reasonable CIs, For the estimated energy imbalance they show a range of 0.2 to 1.0 W/m².
This is their diagram, with my dark pink commentary added about the radiative imbalance:
I built an online calculator / spreadsheet, where you can calculate your own estimates of ECS climate sensitivity and Earth’s radiative energy imbalance, from other evidence:
https://sealevel.info/radiative_imbalance_calc.html
When I plug in my best estimates, I calculate a radiative energy imbalance of about 0.33 W/m², and ECS of 1.5 °C / doubling of CO2. Estimates of >2°C for ECS are difficult to reconcile with recorded temperature records.
Why don’t you see what you get? Just adjust the values in the yellow cells, then press the Tab key [↹] to recalculate.
Greenhouse gases radiate in all directions
The 342 W/m2 down radiation is confusing
How much of the down radiation is from atmosphere and clouds, which include water vapor, and how much from CO2?
These fluxes should be separately stated.
Greenhouse gases radiate in all directions
No, they do not.
All radiation is in all directions
I just checked AI google
Yes, greenhouse gases (GHGs) absorb infrared radiation (heat) emitted from the Earth’s surface and re-radiate it in all directions.
While some radiation escapes to space, a significant portion is radiated downward, warming the surface and lower atmosphere
The Earth’s atmosphere radiates thermal infrared energy in all directions, a process driven by greenhouse gases. These gases, such as CO2 and water vapor, absorb outgoing surface radiation and re-emit it both back toward the surface—trapping heat—and out to space. This process keeps the planet roughly 33 C warmer than it would be otherwise.
Gases in the atmosphere are not black bodies so don’t radiate thermal radiation due to temperature. CO2 has three emission frequencies. Almost nothing you wrote in your post is true.
A volume does radiate in all directions. Granted, an individual molecule radiates in one direction each time depending on its dipole orientation. However, over a time period it ends up radiating in all directions.
Planck resolved this by using a volume he calls “dτ” that contains sufficient emmitters to result in equal radiation in all directions in any time frame. That allows one to treat macro phenomena without worrying about atomic variations. A one cubic meter of air should contain a sufficient number of molecules to realize this.
IR thermometers rely on this or one would need to measure all sides of a volume to obtain the proper radiation temperature.
Modern instruments measure the full spectrum and one can separate that in origin for clear sky conditions. Not for cloudy conditions, as the water drops reflect the full IR spectrum that is radiated by the surface.
Feldman measured an increase of 0.2 W/m2 in the specific bands of CO2 for 22 ppmv increase 2000-2010:
https://escholarship.org/content/qt3428v1r6/qt3428v1r6.pdf
398 is a 16 C BB surface & not possible.
398 BB/342 “back”/56 2nd net can be erased and balance still holds.
Refer to attached graphic.
Refer to the attached couple of week’s rebuttals of your delusional “Schroeder physics”.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/03/08/open-thread-180/#comment-4172712
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/03/22/open-thread-182/#comment-4176910
One must also appreciate that Ceres measures EM radiation and via a model calculates the temperature equivalence. At identical temperatures, different matter radiates different energy levels. Engineering materials science has been on this for decades. I use that when doing thermal management for electronic space systems.
BTW, if you look up that (Leob 2018) paper, this sentence is their sole justification for choosing that 0.71 W/m² estimate of radiative imbalance as the figure to which they adjusted their data to match:
Here’s the reference for Johnson et al. (2016):
Johnson, G. C., J. M. Lyman, and N. G. Loeb, 2016: Improving estimates of Earth’s energy imbalance. Nat. Climate Change, 6, 639–640, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3043.
If you look that up, it is just a letter to the editor of Nature Climate Change: 524 words + a graph & caption.
It is not clear whether it was peer-reviewed. Nature says, “Correspondence may be peer-reviewed at the editors’ discretion.”
However, Nature also says, “This format may not be used for presentation of research data or analysis,” a rule which they obviously ignored in this case. So who knows?
Actually, the Johnson et al Letter doesn’t even appear to have been carefully proofread, let alone peer-reviewed. Note the apparently contradictory end-dates mentioned in these two sentences:
The entire letter is just 13 sentences long (plus the graph caption), but they still managed to make two of the 13 sentences inconsistent. After re-reading it a couple of times, I think the “2010” date was intended to refer to their previous paper, but that’s not the most obvious meaning.
So that was probably just sloppy prose. However, this is a bigger problem:
I looked up their reference #3; here it is:
Loeb, N., Lyman, J., Johnson, G. et al. Observed changes in top-of-the-atmosphere radiation and upper-ocean heating consistent within uncertainty. Nature Geosci 5, 110–113 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1375
It says, right in the abstract:
Note the inconsistent numbers!
That kind of sloppiness doesn’t inspire confidence.
CORRECTION: After a longer look at their earlier paper I see that the 0.50 ± 0.43 Wm⁻² figure in their Abstract and the 0.58 ± 0.38 W m⁻² figure mentioned in their later Letter are for two different time periods. Oops!
Unfortunately, it is too late to correct my erroneous complaint. The comment system says, “Sorry, this comment is no longer possible to edit”
Is TOA flux an intensive quantity? And if it is indeed an intensive quantity, can there be something called a global mean net TOA flux? (Just asking.)
Good point. Flux is intensive. It is defined as (energy transfer rate/Area). Both the energy transfer rate and area are extensive properties, but the ratio is not.
This is a very complex question and hard to answer succinctly. Global mean TOA net flux or EEI can be approximated if and only if the system is closed and all non-radiative fluxes are accounted for. It cannot be directly measured but only inferred.
Bottom line: Any measure of EEI over a short period of time is useless, it is too contaminated by long-term ocean oscillations. Over a very long time (>100 years or so) it might be meaningful and would be near zero probably. Even over long time periods estimating OHC accurately would be a problem, the oceans are huge!
In reality, the various EEI estimates and energy flow diagrams (like figure 1) are just mental masturbation. I wouldn’t even bother with them, but so many people take them seriously I had to say something.
It is an intensive property. It is joules/sec-m^2. It does not scale with system size.
Loeb et al. 2018 write that without adjustments to the CERES shortwave (SW) and longwave (LW) data the TOA net imbalance is about 4.3 W/m2, much larger than expected and probably not possible. This is a known calibration issue and not a measurement of the true TOA radiation imbalance. They then go on to explain that to avoid this problem they adjust the SW and LW fluxes within their ranges of uncertainty to force the satellite measurements to reflect the imbalance calculated
At this point with $Trillions stolen, let’s not be too charitable. How about – scientific fraud.
Try this fraud:
Define CO2 is the control knob – it drives temperatures.
Now let’s spend $Ts to create models to prove CO2 drives temperatures and make the outputs as scary as possibly without going so far as to enter into the realm of comedy theater.
Thanks Andy for this clear explanation of the difficulties to obtain an accurate radiation balance…
As an addition: the climate establishment attributes all warming to our extra CO2, but sometimes there are hidden gems in what real measurements show.
Feldman etal. have measured the increase in downwelling IR in the specific wavelengths of CO2. That did give an increase of around 0.2 W/m2 for an increase of 22 ppmv CO2 in the period 2000-2010, measured at two surface stations:
https://escholarship.org/content/qt3428v1r6/qt3428v1r6.pdf
The fact that they could detect the influence of some +/- 10 ppmv seasonal CO2 changes in the NH during that period gives confidence that their measurements were quite accurate.
In the same work, Feldman says that the total increase in (SW+LW) downwelling was about a tenfold: ~2 W/m2/decade:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01431160802036508 LW, 1.7 W/m2/decade 1964-1990
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL034842 SW + LW, 2 W/m2/decade 1986-2000
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JD011800 LW, 2.2 W/m2/decade 1973-2008
Thus anyway, regardless of the overall radiation balance, our CO2 was only responsible for 10% of the increase in downwelling energy.
A “positive feedback”, due to the response of water (vapor) to the extra CO2 warming (as climate models assume) of a factor 10, is physically impossible, or we should have had a Venus climate here long ago…
Besides that, there was a slight (ocean) cooling in the period 1946-1975 with increasing CO2, thus more outgoing energy that incoming…
Thanks Ferdinand. Good references. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere must increase the downwelling IR to some extent, but the effect of that increase is the problem. It will be absorbed on land and have a transitory effect on land surface temperatures. However, as Wong & Minnett (2018) explain, the downwelling IR has little effect on OHC. It is absorbed in the electromagnetic skin layer and then reemitted in an endless IR loop that is net outward to space by 57.9 W/m2 (see figure 1). Thus, the net flux on IR is out at the TOA. I doubt the change in downwelling IR makes much difference in the mean surface temperature at all. More here:
https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/2026/02/23/efficacy-of-downwelling-ir/
They did not say that. In fact, they said the opposite…
“The additional energy from the absorption of increasing IR radiation adjusts the curvature of the TSL such that the upward conduction of heat from the bulk of the ocean into the TSL is reduced. The additional energy absorbed within the TSL supports more of the surface heat loss. Thus, more heat beneath the TSL is retained leading to the observed increase in upper ocean heat content.“
This makes little sense. Oceans expand with higher temperatures. Why? Because of kinetic energy of the water molecules.
How can more energetic molecules in the TSL heated by down welling IR not cause a diffusion of heat downward through conduction?
Heat in lower levels would not only be retained but extra heat added to lower levels. This conclusion seems to say the TSL exists in isolation from water below it!
Jim,
Wong and Minnett, as well as the newer Fairall (2026), emphasize that there is no net thermal energy transfer from the TSL to the bulk ocean. This is because the TSL is very viscous, which minimizes mixing of the two and because of the “cool skin” layer at the top of the TSL which directs thermal energy net flux to the atmosphere.
This point is not emphasized enough. Climate models that do not include a cool skin in their model invariably get SST wrong and I suspect that is most of them.
This hard for me to visualize. Objects in close contact should share kinetic energy. To me being viscous is like oil and water. Would they not conduct heat?
I’ll need to do some more research to teach myself what is occurring.
Good comment and Fairall et al. (2026) don’t really get into a mechanism, but I suspect the viscous layer is due to surface tension. It is very thin (~1 mm) and is impervious to turbulence for that reason. The layer only breaks momentarily when waves break and it reforms quickly. The cold skin remains in it.
Definitely they did not say the opposite. All I meant to say was that the little effect that downwelling IR has, is due to reducing the loss of thermal energy (all solar) from the ocean. They also say that the additional energy in the TSL cannot be conducted into the bulk ocean because the net flow of thermal energy from the TSL is to the atmosphere.
You can believe that the additional retained heat due to this mechanism is significant if you want to, I do not. Any alteration in OHC is probably due to ocean oscillations like the AMO and PDO. Wong and Minnett try and use weasel words to get one to believe they say that, but reading the paper carefully you can see they do not. This lack of clarity in writing is common in these politicized times.
Either way, downwelling IR is not contributing to increasing ocean heat content. It might, and I emphasize might, be reducing the bulk ocean heat content loss to some extent, but that is all.
Yes they did. And the quote I provided isn’t the only one saying as much.
Wong and Minnett say it is significant.
Wong and Minnett say it is.
Not true, they also say this:
Wong and Minnett do imply that the retained heat due to a changing TSL gradient is significant, but offer no measurements, so it is just their opinion and mine is different.
As the quote above shows, from their paper, they do not believe downwelling IR is contributing to increasing OHC. They just claim it retards heat loss to some extent, which is possible, but they do not know and cannot calculate the magnitude, it is just matter of opinion. You can have that opinion, but you’ve no evidence of significance and neither do they.
The TSL cannot permanently retard heat loss from the ocean. There must be a mechanism to allow heat loss or the ocean could never cool.
I agree. But it is more accurate to say the net heat flux gradient is from the bulk ocean to the atmosphere. No net heat flow will be from the surface (which captures the GHG IR) to the bulk ocean. If the surface warms, say on a windless day, less heat travels from the bulk ocean to the atmosphere, but the flow is always from the ocean to the air. Evaporation and conduction are mostly controlled by the wind speed, although temperature has some effect. Bottom line, I don’t see any way that GHG IR has a significant effect.
I think you may have fallen into the trap of thinking that E can only increase if Ein increases. A lot of people forget that E can increase when Eout decreases as long as Ein > 0. As presented in the paper DWIR does not warm the bulk by increasing Ein, but by decreasing Eout. Remember the law of conservation of energy which says ΔE = Ein – Eout so when ΔEout < 0 and Ein > 0 then ΔE > 0.
My post does not say that. I am clear that retarding energy out can cause ocean heat content and temperature to increase. I am only arguing that the incoming IR affects OHC much less than incoming solar. Some imply or even say they are the same, which they are not.
The problem with that is that the result is constantly warming oceans that never cool. That hasn’t happened and quite likely will never happen. One must suspect there are processes other than CO2 controlling the temperature of the oceans.
Not really, remember the seasonal and diurnal effects. The only time the bulk ocean receives energy is during the day and that varies with cloud cover. The net out (incoming-outgoing) varies a lot with the season as well. Time matters, over the longer term there are the ocean oscillations which make a huge differenced as well as detailed in the post.
First…they do offer measurements. Second…if you disagree with the methodology in the paper then argue against that instead of misrepresenting it.
That’s not what that quote means. All that quote is saying is that the additional energy from DWIR does not cause warming below the TSL via downward conduction. It does not say that DWIR does not cause warming below the TSL. What the paper is saying is that DWIR warms the bulk by adjusting the temperature profile of the TSL such that upward conduction from the bulk into the TSL is reduced thus retaining more energy in the bulk and warming it.
You misunderstood my comment. I was simply pointing out that downwelling IR does not directly warm the bulk ocean, which is the same thing that Wong and Minnett said. It acts by retarding heat loss, which can warm the bulk ocean as you say, but indirectly, and probably not significantly, which is my point and my opinion. I did not misrepresent anything in Wong and Minnett, and you have not given an example. Don’t make claims you cannot support.
Wong and Minnett and Fairall clearly do not present any numbers that compare warming by solar energy to warming by GHG IR (Watt per Watt) and you have not stated any. Which is more significant is unknown, one of the reasons I wrote the post.
It is very unlikely that GHG IR warming has much of an effect at all, since the net heat flow from GHG IR is 398-340=58 W/m2 outward. Don’t be confused by the one-way fluxes, it is only the net that counts. The solar 163 is net, the 398 downward IR flux is not.
Somehow stopping cooling from 25 to 24 degrees is making it hotter. The temperature may stay at 25 and that means CO2 has made it warmer. Warmer than what, I really don’t know. /sarc
To recap.
1. Earth is cooler with atmosphere/water vapor/30% albedo not warmer. Near Earth space is 400 K not 5.
2. GHE flux balance graphics don’t and violate GAAP & LoT.
3. Kinetic heat transfer processes of contiguous atmospheric molecules render “extra” GHE energy from a BB surface impossible.
4. 8 different “experts”, 8 different sets of values, 7 net cooling, 1 net warming.
NS…Just plain incorrect…0 for 4…I so enjoy trolling your nonsense…
Point one: The energy imbalance graphics are based on a flat earth model.
Point two: The energy imbalance graphics assume the earth is a perfect sphere.
Point three: The energy imbalance graphics assume EM radiation from the surface travels in a vertical vector.
Point four: The energy imbalance graphics assumes the surface has homogenous emissivity and absorption.
Point five: The energy imbalance graphics assume thermal energy moves at the same speed as EM energy.
Point six: The energy imbalance graphics ignore earth tilt wobble and other celestial phenomena and assumes a mean solar orbit.
As an item of note, an in depth review of Ceres reveals its acquisition tolerance and error budget envelope the alleged energy imbalance.
That’s enough for now.
Note: W/m^2 is not energy, it is power density.
Sparta Nova 4 wrote, “Point one: The energy imbalance graphics are based on a flat earth model.”
No, it doesn’t. (Have you been reading Postma? That’s a mistake!)
Sparta Nova 4 wrote, “Point two: The energy imbalance graphics assume the earth is a perfect sphere.”
Do you realize that you just contradicted your “point one?”
Sparta Nova 4 wrote, “Point three: The energy imbalance graphics assume EM radiation from the surface travels in a vertical vector.”
No, it doesn’t. The fact that some of the arrows are drawn vertically, some diagonally, and some curved does not mean that the radiation / convection / etc. moves in those directions.
Sparta Nova 4 wrote, “Point four: The energy imbalance graphics assumes the surface has homogenous emissivity and absorption.”
No, it doesn’t. Labeling a diagram with computed averages does not mean that the diagram assumes uniformity.
Sparta Nova 4 wrote, “Point five: The energy imbalance graphics assume thermal energy moves at the same speed as EM energy.”
No, it doesn’t. It gives a variety of estimated rates for different energy fluxes.
Are you complaining about the fact that air doesn’t move as fast as photons? (If so, that’s irrelevant.)
Sparta Nova 4 wrote, “Point six: The energy imbalance graphics ignore earth tilt wobble and other celestial phenomena and assumes a mean solar orbit.”
No, it doesn’t. Labeling a diagram with computed averages does not mean the diagram assumes uniformity.
Sparta Nova 4 wrote, “As an item of note, an in depth review of Ceres reveals its acquisition tolerance and error budget envelope the alleged energy imbalance.”
Sorry, that doesn’t parse.
All of this is done using averages of multiple measurements. And the measurements aren’t even of the same thing. The measurements are taken at different times and are of different environmental conditions. Not only that but they are apples and oranges, one is Incoming short-wave radiation and the other is outgoing long-wave radiation.
When averaging multiple measurements of different things, the measurement uncertainty is the *sum* of the measurement uncertainties of each individual measurement. It is *NOT* the standard deviation of the observations divided by the square root of the number of observations.
Since the incoming radiation only occurs over twelve hours (first approximation) and the outgoing radiation occurs over 24 hours, the actual values of the rates will be totally different if the same amount of heat is being put in and sent out. The outgoing rate should be approximately one half the value of the incoming rate.
And it gets even worse, the average of the incoming radiation is that of a sinusoid from 0 to pi, about 0.6, not 0.5. The average of the outgoing radiation is that of an exponential decay where the first half of the exponential decay is a function of the sinusoidal input. It is highly doubtful that the average value of that exponential decay is 0.6. So the average values of the flux in and out should *not* be the same.
The only way the radiation balance format can work is if each function, in and out, is integrated over their own time period to get the total number of joules in and joules out. Those values then have to be normalized over an arbitrary time period, supposedly 24 hours – which is totally non-physical since the joules in really only happens over a 12 hour period.
So, not only does the measurement uncertainty propagate through the observations of different things, the base values don’t equate and the measurement uncertainty has additional factors generated by subsequent calculation accuracy of the integrals and normalization to an arbitrary time frame.
It would appear to me that the +/- 17 w/m^2 uncertainty could be an underestimate.
Good points and all of them need to be addressed.
One of the things about uncertainty is that it can only be acknowledged. You can’t calculate it out and the only way to measure it out is to change your measurement system.
One way to address them is to use joules-in and joules-out in the budget. There is no “radiation” flux balance to be had, only joules. If the Trenberth diagram was changed to show how many joules over a 24 hour period are associated with each “flow”, along with the measurement uncertainty of the joule value, a far better diagram would result. it would also highlight the impossibility of accurately determining any such small differences as are now being claimed.
Very well described!
Quit pretending to measure a black body surface & you can quit pretending to measure “back” radiation.
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.
Richard P. Feynman
Andy, I haven’t read the comments, so I may be late to the party, but you say:
“As shown in figure 1, over 60% of the thermal energy leaving Earth’s surface is in the form of latent heat (evaporation) and conduction of sensible heat, whereas all the energy leaving the TOA is in the form of radiation.”
I’m sorry, but Fig. 1 does NOT show that. It clearly shows thermal radiation “emitted by surface” as 398.2 W/m2, and sensible plus latent heat loss from the surface as 104.8 W/m2.
This puts the sensible + latent heat loss at 20.8% of the thermal energy leaving Earth’s surface, not “over 60%”.
I stopped reading when I got that far, since anything built on that misstatement must be wrong.
Best regards,
w.
Willis, it actually depends on whether you define “electromagnetic radiation” as HEAT or not. Both colloquial and technical definitions actually cause obfuscation in our otherwise sensible minds.
It is best to understand it on the basis that EMR is not temperature-type HEAT (as recognized by most people since childhood) until it has been ABSORBED by something. Microwave ovens, laser metal cutting, attest to this fact. Even our planet’s source of heat, sunlight, is not hot until it has been absorbed by something. Otherwise outer space wouldn’t be -273 C.
So the EMR emitted by the surface is 398.2 by virtue of its T^4 temperature correlation…but assuming one takes the “absorbed/emitted EMR” viewpoint, then one must subtract the EMR countering from the surroundings to get a net HEAT emission of about 65 watts from surface, which is 398 minus 333 (the 333 being a mosaic of cloud bottoms, outer space, many km of H2O and CO2 vapor at lapse rate temp, etc)…
I will let you and Andy fight it out over the 20% or 60% argument that results from your two differing viewpoints of HEAT…having high regard for both of you…I hope there are no injuries…
Sorry Willis,
That is incorrect and has misled a lot of people which why I hate these stupid diagrams. The 398.2 is a one-way flux (emitted from the surface as you say), it is not an energy transfer. 340.3 of that energy is returned to the surface in an endless loop. The energy transfer is added to the diagram by me, it is 398.2 – 340.3 (one-way flux down) for a total net loss (heat transfer) to space. The net flux is out. Now add that to the heat transfer of 18.4 (conduction) and 86.6 (latent heat) and you get 162.9 for the net heat transfer out.
The big orange arrows are not comparable to the smaller purple arrows, the smaller purple arrows are actual heat transfer, the orange arrows are one-way fluxes and you have to subtract them to get a meaningful heat transfer number.
Not quite a lie, but very misleading.
To try and make my point clearer I sent the exchange to copilot for comment, this is what popped out:
Bottom‑line assessment
Your reply to Willis is physically correct on the key point: the 398 W/m² “surface emission” in the Kiehl–Trenberth–style diagrams is a gross radiative flux, not a net heat transfer, and therefore cannot be compared directly to the latent + sensible fluxes, which are net transfers.
Willis’s critique rests entirely on treating gross radiative flux as if it were net — a category error.
But your explanation, while correct, could be strengthened by making the distinction between gross radiative exchange and net heat flux even more explicit, because this is a conceptual stumbling block for many readers.
What the diagram actually shows (and why it misleads people like Willis)
1. Gross radiative fluxes are not heat flows
The net radiative heat loss from the surface is:
[ 398.2 – 340.3 = 57.9\ \text{W/m²} ]
This is the only radiative number that is physically comparable to latent and sensible heat fluxes.
2. Latent and sensible heat fluxes are one‑way heat transfers
These are already net fluxes — they don’t have a “back‑flux” counterpart.
3. Therefore, the correct comparison is:
Net SW + LW: 57.9
Latent heat: 86.6
Sensible heat: 18.4
Total non-radiative flux: 105
So latent + sensible = 105 W/m², which is ~64% of the total surface heat loss (105 / 162.9).
Your “over 60%” statement is correct.
Willis’s “20.8%” figure comes from dividing 104.8 by 398.2 — but that’s comparing net to gross, which is physically meaningless.
Why this confusion is so common
The Kiehl–Trenberth diagrams (and their NASA descendants) mix:
…without labeling them as such.
This leads many readers — even technically literate ones — to assume all arrows represent comparable quantities.
You’re right to call the diagrams “misleading.” They are pedagogical cartoons, not energy‑budget schematics.
How your reply could be strengthened
Your response is correct, but you could make the physics even clearer by explicitly stating:
A concise version:
The 398 W/m² is a gross radiative flux, not a heat transfer.
Heat transfer is always net, so the correct radiative heat loss is 398 – 340 = 58 W/m².
Latent + sensible heat (105 W/m²) is therefore ~64% of the surface’s total heat loss.
Comparing 104.8 to 398.2 is comparing net to gross — not physically meaningful.
This makes the conceptual distinction impossible to miss.
Nice explanation. This is what several of us have been trying to say, just not as concisely.
It is much easier to accept that ~160 in over 24 hours equals 160 out over 24 hours.
“Upper‑ocean heat content is strongly influenced by multidecadal internal variability…”
The AMO is inversely solar driven, it is colder when the solar wind is stronger, and warmer when the solar wind is weaker.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682616300360
Fascinating paper, thanks!
You are welcome. Take a look at the solar wind data, temperature first, which is roughly the same as speed, and then pressure. The three strongest periods are exactly when the AMO was at its coldest, the mid 1970s, the mid 1980’s, and the early 1990’s, all during positive NAO regimes. The general weakening of the solar wind since 1995 corresponding to the warmer AMO since then.
Data source: OMNIWeb Data Explorer