Open Thread

For a physically valid assessment of the concern over emissions of CO2 and other IR-active non-condensing trace gases, let’s look at the “warming” claims by the numbers. The ERA5 reanalysis quantifies the total energy state of the circulating atmosphere. This involves water vapor, making the highly variable latent energy component important to this assessment.

Please see at this link that “Total atmospheric energy is made up of internal, potential, kinetic and latent energy.” 
https://codes.ecmwf.int/grib/param-db/162061

There are four plots here using hourly parameters from ERA5 for all hours of 2022 at latitude 45N at all longitudes. Each value is a point on the plot.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1X7V58xrYeIYM7EgtyHPck7FqAiaXAWtG?usp=drive_link

The first plot is the “vertical integral of total energy,” expressed as Watt-hours per square meter, by longitude. There are 8760 hourly values at each longitude position. The scale of the vertical axis is from 500,000 to 800,000 Wh/m^2 to show the full range of values. 

The second plot gives the hourly change in the “vertical integral of total energy.” There are 8759 values at each longitude position. The vertical axis is expressed as Watt-hours per hour per square meter, which simplifies to W/m^2. The scale goes from -10,000 to +10,000 W/m^2 to capture most of the values.

The third plot gives the latent energy in the total column of the atmosphere, expressed as Watt-hours per square meter. This value comes from subtracting the “vertical integral of potential + internal energy” from the “vertical integral of potential + internal + latent energy” for each instance. There are 8760 hourly values at each longitude position. The scale of the vertical axis goes from zero to 60,000 Watt-hours per square meter. Most of the values are less than 45,000 Wh/m^2.

The fourth plot gives the hourly change of latent energy. There are 8759 values at each longitude position. The vertical axis is expressed in Watt-hours per hour per square meter, which simplifies to W/m^2. The scale goes from -10,000 to +10,000 W/m^2 to capture most of the values.

Discussion – what are we being told from the “climate consensus” position?

THE CLAIM is that a ~700 mW/m^2 top-of-atmosphere radiative imbalance (the EEI “Earth’s Energy Imbalance”) has been discerned. It has been attributed to rising concentrations of CO2, and is claimed to be exerting a perceptible warming influence on the energy state of the atmosphere (and thereby on the underlying land and oceans) by suppressing the final longwave emission out the top. That claim of detection and attribution is not justified by the numbers, considering the massive atmosphere’s dynamically variable total energy state.

And THE CLAIM, in effect, is that the water cycle is not capable of self-adjusting to the minor ~4 W/m^2 “warming” tendency for the future 2XCO2 case. This is not justified by the numbers, considering the atmosphere’s highly variable latent energy state. The water cycle operates from the surface to the top of the troposphere – with all of the variable evaporation, condensation, precipitation, freezing, and melting; with all of the radiative ramifications of cloud formation and dissipation; and with all of the horizontal transport and vertical overturning of weather systems.

There. The conclusion of this assessment is that there is no valid physical reason for concern. The claimed influence on the energy state of the climate system is negligible, by the numbers. It cannot be isolated from within the range of power intensity values (W/m^2) of hourly change in total energy, or latent energy, for positive attribution of cause-and-effect.

Thank you for your patience with this old-school engineer and his low-budget laptop computer. 
 
P.S. Look, please don’t get me wrong here. I am NOT dismissing the IR absorption and emission properties of CO2 and the other IR-active trace gases. I am NOT ignoring the computed radiative “warming” tendency (think MODTRAN, RRTM, etc.) as concentrations in the atmosphere rise. Some challenge the assumptions in those computations. They may have a good point. But in any case, judging by the numbers, it makes no sense to expect a perceptible influence of incremental CO2 on the time- and location-integrated longwave emission to space out the top of the water-bearing and vapor-energized atmosphere; on trends of any climate variable; or on the frequency or intensity of any category of weather event.