The CERES estimates of the top-of-atmosphere radiative fluxes are available from 2001 to the present. That is long enough to see that there has been a noticeable trend in the Earth’s Energy Imbalance (EEI), mostly driven by a reduction in the solar radiation reflected by the planet, while the outgoing long wave radiation does not appear to contribute much. But what can be causing this?
A paper last year (Goode et al., 2021) also reported on a two decade estimate of Earthshine measurements which appear to confirm a small decrease in albedo (and decrease in reflected short wave (SW) radiation). While the two measurements are subtly different due to the distinct geometries, they do show sufficient coherence to give us some confidence that they are real.
Similarly, Loeb et al. (2021) show that the trends in the EEI derived from CERES match what you get from the changes in ocean heat content.
A few people have started to interpret the dominance of the SW trends to imply that the overall trends in climate are not (despite copious evidence) being driven by the rise in greenhouse gases (for instance, the rather poorly argued and seemingly un-copyedited Dübal and Vahrenholt (2021)) but these simplistic interpretations are seriously confused.
We can explore the issues and pitfalls of this using the ‘simple model’ of the greenhouse effect we explored back in 2007. At that time, we said:
You should think of these kinds of exercises as simple flim-flam detectors – if someone tries to convince you that they can do a simple calculation and prove everyone else wrong, think about what the same calculation would be in this more straightforward system and see whether the idea holds up. If it does, it might work in the real world (no guarantee though) – but if it doesn’t, then it’s most probably garbage.
A simple model with feedbacks
It’s unlikely(?) that you remember that post, but the simple model has an albedo and an atmospheric absorption that together control the surface temperature. We discussed radiative forcings and the possibility of feedbacks that change the albedo (a SW feedback) or the absorption (a LW feedback). The point was that since this is the simplest possible model of the greenhouse effect, you can use it to test some basic things – like the notion of radiative forcing, or the difference between climatological fluxes and climate sensitivity. We can also use it to explore the possible explanations for the CERES trends (assuming for the sake of argument that they are robust, though there may still be some residual uncertainty in the retrievals and there is also an impact from the specific history of El Niño/La Niña).
Over the two decades of these changes, there is no apparent correlation to solar activity or galactic cosmic rays, so the source of the trends are most likely internal, so let’s see if the results are possibly consistent with feedbacks to the main sources of climate trends in recent decades – the rise in greenhouse gases and the recent decline (regionally) in atmospheric aerosols.
The observed downward trend in albedo (an increase in absorbed shortwave radiation by around 0.5 W/m2) is dominated by clouds – less or thinner clouds than previously, possibly aided and abetted by decreases in reflective aerosols. You will however recall clouds have impacts on the LW absorption too, so changes in clouds (depending on where they are) will likely have both SW and LW effects.
So let’s set up a case where, in the simple model, the albedo responds to temperature, but so do the LW absorbers (water vapour and clouds). To make things easier for the math, let’s actually make them linear in 
(just to avoid all the quartic roots etc.). The basic equations are:
Surface: 
Atmosphere: 
Planet: 
which just reflect the energy conservation at each level, with 
is the solar input, 
is the albedo and 
is the LW absorption. The solution for the surface flux is just 
. For quasi-realistic values of surface temp (15ºC), albedo (29%) and solar irradiance (1360 W/m2), we get that 
.
To build in the GHG and aerosol forcings ,and feedbacks on temperature we can define:
SW forcing + SW feedback: 
LW forcing + feedback: 
where 
is the LW radiative forcing imposed by the increase in GHGs, 
is the change in albedo from aerosols, and 
is the (small) change in the upward LW radiation (consistent with the increase in surface temperature) from the basic state (denoted by the 
subscript). The total radiative forcing is 
.
With these definitions, we can simply write down the change in the reflected SW and outward LW in this model.
Change in reflected SW: 
Change in outwards LW: 
You should be able to see the effect of the LW forcing acting on the total temperature, the SW forcing acting on the reflected SW, and then the change in upward fluxes acted on by the existing greenhouse effect and then the feedbacks in both SW and LW. We can therefore use the observed changes to try to identify the net SW and LW feedbacks.
Over the last 20 years the LW radiative forcing change from well-mixed greenhouse gases is around 0.7 W/m2, while the warming from 2000 to 2020 is just a bit less than 0.5ºC, equivalent to a change in 
of about 2.7 W/m2. The change in reflected SW is negative, but we don’t have a great estimate of how much of that is due to aerosols and how much to clouds (or surface changes), so the observations instead define a relationship between the coefficient 
and as 
(totaling to a net change of albedo of -0.15%). If we assume there is no change in outward LW we can calculate 
. This leads to a change in absorption of [tex]\lambda’ \Delta G/G_0 = 0.005[\tex], e.g. from 0.767 to 0.772. Thus despite the increased GHG forcing (which decreases the outgoing LW), the increase in the surface upward flux modified by the LW feedbacks, can be enough to effectively cancel out the net change in LW.
Given the simplicity of this model – notably a single atmospheric layer, no regional effects, no internal variability – and the uncertainty in the aerosol effect, we can’t really translate these numbers into precise feedbacks (for instance, if there is no aerosol effect, we’d get a 1 W/m2/ºC positive shortwave feedback and 1.3 W/m2/ºC net longwave effect, both of which are pretty large, while if the aerosols were 50% of the SW effect, it would be a more reasonable ~0.5 W/m2/ºC positive SW feedback). But qualitatively, it demonstrates how impacts to the long-wave radiation combined with cloud feedbacks can lead to big shifts in SW and almost no shift in LW at the top of the atmosphere. That conclusion stands in stark contrast to what you’d conclude if you don’t consider feedbacks at all in the analyses.
Where do we go from here?
The ability to analyse trends from the Earth’s radiation data is new, and opens up many avenues for further research. Some analyses are already appearing (for instance, Raghuraman et al (2021) and Quaas et al (2022)), and in the next few months, a group of climate modelers will be putting together a proposal for more targeted simulations (varying aerosols, models, and other forcings) that will allow for a more detailed comparison of models to the observations and help in the attribution of what’s causing them (there is an abstract at Fall AGU for instance).
Shiv Priyam Ragahuraman gave a recent webinar on the results from his paper which is worth watching:
Unfortunately, there are also some changes happening to the observation side. The satellites that CERES instruments are on, the NASA Aqua and Terra platforms, are now starting to drift in their orbits, and it’s not clear how (or if) they will contribute to the long-term records going forward. Fortunately, there are additional CERES instruments on Suomi-NPP (launched in 2011) and NOAA-20 (launched in 2017) that can be used.
It’s nonetheless clear to me that maintaining the continuity of this data product will be of major importance in constraining the feedbacks to climate change, and the longer the time-series available, the better.
References
- P.R. Goode, E. Pallé, A. Shoumko, S. Shoumko, P. Montañes‐Rodriguez, and S.E. Koonin, "Earth's Albedo 1998–2017 as Measured From Earthshine", Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 48, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2021GL094888
- N.G. Loeb, G.C. Johnson, T.J. Thorsen, J.M. Lyman, F.G. Rose, and S. Kato, "Satellite and Ocean Data Reveal Marked Increase in Earth’s Heating Rate", Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 48, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2021GL093047
- H. Dübal, and F. Vahrenholt, "Radiative Energy Flux Variation from 2001–2020", Atmosphere, vol. 12, pp. 1297, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/atmos12101297
- S.P. Raghuraman, D. Paynter, and V. Ramaswamy, "Anthropogenic forcing and response yield observed positive trend in Earth’s energy imbalance", Nature Communications, vol. 12, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-24544-4
- J. Quaas, H. Jia, C. Smith, A.L. Albright, W. Aas, N. Bellouin, O. Boucher, M. Doutriaux-Boucher, P.M. Forster, D. Grosvenor, S. Jenkins, Z. Klimont, N.G. Loeb, X. Ma, V. Naik, F. Paulot, P. Stier, M. Wild, G. Myhre, and M. Schulz, "Robust evidence for reversal in the aerosol effective climate forcing trend", 2022. http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-2022-295
My naive and admittedly ignorant mental model of the greenhouse effect is that the top of the atmosphere is the primary contributor to the long wave radiation from the planet. And when additional greenhouse gases are added, the portion which radiates to space moves higher in the atmosphere which is lower in temperature and so decreases the long wave radiation until the planet heats up. In equilibrium, the long wave radiation to space would be the same after the additional greenhouse gases as before as required for energy balance assuming all else remains the same. This would suggest that the adiabatic lapse rate would be important in any energy balance equation. Is this incorrect?
No, it is not incorrect. On the contrary, it is rather an easily comprehensible and rather fruitful theory.
I’ve followed RealClimate.org for years, but never commented.
The degree of complexity of mathematics involving numerous climate influencing variables in this analysis is easily manipulated by a clever “skeptic” to support the “Merchants of Doubt,” as phrased by Naomi Oreskes in the title to this book. What can be done to counter these tactics? “A simple model with feedbacks?” Is this not insulting condescension? Many in the public resent elitist academians “talking down to them.” Confirmation and motivated reasoning bias filters, powerful psycho/social likely neurologically based forces we all manifest, induce many in the public to mock peer reviewed climate science, and the “scientific method” designed to compensate for subjective bias. I don’t know the solution to these problems.
But I was amused by the mention of galactic cosmic rays.: “…there is no apparent correlation to solar activity or galactic cosmic rays, so the source of the trends are most likely internal…” The “skeptic” (all competent scientists are skeptics, including Gavin Schmidt, it appears) talking point that galactic cosmic rays are a significant natural contributor to global warming that climate scientists are overlooking, is my favorite! At least I maintain a sense of dark humor regarding the alarming human-made climate trends. Ok, it’s not funny…
Dr. T.Moffett
Then “galactic” chosmic ray hype seems coined by a certain Henrik Svensmark.
Who fail even to have mentioned the basic Wilson Cloud Chamber of early science and science history, that was designed for elementary atmospheric and radioactivity- research, laterv taken over byb the bubble- chamber that was invented in a glass of beer in München…
It is about cloud and bubble- nuclei and ionizing radiation, radio and photochemistery.
With no overwhelming “Galactic” needed exept for political commercial sales promotion. .
It is as common as can be. .
In most sciences, the way to put skepticism to rest is by performing lab-based controlled experiments. I’m familiar with this approach because that’s how my own models passed a dissertation test ;) However, in the earth sciences, controlled experiments are not possible and so other approaches are necessary to validate proposed models against the data. One of the approaches to consider is cross-validation, which is best described as validation by prediction using past values of data. This indeed works fine in concept, but it suffers from selection bias (i.e. a person can always look at the data and tune) and for something like AGW a limited complexity time-series to validate against. To put it another way, cross-validating a trend does not instill confidence in the significance of the result, since it’s essentially equivalent to dead-reckoning. Thus, one sees many alternative models such as the ones you mentioned ( solar activity and cosmic rays) or even stupid ones such as pirates. Indeed, many things will correlate to a trend and so you have lots of skeptics with alternative theories, none of which can be rejected by a controlled experiment.
The way to combat this is to cross-validate to climate behaviors that have some complexity to them, such as the climate indices ( ENSO, AMO, etc). These are not just a trend but include erratic cycles and show interesting spectral properties. Do this modeling and most of the amateur hour “skeptics” will go away, as they will put away their pirate graphs for good, unable to build a trivial counter-argument. More discussion on my blog: https://geoenergymath.com/2022/09/12/cross-validation/
I might quibble with “most” sciences are pure experimental areas a bit. From most all of astronomy/astrophysics to much of zoology many sciences are largely nonexperimental,
I also quibble that deniers will put away their lying graphs if just shown good science. The whole point of denial is to lie. Just ask our resident deniers here.
Quibbling is fine. Yet, if some other science had a hole in their foundation as big as “we can’t predict natural climate variation” then they would consider that discipline operating at square one. This is how Wikipedia describes “Climate variability and change”
So even here someone left the door open to allow for sunspot variation. Unless they are referring to annual solar output, which would be one of the most obvious causes of climate variation. Yet, no one ever explained the concept of seasonal variation under that Wikipedia page.. Oops. Guess that’s Wikipedia for you.
You mean “we can’t predict natural climate variation” (given that models result in probabilities) and therefore we are operating at square one is just like that since we cannot predict quantum events, only probabilities we are operating at square one there too???
Methinks you need to reconsider that “logic”.
BTW, you are free to share your knowledge to the world on wiki. Just go there and edit it to include your real science.
jgnfldxyz said:
A natural climate behavior such as ENSO is a collective standing-wave mode, as deterministic as tides. Just have to solve the nonlinear GFD along the equator and apply the correct forcing to get it in motion and match the temporal pattern. Realize that something with an inertia as large as the sloshing of the Pacific ocean is not random.
It’s frowned upon for someone to add their own work to a Wikipedia page. So if you want to do it, the citation is here: Mathematical Geoenergy, P. Pukite, D.Coyne, D.Challou (Wiley/AGU, 2018) chapter 12.
Didn’t say climate variation is “random”. Said it was not predictable even in practice over any significant term. Two different notions.
jgnfld says
Yet you said “just like that since we cannot predict quantum events, only probabilities we are operating at square one there too??” Yes, quantum mechanics uses the concept of uncertainty in position and momentum to enable probabilistic wave models such as electron diffraction to be effective. But I don’t think that’s what you are implying. A random variate does not have to be uniform over a range to be classified as such.
Yet, a diffraction pattern is perfectly predictable in spite of the assumed randomness of the electron. The fact that you assert something is not predictable does not make it so, In other words it’s not predictable only because perhaps none of the models developed have yet to be shown successful. You said “Two different notions.” — indeed, something that works versus something that doesn’t.
Talking about controlled experiments, the results from the CERN lab to evaluate Henrik Svensmark’s cosmic ray cloud ionizing theory was inconclusive, but that would have been expected — no way can they emulate the upper atmosphere in a lab. https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.aaf2649
P P (@whut)
here I must stromgly disagree andv correct you on basicf principal level.
“…-no way can they emulate the upper atmosphere in a lab.”
Never deny and ridicule and teach people against the validity and importance of cheap miniaturized cunningly arranged, designed, and controlled, cruxial laboratory techniques and experiments.
Never join the vulgar unions who carry on the principal case against Gallilei to have him silenced,…..
……..and the further racial tribal warfare against Newton and Boyle of The Royal Mint, ( Gold Yes or No? for proof in court) against the ridiculously obsolete remedies in John Tyndalls lab,… against Rutherford… and against The Geiger Counter and the npioneering electrometer,… ridiculosly dirty small and simple, not professional and commercial, not from Thinktank, and against the carefully rinsed and arranged and understood http://www.Wilson/cloud /chamber.
As far as I have understood, Henrik Svensmark had allready carried out cloud chamber experiments with a smaller accellerator in the University cellar, so why travel all the way to CERN ands pay for all the voltages and hours there when there will be no bulk and current enough, as compared to common daylight with E= h.ny in the higher and lower atmosphere??
As it seems they pumped down the air in an isolated tank to the assumed, relevant pressure, and it must be very carefully filtered and rinsed and freed of natural aerosols. And shielded against shortwave light..
Then it was given plausible impurity contents of SO2, NH3 and maybe CH4 also. Then after irradiation with very fast and expensive protons, (where they might as well have used natural uranium pitchblende for fast alpha…..) they could show nano- particles of “(NH4)2 SO4.
Write the structural formula and count over the aproximate atomic radii. That sums up to about a Nanometer, =An obvious Nano- particle.
” Yes Mr. Svensmark, but now it is your turn to explain for us the mechanism of how that can possibly coalesque and grow up to 50 nanometers at least and make condensation nuclei for clouds, smile smile….”
For me it is no problem at all to make chemical white smoke of most ugly corrosive acid kind in the lab and elsewhere.
But what I see is that they have extra served him with a fameous common non- hygroscopic sulphate salt molecule ……. smile smile..
Their further suggestion meant to save Svensmark thus it also went viral, was low molecular natural turpenes. That is the fresh, healthy smell of conniferous woods in the high alps over white snow under especially blue sky and bright sunshine, especially ozony airs. Telling for serious that it would coalesque and fill the gap between Svensmarks Nanoparticles and desired white clouds more or less.
How often did I have to evacuate the lab in a hurry because of sudden, very agressive white fumes? How many recepies can In give for that.????
And why is thick photochemical urban and regional smogs with causes so secret?
PS
(@whut)
“….-no way can they emulgate,… blablabla…in the lab!”!
are you aware of what you are teaching?
Last week, I did “emulgate” a possibly planned large winery and huge barrel of grape juice experimentally in the lab, in a cheapest, re- cycled and washed limonade plastic bottle in the Kitchen….. by only 1/ 2 liter juice further quite untreated according to Noah and holy the bible.
I really found quite unexpected things that will be very valuable for eventual frurter large wineries yes or no, , in miniature cheapest experiments in the lab….. I found both Penicillium and Saccaromyces in sequence., and that Saccaromyces takes over the substrate and isolates the penicillium after 3-4 days.
and this is just one example from my lab.
I can exsell in frurther examples from my lab.
It protects me from disaster and errors and the experts from Thinktank.
I hate vulgar teaching against all kinds of cunningly designed , cheap miniature experiments ,… in the workshop, in the kitschen,… in the boat or in the car at home or at work in your job,….. that should be carefully done Before you invest your very fortune and unique, un- payable material in the large, professional adult “project” that will eventually fail and ruin your very factory and fortune and peoples environment. .
I do especdially hate and warn against vulgar tribal professional adult and inaugurated
religious supersticious propaganda against experimental science and free access to knowledge..
I just looked back. The cloud chamber has been further refrined and improoved into many versions for many purposes up and even through the Manhattan Project, after which the bubble chamber took over.
Because it is an experimental archetype of chosmological importance, , just as the blown peak spiritus flame with the tiny platinum wire, , the experimental test tube, the electric spark , the borax or microchosmic molten salt bed, the hair hygrometer the spiderspin in the ocular focal plane, the geiger counter and the gold leaf electroscope..
Teaching that such basic methods in the lab can in no way tell what actually goes on anywhere else because that is professional and reserved for the anonymeous experts from Thinktank that rather rely on virtual reality……..
……..is ongoing tribal racial bloody class warfare against Gallilei, Tyndall, Rutherford, Louis Pasteur and Heinrich Herz in order to disqualify, ridicule, and to silence them and all their pupils from Highschool. DS
.
Carbo said:
I did not write “emulgate”. Dishonest move on your part. I did ultra-high vacuum epitaxy for my academic research. At the time, a prof at the U of Houston proposed to perform it outside the space station, where a natural vacuum exists. We all laughed.
Dr. (@whut)
you even teach people that a typing- error is a dis- honest moove from my side.
Again, I have to teach you that you must look better into yourselfr and your real motives and try better to unbderstand your own thoughts.
It is not that easy to perform in a professionally convincing style.
As if valid and relevant experimental situations cannot be arranged.
I don’t disagree that cross-validation is a useful tool, but I think it’s of limited relevance to nonstatistical physical models like GCMs where tuning is difficult and leaving out a subset of data isn’t necessarily meaningful.
Additionally, I think there are already many examples of cross-validation and -even better- actual out-of-sample predictions about the future in the climate lit already, and this has not had a discernible effect on the skeptics.
I think it’s fairly clear that many skeptics are not seeking predictive power at all. They’re interested in obfuscatory power to derail climate policies that might otherwise affect their share value. I think it’ll take something else to get rid of the pirates.
Tom said:
On the contrary, it’s great for non-statistical models, It’s used for experimental calibration all the time across many disciplines. And consider it’s use for something like tidal analysis, where all predictions are first compared to cross-validation evaluations against past data.
Where are the examples for something like ENSO? Any better examples of cross-validation of ENSO than that I linked to above ? https://geoenergymath.com/2022/09/12/cross-validation/
Here’s what Gavin Schmidt and others wrote with James Hansen on his blog about the sun’s impact on climate
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2018/20180118_Temperature2017.pdf
“Prospects for continued global temperature change are more interesting and important. The record 2016 temperature was abetted by the effects of both a strong El Niño and maximum warming from the solar irradiance cycle (Fig. 4). Because of the ocean thermal inertia and decadal irradiance change, the peak warming and cooling effects of solar maximum and minimum are delayed about two years after irradiance extrema. The amplitude of the solar irradiance variation is smaller than the planetary energy imbalance, which has grown to about +0.75 ± 0.25 W/m2 over the past several decades due to increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases.5,6 However, the solar variability is not negligible in comparison with the energy imbalance that drives global temperature change. Therefore, because of the combination of the strong 2016 El Niño and the phase of the solar cycle, it is plausible, if not likely, that the next 10 years of global temperature change will leave an impression of a ‘global warming hiatus’.”:
If I eat too much and get fat is the only way to regain a healthy weight to cut out food? I would argue increasing exerise might be a good way, with a modest reduction of food.
Cutting out excess food entirely is likely to be net damaging to my bodily systems and the sustainability of my new lifestyle. My body and happiness are adapted to lots of food now. Even though excess food appears to be the cause of my problems, there are more effective and creative ways to regain health in the long term. In some ways I can have my cake and eat it too. I accomplish this through exercise.
Exercise and food intake are two totally different things, but in the end changing one or the other has the same effect on my weight.
For climates, while it might appear too much co2 has us in this mess, perhaps there are practical things modelers could explore to assist practical policy recommendation. Are there other ways to reduce greenhouse effects? Perhaps turning down reradiation from the surface a couple watts.
At T^4 only a modest change to surface properties might go a long way. The simple model in the article seems to suggest some beneficial feedbacks might kick in too. If the feedbacks have something to do with cloud, it might be worth looking at water cycles.
I’m not here to pretend Greenhouse effects are not a problem. I only wish to contribute in a very small way to creative thinking.
Thanks
As someone who has been quite active most of my life and who lost 80 pounds or so some years ago and has kept it off I can assert that exercise–even like 30K bike rides thrice weekly in hilly terrain–while necessary for health does not really lead to much weight loss by itself. To lose weight, you have to eat fewer calories than you burn over the long haul. This requires, in victor’s inimitable words, individual “broad and irreversible economic, technological, societal, and behavioral changes,” And, apparently, the imposition of an authoritarian government.
That is because cycling is very energy efficient, even more so than walking, so you have to do a lot of it to make a dent in your energy expenditure. The best way to lower body weight is to reduce calorie intake to a couple of hundred calories/day below maintenance, and combine with resistance training to encourage your body to hold onto the muscle.
It sounds simple and it is physically, but if it really was simple overall we wouldn’t have the obesity crisis we currently have in the wealthy countries. The truth is that reducing calorie intake, cutting out calorie dense but low nutrition foods, and becoming more active require setting aside time, self discipline, physical effort and sacrifices, which not everyone has the will or ability to do. This is somewhat comparable with reducing one’s carbon footprint, which also involves increasing effort, increasing financial cost (in some cases) and making sacrifices (e.g. saying no to some of the pleasures in life), and again, not everyone is willing or able to do this.
JCM: Are there other ways to reduce greenhouse effects? Perhaps turning down reradiation from the surface a couple watts.
What you suggest has a name – “geoengineering”, and its negative aspects have been discussed quite a bit over time. The fossil fuel defenders who promote geoengineering argue: why bother with mitigation (reducing our CO2 emissions) when it would cheaper to use a technological “fix”, say, spray SO2 aerosols in the lower stratosphere, and cause cooling – for a fraction of the price of the cooling achieved by “negative” CO2 emissions. But reality is not as simple as you and the defenders of fossil fuels imagine:
1. You are addressing one of the symptoms, without doing anything about the cause – it’s like reducing patient’s fever without doing anything about the underlying disease. Therefore, the reduction of global warming without reductions of CO2 emissions – won’t do a thing to stop the further acidification of the ocean.
2.In fact, it can make the ocean acidification much worse – with the temperature “taken care of” – there won’t be any urgency in bringing our emissions of CO2 to zero, which is the only way to stop
further ocean acidification.
3. We don’t have much experience in deliberate modifying of the environment at planetary scale. For instance, the cooling effect might not be spatially uniform and if yes – some places would cool more than the others – possibly messing up with atmospheric circulation. One of the possible results may be disrupting of the monsoons, on which several billion people depend for their food.
4. Planterary geoenginnering would require unanimous planetary agreement – you would have to get for instance Ukraine and Russia on the same page … Now imagine that disrupting of moonsons will negatively affect food production in India and China – do you think they will gladly suffer for the benefit of … people in the US and Europe ?
5. You will have to maintain this unanimous global support FOREVER – because the moment you stop – the global warming signal from the accumulated CO2 will hit immediately with the full force.
6. This leads to ANOTHER problem -currently, the temperature is growing GRADUALLY – so at least some species may have enough time to adapt to this gradual changes. However, once you started geoengineering and kept the temperature artificially stable, then, after any disruption
in geoengineering, due to political (see p.4) or technological problems – all the pent-up heating (from the massively increased in the meantime CO2 conc.) would strike with full force almost instantaneously. Which means that hardly any species/ecosystem would have enough time to adapt to such a massive and rapid climate change.
So, given all that – I don’t think your technological fix to get out of the mitigation are “practical”,
nor do I think “climate scientists” should waste their time on, and lend their credibility for, such schemes.
The only limited application of geoengineering I could see would be as a short-term, partial stop-gap measure, to give us slightly more time to bring down the CO2 emission to zero or below. But even then it would have to be done with understanding that it is stop-gap measure, NOT a solution, and that it comes at the price of making “the other effect” of our CO2 emissions, ocean acidification, progressively WORSE.
@Piotr
“What you suggest has a name – geoengineering”
I find it quite difficult to engage on these threads with so much judgement.
I am currently on sparse wifi on mobile so my response will be short and to the point.
What might the term G look like in preindustrial times, prior to industrial machinery and 50% of the landscape cleared, drained, and soils turned upside down.
I rarely if ever see such things discussed.
For entertainment, run the schematic simple model with cooler soils by small fraction of a degree K and show the results. You seem passionate enough to engage in this exercise. Reduce reradiation from the surface. This was my input.
You will require a different set of formulations than presented by Schmidt.
“The fossil fuel defenders who promote geoengineering argue: why bother with mitigation (reducing our CO2 emissions) when it would cheaper to use a technological fix”
The irony is it is the consensus who preaches technological fixes for mitigation, when it is people like me who promote quite the opposite.
Thanks
JCM: What might the term G look like in preindustrial times, prior to industrial machinery and 50% of the landscape cleared, drained, and soils turned upside down. I rarely if ever see such things discussed
Because discussing that would be as productive as discussing how many angels could dance on the top a needle – with 8 billion people on Earth there is NO returning to your old good preindustrial times when we needed to feed and support 10-20 times FEWER people than today, CERTAINLY not in the next few decades, which is the timescale over which we have to stop further increase in temperature.
The only VIABLE way to achieve it – is to address the root cause of the climate change – CO2 emissions – and if you thought it was difficult to get the humanity’s consensus on that – then
I’d like to be at that meeting when you come and tell the world leaders that they have to abandon their most (all?) agriculture and eliminate 90-95 % of their populations.
JCM: “ For entertainment, run the schematic simple model with cooler soils by small fraction of a degree K and show the results. You seem passionate enough to engage in this exercise.
Cropland has HIGHER albedo than a FOREST – so For entertainment, run the schematic simple model with [ WARMER ]soils by small fraction of a degree K and show the results. You seem passionate enough to engage in this exercise.
so reforested Earth would absorb MORE solar radiation. So “for entertainment, run the schematic simple model with cooler soils by small fraction of a degree K and show the results.
and you have to run your model with not with colder but warmer soils.
so reverting agricultural fields back to forest would make the Earth absorbing MORE SW radiation,
@ Piotr
Last I checked thermal.IR sensors show a higher Ts after drainage and land clearing. After such activities the surface is radiating at a higher temperature. Sending a higher proportion of radiative flux to the lower troposphere. You can check this with the thermorecepors in your fingers. Stick your finger in a wetland soil and dry exposed soil nearby. Check a moist native forest if you can find one. The soils are cooler compared to a drained and cleared area. I was unaware this is in dispute. If you want to get fancy I’m sure landsat TIRS data or studies iare easy enough to come by. Farmers fallow their fields specifically for this purpose. To make the soil super hot to kill unwanted weeds n stuff. I estimate a restoration of soil moisture only a small percentage, by incentivising cover crops into cash crop rotations is probably enough. Ceasing wetland drainage is a good idea, and restoring native veg where it makes sense. It’s not so daunting, quite a useful companion to CO2 cuts. We’re doing it anyway ,,because of all the low.cost co-benefits and dividends. We can cool Ts 0.5.C or so. Would that help? You’re suggesting it will make things worse, yes? At the very least we can stop direct rise of surface reradiation. It seems to me this would relax the greenhouse a bit. It won’t hurt, I propose. You are suggesting it will. Oh well. Common sense went out the window awhile ago.
Hr Schmidt & al
I am looking every day from our kitchen- window over to the remote hills beyond Oslo, and the local air, lower troposphere is very variable. From allmost incredibly clean to really very dirty.
The dirts were traditionally diesel exhaust and even british coalsmoke. Today it seems to be sand from Sahara that may come even here, or maybe arid landscape dust that may blow very far such as desert dust from Kasakhstan.
A next hazy smoggy pollution is smoke from large bushfires. But the really clear airs and skies are new heavens from Jan Mayen, what i call ” comet weather” , where longtime exposure of hazy comet tails and star nebula becomes possible also in the lowlands..
This is all very well seen on weather satelite photos of land and sea from above, . where we can judge weather the taiga forests are really ever-green, and the seas rather blue. Or rather brownish hazy despite of “clear sky”.
It is obvious there, that the comet weathers are not the large and old high pressures. They get dirty quite soon by smoke and earthly dust. But rather the open glimpses of blue sky between the large travelling and rainy cyclone systems. That is what gives the really clear and brilliant starry heavens at night.
It can be studied also by astrophoto longtime exposures of “light pollution”. If really clean air, you get the comets and the large Orion and Andromeda nebulas in suburb and even urban areas by cearfully shielding off only the quite local light.
A next methodc that is actually used for measuring air pollution and aerosols is green laser light right up to the sky and photometry of back radiation from that.
Tyndall scattering is diffuse reflection and back radiation from chaotic particle sizes in the magnitude of visible light wavelength. That you can call “smoke” or “dust” and what may be brownish.
Rayleigh scattering is what causes the blue sky. By particle size one air molecule or 1/2 nanometer. Compared to visible light 400 tom 800 nanometer. Which may seem Incredible but the sky is blue and sunset and sunrise is redish due to Rayleigh scattering.
. Also that the blue sky shows a lot of polatized light from that Rayleigh scattering. .
I have checked up polarized light from the extreemy high http://www.noctilucent clouds, in order to determine their nature, and could see it simply by low angle reflection in a sheet of window glass, You can see that the night shining clouds are tyndall scattering in direct sunshine very high up in the atmosphere, on a background of deep blue rayleigh scattered and polarized skylight.
Further, there are volcanic dusts now and then, very obvious as very high, low stratospheric clouds from the Eyafjallajøkull eruption that even settled on the cars. And yellow clouds of pollen at extreeme needlewood forest blossom and easterly winds.
A practical consequense of this is that you hardly need an air- particle filter for your car exept for driving in Sahara, and such filters are hardly needed at sea . . But Eyafjallajøkull eruptions could stop the very EU air traffic for several days. . It melts in the high temperature combustion chambers and glazes the yellow hot exhaust turbines.
======000
Well this was about dusts and dirts, maybe my next comment will be about more or less white clouds.
But it is the very important aerosols and condensation nuclei.
The air is obviously washed and made clear for comet photos by rain. And becomes dirty quite soon again.
Since Lindzen & Choi are still flogging the adaptive iris (latest at https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13143-021-00238-1), and rely substantially on CERES and feedback arguments, this might be an appropriate time for a review of that most durable of alt theories.
@Piotr
Shallow condescending deflection. Completely unproductive. Is this what they are teaching at Uni?
Your low albedo forests nail in coffin rebuttal is amusing. A review of geography is in order, for the undisturbed landscapes exhibited far more fascinating properties than your albedo simplifying (erroneous) assumption regarding the forest biome. Small patches of residual “natural” space remain, if one cares to look.
Today you will find across most northern mid latitudes the grasslands, alvar, and wetlands have been replaced by scots pine plantation in attempted (abandoned) unproductive fringe farmland. A deeply concerning movement advocated by consensus European opinion from the 19th and early 20th century. An environmental disaster, I think, exported globally.
If climate science exploratory discussion is to be limited to your preferred and preconceived policy option, this bias is severely limiting. Is this a science blog, or political blog. It is becoming increasingly unclear in most climate forums.
Either way, regardless of those who will actively shut down dissenters by some sort of neural reflex action, it remains entertaining. I am currently on board railway passing through Gujarat in an overnight cabin arrangement. Fresh tea or coffee is on order through each station. I have time to kill. When my tourist sim card connects I shall submit a new replies.
JCM:” Last I checked thermal.IR sensors show a higher Ts after drainage and land clearing.
Where did you “last checked it”? Compare, for instance, with: “Global climate forcing from albedo change caused by large-scale deforestation and reforestation: quantification and attribution of geographic variation” in Climatic Change volume 142, pages 463–476 (2017): concluding:
“Albedo RF from global reforestation of present-day croplands to recover year 1700 forests is estimated to be 0.161 W m−2.”
You understand what this means to your claims, right?
Similarly with wetlands – see e.g. Table 1 with sources And these data have been obtained from somewhat more rigorous methodologies than your: “ Stick your finger in a wetland soil and dry exposed soil nearby. (c) JCM”
And ignorance goes often hand in hand with arrogance:
JCM, after pointing to him that forests and wetlands have LOWER, not higher, albedo than croplands:
“Shallow condescending deflection. Completely unproductive. Is this what they are teaching at Uni?”
– ” I find it quite difficult to engage on these threads with so much judgement.”
– “A review of geography is in order”
– “For climates, while it might appear too much co2 has us in this mess, perhaps there are practical things modelers could explore to assist practical policy recommendation.” *
*where the “practical thing” that JCM came up with was to reforest/revert to wetlands
about …. 5 times MORE arable land than … there is arable land now (ca. 10% of land surface, not 50% as JCM implied. He wasn’t also very forthcoming how exactly he plans to feed 8 bln people after that.
JCM: “I rarely if ever see such things discussed”
Hmm, I wonder why …
Spot the wetlands in Figure 7 using the LST map
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/7/4/4268/htm
Hint, wetlands are not included in the land cover classification pane!
Hint 2, its the pale blue bits. Treed swamps, I’d say. Notice the built up area wrapping around such features. The persistent and undrainable features. In total, 90% gone globally :(
If I recall it has been since the 1980s that land surface temperature retrieved from active and passive microwave sensors has been used for soil moisture estimation at broad scale. Certainly not perfect.
The trend in declining moisture attributed to non condensing greenhouse gas, today. Too convenient is my hunch. We see our direct impacts, and you can feel it too. With your fingers (c) JCM. I love that!
It is common sense, I think, that shady moist soils are more cool. If this concept is baffling to you I prescribe some time away from common climate texts and more time in the field. Touch, sense, Think. And repeat.
For you keep coming back to your albedo, which is but only one aspect of surface energy budget. Recall introductory boundary layer surface budgets and work things out.
You ignore applied methods in ag which are advancing since the time of my youth. Management of crop residues and cover crops, which I have already mentioned. Cutting edge stuff for us civilized folx!
The baffling bit to me is the resistance.
Wannabe Do-gooders who are.net damaging, I’d say (c).JCM.
piotr: –
” “Albedo RF from global reforestation of present-day croplands to recover year 1700 forests is estimated to be 0.161 W m−2.”
You understand what this means to your claims, right?
ms: — I heard a few years ago from flat-headed, loitering motherearthfuckers seriously proposing large-scale logging of northern boreal forests in the hopes of improving albedo. With the chainsaw against climate change ??? —
If I had a chainsaw, I would only use it to properly trim the dark, mental albedo & reflectance of these flatheads.
During your spiritual low flight, did you calculate how much cloud albedo these trees produce through evaporation??? CO² absorption ??? water storage??? Guarantee biodiversity ???
JCM:” For you keep coming back to your albedo, which is but only one aspect of surface energy budget”
It was you who joined this discussion to lecture scientists that instead of being busy with CO2 mitigation, they should study your novel idea of reducing greenhouse effect by changing RE-RADIATION.:
For climates, while it might appear too much co2 has us in this mess, perhaps there are practical things modelers could explore to assist practical policy recommendation. Are there other ways to reduce greenhouse effects? Perhaps turning down reradiation from the surface a couple watts.
First, it is a little embarrassing having to explain it to somebody who lectures others about their ignorance: You ignore applied methods in ag which are advancing since the time of my youth “, yet does not know the first thing about things he is talking about – that your “ turning down re-radiation from the surface a couple watts” would WARM the Earth, thus making our greenhouse problem – WORSE, not better .
Second, if you have meant turning down the INCOMING radiation (solar) – then, short of turning down the Sun, the only way to turn down absorbed solar radiation is to increase ALBEDO. And that’s why I “ keep coming back to my albedo” – because it is YOUR albedo – the only variable that COULD have made YOUR initial argument to have any sense.
Could have made, but it doesn’t – because reforestation REDUCES albedo, which on its own, makes the Earth surface WARMER:
“ Albedo RF from global reforestation of present-day croplands to recover year 1700 forests is estimated to be 0.161 W m−2. ” Climatic Change volume 142, pages 463–476 (2017).
And yes – I do prefer the peer-reviewed global study over your sources of insight into climatic processes:
JCM: If this concept is baffling to you I prescribe some time away from common climate texts and more time in the field. Touch, sense, Think. And repeat.”
The more paternalistic they are, the harder they fall, when it turns out that it is them who are the ignoramuses.
JCM:” Spot the wetlands in Figure 7 using the LST map ”
So what? Your colder spots are due to increased evaporation from wetlands, which cools the surface, NOT due to changes in “RE-RADIATION”, which you proposed in your opening post.
Removal of heat from ground by water is not “radiation”, hence also not “re-radiation”.
JCM: “ The baffling bit to me is the resistance”
Resistance is to your arrogant ignorance, not to the idea of reforestation and restoring wetlands, which have many environmental benefits. As for climatic benefits, reforestation helps to “reduce greenhouse effects”, but not as you claimed through changes in re-radiation (since the change in albedo WARMS the Earth – see the reference above), BUT through the UPATKE OF CO2 – which you explicitly …. dismissed as questionable (“while it might appear”) and impractical:
For climates, while it might appear too much co2 has us in this mess, perhaps there are practical things modelers could explore to assist practical policy recommendation. (c) JCM
And with wetlands it is even worse – not only do they make the land absorb more solar radiation, but their CO2 uptake effect is likely more than offset by the emissions of CH4, of which wetlands are one of the main sources. And CH4 is a much more potent per kg GHG than CO2.
So, after YOU sowed misinformation, after YOU questioned the role of CO2 in climate change
(“ While it might appear too much co2 has us in this mess”) and after YOU implied
that mitigation of CO2 is impractical, YOU have the gall to lecture others:
“ Wannabe Do-gooders who are.net damaging, I’d say (c).JCM.” ?
I see we are making progress. The increasing use of ALL CAPS suggests some aggravation!
Here you have hit the nail on the head, and we are in perfect agreement.
“””Your colder spots are due to increased evaporation from wetlands, which cools the surface, NOT due to changes in “RE-RADIATION”, which you proposed in your opening post.
Removal of heat from ground by water is not “radiation”, hence also not “re-radiation”.”””
LW radiated from the surface is reduced by some function of T^4. Some proportion of flux density in watts per square metre is ’emitted’ from the surface, by a process other than LW radiative flux. Does this affect the greenhouse / feedbacks or not? This is where the discussion should lead.
You may disagree, but I have labeled this a reduction of reradiation from the surface. I am open to be enlightened with a better terminology.
I think a useful.analogy is urban heat Islands. This is not in dispute. Now extrapolate the UHI across all developed lands, just to a smaller degree. It’s not a perfect analogy, nothing is.
JCM: I see we are making progress. The increasing use of ALL CAPS suggests some aggravation!”
BPL: In other words, you’re a troll.
JCM: LW radiated from the surface is reduced by some function of T^4. Some proportion of flux density in watts per square metre is ’emitted’ from the surface, by a process other than LW radiative flux. Does this affect the greenhouse / feedbacks or not? This is where the discussion should lead. . . . You may disagree, but I have labeled this a reduction of reradiation from the surface. I am open to be enlightened with a better terminology.
BPL: EVERYBODY would disagree. Whatever Humpty Dumpty said, you can’t make a word mean whatever you want it to mean. Radiation has a specific meaning in physics and you can’t hijack it for your own purposes, then call people on it when they don’t get your idiosyncratic use of the term.
If you want a generic term for the transfer of energy per unit time per unit area, it is called “flux density.”
@JCM
— Hey JCM! Don’t be discouraged by unqualified staff. I envy you not only because of the Indian food and the brilliant train rides in that magnificent country (if possible don’t forget VARANASI & GOA – my personal favorites), but also for your inner peace and patience with which you counteract stupidity.
Staying on topic – always argue with a view to a GEB. You can find the most important ones on my website.
There are 4 ways a land surface dissipates energy: evaporation(1L=0,68KWh), sensible heat flux, re-radiation, and of course the ground, which is said to have steadily warmed by ~1.56°C (imbalance).
This supply of heat to the ground naturally takes place when the soil temperature is at its highest (in the meantime up to 60°C in summer / asphalt and PV in the cities even over 80°C). This creates a lot of T^4 IR radiation, which is also emitted in shorter, higher-energy wavelengths that do not fit through the atmospheric window.
Only one thing helps – WATER”.
!!! Less the emission of CO2, but the constantly increasing, immense loss of evaporative landscapes is the main cause of climate change. !!!
In a few days I will hopefully add all the “waterproof evidence” to confirm my concept to stop AGW & SLR & CO2 to my website. The analysis of the EEI discussed here plays a historically important role for the IPCC, the world, and arguably for you too.
In my mind I’m sitting next to you in the train compartment with a cup of chai – enjoy and take care.
@BPL
As always, the troll with the big mouth is YOU
https://ugc.berkeley.edu/background-content/re-radiation-of-heat/
Just stuff your socks in your mouth – or talk to other idiots who have the same level as you.
ms: As always, the troll with the big mouth is YOU . . . Just stuff your socks in your mouth – or talk to other idiots who have the same level as you.
BPL: You mean, people with degrees in physics and published papers about planetary temperatures?
MS: “ I heard a few years ago from flat-headed, loitering motherearthfuckers seriously proposing large-scale logging of northern boreal forests in the hopes of improving albedo. With the chainsaw against climate change ???
And the reason you share this story … in response to my post is … ?
MS: “During your spiritual low flight, did you calculate how much cloud albedo these trees produce through evaporation??? CO² absorption ??? water storage??? Guarantee biodiversity ???”
Didn’t have to – because despite the dramatic multiple triple questions marks – those issues are
irrelevant to the discussion at hand, i.e. to my disproving JCM’s claim WITHIN HIS OWN argument:
JCM: For climates, while it might appear too much co2 has us in this mess, perhaps there are practical things modelers could explore to assist practical policy recommendation. Are there other ways to reduce greenhouse effects? Perhaps turning down reradiation from the surface a couple watts.
See? no “ evaporation, CO2 absorption, water storage, or Guarantee biodiversity”
In symbolic notation:
– JCM: “A can reduce B via lowering C”
– me: “It won’t, since A raises C”
– MS: “During your spiritual low flight, did you calculate D??? E??? F??? G???”
Hello Piotr,
I might have missed your support for the A raises C bit. Where is it?
Thanks.
Willard, Piotr does tend to attempt TMI sometimes and it can be confusing. But simply put, there’s a very fundamental principle in physics… perhaps close to the most fundamental… that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can be transformed, transmitted, transferred, and transported.
When water evaporates, thermal energy is transformed to latent heat, and so the energy is transported upwards into the atmosphere. But our problem is already too much energy in the atmosphere; after all, water vapor doesn’t carry the energy off into space through some magical iris portal. When it condenses and falls as rain, the energy is transferred to the atmosphere, where it is again thermal energy… indistinguishable from the energy that results from CO2 absorbing outgoing radiant energy. Or, if it doesn’t condense, it absorbs outgoing radiant energy even more than CO2 does.
If, in addition, what you do to increase evaporation results in increased absorption of radiant energy from the sun at the surface, the result is a definite net negative in terms of correcting the climate system’s radiative energy imbalance that is the result of the greenhouse effect.
Zebra,
In TMI there is an I. There’s no I to speak of, otherwise rhetorical questions such as “You understand what this means to your claims” would be over-the-top.
Likewise, your hypothetical has little bearing on the suggestion that we ought to study the Net Zero cat. This presumes that we don’t, and this is false, e.g.:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2001.00383.x
Our train traveller might have a harder time pulling legs without his “modellers never study my pet topic” crutch and with an acknowledgment that land use matters quite a bit. Since this comes from the IPCC itself (Richard Betts not being Senior), it would be overzealous to refuse the point.
There’s absolutely no need to hold that what comes in but gets out without being registered on thermometers makes it all so much worse.
It seems.to me, in the context of the headpost, inducing a small change to G is outlined in the simple model. G appears to originate from the surface.
“\Delta G is the (small) change in the upward LW radiation (consistent with the increase in surface temperature) from the basic state (denoted by the G_0 subscript). ”
G is simply εσTs^4. You can play with that however you want. That’s why it’s great. Schmidt has offered one way to play with it. Macias offers an alternative mechanistic interpretation. No need to complicate things. You’ll get the same result regardless of the source of anthropogenic forcing.
-JCM: “A can reduce B via lowering C”
– me: “It won’t, since A raises C”
– MS: “During your spiritual low flight, did you calculate D??? E??? F??? G???”
Willard: “ I might have missed your support for the A raises C bit.”
A= reforestation, B= “reducing greenhouse effects” C = albedo
The support is in my two previous replies to JCM:.
“Albedo RF from global reforestation of present-day croplands to recover year 1700 forests is estimated to be 0.161 W m−2. ” Climatic Change volume 142, pages 463–476 (2017).”
Hyperlink to the paper in my earlier reply.
Zebra: [Willard: “I might have missed your support for the A raises C bit. Where is it?” ] “ Piotr does tend to attempt TMI sometimes and it can be confusing. But simply put, there’s a very fundamental principle in physics… perhaps close to the most fundamental… that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can be transformed, transmitted, transferred, and transported. ”
He makes a drive-by-petty comment about my “attempted TMI” (“too much information”?) and proceeds to explain … the 1st and 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. You see the irony, right?
My ambitions were much more modest – to show the fallacy of JCM’s argument within that argument, namely that reforestation INCREASES albedo, not as JCM implied – decreased, and therefore his ideas are not a “practical” alternative to the presumably “impractical” reductions in GHGs emissions (which he further dismissed as “ technological fixes), and complained that he hasn’t seen scientists studying his “practical” solution.
To which I have given him a source that evaluated precisely that:
“ Albedo RF from global reforestation of present-day croplands to recover year 1700 forests is estimated to be 0.161 W m−2. ” Climatic Change volume 142, pages 463–476 (2017).”
and did it with a considerably more rigorous methodology than JCM’s proposed walking with a finger and sticking it into different objects, repeatedly.
Thanks, Piotr.
I was not sure if your B was about albedo or greenhouse effects. Since they are opposite and you mocked our train traveller for confusing the two, I thought it important to clarify things a bit.
So, in plain terms, deforestation increases albedo, which decreases warming. (More so in snowy countries.) So afforestation could increase warming via the albedo effect. But afforestation also increases carbon capture (and storage) which decreases warming. Scientiste expect that the carbon sinks generally benefit cooling off the planet, but it takes a while for the trees to grow big enough to compensate the lowering of albedo, e.g.
https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/8/3687/2011/bg-8-3687-2011.html
So our train traveller was wrong in thinking that afforestation decreased radiations, wrong in suggesting that researchers did not study it, but correct in reminding that land use is important to fight climate change.
Please mind the audience. It usually could not care less about pissing contests.
Ooops. A correction to my explanation of
to Willard:
In: “A= reforestation, B= “reducing greenhouse effects” C = albedo”
C- should have been: absorptivity of SW solar radiation by Earth surface (i.e. C = 1 – albedo).
I.e. reforestation decreases albedo thus the effect on albedo warms the Earth surface, thus making “greenhouse effects” stronger, not as JCM claimed – “reduced”.
Willard: “ so, in plain terms, deforestation increases albedo, which decreases warming. (More so in snowy countries.) So afforestation could increase warming via the albedo effect.
YES. And to the claim of JCM that nobody looks at it – I gave the reference that did exactly that: how much REforestation back to the preindustrial levels would have decreased albedo and therefore warmed the Earth (RF= + 0.161 W m−2. )
Willard: “ But afforestation also increases carbon capture (and storage) which decreases warming.”
Yes – but our JMS – dismissed this effect out of hand – by implying that mitigation of Co2 is “impractical” as opposed to non-CO2 methods, and even questioning the role of Co2 in climate change at all, I quote:
JMS: For climates, while it might appear too much co2 has us in this mess, perhaps there are practical things modelers could explore to assist practical policy recommendation. Are there other ways to reduce greenhouse effects?
So, if he did argue about increased CO2 uptake, I wouldn’t have commented it, or at most mentioned that the CO2 reducing effect would be partially weakened by the reduction in surface albedo, and that one should also look into the role of increased transpiration which in itself has some conflicting effects – water vapour/clouds effect of absorption of LW, of SW, and atmospheric albedo. .
Similar goes for restoring wetlands, with the additional complication of increasing CH4 emissions.
Piotr,
If you want to feed the trolls, then carry on. But you are interacting with someone who says:
And the arguments presented in support are quite incoherent. The more details, the more opportunity for errors (as you demonstrated) and, for the hypothetical sincere student trying to follow this, obfuscation and confusion.
It seems to me that what is missing is in fact an understanding of conservation of energy… or perhaps ms does believe in that magic iris portal whisking things away through hyperspace. You should try asking him; I believe I’ve tried along those lines in the past with no response.
Zebra The more details, the more opportunity for errors (as you demonstrated) and, for the hypothetical sincere student trying to follow this, obfuscation and confusion.:
… and to alleviate it, you bring in … a tautology (the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics), which contribute nothing ,/i> to the questions you commented here on, which were:
1. my supposed “feeding the troll” through my pointing to him that his questions were irrelevant to discussion he joined
2. my countering JMS implication that forestation increases, not decreases, as the quotes I provided indicate, Earth surface albedo. And because of this, JMS’s search for the alternatives to the dismissed by him CO2-mitigation – would have to continue.
Your other contribution to the discussion in this thread was lecturing me that when seeing JMS saying “re-radiation,/i>”, I should have known that might have meant energy fluxes that are NOT radiation (advective heat flux of evaporation).
Aren’t you _the_ zebra, -the RC’s Guardian of the Definitions – whose main contribution to this group seems to be chastising others on their imprecise language and sloppy definitions?
Dr. Gavin Schmidt says: –
” …noticeable trend in the Earth’s Energy Imbalance (EEI), mostly driven by a reduction in the solar radiation reflected by the planet, while the outgoing long wave radiation does not appear to contribute much. But what can be causing this? ”
” …the dominance of the SW trends to imply that the overall trends in climate are not (despite copious evidence) being driven by the rise in greenhouse gases…”
ms: — Thank you Gavin for your contribution to the core problem of the EEI
The SW up TOA reduced by ~1.4W/m² in the period 1998-2020 is easily explained.
According to (M. Wild et al 2019), a global cloud albedo (47W/m²) that has shrunk by ~2% explains a large part (2/3) of the warming SW trend with +0.94W/m². The remaining ~ +0.5W/m² of decreased SW out TOA are mainly divided into losses of snow & ice albedo and the reflecting aerosols.
The 2% eliminated warming cloud radiative effect also fully explains the chilling LW trend of ~ -0.56W/m², giving a net trend EEI of +0,9W/m² during the 2 decades. With a 2% drop in CRE, one should also consider that the atmosphere (lower stratosphere ?) is cooled by approx. 0.14W/m² as a result.
https://www.climate4you.com/images/CloudCover_and_MSU%20UAH%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage%20With201505Reference.gif
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-018-4413-y
So I don’t see the predominantly cloud & ice albedo SW up trend as an effect caused by CO2 – but there is another explanation.
If you look at the chart of relative humidity…
https://climate.metoffice.cloud/humidity.html
…and superimpose the Goode & the Loeb graphs above into the appropriate time period, you will find that in particularly hot (el nino) years such as 1998, 2010 and 2016, the values for the EEI can even reach ZERO
(which basically would be a desirable steady state) and correlates with peaks in (relative) humidity / SW & LW out TOA / cloud effective temperature.
This downward slope of the greenhouse gas H2O is thus more closely linked to the EEI –
and the fairly steady, almost linearly increasing CO2 concentrations on Mauna Loa do not appear to have any fast-acting influence on the EEI, cloud and ice albedo or humidity.
Conversely, however, the (relative) humidity has a major influence on cloud formation.
Relative humidity has been declining for at least 75 years with a trend of ~ -0.2%/decade.
https://www.climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20ESRL%20AtmospericRelativeHumidity%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1948%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
As you can easily calculate with a dew point calculator, the absolute difference of 1% rH (e.g. 79%–>78% rH ) at constant temperature and an atmosphere with 13000 km³ of water (vapor) is ~ 170 km³.
In order to compensate for this missing 170 km³, 40 x 170 km³ = 6800 km³ would have to be additionally evaporated annually due to the short residence time of water vapor in the atmosphere of ~9 days.
A similar order of magnitude of (missing) evaporation capacity can be calculated if one estimates the reduced evaporation over land areas (38W/m²) at ~ 13% due to land use change over ~94 million km².
Not the emission of carbon dioxide (CO2), but the loss of evaporative landscapes is IMO the main cause of climate change.
Dr. Gavin Schmidt says; – ” The observed downward trend in albedo (an increase in absorbed shortwave radiation by around 0.5 W/m2) is dominated by clouds – less or thinner clouds than previously…”
ms: — I’m confused. Shouldn’t it be ~ +1.4W/m² of absorbed SW at the surface- if above is missing
~ -1.4W/m² of SW out TOA ?
ms: Relative humidity has been declining for at least 75 years with a trend of ~ -0.2%/decade.
BPL: Not at sea level. You’re looking at the upper troposphere and the stratosphere, where there is much less water vapor to begin with. Water vapor has a very shallow scale height, about 1.8-2.0 km compared to 8 km for dry air.
@BPL: – ” Not at sea level. ”
ms: — Even at sea level – you just don’t have your reading glasses on.
In 300m water depth, however, rH is stable – I agree with you.
Levenson, you are unfortunately a denier of reality – about as boring and not able to learn as the IPCC.
The main cause of climate change is less the emission of CO2, but the steadily increasing, immense loss of evaporative landscapes – also long before industrialization.
You’re one of those two-legged idiots who have drained the land for millennia – and are now scratching their heads for a suspiciously long time, ———————————————————————————————————– wondering where the water is and why the earth is plagued by droughts & heat records under an increasingly cloudless sky.
The analysis of the EEI speaks a very clear language – only you (& some others) remain in Babylonian murmurs. Just explain loud and clear how higher CO2 concentrations should lead to fewer clouds.
Or why do we observe increasing OLR – when higher CO2 concentrations and GHE should decrease OLR. ??
ms: The main cause of climate change is less the emission of CO2, but the steadily increasing, immense loss of evaporative landscapes
BPL: CO2 accounts for 85% of the variance of temperature from 1850 to 2019 (N = 170), so all other causes can only account for 15%. It always helps to do the math.
> The analysis of the EEI speaks a very clear language
A language only you seem able to hear your way, Matthias.
Have you looked into the IPCC’s deliverables for possible answers to your leading questions?
@Willard
— The problem is that the IPCC has not yet recognized that ~10% less evaporation (-3,8W/m²) over land surface has led during the millenias to serious manmade changes and problems in the hydrological cycle and in the atmosphere that still keep on growing rapidly.
https://climateprotectionhardware.files.wordpress.com/2022/09/clouds-transportofheatandwatervapour.jpg
If you have read at least that much above and understand that the topic revolves around the analysis of the EEI (2000-2020) and that it has been determined by radiation measurements that the planet lost ~ 1.4W/m² albedo (SW out TOA) in 2 decades lost – you will see that mostly only cloud, snow & ice albedo and loss of reflecting aerosols come into question.
The GHE is characterized by the fact that it reduces OLR (LW out TOA) and leaves the albedo essentially unchanged.
However, the opposite is observed – a (cooling) increase in OLR by ~0.57W/m² which, together with the (warming) albedo loss of 1.4W/m², results in an EEI of ~0.77W/m² per 20y.
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/12/10/1297#
Also note the course of the graphs, which correlate very strongly with ENSO and humidity – and NOT with the almost linear increase in CO2 concentrations.
There is simply hardly any room for a dominant GHE in the EEI.
I assume an underlying ~0.3W/m² trend for GHE and ~0.06W/m² for CO2.
Read above or on my website ( which has not yet fully incorporated the EEI topic ) to understand the IPCC’s simple but historic mistake.
The IPCC is historically on very thin ice with its assertion that CO2 is mainly responsible for global warming and will soon be in dire need of explanation when, after 40 years of lacking an overview, they find that water (vapor) is not just a warming CO2 feedback , but plays the most important cooling role for the Earth’s climate.
Many scientists will have to resign – or fall into deep depression if this mistake is not corrected as soon as possible. Unfortunately, here in the forum we do not hear anything of Dr. Schmidt, Prof. Rahmstorf or other IPCC experts to have any opinion on this fundamental problem of misjudgment..
And then if you would be so good as to explain the difference between a tin can with hot air and a universal genius to your boring, sleepy colleague Levenson. He has also forgotten to do his homework (to explain how increasing GHG lead to less cloud) and is disrupting class. Thanks
@Willard
— The problem is that the IPCC has not yet recognized that ~10% less evaporation (-3,8W/m²) over land surface has led during the millenias to serious manmade changes and problems in the hydrological cycle and in the atmosphere that still keep on growing rapidly.
https://climateprotectionhardware.files.wordpress.com/2022/09/clouds-transportofheatandwatervapour.jpg
If you have read at least that much above and understand that the topic revolves around the analysis of the EEI (2000-2020) and that it has been determined by radiation measurements that the planet lost ~ 1.4W/m² albedo (SW out TOA) in 2 decades lost – you will see that mostly only cloud, snow & ice albedo and loss of reflecting aerosols come into question.
The GHE is characterized by the fact that it reduces OLR (LW out TOA) and leaves the albedo essentially unchanged.
However, the opposite is observed – a (cooling) increase in OLR by ~0.57W/m² which, together with the (warming) albedo loss of 1.4W/m², results in an EEI of ~0.77W/m² per 20y.
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/12/10/1297#
Also note the course of the graphs, which correlate very strongly with ENSO and humidity – and NOT with the almost linear increase in CO2 concentrations.
There is simply hardly any room for a dominant GHE in the EEI.
I assume an underlying ~0.3W/m² trend for GHE and ~0.06W/m² for CO2.
Read above or on my website ( which has not yet fully incorporated the EEI topic ) to understand the IPCC’s simple but historic mistake.
The IPCC is historically on very thin ice with its assertion that CO2 is mainly responsible for global warming and will soon be in dire need of explanation when, after 40 years of lacking an overview, they find that water (vapor) is not just a warming CO2 feedback , but plays the most important cooling role for the Earth’s climate.
Many scientists will have to resign – or fall into deep depression if this mistake is not corrected as soon as possible. Unfortunately, here in the forum we do not hear anything of Dr. Schmidt, Prof. Rahmstorf or other IPCC experts to have any opinion on this fundamental problem of misjudgment..
And then if you would be so good as to explain the difference between a tin can with hot air and a universal genius to your boring, sleepy colleague Levenson. He has also forgotten to do his homework (to explain how increasing GHG lead to less cloud) and is disrupting class. Thanks
So, macias pretty much descends into outright denialism in citing Dubal & Vahrenholt (2021). Their paper claims a decrease in LW forcing since the turn of the millennium–but problematically, that’s not what other researchers find. Even more problematic, it’s not even consistent with macias himself.
To wit, he asks “why do we observe increasing OLR – when higher CO2 concentrations and GHE should decrease OLR. ??”
So, “we” doesn’t, apparently, include Dubal & Vahrenholt.
But there’s an easy answer, anyway: “because the planet is warmer!!” Stefan-Boltzman…
You seem not to have learnt very well about evaporation, condensation, distillation, and possible rain Genosse Schürle.
We had 3 Bunnies from Dresden in 0ur garden last week eating sweet, ripe grapes.
I asked them wherther it has been dry this year.
“Yes, …. but now it is raining again…!”
What matters now is wheather the wine tree will have yellow leaves before the first night frost. It shows that Vitis vinifera cannot take even the slightest frost on grean leaves unprepared for the winter, whereas all the other broad leaved thermophile trees from the fameous tempered climatic zone take that with elegance. This aspect rather than the winter frost temperatures seem to set the northern climatic limit for possible winery.
St Vaclavs wineyard on Hradcany Praha has delivered for the last 1000 years. King Henry VIII could notice himself for 9 wineyards in Kent during the little ice age. But wine outdoor uphill in Oslo is something new, and probably world record in the climate..
Napoleon gave dispensatione for artrificial sugering of the champagne, fror which the italians and the spanissh were quiteb angry and meant that it was cheating.
I tried a small sample of our grapes that seem to be a Muscato biancho a petites grains, a rather demanding sensitive and late cultivar strickty by Noahs method without any additions, or the way that is noticed for Pharaos fameous Kellner..
It stood still but then exploded afterv 5 days and stood still again after 8 days rather bright and clear. And judge it to 5 vol%. Not too bad.. The Germann cookbook says that only proper methods as stated in the bible give wine and that it is quite an art. And that it keeps from 3 to 23 % vol. Which is not true. The saccaromyces give up at 13-14% maximum and mosty well before that also..
But also very interesting: Penicillium alba came first on the top, and wild saccaromyces then took over after 4 days and fully stopped and isolated the white penicillium in floating foam aggregations.
So one does not have to worry about Penicillium.. Neither Acetobacter when CO2 can stop it. The original way was to make it rather underground in big amphoras.
Science Hr Schürle,, Science… that is rather what manages and makes it.
I can talk to Jehovas withnesses also about my research on this. They will adore it.
The bunnies also said Yes, there are wineries in Sachsen indeed. And they quite liked our local product, the fameous Opera- grape from Oslo downtown.. That is probably quite autentic phoenician greek from next to Mt. Ararat.
They have very deep roots and must have well drained and good ventilated soil, such as conventional Terrassenbau in Italia and Rheinland with “Erdluft”. . And properly pissed on.
I dare to wait also for Goldener October Spätlese Auslese this year. They began getting sweet 1. sept and just get better and better after that.
@carbonito: – ” …3 Bunnies…”
ms: — They probably found your bottle with the LSD Hoffmann’s drops and drank it up.
A short time later they converted to Jehovah’s Witnesses .
Now they’re probably telling you for years that the mushrooms and frogs from the Black Forest bring rain to the Norwegians.
But be careful – never trust the bunnies!!! – The Sahara is already on its way to you.
( …Today it seems to be sand from Sahara that may come even here… )
Even Frog Bay in Oslo is no longer safe.
In the future, Santa Claus will not have to bring his parcels to his post office with reindeer, but with camel sleighs
https://img.wikioo.org/ADC/Art-ImgScreen-4.nsf/O/A-8XXU4K/$FILE/Edvard-munch-the-scream.Jpg
https://www.artists24.net/pictures/user_images/full/48863_haeschen-beim-osterspaziergang.jpg
Thanks for the interesting post. We tried to analyze the forced trends in shortwave and longwave top of atmosphere radiation in models and relate to longwave a shortwave feedbacks (similar concept to what you’ve used here) https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=HQ1Bqv4AAAAJ&citation_for_view=HQ1Bqv4AAAAJ:MXK_kJrjxJIC
I don’t really trust our observational estimate of feedbacks used. An interesting finding was that the model ensemble mean shortwave feedback was unrelated to clouds and instead was due to equal parts surface albedo and atmospheric shortwave absorption by water vapor. I’m curious to hear why you think the CERES shortwave trends are dominated by clouds.
[Response: Thanks for the link! I would have cited this if I had recalled it. The toy model above doesn’t have any SW atmospheric absorption so that’s why I didn’t discuss it, but you are right, I should have noted it as an option. I don’t actually have any strong feelings on the causes – and we are organizing a new model activity to dig into it further. I’ll be interested to see what role these additional SW affects have in the analysis! – gavin]
@Aaron Donohoe says: –
” An interesting finding was that the model ensemble mean shortwave feedback was unrelated to clouds and instead was due to equal parts surface albedo and atmospheric shortwave absorption by water vapor. I’m curious to hear why you think the CERES shortwave trends are dominated by clouds. ”
ms: — The cooling cloud albedo has a known SW effect of 47W/m² and if we observe 2% cloud loss over the period 2000-2020 then -0.94W/m² is a major part of a total SW loss at TOA of -1.4W/m². Conversely, the well-known warming LW effect of the clouds of +28W/m² has a contribution of +0.56W/m² to the increased OLR at TOA.
The loss of snow & ice albedo(~0.3W/m²) and reflective aerosols(~1.6W/m²) are responsible for the remaining ~ -0.46W/m² of albedo loss.
Similar to cloud albedo, the loss of snow & ice albedo and aerosols also has a LW effect as the now exposed land and water surfaces can radiate more heat and also have better evaporation without the insulating snow and ice cover.
The warming effect of fewer aerosols increases the absorbed SW radiation, surface temperature, and LW up surface more evenly over a larger area as aerosols travel in the atmosphere.
The total amount of this additional OLR out TOA due to decreased albedo of the surface cannot be higher than +0.46W/m² and theoretically represents a possibility to estimate the increased GHE. due to higher greenhouse gas concentrations of ~
H2O + 0.2g/Kg
CO2 + 40ppm.
CH4 + 100ppb.
… & others…
My estimate is +0.2 – 0.3W/m² radiative forcing by GHE over the 2 decades.
@Gavin says: –
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Schmidt_sc05400j.pdf
” With a straightforward scheme for allocating overlaps, we find that water vapor is the dominant contributor (∼50% of the effect), followed by clouds (∼25%) and then CO2 with ∼20%. ”
??? 20% of ~ +0.3W/m² GHE — Is it possible that CO2 is only involved with ~ +0.06W/m² in the EEI trend of +0.76W/m² (2000-2020) ???
You can find all values and trends here:
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/12/10/1297#
> Is it possible that CO2 is only involved with ~ +0.06W/m² in the EEI trend of +0.76W/m² (2000-2020) ???
It’s also possible that you’re just hiding contrarian talking points behind gibberish, Matthias.
Hello Willard – I hear & understand myself well.
What contradictions do you mean?
Could it be that you are hiding important physical facts and wisdom behind your wooden board – or just empty space between A_B_C.
Ooops. I made a mistake in my responses to Willard and Zebra:
In my notation:
– JCM: “A can reduce B via lowering C”
– me: “It won’t, since A raises C”
– MS: “During your spiritual low flight, did you calculate D??? E??? F??? G???”
C SHOULD HAVE BEEN = absorptivity, NOT albedo. In fact C= 1-albedo.
I.e. reforestation -> higher absorptivity/lower albedo.
And the proof for my argument still stands:
“ Albedo RF from global reforestation of present-day croplands to recover year 1700 forests is estimated to be 0.161 W m−2. ” Climatic Change volume 142, pages 463–476 (2017).”
It is factually correct that climate science has reduced the role of vegetation and surface properties in the climate to albedo and a sink/source of CO2 and other GHG.
After-all, surface albedo determines the actual amount of solar energy available to transfer turbulent heat fluxes and moisture from the surface. Simples, right?
For example, concrete can have an albedo as high as 0.3 and wetlands 0.1. The reductionist might propose concretizing the Earth’s surface because of his energy balance concepts.
However, the reductionist has omitted the land surface influence on partitioning available solar energy. The reductionist has also ignored consequential feedbacks occurring aloft.
The effects on reflection, in addition to partitioning fluxes into evapotranspiration, sensibe heat, and photosynthesis. It is these processes which control the dynamics of temperature in a particular place.
We can probably agree the effect of humanity is substantial, impacting practically all particular places.
The surface routes the dissipation of solar energy. Change the surface, change the nature of energy partitioning. The albedo parameter cannot capture this, of course!
We should understand this intuitively, because a dry concrete is a different temperature than a moist spongy surface in close proximity. Even Piotr knows this.
In practically every sense, it is the presence or absence of moisture, proximity to waterbodies and vegetation types, along solar available, which is used in classic climate classifications.
Change any property of the land, and climate is likely to follow. Change a lot of the land, and you might start getting into observables in a global EEI sense. You might even start messing with pressure dynamics, patterns, and other such things.
If the climate science blog commenters cannot agree that the the land surface plays a crucial role in regulating energy fluxes and water cycle in the land-biosphere-atmosphere it is time for a reset.
Transformation of sustainable vegetated ecosystems well supplied with water alters the partitioning of available energy and the partitioning of precipitation between evapotranspiration, soil water, and runoff.
The reductionism imposed by radiative physicists to make sense of their remote sensing products is for convenience. However, we must never lose sight of reality in this process. Radiation texts should come with this warning, I think, because the reductionism is being preached as reality here.
If anyone wishes to dive deeper into surface energy budgets and the hydro-biological interactions I am happy to do so. The direct role of vegetation, soils, and water cannot be ignored, and changes in land-surface-properties must be included strategies to understand climates.
> If the climate science blog commenters cannot agree that the the land surface plays a crucial role in regulating energy fluxes and water cycle in the land-biosphere-atmosphere it is time for a reset.
That you disagree with everyone else on the effect of land use on radiative forcing would be on you. My guess was that you simply got carried away. Now I’m starting to believe that you’re going for discordianism.
@JCM: –
” After-all, surface albedo determines the actual amount of solar energy available to transfer turbulent heat fluxes and moisture from the surface. Simples, right? ”
ms: — ” … always argue with a view to a GEB ” – I recommended 2 days ago.
In a GEB/land absorbed solar radiation is 136W/m² – but thermal down surface is much higher with 306W/m².
It is not only the surface albedo that decides how much energy is available for latent, sensible and radiative transfer, but it can also be the cloud albedo, the GHE, the air & soil temperature or air & soil humidity…or even aerosols.
The albedo of the land area, which may have been improved by 0.161W/m², e.g. due to deforested agricultural areas, can cause ~ 0.04°C cooling – but this is completely meaningless.
However, since evaporation (38W/m²) is often reduced by up to 40% over these land areas, the air and the ground can enjoy a temperature increase of up to 15.2W/m² (~4°C) there.
But that’s not the end of the story. The 15.2W/m² correspond to ~196 L water (vapour)/m², which are no longer transported into the atmosphere and produce 196 kg fewer clouds (albedo) there.
Messrs Piotr, Willard, Zebra & Levenson with their strange ABC wooden board in front of their heads are so wound up mightily wrong,
@ macias
” always argue with a view to a GEB”
I hear you. But my area of focus is more close to the ground. Climate is a transdisciplinary subject, and we each bring our own cards to the table. Without getting too deep in the weeds, I shall generally refer to the GEB as nebulous feedbacks occurring aloft. You are welcome to fill these gaps. I too, have some ideas.
The masala chai seems to be, by some magic, a cure for most ills. The lurkers here might benefit by chatting around a fresh brew.
always a pleasure, regards.
@JCM says: – ” I shall generally refer to the GEB as nebulous feedbacks occurring aloft. You are welcome to fill these gaps. I too, have some ideas. ”
ms: — In view of the imminent apocalypses, new ideas don’t seem like the worst choice to counter them.
What do you think if we simply integrate you as an expert for turf, vegetation, fauna and deep weed into the GEB without being asked?
For example, it has been a thorn in my side for a long time that photosynthesis as a light-energetic process is not integrated into the conventional GEB. Most plants operate photosynthesis at an apparently low efficiency potential (1-2% of the absorbed light is stored in C-compounds).
There is also phytoplankton, for example, which, due to its large surface area with small content, operates much higher photosynthesis rates (up to 30% if they have been genetically modified).
With values of “solar absorbed surface” over land (136W/m²) and the sea surfaces (170W/m²) it becomes clear that a lush, functioning flora outsources energy amounts of
1.36 – 51W/m² from the radiation balance (cooling), which are then no longer available as re-radiation. This amount of energy is only available to the earth system again when these organisms are metabolized again in the food chain.
The huge (ex-)deposits of oil, gas and coal on earth show that there are huge amounts of energy that have escaped the food chain.
The rate of photosynthesis as a parameter that would certainly add new flair and precision to a modern GEB.
@macias
Surface budgets and microclimate principles have largely gone out of fashion since the reductionism of climate to global radiative diagnostics at TOA and convective parameterizations.
It is important to recognize the photosynthesis itself only accounts for a very small proportion of net radiation at the surface directly.
However, this is not to say it is unimportant. Far from it. For the bulk of dissipation process, which is accounted for through latent and sensible heat, is inextricably linked to photosynthesis in water cycles, nutrient cycles, a variety of biological and physical factors.
Not least leaf area index, soil moisture ability (biomass accumulation), and plant physiology. This all feeds into surface resistance to evapotranspiration. The energy dissipation capacity of evapotranspiration by vegetation drawing water from moist deep organic rich soils up through vast complex canopy structures and released aloft. This far exceeds that of a flat water surface per planar area.
At the surface, the net radiation is balanced by turbulent fluxes LE + H, conduction into the ground, and accumulation into biomass according to the Law of Energy Conservation
A full treatment of the surface flux is by the balance equation Net Radiation = LE + H + Soil Conduction + Metabolism (photosynthesis – respiration)
Fluxes are considered positive when directed downwards, and negative when directed upwards. The bulk of flux is accounted for in LE + H; and recall the heavy dependence of LE on biology!! And thus also the ratio of H and LE…
Review the introductory lecture by the widely respected Scott Denning
https://denning.atmos.colostate.edu/ats761/Lectures/04.SurfaceEnergyBudget.pdf
Notice especially the bottom left slide on page 2, “Land Surface Energy Budget”. There it is illustrated schematically the ability of LE to reach the free atmosphere in cloud condensation, where sensible heat (H) tends to be locked in the boundary layer turbulent eddies.
Notice also the top left slide of page 3 “Surface Energy Budget” where we are reminded the direction of net turbulent flux always opposes the direction of net radiation. Such that during the day net turbulent fluxes are directed upwards, and at night turbulent flux is directed downwards. A subject which I find fascinating. For a better description pick up TR Oke Boundary Layer Climates text.
We should also mention advection in local surface budgets, where moist vegetated landscapes in direct sun can actually have an LE fraction exceeding 100% of the energy dissipation! This, as these landscapes feed off adjacent lands dissipating energy far beyond their immediate locale. Read more in Huryna 2014
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260005675_The_importance_of_wetlands_in_the_energy_balance_of_an_agricultural_landscape
From the abstract:
“The evaporative fraction indicated that more than 100 % of the energy released by the wet meadow was dissipated through evapotranspiration; this was attributed to local heat advection.
Wetland evapotranspiration thus contributes significantly to the cooling of agricultural landscapes; the energy released can reach several 100 MW km-2. Wetland evapotranspiration has a double ‘air conditioning’ effect through which it equalises temperature differences: (1) surplus solar energy is bound into water vapour as latent heat; (2) The vapour moves towards cooler portions of the atmosphere where the energy is released. The air-conditioning effect of wetlands plays an important role in mitigating local climate extremes; this ecosystem service tends to be
disregarded …”
There is much more to mention specifically relating to water and nutrient cycling, and biological mediation in cloud microphysics, and boundary layer effects on radiation windows. Everything here mentioned has been greatly disrupted directly by human activity o Earth. It is likely far too complex for hindcast and forecast computation modelling. But I suspect some quantification is possible recognizing the limit of extremely sparse data availability and the difficulty to measure such factors. Perhaps it is observable at TOA EEI in some fashion.
JCM says “Surface budgets and microclimate principles have largely gone out of fashion …”
Ah, no they haven’t. They are an essential part of every 3d general circulation climate model that exists. They control what happens at the bottom of every atmospheric column in the model.
The difference between a GCM (and actual, real climate) and what you are selling is that the GCM then considers all the energy exchanges in and out the sides of each column (exchanges with adjacent columns) and the top. (exchanges with space).
What you are selling fails to consider how the local surface energy balance links to the rest of the world. By ignoring those links, you vastly overestimate the effect of local surface effects on global climate.
@bob
“By ignoring those links, you vastly overestimate the effect of local surface effects on global climate.”
Can you please expand on how you’ve come to this conclusion? I did not provide an estimate. Perhaps it’s somewhere in the range of >0% to <100% of 'global climate' forced changes. Locally and regionally, more or less pronounced. Does that help?
Perhaps an easy example. If I clear a patch of forest and then observe a new record maximum 2m temperature at that site afterwards, was this not related to the land clearing?
My only intent is to suggest that perhaps humanity does have an impact on surface energetics and boundary layer process, independent of direct forcing by non-condensing GHG and surface albedo. .
"the GCM then considers all the energy exchanges …"
I detect some romanticisation of these tools with the use of such superlative description. The discretization approach and response units are certainly one way to look at things.
Backing things up, and referring back to the headpost, can humanity have any direct impact to surface flux independent of greenhouse gas emission or aerosol, yes or no? This question is repeatedly dodged, deflected, or misunderstood.
JCM. You do not provide “an estimate” but you talk as if it has a global effect that is being ignored. For example “0 to 100% of global forced climate.”
The surface energy exchanges are included in the GCMs. That you call if “a romanticisation of these tools” only indicates your lack of knowledge of what is in GCMs.
Until you do the math, you are speculating about a system you do not understand. Surface changes at lone location affect the air temperature and humidity above that surface, and those change then affect energy exchanges elsewhere. And the net effect on global climate will be zero unless you alter the energy exchange with space.(Surface albedo changes will do this. Changes in surface latent or sensible heat fluxes generally will not. They will only change where and when energy is stored in the form of latent or sensible heat – not the total energy stored. in the atmosphere as a whole.
Your “question” is not being dodged, deflected, or misunderstood. It is being ignored because the answer is one that you won’t listen to.
@Bob
“Surface changes at lone location affect the air temperature and humidity above that surface, and those change then affect energy exchanges elsewhere”
What I am reading is that if I drain and dry my field, warm it up, this will result in a cooling effect elsewhere as an offsetting force, perhaps in the next township? What a curious concept.!
“Until you do the math, you are speculating about a system you do not understand.”
I think a classic case of flipping the null hypothesis. My observation of the direct ability of myself and my neighbhors to warm our fieds would suggest this has a warming effect in any common sense notion. If this isn’t true, I propose that you show me the math as to why this isn’t the case.
Conceptually, and as illustrated in materials I have provided elsewhere in this thread, latent fluxes when available are by and large direct upwards aloft, to be released in cloud condensation at some height. This cools the surface, and has a warming effect aloft.
Magnitudes less latent flux is returned to the surface as dew or frost. The bulk of water is returned to the surface as precipitation, not as vapor.
When latent flux is limited from the surface, less heat is sent aloft, more heat is retained near the surface. I shall leave it to the radiation experts to explain to me why warming surfaces, and cooling aloft, as no net consequences in radiation budgets. This should be good.
@JCM says: –
” The air-conditioning effect of wetlands plays an important role in mitigating local climate extremes; this ecosystem service tends to be disregarded … has been greatly disrupted directly by human activity … some quantification is possible recognizing the limit of extremely sparse data availability and the difficulty to measure such factors. Perhaps it is observable at TOA EEI in some fashion. ”
ms: — It is observable at TOA, in the atmosphere and on the surface. On my website you will find this quantification in relation to the loss of evaporation from land areas. I’m sure that mankind has reduced it by ~6500 km³/y in the last ~75 years by doing it blindly.
https://globalchallenges.ch/figure/box-breakdown-of-the-global-ice-free-land-surface-130-million-km2/
Unmistakable signs of this are the resulting drop in relative humidity and cloud formation since 1948 at the latest. These causes, which you excellently describe, are based on accumulated land-use change and climate scientists who describe these effects as CO2 feedback have either lost track or have been hampered with stupidity since birth and have the wrong job.
The evaporation from the missing 6500 km³/y corresponds to ~3.5W/m² = 45L/m² in a GEB/land.
This is the ~ evaporative loss quantification (1948-2022).
It can almost completely explain the rapid acceleration of global warming that has taken place.
C3 & C4 plants bind ~1-2kg carbon / m³ transpired water through photosynthesis. —>
So 6500 km³/y could absorb up to ~ 45Gt/y of CO2, and all the human CO2 emissions since industrialization would not be a problem at all. There would be no global warming if humanity hadn’t started massively skinning the land surfaces at the same time.
@Uncle Lowbob
For Australian sheep, all this is difficult to understand.
!!! Global warming is less caused by increasing climate gas concentrations, but predominantly by the decreasing cooling capacity of cloud albedo and evaporation on the surface !!!
Analysis of the EEI (2000-2020)
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/12/10/1297#
and the satellite-based measurements of cloud cover and rH support these facts very clearly.
So troll back to your Australian borehole or sheepfold and tell your skeptical science colleagues that a meltdown is imminent before Christmas.
You can be glad I misplaced my shepherd scissors – otherwise you’d have to go naked.
At least you can still serve as a useful Christmas decoration.
JCM:
Once again, you are describing local effects, without following the energy fluxes through to their conclusion.
Local increase in surface evaporation leads to two things in the overlying air: less thermal energy, and more water vapour. The total energy transfer does not change, unless absorbed solar changes.. As you state, the water vapour eventually condenses, returning it as thermal energy again, so we still just have “energy moves from surface to atmosphere”.
That condensation is rarely over the same place that the evaporation occurred. Look at global patterns of evaporation (very high over oceans) and precipitation (higher over land). You need to consider the horizontal transport of energy and water vapour from one location to another to get the big picture.
And that “cooler, more moist” air from your local evaporation increase will move over other surfaces, and over that other surface you will see less evaporation (the air is more moist, so smaller difference between surface and air) and more thermal transfer (because the surface-atmosphere temperature difference is larger). You need to take that into account. What you see as “more evaporation, less thermal transfer” will likely lead to an offsetting change elsewhere. So you don’t necessarily end up with more evaporation, more cloud, more precipitation, overall cooling on a global scale.
And I don’t need to do calculations, because that is exactly what GCMs and weather models do. It’s been done for me (and for you, if you look).. Local surface changes result in local differences in temperature and humidity, but it has very little effect on global average conditions.
@Bob
“Local surface changes result in local differences’
We shall thus relegate 5 billion hectares +++ of drained and eroded lands as inconsequential to how we experience, discuss, and measure climates. Not including the eradication of species and transformation of so-called wildlands on countless more lands. It shall have no bearing on policy recommendation at any level of governance. It is a shame.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/land-use-over-the-long-term
I shall be recommending to my local council to double down on greenhouse gas cuts as the exclusive prescription to reduce temperature extremes, flood risk, drought, and erosion in my community. I shall write columns in my paper that it is the CO2 which dried the wells in 2020.
I will visit the school kids to report this news and more which I have learned on realclimate.org. The GCMs have spoken – the vast desiccation of lands has no practical bearing on the climates, that ecological soil restoration and afforestation in our mid latitude may in fact be net damaging from the perspective of climatology (I have citations), and that the reductionism really is the best way to approach the science. There is no use to our senses, it has all be computed in great detail. Our eyes and hands deceive us. There is nothing more there, there.
@macias
I have been notified that if there is any attempt to improve the moisture cycling ability of my landscape using restorative practices, and if I’m extremely successful, that it will impose unprecedented high temperature in a neighboring community.
“And that cooler, more moist air from your local evaporation increase will move over other surfaces, and over that other surface you will see less evaporation (the air is more moist, so smaller difference between surface and air) and more thermal transfer (because the surface-atmosphere temperature difference is larger). You need to take that into account.”
I shall warn my neighbours, whom I believe have family over there in the other communities, to hold off on improving their soils.
The enhanced net upward flux of latent heat, mass, biota, and resulting lower surface temperature, has no net consequence. In fact it could have unpredictable negative consequences. Additionally, I have been notified turbulent fluxes, their magnitude and proportions, have no relation to net radiation in surface budgets, and so have no influence thereupon. This can be ignored, which opposes the materials I have provided.
JCM s/
Hey JCM –
don’t let a horde of stupid shaggy sheep lead you onto slippery ice – and certainly not into the desert. Always remember A. Einstein, who believed that human stupidity is infinite.
It could even be that smarter people like you and me end up looking just as stupid because we try to make this infinity of stupidity a bit smaller through our altruistic worldview.
Idle stupidity gangs up and reproduces more easily and quickly than cleverness & wisdom, which is much more tiring and lonely as a result.
The particularly shaggy shep Lowbob, who demands math from you and then doesn’t deliver any himself because his math is supposedly already based on his GCM, is a particularly nice subject on which to study it but not the only one here on real climate.
Just ask him what the figure for evaporation over land was back in 1750 (today 38W/m²) and he’ll have no air left in his GCM tires.
All the bullshit he spouts above cannot be fully commented on due to time constraints.
A self-proclaimed climate expert who scandalously even acts as moderator of an Australian Climate Forum (SkS) but has no idea about water cycles and the dissipative element water claims above:
@BL says: ” Look at global patterns of evaporation (very high over oceans) and precipitation (higher over land). You need to consider the horizontal transport of energy and water vapour from one location to another to get the big picture. ”
ms: — Every climate dork who has ever looked at a GEB / land & ocean knows:
Evaporation ocean = 100W/m² – 8W/m² that are exported to land.
Evaporation land = 38W/m² + 19W/m² imported from ocean. — (1W/m2 = 12.88L/m²)
Our astute Shep Lowbob actually claims that 92 is less than 57. — lol
His comment when he looked at these GEB/land & ocean for the first time in his life
a year ago was:
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=3&t=132&&a=141#137662
@Bob Loblow says: – ” The discussion diagrams provided by coolmaster(that`s me) in the preceeding comment are a useful expansion of the traditional “Trenberth” diagram that shows global averages.
– Clear skies and overcast skies are quite different.
– Land and sea are quite different.
– Visible light and IR radiation are quite different.
Add geographical differences related to latitude, continentality, global circulation patterns, etc. and you see even more variation.
Complex? yes
Incomprehensible? No. ” — (really Bob ?)
ms: — Feel free to read his Australian posts there… TO GET THE BIG BOB PICTURE… if the Indians aren’t funny enough for you at times. This guy knocks such statements out of his empty head almost every hour. I always have to tie myself to the sofa.
Keep your ears open and stay healthy.
@macias
much appreciated.
In reality nobody has calculated any of this stuff at global scale. You are a pioneer among very few. Anyone who claims these processes have been adequately characterized are incorrect. Their motivations to resist these discussions will forever remain a mystery to me. The efforts to shut down the discussion are net damaging to the cause for which we are all passionate – mitigating climate change. To hang around as arbiters of truth, with the audacity to talk down while hiding behind the CMIP ensemble members, is frankly absurd. The leaning on GCMs as the romanticized tools, having carefully computed all earth processes and the relations to climate is preposterous. I suspect the modelers would be the first to agree. Perhaps the researchers who base their studies on the GCM runs have not fully understood this. This I find hard to accept. Do the modelers have any responsibility to say “hang on, what I sec there”. For their recommendations are being taken to heart as infallible fact. The comment section lurkers so quick to dismiss seem apparently unaware of the inadvertent harm being caused by the reductionism. And they are misrepresenting the very tools they claim to so deeply understand. For their very words indicate quite the opposite of ‘knowing’ these tools. Like meeting a new friend, with rose-coloured glasses. Or purchasing your dream home … Isn’t it just so great? Perfect, one might say. It isn’t until you dig down to find reality. The modelers know this. For nobody has claimed to have calculated direct human disruption to water cycles on global scale…it just hasn’t been done. It’s not what the current CMIP generation does. It just doesn’t do that. Why not advance. Why sit and spin our wheels…
Food for thought:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311340976_The_role_of_water_and_vegetation_in_the_distribution_of_solar_energy_and_local_climate_a_review
The ‘Summary for policymakers’ in the IPCC (2013) report focused on the correlation between average surface temperature and concentration of specific greenhouse gases. According to the IPCC Report (2013), water vapour is a feedback agent rather than a forcing agent of climate change and has a negligible impact on the global climate. Its impact on climate change is NOT CALCULATED, since its concentration depends mainly on air temperature and varies widely. Moreover, its residence time is only several days, compared with years for carbon dioxide and methane. The IPCC Report (2013; Chapter 8: Radiative forcing) asserts that amount of water vapour in atmosphere is controlled by temperature and temperature is controlled by GHG like CO2 or CH4. However, despite the overwhelming focus on carbon in current IPCC efforts, it is recognized that atmospheric water – the main greenhouse substance owing to its concentration 1–3 orders of magnitude higher than that of other GHGs – is at the same time the biggest source of uncertainty in future climate projections (Bony et al. 2015). For instance, there is persistent ambiguity regarding the role of the planetary cloud cover−whether it reduces or enhances climate sensitivity to external forcing. However, the formation of clouds is profoundly affected by the land cover via biotically mediated synthesis of condensation nuclei (Pohlker et al. 2012). Second, modern circulation models do not properly reproduce the continental water cycle (Hagemann et al. 2011). Again, according to rapidly accumulating knowledge, vegetation cover plays a major role in sustaining the regional water cycle on land (Makarieva and Gorshkov 2007; Makarieva et al. 2010, 2013; Sheil 2014; Lawrence and Vandecar 2015). Furthermore, theoretical studies suggest that evaporation can serve as an efficient climate stabilizing mechanism not only on a local, but also on a global scale (Bates 1999). Recent evidence suggests that the overwhelming part of evaporation from land is mediated by life (Jasechko et al. 2013). Finally, as we discuss here, vegetation has a direct role in distribution of solar energy, reducing temperature gradients and damping extremes of air temperature. Thus, while the IPCC (2013) report has apparently undervalued the importance of plant cover, the climatic role of vegetation on the Earth is significant and should be urgently made a focus of an intense, cross-disciplinary and well-coordinated global research effort. Changes in terrestrial ecosystems like drainage of wetlands and deforestation reduce precipitation and evapotranspiration, enhance runoff and modify surface temperature by shifting the energy balance from latent heat (cooling through evapotranspiration) to sensible heat loss (turbulent flux of hot air). This leads to the destruction (open) of both matter and water cycles.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-14861-4_4
The role of wetlands and forests in climate and climate change is usually considered as a part of their functions as source or sink of greenhouse gases. However, the permanent vegetation in these systems is an active factor that, through the process of evapotranspiration, directly influences climate as well. Wet vegetation transforms solar radiation into the latent heat of water vapour. Evapotranspiration is a powerful tool that has, due to the phase change of water, a double air-conditioning effect in the landscape. In addition, it reduces thermal gradients, mitigates temperature extremes and closes water and mass cycles. Evapotranspiration-condensation processes slow down where there is a lack of water and permanent vegetation. Solar radiation is then transformed into sensible heat. The overheated surfaces warm the adjacent air layer. Warm air rises turbulently upwards and is capable of absorbing higher amounts of water vapour, which is then transmitted to higher levels of the atmosphere where condensation occurs. These processes significantly dry out the landscape. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, however, do not take into account this direct effect of water and vegetation on climate. This chapter explains the direct function of wetlands and the air-conditioning effect of evapotranspiration, which is also illustrated with thermal ground images. The role of forest and wetlands in transport of water from ocean into continents in terms of a biotic pump is discussed on the basis of the literature.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.12880
Destabilization of the water cycle threatens human lives and livelihoods. Meanwhile our understanding of whether and how changes in vegetation cover could trigger abrupt transitions in moisture regimes remains incomplete. This challenge calls for better evidence as well as for the theoretical concepts to describe it. Here we briefly summarise the theoretical questions surrounding the role of vegetation cover in the dynamics of a moist atmosphere. We discuss the previously unrecognized sensitivity of local wind power to condensation rate as revealed by our analysis of the continuity equation for a gas mixture. Using the framework of condensation-induced atmospheric dynamics, we then show that with the temperature contrast between land and ocean increasing up to a critical threshold, ocean-to-land moisture transport reaches a tipping point where it can stop or even reverse. Land-ocean temperature contrasts are affected by both global and regional processes, in particular, by the surface fluxes of sensible and latent heat that are strongly influenced by vegetation. Our results clarify how a disturbance of natural vegetation cover, e.g., by deforestation, can disrupt large-scale atmospheric circulation and moisture transport. In view of the increasing pressure on natural ecosystems, successful strategies of mitigating climate change require taking into account the impact of vegetation on moist atmospheric dynamics. Our analysis provides a theoretical framework to assess this impact. The available data for Eurasia indicate that the observed climatological land-ocean temperature contrasts are close to the threshold. This can explain the increasing fluctuations in the continental water cycle including droughts and floods and signifies a yet greater potential importance for large-scale forest conservation.
JCM
I see that JCM has no more interest in an actual scientific discussion than Shurle has.
Given that Shurle went through at least two screen names at SkS, and has used at least three here, it wouldn’t surprise me if JCM and Shurle are actually the same person. Same basic lack of understanding. Similar grandiose schemes that defy physics. Same response to criticism – proclaim their own genius, resort to rhetorical ploys and insults, quote numbers that do not mean what they think they mean.
@JCM –
We have been notified that you are me and I am you… LOL
…you see that old, dumb, shaggy and blind sheep are always willing to up the ante and are now even developing psychological illnesses such as paranoia and distorted reality.
Every job in a kindergarten for children with behavioral disorders and disabilities is easier.
You won’t be able to impart your knowledge to this stupidly united, concentrated turd.
The only thing there is to explore here is
– whether Bob Lowbob is as dumb as Carbomontanus
– whether Levenson and Ladbury are possibly even more stupid
– or whether McKinney, Willard, B.E. Finch and Zebra suffer from the same contagious mental shit as Mar, Nigelj and Piotr.
Instead, look at what’s going on out there in the real world. There are countless initiatives e.g.:
https://www.urbangreenbluegrids.com/measures/
Here you will find people who have long understood how water, vegetation and healthy soil will contribute to a future climate.
If you take a closer look at the site, you will find that your and my knowledge is in much better hands there. Do not hesitate contacting me on my website for further information.
Always a pleasure
PS I should add that I am up at the crack of dawn, for in Ahmedabad (amdavad), the call to prayer has me up close to 5am. It is the dawn. At first unnerving, I now am able to observe the transition of turbulent fluxes in the morning mist. A daily pleasure I have come to appreciate.
@ Bob Loblaw
Matthias Schürle and JCM being the same person…..
thanks for the suggestion. That may be the truth.. They are loving and worshipp8ing and applauding, probably also fucking each other in a sinful way having the same taste and opinions.
Personally I never dared to do it that way. I would have been exposed, branded, and filed.
But it is routine liturgy of the conventional Mafia and the Arbeiter und Bauernfakultät origining in the late DDR, further on the free market.
Re: “A few people have started to interpret the dominance of the SW trends to imply that the overall trends in climate are not (despite copious evidence) being driven by the rise in greenhouse gases (for instance, the rather poorly argued and seemingly un-copyedited Dübal and Vahrenholt (2021)) but these simplistic interpretations are seriously confused.”
I thought this was already addressed in the literature as feedbacks on greenhouse-gas-induced warming. Did folks like Dübal and Vahrenholt not read the literature?:
Donohoe et al. 2014:
“However, climate models forced with CO2 reveal that global energy accumulation is, instead, primarily caused by an increase in absorbed solar radiation (ASR). This study resolves this apparent paradox. The solution is in the climate feedbacks that increase ASR with warming—the moistening of the atmosphere and the reduction of snow and sea ice cover. Observations and model simulations suggest that even though global warming is set into motion by greenhouse gases that reduce OLR, it is ultimately sustained by the climate feedbacks that enhance ASR.”
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1412190111
Trenberth + Fasullo 2009:
“While there is a large increase in the greenhouse effect from increasing greenhouse gases and water vapor (as a feedback), this is offset to a large degree by a decreasing greenhouse effect from reducing cloud cover and increasing radiative emissions from higher temperatures. Instead the main warming from an energy budget standpoint comes from increases in absorbed solar radiation that stem directly from the decreasing cloud amounts.”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009GL037527
@AT
What does not fit — is made to fit.
Explain to us how and why we should observe less cloud albedo because of an increased GHE.
The only feedback of CO2 on water that I know of would be the increase in water vapor content as described by Clausius-Clapeyron due to an increase in the temperature of the atmosphere due to a stronger CO2 driven GHE.
But how would a higher water vapor content of the atmosphere lead to less cloud cover -???
The largest increases in water vapor are found over the tropics and the Mediterranean. Over the tropics and high northern latitudes the surface air over land is becoming more saturated. However, despite increasing water vapor over the mid-latitudes and Mediterranean, the surface air over land is becoming less saturated.
What we can observe is only a slight increase in specific humidity, but a simultaneous decrease in relative humidity of 1% over the last 50-70 years. This 1% decrease of rH corresponds to a loss of evaporation over land of ~6800 km³/y (~9% = 3.5W/m²).
Accordingly, the temperature on the land surface increases, the formation of clouds over land decreases and the removal and transport of heat energy from the surface to the atmosphere becomes less efficient.
https://climate.metoffice.cloud/humidity.html
This paradox cannot be explained by higher CO2 concentrations. (You are invited to try)
Rapidly expanding desertification and an ever-increasing loss of evaporative landscapes due to human-induced land-use change is the much more realistic cause and explanation for 2% fewer clouds.
Look at the curve of the EEI and compare it with the ENSO and humidity curves.
Maybe you will be able to see that e.g. between 2008 and 2012 the EEI at TOA
in the El Nino period (2008-2010) decreased from 1.2W/m² to ! zero ! – and rose again to 1.5W/m² in the El Nina phase (2011/12).
Look at 2010 that was one of the rather hotter years with peak values in:
El Nino – multivariate ENSO index
specific & relative humidity (? high GHE ?)
LW out TOA
LW surface down
LW surface up
SW out TOA (high albedo)
Cloud effective temperature
——————————-!!!…but very low EEI
The same applies to other very hot years such as 1998 and 2016.
Hot years reduce the EEI – which sounds logical.
The climate models from Donahoe and Trenberth are “only” climate models – and if something doesn’t fit with them – then it is often made to fit. This usually has little to do with satellite observations and the realities actually measured.
In addition, both ultimately emphasize in their papers that global warming is caused by increased absorbed solar radiation.
“how would a higher water vapor content of the atmosphere lead to less cloud cover”. Depends on the temperature of the troposphere that the H2O gas you mention resides in. Has that remained unchanged during the periods you consider in the locations you consider? Increased ? Decreased ?
In Shurly’s world, a 1% increase in evaporation will magically lead to a 1% increase in cloud cover. If you try to get him to explain how, he’ll just insult you and throw up references to graphs or diagrams he does not understand.
@ Fich & Loblow
It is important to know that what goes up must come down according to Aristoteles, but for rain or snow to come down, clouds are necessary.
So why can it clear up when it evaporates more?
I believe, that is a local and rather provincial wiew.. Question to the meteorologists: “Where is the winter?….. where is the rain?…”
A best answer to that on the radio weather forecast, that I shall never forget,. was that : “The wintere is here, yes, , but the winter is not right here now.”
Thus, Aristoteles can Shürly… be defended.
It rains yes, but again,……… where does it rain? In Spain? …. in the plain?…”
The rain in Spain hardly stays mainly in the Plain.
I really heard them ( the meteor9ologists) say that yes, it rains…. but not here now…. it rains south of Jan Mayen at the polar front….. and in Biscaya perhaps, …. but not mainly in the plain in Spain.
But in Hertford Hereford and Hampshire hurricanes hardly happen.
That remains true.
MS:
We currently have increasing water vapor–absolute humidity–but declining relative humidity over most of the planet’s land area, as I understand it. Clearly, if RH declines, the potential for evaporation aloft increases.
Dubal appears to be a chemist, judging by his patents, and Vahrenholt is a chemist, politician and sometime fossil-fuel guy known for climate denialism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Vahrenholt
So there’s a good chance, that, no, they weren’t familiar with the literature.
(TBF, I’m not wonderfully familiar, either, but then I’m not making ‘extraordinary claims.’)
A question for Gavin and others, and yes, it’s about language. In addition to the OP, I refer to the quotes provided by Atomsk’s Sanakan above.
I’m assuming that the models show that we will eventually (hopefully soon) reach a (new) state of radiative equilibrium, with a new climate system with a new (higher) energy content. So increased absorption of SW radiation is not a self-sustaining phenomenon. At some point, that input will be balanced by LW exiting at TOA; there is no “runaway-tipping-point-disaster”.
For the moment, let’s assume that GHG are not drawn down, and aerosols remain constant.
When I say “new climate system”, I mean that the increased energy will be manifested as higher temperature, different quantities and distributions for the phases of H2O, and so on. This would include the reduction in clouds, as well as reflective ice and snow, which are being discussed.
Would it be possible to review the criteria for applying the terms “greenhouse effect” and “feedback” and “forcing” in this case? I know there was a post on this sometime in the past but perhaps an update would be helpful here.
I’m troubled by the idea that “the greenhouse effect” would be described as “decreasing” because there has been an increase in LW radiation e.g. from a surface at higher temperatures.
And I’m wondering how you would describe the increased absorption of SW (relative to the pre-industrial equilibrium state)…. would it still be a “feedback”, or is it now a “forcing”?
Edit: Second paragraph… So, increasing absorption… not “increased”.
If a warming or cooling effect required surface-air warming or cooling in order for it to happen then it’s a “feedback”, if it didn’t require that then it’s a “forcing”. Three well-known things that are always “forcings” are changes in solar radiation output, volcanoes putting out more CO2 than their average of some long prior period and a species getting very old carbon from below surface to the surface and burning it (because they didn’t require surface-air warming to do that). Logically, CH4 from permafrost stores released into air due to warming is a “feedback” (it required surface-air warming to happen) and CH4 from below surface that a species brought up and released into air is a “forcing” (species didn’t require surface-air warming to do that) but they appear to be bundled as “forcing” for simplicity (the release effect isn’t radiative or atmospheric physics).
————-
A “forcing” (e.g. solar, volcanoes, a species) probably can’t be self-reinforcing in the sense that feeding upon itself is inevitable. A “feedback” can be self-reinforcing but this certainly doesn’t mean it must be open-ended until catastrophe stops it (e.g. Earth all vaporized) and paleo proxy analysis is the measurement that indicates limits of whatever’s too complicated to calculate limits. A simple self-reinforcing limited series is 1.0 + 0.5 + 0.25 + 0.125 which if that indicates its future will be an infinite series (so infinite self-reinforcing feedback, Occam’s razor) but sums to 2.0. It seems to me that H2O gas increase due to warming troposphere must be a self-reinforcing limited “feedback” series like my example. In fact, I just recalled Sir Lordship Monckton Knights-Garter amusing me hugely 9 years ago by showing his audience a “feedback factor” (or similar name) plot demonstrating that if it was a bit higher then unrestrained self-reinforcing feedback would make Earth infinitely hot and a tad more feedback would switch Earth to infinitely cold (crossing the folding frequency, the Nyquist frequency into the 3rd quadrant) and (the good bit) suggesting that climate scientists actually thought this possible, or couldn’t constrain total “climate sensitivity” feedbacks to absolutely rule that out, or didn’t understand that at all (the intended impression of the entertaining silliness).
This is a common claim by armchair climate warriors who have had some engineering experience. Yes, positive feedback in an electrical circuit will cause the response to grow until it “hits the rails”. However, the Arrhenius rate equation leading to positive thermal feedback will reach a steady state, quite unlike what Monckton is claiming.
Now my question — where is this self-limiting behavior described in the climate science literature? Ideally, the citation should describe an equation that can estimate the self-limiting set-point temperature given a thermal activation energy.
Yes, but that’s the easy part.
What concerns me is that the distinction isn’t clearly stated between a dynamic condition and an equilibrium condition.
For a fixed input of GHG (“a pulse”) we have established a new value for “greenhouse effect”, (assuming no drawdown or other change), because there is more GHG to absorb LW radiation and convert it to thermal energy.
So for me, it seems inappropriate to say that that effect is decreasing because we detect an increase in LW radiation, which is to be expected as the system gains energy and the temperature rises.
WRT the albedo reduction, you say
“If a warming or cooling effect required surface-air warming or cooling in order for it to happen then it’s a “feedback”, if it didn’t require that then it’s a “forcing”.”
But I’m looking for a better way to describe it, because yes it happens due to increased energy e..g. melting ice, but then the ice stays melted. So now we are talking about the “new climate system” which is different from the old, but is an equilibrium state. Feedback or forcing?
I know it’s not going to change what the trolls do, but it might reduce their ability to confuse the public a bit if the language were more consistent and precise.
Take as an example the situation with tidal cycles, which are definitely considered a forcing, with the force supplied by the gravitational tug of the moon and sun. Yet in some regions, such as the Bay of Fundy, the tides are amplified by a standing-wave resonance condition. Is that considered a feedback or part of the forcing?
So the H20 positive feedback with a CO2 forcing falls into a similar category. In this case the CO2 acts as a thermal catalyst for further warming due to the amplifying effect of H20 & CO2 outgassing with increasing temperature. It’s built-in.
I still will like to see a citation for the calculation of a set-point.
Paul, this may relate to your question about “set point”, which I assume means the new equilibrium state of the climate.
I am not asking about the H2O effect. I referred specifically to decreased albedo and to increased LW radiation.
I think your analogy with electrical circuits or Fundy is incorrect because what we are doing is changing the physical configuration of the climate system itself, and because increased LW radiation acts as a negative feedback with respect to the radiative energy balance.
So, if I am correctly understanding your use of “set point”, it is “calculated” by the models. We are creating a new system state, where energy is distributed differently (in form and location), and there is more energy accumulated in the system. (Calculating the energy state for a uniform ball of rock with no water or GHG and a pure nitrogen atmosphere is much easier, obviously.)
As I said originally, I’m just trying to find language that doesn’t confuse the phenomena in the current changing state from what would be happening in that end-state equilibrium.
Hi to all. I have a question i hope somebody could shed light into it.
According to Raghuraman et al 2021, “the significant positive trend in observed EEI is driven by a −0.70 ± 0.23 Wm−2decade−1 trend in RSW and a 0.28 ± 0.22 Wm−2decade−1 trend in OLR.”
If we read Quaas et al 2022, without Aerosols “This implies that without the cooling effect of aerosols, the world would al- ready have reached the 1.5 ◦C temperature threshold “.
So there is something i dont understand at all. First, for wherever reason (aerosols, clouds, surface albedo), earth is absorbing more short wave radiation, which means oceans and land take more heat, and as a result of more GHGs during those 20 years, more heat is trapped inside troposphere.
In the other way, we are said that the trend of more absorbed solar radiation is coming from less anthropogenic aerosols, for wherever reason is (direct and indirect aerosol-cloud interaction).
If natural state of atmosphere is having less aerosols (lets say, we dont have anthropogenic aerosols, and no volcanos), so it means natural state of earth is absorbing more solar radiation. Why then the GHGs forcing increases? Why do we have to blame to GHGs for the extra heat uptake from the sun?
Hope somebody could shed light into this.
Thanks in advance.
Try reading what Gavin says in the original post (carefully, perhaps more than once).
The condition of lower albedo is attributed to multiple factors acting together.
GHG have increased the energy in the climate system by absorption of outward-directed LW radiation, which has resulted in less ice and snow, and, apparently, less cloud cover that reflects SW radiation.
Variations in anthropogenic aerosols and particulate emissions directly act to reflect and/or absorb SW radiation, and may also effect clouds.
You seem to understand those principles, so I don’t understand your question. The result of combining those factors is what it is, and seems to coincide with what the models predict.
Hope that helps.
newSun,
In the 1990 Nature paper (paywalled) by Hansen & Lacis titled Sun and dust versus greenhouse gases: an assessment of their relative roles in global climate change, it referred to humanity’s “Faustian aerosol bargain”.
https://www.nature.com/articles/346713a0
Hansen et. al. referred again to humanity’s “Faustian aerosol bargain” in a paper titled Earth’s energy imbalance and implications in 2011, followed by:
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha06510a.html
In 2013, Hansen, Kharecha & Sato warned:
https://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130329_FaustianBargain.pdf
In Aug 2021, Hansen & Sato wrote:
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/Emails/July2021.pdf
Hansen, Sato & Ruedy wrote last month:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2022/AugustTemperatureUpdate.22September2022.pdf
I hope that’s illuminating.
newSun,
It is simply a fact that if you have a positive adiabatic lapse rate (decreasing temperature with altitude) increases in greenhouse gasses will result in retention of more heat. What is more, we understand the mechanism behind this increase. Moreover, we can even see the effects of the warming in the heat radiation from Earth’s surface and atmosphere. Finally, when you look at the stratosphere where the adiabatic lapse rate is negative, we see that there we have a decrease in temperature. This is a signature of greenhouse warming.
This is independent of anything to do with aerosols or any other “forcing”. However, you simply cannot get sufficient warming from other forcings to explain observed warming unless you include greenhouse warming due to anthropogenic CO2.
That we would see such warming in response to anthropogenic emission of CO2 was predicted back in 1896 by Svante Arrhenius (Nobel Prize in chemistry, 1903). The subsequent observation of this warming counts as observational evidence that our theory of Earth’s climate is pretty damn good.
@RL says: – ” Finally, when you look at the stratosphere where the adiabatic lapse rate is negative, we see that there we have a decrease in temperature. This is a signature of greenhouse warming. ”
ms: — A warming land surface and a cooling low stratosphere can also be explained by decreasing evaporation rates on the land surface.
https://climateprotectionhardware.files.wordpress.com/2022/09/clouds-transportofheatandwatervapour.jpg
If you compare the curve of the EEI to the humidity curve, you might notice that the EEI @TOA is closer to equilibrium precisely when the humidity (GHE) is highest. (e.g. 1998 / 2010 / 2016)
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/12/10/1297#
https://climate.metoffice.cloud/humidity.html
Can you please explain that to us ?
Horse puckey! A jpg file is not peer reviewed research. You are hallucinating.
@newSun says: – ” Why do we have to blame to GHGs for the extra heat uptake from the sun? ”
ms: — Because the IPCC still assumes that the emission of greenhouse gases is the only stupid thing mankind has done to worsen the transport of energy from surface to space.
They ignore the fact that mankind does other stupid things of a completely different kind that have nothing to do with burning fossil fuels.
This includes the massive interventions by humans in the water cycle when using land areas.
https://climateprotectionhardware.wordpress.com/
Water (vapour) as the most important element in the dissipation, distribution and transport of energy does not seem to have a very high priority at the IPCC. It is attributed to the climate gases as water vapor feedback, although the draining, sealing, deforestation, … etc. of land surfaces superficially has nothing to do with higher concentrations of climate gases.
For a better understanding I advise you to print all CERES data at:
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/12/10/1297#
and compare them with humidity, ENSO-index(MEI) and global temperature curves for the relevant time period 2000-2020.
https://climate.metoffice.cloud/humidity.html
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/img/meiv2.timeseries.png
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_September_2022_v6.jpg
Sorry, but this is just plain wrong. First, the IPCC doesn’t “believe” anything. They summarize the results published by the climate research community. Second, to contend that climate scientists are ignoring some important climate forcing isn’t just wrong, it demonstrates a willful ignorance of what climate scientists are doing and a profound misunderstanding of why science works and the motivations of scientists. Up your game.
Setting aside the practicality of slowing water & snow runoff to the ocean (I’ve no idea) and evaporating it instead to reduce the land warming and presumably increase ocean warming (although the ocean warms the land) I think what’s being argued above, globally-averaged, is whether the tropospheric temperature lapse rate above land can be reduced by increasing land evaporation, thus reducing the “greenhouse effect” in Earth’s troposphere above land and radiating more LWR to space above land without any increase in surface-air temperature to some altitude that works well for land Life. As with the other and as usual I’ve no idea but I think that would be the plan if there is a plan.
@Barry E Finch says: – ” Setting aside the practicality of slowing water & snow runoff to the ocean (I’ve no idea)……… if there is a plan.
ms: — There is a plan for water retention, the conversion of runoff to evaporation and even lowering sea level rise, earth temperature and CO2 concentrations.
https://climateprotectionhardware.wordpress.com/
“Planwirtschaft” they have called it,, Plain or Platt or Planned business.
This is a Caesarean, imperial idea, that was further beloieved in and taken over by the national socialists and communists.
Be aware of the great plains and plans also over there in the states and not just in Kasakhstan , Ukraina and mainland Russia where the earth is flat.
Even Adolph Hittler with his full support had Plans -Platt- Plains for Lebensraum flat earth land management, acoording to “plan”.
Plan means plain and platt -plate— flat….
http://www.Plattenslager
On how to flatten the earth into a plate that is plain.
See also Plain English / Englischer Platt.
If TOA temp & height are set by the GHE, as we have good reason to think, then reducing the adiabatic lapse rate–if it could even be done, concerning which I’m deeply doubtful–should warm the surface, not cool it. At the very least, it would work to offset any surface evaporative cooling effect achieved.
@macias shurly Your comment is just patently incorrect because IPCC AR5 (I’ve not gotten to studying AR6 much yet) FigTS-07 TOA forcings has items that aren’t GHGs. You’re better to avoid outright mis-statements like that because it fogs any useful thoughts you might have.
@BEF says: – ” …because it fogs any useful thoughts… ”
ms: — You yourself write above: you have no idea and no plan – not even the semantic ability to provide a decent link for your only argument (IPCC AR5 FigTS-7). But the big mouth, small brain, you’ve got it covered, like your big orange chief, Donald T. Dumb.
This is the link to your meaningless argument for the interested reader:
https://archive.ipcc.ch/report/graphics/index.php?t=Assessment%20Reports&r=AR5%20-%20WG1&f=Technical%20Summary
That would be a corresponding link to a meaningless argument of the AR6 generation:
https://www.realclimate.org/images/AR6_figSPM2c-442×600.png
At a breathtaking speed of 0.2 km/20 years, the free ~200 academic IPCC mush cooks have now recognized that land use (albedo of the land surface) with irrigation (cloud albedo) supposedly leads to a cooling climate effect. Applause_Applause_Applause.
Now it will probably take another 30 years for this useless horde of non-thinkers to realize that Aristotle (what goes up – will form a cloud – and must come back) was a very clever person who apparently can still be learned from today.
Then, quickly after another 30 years of reflection, they (& you) may find (which is far from certain) the reverse conclusion (what does NOT go up – will also NOT form a cloud albedo – and therefore also NOT come down as precipitation).
And then you probably again want to tell me something about the fog – with your big mouth full of desert sand.
Your eyes, genosse Schürle, your eyes….
……..are full of desert sands and dusts.
IMO, Macias is well past his ‘sell by’ date and is now ripe for Boreholing (or maybe Crankshafting).
macias shurly 13 OCT “the IPCC still assumes that the emission of greenhouse gases is the only stupid thing mankind has done to worsen the transport of energy from surface to space”.
Barry E Finch: 14 OCT “Your comment is just patently incorrect because IPCC AR5 … FigTS-07 TOA forcings has items that aren’t GHGs”.
macias shurly 15 OCT Various interesting information that includes IPCC AR5 and AR6 histograms of what mankind has done to worsen the transport of energy from surface to space.
Includes aviation contrails.
To all and everyone
About the sales promotion of Matthias Schürle
I think his style and his trick is that of interchanging cause and effect in a politically vulgar, fameous professional way.. Along with Joseph Goebbels`principle: “In der Grösse der Lüge liegt ein Faktor des Geglaubtwerdens”.
See also Arbeiter und Bauernfakultät, who has repeated the same in recent time for all the imprisoned and protected Pure- Progressive- Party- People.
Such as , when it has rained enough for a while, …. the ground will be soaking wet, and the groundwater reserves will be filled up again.
That is well kinown traditional reality. mostly everywhere, that can be built on.
So, simply interchange that, and you have Schürles sales argument namely: Fill up the groundwater reserves and make the earth soaking wet first, then the rain will come pouring down ,…. and you will have rain again in barrels bitties and dams ,…., over your land and landscapes.
That is logical, is n`t it? Given that you are a surrealist and a dialectic materialist first.
But it is rather his fathers and grandmothers art noveau of surrealism. That Joseph Goebbels also took some of his avantgarde political methods and learnings from.
Schürle even terms it “the water cycle” and teaches that we cannot think and that we have not yet learnt and understo0od that of the water- cycle , whereas he for himself is adult and professional on the same, because he has understood first and seen the light.. . . .
But his traditional trick is that he turns time and cause with con- sequense the other way around which is the surrealistic and dia- lecdtic materialistic way. according to his heritage, learnings, upbringings, trainings, deep roots, backgrounds , , and faculty.
And even launches himself an “artist” on behalf of that.
@JCM says
30 OCT 2022 AT 11:08 PM
“… I want to know what the discontinuity means, and/or if it really exists…”
ms: — There is no discontinuity when looking at the law of conservation of energy, except for the EEI described here in the topic, which has alarmingly ~ tripled since 2000 until today (~0.4 –>1.2W/m²).
It is also easier for you if you look at each individual level (TOA / atmosphere / surface) separately.
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width/public/thumbnails/image/ceres-poster-011-v2.jpg?itok=43dwxKEV
TOA:
340.4 = 77.0 + 22.9 + 239.9 + imbalance 0.6
Atmosphere:
in 77.1 + 398.2 + 18.4 + 86.4 = 239.9 + 340.3 out
the imbalance in the atmosphere is only ~1% (0.006)
Surface:
163.3 + 340.3 = 398.2 + 18.4 + 86.4 + imbalance 0.6
To stay on topic and do an analysis of the EEI, it is best to look at the aggregated graphs of the CERES data (2000-2020).
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/12/10/1297#
Browse Figures (16 in total) and print them all.
Please also print following graphs and observe correlations specially in the hotter years like 2010/2016:
– Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI) https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/img/meiv2.timeseries.png
– Relative & specific Humidity https://climate.metoffice.cloud/humidity.html
– Global cloud cover / global temperature anomaly https://climateprotectionhardware.files.wordpress.com/2022/09/a3.png
https://www.climate4you.com/images/CloudCoverAllLevel%20AndWaterColumnSince1983.gif
– Cloud Radiative Effect CRE
https://climateprotectionhardware.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/cre-cloud-2.png?w=751
Armed with these graphs, we should be able to make a rough analysis of the EEI’s trend.
The TOA / Atmosphere / Surface balanced above is updated after 2 decades, starting from EEI=0.6 for today as follows:
TOA:
340.33 = 76.1 + 22.4 + 240.46 + imbalance 1.37
(less: incoming solar 0.07 / 2% SW CRE 0.94 / aerosols 0.16 / ice&snow albedo 0.3 / more 2%LW CRE 0.56 / EEI increased by 0.77 )
Atmosphere:
76.96 + (400.2 + LE & H) = 240.46 + 340.84 + imbalance 0.014
(less SW absorbed atmosphere 0.14 due to 2% less clouds / more LW surface up 2.0 / more LW down surface 0.54 although 0.52 would actually have been expected here due to 2% fewer clouds
–> 1 .06 due to higher climate gas concentrations. H & LE need a value of 104.15, which is 0.65 lower than in 2000 (104.8) in order to close the balance sheet.)
Surface:
164.24 + 340.84 = 400.2 + H & LE + imbalance 1.37
(A total of 1.5 increased incoming energy, which is overcompensated by 2.0 outgoing LW up surface.
For LE & H together, the much too high increase in LW up surface now leaves 1.3 less energy than before in 2000 to close the balance sheet. One explanation for a far too high increase in (land) surface temperature is still the increasing absence of water and evaporation over land areas.)
@macias
“There is no discontinuity”
Indeed I do believe a discontinuity does exist, I have been awaiting an adequate response.
Please refer to Ramanathan 2006 Figure 5.7 a
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/Forcing.pdf
Note the surface upward flux of 398.6 corresponding to OLR of 267.5. This is evidently observed in clear sky condition.
The NASA schematic then combines clear sky and cloud values into one unresolved mixture. The schematic should rather be a weighted average of clear sky and cloudy sky condition.
The surface upward flux does not correspond with the other values.
This over-emphasizes the overall Greenhouse Effect of 398 – 240 ~158
It is widely noted a net cloud effect is roughly -18 to -20
Taking a weighted surface flux must result in a value closer to ~380 (398.6-19), corresponding to the global average OLR ~ 240. Greenhouse Effect is rendered closer to 380-240 = 140.
Furthermore, Ramanathan also notes a cloud LW effect of +30 in the paper
Considering the greenhouse gas effect is fairy well constrained around 130, the cloud LW effect can only be maximum +10 when making this correction (reduced about 2/3rds).
Ramanathan suggests the all sky greenhouse effect = greenhouse gas effect + cloud effect. His value is thus roughly 130 + 30. But it cannot be. It must be something like 130 + 10.
I concede I’m not entirely convinced myself, but something is certainly askew in the NASA diagram. There are some logical inconsistencies. The diagram and conceptual framework should perhaps be broken into clear sky and cloudy sky components to reduce confusion.
thanks for all your input.
taking one step further, perhaps over-stepping into fantasia.
I note the correspondence of the following values.
Net Latent Heat into atmosphere must be :
LE surface – Cloud Emission (i.e. condensation aloft)
Net LE = 86.4 – 29.9 = 56.5
Thermal H = 18.4
Total flux into atmosphere = Net LE + H = 74.9 available
Assuming about 10% window loss of available heat in general by 40.1/380 x 100%
Net Turbulent Flux into atmosphere = Fraction retained 0.9 (H + Net LE) = 0.9(74.9) = 67. Call it ~70
Absorbed Solar into atmosphere = 77.1 x 0.9 retained ~ 70
Atmospheric Effect = 70+ 70 = 140
This resembles the Greenhouse Effect observed above. There is no need for net LW flux from surface into atmosphere.
This value would completely depend on cloud effects, in terms of net LE, window losses, and solar absorbed. Moisture availability, and condensation efficiency.
It really all hinges on the discontinuity assumed at the surface.
Just a playful hypothesis.
There is no discontinuity.
The 17.9 is SW that is emitted as LW and absorbed by gases in the atmosphere..
In this presentation, the number is 26.68 :
Absorbed Solar = 160.08
—————————
Atmospheric Window – (26.68)
Sensible Heat – 26.68
Latent Heat – 80.04
—————————-
Absorbed Solar emitted as LW
that is reabsorbed by
greenhouse gasses
in the atmosphere – 26.68
==================================
From Einstein to Trenberth and Beyond: Earth’s Global Mean Energy Budget as the Solution of Four Radiative Transfer Constraint Equations
https://ams.confex.com/ams/102ANNUAL/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/387827
@JCH
It appears to me Zagoni would be labelled a denialist based on this presentation – therefore, I presume he would be lumped in with all quacks and unceremoniously shunned, banished, and mocked.
He has highlighted the discontinuity as a consequence of ‘eddington approxmiations’ or ‘two-stream’ approximations. i.e. radiative only concepts. He seems to imply that in practice convection i.e H + LE eliminates this, as noted by Embden, 1913; and so, we have a model of radiative convective equilibrium. This implies to me the discontinuity would not be observable in practice, it is rather a consequence of theoretical constructs.
Thank you for clarifying this. Although, if Zagoni is a denialist surely I have been misled here?
JCM:
“@JCH
It appears to me Zagoni would be labelled a denialist based on this presentation – therefore, I presume he would be lumped in with all quacks and unceremoniously shunned, banished, and mocked. ….”
Completely absurd. There is no discontinuity. Solar absorbed by the surface in the NASA cartoon is 163.3. It is completely accounted for, and one of the numbers matches your 17.9 claim.
= Masslose Genauigkeit in den Rechenschaften.
@JCM
ms: — Stop chasing phantoms or else you’ll get brain damage. The magnitude of the uncertainties presented below prove your strange misconception.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Carol-Clayson/publication/260208782/figure/fig2/AS:271762709544965@1441804687530/Surface-energy-balanceObserved-and-climate-model-deduced-energy-fluxes-all-in-Wm-2-in.png
Climate change is governed by changes to the global energy balance. At the top of the atmosphere, this balance is monitored globally by satellite sensors that provide measurements of energy flowing to and from Earth. By contrast, observations at the surface are limited mostly to land areas.
As a result, the global balance of energy fluxes within the atmosphere or at Earth’s surface cannot be derived directly from measured fluxes, and is therefore uncertain. This lack of precise knowledge of surface energy fluxes profoundly affects our ability to understand how Earth’s climate responds to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases.
In light of compilations of up-to-date surface and satellite data, the surface energy balance needs to be revised. Specifically, the longwave radiation received at the surface is estimated to be significantly larger, by between 10 and 17 Wm−2, than earlier model-based estimates.
Moreover, the latest satellite observations of global precipitation indicate that more precipitation is generated than previously thought. This additional precipitation is sustained by more energy leaving the surface by evaporation — that is, in the form of latent heat flux — and thereby offsets much of the increase in longwave flux to the surface.
@JCM says: –
” I see 358.2 LW absorbed in the turbulent mixed layer, and 340.3 downward LW.
This is a discontinuity of 17.9 Wm-2.
Can anyone provide physical observation of this discontinuity? A tower site or something which demonstrates it to exist? ”
ms: — I only see a difference or uncertainty, which, by the way, can be reliably measured with a pyrgeometer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrgeometer#Measurement_of_long_wave_downward_radiation
The atmosphere and the pyrgeometer (in effect its sensor surface) exchange long wave IR radiation. This results in a net radiation balance according to:
E_(net) = E_(in) – E_(out)
Where:
E_{net} – net radiation at sensor surface [W/m2]
E_ {in} – Long-wave radiation received from the atmosphere [W/m2]
E_{out} – Long-wave radiation emitted by the sensor surface [W/m2]
The pyrgeometer’s thermopile detects the net radiation balance between the incoming and outgoing long wave radiation flux and converts it to a voltage.
Surface energy budgets, like the one reported here, are at present constructed from information about individual fluxes created independently by different groups.
Inconsistencies typically arise when these different components are brought together to form a balance.
Because previous energy-balance studies have generally failed to address the uncertainties in these flux components, subsequent adjustments to surface fluxes to achieve balance have little merit.
I hope this paper will help you to classify your “discontinuity”, which by the way is better fixed with a higher value of LW down surface (instead of a lower value of LW up surface):
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260208782_An_update_on_Earth%27s_energy_balance_in_light_of_the_latest_global_observations
However, for my knowledge gaps and an analysis of the balance @ TOA, the changes and trends in the balance values are much more important than the exact, absolute values in order to understand what the future of the climate and the GEB will look like.
In the end we will probably meet again in the same place with the same question:
How do we bring the largest possible amount of energy back up quickly, efficiently and cheaply?
Water (retention), vegetation on healthy soils, evaporation and clouds are still my preferred strategy to lower CO2 concentrations, EEi and even sea level rise.