[New material has been added to this post]
[More new material added – monthly SBRE calculation 4/11/14]
Just in case you were not aware, since about 1997 or so, there has been nearly no global temperature rise. This is despite atmospheric CO2 concentration continuing to rise. To date there are some 55 ideas to explain this slowdown in global warming. Some of the ‘explanations’ presume the so-called ‘greenhouse effect’ is operating as the IPCC models calculated; it’s just that the heat has hidden elsewhere, maybe deep in the ocean.
I wondered if there was empirical data available of the greenhouse effect? And could it show whether or not the greenhouse effect is increasing with increasing CO2, as the IPCC models expect?
First a very quick summary of the IPCC’s greenhouse theory goes something like this. Increasing CO2 absorbs some of the upwards radiation from the surface, and then re-emits it back toward earth. This has the effect of increasing earth’s atmospheric temperature as outgoing longwave infrared radiation (OLWIR) is reduced by increasing quantities of CO2. Then, recognising that water vapour is the main greenhouse gas, the IPCC models propose that positive feedbacks dominate. This is where some warming leads to increased water vapour, and as water vapour is the main greenhouse gas this increases the greenhouse effect, this further lowers OLWIR, and increases the temperature.
So let’s see how the measurements fit the theory. I needed two data sets, one for OLWIR, and the other global temperature.
I emailed the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) asking for website directions to their OLWIR data. Their response was quick and I downloaded monthly average OLWIR (W/m2) for each 2.5 degree latitude by 2.5 degree longitude area of the globe. After converting the netCDF files to Excel, I scaled each area’s OLWIR to account for the varying size of the area, resulting in a global average OLWIR. (I used Cosine(Latitude) to approximate the relative areas). (There was also some missing data mid 1994 to early 95. I populated this by a linear interpolation). The resulting annual average OLWIR is shown in the graph below for the years 1979 to 2012. A linear regression fit shows a generally increasing trend in OLWIR over this period.
The temperature data I chose is the average of both University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH) and Remote Sensing Systems (RSS). The result is also plotted on the graph below. A linear regression fit shows a generally increasing trend for years 1979 to 2012. 2013.
And now we’ll take a look at the Stefan-Boltzmann (SB) relative emissivity trend. Using an average global temperature of 14C, the SB relative emissivity has been derived using E/(K*T^4) for each year and plotted on the graph. If the greenhouse effect was increasing, the relative SB should be declining. It’s not. It’s flat lining.
The two primary results of this empirical study are:
The missing heat has gone back to space as it always has – as per SB law, via OLWIR.
And more importantly, the greenhouse effect is not increasing as per IPCC dogma.
There are probably about 55 reasons why … and there’s likely more to be said …
[Additional Material]
Richard C in his comment below suggested the addition of a graph of the derived relative emissivity at a closer scale. I have added the graph below along with the complete data table used to produce both graphs.
[New material, monthly derived SBRE calculation to compare with annual average calculation, 4 Nov 14]
Link to Data and Graphs.
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0BwCJWmtRR6xeeUxlajM5MXVsVXc&usp=sharing
I can’t believe that Trenberth & company have not looked at this! This proves the fraud.
I think they have looked at it – but it is likely too inconvenient for them to mention. S-B is a fourth order negative feedback.
Pingback: Has The Missing Heat Gone Back To Space? | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
Excellent post – thanks
Reblogged here and added other links coming to the same conclusions:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/10/analysis-shows-missing-heat-has-gone-to.html
Thanks very much for the supporting comments and the added material at Hockey Schtick.
I am surprised this article has not been picked up by WUWT. It may have already been covered but I have not seen an article like this there.
thanks
Skeptical Science tells you that 90% of the warming went into the oceans. That is, of the heat remaining in the system, 90% went into the oceans.
But they really left out the percentage that has merely been emitted back to space and/or is simply missing.
The IPCC says that the net forcing is +2.30 W/m2 right now. On top of that, there should have been water vapor and cloud feedbacks for another +1.75 W/m2.
But all that is showing up is 0.535 W/m2. 86% of the energy is no longer here or is missing.
http://s13.postimg.org/turztazs7/Missing_Energy_Increase_OLR.png
The latest numbers from CERES shows that there is no change in Net Radiation since the year 2000, almost 14 years now.
http://s27.postimg.org/kzn3tepub/CERES_Net_Radiation_2000_2013.jpg
Slide 5 from Norman Loeb, the principal investigator for CERES.
http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/atmosphaere/WCRP_Grand_Challenge_Workshop/presentations/GC_Loeb.pdf
Updated CERES numbers to April 2014.
http://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/ceres_ebaf-toa_ed2-8_anom_toa_net_flux-all-sky_march-2000toapril-2014.png
Thanks for the info and links Bill.
>”Using an average global temperature of 14C, the SB relative emissivity has been derived using E/(K*T^4) for each year and plotted on the graph”
Bit confused by that expression. j* = εkT^4 gives ε = j*/(kT^4)
Where
j* is OLR
T is absolute temperature (Kelvin)
So for example, the step from 1997 to 1998 is approximately:
j* 231.55 to 231.7
T 14.03 (287.18 K) to 14.5 (287.65 K) where 0 anomaly base is 14C (287.15 Kelvin)
Is that the calculation and values (roughly) you’ve used to arrive at ε = 0.6 for both 1997 and 1998? Doesn’t make sense to me.
Apologies Richard, my choice of symbols is non-standard. The equation you have presented is the same as I have used, except for my choice of symbols.
The temperature I used for the offset was 287K, to which I added the anomaly.
The calculation for 1997 where OLR is 231.50 W/m2 and T is 287.03,
231.5/(5.67*10^-8*287.03^4) = 0.602
The calculation for 1998 where OLR is 231.65 W/m2 and T is 287.49,
231.65/(5.67*10^-8*287.49) = 0.598
The general trend observed is that as global temperature rises so outgoing emissions rise, and it is observed to be quite closely in accordance with Stefan Boltzmann’s law.
And as the relative emissivity is nearly constant (it is actually slightly increasing when you look very closely) an increased greenhouse effect as caused by increasing CO2 is not occurring.
The relative emissivity is slightly increasing over this period indicating a slightly more transparent atmosphere.
I’m happy to provide a copy of the spreadsheet if you want to take a look.
OK Robin, thanks for this. I thought that was your calc but I wanted to make sure I was doing same.
1997 ε 0.602,
1998 ε 0.598.
>”And as the relative emissivity is nearly constant ……”
Yes, the graph clearly shows ε around 0.6, no problem with that. But I wondered if a separate graph would be useful just to see the third decimal place since you’ve taken the exercise this far? Obviously this isn’t as precise as the values indicate but I’m referring to what the ε series looks like in profile where the y axis enables us to see the difference between 0.602 and 0.598 for example as above.
>”The relative emissivity is slightly increasing over this period indicating a slightly more transparent atmosphere.”
Yes this is what I’m getting at. Is it really? I’m adverse to linear trends in climate time series simply because the data is rarely linear but it might be in this case. I suspect however that given the measurement error the values are just fluctuating randomly. There might be the impression of a progressive increase but I’m doubtful at this point.
[I’ll duplicate this at CCG too]
Good idea on the zoomed in graph. I’ll do that and add a complete data table over the weekend. Thanks for the conversation Richard. Appreciate the engagement.
When will it dawn on you guys that emissivity is proportional to absorption ?
No wonder the hydrosphere is warmng.
The NOAA data with UAH+RSS shows emissivity flatlining, then yes, absorptivity will be too. So where’s the warming coming from?
Or maybe that question would be better phrased; where does this data show where the warming is not coming from?
The update graph is very helpful – thanks.
Certainly not what I expected. I though that with measurement error it would be random as per my last comment, but the derivation really does track OLR.
I don’t however see a linear characteristic. With additional data that trend line could very easily go flat or negative. Then back positive. And so on.
The two profiles, S-B RE and OLR, are subtly different. Pre 1990 RE values appear to be higher relative to post 2003 RE values than are the OLR pre 1990 values relative to post 2003. Not sure what to conclude from that. I’ve pointed Bob D (a physicist) back at this in the hope he might add some insight.
Most instructive exercise I’ve seen for some time.
Richard,
Indeed there is enough variability in the data making the straight line fit risky and likely meaningless. There’s likely more to be gained by looking at correlation between T and OLR, and then looking for reasons for times when we have diversions.
Another little thing I did though, which might interest you, was to complete a partial differential of the SB equation to determine the sensitivity of T to RE. Differentiating the equation RE=j/(kT^4) with respect to T gives: dT/d(RE) = -4 j/(kT^5)
At T=287K and j=231.65 dT/d(RE) = -0.0084.
If the greenhouse effect is to be the cause of warming, then for one degree temperature rise, RE should reduce by 0.0084, ie: from 0.602 down to 0.594. This is not observed in the RE results. There is no movement toward that level, and that would be visible even in the presence of the variability.
Regarding other changes through the period we should also be looking at water vapour. As the main greenhouse gas it could well be responsible. I have read that the water column has been reducing, though I’m not sure if it would correspond to the changes you mention. Forrest Mimms made a submission on reducing water column to the IPCC explaining another area where the IPCC models get things wrong, ie: to assume increasing CO2 leads to increasing H20.
>”There’s likely more to be gained by looking at correlation between T and OLR”
Yes, see bottom of comment. OLR is a response to change in T according to the S-B law but there isn’t that relationship in the top graph because emissivity is varying. Bob asks on first impression “Definite track [RE-OLR], yes, but is it an artifact of the method used to calculate emissivity?” He hasn’t looked into it in detail yet.
I think the global averaging is obscuring the real relationships at global gridpoints – see link below.
>”to determine the sensitivity of T to RE”
Yes, either the derived RE is an artifact as Bob suggests or something is sensitive to something else. My impression is that the derived RE is (apparently) sensitive to OLR because of the near identical profiles and that OLR is a response to change in T in S-B terms. Actual surface emissivity being an efficiency ratio that shouldn’t vary like the derived RE I wouldn’t think.
I’ve had a little think about that apparent sensitivity being a mathematical artifact but I can’t yet see how in ε = j*/(kT^4). I would have thought T would dominate but it has no effect whatsoever in the graph (except trend). But that could be due to global averaging. And I can’t think how the apparent sensitivity to OLR can be physical. The emissivity characteristics of the surface and air determines the irradiance (OLR), not the other way around.
So in view of that I don’t think your sensitivity of T to RE rationale is valid. I think what’s happening is that OLR at TOA (as graphed) is quite different to OLR at the near-surface where T is measured (as graphed) due to cloudiness, WV/GHGs, or something.
>”we should also be looking at water vapour. As the main greenhouse gas it could well be responsible”
Yes but perhaps a complex combination of factors including WV. Derived RE from TOA OLR and near-surface T is probably an indicator of some sort of total irradiance booster or inhibitor because in terms of irradiance and actual emissivity, surface materials like ice, sea surface and land would be relatively stable (I think). What happens in the air mass determines most of the TOA OLR variations (I think).
It’s a matter of chasing down the science. I’ve had a quick look and found this:
6.4.2: DOES OLR GIVE A TEMPERATURE, CLOUD OR WATER VAPOUR SIGNAL ?
http://www.iapmw.unibe.ch/research/projects/FriOWL/docs/chapter6_4_olr_final.pdf
Haven’t read it yet except for a cursory skim. Saw this:
“As a first test of whether the OLR signal is predominately a cloud, water vapour or temperature signal for a particular site, the mean annual global OLR image (as shown in Figure 6.4.1; consisting of 10,585 global gridpoints) was examined for correlation with similar long-term means of global cloud cover (high cloud cover [hcc] and medium cloud cover [mcc]), integrated water vapour at 500 hPa (iwv500) and 00 and 12UTC averaged surface air temperature (p2t_0012utc). The results are shown in Table 6.4.1:”
“Note the very strong correlation between OLR and surface air temperature (r = 0.95) in Table 6.4.1.”
That’s not by global average which can easily mislead if you’re not careful. Case-in-point, sea level rise. Over the last 20 yrs, SLR is anything but a global phenomenon. SLR has been largely confined to the region around the north and east of Australia but it skews the global average. See AVISO:
http://www.aviso.altimetry.fr/fileadmin/images/data/Products/indic/msl/MSL_Map_MERGED_Global_IB_RWT_NoGIA_Adjust.gif
Same with OHC. The Indian Ocean skews that but studies make a big deal of the average e.g. Balmaseda et al.
Correction
“according to the S-B law but there isn’t that relationship in the top graph because emissivity is varying [and the OLR and T profiles don’t match]”
This might interest as it covers basically the same topic http://jennifermarohasy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/AGW_Falsified_Michael_Hammer.pdf
I do not necessarily agree with Michael Hammer as I believe the S-B equation can not be used to determine OLR. The S-B equation was originally formulated for radiation between surfaces in a vacuum. Definitions and discussions in engineering textbooks about the heat transfer and the S-B equation always mention surfaces. Gases are not surfaces but some gas particularly water vapour (H2Og) do absorb and emit radiation over a large wavelength range. The absorption and emission of radiation at a particular wavelength is related to the temperature and the molecular concentration normally designated as the partial pressure.
It should be noted that the UAH satellite temperatures at various levels in the atmosphere is based on the emission of oxygen at a particular frequency in the microwave range see http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/01/how-the-uah-global-temperatures-are-produced/ The total pressure and composition profile of the atmosphere is known from radiosonde measurements. Dr Spencer believes that measurement of temperature differences is very accurate.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/446446425385858/
Derek Alker 31 October at 21:22
A recent couple of posts in regards of what a black body surface is, what a grey body is, what the Stefan Boltzman equation is used to calculate, and some of the differences to be remembered in Actual Thermodynamic Reality…..
“Elsewhere” a respected and well known climate skeptic is arguing with me that a black body is NOT a surface with no mass… “Elsewhere” happens to be a group with supposedly over a thousand scientists (all of whom are in the group because of their interest in climate science) as members. To date no one has picked him up over his mistake….
I wrote, which according to the person arguing with me is “fundamentally incorrect”, because according to the person a black body surface is made up of atoms, so therefore has a mass, that,
“May be we need to remember that a black body is merely a surface (ONLY) in a vacuum, that absorbs all IR it receives. Because a black body is assumed to be in a vacuum sensible and latent heat loses and gains are totally absent. A black body is further assumed to instantly convert the received IR to temperature, as described by the Stefan Boltzman equation, and then instantly emits ALL the radiation, returning, instantly, to absolute zero when there is no IR input.
In other words, a black body is an imaginary, unphysical concept used in physics. The Stefan Boltzman equation is ONLY for a black body, it is used to convert IR, as if all IR is the same, to a resulting temperature of the imaginary black body surface. A black body has no mass, yet you need mass to have a temperature. A black body has no heat capacity, heat retention and later release. A black body has no conduction and convection gains or losses. A black body has no sensible heat gains or losses. A black body has no latent heat gains or losses. A black body has no energy gains, losses, or conversions by changes of phase. A black body has no change of physical properties due to phase change. All these things happen from time to time, some are almost constantly happening, in actual thermodynamic reality. A black body is unphysical, it does not describe what happens in reality.
Actual thermodynamic reality IS different, and as such applying black body based explanations to actual thermodynamic reality MUST BE WRONG, by definition of what a black body and the Stefan Boltzman equation are.”
End of excerpt.
I will be posting further replies “Elsewhere” and will report back here what happens. So far, it does not look good for science…
I am being accused of inventing physics (because I say BB and S/B does not explain what happens in actual thermodynamic reality) by a person who has invoked the “black body surface atom” in their defense (which IS inventing physics)…. You could not, and should not be able to write stuff like this without being corrected, but he is, and with no correction from the many world famous scientists in the group…
Derek Alker – UPDATE 1 – It has been confirmed that I was correct when I stated that the BB concept is a surface with no mass. AND, a grey body IS a BB with the only additions of absorptivity and emissivity.
It has been noted that “black body” is a confusing term. It is more correctly a black body surface, with no mass, commonly shortened to black body.
UPDATE 2 – A conceptual black body surface at the greatest detail is made up of, quantized electric dipole oscillators. The basic thermal properties of the interior material, particularly the thermal conductivity and the heat capacity do not change. ie The thermal properties of the surface, and the mass of the surface are in effect zero.
In quantum mechanics a degeneracy term is added to the quantized oscillator for the degeneracy of molecular states. In particular, for molecular rotations, the degeneracy is 2J+1 where J is rotational quantum number. This term accurately accounts for the decrease in emissivity observed in certain gaseous emission bands as the temperature is increased.
Please note, for partial absorbers, the same fraction is absorbed as is emitted. This is often referred to as a gray body or gray body emission. In other words a grey body IS a black body with the addition of albedo. Not quite what I have said, but very close, and in fact worse for grey body, which is really just a black body that does not quite perfectly absorb..
So, temperature of the black body surface (T) as calculated with S/B = power of emission, and, T as calculated with S/B = amount emitted, for a black body, ONLY. This is why I have said so often that peak frequency of emission = power of emission = amount emitted IS a black body assumption being misapplied to ATR.
Remembering that a BB and a grey body omit any influences or changes, of or to,
i) Thermal mass of the solid / liquid / gas.
ii) Conduction gains or losses.
iii) Latent heat gains or losses.
iv) Energy gains or losses due to change of state.
v) The physical properties of the solid, liquid. or gas.
vi) Changes in physical properties of the solid / liquid / gas with change of state.
Therefore, neither BB or grey body explains Actual Thermodynamic Reality (ATR), AND, IF we do observe very similar or the same figures, as calculated with BB, grey body and S/B in ATR, then we know it is NOT for the same reasons, because BB, grey body and S/B are unphysical. So many at present seem to think, incorrectly, that the often observed similar figures means BB, grey body and S/B applies to, and explains ATR, when they do not.
Attempting to give the BB concept mass by invoking a “surface atom” IS inventing physics, with the intention of making a grey body seem more real, to support the failed greenhouse effect hypothesis, that itself is a BB, grey body and S/B explanation of Actual Thermodynamic Reality.
QED – By definition, the unphysical CAN NOT explain the physical.
Thanks for the comment Derek. Interesting twist – please do report back later with the result of your discussions “Elsewhere”. I’d appreciate hearing the result of the deliberations on the relationship between OLR and T, if not Boltzmann then what?
“Elsewhere”, I am not bothering to reply to (predictable) comments questioning my intelligence / knowledge / understanding.. That is not the issue, the misapplications of B/B and SB to ATR is the issue, which of course is not being “discussed”.
You ask, “if not Boltzmann then what?”
Hmmm, well first, that ain’t my problem, I am merely questioning what they experts tell me is so, using the people’s scientific method, as we are supposed to do.
ie,
Observation -> Hypothesis -> Experiment -> Theory -> Law.
I do not have to provide the answer, but I should try to determine for my own satisfaction if they are correct in their diagnosis and remedies for a problem they say exists (ie man made global warming), which does not seem to me to exist in physical reality..
ATR is dynamic, so it has to be explained dynamically, not from a static state assumption, that BB is. T is T, OLR is OLR, both reportedly, both questionable… How earth gets there, whatever the actual figures for there are? Well, it ain’t by the current B/B and SB based explanation, that we know, but many will not admit.
You say “Interesting twist”. Exposing a false basis actually…
Secondly, IF we are to get to a better understanding of earth’s climate system then we need to change our approach, drop the false “greenhouse effect” paradigm, and realise some of the other pitfalls we have fallen into too. For instance, we keep on talking about averages when discussing climate, yet those very averages are divorced from the physics in reality. Does an average temperature over 24 hours for a given location tell you anything of the physics involved at the location? No. It does not even tell you if there is day or night at the location…
This is the rub, an unphysical explanation produces the same figure, that is a divorced from the physics in reality average figure…. Neat trick, many believe, but it is still a trick.
How should we calculate the average, ie GMT? Well, physically obviously, not unphysically as is the current orthodoxy….
Pingback: Data Contradict Warming Hypothesis And IPCC Models: Relative Emissivity Is Not Declining
Andrew, your method is wrong so the results are invalid.
Because emissivity is calculated using the fourth power of the temperature then you can’t just average OLWIR levels, UAH and RSS average temperatures over the globe for a year then calculate emissivity for that year as if it were a single reading. Further, you can’t even use daily average temperatures because of the fourth power factor.
Because of the fourth power of temperature the highs have a bigger effect on emissivity than the lows. So for two years with the same average temperature, if one has a wider range of temperatures (max minus min temperature), then the radiation output from that year will be bigger – the high will be more highly weighted and the low less weighted.
As an example suppose we have two years where the average is 200 K, but one year has 6 month summer of constant temperature of 210 and winter of constant 190, whereas the other is 220 and 180. Then the first year’s radiation varies as
1944810000 + 1303210000 = 3248020000,
whereas for the second
2342560000 + 1049760000 = 3392320000.
In fact the same applies to days too – days with same average but higher variation give higher overall long-wave radiation output.
So you can’t get a valid answer from the data you have picked, because it does not contain the required information on the actual temperature distribution within the period – it just contains a period averages for temperature and OLWIR.
I see what you’re getting at, and I don’t disagree with you in the detailed effect of the quartic. But while my results are not necessarily exact in an absolute sense, the results ARE meaningful and things can be learned from them.
To test for the impact of annual variability I completed a month by month calculation of SBRE. I will add the graph to the post (includes 2013).
A maximum to minimum annual variation certainly exists, but it is not hugely different from year to year. So while maximum to minimum variation will affect the derived value of average SBRE, the ‘error signal’ would be similar year by year so it shouldn’t affect the trend very much. The graph shows this is the case. The SBRE 12 month rolling average calculated from the monthly derived figures tracks very closely the annually calculated SBRE. The trend line based on the monthly calculations closely matches that based on the annual averaged data. The conclusion about relative emissivity trend over the period is the same.
Pingback: An Empirical Review of Recent Trends in the Greenhouse Effect | Watts Up With That?
“I can’t believe that Trenberth & company have not looked at this! This proves the fraud.”
Actually, NASA scientists have reported that the estimated rate of heating of the oceans is 0.5 Wm-2 and they have reported that the uncertainty is 17 Wm-2.
“The net energy balance is the sum of individual fluxes. The current uncertainty in this net surface energy balance is large, and amounts to approximately 17 Wm–2. This uncertainty is an order of magnitude larger than the changes to the net surface fluxes associated with increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (Fig. 2b). ”
Graeme L. Stephens et al, An update on Earth’s energy balance in light of the latest global observations. Nature Geoscience Vol. 5 October 2012
URL: http://www.aos.wisc.edu/~tristan/publications/2012_EBupdate_stephens_ngeo1580.pdf
How much plainer do they have to say it and still keep their jobs?
In 2012, Norman Loeb of NASA revised James Hansen’s estimate of heating absorbed by the oceans from 0.6 to 0.5 Wm-2 after Hansen et al. reduced the estimate from 0.85 Wm-2 in 2011.
Loeb et al, Observed changes in top-of-the-atmosphere radiation and upper-ocean heating consistent within uncertainty. Nature Geoscience VOL 5 February 2012
As it stands now leading NASA scientists put heat sequestered by the oceans at 0.15% of incoming radiation. They estimate the uncertainty in this figure at 17 Wm-2. This uncertainty is 34 times greater than the net imbalance.
Again how plainly do they have to say it without losing their jobs?
There is no fraud here. Possibly the scientists have to code the messages they are including in their published papers, but it is all there in broad daylight for anyone who can see what these numbers imply.
NASA and other scientists cannot measure the Earth’s energy imbalance with enough precision to confirm or refute the theory of AGW.
If I am not mistaken then both UAH and RSS measure the temperature in the “lower troposhere”. Whatever this is exactly, it is the air temperature in an extended layer of air.
The black body radiation, however, comes from the ground. The temperature of the ground can differ significantly from the air temperature, as we all experience when e.g. walking barefoot in the sand of a beach. Due to the power-of-4 relationship, this can have a noticeable impact on the emitted radiation.
So why should it be meaningful to base calculated OLWIR on “lower troposphere” temperatures?
Because the layer of GG’s at the surface is the most dense and blocks almost all OLWIR. The lower and upper trop are mostly reradiation.
Anthony is confusing emissivity with the greenhouse effect. Emissivity isn’t power (W/m2); it is a dimensionless ratio. Dimensionless ratios don’t warm anything; energy (power*time) does. So Anthony’s analysis of emissivity can’t tell us anything about the GHE or AGW! Greenhouse gases slow down the rate at which radiation (energy) emitted by the surface escapes to space. For this reason, climate scientists sometime define the greenhouse effect (G) using the following equation:
OLR = oT^4 – G
where OLR is infrared radiation escaping to space, o is the S-B constant, and T is surface temperature. All three terms in this equation involve energy (per area per time), not dimensionless ratios. If Anthony had used this equation, he might have presented something useful about the GHE.
QUESTION: Why isn’t OLR decreasing as GHG’s have been increasing? ANSWER: T may have gone up enough to compensate since 1979 – leaving OLR unchanged.
QUESTION: If OLR didn’t drop between 1979 and 1997, why did temperature rise during this period? ANSWER: Warming isn’t caused by a DROP in OLR; it is caused by a CONTINUING radiative imbalance (SWR – TOA OLR). A radiative imbalance grew during the first half of the 20th century and then probably remained approximately constant as the earth began to warm as heat from the imbalance accumulated and GHGs increased.
QUESTION: Why hasn’t temperature gone up since 1997? Unforced variability can be high. If surface temperature can go up 0.5 degC in 1997 and down 0.5 degC in 1998, we can’t draw ANY unambiguous conclusions about the greenhouse effect from the absence of the smaller SURFACE warming (0.15-0.2 degC/decade) expected during the hiatus. ARGO has shown that the ocean – unlike the surface and troposphere – has warmed at a steady rate appropriate for a radiative imbalance of about 0.5 W/m2 for the last decade. This ocean warming is evidence that the greenhouse effect has been operating during the hiatus. The energy associated with ocean warming is much larger than the energy missing from surface warming.
What happened in ’97-’98? Upwelling of cold deep water in the eastern equatorial Pacific and downwelling of warm water in the western equatorial Pacific both slowed. The resulting warmer Pacific warmed the rest of the rest of the surface and troposphere. When normal rates of upwelling and downwelling were re-established, the temperature returned to “normal”. It is POSSIBLE that after the 97-98 El Nino, upwelling and downwelling may have been modestly greater than before – carrying Trenberth’s “missing heat” into the deeper ocean. Unfortunately, ARGO isn’t sensitive enough to detect this “missing surface heat” in 2000 m of ocean. Multi-decadal patterns such as the AMO and PDO may be associated with differences in upwelling and downwelling.
FINAL QUESTION: Is the IPCC right after all? ANSWER: Of course not! The IPCC’s climate models over-predicted the amount of warming and under-predicted variation in warming rate. Their estimate of aerosol cooling appears to be too big; making the over-warming problem more serious. Their future projections are therefore dubious at best. The IPCC discounted the importance of unforced variability (such as the 1925-1945 warming), so that they could over-interpret the similar 1978-1998 warming. They incorrectly attributed all of the 1960’s hiatus to aerosols, opening the door for the current hiatus (which is similar so far) to really damage their credibility. However, ARGO shows that the current hiatus in surface warming hasn’t disproved the greenhouse effect.
>”ARGO has shown that the ocean – unlike the surface and troposphere – has warmed at a steady rate appropriate for a radiative imbalance of about 0.5 W/m2 for the last decade. This ocean warming is evidence that the greenhouse effect has been operating during the hiatus.”
Non sequitur. There is no mechanism for the atmosphere to impute that amount of energy to the ocean. After 25 years of assessments and 5 reports the IPCC still doesn’t have anything to cite. All they do is speculate “air-sea fluxes” in Chapter 8 Radiative Forcing but no evidence whatsoever. DLR just does not have the penetration necessary (about 10 microns) and given the ocean is on average about 3 C warmer than the adjacent air then it’s not a sensible heat transfer either. There are areas in the tropics where the air is warmer but the heat content of air is nowhere near sufficient for water warming by heat transfer in the order of the ARGO derived OHC.
Richard: You are correct that DLR is absorbed only by the top few um of the ocean, but this turns out to be unimportant.
The top few um of the ocean lose about 390 W/m2 by thermal radiation and another 100 W/m2 by latent and simple heat. Only a small fraction of SWR (which totals only 160 W/m2) is absorbed by the top few um. Therefore, the top few um of the ocean would quickly freeze if it wasn’t heated by 330 W/m2 of DLR. Even when all 330 W/m2 of DLR is absorbed, the top few um of the ocean loses far more to heat to the atmosphere than it gets from DLR.
The bulk of the ocean is heated by SWR, not DLR. Heat from SWR is deposited mostly in the top 1 m of the ocean. This heat can’t escape from the ocean until it is convected or conducted to the top few um – which only happens with the top few um are cooler than the bulk of the ocean below. If increasing GHGs increase DLR, the SWR that is no longer needed at the surface will accumulate and can be carried to the deeper ocean by turbulent mixing and downwelling.
>”If increasing GHGs increase DLR”
There’s no evidence of consistently increasing DLR – anywhere. See any of the BSRN or Surfrad studies, DLR has no relationship whatsoever with increasing GHGs.
I could argue about the respective heating effects (or not) of solar (IR-A/B) vs DLR (IR-C) but the rebuttal above is sufficient.
The electrical analogy is “real” vs “apparent” power. This is something that climate science doesn’t understand. Quoting 330 W/m2 of DLR is meaningless if the heating effect on a particular material is not understood (radiation/material “tuning”). See the electromagnetic spectrum: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum
Energy-per-photon drops off markedly from the solar range to the DLR range. The heating effect of DLR is actually a cooling effect on the skin by the evaporative process. The skin is generally cooler than the layer immediately below it because that is where energy leaves. But it depends on local conditions like wind, time of day, latitude and so on. The skin can be warmer and has been observed to be in different situations, particularly in the tropics.
Moot of course if DLR is not increasing.
Should be – “particularly in the tropics [around noon]”
>”ARGO has shown that the ocean – unlike the surface and troposphere – has warmed at a steady rate appropriate for a radiative imbalance of about 0.5 W/m2 for the last decade.”
Nope: ‘With ARGO, There is a Wide Range Warming (and Cooling) Rates of the Oceans to Depths of 2000 Meters’, Bob Tisdale / October 17, 2014
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/17/with-argo-there-is-a-wide-range-warming-and-cooling-rates-of-the-oceans-to-depths-of-2000-meters/
Richard: The southeastern United States experienced falling temperature throughout the 20th century, even though the globe as a whole warmed. Antarctica apparently hasn’t warmed. Many locations cooled from 1945-1970. None of these local variations change the fact that average global surface temperature has risen.
Tisdale’s Figure 1 at WUWT shows that GLOBAL ocean heat content (temperature) has been increasing during the current pause (in the warming of the surface and the troposphere). The fact that some locations are cooling and some are warming is irrelevant. The rise in global ocean temperature shows that a radiative imbalance due to rising GHGs has warmed the planet.
>”The fact that some locations are cooling and some are warming is irrelevant.”
Somehow it all reduces to an average for just one square metre column representing the entire planetary surface and atmosphere? This is the simplified approach but it is certainly not reality, the differing warming and cooling locations are very relevant. I think you would find that if you substitute the different values of T (again, an averaged value) in j* = εkT^4 for the parts of each basin graphed by Tisdale. The same partitioning would return different profiles for temperature, OLR, and derived RE for the observations Robin has graphed.
>”The rise in global ocean temperature shows that a radiative imbalance due to rising GHGs has warmed the planet”
Or not, you’re not considering solar levels, planetary thermal inertia, and heat transport. The question arises: what is the radiative imbalance (or not) over the Arctic (65N-90N) and Indian (60S-30N, 20E-120E) respectively for comparison?
Here’s the latest daily OLR:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/images/olr/olr.gif
I see 140 – 200 W/m2 OLR from the Arctic and 240 -300 W/m2 OLR from the Indian. The last datapoint for 2012 average in the graph above is 232.25 W/m2. Obviously there’s much more irradiance from the warm Indian than the cold Arctic and much more than the average too i.e. if GHGs somehow inhibit OLR it doesn’t appear to be evident over the Indian Ocean (which exhibits the most warming).
Now to the supposed imbalance. The energy released by OLR from the Indian did not necessarily originate from insolation of the Indian. There’s planetary sun => ocean => atmosphere thermal lag of around 14 years +/- 6 years (Abdussamatov) but ocean heat transport can take decades, even centuries. See Thermohaline Circulation:
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Water/circulation1.html
There’s a major current coming into the Indian from the Pacific so how do you reconcile Indian OLR with solar input (wherever that occurred – maybe the Pacific tropics) in order to arrive at an energy input/output imbalance (or not)?
Then the same current delivers Pacific, Indian, and Atlantic originated energy to the Arctic. How do you reconcile that output with isolation input?
>”you’re not considering solar levels”
We’ve just experienced the highest solar levels for at least 1000 yrs, probably the Holocene. That ended 2005 but the current level is still high relative to say 1900 – 1930. Add 14 yrs lag (Abdussamatov above) you get 2019 for the reduced solar input to show up in output (global temperature). The secular trend is already starting to turn down:
http://www.sciencecodex.com/last_decades_slowdown_in_global_warming_enhanced_by_an_unusual_climate_anomaly-141430
That red line rings the death knell for AGW.
Much more on oceanic heat transport here:
‘Improved estimates of global ocean circulation, heat transport and mixing from hydrographic data’
Alexandre Ganachaud & Carl Wunsch (2000)
http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/ganachwunschnature.pdf
See Figure 1 Hydrographic sections and heat fluxes.
And Figure 2 Zonally integrated layer mass transports.
>”Greenhouse gases slow down the rate at which radiation (energy) emitted by the surface escapes to space [OLR = oT^4 – G]” “where OLR is infrared radiation escaping to space, o is the S-B constant, and T is surface temperature. All three terms in this equation involve energy (per area per time), not dimensionless ratios. If Anthony had used this equation, he might have presented something useful about the GHE.”
The OLR rate from the surface is the speed of light. As is OLR at TOA for both surface emissions direct to space and intercepted surface emissions. The latter is where “G” comes in for the intercepted surface emission but not as a negative rate. Adding GHGs, e.g. doubling CO2, increases the emissivity of the atmosphere and therefore the globe as seen at TOA. Dr Latour explains, with calcs, here:
http://www.principia-scientific.org/fred-singer-closing-in-on-fact-co2-doesn-t-affect-global-temperature.html
Seems to me that Latour’s calcs of 2xCO2 increasing atm emissivity are reasonably consistent with Robin’s RE graph although the linear trend is nothing to go by. I don’t think that’s appropriate on that data, maybe as more data comes in but not yet.
Given carbon dioxide is a coolant, refrigerant code R744, the overall effect of added CO2 is cooling. Or, as Latour puts it: “The difficult part to quantify this is to estimate the effect of CO2 on atmospheric emissivity and absorptivity. In any case the effect is cooling, CS < 0." And: "My assumptions give CS = -0.112C"
Richard: Photons always travel at the speed of light, but fewer IR photons make it through the atmosphere without being absorbed when the atmosphere contains more GHGs. Absorption thereby reduces the rate at which energy escapes to space, without slowing down individual photons.
Unlike Singer, Latour doesn’t know that the proper way to calculate the flux of radiation through an atmosphere. Latour ADMITS he is making assumptions:
“Three S-B equations, plus energy conservation equation, Is + Ia = Ig, plus emissivity combo assumption eg = (es*Is + ea*Ia)/(Is + Ia) is five equations with 9 unknowns. Specify four unknowns from measurement; Ts, Ta, Ig, Is, and solve for remaining five unknowns: Ia, es, ea, eg, Tg.
To estimate CS, must ESTIMATE the effect of doubling [CO2] on ea and Is. Then resolve for Ia, eg, Ts, Ta, Tg.
For example, ASSUME [CO2] from 400 to 800 ppm, ea from 0.82811 to 0.82911 and Is from 40 to 39.9”
All Latour’s hand waving treats the atmosphere as a black box. It is speculation, not rigorous science. It uses none of our knowledge about how GHGs absorb and emit radiation. The correct way to calculate the flux of radiation through the atmosphere (or anywhere in the atmosphere) is by using the Schwarzschild equation:
change in radiation = emission – absorption
dI/ds = n*o*B(lamba,T) – n*o*I_0
dI/ds = n*o*[B(lamba,T) – I_0]
where dI is the incremental change in intensity of radiation at a given wavelength as it passes an incremental distance (ds) through the atmosphere, n is the density of GHG molecules, o is the absorption cross-section for the GHG at that wavelength, I_0 is the intensity of radiation entering the increment ds, T is the temperature of that increment of atmosphere, and B(lamba,T) is Planck function for that temperature and wavelength. To calculate the total energy flux, one needs to integrate over the path from the surface to space and then over all wavelengths. Since GHG density (n) and T change with altitude, this integration must be done numerically. This is how radiative forcing is calculated for GHGs. MODTRAN and HITRAN are software packages that uses a database of absorption cross-sections (measured in the laboratory) to numerically integrate the Schwarzschild equation to obtain the upward and downward radiative flux through an adjustable atmosphere. HITRAN was originally developed for use by aeronautical engineers in the 1960s. These programs are not a climate models, they simply predict the flux through an atmosphere that the user chooses (composition, density, temperature). MODTRAN is available at: http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
If the Schwarzschild eqn seems unfamiliar, consider two limiting cases: a) When I_0 is large (making emission is negligible) and the atmosphere is homogeneous, integrating the Schwarzschild equation gives Beer’s Law. b) After radiation has passed far enough through a homogeneous material that absorption and emission have reached equilibrium, dI/ds = zero, and that radiation has blackbody intensity, I_0 = B(lamba,T). So the Schwarzschild eqn encompasses both absorption spectroscopy and emission of blackbody radiation. It allows one to deal with changing density and temperature, using absorption cross-sections (o) measured in a laboratory. No assumptions are required, but need for numerical integration makes the process non-intuitive.
More intuitively, the effect of increasing the density of GHGs (n) on the outward flux depends on the sign of [B(lamba,T) – I_0]. If this term is negative, positive or zero; increasing GHG’s will reduce, increase or leave unchanged the outward flux, respectively. The outward flux (I_0) starts with emission from the surface of the earth and travels upward through the increasingly colder atmosphere. For this reason, the outward radiation from below (I_0) is emitted where the temperature (T’) and therefore B(lamba,T’) is usually higher and I_0 is usually greater than B(lamba,T). Therefore, increasing GHGs MUST reduce the outward flux.
(In the stratosphere, temperature falls with increasing altitude. Increasing GHGs in the stratosphere increases the outward flux – but much less than they decrease the outward flux upon passage through the troposphere. This is why you may have heard that increasing CO2 should cool the stratosphere. If you adjust the “look down” altitude in MODTRAN, you can see the outward flux begin to increase above 30 km because CO2 emits more radiation than it absorbs at this altitude.)
In summary, the balance between GHGs emitting and absorbing radiation as it passes through the atmosphere is simple in concept (dI/ds = emission – absorption) and complicated to apply. The GHE depends on the sign of the [B(lamba,T) – I_0] term, which is simple: It is negative in atmospheres where the temperature drops with altitude.
What about observations? Unforced variability in climate makes it difficult to draw conclusions about the enhanced GHE from observations of recent modest changes in temperature. The current hiatus is a much smaller deviation from expectation than the 1997-8 El Nino (+0.5 degC ) and the LIA (about -1.0 degC). The Schwarzschild equation allows us to predict that the planet on the average will eventually warm about 1.0 degC after a doubling of CO2. That warming (which all skeptical climate scientists believe is “settled science”) will be amplified or suppressed by feedbacks. That warming may ALSO be obscured or enhanced by unforced variability – such as the current hiatus, the 1930s warming, the LIA, the MWP, the AMO, the PDO, or other forms of chaotic behavior.
While we are sure that water vapor feedback must be positive and will produce a negative lapse rate feedback, feedbacks haven’t been accurately quantified by observations. In climate models, feedbacks (especially cloud feedback) depend on the CHOICE of parameters used by climate models. Each different set of model parameters represents an untested hypothesis. Many different parameter sets are equally good (or bad) at representing currently climate. By tuning the aerosol parameter, any model can be made to reproduce 20th century warming. By saying that ECS is likely to lie between 1.5 and 4.5 degC, but could be as low as 1.0 degC; even the IPCC is saying that they don’t have NO reliable information about how much warming will occur. Then they turn around and lie to us by presenting the results from GCMs with ECS around 3.0 degC and pretending that their output range of represents scientific uncertainty about future warming. True uncertainty is the same as the uncertainty in ECS – about 4X, but the upper end of this range is looking increasingly unlikely.
>”Latour ADMITS he is making assumptions”
He doesn’t “admit” anything. First he determines the basis from O2 exchanged for CO2:
[Latour] – “If S increases, T increases. If alb or e increase, T decreases.”.
Then he substitutes knowns to solve for unknowns:
[Latour] – “Three S-B equations, plus energy conservation equation, Is + Ia = Ig, plus emissivity combo assumption eg = (es*Is + ea*Ia)/(Is + Ia) is five equations with 9 unknowns. Specify four unknowns from measurement; Ts, Ta, Ig, Is, and solve for remaining five unknowns: Ia, es, ea, eg, Tg.”
From that estimate CS from S-B by the 2xCO2 assumption (a common assumption I would point out) and changes as per the basis:
[Latour] – For example, assume [CO2} from 400 to 800 ppm, ea from 0.82811 to 0.82911 and Is from 40 to 39.9. Result is:
CO2 400 ppm Intensity Emissivity S-B Temperature
Surface 40 0.10233 15.000
Atmosphere 199 0.82811 -18.000
Globe 239 0.70664 4.760
CO2 800 ppm
Surface 39.9 0.10233 14.820
Atmosphere 199.1 0.82911 -18.045
Globe 239 0.70778 4.648
Change
Surface -0.1 -0- -0.180
Atmosphere 0.1 0.001 -0.045
Globe -0- 0.0012 -0.112
CS -0.112.
>”Therefore, increasing GHGs MUST reduce the outward flux.” [dI/ds = n*o*B(lamba,T) – n*o*I_0]
But they haven’t, the outward flux has increased as per van Andel from The HS post downthread, source post here:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2010/09/scientist-there-is-no-observational.html
Relevant graph:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_nOY5jaKJXHM/TI-1aWFUoFI/AAAAAAAABRs/tf6HawUmjC0/s1600/Fullscreen+capture+9142010+104234+AM.jpg
Something other than GHGs is driving OLR, like this:
‘Key evidence for the accumulative model of high solar influence on global temperature’
David R.B. Stockwell (2011)
“Here we show three crucial tests of the conjecture that changes in solar irradiance above or 24 below the mean solar irradiance are accumulated over time, amplifying the small, direct forcings 25 as described in detail previously [Stockwell, 2011a,b], to produce the observed variations in global 26 temperature. The accumulation model extends previous work on the mechanism of multi-decadal 27 ocean oscillations [Stockwell and Cox, 2009a,b]. The model is consistent with energy balance models
28 of the climate system with very long decay times Spencer and Braswell [2008], Stockwell and Cox 29 [2009a] and has similar dynamics to such systems as the change in the level of surge tanks, RC 30 electrical circuits and electronic integration ampli ers Stubberud et al. [1994].”
“As an example of the accumulative model, consider that 31 without temperature-dependent losses, 32 an increase of 0:1 W/m2 for one year would accumulate 3:1×10^6 Joules of heat (31×10^6 sec in a Yr) 33 to the ocean, heating the ocean mixed zone to 50m by 0.018K (4.2 J/gK).”
http://vixra.org/pdf/1108.0032v1.pdf
Note the solar proxy is sunspots – not the combined effect of TSI and cloudiness. If you compare TSI to OLR, OLR at 1980 is lagged about 25 yrs behind TSI:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/SolarIrradianceReconstructedSince1610.gif
This is the sun => ocean => atmosphere(+ space) system where planetary thermal inertia and oceanic heat transport determines lag.
>”Therefore, increasing GHGs MUST reduce the outward flux.” [dI/ds = n*o*B(lamba,T) – n*o*I_0]
>”But they haven’t, the outward flux has increased as per van Andel from The HS post downthread”
That post features this PNAS paper:
Shortwave and longwave radiative contributions to global warming under increasing CO2 by Aaron Donohoe, Kyle C. Armour, Angeline G. Pendergrass, and David S. Battisti published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1412190111
http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/study-suggests-short-wave-absorption-may-rise.html
Starts off OK:
“When CO2 is first added, it does act as a blanket, trapping long-wave infrared energy coming off the Earth. The atmosphere then emits less of this long-wave radiation to space…..”
Some validity in this up to 200 ppm:
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/eggert-co2.png
But then they repeat the mantra, over and over:
“While greenhouse gases trap one type of radiation…..”
“The greenhouse effect is well-established. Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, reduce the amount of outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) to space; thus, energy accumulates in the climate system, and the planet warms”
“….global warming is set into motion by greenhouse gases that reduce OLR”
“….greenhouse gas forcing predominantly acts to reduce OLR”
Then the abstract immediately contradicts all that:
“In response to increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2, high-end general circulation models (GCMs) simulate an accumulation of energy at the top of the atmosphere not through a reduction in outgoing longwave radiation (OLR)—as one might expect from greenhouse gas forcing”
So we have a comedy of errors – neglect of the OLR observations, and miss-attribution – CO2 for solar. The IPCC AR5 assertion that a solar recession will only offset a very small amount of warming in Chapter 8: Radiative Forcing, citing Jones, Lockwood, and Stott (2012), is effectively an assertion that a perpetual motion machine is operating – it isn’t.
It is impossible to get more energy out of a system after the input level is reduced than the output at the original input level.
Frank wrote: “”Therefore, increasing GHGs MUST reduce the outward flux.” [dI/ds = n*o*B(lamba,T) – n*o*I_0]
Richard replied: “But they haven’t, the outward flux has increased as per van Andel from The HS post downthread, source post here:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2010/09/scientist-there-is-no-observational.html”
Frank adds: We study basic physics and chemistry under carefully controlled conditions in the laboratory, and then apply that knowledge to complicated systems like our climate. No one in their right mind should challenge the principles of physics based on the behavior of a complex and chaotic system like our planet. It is a mystery to me why seemingly-intelligent people waste their time (and damage the credibility of informed skeptics) by challenging the existence of the greenhouse effect when REAL substantial scientific problems exist about SO MANY other aspects of the IPCC consensus: feedbacks, climate models, impacts, and politicization.
The physics I discussed shows why we expect OLR to decrease as GHG’s increase, a response that should warm the planet. I didn’t say that the ONLY thing that can change OLR is anthropogenic GHGs. Since mid-century, we believe the greenhouse effect (radiative forcing) increased by about 2 W/m2 due to rising GHGs and oT^4 increased by about 1.7 W/m2 as temperature warmed 0.5 degK (due to this radiative imbalance). Instead, some questionable data shows a 6 W/m2 increase in OLR.
First, the skeptical climate scientist whose talk the hockey stick blog cited (van Andel) doesn’t believe this data refutes the GHE or the Schwarzschild equation.
Instead, van Andel finds that the 6 W/m2 rise in OLR can be attributed to a decrease in the humidity of the upper troposphere. See the map on page 11 of his talk and the pages that follow. Water vapor is greenhouse gas and a decrease in water vapor can overwhelm the increase in CO2. van Andel correctly claims that this re-analysis is consistent with negative, not positive, water vapor feedback.
http://climategate.nl/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/KNMI_voordracht_VanAndel.pdf
FWIW, the OLR data is from a reanalysis – meaning that historical climate data was used to constrain the output from a GCM attempting to hindcast past weather and climate. The model determines the temperature, pressure, water vapor, clouds, winds etc. in all grid cells at all times that best fit the historical data we have. The GCM then CALCULATES the expected OLR using the Schwarzschild equation and a program similar to MODTRAN. If you don’t believe in the Schwarzschild equation, you can not LOGICALLY use this data to refute it.
Furthermore, reanalyses suffer from a potentially serious problem. As time goes on, we have been collecting more and better information about climate. Therefore, the output from the climate model is more tightly constrained by observations in recent decades. So a re-analysis tends to reflect biases in the climate model more in early decades than recent decades. If a climate model predicts too much water vapor in the upper atmosphere and therefore too little OLR (as some suggest the NCEP model does), a re-analysis will show a decreasing trend in water vapor and increasing trend in OLR simply because more and better data is input into the model. However, those trends will be due to the improving suppression of model bias by additional data. Half of the rise in OLR occurred in 1975-1980, just about the time satellites began collecting data for the UAH and RSS record of troposphere temperature. It’s also the same time as the “Great Pacific Climate Shift”.
Real measurements from space show that OLR fluctuates with ENSO but probably doesn’t show a clear trend since 2002. http://scienceofdoom.com/2013/02/07/ceres-airs-outgoing-longwave-radiation-el-nino/
Frank
>”Real measurements [CERES, AIRS] from space show that OLR fluctuates with ENSO but probably doesn’t show a clear trend since 2002. [see graph linked]” http://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/susskind-ceres-vs-airs-20121.png?w=1000&h=936
CERES oscillates between 235 and 245.
Robin’s OLR graph from NOAA data:
http://www.kiwithinker.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/OLWIR-Temp-and-SB.jpg
NOAA spikes between 232 and 234, mostly centred on 233.
We have a problem, the CERES data will not return 0.6 RE from S-B.
>”van Andel correctly claims that this re-analysis is consistent with negative, not positive, water vapor feedback.”
Yes, specifically page 6 and page 9 “The observed total feedback is -6 / 0.7= – 8.6 W/m^2K”
>”van Andel finds that the 6 W/m2 rise in OLR can be attributed to a decrease in the humidity of the upper troposphere.”
No he doesn’t, he states (note “both”) – “two effects: a higher convection top and a drier upper troposphere, both increase Outgoing Longwave Radiation” (see below).
But first he points out that models show positive WV feedback globally, the observations show negative feedback:
[van Andel, figure page 9] – “All climate models have dangerous positive feedbacks
Observations [ERBE] show a large and safe negative feedback”
Then he undertakes a regional East/West tropical Pacific OLR/SST/humidity analysis, humidity decrease in the West, increase in the East:
[van Andel page 11] – “Now let us see what happens in the Eastern tropical Pacific, wetting TOA, and in the Western tropical Pacific, drying TOA. Can we correlate SST and OLR trends locally?”
Next global page 19:
[van Andel] – “Specific humidity at 1000 mB. Current AGW theory has it that when temperature increases the relative humidity stays constant, and therefore the specific humidity rises on all heights, causing a positive feedback on climate sensitivity [dT/d(2logCO2)]. In the lower atmosphere, this is right. A 4.5 % increase follows the Causius-Clapeyron water vapor saturation pressure increase [6%/ºC]”
[van Andel] – “Specific humidity at 925 mB, global weighted mean. Even at the top of
the turbulent mixing layer, or at cloud base, the specific humidity rises.”
[van Andel] – “Specific humidity at 600 mB, global weighted mean. At 600 mB
the water vapor concentration decreases. This decrease is 0.15 g/kg, or 150 ppmw or 240 ppmv, much more effective than the 50 ppmv increase of CO2 in the same period!”
[van Andel] – “Specific humidity at 400 mB, global weighted mean.
The decrease is large, 20% in these 60 years! Compare this with 15% more CO2 in
this period. At this atmospheric height, radiation is more important than
convection, so this decrease is very relevant……”
From which he concludes:
[van Andel] – “The right physics in my opinion:
We have a strongly controlled climate. The solar constant
and the physical properties of water keep us controlled.
• The heat transfer from surface into space uses two
mechanisms in series: Convection in the lower atmosphere, IR
radiation in the higher atmosphere.
• The warmer it becomes, going from pole to equator, the more
important the convection part becomes. The height on which
radiation flux becomes larger than convection flux, the
convection top, rises.
• More convection means a higher tropopause, a lower cloud top
temperature, a higher condensation efficiency, and in this way a
drier upper troposphere.
• These two effects: a higher convection top and a drier upper
troposphere, both increase Outgoing Longwave Radiation. This
controls the temperature.”
In other words, the CO2-forced “enhanced” greenhouse effect doesn’t do much enhancing – it’s a solar-water process. And AGW is wrong from 600 mB up.
>”The physics I discussed shows why we expect OLR to decrease as GHG’s increase, a response that should warm the planet. I didn’t say that the ONLY thing that can change OLR is anthropogenic GHGs.”
The expectation is spurious in that case and in view of the above.
>”….the skeptical climate scientist whose talk the hockey stick blog cited (van Andel) doesn’t believe this data refutes the GHE or the Schwarzschild equation.”
He doesn’t state he doesn’t believe that. He states is this (page 26):
[van Andel] – “The greenhouse effect is not a free variable.
It is controlled by maximum entropy production. Surface
temperature is only a function of absorbed solar radiation.”
BTW re “surface temperature is only a function of absorbed solar radiation” see Dr Jeff Glassman:
THE CAUSE OF EARTH’S CLIMATE CHANGE IS THE SUN
————————————————————
THE FINGERPRINT OF THE SUN IS ON EARTH’S 160 YEAR TEMPERATURE RECORD, CONTRADICTING IPCC CONCLUSIONS, FINGERPRINTING, & AGW
SOLAR GLOBAL WARMING
by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD, 3/27/10. Cor. 4/17/10.
ABSTRACT
Solar energy as modeled over the last three centuries contains patterns that match the full 160 year instrument record of Earth’s surface temperature. Earth’s surface temperature throughout the modern record is given by
EQ01 http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2010/03/_res/EQ01.jpg (1)
where
Sn is the increase in Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) measured as the running percentage rise in the trend at every instance in time,
t, for the previous n years.
The parameters are best fits with the values m134=18.33ºC/%, m46=-3.68ºC/%, b=13.57(-0.43)ºC, and τ=6 years.
The value of b in parenthesis gives T(t) as a temperature anomaly.
One standard deviation of the error between the equation and the HadCRUT3 data is 0.11ºC (about one ordinate interval). Values for a good approximation (σ=0.13ºC) with a single solar running trend are m134=17.50ºC/%, m46=0, b=13.55(-0.45)ºC, and τ=10 years.
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2010/03/sgw.html#more
FIGURE 1 Global average surface temperature with solar formula overlay. The figure is IPCC’s AR4 Figure 3.6 from HadCRUT3, with Earth’s surface temperature from Equation (1) added in berry color. The new temperature model is a linear combination of two variables. The variables are causal, running trend lines from the solar model of Wang, et al. (2005). IPCC’s blue curve is the temperature smoothed by a backward and forward symmetric, non-causal filter.
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2010/03/_res/KEYNOTE.jpg
Something I’ve been trying to get through to Willis Eschenbach at WUWT in this thread:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/01/splicing-clouds/#comment-1787965
>”So a re-analysis tends to reflect biases in the climate model more in early decades than recent decades.”
[van Andel page 22] – “Specific humidity at 400 mB, global weighted mean………The trend is no different before and during the satellite age, so “non-assimilation” can not have a big influence on the data. Assimilation introduces a constant bias.”
Richard: I’m very receptive to the idea that the IPCC consensus on feedbacks is wrong. However, I reject any notion that observations of the earth (such as in this post, by Stockwell or Glassman, or any other source you cite) can refute the Schwarzschild equation and the enhanced GHE that must arise from it. The rise in CO2 would have resulted in 2 W/m2 less energy escaping to space, but most of this has been negated by warming since 1970. We both appear to AGREE that remaining imbalance is small compared with the possible changes in SWR and other factors not arising from GHGs. See Spenser’s first figure here (but remember zero on the vertical axis is arbitrary, not zero radiative imbalance):
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/13/spencer-clouds-dominate-co2-as-a-climate-driver-since-2000/
I think it is important to distinguish between observed OLR and “deduced OLR” (from re-analysis). Except for the last decade of CERES (which is relatively flat), the record of observations of tropical OLR from space can be found at the link below (and I wish a similar plot existed for global OLR.) There is significant uncertainty and even some disagreement in these records:
http://www.nerc-essc.ac.uk/~rpa/PAPERS/wielickietal2002.pdf
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2002/01/31/295.5556.841.DC1
Re-analysis can create artificial trends if model biases are gradually overwhelmed by increasing data, but no one knows whether this actually happened. IMO, the controversies about the possible drying in the upper tropical troposphere and the apparently related absence of a “hot-spot” show climate science at its worst – massaging the record to match preconceptions. And it shows skeptics at their worst, focusing on a narrow slice of information and ignoring the rest.
Robin can deduce OLR from UAH and RSS temperature records but his output should be labeled “clear skies OLR”. Clouds cover about 60% of the sky and a significant fraction of the OLR emitted to space comes from clouds and depends greatly on their altitude. Another 10% arises from the surface. Stick to the NCEP re-analysis, which calculates OLR emitted by all these sources and is derived in part from the UAH and RSS data.
Yes, OLR fluctuates annually along with the mean global surface temperature (amplitude 3 degC). When discussing climate change, however, we usually remove these seasonal changes by subtracting the average monthly values. When I said that CERES OLR was fairly flat, I was referring to the OLR anomaly. However, if you want to look into seasonal changes in OLR and reflected SWR, you will find that they support the idea that fast feedbacks are positive.
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/19/7568.full
Richard wrote: “In other words, the CO2-forced “enhanced” greenhouse effect doesn’t do much enhancing – it’s a solar-water process. And AGW is wrong from 600 mB up.”
Regardless of how small the anthropogenic enhanced GHE may be relative to other factors, it still exists. One can have an intelligent discussion about other forcings (solar, volcanic, aerosol) besides GHGs and unforced variability. One can have an intelligent discussion about feedbacks in response to the sum of all forcings and resulting climate sensitivity. However, one can’t have an intelligent discussion with someone who doesn’t clearly distinguish between FORCING (like that from added GHGs) and FEEDBACK (like the change in water vapor above 600 mb or changes in albedo). One can’t have an intelligent discussion with someone who forgets that feedbacks can’t change warming into cooling; they AMPLIFY or SUPPRESS that warming. One can’t have an intelligent discussion with someone who believes that the physics of radiation transfer (the Schwarzschild equation and the GHE it predicts) can be invalidated by observations of the earth’s climate.
van Andel is an intelligent man – he focuses on feedbacks. When he says that less water vapor in the upper troposphere allows more OLR to escape, he is using the GHE to evaluate a feedback. When his presentation says: “No observational evidence for influence of CO2 on past or present climate”, he is not saying that the GHE doesn’t exist. You quote his presentation:
“These two effects: a higher convection top and a drier upper
troposphere, both increase Outgoing Longwave Radiation. This
controls the temperature.”
Both effects are a RESPONSE to initial forcing by GHGs – and the sun and volcanos and unforced variability. If van Andel is right, these effects could make warming in response to increasing CO2 less than it would be otherwise. If the NCEP re-analysis is right and OLR has increased despite increasing GHG’s, then some other forcing must be responsible for increasing OLR (such as a direct solar effect on clouds or unforced variability).
Remember, the NCEP re-analysis uses the Schwarzschild eqn to calculate the OLR that van Andel’s conclusions rely upon! If the GHE doesn’t exist, neither does the heart of van Andel’s presentation!
Therefore, I still maintain that uncertain observations of a complicated chaotic planet can NEVER overturn our understanding of how radiation interacts with GHGs.
>”I reject any notion that observations of the earth (such as in this post, by Stockwell or Glassman, or any other source you cite) can refute the Schwarzschild equation and the enhanced GHE that must arise from it.”
That was never the notion – that’s your strawman. Solar-ocean energy accumulation and release lagged by planetary thermal inertia and heat transport is obviously the major climate driver on millennial, centennial, and multi-decadal scales. Anything else is negligible because only solar is “real” power. DLR is merely “apparent”, albeit measurable, but with negligible heating effect (cooling at the ocean surface), and with no relationship whatsoever to CO2. You cannot reproduce temperature from either DLR or CO2 as you can from solar.
>”See Spenser’s first figure here….”
I would point out that this is short-term and tells us nothing about the state of planetary energy gain/loss in terms of explaining historical temperature trends and making predictions. Irrespective of Spencer’s graph, the planet has entered energy “deficit”, as Abdussamatov puts it, graphing it here:
http://nextgrandminimum.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/figure-2-tsi-variations.png?w=640&h=475
Most pronounced since 2005. Add 14 yrs +/- 6 planetary thermal lag (Abdussamatov) you get 2019 for the response in atmospheric temperature – inevitable global cooling, not warming. Abdussamatov prognosis (probably worst-case based on Shapiro et al) graphed here:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-8V2aorwiQIk/Up9iDOoCvPI/AAAAAAAAFn4/N_aN0DdTuzo/s400/ScreenShot3849.jpg
The IPCC asserts, citing Jones, Lockwood, and Stott’s 2012 CO2-forced modeling study, that this energy deficit will have minimal effect on CO2-forced warming. This is bogus, a perpetual motion machine – there cannot be warming under this energy regime. It is impossible to get more energy out of a system after the input level has been reduced, than the output level at the original higher input level. Do you agree Frank?
>”Both effects are a RESPONSE to initial forcing by GHGs – and the sun and volcanos and unforced variability. If van Andel is right, these effects could make warming in response to increasing CO2 less than it would be otherwise.”
That’s under an accumulating solar-ocean energy regime. That process is stalling and the secular trend in temperature is now turning down away from CO2 i.e. no response from CO2 forcing but a marked response to solar forcing. See Macias et al (2014):
http://www.sciencecodex.com/last_decades_slowdown_in_global_warming_enhanced_by_an_unusual_climate_anomaly-141430
The recent downward inflexion in the secular trend (red line) is the death knell of AGW.
With planetary energy accumulation going into reverse we’ll be observing a different set of phenomena than “higher convection top and a drier upper troposphere” (probably the opposite) because OLR will of necessity be less from a cooler surface in accordance with S-B.
>”DLR is merely “apparent”, albeit measurable, but with negligible heating effect (cooling at the ocean surface), and with no relationship whatsoever to CO2″
There’s 400 W/m2 DLR 24/7 at Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia.
But no-one is silly enough to attempt harnessing it because it’s not a heating agent.
Frank wrote: I reject any notion that observations of the earth (such as in this post, by Stockwell or Glassman, or any other source you cite) can refute the Schwarzschild equation and the enhanced GHE that must arise from it.”
Richard replied: “That was never the notion – that’s your strawman.”
Frank continues: Refuting the GHE is the Holy Grail for many skeptics, not a strawman. Here is what our host wrote in THIS post challenging the existence of the GHE. He and many others ARE using observations of a complex, chaotic planet to challenge the physics of radiation transfer. This is bad for the credibility of skeptics (such as van Andel) who accept established physics, but believe that it doesn’t imply a catastrophic future.
The title of his post is: “An Empirical Look at Recent Trends in the Greenhouse Effect”. (Trends in OLR are not trends in the GHE.)
Robin wrote: “Just in case you were not aware, since about 1997 or so, there has been nearly no global temperature rise. This is despite atmospheric CO2 concentration continuing to rise …
I wondered if there was empirical data available of the greenhouse effect? And could it show whether or not the greenhouse effect is increasing with increasing CO2, as the IPCC models expect? …
This is where some warming leads to increased water vapour, and as water vapour is the main greenhouse gas this increases the greenhouse effect, this further lowers OLWIR, and increases the temperature …
So let’s see how the measurements fit the theory. I needed two data sets, one for OLWIR, and the other global temperature.”
Robin explicitly says that we CAN learn about the GHE by studying how OLR has responded to rising GHGs. That is crazy. The GHE is a consequence of the theory of how radiation interacts with matter, which is nearly a century old. The quantitative details have been carefully established in controlled laboratory studies. The GHE – and many other things – effect OLR. Perhaps Robin is merely being careless in his terminology, but such carelessness badly misinforms readers and hurts the credibility of all skeptics.
Let’s stop being confused. The GHE directly effects the radiative balance of the planet. We call such direct effects FORCING: solar, volcanic, GHGs, aerosols.
The planet responds to any forced change in temperature with feedbacks. OLR at the TOA is the result of ALL forcing and ALL feedbacks. OLR by itself can’t tell us anything about the enhanced GHE, the forcing arising from rising GHGs.
To complicate matters, some temperature changes are unforced; due to natural variability. Variations in the rate of upwelling and downwelling can produce unforced changes in temperature, such as those associated with El Nino and perhaps longer oscillations.
Robin could have compared observed OLR to the predictions from climate models. However, the models have been tuned to produce observed TOA. The hiatus may have produced some discrepancies.
Robin could have looked at the seasonal rise and fall of OLR (10 W/m2) that accompanies the seasonal rise and fall of mean global temperature (3 degC). Both can’t be observed after taking anomalies. These changes are not forced, but caused by the lower heat capacity in the northern hemisphere. The S-B equation predicts that the earth should radiate 3.2 W/m2 more OLR to space (using T = 255 degK) for each degK it warms. Ten years of ERBE+CERES data shows only 2.3 W/m2/degK of increasing OLR in both clear and all skies. This says that cloud feedback in the LWR channel is negligible and the fast feedbacks (water vapor and lapse rate) are positive – but only enough to increase climate sensitivity from 1.2 (no feedbacks) to 1.8 degC for 2XCO2. This is about what Lewis and Curry and others find from energy balance models.
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/19/7568.full
However, reflected SWR also changes. Seasonal changes in surface albedo (clear skies) are irrelevant to climate sensitivity. When those are subtracted, there is no change in cloud albedo. The IPCC’s models inflate climate sensitivity to about 3 degC by surface albedo and cloud feedbacks.
This post tries to draw conclusions from a 2.5 W/m2 change spread over 2.5 decades and a half-dozen satellites, while other forcing is changing. The above paper uses the average from ten separate 10 W/m2 cycles (five each from the two most reliable satellites).
>”He and many others ARE using observations of a complex, chaotic planet to challenge the physics of radiation transfer. This is bad for the credibility of skeptics (such as van Andel) who accept established physics, but believe that it doesn’t imply a catastrophic future.”
Rubbish Frank. No-one is challenging the physics of radiative transfer.
>”Robin explicitly says that we CAN learn about the GHE by studying how OLR has responded to rising GHGs. That is crazy.”
Crazy? I don’t think so. Empiricism more like. AGW, in theory, should produce a reduction in OLR – it hasn’t in practice.
>”The GHE is a consequence of the theory of how radiation interacts with matter, which is nearly a century old.”
A century old? The GHE theory might be but radiative interaction with matter certainly isn’t. Here’s how radiation interacts with water from the definitive paper, Hale & Querry (1973), corroborated several times since:
http://omlc.org/spectra/water/gif/hale73.gif
In the GHE band the interaction is only 10 microns i.e. not a heating agent. The heating radiative heating agent is in the solar spectrum. This is from medical lazer physics literature, not from climate science. Now think about lazer surgery Frank. Was that around a century ago?
>”The quantitative details have been carefully established in controlled laboratory studies.”
Really? The IPCC’s CO2 forcing expression too? I don’t think so Frank. Note the conspicuous absence in the following:
EVALUATION OF EMISSIVITY CORRELATIONS FOR H20-C02-N2/AIR MIXTURES AND COUPLING WITH SOLUTION METHODS OF THE RADIATIVE TRANSFER EQUATION
N. Lallemant, A. Sayre, and R. Weber (1996)
http://www.ewp.rpi.edu/hartford/users/papers/engr/ernesto/brazw/Project/Other/Research/Soot/Lallemant_EmissivityCorrelations.pdf
3. CORRELATIONS FOR PREDICTING THE TOTAL EMISSIVITY AND ABSORPTIVITY OF COMBUSTION GASES
Emissivity correlations are usually limited to calculations of the CO, and H20 total emissivity. Mathematically, these models appear either in the form of the weighted sum of gray gases model (WSGGM)4-‘5 or in the form of polynomials.‘-3 Existing WSGGM are somewhat less general than the polynomial correlations since coefficients for the WSGGM have to be recalculated for each H20/ CO1 partial pressure ratio. Polynomial correlations such as those of Leckner2 and Modak3 do not feature such shortcomings; they involve many more fitted coefficients (e.g. 48 for each species in Modak’s model) but retain all the generality required to model total emissivity of gas mixtures. Both types of correlations are accurate enough and simple to use in engineering calculations. However, they are often limited to total emissivity calculations in volumes of gas with a mean beam length greater than 1 cm. This section surveys the total emissivity correlations presented in Table 2. Only the models which have been widely applied in CFD modeling of flames and engineering combustion problems are described.
3.2. Polynomial Approximations
The two most well-known and general total emissivity correlations using polynomials are those developed by L.eckne2 and Modak.3 Prior to these publications, Hadvig’ derived polynomial expressions to calculate the total emissivity of HzO-CO2 gas mixtures for pW/pC = 1 and pW/pC = 2. However, in view of the limited range of applicability of this model, it is excluded from the assessment in Section 4.
4. ASSESSMENT OF THE ACCURACY OF SEVERAL TOTAL EMISSIVITY CORRELATIONS (HOMOGENOUS CALCULATIONS)
4.1. Generalities
In this section, the exponential wide band model (EWBM)25,26 is used to provide benchmark data to validate the total emissivity models developed by Johnson6 Leckner,2 Taylor and Foster,’ Modak,3 Smith et a1.,13 Coppale and Vervish14 and Steward and Kocaefe” (see Table 2).
# # #
The above paper Lallemant, Sayre, and Weber (1996) includes verification of the polynomial CO2 path length curves of Leckner from which Professor John Eggert selected the q(278) curve plotted here compared to the IPCC expression:-
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/eggert-co2.png
>”The GHE directly effects the radiative balance of the planet”
Yes but it’s negligible Frank. Solar-ocean accumulation is the major driver of the sun => ocean => atmosphere(+space) system on millennial, centennial, and multi-decadal scales as proven by temperature reproduction from solar over the measurement period.
Impossible to achieve from GHG forcing.
I’m not comfortable with the use of the UAH/RSS average to calculate the surface flux, so I have a couple of questions
1. Does using UAH or RSS alone affect the sign of the RE trend.
2. Does using the GISS surface temperature record alter the sign of the RE trend.
New paper “changes fundamental understanding of how greenhouse warming comes about”
The Hockey Schtick, November 10, 2014
Today’s settled science update:
A new paper published in PNAS on the greenhouse effect allegedly “changes the fundamental understanding of how greenhouse warming comes about.” Pardon?
The paper attributes a role to increased CO2 only during the first couple decades to “start the process,” after which “global energy accumulation is primarily caused by an increase in absorbed solar radiation rather than reduced outgoing longwave radiation” [from greenhouse gases].
However, observations show that outgoing longwave infrared radiation [OLR] has increased over the past 62 years, not decreased as predicted by AGW theory: [see graph]
Continues>>>>>>
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2014/11/new-paper-changes-fundamental.html
I set up a Google Drive folder for the data and graphs. Here’s the link.
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0BwCJWmtRR6xeeUxlajM5MXVsVXc&usp=sharing
Richard wrote: “Rubbish Frank. No-one is challenging the physics of radiative transfer.”
Frank replies: The theory of radiative transfer (the Schwarzschild eqn) predicts a reduction in OLR with increasing density of GHGs (n).
dI/ds = n*o*[B(lamba,T) – I_0]
This is an UNAVOIDABLE result for any atmosphere whose temperature drops with altitude (where most photons are being absorbed and emitted). It also predicts an increase in DLR. This is the GHE that is enhanced by rising GHGs. It exists or the current theory of radiative transfer is wrong.
Robin asked: “I wondered if there was empirical data available of the greenhouse effect? And could it show whether or not the greenhouse effect is increasing with increasing CO2, as the IPCC models expect?” That is a direct challenge to the physics of radiative transfer.
((Robin could have challenged just the IPCC consensus on feedbacks, but didn’t. The physics of radiation transfer tells us that addition water vapor in the atmosphere will also reduce OLR, but it doesn’t tell us what the net result of all feedbacks will be.)
The change in OLR (+2.5 W/m2) observed from space over the last quarter century certainly does NOT agree with the combined predictions of the Schwarzschild equation for rising GHGs (-0.9 W/m2), the Planck feedback expected from rising temperature (+1.9 W/m2 for +0.5 degC), and the suppression (by other feedbacks) of the Planck feedback observed from space during the seasonal increase in GMST and GMT (-0.7 degC).
So what? The UAH record showed that the atmosphere cooled until corrections for orbital decay were made in the late 1990s. CRUTemp4 says the temperature change was +0.8 degC. The current CERES instruments show a 5 W/m2 radiative imbalance between incoming and outgoing radiation, about 10-fold bigger than estimates from ARGO. Making stable and precise GLOBAL measurements from changing satellites and ground stations OVER A QUARTER CENTURY is extremely challenging. Even worse, no one knows whether other key parameters that effect OLR (cloud height, humidity) changed over the same period. The NCEP reanalysis shows drying of the upper troposphere and a 6 W/m2 increase in OLR since mid-century! Observations of the planet provide NO RELIABLE information about the existence of the GHE.
Observations of the planet provide lots of information that can challenge the IPCC’s models. However, those models were tuned during their development to reproduce observed OLR.
Richard wrote: “In the GHE band the interaction is only 10 microns i.e. not a heating agent.” “There’s 400 W/m2 DLR 24/7 at Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia. But no-one is silly enough to attempt harnessing it because it’s not a heating agent.”
Frank replies: Do you use a microwave oven? Its radiation has an even longer wavelength than DLR.
Heating/cooling is determined by the law of conservation of energy. Whenever an object receives more energy (including radiant energy of ANY wavelength) than it loses, it gets warmer. The difference becomes “internal energy”.
There is no mechanistic barrier to enhanced DLR warming the ocean. The top few microns of the ocean do absorb an average of about 333 W/m2 of DLR, but the same thin layer loses about 390 W/m2 of thermal IR and 100 W/m2 by convection of latent and simple heat. The 157 W/m2 of SWR that is absorbed by the top few meters of ocean is convected and conducted to the top few microns of the ocean, where it keeps the surface from freezing. If increasing GHGs increased DLR to 340 W/m, 7 W/m2 of energy from SWR would no longer reach the surface because convection and conduction require a temperature gradient. So increase DLR will heat the ocean – but indirectly.
Richard also wrote: “Yes but [the enhance GHE] is negligible Frank. Solar-ocean accumulation is the major driver.”
During the satellite era, observed changes in TSI were dwarfed by the enhanced GHE calculated for increasing GHGs. There are unproven theories about how OTHER changes in solar activity may have caused climate change (especially the LIA). Even if changes in the sun could produce an X degC change in GMST, we have no way of predicting whether this change will be +X degC (on top of the warming from GHGs) or -X degC (reducing warming). That makes the sun irrelevant to what we choose to do about GHGs. (If we someday have a good theory for predicting future solar activity and the temperature change it might produce, the sun would become relevant.)
So far, you’ve: 1) Failed to understand that questioning the existence of the GHE is equivalent to questioning the physics of radiation transfer (the Schwarzschild equation). 2) Recommended investigating the GHE by studying tiny, slow changes in emission of OLR by a chaotic planet with multiple phenomena that effect OLR (temperature, humidity, clouds and GHGs). 3) Implied that microwave ovens can’t work. 4) Ignored the law of conservation of energy by claiming long wavelength radiation can’t heat anything. 5) Wrongly claimed that increased DLR can’t heat the ocean. 6) Tried to change the subject from GHGs (whose future we can control) to the sun (whose future we can’t control).
Misinformation about of the 2LoT is sure to follow. To save time, energy can be transferred from a slower-moving molecule to a faster-moving one by collisions or photons, but transfer in the opposite direction occurs more frequently. (All molecules would move at the same speed if kinetic energy were only transferred from fast to slow.) When dealing with large number of molecules – which have a mean kinetic energy and therefore a temperature – the net flux from all of these exchanges is from hot to cold.
>”So far, you’ve:……”
>”1) Failed to understand that questioning the existence of the GHE is equivalent to questioning the physics of radiation transfer (the Schwarzschild equation). ”
No it isn’t Frank.
‘The Schwarzschild Equation and Radiative Transfer’
The Schwarzschild equation is the basis of understanding radiative transfer; the passage of radiation from the surface to space. This is a brief introduction to the equation and how it may be interpreted. A model is presented that serves to explain the consequences of the Schwarzschild equation for an optically thick atmosphere.
[…]
At some frequencies the absorption of radiation by some of the greenhouse gases is so great to allow the absorption to be ‘saturated’. This means that any further addition of the gas will not change the amount of absorption and will not contribute further to warming of the atmosphere.
[…]
I = [B]Temission
Thus for any line at any concentration of an absorbing substance I may be calculated. Sufficient data are available for the equations to be solved for atmospheres of any composition. The equation also indicates the possible heating that occurs in a slab of the atmosphere that is not in radiative equilibrium, e.g., when the sun shines in the morning and the air warms up. The difference between the two terms gives the absorbed radiation intensity and this can easily be transformed into a temperature difference when the heat capacity of the slab is included. Of course, this is tempered by the non-radiative heat transfer that occurs between a heated surface and the atmosphere and if the surface is ocean the evaporation of water is a dominant mechanism for cooling the surface and warming the atmosphere with the release of energy when water vapour condenses.
[…]
If a forcing of 3.7 W m-2 is caused by a doubling of CO2 concentration then t = 231.3/390 = 0.593 and this gives Tsurface = 293.2 K, an increase of 1.3 K.
This is not far removed from the results from the GCMs for an instant doubling of CO2 concentration. Our main criticism of the GCMs is the amplification of their results by the use of positive feedbacks which are not fully understood and fraught with uncertainty, and the possible downplaying of the negative feedback from the evaporative water thermostat.
[…]
The Earth’s atmosphere is not optically thick over the whole frequency range of terrestrial radiation. A fraction of the CO2 spectrum confers optical thickness to the atmosphere, some other portions being somewhat less than that needed for optical thickness. An increase in the concentration of CO2 increases the optical thickness of a specific part of the terrestrial spectrum and should lead to some further warming.
The observations since 1900 show that, although the CO2 concentration has increased continually there have been periods of cooling and warming. The warming from the increasing CO2 concentration must therefore be small enough for it to be enhanced or cancelled out by the other factors that affect the atmosphere’s temperature. It is not the major reason for the temperature variations.
http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page47.htm
>”2) Recommended investigating the GHE by studying tiny, slow changes in emission of OLR by a chaotic planet with multiple phenomena that effect OLR (temperature, humidity, clouds and GHGs).
Rubbish Frank. OLR 1950 – 2010 from upthread is neither tiny, nor slow, nor consistent with AGW. And long-term OLR increase is consistent with recent observations of increasing OLR as presented by Robin:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_nOY5jaKJXHM/TI-1aWFUoFI/AAAAAAAABRs/tf6HawUmjC0/s1600/Fullscreen+capture+9142010+104234+AM.jpg
http://www.kiwithinker.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/OLWIR-Temp-and-SB.jpg
3) Implied that microwave ovens can’t work.
Rubbish again Frank, no such implication. Microwave oven operating power varies between units of 500W to units of 4400W. Given a 40L 1000W unit is 0.04 m3 say, the energy density is way more than the highest DLR around 400 Wm2.
And you missed the radiation-material “tuning” concept Frank. If you don’t get that right you wont cook your chook.
4) Ignored the law of conservation of energy by claiming long wavelength radiation can’t heat anything.
Again, no such implication Frank you’re making stuff up. The distinction is solar IR-A/B vs DLR/OLR IR-C. When it comes to which is the most efficient matter (e.g. water) heating agent, solar IR-A/B wins hands down at the respective intensities.
5) Wrongly claimed that increased DLR can’t heat the ocean.
Didn’t claim that Frank (and stop putting words in my mouth – start quoting exactly), just presented the facts. My claim, as proven by the science, is that the DLR effect is only in the top 10 microns of the surface, and the heating effect results in surface cooling.
But firstly, the radiation network studies of BSRN, Surfrad, or ARM, show no consistently increased DLR (can be increase, decrease, or no change). Look them up Frank. Here’s Gero & Turner and ARM for you to start with:
P. Jonathan Gero and David D. Turner, 2011: Long-Term Trends in Downwelling Spectral Infrared Radiance over the U.S. Southern Great Plains. J. Climate, 24, 4831–4843.
Abstract
A trend analysis was applied to a 14-yr time series of downwelling spectral infrared radiance observations from the Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer (AERI) located at the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Program (ARM) site in the U.S. Southern Great Plains. The highly accurate calibration of the AERI instrument, performed every 10 min, ensures that any statistically significant trend in the observed data over this time can be attributed to changes in the atmospheric properties and composition, and not to changes in the sensitivity or responsivity of the instrument. The measured infrared spectra, numbering more than 800 000, were classified as clear-sky, thin cloud, and thick cloud scenes using a neural network method. The AERI data record demonstrates that the downwelling infrared radiance is decreasing over this 14-yr period in the winter, summer, and autumn seasons but it is increasing in the spring; these trends are statistically significant and are primarily due to long-term change in the cloudiness above the site. The AERI data also show many statistically significant trends on annual, seasonal, and diurnal time scales, with different trend signatures identified in the separate scene classifications. Given the decadal time span of the dataset, effects from natural variability should be considered in drawing broader conclusions. Nevertheless, this dataset has high value owing to the ability to infer possible mechanisms for any trends from the observations themselves and to test the performance of climate models.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2011JCLI4210.1
Similar globally.
Secondly, as proved by preliminary research that enables medical lazer physics application and therefore surgery (Hale & Querry, 1973) upthread, DLR in the GHG band does not exhibit the necessary effective pathlength penetration to be a water heating agent. DSR in the solar band does, and is therefore the ocean heating agent. Period.
The DLR effect on the sea surface is actually surface cooling by evaporation (Hl) and a net outgoing flux (Rnl – cooling). See Table 5, page 5 pdf:
‘Cool-skin and warm-layer effects on sea surface temperature’
Fairall et al (1996)
ftp://ftp.etl.noaa.gov/users/cfairall/wcrp_wgsf/computer_programs/cor3_0/95JC03190.pdf
6) Tried to change the subject from GHGs (whose future we can control) to the sun (whose future we can’t control).
Exactly Frank, well almost. Yes the sun is the climate driver as proven by historical temperature reconstructions from solar on millennial, centennial, and multi-decadal time scales, and no we can’t control it. But we can prepare for the inevitable cooling this century (there is no IPCC GHG perpetual motion machine Frank, no matter what CO2-forced modeling study they cite).
And no, historical temperature cannot be reconstructed from CO2 levels so whether we can control it or not is moot anyway.
>”During the satellite era, observed changes in TSI were dwarfed by the enhanced GHE calculated for increasing GHGs”
Heh, funny Frank.
That’s SC’s 22, 23, 24. Except for SC 19, that’s the highest solar activity in the past millennium, probably the Holocene i.e. there was no TSI change at Grand Maximum level. 11 yr TSI changes are negligible, the major TSI change (and the associated amplifiers and feedbacks – still largely unstudied) are in the 200 yr cycle (the bicentennial component), Grand Minimum to Grand Maximum = long before the satellite era.
And as always seems to need repeating, CO2-forcing is not an energy source – solar energy is. Irrespective of arguments over whether solar forcing was 0 or 6 W/m2 from Grand Max to Grand Min, we now know for sure that TSI is reducing (IPCC models held TSI constant at early 2000s level out to 2100 – baloney). Here’s just one prognosis for the coming cycles:
‘An empirical approach to predicting the key parameters for a sunspot number cycle’
H.S. Ahluwalia University of New Mexico, Department of Physics & Astronomy
(2013)
Abstract
The common methodologies used to predict the smooth sunspot number (SSN) at peak (Rmax) and the rise time (Tr) for a cycle are noted. The estimates based on geomagnetic precursors give the best prediction of Rmax for five SSN cycles (20-24). In particular, an empirical technique invoking three-cycle quasi-periodicity (TCQP) in Ap index has made accurate predictions of Rmax and Tr for two consecutive SSN cycles (23 and 24). The dynamo theories are unable to account for TCQP. If it endures in the 21st century the Sun shall enter a Dalton-like grand minimum. It was a period of global cooling. The current status of the ascending phase of cycle 24 is described and the delayed reversal of the solar polar field reversal in the southern hemisphere in September 2013 is noted.
Open access here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117713007473
More
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/02/study-predicts-the-sun-is-headed-for-a-dalton-like-solar-minimum-around-2050/
There are other corroborating methods of solar prediction.
Given that it is impossible, in accordance with the laws of physics, to get more energy out of the planetary system at reduced input levels 2005+ after lag than at previous levels of Grand Max 1958 – 2005 say, global cooling is inevitable after some planetary thermal lag of say 14 years. 2005 + 14 = 2019.
There will be no global warming in 2019 as a consequence of increasing CO2 levels Frank, it is a thermodynamic impossibility. There is no planetary perpetual motion machine operating as per the IPCC’s GCM projections.
>”If we someday have a good theory for predicting future solar activity and the temperature change it might produce, the sun would become relevant”
Plenty of prediction theories and scenarios to choose from (one example above), and temperature change as a result of solar change is as follows:
‘Bicentennial Decrease of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to
Unbalanced Thermal Budget of the Earth and the Little Ice Age’
Habibullo I. Abdussamatov (2012)
Page 3 pdf,
From (3) one can get an expression for the increment of the Earth effective temperature caused by the increments of TSI and of Bond albedo:
ΔТe = [ΔS(1 – А – ΔА) – ΔАS]/16σТ3e. (4)
The increase of the Bond albedo by ΔA=+0.003 (1.0%) will result in decrease of the effective temperature by ΔТ≈ – 0.27 К, which is practically equivalent to bicentennial decrease of the TSI value ΔS = –5.88 W/m2 (0.435%).
Thus, the long-term change of the Bond albedo is a powerful force for variations of the Earth climate.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/abduss_APR.pdf
ΔТef = [ΔS(1 – А – ΔА) – ΔАS]/(16σТ3ef). (2) here:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/grand_minimum.pdf
So yes, the sun is relevant Frank.
>”Even if changes in the sun could produce an X degC change in GMST, we have no way of predicting whether this change will be +X degC (on top of the warming from GHGs) or -X degC (reducing warming).”
Bicentennial solar maximum warming is all but over Frank. The recession started 2005 and the temperature response will be at the end of this decade. plus or minus. But the response cannot be warming, it will be cooling. And see Abdussamatov above re GHGs in the cooling scenario.
>”There is no mechanistic barrier to enhanced DLR warming the ocean…………. If increasing GHGs increased DLR to 340 W/m, 7 W/m2 of energy from SWR would no longer reach the surface because convection and conduction require a temperature gradient. So increase DLR will heat the ocean – but indirectly.”
Again, firstly as above, there is no observational evidence of increasing DLR.
Secondly, you are expounding an insulation effect where the ocean heating agent is SWR in the first instance just as I’ve been trying to get through to you i.e. SWR heats the ocean yes, not DLR. But then you assert that heat escape is restricted because there’s a minute change in the warm-layer to skin thermal gradient going on which is plainly ridiculous. This was Peter Minnett’s theory too a while back but it has never appeared in the literature.
Fairall et al (1996) above details observed sea surface fluxes but no insulation, solar gain just overwhelms heat and radiation loss. Energy escapes as sensible heat (Hs) and latent heat of evaporation (Hl) and by radiation (Rnl) but by far the greatest ocean heat gain is by solar (Rns, 191.5 W/m2) and the greatest ocean heat loss is by latent heat of evaporation (Hl, 103.3 W/m2) in Table 5. The net energy loss by long-wave radiation is the lessor figure (-57.1, Rnl). Very small changes in DLR have negligible effect on heat gain/loss and an increase will increase surface cooling by evaporation which is the major surface heat loss factor anyway, even as per AGW feedback. In other words, your insulation effect is contrary to AGW.
And see 2.1 Cool-Skin Background. The total cooling at the surface Q is given by:
-Q = Rnl – Hs – Hl
-168.1 = -57.1 -7.7 -103.3
Rns is 191.5 so: 191.5 – 168.1 = 23.4 W/m2 ocean heat gain in that locality because solar is the greater flux and the ocean heating agent. The heat gain must be released at latitudes towards the poles where solar is the lessor flux, hence oceanic heat transport.
The IPCC says nothing whatsoever about an ocean surface insulation effect in Chapter 8: Radiative Forcing and they can’t cite anything anyway. They do speculate very briefly on air-sea fluxes but that’s not the insulation effect you describe and they don’t cite anything either because they can’t either.
An insulation effect is logically flawed of course. Apparently OLR that escaped the supposedly insulated surface then returns as DLR to restrict OLR escaping the surface – I don’t think so Frank.
Richard: The Schwarzschild equation accounts for saturation. dI is caused by emission and absorption over an incremental distance ds. The terms I have shown are the correct terms for all situations (unless you are considering the thermosphere, where collisions are so infrequent that a Boltzmann distribution of kinetic energy doesn’t exist and temperature is undefined). When aerosols are important, terms for scattering are added to the Schwarzschild eqn.
If one ignores emission and changes in density with distance, and then integrates:
dI = -n*o*I_0*ds
I/I_0 = exp(-nos)
This is Beer’s Law, which predicts saturation of absorption. Exactly the same physics is in the Schwarzschild equation. However, when both absorption and emission are involved, “saturation” turns into equilibration and I_0 has blackbody intensity.
Although the details are complicated, challenging the existence of a greenhouse effect on earth is a direct challenge to the established physics of radiation. This is the ONLY part of climate science that deserves to be called “settled science”.
>”Although the details are complicated, challenging the existence of a greenhouse effect on earth is a direct challenge to the established physics of radiation.”
“Greenhouse” being a misnomer but OK. The challenge isn’t to radiative transfer, optical depth, etc, the challenge is to an enhanced effect sufficient to “trap heat” in significant quantity in the upper troposphere, tropical in particular (the anthropogenic “signature”). And to restrict OLR such that the surface of the earth warms commensurate with rising CO2 levels. Neither of which is happening, surface warming is commensurate with solar levels, oceanic solar energy accumulation and lag, hence the challenge. And the alternative that the IPCC has no mandate to pursue, the assessment reports do not have a specific solar section – the NIPCC does:
3
Solar Forcing of Climate
http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/ccr2a/pdf/Chapter-3-Solar-Forcing.pdf
Key Findings
The following points summarize the main findings of this chapter:
• Evidence is accruing that changes in Earth’s
surface temperature are largely driven by
variations in solar activity. Examples of solarcontrolled
climate change epochs include the
Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age and Early
Twentieth Century (1910–1940) Warm Period.
• The Sun may have contributed as much as 66% of
the observed twentieth century warming, and
perhaps more.
• Strong empirical correlations have been reported
from all around the world between solar variability
and climate indices including temperature,
precipitation, droughts, floods, streamflow, and
monsoons.
• IPCC models do not incorporate important solar
factors such as fluctuations in magnetic intensity
and overestimate the role of human-related CO2
forcing.
• The IPCC fails to consider the importance of the
demonstrated empirical relationship between solar
activity, the ingress of galactic cosmic rays, and
the formation of low clouds.
• The respective importance of the Sun and CO2 in
forcing Earth climate remains unresolved; current
climate models fail to account for a plethora of
known Sun-climate connections.
• The recently quiet Sun and extrapolation of solar
cycle patterns into the future suggest a planetary
cooling may occur over the next few decades.
Richard: A Watt of radiant energy is the same amount of energy per unit time no matter what the wavelength of the photons involved. A temperature change is a change in internal energy. The law of conservation of energy says that temperature will rise in the rate of incoming energy (power, W/m2) increases or the rate of outgoing energy decreases. Variations in the solar output change incoming power, which is measured in W/m2. Variations in the GHE change outgoing power, which is also measured in terms of W/m2. In the satellite era, variations in incoming solar have been much smaller than variation predicted for outgoing radiation calculated for GHGs – in terms of W/m2 (TSI). All of these watts are equally efficacious in changing temperature (or the law of conservation of energy is violated).
Some skeptics HYPOTHESIZE that the sun can effect our climate through phenomena that are not included in TSI. Some think high energy particles change the earth’s albedo. Others think that TSI can change much more than we have observed from space or measured by other methods this century.
Abdussamatov is in the second group saying: “Since the Sun is now approaching the phase of decrease of bicentennial luminosity on the basis of observed accelerating drop in both the 11-year and bicentennial components of TSI from early 90s, we can forecast its further decline similar to a so called Maunder minimum down to 1363.4±0.8 W/m2, 1361.0±1.6 W/m2 and down to a deep minimal level 1359.5±2.4 W/m2 in the minima between the cycles 24/25, 25/26 and 26/27, respectively (Fig. 3).”
All this may be speculation. Accurate records of TSI are only available for the satellite era and less accurate measurements exist for the past century. They are too short to provide evidence for a bicentennial cycle in TSI (as opposed to “solar activity”). C14 and Be10 are produced by cosmic rays which are modulated by the strength of the sun’s magnetic field, making them a proxy for “solar activity” – but not necessarily a reliable proxy for TSI. In the Eddy Science paper referenced by Abdussamatov, there is no evidence for a “bicentennial cycle” in C14 – just dips around 1500 and 1700 (the coldest periods of the LIA). I see no evidence in that record (or the Be10 record http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beryllium-10) that tells us what will happen in the 21st century, nor the subsequent centuries that CO2 will remain high. One isn’t going to find unambiguous evidence for a bicentennial record in sunspot number either – that record is too short and the recording methods too erratic.
Abdussamatov also says: “Decrease of TSI by 0.5% S= – 6.83 W/m2 with constant Bond albedo, А = 0, leads according to (8) to decrease of the effective temperature of the whole Earth with its air and water envelopes by ΔТe = – 0.32 К (the difference between changes in temperature of global surface air with time-lag and radiation is insignificant). Decrease of the effective temperature of the Earth by ΔТe = – 0.32 К, following (6), can cause increase of the Earth global albedo by А = +0.0035 or by 1,16%. With such increase of the Bond albedo by 1.16% the effective temperature of the Earth as a planet will additionally decrease by ~ 0.3 К, which results in a chain of such cycles.”
In other words, a TSI-induced temperature drop of 0.3 degK eventually causes an albedo feedback of another -0.3 degK. That 0.3 degK drop will produce another drop in albedo and another drop in temperature. This is a recipe for an unstable climate.
However, I would be very interested in any evidence showing that we can predict long term changes in TSI or other solar proxies.
>”A Watt of radiant energy is the same amount of energy per unit time no matter what the wavelength of the photons involved”
But its delivery is very different. This is what makes the difference between IR-A/B being the heating agent of water but IR-C of negligible effect. See the electromagnetic spectrum:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum
Range, Wavelength, Energy
IR-A/B: 1 μm, 1.24 eV
IR-C: 10 μm, 124 meV
At the wavelength of IR-A/B there is considerable pathlength (1m most effective) along which the energy is laid down at the higher energy level but the lower energy level cannot penetrate anywhere the same extent at the longer wavelength (only microns). In other words, the radiation-material “tuning” must be found in order for the radiation to do useful work. This is how microwave ovens work. If you get the intensity wrong all you will do is burn the outside of your chook but leave the inside uncooked. Similar in the UV band:
UVA, 400 – 315 nm, 3.10 – 3.94 eV
UVB, 315 – 280 nm, 3.94 – 4.43 eV
Ultraviolet – Harmful effects
The differential effects of various wavelengths of light on the human cornea and skin are sometimes called the “action spectrum.”.[30] The action spectrum shows that UVA does not cause immediate reaction, but rather UV begins to cause photokeratitis and skin redness (with Caucasians more sensitive) at wavelengths starting near the beginning of the UVB band at 315 nm, and rapidly increasing to 300 nm. The skin and eyes are most sensitive to damage by UV at 265-275 nm, which is in the lower UVC band. At still shorter wavelengths of UV damage continues to happen, but the overt effects of inflammation are not as great.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet#Harmful_effects
Basically UVB penetrates the epidermis (burning the skin surface) but UVA penetrates both the epidermis and the dermis (surface burning not as severe):
Understanding UVA and UVB
http://www.skincancer.org/prevention/uva-and-uvb/understanding-uva-and-uvb
The electrical analogy is “real” vs “apparent” power. I’m sure Robin knows this all too well being an electrical engineer working on the delivery of energy. The power may be the same but the ability to perform work certainly is not:
Understanding the Power Factor
https://www.laurenselectric.com/understanding-power-factor/
Richard: A W-h/m2 of radiation is still the same amount of energy no matter what its frequency and will still warm the earth the same amount (assuming a fixed heat capacity per m2 which is mostly ocean). You are correct in believing that only those portions of the earth that the energy can reach (by convection, conduction or radiation) are warmed by the absorbed radiation and contribute to heat capacity.
Measurements in the ocean show that the top 50-100 m of the ocean (the mixed layer) warm and cool with the seasons. Below that, there is no detectable “summer” or “winter”. Since SWR doesn’t penetrate below about 10 m and conduction is slow, we assume that heat transfer in the mixed layer is caused by turbulence (associated with surface wind). Since the deeper ocean is colder and more dense than the warmer mixed layer, buoyancy-driven convection doesn’t transfer heat to the deeper ocean.
SWR is absorbed by the top 10 m of the ocean. How does this energy escape to the atmosphere and then to space? Evaporation, conduction and thermal radiation all occur from the top from few um of the ocean, the “skin layer”. Water 1 meter below the surface emits thermal IR, but it travels only a few microns before being absorbed. Conduction is very slow and requires that the surface of the ocean be colder than the water below. Buoyancy-driven convection requires that the surface be colder too. Without a mechanism capable of carrying the heat upwards (or downwards) as fast as it is delivered by the SWR, all of the top 10 m of the ocean except the skin layer will continue to warm.
Obviously, this heat must reach the skin layer somehow. It can only get there if the skin layer is colder than the water below! When the skin layer is colder than the water below, conduction and convection will allow the heat from absorbed SWR to reach the skin layer and then the atmosphere.
How can the skin layer be colder than the water below? It receives 333 W/m2 of DLR in a few microns. Why isn’t it boiling or nearly boiling away? The answer is that the skin layer is loses 390 W/m2 of thermal radiation, 80 W/m2 of latent heat via evaporation and 20 W/m2 of simple heat by conduction. All three of these cooling processes involve only the same few um of skin layer that absorb DLR. This energy deficit make the skin layer colder than the water below – colder enough that buoyancy-driven convection occurs every night and most of the day and cold enough for some conduction.
If an addition 17 W/m2 of DLR were to reach the surface due to increased GHGs, 17 W/m2 less heat from SWR would flow upwards to the surface! If SWR doesn’t escape to the surface, it is spread throughout the mixed layer by turbulence. More DLR doesn’t heat the bulk of the ocean, it reduces the demand on the SWR that heats the mixed layer!
There are questions about how either more DLR or SWR slowly reach the ocean below the mixed layer. ARGO proves that it is happening much faster than possible by conduction. Buoyancy driven convection only occurs in polar regions where surface water is cold enough to sink. Ocean currents disturbed by obstacles on the bottom create turbulence.
>”A W-h/m2 of radiation is still the same amount of energy no matter what its frequency….”
Correct.
>”….and will still warm the earth the same amount”
Incorrect. You still haven’t got it in this statement.
>”You are correct in believing that only those portions of the earth that the energy can reach (by convection, conduction or radiation) are warmed by the absorbed radiation and contribute to heat capacity.”
Correct again. Now you’ve got it but you immediately contradict yourself. And it’s not “believing” Frank, it’s physics.
>”Since SWR doesn’t penetrate below about 10 m and conduction is slow, we assume that heat transfer in the mixed layer is caused by turbulence (associated with surface wind).”
Correct. The sun heats the ocean.
>”It [skin layer] receives 333 W/m2 of DLR in a few microns.
the skin layer is loses 390 W/m2 of thermal radiation,”
-57 net (Rnl)
>”80 W/m2 of latent heat via evaporation” (Hl)
>”20 W/m2 of simple heat by conduction” (Hs)
What is your Rns Frank? I’ll assume K&T 161 and compare to Fairall et al (1996) in-situ study up thread:
Rns 191.5 Fairall et al (1996) tropical west Pacific
-Q = Rnl – Hs – Hl
-168.1 = -57.1 -7.7 -103.3
191.5 – 168.1 = 23.4 W/m2 ocean heat gain in the tropical west Pacific
Rns 161 Frank/K&T global average
-Q = Rnl – Hs – Hl
-157 = -57 -20 -80
161 – 157 = 4 W/m2 ocean heat gain global average
This all makes sense according to ocean heat accumulation following the solar integral. Except solar levels (the bicentennial component) passed the Grand Maximum period after 2005 (the actual peak around 1986. As Abdussamatov (2012) describes, the planet is now in energy “deficit”. Therefore ocean heat gain will not continue as above on global average. Instead, the above heat gain will reverse to a heat loss – this is axiomatic. Obviously it will be some time before this becomes apparent because Rns has only just reduced about 0.3 W/m2 (if that) from pre 2005 level.
For demonstration only, let’s assume the worst case scenario of Abdussamatov/Shapiro et al. This was dismissed in the IPCC AR5 citation Jones, Lockwood, and Stott (2012) as unrealistic, they went for least-case. Lockwood has since changed his stance somewhat as can be read upthread. So substituting with Rns reduced by 6 W/m2 in each case:
Rns 185.5 Fairall et al (1996) tropical west Pacific [Rns reduced 6 W/m2]
185.5 – 168.1 = 17.4 W/m2 ocean heat gain in the tropical west Pacific
Rns 155 Frank/K&T global average [Rns reduced 6 W/m2]
155 – 157 = -2 W/m2 ocean heat loss global average
Rnl, Hs, Hl will change in response to reduced Rns so there will need to be an updated earth’s energy budget and observations obviously. In time as Rns reduces significantly, as predicted by many, the heat loss should be similar to the previous heat gain when Rns was increasing i.e. -4 W/m2 ocean heat loss global average around 2035 – 2050.
>”If an addition 17 W/m2 of DLR were to reach the surface due to increased GHGs”
Again, and again, and again, there IS NO observational evidence of ANY additional DLR, let alone 17 W/m2. And where did you get that from? dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co) will never give you 17 W/m2.
>”17 W/m2 less heat from SWR would flow upwards to the surface!”
Apart from the monumentally excessive “17 W/m2” problem, The heat gain in the ocean occurs in the tropics, see Fairall et al above (+23.4). There is still a heat gain at the global average that you present (+4) i.e. the tropical heat gain does not “flow upwards to the surface”. There is only minimal Hs flow across the AO interface (-7.7), by far the greatest heat loss is Hl (-103.3).
The excess heat (+23.4 gain/accumulation) is transported towards the poles horizontally:
2.1.5.2 Heat transport
The heat transport obtained is nearly zero at the equator, rising to more than 5
PW at latitudes of about 35°, before declining again towards zero at the
poles (Fig. 2.17). It can be divided into an oceanic and an atmospheric
contribution, the horizontal transport on continental surface being negligible. This
shows that, except in tropical areas, the atmospheric transport is much larger than
the oceanic transport.
http://www.elic.ucl.ac.be/textbook/chapter2_node7_2.xml
>”If SWR doesn’t escape to the surface, it is spread throughout the mixed layer by turbulence”
Correct, and +23.4 W/m2 does not escape. Oceanic heat transport takes it polewards as above.
>”More DLR doesn’t heat the bulk of the ocean, it reduces the demand on the SWR that heats the mixed layer!”
Incorrect x 3.
Again, and again, and again, THERE IS NO “more” DLR. DLR is NOT increasing, there is NO observational evidence of that occurring.
Irrelevant anyway because the heat gain in the tropical mixed layer is already constrained by the AO interface conditions. That is why, at 20N and 20S, there is between 1 and 2 PW of heat moving horizontally towards the poles. In the tropics Rns (+Q, 191.5) overwhelms the ability of the ocean to release heat (-Q, -168.1), the excess heat (+23.4) must then be released somewhere else and that is exactly what happens – the excess heat moves from hot (tropics) to cold (poles). A teensy change in the warm-layer to cool-skin gradient, even if it did occur, is immaterial, and negligible, to this process.
And again, the IPCC details no mechanism whatsoever for oceanic heat gain from atm CO2 rise because there is no literature to cite. This after 25 years and 5 assessment reports.
>”Again, and again, and again, THERE IS NO “more” DLR. DLR is NOT increasing, there is NO observational evidence of that occurring.”
In addition to Gero & Turner upthread:
‘Surface radiative fluxes as observed in BSRN and simulated in IPCC-AR5/CMIP5 climate models’
Martin Wild, Doris Folini, Ellsworth G. Dutton
BSRN meeting Berlin, August 1-3, 2012
Part 2: decadal changes in surface radiative fluxes [page 34]
Observed changes downward longwave [page 37]
Observed changes at BSRN sites since early 1990s:
25 longest BSRN records (totally 353 years) covering period 1992-2011 [20 years]
• 19 stations (76%) with increase in LW down (9 significant)
• 6 stations (24%) with decrease in LW down (3 significant)
BSRN LW down trends: update to 2011
25 stations with min 10 years: totally 353 years, 19 (9) pos., 6 (3) neg. [page 38]
Zoom in to say 250% and scroll through the station plots. Compare Barrow (BAR) to Boulder (BOU) for example. The data is all over the shop, nothing like linear, with positive and negative slopes
http://www.gewex.org/BSRN/BSRN-12_presentations/Wild_FriM.pdf
>”dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co) will never give you 17 W/m2.”
Surfrad Table Mountain DLR 1 Jan 1996 vs 1 Jan 2012 varies between 193 W/m2 minimum (2012) and 300 W/m2 maximum (1996) – a 107 W/m2 range.
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2012/10/met-office-agrees-with-global-warming-stasis/#comment-128014
By comparison, the CO2 forcing (according to the IPCC) over that period is:
dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co)
C: 391.57 (2011)
Co: 362.59
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt
dF = 5.35 ln()
dF = 0.4 W/m2
aCO2 0.16 W/m2 (0.4*0.4)
‘Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface under all-sky conditions from 1973 to 2008’
Wang and Liang (2009)
Figure 5. Linear trend of daily Ld over 3200 global stations where data are available for at least 300 months (25 years) during the period 1973–2008. One point in the figure represents one station, and the color of the points shows the values of trend in Ld at the stations. The linear trend is calculated from the Mann-Kendall trend test method. Only the stations that passed the 95% confidence test are shown.
[29] The dominant emitters of longwave radiation in the atmosphere are water vapor, and to a lesser extent, carbon dioxide. The water vapor effect is parameterized in this study, while the CO2 effect on Ld is not. The effect of CO2 can be accurately calculated with an atmosphere radiative transfer model given the concentration of atmospheric CO2. Prata [2008] showed that under the 1976 U.S. standard atmosphere, current atmospheric CO2 contributes about 6 W
m2 to Ld, and if atmospheric CO2 concentration increases at the current rate of 1.9 ppm yr1 [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007], this will contribute to an
increase of Ld by 0.3 W m2 per decade. Therefore, the total variation rate in Ld is 2.2 W m2 per decade
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/232784812_Global_atmospheric_downward_longwave_radiation_over_land_surface_under_all-sky_conditions_from_1973_to_2008
# # #
Figure 5 shows DLR increasing predominantly in the higher latitudes of the northern hemisphere but the increase is not universal globally. There are also regions of decrease.
For USA see Wild et al (2012) BSRN previous comment above. Of the significant stations, 2/3 increasing, 1/3 decreasing.
Out of the global average 2.2 W/m2/decade (meaningless as above), only 0.3 W/m2/decade can be attributed to CO2 (13.6%).
And out of the 0.3 W/m2/decade attributed to CO2, only 0.12 W/m2/decade can be attributed to anthropogenic CO2 (0.3 x 4%).
>”Out of the global average [DLR] 2.2 W/m2/decade (meaningless as above), only 0.3 W/m2/decade can be attributed to CO2 (13.6%).”
By comparison from Wild et al (2009):
Decadal changes in surface SW radiation [DSR]
[pages 42 – 48]
Observed changes at 23 BSRN sites since early 1990s:
23 longest BSRN records (totally 306 years)
covering period 1993-2010:
20 stations with increase (11 significant)
3 stations with decrease (0 significant)
SW radiation (DSR)
Change: 2.7 Wm-2/decade
Correction:
>”More DLR doesn’t heat the bulk of the ocean, it reduces the demand on the SWR that heats the mixed layer!”
[Correct x 1.] Incorrect x 3.
>”Figure 5 shows DLR increasing predominantly in the higher latitudes of the northern hemisphere but the increase is not universal globally. There are also regions of decrease.” [Wang & Liang (2009)]
>”SW radiation (DSR) [Wild et al (2009)]
Change: 2.7 Wm-2/decade [global average]”
‘Relations between erythemal UV dose, global solar radiation, total ozone column and aerosol optical depth at Uccle, Belgium’
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 14, 12251-12270, 2014
Author(s): V. De Bock, H. De Backer, R. Van Malderen, A. Mangold, and A. Delcloo
Excerpt [hotlink at link below]:
Global solar radiation
Concerning the global solar radiation, many publications agree on the existence of a solar dimming period between 1970 and 1985 and a subsequent solar brightening period (Norris and Wild, 2007; Solomon et al., 2007; Makowski et al., 2009; Stjern et al., 2009; Wild et al., 2009; Sanchez-Lorenzo and Wild, 2012).
Different studies have calculated the trend in Sg after 1985. The trend in Sg [global solar radiation] from GEBA (Global Energy Balance Archive; between 1987 and 2002 is equal to +1.4 (3.4)Wm-2 per decade according to Norris and Wild (2007). Stjern et al. (2009) found a total change in the mean surface solar radiation trend over 11 stations in northern Europe of +4.4% between 1983 and 2003.
In the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC (Solomon et al., 2007), 421 sites were analyzed; between 1992 and 2002, the change of all-sky surface solar radiation was equal to 0.66Wm-2 per year. Wild et al. (2009) investigated the global solar radiation from 133 stations from GEBA/World Radiation Data Centre belonging to different regions in Europe.
All series showed an increase over the entire period, with a pronounced upward tendency since 2000. For the Benelux region, the linear change between 1985 and 2005 is equal to +0.42Wm-2 per year, compared to the pan-European average trend of +0.33Wm-2 per year (or +0.24Wm-2 if the anomaly of the 2003 heat wave is excluded) (Wild et al. 2009). Our trend at Uccle of +0.5 ( 0.2)Wm-2 per year (or +4% per decade) agrees within the error bars with the results from Wild et al. (2009).
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2014/11/new-paper-finds-large-surface-solar.html
Wang & Liang (2009) excerpts:
[28] Figure 6 shows that the increases in Ta and atmospheric water vapor concentration are the most important parameters controlling long-term variation of Ld
[32] We then applied these methods to globally available meteorological observations to estimate decadal variation in Ld. Long-term variation in global Ld under all-sky conditions are reported in this study at about 3200 stations from 1973 to 2008. We found that daily Ld increased at an average rate of 2.2 W m-2 per decade from 1973 to 2008. The increase in Ld is mainly due to the increase in air temperature, water vapor and CO2 concentration.
# # #
So for the northern latitudes of the northern hemisphere, the chain of events over the recent 2 decades is:
Increased Sg (SWR)
=> Increased Ta and WV
=> Increased Ld (DLR: Ta + WV, CO2 negligible)
SWR forcing:
+3.3 Wm-2 per decade pan-European average
DLR forcing:
+3.0 Wm-2 per decade pan-European average
CO2 forcing:
+0.3 Wm-2 per decade LBL RF model (IPCC).
SWR forcing causes air heat gain (Ta).
SWR forcing causes water heat gain (Tw)
SWR forcing causes increased evaporation (WV).
DLR forcing doesn’t cause air heat gain.
DLR forcing doesn’t cause water heat gain,
DLR forcing causes increased evaporation (WV)
SWR + DLR forcing increases atm WV
CO2 forcing is a bit player.
SWR forcing is the driver.
Correction:
“And out of the 0.3 W/m2/decade attributed to CO2, only 0.12 W/m2/decade can be attributed to anthropogenic CO2 (0.3 x [40]%).”
>”In the satellite era, variations in incoming solar have been much smaller than variation predicted for outgoing radiation calculated for GHGs – in terms of W/m2 (TSI).”
I’ve already pointed out [snip] this here:
http://www.kiwithinker.com/2014/10/an-empirical-look-at-recent-trends-in-the-greenhouse-effect/#comment-10250
>”All this may be speculation” [re TSI]
Here’s IPCC Chapter 10 co-author and co-author of Jones, Lockwood, and Stott 2012) cited in Chapter 8 has to say on other solar activity:
‘Real risk of a Maunder minimum ‘Little Ice Age’ says leading scientist’
October 2013
According to Professor Lockwood the late 20th century was a period when the sun was unusually active and a so called ‘grand maximum’ occurred around 1985.
Since then the sun has been getting quieter.
By looking back at certain isotopes in ice cores, he has been able to determine how active the sun has been over thousands of years.
Following analysis of the data, Professor Lockwood believes solar activity is now falling more rapidly than at any time in the last 10,000 years.
He found 24 different occasions in the last 10,000 years when the sun was in exactly the same state as it is now – and the present decline is faster than any of those 24.
Based on his findings he’s raised the risk of a new Maunder minimum from less than 10% just a few years ago to 25-30%.
And a repeat of the Dalton solar minimum which occurred in the early 1800s, which also had its fair share of cold winters and poor summers, is, according to him, ‘more likely than not’ to happen.
He believes that we are already beginning to see a change in our climate – witness the colder winters and poor summers of recent years – and that over the next few decades there could be a slide to a new Maunder minimum.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/posts/Real-risk-of-a-Maunder-minimum-Little-Ice-Age-says-leading-scientist
Recent Publications:
http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/users/users/1353
This paper did NOT make it into AR5 (i.e. AR5 was already out of date at publication):
Lockwood, M. (2013) Reconstruction and prediction of variations in the open solar magnetic flux and interplanetary conditions. Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 10. lrsp-2013-4. ISSN 1614-4961 doi: 10.12942/lrsp-2013-4
Abstract
Historic geomagnetic activity observations have been used to reveal centennial variations in the open solar flux and the near-Earth heliospheric conditions (the interplanetary magnetic field and the solar wind speed). The various methods are in very good agreement for the past 135 years when there were sufficient reliable magnetic observatories in operation to eliminate problems due to site-specific errors and calibration drifts. This review underlines the physical
principles that allow these reconstructions to be made, as well as the details of the various algorithms employed and the results obtained. Discussion is included of: the importance of the averaging timescale; the key differences between “range” and “interdiurnal variability” geomagnetic data; the need to distinguish source field sector structure from heliosphericallyimposed
field structure; the importance of ensuring that regressions used are statistically
robust; and uncertainty analysis. The reconstructions are exceedingly useful as they provide calibration between the in-situ spacecraft measurements from the past five decades and the millennial records of heliospheric behaviour deduced from measured abundances of cosmogenic radionuclides found in terrestrial reservoirs. Continuity of open solar flux, using sunspot number to quantify the emergence rate, is the basis of a number of models that have been very successful in reproducing the variation derived from geomagnetic activity. These models allow us to extend the reconstructions back to before the development of the magnetometer and to cover the Maunder minimum. Allied to the radionuclide data, the models are revealing much about how the Sun and heliosphere behaved outside of grand solar maxima and are providing a means of predicting how solar activity is likely to evolve now that the recent grand maximum (that had prevailed throughout the space age) has come to an end.
Figure 35: Long-term variation of unsigned open solar flux, 2
I would be very interested in any evidence showing that we can predict long term changes in TSI or other solar proxies.
Lockwood, M. (2013)
http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2013-4/download/lrsp-2013-4BW.pdf
>”I would be very interested in any evidence showing that we can predict long term changes in TSI or other solar proxies.”
Long way to go, speculation is as good as it gets (unless Lockwood (2013) is any better):
A History of Solar Activity over Millennia
Ilya G. Usoskin (2013)
2.4.3 A note on solar activity predictions
Randomness (see Section 2.4.2) in the SN series is directly related to the predictability of solar activity. Forecasting solar activity has been a subject of intense study for many years (e.g., Yule, 1927; Newton, 1928; Gleissberg, 1948; Vitinsky, 1965) and has greatly intensified recently with a hundred of journal articles being published to predict the solar cycle No. 24 maximum (see, e.g., the review by Pesnell, 2012), following the boost of space-technology development and increasing debates on solar-terrestrial relations. In fact, the situation has not been improved since the previous cycle, No. 23. The predictions for the peak sunspot number of solar cycle No. 24 range by a factor
of 5, between 40 and 200, reflecting the lack of a reliable consensus method (Tobias et al., 2006). Detailed review of the solar activity prediction methods and results have been recently provided by (Hathaway, 2009; Petrovay, 2010; Pesnell, 2012).
A detailed classification of the prediction methods is given by Pesnell (2012) who separates climatology, precursor, theoretical (dynamo model), spectral, neural network, and stock market prediction methods.
Continues>>>>>
http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2013-1/download/lrsp-2013-1Color.pdf
Solar Cycle Predictions (Invited Review)
W. Dean Pesnell (2012)
Abstract
Solar cycle predictions are needed to plan long-term space missions, just as
weather predictions are needed to plan the launch. Fleets of satellites circle the Earth collecting many types of science data, protecting astronauts, and relaying information. All of these satellites are sensitive at some level to solar cycle effects. Predictions of drag on low-Earth orbit spacecraft are one of the most important. Launching a satellite with less propellant can mean a higher orbit, but unanticipated solar activity and increased drag can make that a Pyrrhic victory as the reduced propellant load is consumed more rapidly. Energetic events at the Sun can produce crippling radiation storms that endanger all assets in space. Solar cycle predictions also anticipate the shortwave emissions that cause degradation of solar panels Testing solar dynamo theories by quantitative predictions of what will happen in 5 – 20 years is the next arena for solar cycle predictions. A summary and analysis of 75 predictions of the amplitude of the upcoming Solar Cycle 24 is presented. The current state of solar cycle predictions and some anticipations of how those predictions could be made more accurate in the future are discussed.
Figure 3 The predictions from Table 2, plotted in order of decreasing predicted maximum for Cycle 24. The prediction categories are color-coded as in the legend. Compared with Pesnell (2008) the distribution now appears to have an excess of low-amplitude predictions.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Pesnell_2012.pdf
SC 24 SSN peak was: 2014.13, 102.3.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/sidc-ssn
Out of 75 predictions, Pesnell (2008) and Wang et al (2002) were closest at 100. SC 23 peak was: 2000.55, 170.1
Richard: I’m glad we agree that every extra W-h/m2 of any wavelength radiation heats the planet somewhere viable mechanism of heat transfer can take it. Redistribution within the planet won’t change the fact that the overall globe is warming.
The accepted physics of the Schwarzschild equation predicts an increase in DLR for 2XCO2 (1 W/m2) as well as a decrease in OLR (3.7 W/m2) at the tropopause and a little less at the TOA. These are the instantaneous responses to a doubling, before temperature begins to respond to the imbalance and feedbacks develop. (I shouldn’t have arbitrarily picked 17 W/m2 above as an example.)
Figure 35 in Lockwood (2013) contradicts the idea that a regular bicentennial pattern in solar activity exists that allows us to make useful predictions about what will happen in the future. Abdussamatov refers to such cycles (which aren’t apparent in either of the two references) and uses an albedo feedback big enough to create unstable climate (a runaway greenhouse or icehouse, initiated by anything that perturbs surface temperature). I find his work hard to take seriously unless you can address both of these problems.
>”Redistribution within the planet won’t change the fact that the overall globe is warming.”
The atmosphere is no longer warming commensurate with CO2-foorcing. There’s a 100% consensus on that among the climate science literature dealing with it”
“We identified papers published between 2009 and 2014 and currently cataloged in the Web of Science database that included either the term “pause” or “hiatus” or “slowdown” and subsequently, the terms “global” and “temperature.” We then read the abstracts of those papers (or the papers themselves if further investigation was required) and assigned them to one of the following three categories: “not applicable,” “acknowledging the existence of a slowdown or stoppage in global warming (as reflected in the earth average surface temperature) in recent years,” and “arguing that a slowdown or stoppage of global warming (as reflected in the earth average surface temperature) has not occurred in recent years.”
Of the 100 papers we identified, 65 didn’t have anything to do with recent global temperature trends (these typified papers published prior to about 2010). Of the remaining 35 papers, every single one of them acknowledged in some way that a hiatus, pause, or slowdown in global warming was occurring.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/18/if-97-of-scientists-say-global-warming-is-real-100-say-it-has-nearly-stopped/
“The accepted physics of the Schwarzschild equation predicts an increase in DLR for 2XCO2 (1 W/m2) ”
Predictions are one thing,reality is another. There is currently no evidence of consistently increasing DLR globally (Wild 2009, Wang & Liang 2009). And 1 Wm-2 in the latter half of the 21st century is entirely negligible in a metric that fluctuates 100 Wm-2 max to min in a single site (Table Mountain USA upthread) over the recent decades.
But I think you’ve got your numbers wrong (or the terminology). See the Wild (2009) poster page 39:
http://www.gewex.org/BSRN/BSRN-12_presentations/Wild_FriM.pdf
Downward longwave in RCP scenarios
CMIP5 projections 21th century [increase at 2100]
RCP 8.5: 25 Wm-2
RCP 4.5: 10 Wm-2
The current rate of CO2 forcing is 0.3 Wm-2. 0.3 x 8.5 decades = 2.55 Wm-2.
Except the CMIP5 simulations kept solar constant i.e. they did not account for a solar recession. Instead of DLR increasing, it will decrease of necessity (being recycled SWR in degraded state).
>”I shouldn’t have arbitrarily picked 17 W/m2 above as an example”
Well, in view of the 2100 CMIP5 projections, 17 Wm-2 DLR was right in the middle – albeit invalid in view of SWR. I was criticizing in the current context.
>”Figure 35 in Lockwood (2013) contradicts the idea that a regular bicentennial pattern in solar activity exists that allows us to make useful predictions about what will happen in the future.”
Yes, the de Vries “cycle” is really no mare a cycle than the 11-yr “cycle” is a cycle. But the periodicity exists e.g.:
The influence of the de Vries (∼ 200-year) solar cycle on climate variations: Results from the Central Asian Mountains and their global link
OM Raspopov, VA Dergachev, J Esper… – Palaeogeography, …, 2008 – Elsevier
http://www.issw.ch/info/mitarbeitende/frank/Raspopov_etal_PPP_2008.pdf
Presence of the solar de Vries cycle (∼ 205 years) during the last ice age
G Wagner, J Beer, J Masarik… – Geophysical …, 2001 – Wiley Online Library
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2000GL006116/pdf
Multi-scale harmonic model for solar and climate cyclical variation throughout the Holocene based on Jupiter–Saturn tidal frequencies plus the 11-year solar dynamo cycle
N Scafetta – Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 2012 – Elsevier
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.4143.pdf
Identifying natural contributions to late Holocene climate change
Humlum, Solheim, and Stordahl (2011)
Fig. 6. Fourier analysis (using Best Exact N composite algorithm) of the detrended GISP2 surface temperature series. The record is dominated by periods of about 3598, 1139, 788, 584 and 366 years long, all with amplitude greater than 0.2 °C. The grey tone indicates increasing amplitude. The horizontal stippled lines indicate levels of significance. Only frequencies lower than 0.01 are shown. [see 205 yrs]
http://www.klimarealistene.com/web-content/11IdentifyingNaturalContributionsToLateHoloceneClimateChange%20%20HumlumEtAl%20%20GlobalAndPlanetaryChange%201012pdf.pdf
>”I find his [Abdussamatov’s] work hard to take seriously unless you can address both of these problems.”
Maybe not now you don’t and I’m not going to bother addressing your problems but anyone can write a comment on the paper – including you Frank. But you might have to pay attention very soon, here’s his temperature prognosis:
http://vademecum.brandenberger.eu/grafiken/klima/iceage_temp.png
Only about 5 years to test a 0.1 C drop. 10 years to test a 0.3 C drop. Time will tell. Given the temperature trajectory is already out of the bottom of the CMIP5 confidence interval, the C02-forced models in their current configuration are a bust. It will soon be apparent who is right and who is wrong.
Abdussamatov’s scenario just establishes the worst-case but it cannot be ruled out. Any responsible risk analysis assigns a probability to all the alternative scenarios. Mike Lockwood (see elsewhere in this thread) has set a very strong probability for MM conditions: “Based on his findings he’s raised the risk of a new Maunder minimum from less than 10% just a few years ago to 25-30%.”
But MM refers to solar activity – not to climate. How temperature is derived is anyone’s guess at the moment. Only 1 individual and 1 group of solar specialists (see elsewhere in this thread) were able to pick the maximum SC 24 SSN out of 75 attempts. Predicting temperature is even more fraught. At least Abdussamatov applies thermodynamic principles irrespective of your assessment. If temperature follows his prognosis you will have to eat humble pie. If it doesn’t, he will.
The GCM modelers should be warming up their humble pie about now – maybe in a microwave oven.
as well as a decrease in OLR (3.7 W/m2) at the tropopause and a little less at the TOA.
Correction. This:
>”as well as a decrease in OLR (3.7 W/m2) at the tropopause and a little less at the TOA.”
was supposed to be addressed. Again, observations will prove, or not, whether this theoretical prediction plays out in practice. Not looking good right now.
The OLR/DLR/Hotspot situation is getting around:
‘Evidence that CO2 emissions do not intensify the greenhouse effect’
Written by Jonathan DuHamel, WryHeat on 20 November 2014.
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/Latest-News/evidence-that-co2-emissions-do-not-intensify-the-greenhouse-effect.html
Quote:
“Empirical data show that the AGW hypothesis fails on its three major predictions. This indicates that our carbon dioxide emissions have little to no effect on global temperature nor the intensity of the “greenhouse effect” possibly because the AGW hypothesis ignores convective heat loss (weather) and other natural cycles that control the complex climate system.”
Bottom line quote:
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is; it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” – Richard Feynmann
Richard: With regard to my comments on DLR, you are confusing the Schwarzschild equation (the physics of radiation in an atmosphere) with the output from climate models (hypotheses using physics in a grid model of the planet with adjustable parameters to represent sub-grid processes).
The Schwarzschild equation makes predictions how much radiation will pass through an atmosphere with a specified composition and temperature. It predicts an instantaneous increase in DLR of 1 W/m2 upon doubling CO2 in addition to the well-known 3.7 W/m2 decrease in OLR at the TOA. Those changes in flux upon a instantaneous doubling of CO2 will produce imbalances between influx and outflow of energy in the atmosphere and on the surface. This will cause the temperature to change and then feedbacks to occur. The Schwarzschild equation makes no predictions about temperature change or feedbacks – that is what climate models do (and I personally have little confidence in models). Each climate model has a module for calculating radiative flux according to the Schwarzschild eqn with approximations to speed up the calculations. Each climate model has dozens of parameters (that are “tuned” by an arbitrary process incapable of finding an optimum set of parameters) to represent physics that can’t be properly modeled by the grids the models use.
Convection carries changing in surface temperature to the atmosphere above, so the DLR increases in the future depends mostly on surface warming. To a first approximation, the DLR increase will be 3X bigger if ECS is 4.5 degC than if it is 1.5 degC. The RCP followed and increase in absolute humidity will also play a role, but the numbers you cite have huge ranges of uncertainty associated with them – which the IPCC doesn’t properly recognize. Uncertainty is much greater than the variability between model runs and between models.
I’m defending the existence of the GHE predicted by the Schwarzschild equation, not climate models.
>”With regard to my comments on DLR, you are confusing the Schwarzschild equation (the physics of radiation in an atmosphere) with the output from climate models (hypotheses using physics in a grid model of the planet with adjustable parameters to represent sub-grid processes)”
No I’m not Frank. I simply quoted the model projection of DLR at 2100. That is not confusion, it’s fact.
>”It [Schwarzschild] predicts an instantaneous increase in DLR of 1 W/m2 upon doubling CO2″
Yes. Minuscule, I’m not disputing that. CO2 already makes up around 6 W.m-2 of DLR which in the tropics is around 400 W.m-2 24/7. The greater portion, say 394 W.m-2, is the temperature of the air, clouds, and WV. An increase of 1 W.m-2 at 700ppm will be undetectable. There are stations, e.g. Table Mountain USA upthread, that fluctuate 100 W.m-2 max to min over just a couple of decades.
>”Each climate model has dozens of parameters (that are “tuned” by an arbitrary process incapable of finding an optimum set of parameters) to represent physics….”
I’m well aware of how GCMs are formulated Frank. I’ve looked at GISS ModelE formulaic expressions and the code. I’ve gone through NCAR’s CAM parameterization and RTM module. And I’ve followed the development of cloud superparameterization modules.
>”so the DLR increases in the future depends mostly on surface warming”
Exactly. Or surface cooling. Solar forcing is decreasing and will be markedly down by around 2035. Therefore surface warming must decrease in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics i.e. surface cooling is inevitable. There will be no DLR increase in the future (there is no consistent global DLR increase now just as there’s no OLR decrease).
>”To a first approximation, the DLR increase will be 3X bigger if ECS is 4.5 degC than if it is 1.5 degC”
In AGW theory but CO2 forcing is a very minor component of DLR, which is not increasing in accordance with AGW. And as above, the major components of DLR are air temperature, clouds, and WV. Less solar forcing as a result of the solar recession will inevitably lead to reduced air temperature and WV eventually. To assert otherwise requires a complete overturning of the laws of physics. As I keep saying, it is impossible to get more energy out of a system at a reduced input level than at the original higher input level. That would be a perpetual motion machine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion
“The RCP followed and increase in absolute humidity will also play a role”
RCP is not the climate driver Frank contrary to the IPCC’s RF methodology. The RCP-forced models are diverging from observations, now out the bottom of the 2 sigma confidence interval. The oscillatory component of temperature is oceanic (PDO+AMO) and the secular trend is now starting an inflexion down away from C02. See Macias et al:
http://www.sciencecodex.com/last_decades_slowdown_in_global_warming_enhanced_by_an_unusual_climate_anomaly-141430
The downturn in the secular trend in temperature is the death knell of AGW. The driver of the secular trend is the lagged sun => ocean => atmosphere system. Period.
>”CO2 already makes up around 6 W.m-2 of DLR which in the tropics is around 400 W.m-2 24/7. The greater portion, say 394 W.m-2, is the temperature of the air, clouds, and WV. An increase of 1 W.m-2 at 700ppm will be undetectable. There are stations, e.g. Table Mountain Colorado upthread, that fluctuate 100 W.m-2 max to min over just a couple of decades.”
Willis Eschenbach has got around to looking at SurfRad and the Goodwin Creek, Mississippi station:
“I got to wondering how well that fits the theoretical profile that we’d expect from the Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B) relationship. This relationship says that infrared radiation is equal to emissivity times the Boltzmann constant times the temperature to the fourth power. I figured that using that formula, I could calculate an approximate value for the emissivity from the data with a simple linear analysis.”
“Now, here’s the curious part. When I did that, I got an emissivity of 0.590 … which from everything I’ve read is too low.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/25/a-first-look-at-surfrad/
In comments rgbatduke and MikeB answer Willis’s conundrum (S-B “sort of” valid).
Also in comments Bill Illis analyzes (see graph) Table Mountain USA I mentioned above.
And at the bottom of the thread (to date November 25, 2014 at 12:50 pm) Gary Pearse links to this paper:
‘Downward atmospheric longwave irradiance under clear and
cloudy skies: Measurement and parameterization’
M.G. Iziomona, H. Mayer, A. Matzarakis (2003)
Page 9,
Furthermore, the dependence of total effective atmospheric
emissivity on cloudiness for the lowland site and
mountain site can be approximated by
(N) = 0(1 + ZsN2); (7)
where 0 averaged 0.78 and 0.70 for the lowland and
mountain sites, respectively. The higher 0 obtained for the
lowland site is consistent with higher air temperature and
water vapor concentration at the site relative to the mountain
site. In effect, it follows that clear-sky emissivity increases
with water vapor mixing ratio but declined with altitude.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/25/a-first-look-at-surfrad/#comment-1798747
In short, CO2 is a bit player.
Richard: In the 1997-8 El Nino, mean global temperature rose 0.5 degC because the normal upwelling of cold deep-water in the Eastern Equatorial Pacific stopped (as did the sinking of water in the Western Pacific “warming pool”). Internal variability of this type has the ability to disguise the slow changes predicted by the Schwarzschild equation (which are amplified or suppressed by feedbacks). So I see little value in discussing what the current pause tells us about the existence of the GHE.
Some people believe that the PDO represents the “integration” of El Nino events, transferring their heat to northern Pacific for several decades before effecting the frequency and intensity of El Nino events. So the short-term unforced variability we experience every few years may become unforced variability on a decadal time scale associated with the PDO. Other slow mechanisms may produce the AMO. The rapid warming in the 1930s and 1980s and the negligible warming in the 1960s and 2000s are consistent with the idea that changes of a few tenths of a degC over a decade or two are caused by unforced variability. By ignoring unforced variability, the IPCC overhyped two decades of warming before 2000; skeptics are repeating the same mistake with the pause. The best we can do is consider the whole period of accurate records and that says the IPCC’s models are over-predicting warming by about 1/3.
Before the politicization of AGW, Lorenz in 1990 wrote a prophetic paper titled: “Chaos, Spontaneous Climatic Variation and Detection of the Greenhouse Effect.” In Section 4, he asked what conclusions the IPCC could legitimately make if the 1980s warming were to continue for another decade. Given the pause, this is the situation that prevails today. He said we don’t know enough about decadal variability to draw conclusions from two decades of warming. He also said it was inappropriate to draw conclusions from climate models tuned to reproduce the historical record.
http://eaps4.mit.edu/research/Lorenz/Chaos_spontaneous_greenhouse_1991.pdf
>”By ignoring unforced variability[e.g. PDO/AMO, cloudiness], the IPCC overhyped two decades of warming before 2000; skeptics are repeating the same mistake with the pause.
No, sceptics are not repeating the IPCC’s mistake Frank. It was sceptics who first alerted the world at large that the IPCC was ignoring natural variability and reported the global warming stall around 2006:
‘Whatever Happened to Global Warming?’
By Matt Ridley, Sept. 4, 2014
When the climate scientist and geologist Bob Carter of James Cook University in Australia wrote an article in 2006 [hotlink] saying that there had been no global warming since 1998 according to the most widely used measure of average global air temperatures, there was an outcry. A year later, when David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation in London made the same point, the environmentalist and journalist Mark Lynas said in the New Statesman that Mr. Whitehouse was “wrong, completely wrong,” and was “deliberately, or otherwise, misleading the public.”
We know now that it was Mr. Lynas who was wrong. Two years before Mr. Whitehouse’s article, climate scientists were already admitting in emails among themselves that there had been no warming since the late 1990s. “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998,” wrote Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia in Britain in 2005. He went on: “Okay it has but it is only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”
http://online.wsj.com/articles/matt-ridley-whatever-happened-to-global-warming-1409872855
Now there’s a mad scramble of papers trying to explain the pause from natural variability i.e. they are in catch-up mode behind the sceptics. Sceptics have known since soon after the beginning of the 21st century that there would inevitably be a 30-yr negative phase in the 60-yr oscillation i.e. the pause is no surprise and sceptics reported it first.
Except that’s only oceanic oscillation.
The last time there was a negative phase in the 60-yr climate cycle (oceanic oscillation) in the 1940s – 1970s, solar forcing was increasing so the secular trend increased taking the oscillation with it after the 70s. That is not the case this time around – just the opposite. Given planetary thermal inertial lag and oceanic heat transport lag, the secular trend in temperature will be negative by the time the oceanic oscillation turns positive again, say 2030 i.e. solar-forced variability will take the secular trend down and the oceanic oscillation will go with it.
Spectral signal analysis of temperature has extracted the oscillation and secular trend some years ago. I observed the positive to negative secular transition myself in HadSST2 using Empirical Mode Decomposition (EMD). No mistake by sceptics I assure you Frank. Climate science is only just getting to grips with the oscillation, they’ve yet to address the secular trend. That might have changed with the Macias et al (2014) application of the Singular Spectrum Analysis Technique (SSA):
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140911092905.htm
“…..they found that the current hiatus period is, for the first time, particularly strongly influenced by changes in the secular trend, which shows a strong acceleration from 1992-2001 and a deceleration from 2002 to 2013.Such rapid and strong fluctuations in the secular warming rate are unprecedented”
But they cannot bring themselves to identify solar – that will take time.
In any event, the recent inflexion in the red line on the graph (secular trend) is the death knell of AGW.
Richard: I’m glad you recognize the difference between the established physics of radiative transfer calculations using the Schwarzschild and untestable hypotheses from climate models. The GHE – reduced outgoing OLR with increasing GHGs – is a prediction of the the Schwarzschild equation, not just climate models. The reduction in OLR for doubling CO2 is about 3.7 W/m2. If nothing else changed (no-feedbacks climate sensitivity), radiative balance wouldn’t be restored until the earth warmed about 1 degC; a significant, but not catastrophic amount. None of this has anything to do speculative subjects like feedbacks, climate models, natural forcing (like the sun) or unforced variability. Natural forcing and unforced variability can enhance or opposite the warming predicted from GHGs, while feedbacks only amplify or suppress warming or cooling caused by forcing. Changes in natural forcing and unforced variability are currently unpredictable, but future changes in forcing from GHGs will be a consequence of man’s emissions.
Richard wrote: “it is impossible to get more energy out of a system at a reduced input level than at the original higher input level”
Richard, physics doesn’t work this way. We don’t “get energy out” of the earth. The amount of planetary cooling by radiation isn’t determined by solar input – it is determined only by the temperature of surface and atmospheric molecules emitting upward photons and the probability that those photons escape through the GHGs above to space. (Schwarzschild equation is used to calculate how much radiation escapes to space for a given temperature and atmospheric composition.) Temperature changes only because of a difference between incoming and outgoing radiation. If decreasing solar output reduces incoming solar by 2 W/m2 and 2XCO2 reduces outgoing radiation by 3.7 W/m2 both compared with a century ago, the result will be warming. A 1 W/m2 change in outgoing power due to GHGs is just as important as a 1 W/m2 change in incoming power. This is not perpetual motion, it is a consequence of the law of conservation of energy.
I’m still waiting for some data that supports your favorite prophecies about future solar activity.
The 11-year solar cycle IS extremely likely to continue. The satellite record shows changes in TSI of about 0.1% are associated with the solar cycle. That is only 0.25 W/m2 in post-albedo SWR and is dwarfed by the roughly 3 W/m2 of forcing from increased GHG’s.
There is no doubt that solar activity was weaker during the LIA, but we currently lack a mechanism linking this two events. High energy solar particles emitted by sunspots and cosmic rays (modulated by the sun’s magnetic field) have varied significantly in the past, but the direct energy involved is negligible. Some believe that high energy particles (or some other solar mechanism) change cloudiness and albedo, but what evidence demonstrates that this actually happen? Where is the satellite data showing that reflected SWR (a forcing with units of W/m2) varies with high energy particles, sunspots or the strength of the sun’s magnetic field. I find that Roy has a post on one aspect of this subject without references, but I would prefer a peer-reviewed paper (covering the entire satellite era). A post expanding on Roy’s work would also be a useful contribution.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/05/indirect-solar-forcing-of-climate-by-galactic-cosmic-rays-an-observational-estimate/
As for Table Mountain, DLR changed by 100 W/m2 within 12 hours yesterday (11/23/14). So who cares if it changed 100 W/m2 between two arbitrary dates in the past. Weather and climate are extremely noisy and complicated. OLR is a function of temperature, humidity and GHGs. This makes it very difficult to use observations to show whether or not increased GHG’s reduce TOA OLR. However, laboratory experiments leave no room for doubt that this happens in our atmosphere.
The skeptical cause is hurt by spreading inaccuracies about the GHE, DLR not “warming” the ocean, the 2LoT and DLR, bicentennial cycles in solar activity, and volcanos not causing appreciable cooling. There are plenty of real problems with the IPCC consensus.
>”The reduction in OLR for doubling CO2 is about 3.7 W/m2″
Except the point of this post is that there is no reduction of OLR going on:
1973: 232.324 W.m-2
2012: 232.250 W.m-2
>”We don’t “get energy out” of the earth. The amount of planetary cooling by radiation isn’t determined by solar input – it is determined only by the temperature of surface and atmospheric molecules emitting upward photons and the probability that those photons escape through the GHGs above to space.”
Rubbish. The system is (predominantly): sun => ocean => atmosphere(+space)
So yes, we do “get energy out” of the earth. This is no different to heating a pot of water on a stove element; turn the element up the water warms after a time lag and the air above the water warms in response; turn the element down and the water cools after a time lag and the air above the water cools in response.
But AGW, and you too apparently Frank, says that when you turn the element down the water keeps warming and the air keeps warming. This is patently absurd and contravenes thermodynamic principles.
>”I’m still waiting for some data that supports your favorite prophecies about future solar activity.”
I gave it to you – read it.
>”The 11-year solar cycle IS extremely likely to continue. The satellite record shows changes in TSI of about 0.1% are associated with the solar cycle. That is only 0.25 W/m2 in post-albedo SWR and is dwarfed by the roughly 3 W/m2 of forcing from increased GHG’s.”
Who said the 11-yr cycle wouldn’t continue? Not me. You’re starting to get irrational Frank. The 11-yr cycle is irrelevant as I’ve described previously, the relevant cycle is de Vries and how that develops over multiple periods. A reduction in solar forcing will automatically reduce GHG forcing because there’s less energy input i.e. there wont be 3 W.m-2 forcing under the new solar regime. The solar recession has begun and the worst-case is a TSI reduction of 6 W.m-2, which is the extreme estimate of solar change from LIA Grand Minimum to Modern Grand Maximum. How it actually progresses and to what extent is anyone’s guess.
>”I would prefer a peer-reviewed paper (covering the entire satellite era)”
The satellite era is basically the Modern solar Grand Maximum i.e. possibly the highest solar activity over the entire Holocene. Such a study will tell you nothing whatsoever.
>”As for Table Mountain, DLR changed by 100 W/m2 within 12 hours yesterday (11/23/14). So who cares if it changed 100 W/m2 between two arbitrary dates in the past.”
You should care Frank, I wasn’t referring to diurnal fluctuation. If you look at the respective maximums and minimims decades apart then you’ll see what I’m getting at. AGW is only posited to result in 1 W.m-2 for 2xCO2 according to you – you stated so yourself:
”It [Schwarzschild] predicts an instantaneous increase in DLR of 1 W/m2 upon doubling CO2″
It is impossible to detect a 1 W.m-2 DLR change from CO2 among 100 W.m-2 changes (not diurnal changes note) where the major components are air temperature, clouds, and water vapour. And CO2 already comprises about 6 W.m-2 of DLR (Wang & Liang, 2009 upthread). A CO2 change from 6 to 7 will not make an iota of difference among 100 W.m-2 changes..
>”However, laboratory experiments leave no room for doubt that this happens in our atmosphere.”
Except observations leave considerable room for doubt that this is actually happening in our atmosphere. This is where empiricism comes in Frank – as inconvenient as the concept may be to you.
>”The skeptical cause is hurt by spreading inaccuracies about the GHE, DLR not “warming” the ocean, the 2LoT and DLR, bicentennial cycles in solar activity”
What inaccuracies? Again, you’re getting irrational Frank and I detect some desperation in your attack.
1) DLR does not heat the ocean – SWR does, in the tropics predominantly. DLR merely enhances evaporation at the surface i.e. a cooling effect – fact.
2) The bicentennial solar cycle is the de Vries cycle – fact. I’ve given you 4 papers to read on it.
3) CO2 is a negligible component of DLR – fact.
>”As for Table Mountain, DLR changed by 100 W/m2 within 12 hours yesterday (11/23/14). So who cares if it changed 100 W/m2 between two arbitrary dates in the past.”
>”You should care Frank, I wasn’t referring to diurnal fluctuation. If you look at the respective maximums and minimims decades apart then you’ll see what I’m getting at”
SURFRAD Data Display Page
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/dataplot.html
Table Mountain (Boulder Colorado) DLR 1st January 1996. Compare to same location 16 years later 1st January 2012.
Varies between 193 W/m2 minimum (2012) and 300 W/m2 maximum (1996) – a 107 W/m2 range spanning 16 years. Approximate means:
1996: 270 W.m-2
2012: 205 W.m-2
Diff: -65 W.m-2
You’re stressing +1 W.m-2 for 2xCO2 Frank, when over a 16 year period when CO2 levels were increasing, we observe 60 – 70 W.m-2 less DLR on the same day 16 years later.
Now can you see that CO2 is a bit player and negligible?
‘New paper finds strong evidence the Sun has controlled climate over the past 11,000 years, not CO2’
The Hockey Schtick, November 27, 2014
A paper published today in Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics finds a “strong and stable correlation” between the millennial variations in sunspots and the temperature in Antarctica over the past 11,000 years. In stark contrast, the authors find no strong or stable correlation between temperature and CO2 over that same period.
The authors correlated reconstructed CO2 levels, sunspots, and temperatures from ice-core data from Vostok Antarctica and find
“We find that the variations of SSN [sunspot number] and T [temperature] have some common periodicities, such as the 208 year (yr), 521 yr, and ~1000 yr cycles. The correlations between SSN and T are strong for some intermittent periodicities. However, the wavelet analysis demonstrates that the relative phase relations between them usually do not hold stable except for the millennium-cycle component. The millennial variation of SSN leads that of T by 30–40 years, and the anti-phase relation between them keeps stable nearly over the whole 11,000 years of the past. As a contrast, the correlations between CO2 and T are neither strong nor stable.”
Thus, the well known ~1000 year climate cycle responsible for the Holocene Climate Optimum 6000 to 4000 years ago, the Egyptian warm period ~4000 years ago, the Minoan warm period ~3000 years ago, the Roman warm period ~2000 years ago, the Medieval warm period ~1000 years ago, and the current warm period at present all roughly fall in this same 1000 year sequence of increased solar activity associated with warm periods.
The authors find temperature changes lag solar activity changes by ~40 years, which is likely due to the huge heat capacity and inertia of the oceans. Warming proponents attempt to dismiss the Sun’s role in climate change by claiming 20th century solar activity peaked at around 1960 and somewhat declined from 1960 levels to the end of the 20th century (and have continued to decline in the 21st century right along with the 18+ year “pause” of global warming).
Firstly, the assumption that solar activity peaked in 1960 and declined since is false, since it is necessary to determine the accumulated solar energy over multiple solar cycles, which is the accumulated departure from the average number of sunspots over the entire period, which I call the “sunspot integral.” The sunspot integral is plotted in blue and shows remarkable correction with global temperatures plotted in red below. Correlating sunspot and temperature data with and without CO2, we find the sunspot integral explains 95% of temperature change over the past 400 years, and that CO2 had no significant influence (also here).
Secondly, this paper finds strong evidence of a 30-40 year lag between solar activity and temperature response. So what happened ~40 years after the 1960 peak in sunspot activity? Why that just so happens to be when satellite measurements of global temperature peaked with the 1998 El Nino [which is also driven by solar activity], followed by the “pause” and cooling since.
Continues>>>>>>>[see graphs]
‘Correlation between solar activity and the local temperature of Antarctica during the past 11,000 years’
X.H. Zhao and X.S. Feng (2014)
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2014/11/new-paper-finds-strong-evidence-sun-has.html
# # #
30-40 year lag between solar activity and temperature response is a lot longer than computed figures e.g. 14 +/- 6 years, Abdussamatov (2012).
There is corroboration elsewhere of a long lag, even Dr Kevin Trenberth states “10 – 100 years” in his essay ‘The Role Of The Oceans In Climate’. Evidence like the above just strengthens the case for a long lag which if we apply to the end of the Modern solar Grand Maximum around 2005 gives 2035 – 2045 for an atmospheric temperature response of any significance. 14 year lag gives 2019.
There is variability in Vostok temperature at many different frequencies. Only a small fraction of the spectral power in the temperature periodogram is at frequencies that match the frequencies in the variability of reconstructed solar activity. Therefore solar variability can only explain a small fraction of the temperature variability at Vostok. As for the 30-40 year lag, there has been global warming since the strongest solar activity, but no significant warming in the instrumental record of most of Antarctica over the same period. So the period where we have the best solar activity data and the best instrumental temperature data in Antarctica doesn’t agree with the pattern seen earlier in Antarctica.
Perhaps there is a 1000 year solar cycle that produces a 1000 year cycle in surface temperature at Vostok with a 30-40 year lag – but, if so, the amplitude of that cycle appears to be a few tenths of a degC. The full variability at Vostok is only about 2 degC and only a small fraction of that variability is present in the 1000 year cycle. If the 1000 year temperature cycle had an amplitude of 2 degC, you would be able to detect it by eye and not need the Fourier Transform to see it. Global warming caused by solar activity should also be apparent in Greenland ice cores and other proxy records. At GISP2, there are strong peaks for the MWP, the Roman WP and especially the Minoan WP, but the signal for a 1000 year cycle isn’t as clear in earlier periods. If solar activity is important for global temperature, then the 1000 year signal should be found in all records.
A 1000 year cycle is too slow to account for the warming we have seen since 1950.
The changes in CO2 at Vostok in the past 10,000 years have not been big enough to produce a significant rise in temperature, so no one should be surprised that no correlation has been observed. If one looked at the last 2,000,000 years of glacials and interglacials, a strong correlation between temperature and CO2 cycles can be observed even without a spectral analysis. (I am aware that warming led the rise in CO2 and that the CO2 rise must be a feedback and not the forcing that initiated the end of ice ages.)
>”A 1000 year cycle is too slow to account for the warming we have seen since 1950.”
Rubbish. Solar forcing last 1000 years (includes 1950 -2000):
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/palynology/geos462/20clim_crowly00.jpg
Also the cause of SLR last 1000 years:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/clip_image004_thumb5.png?w=602&h=455
And the Sun has controlled climate over the past 11,000 years
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2014/11/new-paper-finds-strong-evidence-sun-has.html
‘Correlation between solar activity and the local temperature of Antarctica during the past 11,000 years’
X.H. Zhao and X.S. Feng (2014)
• SSN [Sunspot Number] and Vostok temperature (T) had common periodicities in past 11,000 years.
• The millennial variations of SSN and T had a strong and stable correlation.
• The millennial variation of SSN led that of T by 30–40 years.
• Correlations between CO2 and T were neither strong nor stable.
Thus, the well known ~1000 year climate cycle responsible for the Holocene Climate Optimum 6000 to 4000 years ago, the Egyptian warm period ~4000 years ago, the Minoan warm period ~3000 years ago, the Roman warm period ~2000 years ago, the Medieval warm period ~1000 years ago, and the current warm period at present all roughly fall in this same 1000 year sequence of increased solar activity associated with warm periods.
Richard: I see nothing that can be learned from the WEATHER at Table Mtn on two DAYS in the past. If you look at the MONTHLY MEAN DLR, you will see that DLR in January over the last two decades as varied from a low of 227.0 W/m2 (2009) to a high of 254.3 W/m2 (1999). This is partly because the mean monthly temperature was about 5 degC higher in January 1999 than 2009. The endpoints are 232.7 (1996) and 238.7 (2014). I didn’t plot the data, but I doubt there is a long term trend that is significantly different from zero.
The predicted increase in DLR for 2XCO2 according to the Schwarzschild eqn is only 1 W/m2. As with all such calculations, this is the instantaneous change in flux assuming the temperature and composition of the atmosphere are unchanged. What the Table Mtn data shows is that even with monthly averages, the weather at Table Mtn causes DLR to vary about 20-fold more than this. (Weather = temperature, lapse rate, humidity, cloud cover and altitude.) Given this large natural variability, it is unlikely that observations will ever be good enough to detect these small changes in DLR. Our inability to measure this small change as CO2 doubles over about 70 years doesn’t tell us anything about the physics of emission and absorption of DLR. We learn those basics in the laboratory.
When DLR is measured above a site whose composition and temperature has been measured by a radiosonde, the Schwarzschild eqn predicts DLR with about 1% error. (Where absolute humidity is high, water vapor dimers increase the error.)
Frank complained: ”We don’t “get energy out” of the earth. The amount of planetary cooling by radiation isn’t determined by solar input – it is determined only by the temperature of surface and atmospheric molecules emitting upward photons and the probability that those photons escape through the GHGs above to space.”
Richard replied: Rubbish. The system is (predominantly): sun => ocean => atmosphere(+space)
So yes, we do “get energy out” of the earth. This is no different to heating a pot of water on a stove element; turn the element up the water warms after a time lag and the air above the water warms in response; turn the element down and the water cools after a time lag and the air above the water cools in response.
But AGW, and you too apparently Frank, says that when you turn the element down the water keeps warming and the air keeps warming. This is patently absurd and contravenes thermodynamic principles.
Frank responds: Let’s take your pot of (non-boiling) hot water at equilibrium on a gas stove. Let’s turn the flame down slightly (to simulate a less active sun) AND put a lid on the top of the pot (to simulate reduced radiative cooling to space – though the lid itself reduces convection from the pot). Will the water get warmer or cooler because of these changes? The answer depends on the NET energy imbalance created by these changes. If the pot gets 10 W less from the flame and loses 20 W less by convection, the water will warm, not cool!
Energy does flow from the sun to the Earth and then to space. If you want to get the right answer, you must APPLY the right physics: 1) Temperature (internal energy) changes because of a NET imbalance between incoming and outgoing energy. This is the law of conservation of energy. 2) Radiative cooling at any time depends only on the temperature at that time. The S-B eqn, for example, uses temperature, but has no factor for incoming energy. As a consequence, changes in OLR are just as important to mean global temperature changes in SWR.
>”If the pot gets 10 W less from the flame and loses 20 W less by convection, the water will warm, not cool!”
Rubbish. Say it’s a 1 kW element Frank (electrical, not flame). If the water is at equilibrium (not boiling) at say 0.5 kW and you turn it down to 0.4 kW then over the course of an hour that’s a reduction of 0.1 kWh energy input. The lid, with holes in it is already on the pot (has been for millennia). To simulate change in CO2, the holes in the lid are contracted slightly to mimic a 100 ppm change (300 – 400ppm) to the surface area of the lid.
The energy past from and through the lid increases to o.5 kW as you turn up the element 0.5 kW instantaneously but at a time lag commensurate with the thermal properties of the water (say 5 mins). Similarly when you turn the element instantaneously down to 0.4 kW, after a time lag of say 5 mins the water attains a new equilibrium temperature lower than at 0.5 kW input. Even if the lid is as used for pots (no holes) this is the process, try it yourself with a thermometer. You wont measure warming Frank.
A better solar analogy is to turn the element gradually up over 350 mins, leave for 50 mins (solar Grand Maximum), then turn down gradually over 50 mins. This approximates the solar forcing over the last 400 years (gradual) and the projected solar change this century (abrupt as per Lockwood). The water temperature will cool to the new temperature over 10 – 100 mins (10 – 100 years ocean – Trenberth), the lag being multiples of a constant. The change to the area of holes in the lid has negligible effect on the energy loss from the water whether radiative, evaporative, or conductive.
>”1) Temperature (internal energy) changes because of a NET imbalance between incoming and outgoing energy. This is the law of conservation of energy.”
Exactly. The water-pot-on-element demonstrates this when the time lags and analogous processes are accounted for over time. Of course there will be an incoming-outgoing imbalance in the middle of the thermal lag. That is why the ocean (water in the pot) is referred to as a heat “sink” i.e. the ocean modulates climate.
>”2) Radiative cooling at any time depends only on the temperature at that time. The S-B eqn, for example, uses temperature, but has no factor for incoming energy.”
Yes, exactly, the temperature of the water determines the energy loss. The ocean has warmed over the last 400 years and the water in the pot warmed over 400 mins. The respective energy losses are necessarily greater but there is a thermal lag. If the input remains high there is accumulation, if the input reduces there is a reversal of the process over time.
>”As a consequence, changes in OLR are just as important to mean global temperature changes in SWR.”
Exactly. And as Robin has shown from the observations, increasing OLR is a response to increasing surface temperature, which in turn is a response to increasing SWR. All of which is the sun => ocean => atmosphere(+ space) system.
Frank wrote: “If the pot gets 10 W less from the flame and loses 20 W less by convection, the water will warm, not cool!” (This 20 W loss is supposed to mimic the reduction in OLR caused by GHGs.)
Somehow Richard objects to this statement despite agreeing that:
1) Temperature (internal energy) changes because of a NET imbalance between incoming and outgoing energy.
2) Radiative cooling at any time depends only on the temperature at that time.
The problem specified equilibrium before these changes. At equilibrium, incoming and outgoing power fluxes are equal. Now we reduce incoming power by 10 W and outgoing power by 20 W. This creates a +10 W imbalance with more energy entering the pot than leaving it. The pot must warm.
Sure, if you rewrite the problem so that outgoing power is not reduced, then there will be an imbalance in the opposite direction. However, in the case of the earth, the Schwarzschild equation tells us that OLR (outgoing power) will be reduced by increasing GHGs.
Heat capacity (thermal inertia) changes only the RATE of warming in response to an imbalance. It doesn’t change warming into cooling. If the imbalance (incoming – outgoing power) is W watts and the object weighs M kg and has a heat capacity of C J/kg-degC , then:
W (J/s) / [C (J/kg-degC) * M (kg)] = W/(C*M) (degC/s)
This gives us the INITIAL warming rate (W greater than zero) or cooling rate (W less than zero). C*M is thermal inertia. As the object warms, its outgoing power will increase because of increasing thermal radiation. So the radiative imbalance (W) will begin to shrink as temperature rises – which slows down the warming rate, but still does not change it to cooling. The mathematics gets more complicated when the imbalance changes with time, so the first thing to focus on is always the current IMBALANCE – it tells you whether there will be cooling or warming.
In the case of the earth, increasing GHG’s should have created a 2 W/m2 imbalance (forcing) over the last century, but the current imbalance has been reduced to about 0.5 W/m2 (Argo) by warming over the last century. The 11-year solar cycle has a peak to trough amplitude of only 0.25 W/m2 in TSI, too small to negate the remaining imbalance from GHGs and feedbacks. If other mechanisms besides TSI – such as albedo – are vary with solar activity, then these mechanisms could overwhelm the modest warming imbalance that currently exists. If the albedo mechanism exists, we should be able to see a correlation between some measure of solar activity and reflected SWR channel monitored from space.
.”The 11-year solar cycle has a peak to trough amplitude of only 0.25 W/m2 in TSI, too small to negate the remaining imbalance from GHGs and feedbacks”
How many times do I have to repeat this Frank?
FORGET THE “11 YEAR SOLAR CYCLE” – IT IS IRRELEVANT. THE RELEVANT PEAK TO TROUGH AMPLITUDE IS MILLENNIAL.
‘A new approach to long-term reconstruction of the solar irradiance leads to large historical solar forcing’
Shapiro, Schmutz, Rozanov, Schoell, Haberreiter, Shapiro, and Nyeki (2011)
ABSTRACT
Context. The variable Sun is the most likely candidate for natural forcing of past climate change on time scales of 50 to 1000 years. Evidence for this understanding is that the terrestrial climate correlates positively with solar activity. During the past 10000 years, the Sun has experienced substantial variations in activity and there have been numerous attempts to reconstruct solar irradiance. While there is general agreement on how solar forcing varied during the last several hundred years—all reconstructions are proportional to the solar activity—there is scientific controversy on the magnitude of solar forcing.
4. Results and Discussion
Both reconstructions suggest a significant increase in TSI during
the first half of the twentieth-century as well as low solar irradiance
during the Maunder and Dalton minima. The difference
between the current and reconstructed TSI during the Maunder
minimum is about 6 ± 3 W/m2 (equivalent to a solar forcing of
FP−M∼ 1.0±0.5W/m2) which is substantially larger than recent
estimates (see Sect. 1). Note that as our technique uses 22-year
means of the solar modulation potential our approach cannot be
tested with the last, unusual solar minimum in 2008. In order
to reproduce the current minimum as shown in Fig. 1 we have
adopted a value of 584 MeV for the future 22-year average in
2020 (which is 92% of the 22-year average for 1988–2009).
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1102/1102.4763v1.pdf
Now Frank. There was obviously a solar forcing from MWP to LIA irrespective of whether the estimates are what was in reality, and there was obviously a solar forcing from LIA to Present, e.g. this from upthread:
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/palynology/geos462/20clim_crowly00.jpg
That solar forcing not only explains SLR:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/clip_image004_thumb5.png?w=602&h=455
The solar forcing also explains GMST
Loehle (2007)
http://www.drroyspencer.com/library/pics/2000-years-of-global-temperature.jpg
Ljungqvist (2010)
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/loehle_v_fig1.png?w=867
Loehle (2007) vs Ljungqvist (2010)
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/loehle_v_fig21.png?w=720
So your problem is Frank: what alternative forcing (e.g. CO2) would explain SLR and GMST over the last 1000 years that would negate the solar case?
Just out of curiosity, what was the CO2 forcing MWP – LIA Frank?
Richard: Thanks for the Shapiro paper. As best I can tell, the paper was never published by a journal using the title of the arvix version. With all of the gatekeeping and pal review in climate science, it is difficult to conclude that there is a serious mistake in this work which prevented publication.
I keep coming back to the satellite record of TSI because it is the only solid data we have. That doesn’t mean I’m not interested in knowing if satellite TSI can be used to calibrate other proxies for TSI. I spent far too long trying to understand this paper and several others.
http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/2009/27/aa12318-09.pdf
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/16/5967.full
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009GL040142/full
The basic problem is that we have only three similar cycles of TSI data with which to calibrate our proxies for solar activity. There are problems with the sunspot record and no sunspots during the Maunder minimum. The best proxy is the Be-10 data from ice-cores, but everyone seems to believe that this is a proxy for TSI from a quiet sun and they average the data over 22 years. This means calibrating with three solar minima that differ by only 0.2 W/m2. Even worse, the Be-10 data from ice cores doesn’t overlap with the TSI data from satellites. Shapiro tries to bridge this gap by calibrating neutron flux data to satellite TSI and then calibrating the neutron flux data (averaged over 22 years) to the Be-10 data (averaged over 22 years). Others try to bridge the gap with open solar magnetic field strength. If I understand correctly, most or all estimate the increase in TSI during active solar periods with data from sunspots, a third calibration step with only three peaks to rely upon. I didn’t find anyone’s methodology convincing.
Shapiro’s larger estimate of solar forcing from the Maunder minimum to present might explain the LIA and warming up to 1950. However we are only talking about a forcing of 1 W/m2. This is only half of the current anthropogenic forcing and about 1/5 of projected future anthropogenic forcing. Which means the possibility of a Maunder minimum in the next few decades isn’t a reason to ignore anthropogenic GHGs.
>”As best I can tell, the paper was never published by a journal using the title of the arvix version”
Hasn’t prevented citations e,g, Jones, Lockwood, and Stott (2012) as cited in IPCC AR5 Chapter 8: Radiative Forcing:
“[25] How much change there has been in historic TSI is
still open to much uncertainty. One very recent study produces
a reconstruction that gives an increase in TSI since the
Maunder Minimum of 6 W m-2 [Shapiro et al., 2011], over
twice as large as even the L00 TSI reconstruction, while
another study claims that the very quiet Sun in 2009 is
characteristic of the Sun during the Maunder Minimum
[Schrijver et al., 2011], supporting the small increase seen in
K07 and L09.
http://www.eiscat.rl.ac.uk/Members/mike/publications/pdfs/2012/283_Jonesetal_2011JD017013.pdf
Of course Jones, Lockwood, and Stott picked the least-case for K07 and L09 – can’t have anything inconvenient interfering with the meme. Lockwood has changed his stance considerably since his more recent papers have opened his eyes i.e. AR5 is already out of date.
>”However we are only talking about a forcing of 1 W/m2. This is only half of the current anthropogenic forcing and about 1/5 of projected future anthropogenic forcing. Which means the possibility of a Maunder minimum in the next few decades isn’t a reason to ignore anthropogenic GHGs’
The forcing is only in terms of IPCC RF methodology, the flux difference is 6 W.m-2 peak to trough LIA – CWP. That is significant, especially if the reverse happens abruptly which as Lockwood notes is a historical feature and the early indications are that this is exactly what is happening:
‘Real risk of a Maunder minimum ‘Little Ice Age’ says leading scientist’
According to Professor Lockwood the late 20th century was a period when the sun was unusually active and a so called ‘grand maximum’ occurred around 1985. Since then the sun has been getting quieter. By looking back at certain isotopes in ice cores, he has been able to determine how active the sun has been over thousands of years. Following analysis of the data, Professor Lockwood believes solar activity is now falling more rapidly than at any time in the last 10,000 years. He found 24 different occasions in the last 10,000 years when the sun was in exactly the same state as it is now – and the present decline is faster than any of those 24. Based on his findings he’s raised the risk of a new Maunder minimum from less than 10% just a few years ago to 25-30%. And a repeat of the Dalton solar minimum which occurred in the early 1800s, which also had its fair share of cold winters and poor summers, is, according to him, ‘more likely than not’ to happen.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/entries/6d50a6bd-779a-32d6-bfca-06e4484d6835
And you’ve avoided my question re CO2 forcing MWP – LIA Frank. The solar forcing, whatever it was was obviously opposite to LIA – Present so we have a coherent sequence:
Warm sun/climate(MWP) => cool sun/climate(LIA) =. warm sun/climate(CWP).
Which is why Jay Overpeck, senior adviser to the IPCC, made the fatal error of mistaking Dr David Deming as one of the team, emailing him with:
“We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.”
U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works
Hearing Statements
Date: 12/06/2006
Statement of Dr. David Deming
http://www.epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=266543
Problem is for CO2 forcing proponents such as yourself Frank, there was no CO2 forcing MWP – LIA: http://iter.rma.ac.be/en/img/CO2-concenNEW_EN.jpg
Hence Overpeck’s dilemma. It is impossible to attribute LIA – CWP warming to CO2 forcing if there is no corresponding forcing in reverse to explain MWP – LIA cooling. Solar on the other hand has both the requisite elements.
But back to your assertion re the future scenario. A solar reduction whatever it turns out to be, is a loss of ‘real’ power (i.e. power that does real work). That loss flows through to the rest of the system including DLR of which CO2 is only about 2% @ say 6/300 (see Wand & Liang 2009 upthread) but the power to do work is progressively degraded as intensity and wavelength dissipates. DLR is very limited in the work it does on the ocean but that work is an enhanced evaporative effect which obviously increments latent heat. That effect will necessarily reduce because the upstream energy flow is reducing in the solar scenario..
The models impute far too much heat to the ocean, reason being the RF methodology that bypasses the physics of the AO interface. Complicating the results are an incorrect treatment of solar and evaporation (to say the least). I’ve just looked at an older paper in a thread at CCG:
‘Anthropogenic Warming of the Oceans: Observations and Model Results’
Pierce, Barnett, AchutaRao, Gleckler, Gregory (2005)
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2014/12/hotwhopper-wrong-on-ocean-heat/#comment-1255524 (see corrections in following comments).
These 2 graphs tell the sorry tale:
Figure 6 [page 46]: Time series of yearly global volume average temperature anomaly (0-700 m), at dd sampled points only. Left panel: from observations (bottom, thick line) and 12 PCM ensemble members with anthropogenic forcing estimated over the historical period. Right panel: from the PCM control run with natural internal climate variability alone. Curves are offset by 0.12 C; ensemble member case IDs are given along the right edge.
Figure 13 [page 53]: Components of the surface heat flux, by ocean (and world: lower right) from the PCM anthropogenically forced runs. Values are anomalies relative to the first 40 years, averaged by decade. For all components, positive values act to warm the surface. The whiskerplots show the mean, interquartile range, and minimum/maximum of the ensembles.
PCM ocean temperature is up to 1.5 C too hot which is way out of the ballpark. And they have solar and latent reducing from 1880 (as if). When realistic vales are substituted in an in-situ example, the anthropogenic effect is clearly negligible.
Richard wrote: “The forcing is only in terms of IPCC RF methodology, the flux difference is 6 W.m-2 peak to trough LIA – CWP”
Frank replies: There is a difference between a 6 W/m2 change in solar flux and a global radiative forcing here on earth. To get mean global solar power delivered the the planet, 1365 W/m2 is divided by 4 (the ratio of the surface area of a sphere to a disk) and the multiplied by 0.7 (1 minus albedo). This procedure converts a 6 W/m2 change in solar flux into a 1 W/m2 forcing. (You can find the same conversions in the Shapiro paper.) We have already experienced most of the warming expected from a +2 W/m2 forcing and are likely to experience warming from another 4 W/m2 of forcing in the next century. If the sun is going to save us, we may need more than another Maunder.
Or you can think of the change in percentage terms: -6 W/m2 is an -0.44% change in 1365 W/m2. Then you can apply the below differential version of the S-B equation (which is only useful for small changes) and conclude that this forcing will cause a 0.11% decrease in temperature before feedbacks.
dW/W = 4*(dT/T)
In this case, T = 255 degK, the blackbody equivalent temperature for the planet, so dT is about -0.28 degK. If you agree with the IPCC and believe ECS is 3.0 (I prefer 2 degC), a 6 W/m2 decrease in solar output will produce 0.84 degC of cooling at equilibrium, restoring the less friendly climate that existed about a century ago.
If you assume a 50 m mixed layer, a -1 W/m2 radiative imbalance can cool the planet at an initial rate of 0.2 degC/yr. After about two years, the radiative imbalance will be cut in half and some some exchange with the deeper ocean will have occurred, slowing the rate of warming. In theory, we should experience most of this change 5-10 years. For periods of time this short, TCR is more relevant that ECS and the total change will be about 0.5 degC. It would be fun to read AR6 after a temperature drop of this size, but previous minima required three solar cycles to develop and we haven’t finished the first weakening cycle. So this 0.5 degC drop would take about 25 years to develop. Meanwhile GHG’s would be going up, perhaps restoring the +0.2 degC/decade rise expected by the IPCC and observed at the end of the 20th century. Another Maunder minimum of this size (-6 W/m2) would merely extend the current hiatus, not create another LIA.
Since Shapiro’s paper was never published, we can assume someone found something scientifically (or politically) objectionable. If the problems were purely political, it could have been sent to other journals. WG1 is not supposed to cite work that has not appeared in a peer-reviewed journal, but authors don’t know the final fate of any manuscript while drafts of the IPCC’s reports are being written. IMO, the IPCC shouldn’t cite any papers that are in the process of being published. The scientific process isn’t complete until the scientific community has had a chance to read a paper and submit a comment or reply to the publishing journal. The same document could be sent to IPCC authors to warn them that a controversy exists. Policymakers rarely need to know about the latest controversial developments in a field (the hockey stick, for example); they need reliable information.
“This procedure converts a 6 W/m2 change in solar flux into a 1 W/m2 forcing”
Yes I know the IPCC’s TOA RF methodology (as bogus as it is) but a change of flux is a change of flux at the surface. What we are concerned about is the solar flux that actually reaches the surface i.e. you can substitute actual fluxes (but not “forcings”) in an in-situ example e.g. Fairall et al (1996) tropical West Pacific:
Model ocean heat (PCM) vs Observations
Observations
Cool-skin and warm-layer effects on sea surface temperature
Fairall, Bradley, Godfrey, Wick, Edson, and Young (1996)
Rns 191.5 Fairall et al (1996) tropical west Pacific
-Q = Rnl – Hs – Hl
-168.1 = -57.1 -7.7 -103.3
191.5 – 168.1 = 23.4 W/m2 ocean heat gain in the tropical west Pacific
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/95JC03190/abstract
Model PCM (but see also HadCM3
‘Anthropogenic Warming of the Oceans: Observations and Model Results’
Pierce, Barnett, AchutaRao, Gleckler, Gregory (2005)
Abstract
Analysis of PCM’s heat budget [a model] indicates the warming is driven by an increase in net
surface heat flux that reaches 0.7 watts m-2 by the 1990s; the downward longwave flux [DLR]
increases by 3.7 watts m-2, which is not fully compensated by an increase in the upward
longwave flux of 2.2 watts m-2 [resulting in a net LW increase by about 1.5 watts m-2 (Rnl) ]
Latent and net solar heat flux each decrease by about 0.6 watts m=2 [decrease?]
The sensible heat flux increases by about 0.6 watts m-2.
http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~pierce/docs/pierce_et_al_jcli939_rev2B.pdf
Typical net longwave (Rnl) from Fairall et all is -57 by the 1990s (tropics). Applying PCM changes from above we get initial 1880 state assuming realistic solar change of about +3 W.m-2 instead of -0.6 (Pierce et al):
Rns 188.5 (1880 assumed)
-Q = Rnl – Hs – Hl
-167.8 = -55.6 -8.3 -103.9
188.5 – 167.8 = 20.7 W/m2 ocean heat gain in the tropical west Pacific (1880)
With unrealistic latent decrease: 23.4 (1990s) – 20.7 (1880) = 2.7 W.m-2 increase over 120 years using a combination of model and observation assumptions, IPCC atmospheric forcing from 1750 is 1.6 W.m=2 (included in DLR, therefore net Rnl)) but which cannot heat the ocean.
With latent remaining the same: 23.4 – 21.3 = 2.1 W.m-2 tropical ocean heat gain 1880 – 2000. No part to play for anthropogenic forcing once solar (+3) and latent heat forcing becoming realistic.
With latent increasing +0.6 more realistically: 23.4 – 21.9 = 1.5 W.m-2 change. No part to play for anthropogenic forcing because solar is +3 i.e. an increase of +3 solar means an increase of +1.5 ocean heat gain because, realistically, increased DLR of +3.7 increases latent heat of evaporation (ocean cooling contrary to spurious model heating) rather than impossibly heating beyond the surface as modeled.
Obviously the models get ocean heat horribly wrong using RF methodology as demonstrated by Pierce et al:
Figure 6 [page 46]: Time series of yearly global volume average temperature anomaly (0-700 m), at dd sampled points only. Left panel: from observations (bottom, thick line) and 12 PCM ensemble members with anthropogenic forcing estimated over the historical period.
And horribly wrong as demonstrated by the CMIP5 model mean temperature 0-700m:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/ocean/argo/argo-0-700m-v-models-sept-2013-update.png
The models impute far to much heat to the ocean by un-physical (bypassing physics of AO interface) TOA RF methodology.
>”In theory, we should experience most of this change 5-10 years”
No, the solar-temperature lag in the timeframe of millennial change MWP- LIA – CMP is 30 – 40 years. This was established upthread by X.H. Zhao and X.S. Feng (2014). The first indication of solar fall-temperature fall will only be discernable after a planetary thermal lag of about 14 years (Abdussamatov). 2005 + 14 = 2019 but minimal. The major effect will be 2005 + 30 to 40 = 2035 – 2045.
>”So this 0.5 degC drop would take about 25 years to develop”
Almost there. 2005 + 25 = 2030.
>”Meanwhile GHG’s would be going up, perhaps restoring the +0.2 degC/decade rise”
No, that’s the thermodynamically impossible perpetuum mobile again Frank. Google it an look at Images for perpetuum mobile.
The major components of DLR (around 400 W.m-2 Darwin) are:
1) Air temperature
2) Water vapour (H2O gas – the major GHG). Clouds (H2O liquid)
The minor components of DLR are:
1) Carbon dioxide (6 W.m-2 at 1976 US standard atmosphere – Wang & Liang 2009)
2) The rest of the GHGs.
In the last 2 decades (1990s – 2000s), DLR increased on average 2 W.m-2/decade (Wild) but the trends were not consistent globally (up and down – see upthread). Since 2000 there has been no temperature rise as a result i.e. the posited climate forcing is ineffectual even at 2 W.m-2/decade.
>”Since Shapiro’s paper was never published, we can assume someone found something scientifically (or politically) objectionable.”
I don’t what you’re on about here Frank (you wrongly “assume”). The paper was published and there was never anything “objectionable” about it (115 citations – see below). Here’s the citation in Jones, Lockwood, and Stott (2012):
Shapiro, A. I., et al. (2011), A new approach to the long-term reconstruction
of the solar irradiance leads to large historical solar forcing, Astron.
Astrophys., in press.
So the paper was “in press” at that time i.e. been accepted for publication but had not yet been formally published and did not yet have the complete volume/issue/page information. In 2014 here’s the paper at the publishers:
Comments: 9 pages, 5 figures, accepted for publication in Astronomy&Astrophysics
Subjects: Solar and Stellar Astrophysics (astro-ph.SR)
Cite as: arXiv:1102.4763 [astro-ph.SR]
(or arXiv:1102.4763v1 [astro-ph.SR] for this version)
http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.4763
The paper was never withdrawn, it’s published i.e. no longer “in press”. Corroboration by Harvard:
Publication: Astronomy & Astrophysics, Volume 529, id.A67, 8 pp. (A&A Homepage)
Publication Date: 05/2011
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201016173
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/bib_query?arXiv:1102.4763
Google Scholar says “Cited by 115” i.e. the paper is a seminal work. WGI do not cite the paper. Jones, Lockwood, and Stott cite the paper, WGI cites Jones,Lockwood, and Stott citing the paper but dismissing it out of hand:
[25] How much change there has been in historic TSI is
still open to much uncertainty. One very recent study produces
a reconstruction that gives an increase in TSI since the
Maunder Minimum of 6 W m2 [Shapiro et al., 2011], over
twice as large as even the L00 TSI reconstruction, while
another study claims that the very quiet Sun in 2009 is
characteristic of the Sun during the Maunder Minimum
[Schrijver et al., 2011], supporting the small increase seen in
K07 and L09 [what they used].
Get that Frank? [Jones et al] – “…the very quiet Sun in 2009 is characteristic of the Sun during the Maunder Minimum”.
The minimally changed sun in 2009 was simply the start of the long-term solar recession on a bicentennial scale possibly millennial, certainly not characteristic of the Maunder Minimum. And as as I’ve shown upthread, Lockwood has since recanted that former notion in a big way.
>”The major components of DLR (around 400 W.m-2 Darwin) are:…………2) ……..Clouds (H2O liquid)” [and aerosols]
Hence dimming/brightening:
Martin Wild, 2012: Enlightening Global Dimming and Brightening. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 93, 27–37.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00074.1
WHAT OBSERVATIONS TELL.
Fig. 2. [page 29] Changes in surface solar radiation [SSR] observed in regions with good station coverage during three periods. (left column) The 1950s– 1980s show predominant declines (“dimming”), (middle column) the 1980s–2000 indicate partial recoveries (“brightening”) at many locations, except India, and (right column) recent developments after 2000 show mixed tendencies. Numbers denote typical literature estimates for the specified region and period in W m–2 per decade. Based on various sources as referenced in Wild (2009).
Average USA/Europe/China-Mongolia/Japan/India:
1950s-1980s: -4.8 W.m-2
1980s-2000: +2.0 W.m-2
After 2000: -0.6 W.m-2
Table 1. [page 33] Magnitudes of linear 2-m temperature trends shown in Fig. 4 during dimming and brightening phases in the NH………Units °C decade–1.
Dimming phase (1958–85)
Observed T trend NH −0.002
Model-calculated T trend NH +0.12
Brightening phase (1985–2000)
Observed T trend NH +0.29
Model-calculated T trend NH +0.19
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS AND PERSPECTIVES.
The latest updates on solar radiation changes observed since the new millennium show no globally coherent trends anymore (see above and Fig. 2). While brightening persists to some extent
in Europe and the United States, there are indications for a renewed dimming in China associated with the tremendous emission increases there after 2000, as well as unabated dimming in India (Streets et al. 2009; Wild et al. 2009).
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00074.1
Cloud/aerosol forcing range 1950s to 2000+:
-10 W.m-2 to +8 W.m-2. Sfc
By comparison, the current rate of CO2 forcing is:
+0.3 Wm-2/decade.TOA
It is impossible to detect +0.3 CO2 forcing among SSR fluctuations at the surface of -10 to +8. Neither will CO2 forcing of +0.3 have made any difference among SSR after 2000:
+8 USA
+3 Europe
-4 China/Mongolia
0 Japan
-10 India
>”Average [SSR] USA/Europe/China-Mongolia/Japan/India:
1950s-1980s: -4.8 W.m-2
1980s-2000: +2.0 W.m-2
After 2000: -0.6 W.m-2″
3 decades x -4.8 = -14.4 W.m-2 SSR 1950s-1980s
3 decades x +0.2 = +0.6 W.m-2 CO2 1950s-1980s (roughly)
2 decades x +2.0 = +4.0 W.m-2 SSR 1980s-2000
2 decades x +0.3 = +0.6 W.m-2 CO2 1980s-2000 (roughly)
1 decade x -0.6 = -0.6 W,m-2 SSR after 2000
1 decade x +0.3 = +0.3 W,m-2 CO2 after 2000 (calculated)
SSR was obviously the radiative temperature driver 1950-2010 – not CO2. And Shapiro et al’s +6 W.m-2 LIA-CWP doesn’t look out of place does it?
Confusing, sorry. The rationale is this:
Air (if it has temperature it radiates as per S-B), clouds and GHGs radiate long-wave in all directions including DLR.
Clouds and aerosols block SSR (decadal/multi-decadal timeframe).
The secular trend (not oscillations or dimming/brightening) in air temperature is driven by solar levels over the millennial timeframe e.g. MWP – LIA – CWP. CO2 cannot be this driver because there was no change in CO2 levels MWP – LIA according to the ice cores which form the early part of historical CO2 levels.
Correction:
>”The major components of DLR (around 400 W.m-2 Darwin) are:…………2) ……..Clouds (H2O liquid)” [and aerosols]”
No not aerosols. Was confusing DLR with SSR and dimming/brightening..
Richard wrote: “Yes I know the IPCC’s TOA RF methodology (as bogus as it is) but a change of flux is a change of flux at the surface. What we are concerned about is the solar flux that actually reaches the surface.”
There is nothing bogus about radiative forcing. It is simply a method of applying the law of conservation of energy to the earth, except we use units of energy/time/m2 instead of just energy. Every time you treat 1 W/m2 of incoming SWR differently than a 1 W/m2 of OLR, you will mislead yourself and others. That applies to the -0.5 or -1 W/m2 radiative forcing during the Maunder minimum – that could be coming again – and the 2 W/m2 current anthropogenic forcing.
SWR that is absorbed in the troposphere indirectly warms the surface. Convection develops when the temperature gradient in the troposphere becomes to steep. When SWR is absorbed anywhere in the troposphere, it reduces that gradient and convection, thereby warming the surface.
>”There is nothing bogus about radiative forcing”
Yes there is. The IPCC’s RF methodology is in respect to 1750 but there is an 80 year “fudge” to fit the Law Dome ice core data to the Mauna Loa data. It doesn’t fit otherwise i.e. the datasets are disparate.
And you still have not addressed the issue that there was no CO2 forcing MWP – LIA i.e. prior to 1750 when the IPCC’s RF methodology begins.
>’Every time you treat 1 W/m2 of incoming SWR differently than a 1 W/m2 of OLR, you will mislead yourself and others”
Since when have I done that Frank? You lie on my behalf. Don’t do that.
I treat the heating effect on matter for DSR differently to DLR (not “OLR” as you lie) because the physics necessitates that. UV-A acts differently on skin (down through dermis) than UV-B (only burns the epidermis). Medical laser surgery would not be possible without determining the different effects of radiation in the different spectral bands. Same for IR-A/B in the DSR band vs IR-C in the DLR band – different heating effects. IR-A/B penetrates water effectively down to 1m, IR-C only penetrates effectively down to 10 microns.
>”SWR that is absorbed in the troposphere indirectly warms the surface. Convection develops when the temperature gradient in the troposphere becomes to steep. When SWR is absorbed anywhere in the troposphere, it reduces that gradient and convection, thereby warming the surface.”
DSW absorbed by the troposphere is the minor surface heating component. The major component is SSR (see graphic at link):
INCOMING SOLAR RADIATION
Incoming ultraviolet, visible, and a limited portion of infrared energy (together sometimes called “shortwave radiation”) from the Sun drive the Earth’s climate system. Some of this incoming radiation is reflected off clouds, some is absorbed by the atmosphere, and some passes through to the Earth’s surface. Larger aerosol particles in the atmosphere interact with and absorb some of the radiation, causing the atmosphere to warm. The heat generated by this absorption is emitted as longwave infrared radiation, some of which radiates out into space.
http://missionscience.nasa.gov/ems/13_radiationbudget.html
The difference is 161 vs 78 according to K&T:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Topics/Fig1_GheatMap.png
The 333 W.m-2 DLR is rather more than, and includes, the 78 W.m-2 but at a different wavelength, therefore the “absorbed by surface” is only the top 10 microns of ocean i.e. evaporative cooling at the surface. The bulk ocean heating is by the 161 DSR.
>”Same for IR-A/B in the DSR band vs IR-C in the DLR band – different heating effects. IR-A/B penetrates water effectively down to 1m, IR-C only penetrates effectively down to 10 microns.”
Hale & Querry (1973)
http://omlc.org/spectra/water/gif/hale73.gif
Corroboration:
Optical Absorption of Water Compendium
http://omlc.org/spectra/water/abs/index.html
>”UV-A acts differently on skin [heats down through epidermis and dermis] than UV-B [burns the epidermis nut not the dermis]. Medical laser surgery would not be possible without determining the different effects of radiation in the different spectral bands. Same for IR-A/B in the DSR band vs IR-C in the DLR band – different heating effects.”
Same for Ionizing and non-ionizing radiation:
‘Ionizing & Non-Ionizing Radiation’
Radiation having a wide range of energies form the electromagnetic spectrum, which is illustrated below. The spectrum has two major divisions:
non-ionizing radiation [hotlink]
ionizing radiation [hotlink]
Radiation that has enough energy to move atoms in a molecule around or cause them to vibrate, but not enough to remove electrons, is referred to as “non-ionizing radiation.” Examples of this kind of radiation are sound waves, visible light, and microwaves.
Radiation that falls within the ionizing radiation” range has enough energy to remove tightly bound electrons from atoms, thus creating ions. This is the type of radiation that people usually think of as ‘radiation.’ We take advantage of its properties to generate electric power, to kill cancer cells, and in many manufacturing processes.
The energy of the radiation shown on the spectrum below increases from left to right as the frequency rises.[see graphic]
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/understand/ionize_nonionize.html
Note ionizing radiation “damages DNA”. According to your physics Frank, there shouldn’t be the distinction. All radiation acts exactly the same on any matter; the effect of UV-A on the human body is exactly the same as UV-B and exactly the same as gamma rays in your world-of-physics.
Now I get the picture on solar activity. Schrijver thinks we are already in a period like the Maunder Minimum. Shapiro thinks the Maunder Minimum was 6 W/m2 lower than today. Lockwood has recanted his earlier views about Shapiro, but he titled his 2014 essay at Climate Dialogue “The sun plays only a very minor role”. And the Shapiro paper, with 115 citations, was never published in a journal. Reminds me of the story about the six blind men and the elephant (:)).
>”And the Shapiro paper, with 115 citations, was never published in a journal.”
Yes it was published in a journal Frank, I’ve proved that upthread. There are also a number of citations. I don’t think anywhere near 115 as Google Scholar says though. That doesn’t stack up. There’s a lot of papers in the list of 115 from before Shapiro et al was even published so those are impossible “cited by”s. It’s a seminal paper but it’s not definitive.
>”Reminds me of the story about the six blind men and the elephant (:))”
Well yes, the solar prognosis is fraught, both historical and future. The IPCC do not even have a chapter dedicated to solar. The NIPCC does (Chapter 3) and there’s dozens of citations but even that’s not exhaustive. And like AR5 already out of date. I’ve read an earlier Lockwood paper that states to the effect that the next 5 years or so should provide enough information to make better assessments. both for the past and the future. By then (about 2020) GMST will be telling a story too.
In other words, any temperature prediction, either warming or cooling is premature at this juncture.
Richard: Sensationalized blogs by BBC weathermen are not science. Professor Lockwood has not found signs that the sun is in exactly the same state as it was before 24 other declines in solar activity over the last 10,000 years. The data from the last 10,000 years comes from Be-10 in ice cores, and we don’t have such data for the last 30+ years. Professor Lockwood may believe that current observations are similar to those in the past, but the scientific process requires writing a paper on the subject and seeing if it is sound enough to get past fair, but skeptical, reviewers.
You don’t have to convince me with information about Overpeck and Deming, that the IPCC’s SPM’s are political, not scientific, documents. Steven Schneider’s infamous quote clearly explains the difference between science (the truth, the whole truth … with all of the caveats..) and “making the world a better place”, i.e. advocacy (publicity, telling scary stories, over-simplifying, hiding doubts …) and I deeply resent their corruption of my profession (science). On the other hand, I hate seeing skeptics make stupid mistakes about reliable science. And sometimes I learn something from questioning other skeptics who know something about unfamiliar subjects like the sun.
>”Professor Lockwood may believe that current observations are similar to those in the past, but the scientific process requires writing a paper on the subject and seeing if it is sound enough to get past fair, but skeptical, reviewers.”
He did just that:
Lockwood, M. and Owens, M. J. (2014) Implications of the recent low solar minimum for the solar wind during the Maunder minimum. The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 781 (1). L7. ISSN 0004-637X doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/781/1/L7
http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/users/users/1353
The paper you cite is about reconstructing the solar wind, not TSI.
>”The paper you cite is about reconstructing the solar wind, not TSI”
Which is why I had already issued the correction next comment below.
I’ve since contacted Mike Lockwood, his response is here:
http://www.kiwithinker.com/2014/10/an-empirical-look-at-recent-trends-in-the-greenhouse-effect/#comment-12144
Correction (wrong paper above):
>”Professor Lockwood may believe that current observations are similar to those in the past, but the scientific process requires writing a paper on the subject and seeing if it is sound enough to get past fair, but skeptical, reviewers.”
The relevant passage is this from the BBC:
“By looking back at certain isotopes in ice cores, he has been able to determine how active the sun has been over thousands of years. Following analysis of the data, Professor Lockwood believes solar activity is now falling more rapidly than at any time in the last 10,000 years. He found 24 different occasions in the last 10,000 years when the sun was in exactly the same state as it is now – and the present decline is faster than any of those 24.”
That does not necessarily require published material , I suspect anyone can do that given the data.
I don’t know whether Lockwood has published this or whether it was just a quick observation as I suggest, he’s a very prolific author so it might just have been a quick search rather than contained in his list of papers somewhere here:
http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/users/users/1353
If in fact “He found 24 different occasions in the last 10,000 years when the sun was in exactly the same state as it is now – and the present decline is faster than any of those 24.” it is immaterial whether it is published material because he will be able to back this up with evidence from data. I’ll email him to find out. Meantime there’s this to start with that indicates his thinking over time rather than the paper above:
Lockwood, M., Owens, M., Barnard, L., Davis, C. and Thomas, S. (2012) Solar cycle 24: what is the sun up to? Astronomy and Geophysics, 53 (3). 3.09-3.15. ISSN 1366-8781 doi: 10.1111/j.1468-4004.2012.53309.x
Abstract/Summary
March 2012 brought the first solar and geomagnetic disturbances of any note during solar cycle 24. But perhaps what was most remarkable about these events was how unremarkable they were compared to others during the space-age, attracting attention only because solar activity had been so quiet. This follows an exceptionally low and long-lived solar cycle minimum, and so the current cycle looks likely to extend a long-term decline in solar activity that started around 1985 and that could even lead to conditions similar to the Maunder minimum within 40 years from now, with implications for solar-terrestrial science and the mitigation of space weather hazards and maybe even for climate in certain regions and seasons.
http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/28364/
That was 2012, Paul Hudson interviewed him around Oct 2013 so it’s his subsequent reasoning after that 2012 paper and before Oct 2013 I’m after. I don’t think it is necessarily a published finding, it is more likely just a simple indication from data – no need for a paper. I’ll ask him.
Shapiro et al arrive at 6 W.m-2 LIA – CWP. Steinhilber and Beer (2013) arrive at 1 W.m-2 so their future scenario is necessarily less but they still predict Dalton Minimum conditions by 2100:
‘Prediction of solar activity for the next 500 years’
Friedhelm Steinhilber1 and Jürg Beer1
Received 18 May 2012; revised 18 February 2013; accepted 2 March 2013.
http://www.eawag.ch/forschung/surf/publikationen/2013/2013_steinhilber.pdf
Figure 4. Prediction of solar activity (Φ on the left y axis and total solar irradiance (TSI) on the right y axis) for the next 500 years using the same parameters as for the tests with data of the past. The black curve depicts the solar activity reconstruction. Bright grey band: FFT method results using different numbers of lines and calibration windows with a length of 4000 and 6000 years. Dark grey band:WTAR method results
using different combinations of scales and AR model orders and the two calibration windows (4000 and 6000 years). Grand solar minima in the past known from sunspot numbers are marked with capital letters (M: Maunder, D: Dalton, G: Gleissberg).
Note that TSI is given as the difference to the value of the PMOD composite during the solar cycle minimum of the year 1986 A.D. (1365.57 W m2) [Frohlich, 2009].
6. Conclusions
[27] Based on the past millennia of solar magnetic activity derived from cosmogenic radionuclides, our two methods predict a clear decrease in solar activity, reaching a minimum comparable to the Dalton minimum around 2100 A.D., in good agreement with previous predictions.
# # #
Except Steinhilber and Beer only have a 0.4 W.m-2 difference 1986 – 2040. The difference between SC 22 and SC 23 minima was already 0.3 W.m-2 in PMOD by 2009:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod
Steinhilber and Beer’s (2013) prognosis was already overtaken by events even before they penned their paper. Their prognosis is simply not credible. Adussamatov’s trajectory, which is almost the inverse of Shapiro et al’s historical, is on track because he accounts for the SC’s 21 – 22 – 23 fall of -0.4 W.m-2 (Steinhilber and Beer predict this at 2040). Abdussamatov had the average of SC 22 minus average SC 23, 1365.99 – 1365.84 = -0.15 W.m-2, and the SC 22 – SC 23 minima change of = -0.3 W.m-2, and the overall -0.4 W.m-2 change to 2011, all correct:
Abdussamatov Figure 2 PMOD change -0.4 W.m-2 2011
http://nextgrandminimum.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/figure-2-tsi-variations.png?w=640&h=475
Abdussamatov Figure 1 prognosis change -5.75 W.m-2 2040
http://omicsgroup.org/journals/2329-6755/images/2329-6755-2-113-g005.gif
An initial reply by Mike Lockwood:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On the probability of a new maunder minimum the basic idea was published in two papers:
M. Lockwood
►Solar change and climate: an update in the light of the current exceptional solar minimum
Proc. R. Soc. A, 466 303–329, doi:10.1098/rspa.2009.0519, 2010
http://www.eiscat.rl.ac.uk/Members/mike/publications/pdfs/2010/261_Lockwood_RSPA2010.pdf
L. Barnard, M. Lockwood, M.A. Hapgood, M.J. Owens, C.J. Davis, and F. Steinhilber
►Predicting Space Climate Change
Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L16103, doi:10.1029/2011GL048489, 2011
http://www.eiscat.rl.ac.uk/Members/mike/publications/pdfs/2011/277_Barnard_2011GL048489.pdf
N.B. the Reading repository (Centaur) links to those two papers are
http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/7205/
and
http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/22909/
(but Ive just noticed that only the second of those has the final version of the paper attached, I need to get that entered for the first one too)
I do have another unpublished paper which does increase the probability a little bit because I looked at the speed of the current descent (which is actually seems to be faster than any in the previous 9300 years) and in the past the faster descents were more likely to yield a grand minimum. I did the work well over a year ago now but I need to get on and write it up (been kept too busy with University admin).
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So, a work-in-progress obviously.
I’ve quizzed Mike on Steinhilber and Beer’s (2013) prognosis being wrong even before publication, that’s this:
http://kaltesonne.de/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/mar6.gif
They predict -0.4 W.m-2 by 2040. They were already wrong before publication, -0.4 occurred by 2011. I’ve asked Mike his view on this and what that means for his work and for Schrijver et al.from which Mike takes his least-case scenario (and asked how S&B13 got through peer review?). I’ve shown too that Abdussamatov is on track on the other hand, which tends to indicate that Shapiro et al might have been a bit more realistic even if the actual scenario may not play out in reverse over the full extent of their extreme range.
Climate change and global warming are true but sad realities of our world today.
Even if we are just simple persons on this planet, we can all do something to stop CO2 emissions at least in our area.
We can become more energy efficient, we can use less resources to help the environment how we can.
It is good that presidents like Obama and Holland we are also fighting along with us to eradicate climate change because this way we can prevail.
http://www.alternative-energies.net/a-few-solutions-to-fight-climate-change-in-2015/
5 star ranking?
Pingback: The Curious Case of Dr. Miskolczi | Science Matters