Ferenc Miskolczi
Well here’s a nice surprise. Out of the blue, Dr Ferenc Miskolczi has dropped a link onto Tim Channon’s thread, which goes to his major new paper, published by the SEI. So we are privileged to be among the first to read it and start a discussion. It challenges the entire basis of the IPCC AGW theory by deriving a theoretical atmosphere which fits observations and demonstrates stability of the Earth’s radiative balance. Thanks Ferenc!
Ferenc Mikolczi 2014 Abstract
Figure 15 is especially interesting
From the ‘Radiative Equilibrium Cloud Cover’ section:
The ACA = OLR and ECD = OLRC equalities put the full control of the planetary radiative equilibrium into the hand of the global average cloud cover.
From the Conclusions section:
Of course the whole dynamically controlled system
has no real instantaneous equilibrium state. However,
the radial (or mass) oscillation of the system will be
able to handle the energy conservation and energy
minimum principles as required by the time constants
of the different latent heat reservoirs. In summary, the
complex task of the relatively fast responding global
mean cloud cover is to assure the conservation of
radiant energy and momentum on a global scale,
maximize the LW cooling to space (radiative
equilibrium), while observing the thermodynamic
constraints applicable to large heterogeneous systems
(Maxwell rule).
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
https://www.facebook.com/groups/446446425385858/
Derek Alker
9 December at 20:20
NEWS FLASH.
http://www.seipub.org/des/paperInfo.aspx?ID=21810
The Greenhouse Effect and the Infrared Radiative Structure of the Earth’s Atmosphere
Ferenc Mark Miskolczi
Geodetic and Geophysical Institute, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Csatkai Endre u. 6-8, 9400 Sopron, Hungary [email]
Development in Earth Science Volume 2, 2014
Excerpts –
“In steady state, the planetary surface (as seen from space) shows no greenhouse effect:”
and,
“The quantitative proof of the radiative equilibrium state of the Earth-atmosphere system is alone a remarkable achievement of planetary science. The proposition here is to consider the global average cloud cover as the only component of the climate system, which is able to respond to and regulate the planetary radiation budget in a relatively short time. The greenhouse effect of the Earth’s atmosphere is a global scale equilibrium process which rests on the chaotic nature of the humidity field and the stability of the total atmospheric mass. Consequently, none of any local or regional weather phenomenon is related directly to its magnitude and tendency.”
and,
“In our view the greenhouse phenomenon, as it was postulated by J. Fourier (1824), estimated by S. Arrhenius (1906), first quantified by S. Manabe and R. Wetherald (1967), explained by R. Lindzen (2007), and endorsed by the National Academy of Science and the Royal Society (2014), simply does not exist.”
WOW, I need to read this through quite slowly, then comment..
I later added –
As I understand at present (before reading the paper – I have only “skimmed” it to date) this paper continues from his previous works, in that, until this paper Dr. Miskolczi thought that the radiative version of GH “theory” and real world measurements showed a constant effect (ie, no AGW), for the reasons you mentioned, but now he is showing, for those reasons, the real world measurements show no effect (ie, no GH effect, period) … THAT is a major shift, a major step forward in our best understanding at present, all based upon the radiative version of the false GH “theory” (so many so called “skeptics “hide” behind) when applied to, and tested by, real world measurements….
No wonder Hansen got rid of Dr. Miskolczi, Hansen KNEW what was inevitably coming….
and, later added –
Excerpts – Dr. Miskolczi writes –
“The energy conservation rule and virial rule, Eqs. (5,6) are valid for only the global averages.”
and,
“Each planet or moon in the solar system has its own distinct physical condition and in each case the radiative transfer problem must be formulated individually.”
End of excerpts.
The first excerpt. At last, someone actually saying only applies to a divorced from the actual processes involved (read physics involved) averages….. YET, there are overall laws that every system has to abide by, some way or other. Explaining that, for a particular system, physically, is the aim. I am not sure Dr. Miskolczi has, given some of the assumptions he uses, BUT, he does appear to be moving towards within the climate system, things other than radiative transfer have to be taken into account, and that they are probably more important / dominant. That said, he does not appear to have gone that far in this paper from my first reading of it, but I may be wrong….
The second excerpt is very interesting, in that I think it covers so much. Each planet and moon is a different system, so they should not be directly compared. In short, forget Venus, Mars, etc, they are different systems, that will have to be explained differently…. YET, GH “theory” is based upon explaining the question “Why is earth’s surface 33K warmer than it would otherwise be”… That question is comparing the surface temperature as predicted by the bare earth model, which is a black body model, to the temperature we measure on earth with oceans and an atmosphere. Two completely different systems, that should not be directly compared. When people try to explain their answer to the question the moon is quite often referenced or mentioned, but that is another system, it is a real body, not a black body, with no atmosphere to talk of. The logic of the excerpt is that different systems can not be directly compared as the same, YET, most people explain the supposed 33K “effect” at earth’s surface with a direct comparison of 3 very different systems, namely a black body, the moon (a real body, that P/4 does not apply to, and with no atmosphere) and the earth (that is also a real body, that P/4 does not apply to, and it also has oceans, with water in 3 phases, in an atmosphere)…
End of excerpts.
Interestingly Dr. Miskolczi states in this paper there will be more papers along this line of investigation, noting what he raises in this paper, and some of the people he acknowledges and thanks for their help with this paper, it is fairly obvious what the direction the future papers will be going in.
Ok, I am off to read his paper again, and no doubt again and again..
I hope Ferenc might be able to assist me with the following passage from Baron Fourier’s 1824 work, to which he makes reference:
This distinction of luminous and non-luminous heat, explains the elevation of temperature caused by transparent bodies. The mass of waters which cover a great part of the globe, and the ice of the polar regions, oppose a less obstacle to the admission of luminous heat, than to the heat without light. [Fourier understood that long wave ‘back radiation’ doesn’t heat the oceans!] which returns in a contrary direction to open space. The pressure of the atmosphere produces an effect of the same kind: but an effect, which, in the present state of the theory, and from want of observations compared with each other, cannot be exactly defined. Whatever it may be, we cannot doubt that the effect which should be attributed to the impression of the solar rays upon a solid body of very large dimensions, by far surpasses that which would be observed in exposing a common thermometer to the same rays.
Does Ferenc agree with Fourier about the pressure effect he postulates, and if so, can it be encompassed within his theory?
Those wanting a quick rundown on Ferenc’s earlier theoretical work might find this interview with him helpful
While this is pretty much above my pay grade, I’ve got to say that the figure quoted above gladdened my heart!
Why?
Because Ferenc Miscolczi shows the ‘expected’ and the ‘observed’ trends. Observed! Not modelled!
That’s how it ought to be done, but nowadays simply isn’t.
I cannot remember having seen that sort of thing in any of the graphs modelling why we’re gonna be fried to a crisp …
“Detailed Fourier analysis of the 61 year long time
series shows that a significant oscillation with a 3.529
year period is present in the data. This ‘heartbeat’ of
the atmosphere could be related to the ElNino –
LaNina cycles”
3 x 3.529 = 10.587yrs
Average length of solar cycles in sample range = 10.86yrs
There is an average of 3 El Nino events per solar cycle over the last 130yrs. In fact, nearly all solar cycles contain 3 El Nino events.
I hope Ferenc remembers the puzzle I gave him last time he was here, when I showed him that the 300mbar specific humidity matches well with Sunspot numbers smoothed over an 8 yr period
I’m sorry, but isn’t this the exact same plot he’s been using all along, the NCAR/NCEP reanalysis data from 1948 till today?
Those two (pretty suspicious-looking) giant peaks at the beginning of the A curve is the only thing that makes him sort of right. Without them, the A curve seems to follow the CO2 forcing curve pretty tightly.
How reliable is this dataset he uses?
From the abstract:
In steady state, the planetary surface (as seen from
space) shows no greenhouse effect: the all-sky surface upward
radiation is equal to the available solar radiation.
This simply states that radiation outwards from TOA = radiation inwards from the Sun.
The
all-sky climatological greenhouse effect (the difference of the
all-sky surface upward flux and absorbed solar flux) at this
surface is equal to the reflected solar radiation
This states that the all-sky surface upward flux = the solar flux less the reflection due to albedo, and appears to imply no ‘greenhouse effect’ enhancement.
Maybe we need to know exactly what is meant by “all-sky surface upward flux” before we get all excited.
Kristian: Yes, that’s Roy Spencers criticism too. But lets remember that between 1955 and 1965 we had the most energetic solar cycle ever recorded, and as my plot shows, the radiosonde specific humidity data from up near the tropopause reflects solar activity well, and also shows big peaks around that time.
So let me turn the question back at you and Roy. What reason do you have to suspect the data is wrong?
tallbloke says, December 13, 2014 at 7:07 pm:
“So let me turn the question back at you and Roy. What reason do you have to suspect the data is wrong?”
This seems like an attempt to reverse the burden of proof, Tallbloke. Miskolczi is the one presenting this particular dataset (the only one available for this specific parameter?) as a definitive piece of evidence to back up his claim. Shouldn’t he be the one to verify its quality. To me those two early peaks look quite spurious indeed. The progression af the A curve doesn’t seem to follow the solar cycles at all, rather (from 1963/4) the NINO3.4 with some volcanic influence. Why don’t we see the patterns of cycles 21, 22 and 23?
I find this whole thing highly speculative at best.
Can’t say I follow all the math, but this looks like an AGW/IPCC killer.
What’s the betting it is ignored?
There is another cooling mechanism. If the polar vortex in the winter is not symmetrically above the polar circle, the exchange of air in the troposphere and the heat is dissipated into space. When the vortex is strong air exchange is small.
This effect is closely related to solar activity and is the cause of extreme temperatures in winter.
Kristian: This seems like an attempt to reverse the burden of proof
The data is the data. If Roy Spencer, the IPCC or anyone else disputes the data, they need to come up with something better than:
“The peaks look suspicious”
What are the peaks doing? Sneaking round with stripy shirts and masks on, with bags marked ‘swag’ over their shoulders?
This graphic shows how the
rainclouds together with the polar vortex works.Sorry, clouds.
tallbloke says, December 13, 2014 at 7:44 pm:
“The data is the data. If Roy Spencer, the IPCC or anyone else disputes the data, they need to come up with something better than:
“The peaks look suspicious”
What are the peaks doing? Sneaking round with stripy shirts and masks on, with bags marked ‘swag’ over their shoulders?”
OK. End of discussion, it seems. Miskolczi is right. Everyone else is wrong. Got it.
We now see, for example, the cooling of the eastern Pacific, where the temperature was higher due to the permanent high pressure.
Let’s see how the temperature is distributed in the South Pacific. Permanent circulation is able to locally change the temperature.
And surfaced ocean currents.
It is interesting that as you can see in the Sahara is now not so hot.
If the greenhouse effect works, how to explain that in America in November, the temperature was like in January? Should fall gradually.
Kristian: It is not the end of the discussion. I am trying to elicit information from you. I have provided some evidence supporting the accuracy of the data. So far, you have cast aspersions on the data by calling it ‘suspicious’ and ‘spurious’, but you haven’t supported those claims with anything. So bring it on.
Clearly, to say the data is wrong because it doesn’t support the theory that it is proved wrong by isn’t going to cut it, because circular arguments are of no use to man nor beast.
Why is it that the IPCC is sure of tree ring widths from 1000AD giving it temperatures accurate to a few tenths of a degree, yet so uncertain of data from simple devices carefully designed and operated in 1948?
Tallbloke, your Humidity-SSN graph is showing signs of being out of phase during a warm AMO mode, as the AMO does:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/mean:25/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1855/normalise
Ulric: Yes. You can see the effects of big El Nino’s not only in the Pacific but the AMO too. See how the big El Nino’s frequently occur at solar minimum, when the ocean gets a chance to kick out energy absorbed during the solar cycle. That antiphase relationship is why you don’t see a big amplitude in the Sun-surface temp. correlation. You have to smooth the temperature data at the El Nino frequency (around 40 months) to get the correlation, and that smears the energy absorption/loss and reduces the apparent amplitude of the solar effect.
Ren, use the open thread please.
And thanks Rog for asking ren to use the open thread. 😉
Maybe we can stay on track on this very important paper, well, all of his papers have been very important. That is if everyone can just learn how to even read them. His are different. Definitely. An entirely new approach and it is so subtle if ou don’t catch it and that seems to throw many off track.
Boy, couldn’t agree with that more! You need to approach this exactly as Miskolczi is doing this feat. Dissect it one relation at a time.
That is the very first thing that I noticed that was different in Miskolczi’s entire approach when I happened upon his 2007 paper — it made so much sense, finally. Simplify. Remove the known equalities first, such as Aa = Ed that is a no brainer that there always exists some quantity of bi-directional l.w. between the surface and from the atmosphere downward that are precisely equal. Most of the time the smaller is Ed with the surface warmer so Aa is equal to Ed but as he noted in a prior paper in some rare occurrences, like at Antarctica, you can have a situation where Aa is actually the smaller of the two, atmosphere warmer, so Ed is then equal Aa, and this is handled properly as you will notice in the papers.
With that taken care of, all further absorptions of l.w. by the atmosphere never are treated as having a component going back downward to the surface for all ‘downward’ is handled in that one step above. Nice! If you don’t pick up on some of these subtle differences in how Ferenc is handling the entire structure of his analysis — sorry — you most likely will be lost.
To me this set the proper stage for further analysis of the remaining radiation flows. Couldn’t agree with Ferenc’s methodology more. This is how science is supposed to occur.
Tallbloke said:
“You can see the effects of big El Nino’s not only in the Pacific but the AMO too.”
That’s because the NAO and ENSO are connected so they are largely in phase regardless of the AMO mode.
“See how the big El Nino’s frequently occur at solar minimum, when the ocean gets a chance to kick out energy absorbed during the solar cycle.”
I see them around a year after sunspot minimum when the solar wind is slowest, they also occur at sunspot maxima, because there is often a local low in the solar wind there too.
“That antiphase relationship is why you don’t see a big amplitude in the Sun-surface temp. correlation.”
I see a massive overshoot in the negative feedback of ENSO and especially in the AMO. The latter being responsible for a large proportion of the rise in the global mean surface T since 1995.
“You have to smooth the temperature data at the El Nino frequency (around 40 months) to get the correlation, and that smears the energy absorption/loss and reduces the apparent amplitude of the solar effect.”
Your SSN – smoothed surface T graph is also showing the phase shift with the warm AMO mode since 1995. You seem to be talking round the multi-decadal phase change that I have evidenced.
Thanks for bringing my attention to Ferenc’s latest paper Rog. Whilst I’m immersed in the post as Mum’s executor (it seems I’ve not given ‘true diligence’), I’m most interested, though my input may be small (as is my current health). I’ll read the paper, but I don’t know when.
“It challenges the entire basis of the IPCC AGW theory by deriving a theoretical atmosphere which fits observations and demonstrates stability of the Earth’s radiative balance.”
This is only to be expected. Ferenc understands the differential that ‘latency’ presents to an ‘atmospheric reactance’ where ‘radiative theory’ doesn’t work. In earlier discussion I advised that ‘radiative theory’ for an Earth like atmosphere is impotent for the region/altitude where ‘latent energy’ is presented.
I need to read his paper before further comment.
Best regards, Ray.
Writing as a lay person, there are fundamental misunderstandings of Miskolczi.
He is dealing in time invariant physics. That means time is not a variable and also that no time series is involved. Perhaps it is unfortunate that he peripherally shows time series in an illustrative way.
He has formulated a number of interlocking functions, or laws.
Noise exists. Perturbation from central exists.
Physical constants for the earth are variables. The work is conditionally valid to earth or near earth-like.
A corollary is that visually suspect timeseries, real data might be valid as far as law is concerned or might be an oulier or whatever.
If anyone disagrees please speak up because a prerequisite for discussion is clarity on the starting meaning.
Kristian said:
December 13, 2014 at 7:27 pm
Please have a look at:
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2010/03/why-do-long-term-periodicities-in-enso.html
To be fair to Kristian, he did provide this argument:
“The progression af the A curve doesn’t seem to follow the solar cycles at all, rather (from 1963/4) the NINO3.4 with some volcanic influence. Why don’t we see the patterns of cycles 21, 22 and 23?”
To which my response is:
Up near the tropopause, where energy is organised more directly by the close proximity of space to the Earth’s atmosphere, and where the equilibrium between energy-in and energy-out is achieved, we can indeed see the pattern of solar cycles 19,20, 21,22 and 23 (allowing for the .98 super El-Nino) correlates well with the radiosonde data.
This indicates to me that the radiosonde data is OK.
But there remains the interesting question of why the whole-atmospheric absorption Ferenc graphs in Fig 15 doesn’t follow the same pattern and more closely follow the solar cycles. We do see the ENSO linked ‘heartbeat’ of around 3.5 years he and Kristian noted. Volcanoes may have some influence too, though not as much as IPCC claims in order to counterbalance the overestimated CO2 sensitivity.
I think the low 1970’s solar cycle ‘cleared the air’ at high altitude and its absorbtivity takes time to recover from that through the 80s and 90s as the low cloudiness decreases 1980-1998 (ISCCP) (caused by stronger Sun chasing away GCRs if Svensmark is right) and the ocean warms again.
Near surface air temperatures have increased more than lower troposphere (If GISS/HADcruT is to be believed), and this is likely due to increased water vapour near the surface. But Specific Humidity at high altitude has dropped along with the peak amplitudes of the solar cycles, and so has water vapour, according to the last known good dataset Ken Gregory sent me.
So it appears there is a mechanism which evens out the effects of solar variability with a small positive near surface feedback within a large overall negative feedback which maintains the stability of the system.
Ian: Just read your post. So the Sun and Moon run the ENSO show, and that runs the atmospheric absorbtivity show. Ferenc’s system of interlocking feedbacks keeps the whole plot on an even keel.
It’s all coming together now we’ve identified the cause of the 1.19yr ‘free nutation’ (Chandler Wobble).
Double that period is the QBO, and that is in a 3:2 resonance with Ferenc’s 3.6yr ENSO ‘heartbeat’.
Time to get our modelling heads on.
Ulric: You seem to be talking round the multi-decadal phase change that I have evidenced.
Don’t be so bloody paranoid! 🙂
I’m very interested in the multi-decadal phase change of Enso in relation to the solar cycle and ocean cycles. But there are several things going on at once, and I’m thinking about how to untangle them. There isn’t just a phase change issue, there’s also a frequency issue and a solar cycle amplitude issue.
Compare Miskolczi ’14:
“The only meaning of the balance equation is the equality between the thermal energy lost to space and the gained radiative energy by SW absorption when a steady state has been reached.”
and
Donohoe ’14:
“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 but through an enhancement of net absorbed solar radiation (ASR). ”
Essentially very similar, but one is the output of the “approved” computer models, and the other is “denial”. Go figure..
Tim C: [Ferenc] is dealing in time invariant physics. That means time is not a variable and also that no time series is involved.
A timely point. 🙂
However, Ferenc does include Fig. 15 as supporting empirical evidence for his theory, and that is what has drawn criticism and doubt casting. That’s why I chose to highlight Fig 15 in the intro, so we can deal with that criticism and doubt casting.
David B: I wonder what ‘layman’s explanation” they’ve cooked up for how additional CO2 causes “an enhancement of net absorbed solar radiation”. 🙂
tb,
“What reason do you have to suspect the data is wrong?”
It’s reanalysis, not exactly data. NCEP/NCAR is an early venture into reanalysis. Buried in the NOAA notes that go with it, it says, mournfully:
” How good is the Humidity?
— —- — — ——–
The humidity analysis is believed to be the weakest of the primary atmospheric analyses; i.e., Z, T, U, V, and Q. The other primary variables (Z, T, U and V) and their gradients have to be internally consistent. One can not change T without changing U, V, and Z. As a result, the internal consistency provides a check and constraints on these fields. The humidity analysis, however, is unconstrained (except for q <= q-sat) and is effectively produced by a univariate analysis with no dynamical constraint on the gradients. Then there is the sampling problem. The humidity has many small-scale features and a single measurement may not be representative of a grid box average.
By the way, did I mention instrument errors?"
Thanks Nick. Are there any similar notes on tree ring thermometers buried in the climategate emails you’d like to highlight as well? The one that says “Mann’s data is crap” maybe? 😉
My solar-humidity correlation shows the re-analysed data isn’t bad.
IPCC methodology on data quality assessment:
Data that supports our theory is good data.
Data that refutes our theory is bad data. Bad, bad, naughty data.
Good for Miskolczi to remind readers that “Of course, the net latent heat release at the boundary layer must be treated as of radiative origin.”
And later, “There are excellent articles summarizing the level of the general understanding (or misunderstanding) of the phenomenon,”
Yes but why has Miskolczi ignored Loeb et al. who had updated to 0.5 W/m-2 of 0.6 W/m-2 of Hansen et al. 2011?
***
Norman G. Loeb, John M. Lyman, Gregory C. Johnson, Richard P. Allan, David R. Doelling,Takmeng Wong, Brian J. Soden and Graeme L. Stephens. Observed changes in top-of-the-atmosphere radiation and upper-ocean heating consistent within uncertainty. (Nature Geoscience Vol 5 February 2012)
URL: http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~sgs02rpa/PAPERS/Loeb12NG.pdf
***
Miskolczi stated “The usually quoted quantities are”…” and cited values given older sources. Why did he not cite the updated values of Loeb et al, 2009(? my copy 2008). He stated “The 30 Wm-2 difference in TS is large enough to raise the question of the quality of the KT97 and TFK09 global energy budgets.”
At this point why did he not cite Loeb et al. (2008?, 2009?) who had already updated the values of parameters that he is suggesting might not be accurate.
***
Loeb et al. Toward Optimal Closure of the Earth’s Top-of-Atmosphere Radiation Budget. J.of Climate, AMS, V.22, p.748.)
URL: http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/~naeger/references/journals/Sundar_Journal_Papers/2008_JC_Loeb.pdf
***
Miskolczi said “For example, no one will seriously comment upon the fictitious surface energy imbalance of 0.6 +/-0.17 Wm-2 in S12, or the 0.6 +/-0.4 Wm-2 in W13.”
Not true at all. In the paper he cited by Stevens et al. Stevens said,
“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). The uncertainty is also approximately an order of magnitude larger than the current estimates of the net surface energy imbalance of 0.6 ±0.4 Wm–2 inferred from the rise in OHC. The uncertainty in the TOA net energy fluxes, although smaller, is also much larger than the imbalance inferred from OHC.
***
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
***
Repeat, Stephens said, “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).”
How much plainer did these guys have to say that the estimated value of 0.6 W/m-2 by Hansen was not different from zero net energy imbalance? (Spurious precision.)
Yet, Miskolczi’s paper is good enough to survive his barely concealed attempt to set up Hansen because even Hansen’s former colleagues at NASA now (and perhaps even then) saw Hansen as a straw man. Pace Tallbloke, but I doubt Hansen could understand much of what Miskolczi writes.
Miskolczi provides a great illustration of his point on Kirchhoff’s law, FIG. 19 CLEAR SKY KIRCHHOFF LAW. THE ATMOSPHERIC DOWNWARD EMITTANCE IS EQUAL TO THE ATMOSPHERIC ABSORPTION OF THE SURFACE UPWARD RADIATION.
Miskolczi stated “Because of the changes in OLR and f, reducing the altitude range to 0-70 km, Eq. (4) will overestimate US by about ~1 Wm-2 , but will largely reduce the LBL computational burden.”
We know from empirical studies of NASA that “about ~1 Wm-2” is nothing to sniff at. Consider that Steven’s and Loeb and (2012) their co-authors claim only 0.5 W/m-2 net global energy imbalance. Midkolczi’s “reduction in computational burden” will miss the phenomenon being described because the “~1 Wm-2” is double the size of their estimate of net imbalance. Therefore Miskolczi’s argument comes close to losing its force on empirical grounds alone.
We have other reasons for preferring Miskolczi.
“Apparently this TA does not depend on any particular GHG concentration and it might better be regarded as an invariant climate parameter of the Earth-atmosphere system.”
Miskolczi’s approach may give results that are consistent with GHG theory. But, since the observations by NASA and ARGO give a net energy imbalance that cannot be distinguished from zero (0.5 W/m-2), we can regard the empirical results by the NASA authors to be not significantly different from what Miskolczi’s model predicts, namely no net GHG warming.
The approach by Miskolczi, by Goody and Yung, and by the gravito-atmospheric structure theory seem all to be consistent with both Maxwell and Planck. Just as we ought to expect that the wave approach and the quantum approach should give similar results at the macroscopic level. Classical physics and modern physics do give the same results at most scales. The 0.15% net energy imbalance identified by Loeb, Stevens and before them the 0.17% effect claimed by Hansen et al in 2011 all say the same thing: observations of the net energy imbalance cannot be distinguished from zero.
I believe Miskolczi scores because
(1) his perspective is different and thus he starts from more secure premises
(2) He is willing to use both classical and modern physics
(3) He is prepared to consider a range of scale from the quantum to the macro.
(4) Finally, his approach opens the discussion to the work of Svensmark and Shaviv. (Hendrik Svensark and Nigel Calder, The Chilling Stars, Icon Books, 2007)
Miskolczi places liquid water and water vapor in their proper context vis-à-vis other materials including greenhouse gases. (There are 61 mentions of “cloud” in the paper.)
“In summary, the complex task of the relatively fast responding global mean cloud cover is to assure the conservation of radiant energy and momentum on a global scale, maximize the LW cooling to space (radiative equilibrium), while observing the thermodynamic constraints applicable to large heterogeneous systems (Maxwell rule).”
Fred: Thank you, very nice summary.
tallbloke says:
“Don’t be so bloody paranoid! 🙂
I’m very interested in the multi-decadal phase change of Enso in relation to the solar cycle and ocean cycles.”
Attempting to get important facts across Rog, not paranoia. Though as you are still talking about ENSO instead, you evidently have missed the point entirely.
in a 55.8 year cycle of 3 x 18.6y lunar standstill periods you might have 47 Chandler wobbles and 15.5 x Miskolczi’s 3.6 year ENSO number.
Double that, and as a model: 6 lunar standstills = 94 CW = 47 QBO = 31 ENSO
TB did say ‘time to get our modelling heads on’ 😉
tallbloke says: December 14, 2014 at 9:22 am
“However, Ferenc does include Fig. 15 as supporting empirical evidence for his theory, and that is what has drawn criticism and doubt casting. That’s why I chose to highlight Fig 15 in the intro, so we can deal with that criticism and doubt casting.”
Roger,
What does fig. 15 indicate to you? The part that CO2 does nothing is fine. Just what can “atmospheric absorption trends possibly mean when there is no “atmospheric flux absorption” for the Earth exit flux? Dr Miskolczi really needs to revisit Kirchhoff’s laws or radiation, radiative equilibrium, Maxwell’s equations, and the virial principles of Clausius. Ferenc makes trash of all, while dearly clinging to the fake Schuster-Schwarzschild two stream approximation.
I agree with Dr. Miskolczi attempts to turn the entire effect of the atmosphere toward WV and clouds, which do control all temperatures. His adherence to the silly radiative concepts of NASA and IPCC may be needed in his position. There is no need for any radiative consideration at all, below 500 meters above the surface. Near the surface.it is “all” convection and latent heat of evaporation. -will- 🙂
oldbrew says: December 14, 2014 at 12:03 pm
“in a 55.8 year cycle of 3 x 18.6y lunar standstill periods you might have 47 Chandler wobbles and 15.5 x Miskolczi’s 3.6 year ENSO number. Double that, and as a model: 6 lunar standstills = 94 CW = 47 QBO = 31 ENSO TB did say ‘time to get our modelling heads on’ 😉 ”
SWEET!
wayne says: December 14, 2014 at 12:33 am
” Apart from the fact, that the use of GCMs for studying large scale climate change is conceptually wrong (fundamentally stochastic processes cannot be diagnosed by a deterministic model), the GCMs with their numerous tuning parameters are not representing the principles of physics and the demonstrated response of the greenhouse effect.
Boy, couldn’t agree with that more! You need to approach this exactly as Miskolczi is doing this feat. Dissect it one relation at a time.
That is the very first thing that I noticed that was different in Miskolczi’s entire approach when I happened upon his 2007 paper — it made so much sense, finally. Simplify. Remove the known equalities first, such as Aa = Ed that is a no brainer that there always exists some quantity of bi-directional l.w. between the surface and from the atmosphere downward that are precisely equal. Most of the time the smaller is Ed with the surface warmer so Aa is equal to Ed but as he noted in a prior paper in some rare occurrences, like at Antarctica, you can have a situation where Aa is actually the smaller of the two, atmosphere warmer, so Ed is then equal Aa, and this is handled properly as you will notice in the papers.
With that taken care of, all further absorptions of l.w. by the atmosphere never are treated as having a component going back downward to the surface for all ‘downward’ is handled in that one step above. Nice! If you don’t pick up on some of these subtle differences in how Ferenc is handling the entire structure of his analysis — sorry — you most likely will be lost.
To me this set the proper stage for further analysis of the remaining radiation flows. Couldn’t agree with Ferenc’s methodology more. This is how science is supposed to occur.”
Needs to be repeated!! You have read it now, Wad jew tink of Miskolczi 2014? To me, I still have a hard time translating the NASA language. Perhaps later the role of latent heat can be introduced.
Will J: Dr Miskolczi really needs to revisit Kirchhoff’s laws or radiation, radiative equilibrium, Maxwell’s equations, and the virial principles of Clausius.
Read the papers! Ferenc does indeed revisit all of the above
Ulric: Though as you are still talking about ENSO instead, you evidently have missed the point entirely.
One of the things which drags the phase out is the prevalence of big El Nino events at solar minimum during peaking/descending AMO, so maybe we’re just tilting at the same thing from different angles. Feel free to explain your point in more detail.
You might want to check which ‘face’ of the Earth is aligned with lunar / planetary nodal points at those 3.5x points. For the Saros cycle of 18ish years, the same ocean realigns every 3rd cycle, so we get a 3 x Saros repeat of tidal forces.
While a sheer speculation on my part, I’d speculate that keeping track of what ocean is lined up with the gravitational peaks might matter to ocean cycles, even 3.5ish year ones. Worth checking, IMHO.
Rog, firstly leave ENSO out as it doesn’t concern what I have evidenced, return to my comment at:
December 13, 2014 at 10:41 pm
(including opening the WFT link)
and note that during a warm AMO mode, annual AMO is out of phase with sunspot cycles, and UK temperatures are in phase with sunspot cycles, and in the cold AMO mode, annual AMO is in phase with sunspot cycles, and UK temperatures are out of phase with sunspot cycles (generally, and with a transition period between AMO modes).
Which is why your SSN-humidity chart goes out of phase from 1995.
I can’t take part at the moment, sorry,
Claudius my Amazon parrot and very close companion though many bad times
1970 – 14th Dec 2014
Best not comment to this, off topic.
Sorry to hear the sad news Tim.
Shout when you’re ready for a chat.
What I see consistently is ALWAYS trying to make the data fit the climate and going at great lengths to do it.
There are so many cycles and correlations that they are becoming meaningless.
Will Janoschka says:
December 14, 2014 at 12:38 pm
tallbloke says: December 14, 2014 at 9:22 am
“However, Ferenc does include Fig. 15 as supporting empirical evidence for his theory, and that is what has drawn criticism and doubt casting. That’s why I chose to highlight Fig 15 in the intro, so we can deal with that criticism and doubt casting.”
Roger,
What does fig. 15 indicate to you? The part that CO2 does nothing is fine. Just what can “atmospheric absorption trends possibly mean when there is no “atmospheric flux absorption” for the Earth exit flux? Dr Miskolczi really needs to revisit Kirchhoff’s laws or radiation, radiative equilibrium, Maxwell’s equations, and the virial principles of Clausius. Ferenc makes trash of all, while dearly clinging to the fake Schuster-Schwarzschild two stream approximation.
Will, respectably, here is where you and I probably don’t see eye to eye. I personally have no problem with either myself or some other investigating scientist to use that ‘two stream’ viewpoint as long as it is known to only be a mathematical separation tool, as in taking the two ‘T’s in an abbreviated Stefan Boltzmann relation and letting F = ε·σ·(T1^4 – T2^4) = ε·σ·T1^4 – ε·σ·T2^4 all the while knowing that the smaller downward component has no power, zero, to do any physical work.
Where I will agree completely with you is when someone starts talking as if it does, like asking how much evaporation or warming is being performed by this mysterious mathematical “back radiation” and we both know that is a load of crap. If you will read all of Miskolczi’s papers you will know he too very well realizes that this is a fact and is just using this mathematical tool allowing him to draw real relationships that can then be plotted, thousands of radiosonde readings all over the world and time, to literally show these to you like good old proper science but it is always the radiation differences that are real.
Over the next few months try revisit his papers regularly, and if you are like me, they become clearer each pass through and you might see his insight of how to prove this using the normal AGW nomenclature so those scientists and climatologosts may see where they are so wrong but to do that you must talk their talk.
Wayne: Bravo and well said. Talking past each other gets us nowhere. At the Lisbon conference we tried to find some common ground and work outwards into the areas of contention. We didn’t get far in 4 days but at lest we were heading in the right direction.
I’ve ‘browsed’ the paper TB and I’m first drawn to the “ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS” section.
Field work is the less for the passing of Jan Pompe, and, I believe, Ken Gregory was the poster at Steve’s ‘forum’ (now ‘on ice’ [still]) that Ferenc used data from to establish the ’61 years’ of his analysis that lead, eventually, to this thread. My, how time flys!
I don’t see a reference to a ‘boundary layer’ radiative analogy/analysis. If it’s there could you point to it? It’s important for the ‘surface temperature analysis’. Without this ‘surface to atmosphere’ component the true interaction between ‘surface and atmosphere’ can’t be realised.
Best regards, Ray.
tallbloke says: December 14, 2014 at 3:09 pm
Will Janoschka says: December 14, 2014 at 12:38 pm
(Roger,
“What does fig. 15 indicate to you? The part that CO2 does nothing is fine. Just what can “atmospheric absorption trends possibly mean when there is no “atmospheric flux absorption” for the Earth exit flux? Dr Miskolczi really needs to revisit Kirchhoff’s laws or radiation, radiative equilibrium, Maxwell’s equations, and the virial principles of Clausius. Ferenc makes trash of all, while dearly clinging to the fake Schuster-Schwarzschild two stream approximation.”)
“Read the papers! Ferenc does indeed revisit all of the above”
Roger, I am on my fourth reading! Dr. Miskolczi “only” revisits the post modern interpretation, never the from the “horses mouth”, careful thought and reasoning that these fine folk used to describe, in words and symbols, that careful reasoning. To the post modern, the formula, (symbolic expression) replaces the thought and reasoning with a correct mathematical expression, that has no thought and no reason for existing. The modern college texts are full of this nonsense.
wayne says: December 14, 2014 at 9:07 pm
” Will, respectably, here is where you and I probably don’t see eye to eye. I personally have no problem with either myself or some other investigating scientist to use that ‘two stream’ viewpoint as long as it is known to only be a mathematical separation tool, as in taking the two ‘T’s in an abbreviated Stefan Boltzmann relation and letting F = ε·σ·(T1^4 – T2^4) = ε·σ·T1^4 – ε·σ·T2^4 all the while knowing that the smaller downward component has no power, zero, to do any physical work……, to literally show these to you like good old proper science but it is always the radiation differences that are real.”
Wayne, Splitting the S-B equation of a two value difference enclosed in parenthesis, is a deliberate violation of all mathematics and algebra. This can lead only to gross error, and much FRAUD! There are no radiation differences in the exit flux of this planet. There is measurable “radiance” or “field strength” in each direction. Such an EMR field requires no power or energy to exist, just like a gravitational field. Thermal radiative flux is only generated proportional to the difference between opposing “radiance”, and only in the direction of lower radiance.
This “only” flux is easily measurable. It is the fake T^4 nonsense that has never been detected, observed, nor measured in any way. This atmosphere does not absorb any EMR exit flux, it cannot. This atmosphere creates an opposing “radiance” that at all altitudes opposes the generation of excessive exit flux thus keeping the surface more comfortable than the moon. Ferenc attempts to explain that in a manner that does not piss off the IPCC goons!
“Over the next few months try revisit his papers regularly, and if you are like me, they become clearer each pass through and you might see his insight of how to prove this using the normal AGW nomenclature so those scientists and climatologists may see where they are so wrong but to do that you must talk their talk.”
Wayne, I really do read all the Miskolczi papers, and explanations of them, I skim the idiot critiques, I understand (M07) the best. You claim that Fernec must use the non-speak of those scientists and climatologists. If you speak the non-speak, climatologists, are gleeful, never wrong. The rest of us struggle to comprehend the extent of this FRAUD! I refuse to talk their talk.”
Rog you will not like this but my approach is superior(my opinion) in trying to figure out where the climate may be heading going forward. I am of the strong opinion that one can not apply orderly astronomical sequences(cyclic) to a random chaotic system such as the climate and expect to get an x result.
I went through this before (recently )and it was not welcomed commentary.
My argument is unless the sun deviates significantly from it’s range of normal solar parameters the randomness ,chaotic nature of the earth’s climatic system will obscure or obliterate solar climate connections or any other astronomical connections for that matter.
Only when the sun reaches extreme deviations from normal values does it then predominate in driving the climate in a CLEAR cut way and exert enough influence on many items which control the climate such as clouds, atmospheric circulation, volcanic activity ,enso for example..
I also maintain that do not expect to be able to forecast what the sun may doing in the future based on the recent past when solar activity was in an active phase. Now that solar activity has entered an inactive phase(post 2005) I would say any forecasting of future solar activity is a guess at best and this is being proven by the deep solar lull 2008-2010 and the length of this current solar cycle which is still in maximum mode 7 years into this cycle which could result in this cycle being 14 years in length.
I maintain these 5 factors cause the climate to change and they are:
Initial State Of The Climate – How close climate is to threshold inter-glacial/glacial conditions
Milankovitch Cycles – Consisting of tilt , precession , and eccentricity of orbit. Low tilt, aphelion occurring in N.H. summer favorable for cooling.
Earth Magnetic Field Strength – which will moderate or enhance solar variability effects through the modulation of cosmic rays.
Solar Variability – which will effect the climate through primary changes and secondary effects. My logic here is if something that drives something (the sun drives the climate) changes it has to effect the item it drives.
Some secondary/primary solar effects are ozone distribution and concentration changes which effects the atmospheric circulation and perhaps translates to more cloud/snow cover- higher albebo.
Galactic Cosmic Ray concentration changes translates to cloud cover variance thus albedo changes.
Volcanic Activity – which would put more SO2 in the stratosphere causing a warming of the stratosphere but cooling of the earth surface due to increase scattering and reflection of incoming sunlight.
Solar Irradiance Changes-Visible /Long wave UV light changes which will effect ocean warming/cooling.
Ocean/Land Arrangements which over time are always different. Today favorable for cooling in my opinion.
How long (duration) and degree of magnitude change of these items combined with the GIVEN state of the climate and how they all phase (come together) will result in what kind of climate outcome, comes about from the given changes in these items. Never quite the same and non linear with possible thresholds.. Hence the best that can be forecasted for climatic change is only in a broad general sense.
In that regard in broad terms my climatic forecast going forward is for global temperatures to trend down in a jig-saw pattern while the atmospheric circulation remains meridional.
Hi Salvatore: Here’s the output from Rick Salvador’s simple harmonic model which uses orbital periods (yellow curve) vs Steinhilber et al’s rconstruction of TSI over the last 4000 years based on 10Be (blue curve)
Does this look like a simple linear or simple sinusoidal curve to you?
Do you know of anyone else who has managed to accurately hindcast such an important climate proxy over such a long period using such a simple model? Or any model?
SDP:
Earth Magnetic Field Strength
Solar Variability including TSI
Volcanic Activity
What causes these to vary?
It is a sinusoidal curve .
To Oldbrew
I think solar activity /earth’s magnetic field strength are correlated to volcanic activity.
I think angular momentum exerted by the planets is part of the reason for solar variability. Not the only reason .
As far as what makes the earth’s magnetic field vary I do not know and have never heard a convincing reason.
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQCi2eYVSjORpiAUnZNEXPMYb9eOKMIrMsEZg5T0EdCMURyp2zS
The point I am trying to make is the climate will not respond in the same way to given TSI values about a normal range because of the chaotic randomness of the climatic system, although climatic trends become apparent at the times of extremes in solar variability, but with each situation being unique to itself.
I do not think we have the capability of getting it any more precise then this because of that noise element which is always present in the climatic system of the earth.
I am afraid that some feel we do have that capability and are trying to show this through various ways which do not seem to hold up against the test of time.
[Reply] Scafetta’s planetary model is doing better than anyone elses with short term climate over the last 5 years.
SDP: thanks for the reply. Re this:
‘As far as what makes the earth’s magnetic field vary I do not know and have never heard a convincing reason.’
I suppose the same could be said for the sun’s magnetic reversals every 11 years (+/ 2-3 years).
‘I am afraid that some feel we do have that capability and are trying to show this through various ways which do not seem to hold up against the test of time.’
Let’s put the IPCC crowd in that bracket for a start. Their projected warming trends have failed to show up, big time.
@ Salvatore Del Prete
“I maintain these 5 factors cause the climate to change and they are:
…
Earth Magnetic Field Strength – which will moderate or enhance solar variability effects through the modulation of cosmic rays.”
Also add the position of the magnetic field, which will effect the size of the oval where GCRs can enter the troposphere …
Salvatore: It is a sinusoidal curve .
No it isn’t. But I’m amused with this response from you, partly for what you said, but mostly for what you didn’t say. You know our talkshop research team is the only outfit to have created a simple model capable of hindcasting an important 4000 year long climate proxy, but you don’t offer any acknowledgement or credit for it because it contradicts your chaos ‘theory’.
Our model shows that Solar variation is not chaotic, and can be predicted, if our hypothesis is correct. It’s true that day to day weather has ‘chaotic’ components, but your pessimism about the possibility of prediction is only a reflection of your own lack of effort to untangle the factors. You are not alone though. The mainstream climate scientists have brainwashed many sceptics into believing its all too difficult and chaotic to understand.
Here at the talkshop we are making it all less chaotic through careful and patient exploration of the surrounding forces which is leading to real progress in untangling and understanding the natural variation which dominates changes in climate at all time scales.
tallbloke said:
December 15, 2014 at 3:47 pm
Rog,
I know a couple of scientists who would be very interested to see Rick’s work – Is there any chance that he is willing to share or publish his latest results?
Email coming your way Ian.
Rog I my position is the climate has chaos in it to a degree ,while at the same time it is influenced by the factors Talkshop is talking about.
I guess where I differ is to what degree.
Hindcasting is fine but I would like to see future predictions as much as is possible. This will go a long way in sorting out the degree in which the things being talk about on talkshop impact the climate.
I have not wrote anything off or embraced anything 100% other then I think if solar parameters change in a degree of magnitude strong enough and long enough in duration that this will impact the climate through primary/secondary effects and over come the noise in the climate system.
This is nevertheless one of the best web-sites when it come to exploring what drives the climate. I have learned much and will probably learn much more going forward.
But I think it is good to question and push some rather then just going along with everything that is presented.
Our model shows that Solar variation is not chaotic, and can be predicted, if our hypothesis is correct
You are even saying if and that is where I am coming from. It may be correct . I don’t know. Ian might be correct. I do not really know hence my approach. I want to know.
Hi Salvatore: Thanks for that.
We have several different solar models which all indicate a strong and quite long downturn in activity, which started in around 2005. There is a decadal lag of ‘climate’ behind solar change (probably due to oceanic inertia and energy release). Expect it to get colder after the 2015-2016 El Nino we have also forecast.
How much cooling will this solar downturn bring about?
Different amounts in different places at different speeds.
Better forecasts will be offered once we’ve improved our theory some more.
Don’t sell your coat. 😉
Salvatore: I want to know.
Us too! 🙂
Time will tell. We need to find time to make shorter term models to see if we can predict solar change on short timescales. At the moment, we are working towards understanding and modelling the QBO, ENSO and the Polar vortex. We could hurry up if you can find some money. 🙂
Will Janoschka says: December 14, 2014 at 12:38 pm
‘Roger’ (TB) asks “What does fig. 15 indicate to you?”.
My take on this is that Ferenc intentionally avoids the ‘surface/atmosphere’ interface for any ‘latent’ product. A latent product doesn’t compute for a radiative analysis until changes of phase begin to occur (by “latent product” I imply ‘H2O’ in its gas, liquid and solid phases).
Moreover, it’s impossible to distinguish a latent product that has its origin in ‘land surface’ from a latent product that has its origin in ‘ocean/sea surface’. Thus, latent energy released at altitude can only be considered a ‘composite’ of ocean/sea and land energy contribution. It’s too vague to be ‘significant’ to a particular region of the surface!
However, the major contributor for atmospheric H2O is ocean/sea surface, and is the sole ‘MEP’ (Maximum Entropy Production) route for ‘OHC’ (Ocean Heat Content). Thus, the ‘bulk’ of Earth’s ‘latent product’ is, logically, OHC!
If this is so, the ‘ocean/sea areas’ of Earth release MORE energy into the atmosphere than the ‘land areas’. Thus, any ‘SB’ (radiative) evaluation is offset by the altitude that the latent product releases its energy in a ‘radiative form’ (EMR) into the atmosphere. This ‘EMR from a latent product’ ‘radiates’ every which way and can be seen as a ‘DWLWIR’ (Down Welling Long Wave Infrared Radiation), but because it’s origin is at altitude, the latent product enjoys a more ‘open’ window to space and aids the cooling of the planet.
Yes, this involves ‘cloud cover’, but the action is more fundamental than mere ‘albedo’.
Any ‘latent’ energy doesn’t register with temperature and can’t be calculated by its ‘radiation’ per se. To attempt to do so would result in a chaotic conclusion.
TBH, there’s too much ‘smoothing’ in the graphic to offer a realistic analysis. ‘Humidity’ and ‘latency’ are both so ‘short lived’. There’s ‘no way’ that a ‘hysteresis point/region’ can be seen for surface temperature here.
Best regards, Ray.
[quote name=”geran”]”So, Doug, consider this: If you have a flat, perfect black body, area of one square meter, receiving a flux of 1000 W/m2, I think you will agree that the equilibrium temperature of the surface would be 364.4 K.”[/quote]
Only if that surface were flat, black, Lambertian, and allowed to radiate through a non-dispersive media, to a near zero field strength. This Earth and its atmosphere violates all of those constraints. There is no way that the surface temperature could be determined via Planck’s integral or the S-B equation.
[quote]”Now, consider 4 new surfaces replacing the surface described above. Each new surface is 0.25 square meter. The flux remains 1000 W/m2. The surface has been divided by 4, so then the equilibrium temp becomes 257.7 K, by your “algebra”. (The correct answer is temp remains as before (364.4 K) since the flux was not changed.)Do you see your mistake, or do you need more examples?[/quote]
It might help if you would learn “some” algebra and geometry. The Sun radiates approximately 960 W/m^2 to this earth’s cross sectional area from a solid angle of 80 micro-steradians. This Earth cross sectional area (isotropic area) must radiate to space the same irradiance to space into four PI steradians. This Earth and its atmosphere must do this or the whole temperature structure of the atmosphere “must” change. No thermal EMR flux from lower that 500 meters above sea level need be considered as it is trivial. The “atmosphere” at every altitude dispatches some EMR flux to space. The integral of all that flux, because of variable atmospheric WV in the atmosphere. Is exactly that flux from each geophysical location that produce precisely the desired temperature at every location in this atmosphere. CO2 in no way affects the required WV production and condensation at every location.
It is the “average temperature” of this planet that is trivial, has no science only statistics, but is viciously promoted by ClimAsstrologists! I hope you can “get that” from the F. Miskolczi paper.
This atmosphere is a real bitch!
+++++++++++suricat says: December 17, 2014 at 2:09 am
Will Janoschka says: December 14, 2014 at 12:38 pm
(Roger: asks “What does fig. 15 indicate to you?”.”
Hi Ray, That was my question not Rogers!
“My take on this is that Ferenc intentionally avoids the ‘surface/atmosphere’ interface for any ‘latent’ product. A latent product doesn’t compute for a radiative analysis until changes of phase begin to occur (by “latent product” I imply ‘H2O’ in its gas, liquid and solid phases).”
Indeed, Ferenc never considers temperature directly only the implications for radiance or radiative flux. The radiance or radiative flux is generated by each point in this atmosphere. Sometimes this is indicated by temperature.
“Moreover, it’s impossible to distinguish a latent product that has its origin in ‘land surface’ from a latent product that has its origin in ‘ocean/sea surface’. Thus, latent energy released at altitude can only be considered a ‘composite’ of ocean/sea and land energy contribution. It’s too vague to be ‘significant’ to a particular region of the surface!”
Yes! the WV latent heat is widely distributed by lateral winds. The conversion to sensible heat conversion is only apparent as a low temperature does not support the amount of WV (partial pressure) at that exact location in the atmosphere. This cannot be aggregated or statically manipulated. It must be, by definition remain local.
“However, the major contributor for atmospheric H2O is ocean/sea surface, and is the sole ‘MEP’ (Maximum Entropy Production) route for ‘OHC’ (Ocean Heat Content). Thus, the ‘bulk’ of Earth’s ‘latent product’ is, logically, OHC!”
Ray, please check my numbers, and please report what you observe! I, from the measurement of others, I find that nearly 50% of atmospheric latent heat come from tropical biosphere and boreal forests of Canada and Russia. Your OHC is but 50%.
“If this is so, the ‘ocean/sea areas’ of Earth release MORE energy into the atmosphere than the ‘land areas’. Thus, any ‘SB’ (radiative) evaluation is offset by the altitude that the latent product releases its energy in a ‘radiative form’ (EMR) into the atmosphere. This ‘EMR from a latent product’ ‘radiates’ every which way and can be seen as a ‘DWLWIR’ (Down Welling Long Wave Infrared Radiation), but because it’s origin is at altitude, the latent product enjoys a more ‘open’ window to space and aids the cooling of the planet.”
Please show where anyone has ever demonstrated the fantasy of DWLWIR, except at then poles where the surface is at lower temperature than the atmosphere. Radiance is never radiative flux.
“Yes, this involves ‘cloud cover’, but the action is more fundamental than mere ‘albedo’.”
I agree!
“Any ‘latent’ energy doesn’t register with temperature and can’t be calculated by its ‘radiation’ per se. To attempt to do so would result in a chaotic conclusion.”
Most philosophic! The careful observation of this physical “may” distinguish between the deterministic, and deterministic + statistical which appears as “chaotic”.
“TBH, there’s too much ‘smoothing’ in the graphic to offer a realistic analysis. ‘Humidity’ and ‘latency’ are both so ‘short lived’. There’s ‘no way’ that a ‘hysteresis point/region’ can be seen for surface temperature here”
The hysteresis is entropic, and between the phases of H2O, Each phase wishes to remain there. It takes extra “entropy” (beating severely about head and shoulders) before. OK massa, I go, don beat me no more, and a nice isentropic conversion. -will-
Rog ,we will all be vindicated to a degree if global temperatures decline going forward rather then rise. This will be a great first step. I am quite sure the trend will be down, how much is the question.
I am quite surprised that the maximum of solar cycle 24 is still going strong (as far as this cycle is concerned). I thought by this time the sun would be on the decline for sure.
Any thoughts on this?
Salvatore. Low cycles tend to be longer cycles. Going into a grand minimum anything could happen. I don’t think we’ll be able to identify when ‘minimum’ occurred until 2025 because cycle 24 may not drop to zero sunspots.
thanks
Will Janoschka says: December 17, 2014 at 3:41 am
“Ray, please check my numbers, and please report what you observe! I, from the measurement of others, I find that nearly 50% of atmospheric latent heat come from tropical biosphere and boreal forests of Canada and Russia. Your OHC is but 50%.”
An intriguing argument Will. I consider ‘OHC’ to be an ‘energy store’ and not a ‘temperature yardstick’.
Please consider ‘energy absorption’ from incident insolation as a ratio of surface area between land and ocean, then consider the ‘albedo’ differences between land and ocean. Here’s a reference, of sorts:
http://www.climatedata.info/Forcing/Forcing/albedo.html
The ratio for ‘ocean : land’ surface area is ~7 : 3, with ocean surface as the major.
The ratio for albedo between these regions is; land ‘~0.1175’ (taken from the LOWEST land surface albedo in the table) and ocean ~0.085.
Not only do ocean/sea surfaces ‘absorb’ more incident insolation, they cover a ‘greater area’ of the globe!
If emission at TOA is ‘~a 1 : 1’ ratio for land and ocean emission, the near surface energies must be ‘mixing’ and OHC must add to land surface emission for this to be so!
Have I explained this properly for you to understand my dilemma with your “50%” conclusion?
Best regards, Ray.
Sorry Will.
Please read “The ‘ratio’ for albedo between these regions is; land ‘~0.1175′ (taken from the LOWEST land surface albedo in the table) and ocean ~0.085.” as;
“The ‘comparison’ for albedo between these regions is; land ‘~0.1175′ (taken from the LOWEST land surface albedo in the table) and ocean ~0.085.”
Thanks. Ray.
suricat says: December 19, 2014 at 3:00 am Sorry Will.
(Please read “The ‘ratio’ for albedo between these regions is; land ‘~0.1175′ (taken from the LOWEST land surface albedo in the table) and ocean ~0.085.” as;
“The ‘comparison’ for albedo between these regions is; land ‘~0.1175′ (taken from the LOWEST land surface albedo in the table) and ocean ~0.085.”)
Ray,
Thank you for your comments and engaging discourse.
Consider your ‘OHC’ to be an ‘energy store’ and not a ‘temperature yardstick’.
I like Miskolczi, avoid using the term temperature for anything, unless the specific relationship between temperature and “other” cannot be misconstrued. The ocean mass and that high specific heat makes oceans by far the largest sensible heat reservoir on or near this planet. Even milli-degrees is lotsa, lotsa, Joules.
As far as albedo, the whole concept is but an intent to deceive. Normal surface reflectivity is higher from the biosphere as the plant diffuse reflectivity from 0.8 microns to 2.5 microns is quite high. Ocean reflectivity from 0.4 to 50 microns becomes apparent only at angles greater than 55 degrees from normal. No actual surface is Lambertian. Please consider that half the earths actual surface area remains at angles less/greater than 45 degrees to the Sun at all times, all that water reflects like hell.
As far as the production of latent heat of evaporation, the sea surface production is severely limited by surface wind velocity of air not yet saturated. The forest leaves absorb red and blue energy from 4 PI steradians because of mie scattering. The leaves can expire WV into even saturated air as the leaves can have higher pressure. Get carried away or condense, producing sensible heat, I do not care, as long it is away from my leaves. Evaporation rates are notoriously hard to measure. Please do not give undue attention to the greater sea surface area. -will-
So far I have to says solar cycle 24 has had every one caught off guard thus far from the extreme solar lull from 2008-2010 to now this extended maximum which should have been over but instead keeping going and is as strong now as any previous time in this current cycle. If this continues we will be heading for a record long solar cycle.
Since my climate forecast is based on solar activity in large part going forward I will not know if I am correct or not until/unless solar parameters going forward approach my low level value parameters and stay at those values for a sufficient duration of time and the climate responds the way I think it might.
My confidence in future solar activity is less then my forecast for the future climate which I think will respond to solar activity if the values become extreme enough. The problem is will the solar values become extreme enough going forward so we might find out if this may be the case.
Will Janoschka says: December 19, 2014 at 5:43 am
“I like Miskolczi, avoid using the term temperature for anything, unless the specific relationship between temperature and “other” cannot be misconstrued.”
Glad to hear that Will.
“As far as albedo, the whole concept is but an intent to deceive.”
I concur. The energy transfer relationship is far more complex, but these are the parameters that we are expected to deal with for these issues. IMHO this is too simplistic.
“Normal surface reflectivity is higher from the biosphere as the plant diffuse reflectivity from 0.8 microns to 2.5 microns is quite high. Ocean reflectivity from 0.4 to 50 microns becomes apparent only at angles greater than 55 degrees from normal. No actual surface is Lambertian. Please consider that half the earths actual surface area remains at angles less/greater than 45 degrees to the Sun at all times, all that water reflects like hell.”
At last! A statement that indicates the mistakes that Trenberth et al made WRT ‘OHC’ (Ocean Heat Content)! Yes! I concur! Incident insolation has a ‘limit’ for its angle from azimuth to qualify as insolation into the ocean’s depth. However, the UVa spectra can become so scattered by cloud as to penetrate ocean surface at sunset (this isn’t ‘the norm’ though).
“As far as the production of latent heat of evaporation, the sea surface production is severely limited by surface wind velocity of air not yet saturated.”
I concur. This is the main constraint to evaporation at the ocean/atmosphere interface.
“The forest leaves absorb red and blue energy from 4 PI steradians because of mie scattering. The leaves can expire WV into even saturated air as the leaves can have higher pressure. Get carried away or condense, producing sensible heat, I do not care, as long it is away from my leaves.”
I concur. However, these are small regions of the land surface of the planet.
“Evaporation rates are notoriously hard to measure.”
I know. Pan evaporation data is hard to find.
“Please do not give undue attention to the greater sea surface area.”
Unlike Trenberth et al, I don’t.
Best regards, Ray.
suricat says: December 23, 2014 at 3:02 am
Will Janoschka says: December 19, 2014 at 5:43 am
(“I like Miskolczi, avoid using the term temperature for anything, unless the specific relationship between temperature and “other” cannot be misconstrued.”)
Glad to hear that Will.
(“As far as albedo, the whole concept is but an intent to deceive.”)
“I concur. The energy transfer relationship is far more complex, but these are the parameters that we are expected to deal with for these issues. IMHO this is too simplistic.”
(“Normal surface reflectivity is higher from the biosphere as the plant diffuse reflectivity from 0.8 microns to 2.5 microns is quite high. Ocean reflectivity from 0.4 to 50 microns becomes apparent only at angles greater than 55 degrees from normal. No actual surface is Lambertian. Please consider that half the earths actual surface area remains at angles less/greater than 45 degrees to the Sun at all times, all that water reflects like hell.”)
“At last! A statement that indicates the mistakes that Trenberth et al made WRT ‘OHC’ (Ocean Heat Content)! Yes! I concur! Incident insolation has a ‘limit’ for its angle from azimuth to qualify as insolation into the ocean’s depth. However, the UVa spectra can become so scattered by cloud as to penetrate ocean surface at sunset (this isn’t ‘the norm’ though).”
(“As far as the production of latent heat of evaporation, the sea surface production is severely limited by surface wind velocity of air not yet saturated.”)
“I concur. This is the main constraint to evaporation at the ocean/atmosphere interface.
(“The forest leaves absorb red and blue energy from 4 PI steradians because of mie scattering. The leaves can expire WV into even saturated air as the leaves can have higher pressure. Get carried away or condense, producing sensible heat, I do not care, as long it is away from my leaves.”)
“I concur. However, these are small regions of the land surface of the planet.”
Indeed, but those tree leaves gobble everything, producing vast amounts of latent heat of evaporation.
(“Evaporation rates are notoriously hard to measure.”)
“I know. Pan evaporation data is hard to find.”
(“Please do not give undue attention to the greater sea surface area.”)
“Unlike Trenberth et al, I don’t. Best regards, Ray.”
Thank you Ray, This stuff is in-creditably complex and cannot be explained by formula deliberately impressed upon fifth grade students! Anyhow, Merry Christmas! 🙂
Salvatore del Prete says: ‘If this continues we will be heading for a record long solar cycle.’
It depends what you mean by ‘record.’ According to this list solar cycle 4 was 13.7 years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_solar_cycles
Cycle 4 followed two unusually short cycles, which isn’t the scenario now. But the last solar cycle longer than one Jovian year was cycle 9 at 12.4 years, so that could be exceeded.
Will Janoschka says: December 23, 2014 at 3:47 am
Thanks for your salutation Will, back at you, with the hope for prosperity in your endeavours during the coming ‘new’ year. 🙂
Best regards, Ray.