New evidence that solar forcing is greater than CO2 forcing.

Posted: August 8, 2021 by tallbloke in Analysis, atmosphere, Carbon cycle, climate, Clouds, cosmic rays, Emissions, Energy, IPCC, Measurement, Natural Variation, radiative theory, satellites

An IPCC scientist on twitter alerted me to this animation created by Chris Rentsch which analyses the data from the AIRS satellite measuring outgoing longwave radiation.

Here’s a still from the end of the video sequence.

As we can see, by 2019, there is a decrease in OLR at the wavelengths absorbed by CO2 (13-15um) as its atmospheric fraction increases. But we can also see that there is a much bigger increase in OLR at the wavelengths within the ‘atmospheric window’ (10-13um) where it isn’t absorbed by any atmospheric gases.

Chris correctly states that this is indicative of a warming, but refrains from drawing the rather obvious conclusion:

since the increase in OLR through the atmospheric window is much larger than the decrease in OLR due to extra CO2, the majority of the warming must be due to an external forcing (increased incident solar shortwave). Otherwise the surface would be cooling, not warming!

It turns out that according to the available data, this overall increase in OLR has been going on for a long time. Here’s the NCEP reanalysis.

The most likely source of the extra energy is the Sun, via a reduction in cloud cover, as measured by ISCCP.

There’s your ‘global warming’.

The further implication of this externally forced warming is that some proportion of the increase in atmospheric CO2 will be due to the Sun warmed ocean surface releasing it to the atmosphere and being less able to reabsorb it. What that proportion is remains to be determined, but the big reduction in human emissions due to the coronanpanic lockdowns have had no discernable effect on the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide.

Lockdown had zero effect on the upward trend of CO2 ...
Comments
  1. oldbrew says:

    Excuses will have to be manufactured. Failing that, just look the other way.

  2. hdhuffman says:

    “Chris correctly states that this is indicative of a warming…”

    NO, it is not so indicative. It merely shows an increase in the OLR radiation due to CO2, thus an increase in that CO2. It does NOT show global warming, at all. The graph only shows the PRESENCE of CO2, not its supposed warming effect. Those who believe — I repeat and emphasize, “believe”, not understand — in the radiation theory of the atmosphere, are fundamentally miseducated, and wrong-headedly incompetent (imagine an Uncle Sam poster, of stern image, and poiinting at YOU). There ARE NO radiation-forcings of the atmospheric temperature, in the global context. Only the weight of the atmosphere, which decreases with altitude, and the intensity of that part of the incident solar radiation that is directly absorbed by the atmosphere, determines the global mean temperature..

    There is NO CO2 greenhouse effect. Nor is there a competent radiation transfer theory for the atmosphere. Radiation is just one pathway for heat transfer, and the GOVERNOR of the global mean temperature (at ANY level in the troposphere, not just the surface) is the temperature lapse rate (which depends only upon the gravitational acceleration g and the effective atmospheric specific heat c, not on the concentration of ANY component of the atmosphere, whether IR-absorbing or not).

    But nobody listens to the real science any more, for very long. The drivel just keeps coming back, as this post has done.

  3. Peter Norman says:

    Nice try! But the computing time may have been more valuably spent creating a Bitcoin. Satellite instrument accuracy (and this applies to all instruments used to prove results) drift from initial calibration with time. How do you recalibrate this satellite instrument remotely? Nice graphics though.

  4. Chaswarnertoo says:

    Nevah! Who’d a thunk it….?

  5. Ulric Lyons says:

    “the majority of the warming must be due to an external forcing (increased incident solar shortwave)”

    Because of the warm AMO phase reducing low cloud cover, and the warm AMO phase is a response to weaker solar wind states since 1995.

  6. @Peter Norman: ‘How do you check the calibration of satellite sensors in space?’

    Using the sun and deep space as the two end stops

    Using wx balloons etc.

    I am sure that even you could come up with so cal techniques that may withstand brainstorming techniques to see if they will work.

    You could even consider proving the concept on earth prior to launch, that might be worthwhile?

  7. tallbloke says:

    Harry Huffman: “It merely shows an increase in the OLR radiation due to CO2, thus an increase in that CO2. It does NOT show global warming, at all.”

    I think you’ve got the wrong end of the graph Harry. Re-read what I wrote please:

    “there is a much bigger increase in OLR at the wavelengths within the ‘atmospheric window’ (10-13um) where it isn’t absorbed by any atmospheric gases.”

    Chris thinks it’s indicative of a surface warming due to CO2, because all else being equal, more OLR through the window could only be due to a warmer surface, and the CO2 part of the graph shows increased absorbance.

    BUT

    All else is NOT equal. Cloud cover has reduced, and that will allow night-time radiance (which is what we’re looking at here) to escape to space more readily. That would COOL the surface, but even John Christy at UAH isn’t going to go with that having happened. The point is that the cloud cover hasn’t only reduced at night, but during the daytime too, and that has allowed more solar shortwave into the oceans, causing most of the surface warming.

    Harry Huffman: “Only the weight of the atmosphere, which decreases with altitude, and the intensity of that part of the incident solar radiation that is directly absorbed by the atmosphere, determines the global mean temperature..”

    No disagreement about that at the talkshop, but it’s the long term global mean temperature. The centennial fluctuations are due to changes in solar irradiance and cloud cover.

  8. tallbloke says:

    Chris has a paper on ArXiv, which fills in some more detail of his work, and investigates calibration drift, as well as showing that the area under the CO2 curve is actually twice the size, because AIRS isn’t measuring the other CO2 absorption wing.

    arxiv.org/pdf/1911.10605.pdf

  9. craigm350 says:

    Reblogged this on WeatherAction News and commented:
    🤔 Interesting and of course something you would see at the upcoming 26th Armageddonfest

  10. pochas94 says:

    Check out Wien’s displacement law. This states that radiating temperature depends on the wavelengths being radiated. Longer wavelengths require higher temperatures for the same radiating power.

  11. tallbloke says:

  12. Phil Salmon says:

    Very interesting data.
    Intuitively it would appear that decreased (absorbed) emission in the 13-15 band is being compensated by increasing emission just below that range over 10-13um. This is as would be expected from the Principal of Least Action (or Noether’s Law) that the system would adjust while minimising the movement of energy.

  13. Phil Salmon says:

    In other words the atmosphere is not suffering from IR constipation! The IR energy it needs to expel to space, it does expel, if not at one wavelength then another will do.

    Sigh – that feels so much better!

  14. AndyG55 says:

    What this is indicative is the transfer of CO2 absorption energy to the rest of the atmosphere, and the expulsion of that energy at another wavelength

    Would be interesting to do an energy integration on the data vs wavelength energy.

    As Harry said…. all controlled by the atmospheric mass, and atmospheric energy transfers due to the pressure/density gradient.

  15. Why is the bigger increase in OLR at the wavelengths within the ‘atmospheric window’ (10-13um) called “warming”?
    More IR loss means cooling.

  16. Fun fact: If you calculate the hydrocarbon combustion released energy corresponding to the annual global emission of CO2, it corresponds to a forcing of 0.1-0.2 watts / m^2. Not too far short of the lowest CO2 sensitivity estimates.

    https://ptolemy2.wordpress.com/2021/08/06/could-fossil-fuel-warming-be-just-combustion-heat-not-radiative-whatnot/

  17. tom0mason says:

    So what does this say about ‘energy balance’? 🙂 🙂
    ‘Energy balance’ that assumes that outgoing energy must equal incoming energy? IMO that is complete hokum, until they actually measure all the incoming energy and correctly account for what is held and released over the short and long term (mostly by the oceans and natural processes — ‘cos greening of the planet didn’t take any energy, eh?).

  18. Andrew Chantrill says:

    In the UK, and I suspect elsewhere, the big increase has been in Shortwave Downwelling Radiation – aka Sunshine, which according to the Met Office has risen by close to 10% since 1970. And it correlates well with temperature.

  19. ren says:

    Visible very slow increase in solar magnetic field activity.

  20. ren says:

    I predict a very snowy winter in the northern hemisphere this year. I am taking three factors into account.
    First, galactic radiation is concentrated in the high and mid latitudes, according to the geomagnetic field.
    Second, the oceans are warm enough that there will be enough water vapor to produce plenty of snow.
    Third, there will already be La Niña in November, which will cause temperatures to drop in high latitudes.
    In this situation, we can expect frequent stratospheric intrusions and snow fronts in the middle latitudes.

  21. Pochas94 Wien’s displacement law is that the wavelength in microns is equal to a constant over the absolute temperature. The law is for peak black body radiation. The constant is approx 2898 micron.K So with an Earth surface temperature of 293K the peak black body radiation has a wavelength of approx. 9.9 micron. For CO2 emission at 14.8 micron the temperature is approx. 196K. However, I believe satellite measurements put the actual temperature at which CO2 radiates to space at about 210K (CO2 is not a black body and has a very low emissivity -not 1.0 as assumed by so-called climate scientists). Also CO2 does not radiate back to the Earth surface from the 2nd law of Thermodynamics as the radiating temperature is way below the Earths surface temperature.

  22. “As we can see, by 2019, there is a decrease in OLR at the wavelengths absorbed by CO2 (13-15um) as its atmospheric fraction increases.”

    I understand this to be due to CO2 absorbance at altitudes > 5-10 km caused by CO2 bending mode. Something to do with the electrons entering higher quantum states. This has the effect of widening the CO2 absorption spectrum. At these altitudes, the band is widened from 14-16 to 13-17. This should have little greenhouse effect because at these altitudes, there is little stopping the heat from radiating out to space.

    Thoughts?

  23. Stephen Wilde says:

    hdhuffman is correct about the long term average surface temperature set by atmospheric mass convecting up and down within a gravitational field but that is not the issue here.
    Here, we are discussing variations above and below that average caused by changes in cloud cover.
    I prefer the idea of more meridional jet stream tracks creating longer lines of air mass mixing and thus more clouds rather than the idea that more cosmic rays cause more condensation nuclei for more clouds.
    There are already more than enough condensation nuclei in an atmosphere so I doubt the cosmic ray theory.
    Changes in cloud cover affect the proportion of incoming solar energy that is able to enter the oceans and thus mimic changes in top of atmosphere insolation.
    Changes in top of atmosphere insolation will change the surface temperature for any given amount of atmospheric mass.

  24. Stephen Wilde says:

    The concept of energy absorbed by CO2 leading to convection changes so that the energy goes out again at a different wavelength is intrinsic to my comments of long ago to the effect that convective changes will inevitably neutralise all radiative imbalances however caused otherwise hydrostatic equilibrium will be destroyed and the atmosphere lost.
    Thus over time the equilibrum set by mass and gravity must be retained.
    The lapse rate is the key component of the adjustment mechanism because if radiative gases disturb the lapse rate slope, as they must, then convection changes accordingly.
    The key point is that the distortions of the lapse rate slope induced by radiative gases are equal but opposite in rising and falling columns of air so for the globe as a whole they net out to zero.
    Although radiative gases will indeed initiate convective adjustments those adjustments would be indiscernible from the magnitudes greater effects of internal system variability.

  25. oldbrew says:

    A problem for cosmic ray theory is the lack of supporting 11 year, or solar cycle length, climate variability data.

  26. dai davies says:

    “A problem for cosmic ray theory is the lack of supporting 11 year, or solar cycle length, climate variability data.”

    My cyclic analysis of southern ocean temperatures showed the 11y cycle, but in a weak fourth place after 800, 200 & 60 year cycles. These periods fit with models of sunspot activity and account for all but 0.03C of the data variance.

  27. oldbrew says:

    Most so-called greenhouse gas is water vapour. Focussing only on CO2 is analogous to a conjuring trick.

  28. Phil Salmon says:

    Could solar forcing lead to another one of these?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s