I’m going to ignore the typical nonsense mainstream narrative, and do this analysis in the tradition of: Measuring Geothermal – A Revolutionary Hypothesis.
I will use 41 years of NCEP Reanalysis Data. Create a new file fluxchange.sh, and paste:
# source fluxchange.sh
# Zoe Phin 2020/03/10
F=(0 ulwrf dswrf uswrf lhtfl shtfl)
O=(0 3201.5 3086.5 3131.5 856.5 2176.5)
require() { sudo apt install nco gnuplot; } # Linux Only
download() {
b="ftp://ftp.cdc.noaa.gov/Datasets/ncep.reanalysis2.derived/gaussian_grid"
for i in ${F[*]}; do wget -O $i.nc -c $b/$i.sfc.mon.mean.nc; done
}
extract() {
rm -f .fx*
for i in {1..5}; do echo $i of 5 >&2
for t in {000..491}; do
ncks --trd -HC ${F[$i]}.nc -v ${F[$i]} -d time,$t | sed \$d | awk -F[=\ ] -vO=${O[$i]} -vt=$t '{
W[$4]+=$8/10+O } END { for (L in W) { T += W[L]/192*cos(L*atan2(0,-1)/180) }
printf "%04d %02d %7.3f\n", t/12+1979, t%12+1, T/60.1647 }'
done | tee -a .fx$i
done
}
annualize() {
for i in {1..5}; do
awk '{ T[$1]+=$3 } END { for (y in T) printf "%04d %7.3f\n", y, T[y]/12 }' .fx$i > .af$i
done
}
change() {
paste .af1 .af2 .af3 .af4 .af5 | awk '{
printf "%s %s %s %s %s %s | %7.3f %7.3f %7.3f\n",
$1, $2, $4, $6, $8, $10, $2+$8+$10, $4-$6, $2-($4-$6)+$8+$10 }' | tee fluxchg.csv | awk '
NR==1 { Ui=$2; Ni=$5+$6; Si=$9; Gi=$10 } END {
dU=$2-Ui; dN=$5+$6-Ni; dS=$9-Si; dG=$10-Gi
printf "Upwelling Change:\t%7.3f W/m^2\n", dU
printf "NonRadiative Change:\t%7.3f W/m^2\n\n", dN
printf "Net Solar Change:\t%7.3f W/m^2\n", dS
printf "Geothermal Change:\t%7.3f W/m^2\n", dG
}'
}
plot() {
echo "set term png size 740,550 font 'arial,12'; unset key; set grid
plot 'fluxchg.csv' u 1:9 t 'Net Solar' w lines lw 3 lc rgb 'orange'" | gnuplot > slrchg.png
echo "set term png size 740,550 font 'arial,12'; unset key; set grid
plot 'fluxchg.csv' u 1:10 t 'Geothermal' w lines lw 3 lc rgb 'green'" | gnuplot > geochg.png
}Run it:
$ source fluxchange.sh
$ require # linux only
$ download
$ extract
$ annualize
$ change
Upwelling Change: 3.401 W/m^2
NonRadiative Change: 4.784 W/m^2
Net Solar Change: 1.419 W/m^2
Geothermal Change: 6.766 W/m^2
The results are changes for years 1979 to 2019 (inclusive). The upwelling radiation flux and non-radiative flux equivalent has changed 3.401+4.784 = 8.185 W/m², and the attribution is properly divided among
- The change in insolation (primarily due to reduced cloud cover) – 1.419 W/m²
- Internal geothermal changes within the Earth – 6.766 W/m²
The crackpot mainstream greenhouse gas theory lacks empirical evidence, and yet its followers have the nerve to claim that humans are mostly responsible for recent warming. Nonsense. The cause was always #1 and #2.
Plot results:
$ plotTwo new files created: slrchg.png and geochg.png
Enjoy 🙂 – Zoe
Addendum
$ cat fluxchg.csv
1979 395.786 186.921 26.919 87.056 7.335 | 490.177 160.002 330.175
1980 396.248 186.179 27.066 88.049 7.452 | 491.749 159.113 332.636
1981 395.826 186.227 26.999 87.365 6.982 | 490.173 159.228 330.945
1982 395.207 187.333 26.994 87.962 7.934 | 491.103 160.339 330.764
1983 396.148 187.429 27.092 87.688 7.736 | 491.572 160.337 331.235
1984 395.186 187.830 26.942 86.853 7.945 | 489.984 160.888 329.096
1985 394.914 187.021 27.373 86.890 7.407 | 489.211 159.648 329.563
1986 395.503 186.138 26.799 88.883 7.567 | 491.953 159.339 332.614
1987 396.042 186.786 27.074 89.541 7.123 | 492.706 159.712 332.994
1988 396.403 185.917 26.844 88.428 7.598 | 492.429 159.073 333.356
1989 395.692 187.332 26.878 88.224 7.659 | 491.575 160.454 331.121
1990 396.751 185.962 26.491 88.830 7.405 | 492.986 159.471 333.515
1991 396.649 186.832 26.841 88.516 7.939 | 493.104 159.991 333.113
1992 395.438 187.175 27.030 89.625 8.814 | 493.877 160.145 333.732
1993 395.298 187.121 26.921 89.680 8.397 | 493.375 160.200 333.175
1994 395.859 187.384 27.092 90.347 8.459 | 494.665 160.292 334.373
1995 396.609 186.948 26.720 90.761 8.292 | 495.662 160.228 335.434
1996 395.938 186.889 27.293 92.229 8.509 | 496.676 159.596 337.080
1997 396.798 187.287 26.950 92.895 7.849 | 497.542 160.337 337.205
1998 397.931 186.646 26.847 92.945 7.873 | 498.749 159.799 338.950
1999 396.517 187.779 26.880 92.037 8.052 | 496.606 160.899 335.707
2000 396.340 187.967 27.053 94.193 7.936 | 498.469 160.914 337.555
2001 397.321 187.681 26.674 94.724 7.890 | 499.935 161.007 338.928
2002 397.710 188.238 26.708 94.694 7.949 | 500.353 161.530 338.823
2003 397.804 188.196 26.783 95.019 7.977 | 500.800 161.413 339.387
2004 397.397 187.912 26.836 95.386 7.933 | 500.716 161.076 339.640
2005 398.228 187.168 26.577 93.679 7.619 | 499.526 160.591 338.935
2006 397.815 187.226 26.505 93.671 6.732 | 498.218 160.721 337.497
2007 397.605 186.780 26.632 93.904 6.247 | 497.756 160.148 337.608
2008 397.106 188.004 27.021 92.936 6.565 | 496.607 160.983 335.624
2009 397.900 187.515 26.678 93.026 7.348 | 498.274 160.837 337.437
2010 398.153 186.115 26.535 94.463 6.238 | 498.854 159.580 339.274
2011 397.179 186.900 26.747 93.863 6.269 | 497.311 160.153 337.158
2012 397.674 187.437 26.768 93.584 6.606 | 497.864 160.669 337.195
2013 397.805 187.167 26.953 93.387 6.382 | 497.574 160.214 337.360
2014 398.137 187.495 26.908 94.028 6.460 | 498.625 160.587 338.038
2015 398.972 187.381 26.727 94.254 6.797 | 500.023 160.654 339.369
2016 399.599 185.911 25.952 93.387 6.276 | 499.262 159.959 339.303
2017 399.039 186.358 26.212 94.697 6.395 | 500.131 160.146 339.985
2018 398.596 187.198 26.528 94.232 6.356 | 499.184 160.670 338.514
2019 399.187 187.909 26.488 93.321 5.854 | 498.362 161.421 336.941
| Column 1 | Year |
| Column 2 | Earth Longwave Upwelling |
| Column 3 | Solar Shortwave Downwelling |
| Column 4 | Solar Shortwave Upwelling |
| Column 5 | Latent Heat |
| Column 6 | Sensible Heat |
| Column 7 | Total Equivalent Received by Atmosphere |
| Column 8 | Net Solar (Shortwave Down minus Up) |
| Column 9 | Geothermal (Columns: #2 – (#3 – #4) + #5 + #6 ) |
Zoe's Insights 
Hi Zoe,
It’s pretty obvious from other data that something happened from 1980. I’ve carried out some quick analyses on various data sets such as Oxford UK fand the CET both from the MET office which show a steep rise.
1960-1990 is the base mean for calculating ‘anomalies’. There is a 0.74 C rise in the mean from 1990 to 2020 in the CET data. I was intrigued by your hypothesis of a geothermal influence.
Two questions:
1) How did you calculate the geothermal? (You code in Klingon and I code in Parseltongue. 🙂 )
2) Why should there be any balance between starlight received from the sun and energy emitted from the earth?
LikeLiked by 1 person
1) The formula is:
Geothermal = Upwelling IR – Net Solar + Latent Heat + Sensible Heat
2) There shouldn’t and isn’t. Such a thing could exist between a star and planet, but it would be a coincidence, not a necessity.
The black/gray body calculation assumes that the target is already at equilibrium. It’s meaningless circular reasoning.
LikeLike
Don’t know if you’ve seen this, but it’s an interesting paper on geologic heat causing warming in sub sea temps. the geologist who wrote it I believe shares some of your theories about geothermal: https://climatechangedispatch.com/geologic-heat-ocean-warming/
LikeLiked by 1 person
yeah sure. why not?
LikeLike
Your formula for Column 9, which you claims equals geothermal, appears to omit the longwave radiation emitted by the Sun and absorbed by the surface, and longwave radiation emitted by the atmosphere and absorbed by the surface. The latter emission by the atmosphere comes from (1) shortwave absorbed by the atmosphere from shortwave (a) coming directly from the Sun, plus (b) that reflected from the surface; and (2) longwave absorbed by the atmosphere from longwave emitted by the surface. Your formula’s omissions result in your nominal “geothermal” total actually being geothermal plus all those other sources of energy.
LikeLike
“Shortwave” from the sun includes the small longwave portion. It’s still called shortwave because the sun provides MOSTLY shortwave. They should call it shorterwave.
Yes, but shallow ground thermal systems are still called “geothermal”, even though it’s stored solar.
Did you think my “geothermal” was strictly deep internal energy? No, it accounts for both real geothermal and solar stored by land/water.
LikeLike
Your entire point of your original post was your claim that radiation toward the surface from greenhouse gases does not exist. But in your most recent comment you say you include those contributions to energy in the surface.
LikeLike
So mentioning solar longwave is equivalent to denying longwave radiation from the atmosphere? You should stop twisting things.
LikeLike
Your comment admitted that longwave from above in fact does contribute to the energy that your supposed “geothermal” column 9 calculation represents. Therefore your “geothermal” number fails to omit energy from greenhouse gases. Therefore your original post’s claim of that number proving that energy from sources other than greenhouse gases are sufficient to close the energy budget, is false. That number is no such evidence. Your original post is irrelevant to your claim of the non-contribution of greenhouse gas emissions.
LikeLike
Talk about getting things backwards. Where does the atmosphere get all that longwave radiation? (Forget direct absorption, that is too weak to warm anything). That’s what I’m trying to solve.
You then come in and tell me that my pan is hot because of the fried eggs! Yah, it was the eggs that warmed the pan. lol
LikeLike