Effect of Clouds on Global Upwelling Radiation

I downloaded and analyzed 10 Gigabytes of data fully covering years 2003 to 2019 from “the only project worldwide whose prime objective is to produce global climate data records of ERB [Earth’s Radiation Budget] from instruments designed to observe the ERB” [site] [data] in order to see the effect of clouds at the surface, especially the Upwelling Longwave Radiation (LW_UP).

NASA Reminds us …

High clouds are much colder than low clouds and the surface. They radiate less energy to space than low clouds do. The high clouds in this image are radiating significantly less thermal energy than anything else in the image. Because high clouds absorb energy so efficiently, they have the potential to raise global temperatures. In a world with high clouds, much of the energy that would otherwise escape to space is captured in the atmosphere. High clouds make the world a warmer place. If more high clouds were to form, more heat energy radiating from the surface and lower atmosphere toward space would be trapped in the atmosphere, and Earth’s average surface temperature would climb.

NASA

In contrast to the warming effect of the higher clouds, low stratocumulus clouds act to cool the Earth system. Because lower clouds are much thicker than high cirrus clouds, they are not as transparent: they do not let as much solar energy reach the Earth’s surface. Instead, they reflect much of the solar energy back to space (their cloud albedo forcing is large). Although stratocumulus clouds also emit longwave radiation out to space and toward the Earth’s surface, they are near the surface and at almost the same temperature as the surface. Thus, they radiate at nearly the same intensity as the surface and do not greatly affect the infrared radiation emitted to space (their cloud greenhouse forcing on a planetary scale is small). On the other hand, the longwave radiation emitted downward from the base of a stratocumulus cloud does tend to warm the surface and the thin layer of air in between, but the preponderant cloud albedo forcing shields the surface from enough solar radiation that the net effect of these clouds is to cool the surface.

NASA

Here’s the global percent of clouds by type:

Clouds  Average    2003     2004     2005     2006     2007     2008     2009     2010     2011     2012     2013     2014     2015     2016     2017     2018     2019     
Type_1  008.379  007.999  007.839  008.140  008.443  008.367  008.345  008.524  008.550  008.229  008.157  007.984  007.999  008.028  008.256  008.465  009.469  009.641
Type_2  024.677  023.556  023.799  024.149  024.438  024.168  024.382  024.580  024.419  024.181  024.766  024.539  024.534  024.796  025.193  025.493  026.317  026.195
Type_3  036.259  035.815  035.721  035.894  036.028  035.646  036.004  036.248  035.742  035.566  036.363  036.144  036.194  036.563  036.856  036.918  037.531  037.173
Type_4  066.637  067.458  067.597  067.381  066.701  066.395  066.248  066.500  066.579  066.149  066.087  066.093  066.003  066.103  066.577  066.569  067.425  066.972
Type_5  133.275  134.917  135.194  134.763  133.403  132.790  132.496  133.001  133.157  132.298  132.173  132.186  132.007  132.206  133.154  133.139  134.851  133.944

Cloud Types:  1 = High (50-300 mb), 2 = UpperMid (300-500 mb), 3 = LowerMid (500-700 mb), 4 = Low (700 mb-Surface), 5 = Total (50 mb - Surface)

The project keeps track of 4 different types of observed LW_UP: All, Clr, AllNoAero, and Pristine. All is normal observed sky. Clr (clear) is no clouds. AllNoAero is All minus aerosols. Pristine is Clr minus aerosols.

Since clouds play an important role in Earth’s supposed greenhouse effect, and this effect leads to a supposed serious warming at the surface, we should see a very large difference between all these 4 scenarios.

The results (Units = W/m²):

Series               Average     2003     2004     2005     2006     2007     2008     2009     2010     2011     2012     2013     2014     2015     2016     2017     2018     2019     
clr_sfc_lw_up        397.445  397.191  396.820  397.667  397.222  397.033  396.243  396.924  397.166  396.364  396.883  397.063  397.361  398.266  398.894  398.455  398.166  398.848
all_sfc_lw_up        398.167  397.921  397.559  398.404  397.945  397.750  396.955  397.632  397.876  397.076  397.598  397.795  398.090  398.992  399.625  399.189  398.874  399.551
pristine_sfc_lw_up   397.387  397.135  396.763  397.610  397.165  396.974  396.182  396.866  397.107  396.306  396.825  397.006  397.305  398.207  398.836  398.397  398.106  398.790
allnoaero_sfc_lw_up  398.129  397.885  397.522  398.368  397.907  397.711  396.914  397.594  397.838  397.038  397.560  397.758  398.054  398.953  399.587  399.152  398.834  399.513

But in fact there is very little difference. The difference in surface LW_UP between a Pristine sky (no clouds, no aerosols) and All sky (see above cloud data) is just 0.78 W/m².

I would even argue it might be ZERO. It’s only not zero because a satellite can’t measure the same scenario in the same place at the same time. They can only measure some place nearby or same place at another time. Even if I’m wrong on this, this value is still very unimpressive.

Now let’s look at downwelling longwave radiation (LW_DN) and longwave radiation at the top of the atmosphere (TOA_LW):

Series               Average    2003     2004     2005     2006     2007     2008     2009     2010     2011     2012     2013     2014     2015     2016     2017     2018     2019     
clr_sfc_lw_dn        317.924  317.702  317.175  318.077  317.760  317.364  316.483  317.572  318.370  316.923  317.328  317.615  318.045  319.242  319.663  318.692  318.146  318.559
all_sfc_lw_dn        347.329  347.436  347.344  348.132  347.250  346.673  345.582  346.526  347.440  346.029  346.573  347.385  347.673  348.678  349.256  348.454  346.994  347.173
pristine_sfc_lw_dn   316.207  316.004  315.473  316.394  316.063  315.611  314.691  315.852  316.654  315.192  315.589  315.934  316.384  317.490  317.954  316.968  316.400  316.867
allnoaero_sfc_lw_dn  346.359  346.490  346.395  347.196  346.297  345.669  344.546  345.549  346.466  345.048  345.590  346.448  346.754  347.694  348.296  347.489  345.987  346.195

Series               Average    2003     2004     2005     2006     2007     2008     2009     2010     2011     2012     2013     2014     2015     2016     2017     2018     2019     
clr_toa_lw_up        262.503  262.373  262.267  262.645  262.446  262.584  262.087  262.268  262.521  262.179  262.185  262.499  262.543  262.668  263.075  262.942  262.535  262.735
all_toa_lw_up        237.889  237.990  237.924  238.257  237.970  238.339  237.685  237.764  238.165  237.975  237.581  237.895  237.973  238.027  237.999  237.848  237.167  237.557
pristine_toa_lw_up   262.979  262.833  262.720  263.102  262.911  263.070  262.598  262.743  262.988  262.665  262.684  262.965  263.009  263.165  263.547  263.419  263.033  263.198
allnoaero_toa_lw_up  238.168  238.260  238.189  238.523  238.242  238.626  237.987  238.042  238.438  238.260  237.874  238.167  238.245  238.320  238.274  238.126  237.456  237.827

Let’s now compare the averages side by side for all 3:

Series               Average

clr_toa_lw_up        262.503
all_toa_lw_up        237.889
pristine_toa_lw_up   262.979
allnoaero_toa_lw_up  238.168

clr_sfc_lw_dn        317.924
all_sfc_lw_dn        347.329
pristine_sfc_lw_dn   316.207
allnoaero_sfc_lw_dn  346.359

clr_sfc_lw_up        397.445
all_sfc_lw_up        398.167
pristine_sfc_lw_up   397.387
allnoaero_sfc_lw_up  398.129

The standard greenhouse effect narrative is that infrared absorbing gases prevent radiation from reaching space and this causes warming at the surface (thus more radiation). Well we clearly see that’s not case. If clouds (water vapor + aerosols) hardly changes outgoing surface radiation, then the whole hypothesis is in error. Less top-of-atmosphere outgoing radiation doesn’t cause surface heating and thus more radiation from the surface, despite the increase in downwelling radiation.

Enjoy 🙂 -Zoe

Update 02/28

Resident Biden’s Senior Climate Advisor reminds us

We quantify the impact of each individual absorber in the total effect by examining the net amount of long‐wave radiation absorbed in the atmosphere (G, global annual mean surface upwelling LW minus the TOA LW upwelling flux) [Raval and Ramanathan, 1989; Stephens and Greenwald, 1991]. This is zero in the absence of any long‐wave absorbers, and around 155 W/m2 in the present‐day atmosphere [Kiehl and Trenberth, 1997]. This reduction in outgoing LW flux drives the 33°C greenhouse effect defined above, and is an easier diagnostic to work with.

Gavin Schmidt et al.

that the greenhouse effect (G) is just SFC_LW_UP minus TOA_LW_UP. So let’s do that for all scenarios:

clr_toa_lw_up        397.445 - 262.503 = 134.942
all_toa_lw_up        398.167 - 237.889 = 160.278
pristine_toa_lw_up   397.387 - 262.979 = 134.408
allnoaero_toa_lw_up  398.129 - 238.168 = 159.961

So there is definitely a mathematical “greenhouse effect” difference between the 4 scenarios, and yet this makes no difference to surface upwelling radiation, and by extension to surface temperature.

Varying the amount of “greenhouse effect” means nothing to surface temperature.

Since the absorption of radiation by IR active gases makes no difference to surface temperature, the greenhouse effect hypothesis is simply incorrect and should be abandoned for the sake of empirical science.

-Zoe

Code clouds.sh:

# Zoe Phin, 2021/02/09

require() { sudo apt install -y hd4-tools; }

download() { 
    mkdir -p ceres; n=4
    for y in {2003..2019}; do 
        for m in {01..12}; do
            [ $y$m -ge 201507 ] && n=5
            [ $y$m -ge 201603 ] && n=6
            [ $y$m -ge 201802 ] && n=7
            wget -O ceres/$y$m.hdf -c "https://opendap.larc.nasa.gov/opendap/hyrax/CERES/SYN1deg-Month/Terra-Aqua-MODIS_Edition4A/$y/$m/CER_SYN1deg-Month_Terra-Aqua-MODIS_Edition4A_40${n}406.$y$m.hdf"
        done
    done
}

cmd() { ncdump-hdf -l999 ceres/$1$2.hdf -v "$3"; }

lwup() { series='init_clr_sfc_lw_up init_all_sfc_lw_up init_pristine_sfc_lw_up init_allnoaero_sfc_lw_up'; lw; }
lwdn() { series='init_clr_sfc_lw_dn init_all_sfc_lw_dn init_pristine_sfc_lw_dn init_allnoaero_sfc_lw_dn'; lw; }
lwta() { series='init_clr_toa_lw_up init_all_toa_lw_up init_pristine_toa_lw_up init_allnoaero_toa_lw_up'; lw; }

lw() {
    printf "\n%-20s %-11s" Series Average
    for y in {2003..2019}; do printf "$y     "; done; echo

    for s in $(echo $series); do
        printf "%-20s = " $s
        for y in {2003..2019}; do
            for m in {01..12}; do
                cmd $y $m ${s}_glob | sed -n 3173,+2p
            done | awk -vv="${s}_glob" '$1==v{s+=$3}END{printf "%07.3f ",s/12}'
        done
        echo
    done | awk '{ s=0
        for(i=3;i<=NF;i++) s+=$i; 
        $2 = sprintf("%07.3f", s/17); 
        printf "%s\n", $0
    }' | sed -r 's/init_|adj_//' | column -t
}

clouds() {
    rm -f .m* .y* .cld
    printf "\n%-7s %-11s" Clouds Average
    for y in {2003..2019}; do printf "$y     "; done; echo

    printf "Type_%d =\n" $(seq 5) > .cld
    for y in {2003..2019}; do 
        for m in {01..12}; do 
            cmd $y $m obs_cld_amount_glob | sed -n 3173,+2p | grep -o '[0-9].*[0-9]' | tr ',' '\n' > .m$m
        done 
        paste .m* | awk '{ S=0; for(i=1;i<=NF;i++) s+=$i; printf "%07.3f\n", s/12 }' > .y$y
    done
    ( 	paste -d ' ' .cld .y* | awk '{ s=0
        for(i=3;i<=NF;i++) s+=$i; 
        $2 = sprintf("%07.3f", s/17); 
        printf "%s\n", $0
        }' | column -t
        echo -e '\nCloud Types:  1 = High (50-300 mb), 2 = UpperMid (300-500 mb), 3 = LowerMid (500-700 mb), 4 = Low (700 mb-Surface), 5 = Total (50 mb - Surface)'
    )
}

Run:

$ source clouds.sh; require && download
$ clouds; lwup; lwdn; lwta

Published by Zoe Phin

https://phzoe.com

36 thoughts on “Effect of Clouds on Global Upwelling Radiation

  1. Rest assured you are right Zoe. The Greenhouse Effect hypothesis is not supported by observation. The predictions of the models that incorporate the supposed effect produce wildly inflated predictions of the rate of temperature increase that are not supported by observation. And we have now had forty years of observation.

    Mildura is close to the junction of the Murray and the Darling Rivers, where most of Australia’s grapes, citrus, almonds, pistachios, olives, carrots, and asparagus are grown. Mildura prides itself on four hundred more sunlight hours per annum than the Gold Coast. It has rich red, energy absorbing soils that radiate strongly.

    We have average monthly minimum and maximum temperatures for Mildura since1890.

    The minimum in the warmest month, February, both prior to and after 1950, is close to 16.5C. No change. Contrary to the expectation based on greenhouse theory, all the energy that is picked up during the day is dissipated overnight. There is no inhibition of the cooling process overnight. No ‘greenhouse effect’. No increase in temperature in 130 years. The same applies in relation to the daily maximum. There are another four stations with that length of data and all tell the same story.

    Another example: The Earth is 3% closer to the sun in January than in July. Nevertheless, the average monthly temperature for the planet is higher by 3C in July than in January. In July irradiance from the sun is 6% weaker than in January. How can the Earth be warmer at that time? Because the continents of the northern hemisphere heat the atmosphere strongly in mid year giving rise to a global minimum in cloud cover in July. So, more solar radiation reaches the surface.

    The global maximum in cloud cover occurs in January when the northern continents are at their coldest coinciding with the Earth being 3% closer to the sun than in July so irradiance is 6% stronger. But in January the Earth is 3C cooler than in July.

    The message is that the presence of cloud as a reflector of solar radiation trumps any back radiation effect from the cloud.

    That stacks up with your assertion that the back radiation effect can’t be measured.

    NASA is full of excrement. Continued funding depends upon having a purpose and rendering a return on investment. Sadly, there is much less return for the funds invested in NASA than they would have us believe. James Hansen ran the show. What would you expect?

    Liked by 2 people

    1. –No change. Contrary to the expectation based on greenhouse theory, all the energy that is picked up during the day is dissipated overnight. There is no inhibition of the cooling process overnight. No ‘greenhouse effect’.–

      That makes sense to me. But it tells me, the Southern Hemisphere hasn’t had much change in temperature.
      The southern hemisphere is about 1 C cooler than Northern. Which has been mystery/paradox for over 100 years.
      Or since southern hemisphere has more ocean {and everyone has known ocean absorb more sunlight] it should warmer than northern hemisphere]. Any reasons given for this are many, but it seems a common reason given is southern Hemisphere transport more net heat to Northern Hemisphere.

      And I would say, the larger land mass of northern hemisphere draws more heat, and/or Atlantic “pushes” more deep water into Global Conveyor Belt which also drawing up the Gulf stream which warms Europe {adds about 10 K to European land temperature- which averages about 9 C, and would below 0 C without having the warmed tropical waters].

      Mildura seems somewhat isolated from El Nino type variations and these strong weather patterns having large “global effect”. And seems isolated from variations of heat exchange with S and N hemisphere. And pretty far Global Conveyor Belt {if that deep water circulation variation “could have any effect in terms variation”] though it also seems far enough Antarctica surface circulation and any changes of ocean conditions. Though one would of course have weather/rain from ocean but I would it would tend say land is more dominate factor {land does not change like ocean surfaces which are always changing}

      Like

      1. Also I tend to cut the world in halves. Tropical zone is 40% of world. And cut in half by widening tropical zone so it’s 50% of world, and then got the two halves of north and south. And Mildura would near that tropical half or near southern edge of southern half.
        And global warming is largely about polar amplification. Ie Canada should warm more during global warming or get much colder with global cooling. And global tropical zone remains mostly unaffected by glaciation and interglaciation cooling and warming periods. Or in Mildura there be not much effect if you were in deepest part of the cold global temperature of glaciation period, nor much warmer in warmest part of an interglacial period.
        And we not anywhere near the warmest time of the past interglacial periods.

        But why Canadians or Europeans are worried their near frozen lands getting warmer, is a mystery. Maybe the concern has to do with being able to skate on their frozen lakes.

        Like

  2. The whole AGW-theory is based on the theory that certain gasses in the atmosphere receive heat energy from the surface. So this heat transfer (if we imagine a sudden introduction of such gasses to the atmosphere) inevitably makes the surface a little bit colder, and these gasses a little bit warmer. And now some magic is supposed to happen. Half of the heat energy received by these gasses is sent back to the surface and supposedly warms the surface to a level higher than before the surface lost energy to the gasses in the first place. I really don’t understand how educated people are supposed to believe this.

    Here is an animation made by a central person in the norwegian Meteorological Institute. An istitute that cooperates with organisations which sole existence relies on upheld belief in AGW, and which also meddle in climate policy.

    https://forskning.no/klima-meteorologisk-institutt/forklarer-drivhuseffekten-med-animasjonsvideo/1345603

    Liked by 1 person

    1. The door of your refrigerator/freezer prevents your body from radiating to its cold interior. The heat flow from you to the door to the inside must be kept equal mathematically. When you do the calculations you will see it for yourself, your body will warm up. Ignore the real world. Math is physics 😉

      Like

      1. Zoe, I really hope you can contribute to climatology leaving this nonsense pseudo science. Unfortunately, this pseudo science is also believed by most skeptics. Even when these skeptics themselves perform experiments to try and detect the effect and find no effect, they continue to believe in this crazy hypothesis (and at the same time they say that when a hypothesis does not agree with observation, it should be abandoned). Maybe they just throw over board their integrity in order to at least have a chance to be heard in the public debate, and proceed to make claims such as: “the climate sensitivity is low and nothing to worry about”, and “the effect is logarithmic and as such the main part of the warming has already taken place”

        Liked by 1 person

        1. I guess, I am compelled to confess that I believe that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere does make some warming effect, though I am also willing to allow it doesn’t.
          And I have admit that I believe in God. I am willing to say I know that God exists, but I can’t say I know that CO2 can cause a warming effect. Or I think there is evidence God exists, but less evidence CO2 causes a warming effect.
          I am willing to say I know that CO2 in the atmosphere does not cause Earth to be colder.
          Such is the state of my thinking, that I will say, it seems to me, a doubling of CO2 concentration probably cause 0 to .5 C to global temperature and not say +/- .5 C.
          I know that God exist in same sense that I know we living in an Ice Age.
          And that I know that 15 C air temperature is cold.
          Obviously it air can colder than 15 C, but without protection from the coldness of 15 C, I think 15 C air could be factor leading to my death- it seem to me that without proper clothes, it seems cold. I have heard monks wearing little amounts of clothing can endure {and even “feel” quite warm] in much colder air. So perhaps with proper training 15 C air might seem warm to me, and then not in any way be a threat to my life- maybe it could be more healthily and make me live longer, even. Anyhow, I tend to like to set the thermostat at about 70 F [about 21 C] and I wear clothes and sleep in warm bed.
          And perhaps there immortals which can save a lot on heating bills, and set their thermostat at 15 C {59 F} or even lower and don’t bother with having a blanket.
          But being in 15 C water should kill anyone.
          And human body controls it’s temperature by evaporation, if one control how much you “sweat” and be in proper state of mind, one could be able to be to happy in 15 C or colder air without blanket.
          Btw the “recommended temperature” in winter is 20 C – so I am biased towards a bit more warmth, but don’t think 20 C is unreasonably cold, and be ok with 20 +/- 3 C and in summer I am ok with 25 +/- 4 C

          But anyhow, I tend to think that warming from CO2 is mostly near surface {within 1000 meters}, rather than 7 km up. And seems a common belief within the global warming cargo cult is that a lot cooling going on around 7 km and up. If I thought that was true, than I might imagine CO2, causes the Earth to be colder.
          Instead I think surface of ocean controls global air, a cool ocean surface, has cool air above it, and have warmer surface you have warmer air above it. And regarding Venus “the surface” is the Venus clouds.
          And since topic is clouds, Earth clouds don’t work as well “as a surface” as clouds on Venus work “as a surface”. Venus clouds are acid, and have quite intense sunlight and clouds are really high above the rocky surface.

          Or rocky surface of Venus is sort of similar to the rocky surface of most of earth [and most of Earth rocky surface is under average depth of our ocean- which is 3.7 km under the ocean surface. Obviously ocean floor of Earth is utter darkness, but it’s fairly dim at the Venus rocky surface. Or if you have rock on Earth, the side in sunlight is warmer, and Venus, a rock in sunlight, I predict is not much warmer on sunlight side- I would not say it’s zero difference, but I would say that it’s close to a zero difference.
          Now a question would be, what cargo cult believer say? There reasons they could agree, but there also reasons they could strongly disagree. I guess how they understand “back radiation” could give different expectation- and cargo cult believers do not agree with themselves on the matter of “back radiation”.
          But loosely speaking, I would say rocks on Earth’s ocean floor would have about the difference of temperature like difference of rocks on Venus rocky surface {of course it’s very hot on Venus floor and cold on ocean floor]

          Like

      2. I am not physics literate, I understood your first sentence but lost on the second and third. This is what happens when science disconnects from the real world. With AGW ,Math is physics has taken a beating over the last 30 years by allowing pseudo science, by many qualified scientists to influence politics to influence science. Thus it has become a numbers game with real world voters. Thanks for your site, I find many of the comments insightful. Math will prevail but how long and how much damage will be done depends on how and to who the message is presented. The PR has not been overly effective to date despite the many great websites about.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. As a Unix guy from way back, I am very impressed by what you are able to do with shell scripting. Have you ever considered switching to Python?

    Like

      1. Well one has the greenhouse effect theory and you have the term greenhouse effect which existed prior to when
        the “greenhouse effect theory” was given. The “greenhouse effect theory” is pseudo science. This pseudo science has religion which call a cargo cult due to it’s similarity to a cargo cult. Wiki:
        “A cargo cult is a millenarian belief system in which adherents perform rituals which they believe will cause a more technologically advanced society to deliver goods. ”
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult
        There is a lot pseudo science in our world. Marxism, Racism, critical theory, etc., etc. They all have religious “believers”. Roughly they adhere to the idea, that it was bad mistake for the Human to climb down from the trees and they are against using technology and the science which created technology. And tend call themselves progressive but they are not progressive. It’s political, and if you have not noticed, politicans tend to be evil and very stupid.

        It seems to be me, that term greenhouse effect is related Europeans wondering why they weren’t freezing to death.
        Which is roughly, that Europeans are freezing to death, though Europe is warmed by the Gulf Stream {makes the conditions less severe].
        A part of greenhouse effect is that the tropical ocean is the heat engine of the world. By world I mean the tropical ocean even warms the poles.
        Another aspect of tropics is it’s warm and it’s a large portion of the world {40% of world} and large warm area bring the average score of average global temperature up to about 15 C. So you have the curious situation where Canada’s average temperature is – 3 C, and Canadians can worried about getting warmer.
        It seems Canadians must be worried about other people {or other living creatures} getting warmer conditions- because it’s utter madness to imagine Canada as warm. Anyhow most Canadians pick warmer parts of Canada to live in- most live near Canada/US border for example. But even in Antarctica it is somewhat warm in the summer- assuming one has the comforts of modern technology.
        But usually what is “forgotten” about greenhouse effect is the effect of the world’s ocean.
        In a real greenhouse it can kept warmer by having water in it. How does barrels of water in greenhouse keep it warmer? Well the purpose of greenhouse is to stop freezing temperature from killing plants. Or warmer is not causing ice to form which can kill many plants. Anyhow barrels of water have a significantly dense thermal mass.
        Likewise every square meter of Earth surface has 10 tons atmospheric mass, air has about 1/4 of specific heat of water or it’s equal to about 2 1/2 meter depth of water.
        So a significant part of greenhouse effect is it’s thermal mass.
        Of course there is greenhouse effect. But greenhouse gases don’t cause 33 K to Earth average temperature- that is just cargo cult religious doctrine. And Lindzen is not a cargo cult believer. And is HATED by cargo cult believers.
        He is Satan.

        Like

        1. I think you know what I meant by saying that Lindzen believes in the greenhouse effect. He believes that if man puts more CO2 into the atmosphere, the planet will heat up.

          Like

        2. “He believes that if man puts more CO2 into the atmosphere, the planet will heat up.”

          I don’t think Lindzen believes he knows how much warming doubling global CO2 will cause, but rather
          he willing to give upper limit which is reasonable possible.
          As I recall, he said something like all greenhouse gases add to greenhouse of effect by about 1/2 of 33 K
          which said to be caused by the “greenhouse effect theory”. And as most agree, water vapor has largest warming effect.
          Or doubling of CO2 would cause about 1 C to global air temperature.
          I don’t try to predict what ultimate effect of a doubling of CO2 would do, instead I limit it to the effect which could occur
          within a 100 year time period. Mainly because it’s seems useless to me to try to predict anything more 100 years into the future. Though in terms of say settlements on Mars, I say it they could happen within 100 years. Or Earth could getting electrical energy from Space environment within 100 years. Though tend to say it’s very unlikely Earth will get electrical power from space environment within 50 years. Though not willing to say Mars settlement could not happen within 50 years.

          Anyhow, I think a doubling of global CO2 within 100 years will not occur. Or Global CO2 levels will not be 800 ppm before 2100, though 560 ppm could occur before 2100 AD {which is doubling from 280 ppm}.
          If global CO2 levels reach 560 ppm and stay at 560 ppm, and within 100 year time period, I don’t think the result will be more than .5 C from that doubling.
          And Lindzen might say it could be about 1 C.
          The IPCC imagines they are very confident that already the increased CO2 levels have caused at least .2 C.
          I see no reason to assume this.
          I see no reason to assume we currently, are warmer than it’s ever been in last 1000 years. And pretty certain Earth was warmer within last 5000 years. And it’s seems everyone agrees that during last interglacial period it was much warmer than our current global average temperature, and at it’s warmest was thought sea levels were about 5 meter higher {or more}- and our ocean temperature were at least 4 C {and ours is thought to be presently about 3.5 C}.

          But I think our ocean was about 4 C , 5000 or more years ago.
          And don’t really understand why people aren’t assuming we have already reached our peak global temperature of our Holocene interglacial period, more than 5000 year ago- when our Sahara desert was green and trees growing well above our current tree lines. And we had ice free polar sea ice.
          [[Though I do tend to think our present sea levels are somewhere around highest they have been in the Holocene, and highest sea levels are usually regarded as warmest of times of an interglacial period. Which makes sense to me {roughly, broadly, they seem like they should coincide with highest global air temperature, but for whatever reason the evidence seems to indicates they didn’t – with our Holocene}.]]

          Like

        3. “He believes that if man puts more CO2 into the atmosphere, the planet will heat up.”

          One more thing about this, this largely about warming night time temperature, winter temperatures, and polar regions.
          Which everyone agrees. I would add, and lowering of highest daytime high temperatures.
          And we have already had a lowering of highest daytime high temperatures- the highest recorded daytime high in world, which occurred over century ago.
          Or “heat up” means roughly more like tropics everywhere on Earth. And Tropics {despite getting the most sunlight} is not hot, it has a higher and more uniform air temperature.

          Like

  4. Hi Zoe, Sorry, but your conclusion “Less top-of-atmosphere outgoing radiation doesn’t cause surface heating” is incorrect. According to your average data, the effect of clouds and aerosols is to decrease outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) by 25.09 W/m2 (all_toa_lw_up – pristine_toa_lw_up) and the increase of surface upward longwave radiation is 0.78 W/m2. [You incorrectly calculated 0.82 W/m2.] The data implies that 3.1% (0.78/25.09) of the global system warming from the TOA energy imbalance is at the surface and that 96.9% of the warming goes into the oceans, assuming that the average energy fluxes are correct. However, this is much more than expected. This article https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-ocean-heat-content
    says that “More than 90 percent of the warming that has happened on Earth over the past 50 years has occurred in the ocean.” The 0.78 W/m2 of increased of sfc_lw_up due to clouds and aerosols over the pristine case gives a temperature increase of 0.14 °C global average temperature rise.

    Like

    1. 1) The ERB manual says to expect ~4 W/m^2 error margin
      2) We can’t measure the same place at the same time with and without clouds.
      3) Why can’t the ocean SKIN radiate back the extra 25 W/m^2? or half?
      4) The simple greenhouse model is wrong either way as it excludes thermal mass.
      5) The GH effect is born out of this simple model. Ergo it is false.

      What was I subtracting?
      Thanks for spotting the math error. Fixed.

      Like

  5. gbaikie,

    “One more thing about this, this largely about warming night time temperature, winter temperatures, and polar regions.
    Which everyone agrees.”

    Are you implying that due to the above, CO2 must be the cause?

    Like

    1. No, we are recovering from a colder period, which was several centuries in duration which is called the Little Ice Age. During this period global glaciers we’re advancing, and stopped and retreated at around 1850 AD.
      During this period sea levels dropped and entire ocean cooled by a small amount, perhaps cooling to about 3.3 C, and now it’s about 3.5 C.
      I would say the ocean has been around 3.5 for last 1000 years. And Little Ice Age was perhaps the coldest period in last +10,000 years.

      Like

        1. Yes, and it’s possible that within a century or two, we will be as cold as we were in 1970’s, but I don’t expect we will be as cold as we were during the Little Ice Age. Though perhaps will be, within several centuries.
          And IPCC in it’s past was allowing that such thing was possible. Presently, IPCC does not think [or claim] cooling in the future is possible.
          To their credit, IPCC doesn’t claim all warming is caused by CO2. But it might be doing that in latest report- I have not read it.

          Like

        2. Oh, I am not allowing for any volcanic activity. Volcanic {particularly oceanic volcanic activity} can make a large difference- both in regards to cooling and warming. No one can predict volcanic activity- and IPCC also does not pretend it can. And there is other stuff, other volcanic activity which could have large effect. But if you are betting, roughly global temperature remains about the same in terms of human lifetimes.
          And of course weather any more than couple weeks into the future, is roughly unpredictable, but with lower global temperatures weather has even wilder effects. Or recent warming {last hundred years] has reduced extreme weather events and things like long term droughts.

          Like

  6. Being a guy who worked in physics and nuclear reactors, I am always confused by the idea of using degrees C instead of Kelvin when working with heat transfer and fluid flow. When you do, you find that most of what they say is going to be change is little more than instrument error. Also, the absorption and reflection of certain wavelengths can be studied easily enough with IR spectroscopy. Nasa, James Hansen in particular, changed a lot of the measured temperature data and called it science. So in general, hard to figure out what the truth really is and can only imply an answer based on the global warming crowd working so hard to hide data. Interesting though, they stopped measuring the CO2 levels during the pandemic. It would have proved their case, of course it could have proved they were wrong as well.

    Like

Leave a Reply to Zoe Phin Cancel 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

%d bloggers like this: