Solar Variability and Climate – Prof. Joanna D. Haigh
Below we present one of the most informative and dispassionate summaries, from a top UK physics professor, on the role of solar variability on climate.
Commenting on Professor Haigh’s presentation, Colin Mill wrote:
“A wonderfully clear discussion of this aspect of the science. Thank you. I was interested to hear Joanna say at 15:39 that the radiometer instrumentation isn’t quite there yet – a very important point to make in the face of those talking about the science being settled. Unfortunately there are many other areas where the instrumentation is, or has been, lacking. I did my Ph.D in cloud microphysics in the 1970s and spent some 20 years in cloud physics research. Clouds remain rather poorly understood while having the potential to massively modify the radiative balance of the Earth interacting, as they do, with both incoming and outgoing radiation over most of the solar spectrum (cf. CO2). Small changes to, for example, the Cloud Condensation Nucleus spectrum (CCN) could change the albedo and the lifetime of clouds that in turn could affect the radiative balance. Unfortunately, there are many problems on the question of CCN – a lack of any significant and reliable historical measurements combined with an incomplete understanding of the sources (especially those of organic origin that may have been modified by, for example, land usage, changes in vegetation type etc.). Certainly in my day you could depress yourself about your chances of doing meaningful work in cloud physics simply by running two notionally identical CCN counters side by side sampling the same air only to observe that they didn’t agree by factors of 50{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} or more.”
Joanna Dorothy Haigh, CBE, FRS, FRMetS (born 7 May 1954) is a British physicist and academic. Before her retirement in 2019[5] she was Professor of Atmospheric Physics at Imperial College London, and co-director of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change and the Environment. She is a former head of the Department of Physics at Imperial College London. She is also a Fellow of the Royal Society, and a former president of the Royal Meteorological Society.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
geran
| #
Pseudoscience ALERT!
She’s repeating all the same old blather–“radiation balance”, “trapping radiation”, “greenhouse gases”, “radiative forcing”, etc.
She appears so innocent as she regurgitates the devious and scandalous perversion of science.
Pathetic.
Reply
Peter F Gill
| #
I don’t know why but the words leopard and spots and change have come into my mind.
Reply
Brian James
| #
Aug 28, 2019 CLIMATE FORCING | Our Future is Cold
Climate Change, Solar Forcing, Ice Age | From volcanic cooling born beneath our feet to the most seemingly distant reaches of both space time, we lay out Climate Forcing: the problems, path forward, and character of the finish line.
https://youtu.be/rEWoPzaDmOA
Reply
Jerry
| #
The complexity associated with cloud formation makes model beyond our ability.
An aspect of cloud formation the Prof. failed to mention was the impact of our solar magnetic field and galactic cosmic rays.
Cloud formation is one of several dozen systems that impact the climate so the idea of modeling or predicting the entire climate will remain out of reach for the foreseeable future.
Reply
JaKo
| #
Also, she failed to describe how Carbonic Acid affects the formation, structure and longevity of clouds…
Eureka! We don’t have to worry about our “Climate Models” — they’re NEAR PERFECT:
Just read this for yourselves: A Study of Models’ Accuracy
BTW
I read a mention of that study and laughed initially, especially how perfect was Dr. Mann’s “Hockey-schtick,” but behold, the chorus refrain goes as if “truth and nothing but the truth…”
Reply
Jerry
| #
The Prof. mentioned that co2 sensitivity was a third of water vapor’s yet water vapor is 19 times more prevalent.
A link to the experiment validating that claim would be appreciated.
Reply
tom0mason
| #
Indeed Jerry,
Our planet has magnet fields that appear to interact with solar magnetic variations, our earth has electric fields that also appear to interact with the solar ones. Our ionosphere is affected by the sun’s variation in charged particles that it sends our way.
This video spells it out a little better …
https://youtu.be/rEWoPzaDmOA
Investigating and researching these processes and variations, then adding them to the UN’s preferred ‘Climate Models™’, probably would take more scientific talent than is currently available in the official scientific consensus of today.
Reply
Graeme Mochrie
| #
Heat high in the atmosphere causes heating at ground level. I’m happy to accept the possibility of anything, but a substantial explanation of the mechanism behind this is required, backed by was of empirical evidence. How does heat transfer down, or how does warmer high atmosphere prevent hear rising? Do we know that the upper atmosphere is heating? I thought measurements were made one of two meters above the ground? How far back does high altitude measuring go? How reliable is the methodology?
Reply
judy Ryan
| #
I also question this version of heat transfer. Although I have seen examples of thermal inversion in Canberra. For example, when people burn wood fires you can see that fog stays trapped in the valleys. Maybe the. cold outer atmosphere can be envisaged as thermal inversion when it keeps the warmer underneath it. Either way, it’s nonsense and misleading to say that the tiny, tiny amount of anthropogenic CO2 has any effect. But, dare I suggest that they ban volcanoes from erupting. And if they persist then those countries have to pay more money to the United Nations
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Judy: when people burn wood fires you can see that fog stays trapped in the valleys. . . . thermal inversion when it keeps the warmer underneath it
James: The accepted narrative on inversion layers is pseudoscience. Moist air (fog) may appear to be trapped. The reason it forms into layers is because it is heavier than the drier, warmer air above. Moist air is heavier (not lighter) than drier air. Dry layers DO NOT have any kind of purported ability to contain or maintain “upwelling” air from below.
Much of meteorology is brain-dead, conversational pseudoscience.
Most of the public–including AGW skeptics–are too gullible to realize that meteorology has been pretending to understand storms and atmospheric flow for over 170 years.
Listen to my podcast to get the truth on meteorology.
Solving Tornadoes: Woke Meteorology
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn
Superstition and half-baked theory dominate the atmospheric sciences. Currently meteorological theories on atmospheric flow and storms maintain three superstitious and half-baked notions: 1) Convection. This is the superstition that evaporation makes air buoyant enough to power strong updrafts in the atmosphere (included in this is the strange belief that H2O in the atmosphere becomes gaseous at temperatures/pressures that have never been detected in a laboratory); 2) Dry layer capping. This is a superstition that imagines dry layers having structural properties that explain the how/why convection does not constantly produce storms and uplift; 3) Latent heat. This is the superstition that phase changes from a gaseous phase of H2O (which are purported to exist despite never having been detected and being inconsistent with what is indicated in the H2O phase table) to a liquid phase releases “latent heat” which itself has never been confirmed/verified.
In accordance with which, the current meteorological paradigm assumes hurricanes are caused by warm water. Actually the energy of hurricanes and all storms comes from jet streams and is delivered through vortices in the form of low pressure. Wind shear at low altitudes is the most important predictor of severe weather. This is because wind shear is the mechanism underlying growth of the vortices that are the transport mechanism of the low pressure energy. Warm moist air/water is not the source of the energy of storms, it’s the target of vortice growth.
The ‘Missing Link’ of Meteorology’s Theory of Storms
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Reply
JaKo
| #
Excuse me James,
You said: “Moist air is heavier (not lighter) than drier air.”
Dry Air: 28.9647 g/mol, while 1% “moist air:” 28.8551 g/mol; all at non-condensing conditions.
Please explain.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jako:
You said: “Moist air is heavier (not lighter) than drier air.”
JMcG:
Right. And I stand by it. Do you stand by your assertion?
Jako:
Dry Air: 28.9647 g/mol,
JMcG:
This is correct.
Jako:
while 1% “moist air:” 28.8551 g/mol
JMcG:
This is wrong. Moist air is alway 3 to 10 percent heavier than dry air. Always (given all other conditional factors are the same).
Read this:
Isaac Newton was a human being
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16306
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Herb Rosr
| #
Hi James,
The flow oh energy (heat) is determined by the difference in energy between the radiating object and receiving object. (Energy flows both ways.) A mercury thermometer measures the heat entering the bulb and compares it to the heat being lost by the body of the thermometer. This is a design for comparing the energy in a liquid where the bulb is submersed in the liquid and the body is in air. If the entire thermometer is only exposed to one medium (like the atmosphere) it is not measuring a flow of energy but the total energy being absorbed by the mercury or medium measuring the heat. Where is the energy flowing to?
The amount of energy the thermometer absorbs depends on the number of molecules transferring energy (mass) and the velocity of the molecules. When the number of molecules decreases the temperature (total kinetic energy being transferred) can decrease even though the velocity of the molecules increases. This is what happens in the atmosphere.
When energy is being absorbed by an object its temperature not only depends on the kinetic energy of the molecules striking it but the number of molecules that energy is transferred to. (you can put your hand in a 100 C oven but not boiling water because in the oven the energy is distributed to many molecules while in the water every molecule in your hand has energy transferred to it). An instrument in a plane has the kinetic energy from the few molecules in the air distributed to the many molecules of the instrument so so the total heat (temperature) of the instrument can be cold and cause the liquid water in the air to freeze on the surface of the instrument.
You can only super cool pure distilled water. If there is any impurities with an electric charge (including carbonic acid) or disturbance in the water structure crystals will form and water will turn to ice. In super cooled water there are not only conditions on the purity and lack of agitation but also a limit on how far it can be cooled before the total mass of water is converted to a block of ice. These conditions are additive so at the top of the troposphere (where clouds form) if the temperature is -50 C (the limit of super cooling) the water must be absolutely pure and undisturbed.
The ozone layer in the stratosphere is a result of the uv light from the sun breaking O2 molecules into oxygen atoms, some of which combine with an oxygen molecule (O2) to form ozone (O3). If this splitting of oxygen is occurring in the stratosphere why wouldn’t it occur higher in the atmosphere where there is more uv light? The reason there are few ozone molecules higher in the atmosphere is because there are few O2 molecules that haven’t been split it oxygen atoms. It takes 490,000 joules to split i mole (32 grams) of oxygen molecules into oxygen atoms. That is a lot of kinetic energy per atom.It takes 920,000 joules/mole (28 grams) to split nitrogen molecules into nitrogen atoms.
Herb
Sorry for the wrong placement of this response but I haven’t got time to change it.
geran
| #
Herb, you continue to make the same mistakes.
“A mercury thermometer measures the heat entering the bulb and compares it to the heat being lost by the body of the thermometer.”
Wrong. A thermometer does not measure “heat”. It measures temperature. And temperature is determined by the average energy to the molecules. You are confusing “heat” with “temperature”. That’s why you come up with nonsense like: “Where is the energy flowing to?”
“When the number of molecules decreases the temperature (total kinetic energy being transferred) can decrease even though the velocity of the molecules increases.”
Same mistake, again. “Temperature” is NOT “total kinetic energy being transferred”.
“When energy is being absorbed by an object its temperature not only depends on the kinetic energy of the molecules striking it but the number of molecules that energy is transferred to.”
Same mistake, again. The temperature depends on the average of molecular energy. A billion molecules with average energy “E”, would have the same temperature as 100 billion molecules with average energy “E”.
“you can put your hand in a 100 C oven but not boiling water because in the oven the energy is distributed to many molecules while in the water every molecule in your hand has energy transferred to it.”
Wrong again. Leave your hand in the 100 C oven long enough to allow the same heat transfer as in the boiling water. You are confusing “heat” with temperature.
Herb, study the definitions of “heat” and “temperature”. Maybe learning the basic definitions will help.
James McGinn
| #
Herb: This is a design for comparing the energy in a liquid where the bulb is submersed in the liquid and the body is in air. If the entire thermometer is only exposed to one medium (like the atmosphere) it is not measuring a flow of energy but the total energy being absorbed by the mercury or medium measuring the heat. Where is the energy flowing to?
James: As with any other object, energy is constantly flowing out of the thermometer in all directions.
Herb: The amount of energy the thermometer absorbs depends on the number of molecules transferring energy (mass) and the velocity of the molecules.
James: I agree. There will be an inflow and an outflow. And the measured temperature will go up or down depending on variations thereof.
Herb: When the number of molecules decreases the temperature (total kinetic energy being transferred) can decrease even though the velocity of the molecules increases. This is what happens in the atmosphere.
When energy is being absorbed by an object its temperature not only depends on the kinetic energy of the molecules striking it but the number of molecules that energy is transferred to. (you can put your hand in a 100 C oven but not boiling water because in the oven the energy is distributed to many molecules while in the water every molecule in your hand has energy transferred to it).
James: Yes, you’ve mentioned this several times now. I agreed every time and still agree now.
Herb: An instrument in a plane has the kinetic energy from the few molecules in the air distributed to the many molecules of the instrument so so the total heat (temperature) of the instrument can be cold and cause the liquid water in the air to freeze on the surface of the instrument.
James: I suppose that is possible. But I don’t think the the fact that this might be possible refutes or even disputes the hypothesis that superchilled water is the culprit.
Herb: You can only super cool pure distilled water.
James: How do you know that? Is there any information on researchers attempting to create superchilled water in cloud chambers (for one example) and failing? If there is I am not aware of it. For that matter, I’m not even aware if this is anything anybody has tried. I do know, however, that there is widespread agreement in aviation about the existence of superchilled water at high altitude, especially above thunderstorms.
Herb: If there is any impurities with an electric charge (including carbonic acid) or disturbance in the water structure crystals will form and water will turn to ice. In super cooled water there are not only conditions on the purity and lack of agitation but also a limit on how far it can be cooled before the total mass of water is converted to a block of ice. These conditions are additive so at the top of the troposphere (where clouds form) if the temperature is -50 C (the limit of super cooling) the water must be absolutely pure and undisturbed.
James: One problem with your assertion here is that the data that your conclusions are based upon involve humans putting water in containers in relatively huge quantities which are then put in a freezer. So, it isn’t directly analogous to what is happening in the atmosphere.
Herb: The ozone layer in the stratosphere is a result of the uv light from the sun breaking O2 molecules into oxygen atoms, some of which combine with an oxygen molecule (O2) to form ozone (O3). If this splitting of oxygen is occurring in the stratosphere why wouldn’t it occur higher in the atmosphere where there is more uv light? The reason there are few ozone molecules higher in the atmosphere is because there are few O2 molecules that haven’t been split it oxygen atoms. It takes 490,000 joules to split i mole (32 grams) of oxygen molecules into oxygen atoms. That is a lot of kinetic energy per atom.It takes 920,000 joules/mole (28 grams) to split nitrogen molecules into nitrogen atoms.
James: Interesting. And not something I know much about.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
Experiments on how to super cool water are in Wikipedia.
In your theory (which I accept as correct) nano droplets of water exist in the atmosphere. As these droplets cools hydrogen bonds reform creating larger droplets. If the atmosphere cools with increased altitude the water droplets will get larger making them more susceptible to crystal formation and condensation. How do the nano droplets evaporate from bodies of water and rise through a continuing cooler air mass without freezing or condensing into rain until they reach the troposphere/stratosphere boundary where they condense into super cooled water not ice?
Herb
Zoe Phin
| #
Judy,
Inversions are perfect proof that atmosphere is not warmed top down. If it was, inversions couldn’t form. The bottom cools faster via radiation, and the top can’t do anything about it.
Reply
Claudius Denk
| #
Zoe:
Inversions are perfect proof that atmosphere is not warmed top down. If it was, inversions couldn’t form. The bottom cools faster via radiation, and the top can’t do anything about it.
CD:
The air that is, purportedly, “trapped” below is cooler (and more moist), not warmer that the air immediately above the “inversion” layer. So, even though I generally agree that the, “atmosphere is not warmed top down,” this observation is contradictory to this assertion.
It is also important to realize that when it comes to the assessment of the significance of these inversion layers meteorologists reveal their intellectual dishonesty, claiming that these flat layers are the result of structural properties in the drier (and often, but not always, cooler) layer above. Think about that for a minute. They actually claim that these drier layers have structural properties that “cap” the “upwelling” moist air below. Purportedly, this “capping” explains why the “lighter” moist air below does not instantly convect upwards.
Of course–as is plainly apparent to any rational observer–the actual reason these flat, moist (often, but not always, cooler) layers form is simply because moist air is heavier than drier air and tends to settle out into flat layers under calm conditions, like the flatness of the water on a lake early in the morning on a calm day.
Here is a link to a post by a genius, James McGinn, where he exposes this deception:
Did you hear the one about the guy that goes to buy a suit?
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16319
CD
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
James,
“this observation is contradictory to this assertion.”
No it’s not. How could it be?
Claudius Denk
| #
Zoe:
No it’s not. How could it be?
CD:
I just fucking explained that, moron. Read it again.
Zoe Phin
| #
James,
This is what you said:
“The air that is, purportedly, “trapped” below is cooler (and more moist), not warmer than the air immediately above the “inversion” layer.
So you agreed with me. And then you said:
“So, even though I generally agree that the, “atmosphere is not warmed top down,” this observation is contradictory to this assertion.”
Are you high?
James McGinn
| #
Jesus Christ, Zoe, talking to you is like talking to Doug Cotton.
Zoe, in the troposphere (which is the lowest layer in the atmosphere) the general trend is for air to get cooler with height. An “inversion” layer is called an inversion layer because this trend is inverted in this instance, with air getting warmer with height.
Now do you get it?
Zoe Phin
| #
James,
If you agree with me, then what was the point of
“this observation is contradictory to this assertion.” ?
James McGinn
| #
Surreal.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=150#p117292
One great thing about the internet is that it has a perfect memory.
The worst mistake you can make as a science theorist is to allow your own explanation to seduce you into thinking that you understand it better than you actually do. And the reason it is such a fatal error is because you will then, unavoidably, use that as an excuse to ignore evidence that contradicts with your model or ignore evidence that your model fails to explain. (And once you’ve started doing this you have lost the war.) Don’t allow yourself to be so seduced. Always endeavor to find and explicate all contradictory evidence and always explicate why your model should be excused from expaining what it appears to fail to explain. [When you hide, you lose. And there are lots of ways to hide. It’s easy. Meteorologists have been hiding for almost 200 years now.])
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
The kinetic energy of gas molecules slowly increases in the troposphere with increasing altitude.If the temperature at the top of the troposphere is -50 C how can the clouds contain liquid water? The turbulence and impurities in the air prevent super cooling.
How can people accept the thermometer as an accurate indication of kinetic energy when they know it is inaccurate at higher altitudes. If the mesosphere was as cold as the thermometer indicates there could be no single oxygen or nitrogen atoms.They would be tightly bound as gas molecules and yet the ionosphere shows they are not molecules but atoms because of the solar energy they absorb.
The top of the troposphere is where liquid water molecules become steam and to get an accurate indication of the kinetic energy (temperature) of the gas molecules in the atmosphere you must use the universal gas law. (P IS NOT ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE BUT THEFORCE OF GRAVITY WHICH CAB BE TREATED AS CONSTANT.)
Herb
James McGinn
| #
Herb: The kinetic energy of gas molecules slowly increases in the troposphere with increasing altitude.
James: I’m not so sure. I am, however, fairly sure I understand your argument and I think it does have merit. It very well may be the case that the molecules at the top of the troposphere are generally hotter (greater average velocity) than those lower in the troposphere ON A MOLECULE BY MOLECULE BASIS. (See below.)
Herb: If the temperature at the top of the troposphere is -50 C how can the clouds contain liquid water?
James: Because of superchilled water. (Look on Youtube for Air France 447 for SC water causing pitot tubes to malfunction.)
Herb: The turbulence and impurities in the air prevent super cooling.
James: I suspect there are few impurities and turbulence would be relative and, therefore, not significant to small nanodroplets.
Herb: How can people accept the thermometer as an accurate indication of kinetic energy when they know it is inaccurate at higher altitudes.
James: It is accurate. It just doesn’t happen to measure energy. It measures energy flow (heat).
Herb: If the mesosphere was as cold as the thermometer indicates there could be no single oxygen or nitrogen atoms.
James: I don’t know about the mesophere. But it just has to be warmer than the very low boiling temperatures/pressures of nitrogen and oxygen.
Herb: They would be tightly bound as gas molecules and yet the ionosphere shows they are not molecules but atoms because of the solar energy they absorb.
James: Are you saying they are not N2 and O2 but N and O? If this is the case this is something I don’t know about.
Herb: The top of the troposphere is where liquid water molecules become steam and to get an accurate indication of the kinetic energy (temperature) of the gas molecules in the atmosphere you must use the universal gas law. (P IS NOT ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE BUT THE FORCE OF GRAVITY WHICH CAB BE TREATED AS CONSTANT.)
James: The top of the troposphere is far too cool to support the existence of gaseous H2O. And P is pressure. I don’t see a reason to stray from that.
(from above)
James: Herb, temperature doesn’t measure energy it measures energy flow. Specifically a thermometer measures the rate of energy flow, which is heat (keep in mind, as you indicated previously, energy flow and heat are the same thing) that flows into the thermometer.
Let’s say we consider water to be analogous to energy. Accordingly, let’s say we want to measure how much water/energy is in a lake. Well, an analogous thermometer doesn’t allow us to measure the water (energy) in the lake. That is because a thermometer is a flow gauge. It isn’t a volume gauge. It only measures flow and there is not a lot of flow in the lake. However, we can go to a stream that is draining the lake and set up a flow guage (analogous to a thermometer) and we could measure the outflow of the lake. From the flow gauge (thermometer) we can kind of get a sense of the volume of the lake. But we can’t actually measure the volume of the water (energy) in the lake.
Judy
| #
Having read all the comments below I am more confused than ever. All I know is that thermal inversion is created during the night time when the surface of the planet becomes extremely cold. Therefore we are talking about a cooling affect during the night. I think I have seen it happen in the valleys on a clear frosty morning.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Graeme,
First one must remember that objects do not radiate heat they radiate energy. Heat is produced when that energy interacts with mater and is converted to kinetic energy, which in turn causes the object to radiated energy. (A disturbance in the electric and magnetic fields surrounding the object.) The empty space between the sun and the Earth has no heat but it does contain all the energy that heats the Earth.
We know the higher atmosphere contains more energy from the sun than the lower atmosphere even though the temperature is lower (which is because there are few molecules to convert energy to heat in the upper atmosphere just like in space).
The fact that the upper atmosphere contains elemental oxygen and nitrogen rather than oxygen and nitrogen gas molecules shows that it contains a tremendous amount energy. (it takes 940 kjoules/mole to spit the triple bond of a nitrogen molecules into nitrogen atoms and 490 kjoules/mole to split an oxygen molecule.) When the energy level drops in the lower atmosphere these atoms reconvert into molecules with increased kinetic energy.
In the troposphere the main means of transferring energy is done through collisions between molecules rather than by radiation. When a molecule has greater kinetic energy it will transfer that energy to any object it collides with whether that molecules is above or below it (including the Earth’s surface). This causes the gas to expand decreasing the density of the gas and causing the “heat” to rise.
In order to get an accurate reading of the kinetic energy of molecules in a gas you must use the universal gas law, PV=nrt. (In the atmosphere Pressure is the force of gravity which confines the gases to the Earth and resists expansion NOT atmospheric pressure.) When you divide the temperature recorded on a thermometer at an altitude by the density at that altitude (giving the kinetic energy of a constant number of molecules) you can compare the kinetic energy of molecules at different altitudes and it shows that the kinetic energy increases with altitude even though the temperature (heat) may decrease.
Herb
Reply
Monty
| #
Herb, you said, “First one must remember that objects do not radiate heat they radiate energy. Heat is produced when that energy interacts with mater and is converted to kinetic energy, which in turn causes the object to radiated energy.”
But when I walk past buildings after the sun goes down, I feel heat coming from those buildings. Therefore, objects are radiating heat. Right?
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Monty,
No. What you feel is the energy from the sun that has been absorbed by the building being radiated by the building and transmitted through the air to your body. Your body absorbs it and converts the energy to heat. (we will ignore the fact that most of the energy transferred to you is done by convection not radiation.)
Herb
Reply
tom0mason
| #
Also there is the question of the sun modulating the upper atmosphere. How and why is this planet’s Thermosphere shrinking as the Solar Minimum approaches?
https://www.space.com/7685-earth-upper-atmosphere-cooling-dramatically.html
The science is not settled!
Reply
tom0mason
| #
Also of note is the ‘Increasing water vapor in the stratosphere and mesosphere after 2002’
see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337058595_Increasing_water_vapor_in_the_stratosphere_and_mesosphere_after_2002
Reply
Carter Grey
| #
One thing most climatologists fail to take into consideration when discussing cloud formation and the effects of radiative force is the change in Earth’s albedo. Reflectivity of increased cloud cover repels more radiative sources of heat than are reflected back to the surface which contributes to a net negative temperature gain. AKA it causes cooling.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Carter,
Clouds are composed of clear spherical water droplets and form in the troposphere.. When visible light strike them the light is not reflected back into space (Shine a flashlight into a glass sphere). Most of it enters the droplet, refracts, then exits the droplet going in another direction where in again interacts with more water droplets. Clouds are not reflecting light they are absorbing it and transmitting it in all. directions.
The reason it is cooler on cloudy days is because the water in the clouds is deflecting the light infall directions preventing it from transferring energy directly to the surface of the Earth. The reason cloudy nights are warmer is because the water in the clouds is radiating the energy it absorbed to the Earth.
Herb
Reply
geran
| #
Wrong again, Herb.
Clouds reflect visible light. That’s why a cloud shades the ground.
And the reason it is warmer on a cloudy night is because clouds have thermal mass, which acts as insulation.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Geran,
You have it backwards. It’s because it’s warm that there’s clouds.
Reply
geran
| #
My comment did not involve cloud formation, little girl.
Grow up.
And, don’t play with matches.
Zoe Phin
| #
Geran,
You said clouds make it warmer.
Evidence? Correlation? Well, yes,
Warmth brings and/or forms clouds. Clouds are not a cause.
geran
| #
My comment did not involve cloud formation, little girl.
Grow up.
And, don’t play with matches.
James McGinn
| #
I think Zoe brings up a good point about clarifying how and why clouds are causal. I also think Herb already did a good job of explaining it above. And I think thats because Herb has a better grasp of the significance of H2O having a large heat capacity.
In terms of causation, when something has a large heat capacity it warms up slowly (and, therefore, it is useful for cooling) and it cools down slowly (and, therefore, it is useful for warming). So, its kinda both.
Joseph Olson
| #
Insufferable regurgitation of the provably wrong “back radiation hypothesis” by indoctrinated climaclownologist. AGW is Chicken Little science for Piltdown believers.
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
How can such a well qualified person get it so wrong, then you look at her bio and realize she is part of the scam!
At 3:05 she calmly states that CO2 is about one third as reactive as water vapor without even any attempt to quantify how much CO2 compared to Water Vapor in the atmosphere.
Perhaps she believed NASA when they state that H2O is a trace gas, which of course it is as it is very, very rare in the lower atmosphere, while Water Vapor is rather abundant!
Does anyone know how many gigatons of Water Vapor are in the atmosphere?
Reply
Monty
| #
The concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is on average about 62.5 times that of CO2.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Michael:
How can such a well qualified person get it so wrong, then you look at her bio and realize she is part of the scam!
James:
There is no such thing as a well qualified person in ANY of the atmospheric sciences. Specifically, the sorry fact is that all of these disciplines use conversation in place of empiricism.
Solving Tornadoes: Woke Meteorology
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn
Superstition and half-baked theory dominate the atmospheric sciences. Currently meteorological theories on atmospheric flow and storms maintain three superstitious and half-baked notions: 1) Convection. This is the superstition that evaporation makes air buoyant enough to power strong updrafts in the atmosphere (included in this is the strange belief that H2O in the atmosphere becomes gaseous at temperatures/pressures that have never been detected in a laboratory); 2) Dry layer capping. This is a superstition that imagines dry layers having structural properties that explain the how/why convection does not constantly produce storms and uplift; 3) Latent heat. This is the superstition that phase changes from a gaseous phase of H2O (which are purported to exist despite never having been detected and being inconsistent with what is indicated in the H2O phase table) to a liquid phase releases “latent heat” which itself has never been confirmed/verified.
In accordance with which, the current meteorological paradigm assumes hurricanes are caused by warm water. Actually the energy of hurricanes and all storms comes from jet streams and is delivered through vortices in the form of low pressure. Wind shear at low altitudes is the most important predictor of severe weather. This is because wind shear is the mechanism underlying growth of the vortices that are the transport mechanism of the low pressure energy. Warm moist air/water is not the source of the energy of storms, it’s the target of vortice growth.
The ‘Missing Link’ of Meteorology’s Theory of Storms
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329
Reply
Jonas
| #
Can anyone tell me why the suns incoming Infrared radition is NOT backradiated in the atmosphere, but the earths IR is backradiated ??
In IPCC´s fantastic radiation model (based on a flat earth) there is a huge arrow for backradiation of earths IR, but not the suns IR.
Maybee the atmosphere can see the difference between sun IR and earth IR. At least in the IPCC magic climate world.
Reply
JaKo
| #
Jonas,
[sarc] Didn’t you know that the most civilized GHG’s are actually one-way-mirrors (diodes in electronic parlance)? They allow all the radiation from the Sun to pass through, but object strongly against wasting that energy on the insatiable and cold Space. [/sarc]
A little table of incoming radiation:
Spectrum Wavelength Space Surface Decrease (Absorbed/Reflected)
UV 200-400 nm 8.7% 3% 76%
Visible 400-700 nm 38.3% 50% 9%
NIR 700-3500nm 51.7% 47% 36%
Energy W/m^2 (normal) 1367 957 30%
Reply
Jonas
| #
Not sure if I get the point. I can agree that the concept of “backradiation” can be questioned.
My point is that if you accept that concept (as IPCC seems to do), the model is anyway inconsistent. If outgoing IR from earth can be backradiated in the atmosphere, the incoming IR from the sun should be backradiated into space. My understanding is that about 50% of the energy in the incoming sun light is IR.
The IPPC model has a 340W/m2 arrow pointing at the earth surface (back radiated earth IR). There should be an 130-140 W/m2 arrow pointing into space (back radiated sun IR). That arrow is missing in the model as far as I understand.
Reply
geran
| #
You’re correct Jonas, the IPCC “energy budget” is terribly flawed.
Some of the incoming solar is absorbed by the atmosphere, and then reradiated in all directions. It’s the same as some of the IR from the surface is absorbed, and then reradiated in all directions, with the portion returning to the surface called “back-radiation”. It all depends on the wavelengths of the photons, as to whether or not they will be absorbed. Most all agree so far.
The pseudoscience begins when it is claimed that the IR back radiated to the surface will warm the surface. That violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and does NOT happen. It would be like saying the walls of your house could keep warming each other until your house burned down. Pure nonsense.
Reply
Al Shelton
| #
Right on. One could replace all one’s fiberglass insulation in one’s house with bags of 100% CO2 and inject 100% CO2 betwen the panes of one’s all-weather windows, then strike match and his house will stay warm all winter. sarc ;^D
Reply
Jonas
| #
OK, it seems to me as if IPCC has invented a machanism that will act on radiation that comes from one direction (earth) but not from the other direction (sun).
is it Ok to say that I think this seems a bit questionable ? Or am I a climate denier if I say that ?
Reply
geran
| #
Be careful Jonas. What you are doing is called “thinking for yourself”, AKA, “using your brain”.
In some modern enclaves, that is considered socially unacceptable, even criminal….
Reply
Andy Rowlands
| #
Interesting video, but a shame the lady believes in radiative forcing of CO2 trapping heat in the atmosphere. That plays right into the alarmists’ hands.
Reply
Graham Wood
| #
This may sound like unacceptable heresy amidst the high tec. Discussion, but
could it just be that the AGW theory fails to understand a highly complex and
unpredictable interaction between solar activity, oceanography, wind currents
the fluctuations in weather/climate patterns that occur daily as a result.
It may be that one forgotten answer to the endless and largely speculative
discussion has little to do with any “science” but everything to do with a theology
of the sovereignty of God over all natural elements? The book (Bible) of Job
Chapters 37/38 are in my view entirely credible explanations of where we should
be lookin for answers. Leave aside for a moment the Lordship of Jesus Christ over
his own creation.
Reply