Thursday, November 29, 2012

New paper shows a large increase of solar radiation in Spain since 1985, dwarfs alleged effect of CO2

A paper published today in Global and Planetary Change finds solar radiation at the Earth surface in Spain "shows a significant increase over the 1985-2010 period" of "+3.9 Wm-2 per decade." By way of comparison, the alleged forcing from increased CO2 during the same period was only 0.11 Wm-2 at the Earth surface per decade. The authors attribute the large increase in solar radiation to a "decrease in clouds and/or aerosols." Several other papers have shown a decrease in cloudiness since the 1980's could alone account for all global warming observed since the ice age scare of the 1970's.

The math:

IPCC formula for alleged CO2 forcing at the top of the atmosphere based on CO2 levels from 1985 to 2010:

5.35ln[389.78/346.04] = 0.64 Wm-2

Alleged CO2 forcing per decade = 10*.64/15 = 0.41 Wm-2

Alleged CO2 forcing at the Earth surface per decade = 0.41/3.7 = .11 Wm-2

Global and diffuse solar radiation in Spain: Building a homogeneous dataset and assessing their trends

A. Sanchez-Lorenzo, J. Calbó, M. Wild

Highlights

► We develop a new dataset of surface solar radiation records in Spain. ► The global and diffuse solar radiation series have been homogenized. ► The global solar radiation shows a significant increase over the 1985-2010 period. ► The diffuse component shows a significant decrease during the same period. ► These results point towards a recent decrease of clouds and/or aerosols.

1. Moon and Earth, same amount of energy from the Sun.

shock horror, the moon gets to 250 degrees F in a couple of hrs in the daytime, extreme freezing at night,

That is a bucket full of cooling the earth does in comparison, of course at night GHGS lead to a slow cooling.

What do GHHS really do?

Now where have i seen something similar,

ahh yes, the desert in the daytime, low moisture ( GHG) up to extreme heat in a couple of hrs from freezing.

desert at night, low moisture content -rapid cooling. Hmm what do GHGs really do.

1. http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/search?q=clive+best

Observations show water vapor acts as a negative feedback. This is the same thing as saying water vapor has a net cooling effect on the climate.

2.

THE VENUS DILEMMA

Let me try to explain better why carbon dioxide has no effect ...

The process of diffusion in the vertical direction in a gravitational field effectively turns a "level base" into a "sloping base" like a concrete driveway running down a hillside.

This diffusion process ensures that the sum of the PE and KE of individual molecules has a propensity towards equality in all molecules at all altitudes. Those lower down (with less PE) thus have higher KE, leading to higher temperature in the lower regions.

There will be some absorption of Solar insolation at all levels in the Venus atmosphere, because we know at least some gets through to the surface. Think of this absorption as being like lots of different size loads of sand dumped on that sloping driveway. In general, the piles will be smaller as you go towards the top. So there's no real propensity for convection rising in the atmosphere (sand from higher piles flowing down through the bigger piles further down the slope) so what happens is simply that the amount of radiation varies at different levels to get rid of the sand. But it stops when it gets down to the concrete driveway. The mean amount of radiation has to equate with the incident radiation, so this requirement (long ago) set the level of the driveway, but not its gradient - gravity and the specific heat of the gas set the gradient.

Now I know that some radiation (roughly half) is directed towards the hotter surface, but those who understand what Prof Johnson proved, will realise that the electro-magnetic energy in such radiation is never converted to thermal energy in a hotter region than that from whence it came. Instead it is immediately re-emitted, just as if "pseudo scattered." Hence the energy in all radiation from the atmosphere always ends up eventually getting to space, even if it strikes the surface, or gets partly absorbed by cooler gas and subsequently re-emitted.

So the diffusion process in a gravitational field sets the gradient of the temperature plot in the atmosphere, with some small variation depending on the specific heat of the gases. The incident Solar radiative flux sets the overall level. These combine to produce a sloping, near linear temperature plot which of course intercepts the surface at a temperature which is determined by the input factors just mentioned, and nothing else.

Any additional absorption of either incident or upwelling radiation merely adds temporary energy which will be quickly radiated away and, even though such radiation is in all directions, it will eventually transfer energy out of the planetary system and back to space.

Venus is a good example, because it is so much more obvious that the surface is not heated to the temperature it reaches by the direct Solar radiation it absorbs. Instead, an interplay of conduction (diffusion) and radiation at the surface/atmosphere interface keeps the surface at a temperature close to that of the base of the atmosphere.

Which came first - the chicken or the egg? The temperature of the base of the atmosphere must have come first because otherwise it would be just too much of a coincidence that the same formula "works" on all planets with sufficient atmospheres.

So, if you don't accept the above, then please explain in a similar level of detail, exactly what you think explains the surface temperature, being sure to keep within the confines of the laws of thermodynamics and atmospheric physics, as I have.

Doug Cotton