Record hot years near impossible without manmade climate change – study

[flacaltenn]

Maybe I deserved to pummeled for bringing this up. Rather than quietly figuring it out. But for such an important diagram for the cause of Global Warning consensus -- there sure are a lot of issues with it. And I'm not ashamed to make mistakes thinking in real time with no safety net or scripted talking points.. .

hahahahaha, I am still not sure if I am getting your point but it seems vaguely familiar to one of my longstanding concerns.

no solar input at all for half the day (yes I know that length of daylight varies, especially at extreme latitudes), then an increase to maximum followed by a decrease to minimum (sawtooth or sine? or combination?). this type of uneven input does not lend itself to meaningful averages.

my concern comes from the concept of threshold values. many reactions or events depend on a threshold. fires may be self sustaining once they start but they need an initial minimum temp. thunderstorms (heat pipes) produce their own 'power' but still need the right initial conditions. I believe the globe would be a totally different place if we actually lived in a twilight of constant 1/4 solar input rather than darkness punctuated with maximums.

back radiation is constant, diffuse and weak, with no ability to do work. all it is is a placeholder in the equation to generate a surface temperature. it is not an addition to solar input as the climate models consider it. high energy, collimated solar energy is the driving force behind everything, back radiation nada.

Kinda interesting.. We'd probably have a lot less weather with constant 24hr solar forcing. That's for certain. Although Summer Solstice in the Arctic -- they still get stormy weather -- dont' they? dunno..

Here's a little item I picked up today about the basics of solar projections on different lat/longitudes during the day and thru the seasons. Didyaknow that Arctic has a higher daily average solar insolation at Summer Solstice than Germany? It'

 

[Ellison]

Just popping in to ask a question. Why do people still argue with deniers on this issue? The matter has been unequivocally settled. If they still deny at this point, why bother continuing to engage? Anyone that denies at this point can just be ignored since they have made themselves irrelevant to the issue. Since we know that the warming of the climate system is happening, shouldn't the discussions revolve around what we should do about it?

 

[IanC]

Maybe I deserved to pummeled for bringing this up. Rather than quietly figuring it out. But for such an important diagram for the cause of Global Warning consensus -- there sure are a lot of issues with it. And I'm not ashamed to make mistakes thinking in real time with no safety net or scripted talking points.. .

Ian -- just like you to clarify what you're "agreeing" with here. That I should be pummeled? Or that Trenberth had a few issues in that "paper" ??

obviously I am talking about thinking for yourself.

too many people simply pick an authority to agree with, and fail to even bother trying to understand the issue.

Trenberth has a lot of problems with many of his papers, often because he has to make one thing agree with another thing that has previously been deemed 'the truth'.

eg. my thread on Zwally's satellite laser altimetry has far reaching effects. if melting in Antarctica really has been much less than expected then it throws the whole 'sea level rise has doubled in the satellite era' thing into serious doubt because the origins for the extra water were somewhat missing in volume before, but would be ridiculously short without the large Antarctic component.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I agree the global climate warming change is only possible due to human activity. Without fudging the data, the imaginary warming would not exist

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Just popping in to ask a question. Why do people still argue with deniers on this issue? The matter has been unequivocally settled. If they still deny at this point, why bother continuing to engage? Anyone that denies at this point can just be ignored since they have made themselves irrelevant to the issue. Since we know that the warming of the climate system is happening, shouldn't the discussions revolve around what we should do about it?

And another cult member chimes in

 

[Wuwei]

Look at the TITLE of the Trenberth graphic.. Look at how the google searches bring up the chart. Or just look at his work.. An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
I always imagined he came back from giving this paper and got pummeled by a bunch of physicists and engineers for using the wrong units.

Well, his diagram is all about energy flow. His title does clarify what aspect of energy he is talking about, “Global Energy Flows in Watts / sq m.” I would think that any physicist would understand that all units in his diagram and title refer to W / sq m.

 

[Wuwei]

Now you're left with lambert projections for 0 to PI during a daily cycle. So the average lambert factor on that cosine projection is 2/PI .. (don't want to derive that in plain text !!! Not a factor of 2.. That's the average of the TOTAL power projected on any particular lattitude line DURING the DAY. Dividing that by a factor of 2 for day/night gives you an "energy factor" closer to a third than a quarter.

So if 1360 is the power at TOA in the solar column -- that projection WITH TIME CONSIDERED would be more like 433 watts/sqm equivalent. If that math is correct. And the simplifications are valid -- maybe we should be COOKED by now and not be popsicles

The problem is a little more tricky than that. You have to do a double integration over a sphere to get a factor of 4. The easiest way to look at it is that the global picture entails the area of a sphere, 4 pi r^2. The earth subtends a receiving disk which is the area of a circle as far a the sun is concerned: pi r^2. The ratio of those two is 4.

I chuckled at your comment about Trenberth finding EXACTLY 0.9watts/sqm out off of the "envelope calculation".. I'm tending to agree that was quite "convenient" given the estimates. Dontchathink?

You can look at it that way. But I think that's backward. He started with 0.9 W/sqm and adjusted the other numbers to balance out. .

 

[Wyatt earp]

Just popping in to ask a question. Why do people still argue with deniers on this issue? The matter has been unequivocally settled. If they still deny at this point, why bother continuing to engage? Anyone that denies at this point can just be ignored since they have made themselves irrelevant to the issue. Since we know that the warming of the climate system is happening, shouldn't the discussions revolve around what we should do about it?

Says the guy reading and commenting on this thread.

You can't win, so you want to try to ignore.

 

[Wuwei]

Maybe I deserved to pummeled for bringing this up. Rather than quietly figuring it out. But for such an important diagram for the cause of Global Warning consensus -- there sure are a lot of issues with it. And I'm not ashamed to make mistakes thinking in real time with no safety net or scripted talking points

This is what I understand: Trenberth's or any of a number of similar energy flow diagrams was never intended to be a proof or even supporting evidence of global warming. Unfortunately some warmers think so and embarrass themselves in considering it more than what it is. It's value is in showing an approximate nature of the most important factors in the daily average energy flow.

One value of the diagrams is in showing just how huge back-radiation is, and that it has a critical effect on the climate now and in the future. The concern I have is that H2O as a trace vapor has only 4 times the mass as CO2 in the atmosphere. So increasing CO2 is not trivial. However the three phases of H2O (solid liquid gas) would have a complex relation to the single phase of CO2 as far as the dynamics of the atmosphere in global warming and can't be computed as of yet.

 

[Wuwei]

Just popping in to ask a question. Why do people still argue with deniers on this issue? The matter has been unequivocally settled. If they still deny at this point, why bother continuing to engage? Anyone that denies at this point can just be ignored since they have made themselves irrelevant to the issue. Since we know that the warming of the climate system is happening, shouldn't the discussions revolve around what we should do about it?

Yes, there are some deniers that are so avid that they will even deny some laws of physics to try to substantiate their point. They are irrelevant but fun to engage when they are full of self contradiction. Others here are intelligently skeptical and are more interested in how much effect CO2 has from past to future. Like politics and religion there is a large range in belief from middle ground to avid extremes. On this board few are agnostics.

 

[flacaltenn]

Now you're left with lambert projections for 0 to PI during a daily cycle. So the average lambert factor on that cosine projection is 2/PI .. (don't want to derive that in plain text !!! Not a factor of 2.. That's the average of the TOTAL power projected on any particular lattitude line DURING the DAY. Dividing that by a factor of 2 for day/night gives you an "energy factor" closer to a third than a quarter.

So if 1360 is the power at TOA in the solar column -- that projection WITH TIME CONSIDERED would be more like 433 watts/sqm equivalent. If that math is correct. And the simplifications are valid -- maybe we should be COOKED by now and not be popsicles

The problem is a little more tricky than that. You have to do a double integration over a sphere to get a factor of 4. The easiest way to look at it is that the global picture entails the area of a sphere, 4 pi r^2. The earth subtends a receiving disk which is the area of a circle as far a the sun is concerned: pi r^2. The ratio of those two is 4.

I chuckled at your comment about Trenberth finding EXACTLY 0.9watts/sqm out off of the "envelope calculation".. I'm tending to agree that was quite "convenient" given the estimates. Dontchathink?

You can look at it that way. But I think that's backward. He started with 0.9 W/sqm and adjusted the other numbers to balance out. .

Nothing in that simple relationship you offered includes the 2 critical angular variables that change over the day or over the year. Doesn't even take into account the spread in energy densities from the Lambertian aspect. In the Lambert calculations - the areas (ignoring the curvature of the surface under illumination) will change with those two presentation angles to inc/decrease the density of flux. You need that to move from a static "power" description to a realistic power-time calculation for daily or yearly irradiance. I did a little searching and calculating last night and the evidence for ACTUAL daily/yearly irradiance vs Lattitude show a MAX. irradiance (at zenith) of anywhere between 400 and 420 w/sqm2.. That's a lot closer to the 433 I tossed out --- than the 341 that appears in the "Energy" diagram.. A LOT of measurements and calculations come from "efficiency" estimators for solar installations. Which always (of course) tend to chart unclouded days..

 

[Wuwei]

Now you're left with lambert projections for 0 to PI during a daily cycle. So the average lambert factor on that cosine projection is 2/PI .. (don't want to derive that in plain text !!! Not a factor of 2.. That's the average of the TOTAL power projected on any particular lattitude line DURING the DAY. Dividing that by a factor of 2 for day/night gives you an "energy factor" closer to a third than a quarter.

So if 1360 is the power at TOA in the solar column -- that projection WITH TIME CONSIDERED would be more like 433 watts/sqm equivalent. If that math is correct. And the simplifications are valid -- maybe we should be COOKED by now and not be popsicles

The problem is a little more tricky than that. You have to do a double integration over a sphere to get a factor of 4. The easiest way to look at it is that the global picture entails the area of a sphere, 4 pi r^2. The earth subtends a receiving disk which is the area of a circle as far a the sun is concerned: pi r^2. The ratio of those two is 4.

I chuckled at your comment about Trenberth finding EXACTLY 0.9watts/sqm out off of the "envelope calculation".. I'm tending to agree that was quite "convenient" given the estimates. Dontchathink?

You can look at it that way. But I think that's backward. He started with 0.9 W/sqm and adjusted the other numbers to balance out. .

Nothing in that simple relationship you offered includes the 2 critical angular variables that change over the day or over the year. Doesn't even take into account the spread in energy densities from the Lambertian aspect. In the Lambert calculations - the areas (ignoring the curvature of the surface under illumination) will change with those two presentation angles to inc/decrease the density of flux. You need that to move from a static "power" description to a realistic power-time calculation for daily or yearly irradiance. I did a little searching and calculating last night and the evidence for ACTUAL daily/yearly irradiance vs Lattitude show a MAX. irradiance (at zenith) of anywhere between 400 and 420 w/sqm2.. That's a lot closer to the 433 I tossed out --- than the 341 that appears in the "Energy" diagram.. A LOT of measurements and calculations come from "efficiency" estimators for solar installations. Which always (of course) tend to chart unclouded days..

It seems you are overanalyzing the problem as it relates to Trenberth's diagram. I think there is little question that the sun's irradiance on the zenith is close to 1365 w/sqm.
The area subtended by the earth is given by rigorous calculus that says the the average irradiance on the earth is 1/4 that. What you seem to be getting at is that all that energy does not actually get to earth. That is true and is estimated by the upward arrows at the left of the diagram where it reflects from or is absorbed by the atmosphere.

Otherwise I don't see how the geometric factor of 4 can be disputed. I agree because of upper atmospheric abosorption, etc that solar measurements on a sunny day on earth would not see the raw irradiance at the TOA. Trenberth shows all that already. The diagram, you might say deals in averages of averages. It does not ever represent an instantaneous flow of energy at any one point on earth.

 

[flacaltenn]

Now you're left with lambert projections for 0 to PI during a daily cycle. So the average lambert factor on that cosine projection is 2/PI .. (don't want to derive that in plain text !!! Not a factor of 2.. That's the average of the TOTAL power projected on any particular lattitude line DURING the DAY. Dividing that by a factor of 2 for day/night gives you an "energy factor" closer to a third than a quarter.

So if 1360 is the power at TOA in the solar column -- that projection WITH TIME CONSIDERED would be more like 433 watts/sqm equivalent. If that math is correct. And the simplifications are valid -- maybe we should be COOKED by now and not be popsicles

The problem is a little more tricky than that. You have to do a double integration over a sphere to get a factor of 4. The easiest way to look at it is that the global picture entails the area of a sphere, 4 pi r^2. The earth subtends a receiving disk which is the area of a circle as far a the sun is concerned: pi r^2. The ratio of those two is 4.

I chuckled at your comment about Trenberth finding EXACTLY 0.9watts/sqm out off of the "envelope calculation".. I'm tending to agree that was quite "convenient" given the estimates. Dontchathink?

You can look at it that way. But I think that's backward. He started with 0.9 W/sqm and adjusted the other numbers to balance out. .

Nothing in that simple relationship you offered includes the 2 critical angular variables that change over the day or over the year. Doesn't even take into account the spread in energy densities from the Lambertian aspect. In the Lambert calculations - the areas (ignoring the curvature of the surface under illumination) will change with those two presentation angles to inc/decrease the density of flux. You need that to move from a static "power" description to a realistic power-time calculation for daily or yearly irradiance. I did a little searching and calculating last night and the evidence for ACTUAL daily/yearly irradiance vs Lattitude show a MAX. irradiance (at zenith) of anywhere between 400 and 420 w/sqm2.. That's a lot closer to the 433 I tossed out --- than the 341 that appears in the "Energy" diagram.. A LOT of measurements and calculations come from "efficiency" estimators for solar installations. Which always (of course) tend to chart unclouded days..

It seems you are overanalyzing the problem as it relates to Trenberth's diagram. I think there is little question that the sun's irradiance on the zenith is close to 1365 w/sqm.
The area subtended by the earth is given by rigorous calculus that says the the average irradiance on the earth is 1/4 that. What you seem to be getting at is that all that energy does not actually get to earth. That is true and is estimated by the upward arrows at the left of the diagram where it reflects from or is absorbed by the atmosphere.

Otherwise I don't see how the geometric factor of 4 can be disputed. I agree because of upper atmospheric abosorption, etc that solar measurements on a sunny day on earth would not see the raw irradiance at the TOA. Trenberth shows all that already. The diagram, you might say deals in averages of averages. It does not ever represent an instantaneous flow of energy at any one point on earth.

The isolation at TOA is not in dispute although it changes slightly with regular adjustments to distancce from the sun. But the ACTUAL no cloud power in W/sqm IS in dispute because it's NOT a simple factor of 4. Not when you're designing a solar panel for efficiency. And the actual MEASUREMENTS of solar energy received follow more closely to your original Lambertian theory hunch -- than they do by that simplistic relationship that you presented.

For energy densities at the surface -- you need to include the time variability of at least the critical angles due to daily rotational motion and seasonal declination.. Without those -- you'd never get ANY concept that the energy density appears a half COSINE for the daily insolation. And the AVERAGE of that 1/2 cosine (over 180 degrees) is 2/PI...

Here's a reference that I bookmarked. http://nature.berkeley.edu/biometlab/espm129/notes/Lecture 7 Solar Radiation Part 3 Earth Sun Geometry notes.pdf

MORE detail than either of us actually need to "perfect" Trenberth's "estimate"..

Whatever lattitude you choose -- the average time varying power will be multiplied by 2/PI divided by 2.

SO MAYBE -- the 341 is truly averaged to reflect this by Trenberth. But I think he was lazy and probably used this "divide by 4" assumption that you are peddling..

What you'd have to do is Average ALL LATTITUDES daily using the method in the link. But the surface irradiance wouldn't be 1360 at the equator. It would be much higher. And concomitantly, much lower at the poles. But the measurement that gives you 1360 at TOA is NOT GEOMETRY dependent. It's a direct measurement of the solar column. So I think the surface numbers "fabricated" IMO..

 

[Wuwei]

The isolation at TOA is not in dispute although it changes slightly with regular adjustments to distancce from the sun. But the ACTUAL no cloud power in W/sqm IS in dispute because it's NOT a simple factor of 4. Not when you're designing a solar panel for efficiency. And the actual MEASUREMENTS of solar energy received follow more closely to your original Lambertian theory hunch -- than they do by that simplistic relationship that you presented.

For energy densities at the surface -- you need to include the time variability of at least the critical angles due to daily rotational motion and seasonal declination.. Without those -- you'd never get ANY concept that the energy density appears a half COSINE for the daily insolation. And the AVERAGE of that 1/2 cosine (over 180 degrees) is 2/PI...

Here's a reference that I bookmarked. http://nature.berkeley.edu/biometlab/espm129/notes/Lecture 7 Solar Radiation Part 3 Earth Sun Geometry notes.pdf

MORE detail than either of us actually need to "perfect" Trenberth's "estimate"..

Whatever lattitude you choose -- the average time varying power will be multiplied by 2/PI divided by 2.

SO MAYBE -- the 341 is truly averaged to reflect this by Trenberth. But I think he was lazy and probably used this "divide by 4" assumption that you are peddling..

What you'd have to do is Average ALL LATTITUDES daily using the method in the link. But the surface irradiance wouldn't be 1360 at the equator. It would be much higher. And concomitantly, much lower at the poles. But the measurement that gives you 1360 at TOA is NOT GEOMETRY dependent. It's a direct measurement of the solar column. So I think the surface numbers "fabricated" IMO..

Yes. At a higher latitude you aim the panel so that the normal to the panel plane is aimed at the midday sun. That allows the maximum efficiency for fully collecting the sun's energy. The earth does not have the luxury of being tilted like the small panel can.

Here is an example: Suppose you are at 60 deg latitude. A one meter square panel is tilted 60 deg to receive the most energy. At midday it creates a long shadow on the earth that is one meter wide by two meters long because the sun is 60 deg off the horizon, and 1/cos(60) = 2. The panel receives 1 sq m of energy while the earth is deprived of 2 sq m.

The second factor of 2 of course comes from the rotating of earth so that the solar panel creates a longer shadow in both directions. For example at 4 hours from midday (60 deg longitude rotation) the shadow would be twice as wide in both dimensions.

It is misleading to compare the flat earth receiving energy to a tilted panel receiving energy.

Trenberth was not lazy. Think of the law of conservation of energy. The earth can only receive the energy subtended by its circle. The umbra behind it is deprived of that energy. The energy hitting the earth is certainly very non uniform, but the deprivation of energy behind the earth must be uniform and is circular.

 

[jc456]

Jake's a DENIER, denying that 62>58. Jake's AGWCult snorts the koolaid from the can and believes that 58F in 2015 is warmer than the 62F in 1997.

Frank denies 62.3 > 62, which is what the numbers would be if you used matching baselines.

That is, he's deliberately engaging in open fraud by knowingly comparing measurements from different baselines.

Frank also cries every year on Stalin's birthday, as it reminds him that Stalin is dead, so now Frank can only service Stalin's ideals instead of personally servicing Stalin the man.

well actually it said 62.45 which is still more than 62.3. So even after you move the goal posts, you hit the chip shot wide of the posts. Baseline.

too fkn funny base line. how is it there is a different baseline anyway, you never answered that question snags.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Speaking of computer models (not trying to de rail this thread) I was reading about an article on how Ken Warby and his son are going to attempt to break his 1978 water speed record latter this year and I loved what he said:


Another fast dash for world record in 2016

The pair are using gut-feel for what looks right, harbouring a distrust for computer-aided design: “Things look good on a computer but you have to build something that can cope with different conditions as it runs down a 12-kilometre dam at over 300 miles per hour.