Reposted by Dr. Judith Curry’s Climate Etc.
Posted on March 28th, 2021 by curryja |
by Michel de Rougemont
Not as innocent as it looks, Judith Curry asks a relevant question on Twitter:
How much would the turbidity change to account for the 0.53 W / m2 increase in TOA radiative forcing since 2003?
https://twitter.com/curryja/status/1375144537522204672
She asked this in the context of an article recently accepted for publication on observational evidence for increasing global radiative forcing (Kramer et al., 2021).
Abstract. “Changes in atmospheric composition, such as B. increasing greenhouse gases, cause an initial radiation imbalance in the climate system, which is quantified as instantaneous radiative forcing. This basic metric has not been directly observed worldwide, and previous estimates are from models. This is partly because current space-based instruments cannot distinguish instantaneous radiative forcing from the climate’s radiative response. We apply radiation nuclei to satellite observations to unravel these components and find that instantaneous radiative forcing of the entire sky increased by 0.53 ± 0.11 W / m2 from 2003 to 2018, explaining positive trends in the overall planetary radiation imbalance . This increase is due to a combination of increasing concentrations of well-mixed greenhouse gases and recent reductions in aerosol emissions. These results show clear fingerprints of anthropogenic activities in the changing energy budget of the earth, which we can determine after observations within 4 years. “
This question touches on a central point in climate science, because it cannot be an experimental science in which one can play with parameters in isolation from one another. Only a few limited ongoing instrumental observations and paleolithic reconstructions can serve to distinguish natural from anthropogenic processes, especially radiative forcing processes. Most, if not all, of this work, however, takes place in silico.
The question can also be formulated in a more general way:
Is it at all possible to differentiate the causes of the radiative forcing difference of 0.53 W · m-2 over a period of 15 years on a global level and through instrumental observations?
To the opacity suggestion:
- From a simple two-tier energy balance budget, it can be estimated that a 1% increase in turbidity (about 66% total) for all other constant factors can result in a temperature increase of 0.54 ° C on the Earth’s surface and 0.45 ° C at the top of the atmosphere (TOA)
- Without taking system feedback into account, radiative forcing of 0.53 Wm-2 would induce a temperature rise of 0.11 ° C at the surface and 0.18 ° C at the TOA.
- In order to achieve the same increase in temperature and thus to react to a pressure of 0.53 Wm-2, the turbidity for the surface would change by 0.27% or for the TOA by 0.4%.
- Can the turbidity or change in turbidity in the aggregated global domain be measured with such accuracy and precision? What was it in 2003 and 2018?
From the point of view of the overall energy balance:
- In general, and for convenience, modelers estimate all incoming and outgoing heat flows and allow any remaining amount to heat or cool the oceans, reporting what is known as an accumulated ocean heat or “heat content anomaly”.
According to NASA, a heat flow anomaly of 0.36 to 0.41 Wm-2 would have accumulated for the first 700 m depth in the period 1993–2019. Other heat release periods should also occur over time so the imbalance doesn’t keep us boiling or freezing forever (it never worked). - Over this period of 26 years, this heat flow would have implied a temperature change in a well-homogenized 700-meter water column of 0.10 to 0.11 ° C, a change that is difficult to measure.
- A similar question to the previous one arises with regard to instrumental observation: is it at all possible to measure such heat storage precisely, precisely and in the aggregated global area (by localized temperature monitoring or some other valid method)?
Errors must be taken into account in all of these evaluations. those that result from instrumental inaccuracies and inaccuracies, those that are embedded in the data massage process (averaging over time and places), and systemic ones that result from incomplete and incomplete model designs, their parameterization and simplifications.
In other words, the resulting model balance sheet should include an account for garbage. but it seems that at the same time it is the energy that is accumulating in the oceans. NASA-Goddard’s simplified representations show none; others (Trenberth, Fasullo & Kiehl, 2009) show a “net absorption” of 0.9 W · m-2 or the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) shows a “surface imbalance” of 0.6 ± 0.17 W · m – 2 (one estimates the edge accuracy). However, taking into account all the potential errors, the true scope of this imbalance can be on the order of hundreds of percent, calling into question the narrative of a ticking time bomb in the depths of the ocean.
One final question needs to be addressed to the climate science community: Will the heat accumulated in the oceans ever be realized by the surface climate?
References
Kramer, RJ, He, H., Soden, BJ, Oreopoulos, L., Myhre, G., Forster, PM & Smith, CJ (2021). Evidence of observation for increasing global radiative forcing. Geophysical Research Letters, 48 (e2020GL091585). https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL091585
KE Trenberth, JT Fasullo & J. Kiehl (2009). Earth’s global energy budget.
American Meteorological Society Bulletin, 90 (3), 311-323. https://doi.org/10.1175/2008BAMS2634.1
About the author:
Michel de Rougemont, chemical engineer with Dr. sc tech, is an independent consultant. www.mr-int.ch
In his activities in fine chemistry and agriculture, he faces various environmental and safety challenges without fear.
He published a book ‘Réarmer la raison’, available on Amazon, and an essay ‘Between hysteria and neglect of the climate’ (both in French only).
He maintains a blog blog.mr-int.ch, a website dedicated to the climate klima.mr-int.ch, and a website on biological control in agriculture biologically.mr-int.ch
He has no conflict of interest regarding the subject matter of this paper.
Like this:
Loading…
Comments are closed.