Failed to Save Data Please Try Again Momentarily behaviourcloud
Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
This is an extension of the ideas I laid out as the Thunderstorm Thermostat Hypothesis on WUWT. For those who have not read information technology, I'll wait here while you go at that place and read information technology … (dum de dum de dum) … (makes himself a cup of coffee) … OK, welcome back. Onwards.
The hypothesis in that paper is that clouds and thunderstorms, particularly in the tropics, control the globe'due south temperature. In that paper, I showed that a falsifiable prediction of greater increase in clouds in the Eastern Pacific was supported past the satellite data. I got to thinking a couple of days ago virtually what other kinds of falsifiable predictions would catamenia from that hypothesis. I realized that one matter that should be true if my hypothesis were correct is that the climate sensitivity should be very low in the tropics.
I as well figured out how I could calculate that sensitivity, by using the change in incoming solar energy (insolation) between summertime and winter. The daily average top of atmosphere (TOA) insolation is shown in Effigy 1.
Effigy 1. Daily TOA insolation by latitude and day of the twelvemonth. Phi (Φ) is the Latitude, and theta (Θ) is the 24-hour interval of the year expressed as an bending from zero to 360. Insolation is expressed in watts per foursquare metre. SOURCE.
(Every bit a side note, one thing that is not by and large recognized is that the poles during summer get the highest daily average insolation of anywhere on earth. This is because, although they don't get a lot of insolation even during the summertime, they are getting information technology for 24 hours a solar day. This makes their daily boilerplate insolation much higher than other areas. But I digress …)
At present, the "climate sensitivity" is the relationship between an increase in what is called the "forcing" (the energy that heats the earth, in watts per square metre of globe surface) and the temperature of the earth in degrees Celsius. This is mostly expressed as the amount of heating that would issue from the forcing increase due to a doubling of CO2. A doubling of CO2 is estimated past the IPCC to increment the TOA forcing by 3.7 watts per metre squared (W/m2). The IPCC claims that the climate sensitivity is on the order of 3°C per doubling of CO2, with an error band from 2°C to 4.five°C.
My insight was that I could compare the winter insolation with the summer insolation. From that I could calculate how much the solar forcing increased from winter to summer. And so I could compare that with the change in temperature from winter to summer, and that would give me the climate sensitivity for each latitude band.
My new falsifiable predictions from my Thunderstorm Thermostat Hypothesis were as follows:
ane The climate sensitivity would be less near the equator than virtually the poles. This is considering the well-nigh-daily afternoon emergence of cumulus and thunderstorms is primarily a tropical phenomenon (although it also occurs in some temperate regions).
2 The sensitivity would be less in breadth bands which are more often than not sea. This is for 3 reasons. The first is because the sea warms more slowly than the land, so a modify in forcing volition oestrus the country more. The second reason is that the presence of water reduces the outcome of increasing forcing, due to energy going into evaporation rather than temperature change. Finally, where in that location is surface h2o more clouds and thunderstorms can form more easily.
three Due to the temperature damping effect of the thunderstorms as explained in my Thunderstorm Thermostat Hypothesis, as well every bit the increase in cloud albedo from increasing temperatures, the climate sensitivity would be much, much lower than the approved IPCC climate sensitivity of three°C from a doubling of CO2.
4 Given the stability of the earth's climate, the sensitivity would be quite small, with a global boilerplate non far from nothing.
So those were my predictions. Figure two shows my results:
Figure 2. Climate sensitivity by latitude, in 20° bands. Bluish bars show the sensitivity in each ring. Xanthous lines show the standard mistake in the measurement.
Notation that all of my predictions based on my hypothesis have been confirmed. The sensitivity is greatest at the poles. The areas with the most ocean have lower sensitivity than the areas with lots of land. The sensitivity is much smaller than the IPCC value. And finally, the global average is not far from zero.
Discussion
While my results are far below the canonical IPCC values, they are non without precedent in the scientific literature. In CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic's view of potential climatic change, Sherwood Idso gives the results of eight "natural experiments". These are measurements of changes in temperature and corresponding forcing in various areas of the earth's surface. The results of his experiments was a sensitivity of 0.3°C per doubling. This is still larger than my consequence of 0.05°C per doubling, simply is much smaller than the IPCC results.
Kerr et al. argued that Idso'southward results were incorrect because they failed to allow for the fourth dimension that it takes the ocean to warm, viz:
A major declining, they say, is the omission of the sea from Idso's natural experiments, as he calls them. Those experiments extend over just a few months, while the surface layer of the ocean requires 6 to viii years to respond significantly to a modify in radiation.
I have ever establish this argument to exist specious, for several reasons:
1 The just part of the ocean that is interacting with the temper is the surface pare layer. The temperature of the lower layers is immaterial, every bit the evaporation, conduction and radiation from the ocean to the atmosphere are solely dependent on the peel layer.
2 The pare layer of the bounding main, equally well every bit the superlative ten metres or so of the ocean, responds quite quickly to increased forcing. It is much warmer in the summer than in the winter. More significantly, it is much warmer in the day than in the night, and in the afternoon than in the morning. It tin can heat and cool quite rapidly.
3 Oestrus does non mix downward in the sea very well. Warmer water rises to the surface, and cooler water sinks into the depths until it reaches a layer of equal temperature. Every bit a effect, waiting a while will not increase the warmth in the lower levels by much.
As a result, I would say that the difference between a twelvemonth-long experiment such as the one I have washed, and a six-twelvemonth experiment, would be small. Perhaps information technology might equally much equally double my climate sensitivity values for the areas that are mostly ocean, or even triple them … but that makes no difference. Even tripled, the average global climate sensitivity would still be only on the order of 0.15°C per CO2 doubling, which is very, very small-scale.
So, those are my results. I hold that they are derivable from my hypothesis that clouds and thunderstorms keep the earth's temperature within a very narrow level. And I say that these results strongly support my hypothesis. Clouds, thunderstorms, and likely other as-yet unrecognized mechanisms hold the climate sensitivity to a value very near null. And a corollary of that is that a doubling of CO2 would make a change in global temperature that is then minor as to be unmeasurable.
In the Northern Hemisphere, for example, the hemispheric average temperature change winter to summertime is about five°C. This five degree change in temperature results from a winter to summer forcing change of no less than 155 watts/metre squared … and we're supposed to worry about a forcing alter of three.vii West/m2 from a doubling of CO2???
The Southern Hemisphere shows the IPCC claim to be even more ridiculous. There, a winter to summer change in forcing of 182 W/m2 leads to a 2°C change in temperature … and nosotros're supposed to believe that a three.7 Due west/m2 change in forcing will cause a iii° modify in temperature? Even if my results were off by a factor of three, that's still a cruel joke.
Source: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/28/sense-and-sensitivity/