{"id":178095,"date":"2021-12-14T19:42:29","date_gmt":"2021-12-14T18:42:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=178095"},"modified":"2021-12-14T19:42:31","modified_gmt":"2021-12-14T18:42:31","slug":"unbalanced-at-the-top","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=178095","title":{"rendered":"Unbalanced At the Top"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The \u201cCO2 Roolz Temperature\u201d theory goes like this:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \u2022 The amount of atmospheric CO2 increases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \u2022 This absorbs more upwelling longwave radiation, which leads to unbalanced radiation at the top of the atmosphere (TOA). This is the TOA balance between incoming sunlight (after some is reflected back to space) and outgoing longwave radiation from the surface and the atmosphere.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \u2022 In order to restore the balance so that incoming radiation equals outbound radiation, the surface perforce must, has to, is required to warm up until there\u2019s enough additional upwelling longwave to restore the balance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now, I\u2019ve mentioned before that this theory is untrue because there are several other ways that the TOA radiation balance can be changed or restored. These include:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \u2022 Increased cloud or surface reflections can reduce the amount of incoming sunlight.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \u2022 Increased absorption of sunlight by the atmospheric aerosols and clouds can lead to greater upwelling longwave.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \u2022 Increases in the number or duration of thunderstorms move additional surface heat into the troposphere, moving it above some of the greenhouse gases, and leading to increased upwelling longwave.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \u2022 A change in the fraction of atmospheric radiation going upwards vs. downwards can lead to increased upwelling radiation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \u2022 Increased advection (horizontal movement) of heat from the tropics to the polar regions can increase the amount of upwelling longwave radiation<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When you think of a top-of-atmosphere (TOA) radiation balance, it\u2019s normal to imagine that all over the earth, the TOA is pretty much in balance everywhere. However, nothing could be further from the truth \u2026 here\u2019s the TOA imbalance as shown in the CERES satellite data<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Figure 1. Top-of-atmosphere (TOA) average radiation balance, March 2000 to February 2021. Positive values show an imbalance where there is an excess of incoming solar radiation compared to outgoing longwave (thermal) radiation, and vice-versa regarding negative values.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

As you can see, the only place where incoming and outgoing radiation are equal is shown by the black\/white lines. In the tropics, there\u2019s much more net incoming solar radiation (after reflections) than outgoing longwave radiation. And outside of that region towards both poles, there\u2019s much more outgoing longwave radiation than incoming solar radiation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is the result of the \u201cadvection\u201d mentioned above, the polewards horizontal transfer of energy via ocean currents and atmospheric movements. And this is a gigantic movement of energy. It is a constant flow of about 15 petawatts (1015<\/sup> watts) across the black\/white lines above.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How much energy is that? Well, if you put a 1-gigawatt nuclear power plant every three meters along the black\/white lines above that circle the earth at about 40\u00b0N\/S of the Equator \u2026 that\u2019s how much energy they\u2019d generate in total.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Or to look at it another way, it\u2019s more than a thousand times the ongoing total primary energy consumption of all the people on the planet.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With that as background, let me return to the question of the TOA balance. Increasing CO2 absorbs more upwelling longwave, leading to less outgoing longwave at the TOA. This makes the TOA balance more positive<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And in theory, increasing surface temperature should increase the amount of outgoing longwave at the TOA. This would make the TOA balance more negative<\/strong>. In short, when the surface temperature goes up<\/strong>, the TOA balance should go down<\/strong> \u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In considering this, I realized I\u2019d never actually looked at this relationship. Here, again from the CERES dataset, are the two variables in question\u2014surface temperature and TOA imbalance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Figure 2. Change in surface temperature, March 2000 \u2013 February 2021<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is in good agreement with other global surface temperature reconstructions, such as Berkeley Earth and HadCRUT, although each of these global temperature datasets differs slightly from the others.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Next, I looked at the change in the TOA imbalance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Figure 3. Change in TOA radiation imbalance, March 2000 \u2013 February 2021<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

When I saw that, I said something that sounded very much like \u201cYIKES!!\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Well, if you recall from above, as temperature goes up<\/strong>, TOA imbalance is supposed to go down<\/strong> \u2026 but it\u2019s not. The TOA imbalance not even staying level. It\u2019s going up<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To investigate this further I created a scatterplot of the TOA imbalance versus surface temperature \u2026 and here\u2019s that chart.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Figure 4. Scatterplot, top-of-atmosphere (TOA) radiation imbalance versus surface temperature, March 2000 \u2013 February 2021<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Same problem, only worse\u2014there is NO statistically significant relationship between surface temperature and the TOA radiation imbalance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Curious \u2026 clearly, the conclusion from this has to be that the other factors that affect the TOA balance have much more effect than the change in surface temperature.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To me, this isn\u2019t a surprise. I see the climate system as a giant natural heat engine that is ruled by the Constructal Law discovered by Adrian Bejan. According to the Constructal Law, flow systems far from equilibrium must constantly change and evolve in order to persist \u2026 and as a result, as in this case, the simplistic assumptions of modern climate science simply don\u2019t pan out. Here\u2019s Figure 1 of an analysis of the climate by Bejan and Reis entitled \u201cThermodynamic optimization of global circulation and climate<\/a>\u201d \u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Note how the climate system naturally evolves to have a high-temperature area AH<\/sub> and a low-temperature area AL<\/sub> \u2026 compare that to Figure 1 at the top of this post. The Bejan\/Reis paper is most fascinating. I cannot recommend it enough to anyone seriously interested in climate. The Constructal Law is the first new law of thermodynamics in over a century, and it applies to a wide variety of natural systems. Further information on the Constructal Law is available at constructal.org<\/a>, along with an excellent article on the subject in Forbes magazine here<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Further thoughts on the matter gladly accepted \u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

w.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Como De Costumbre:<\/strong> When you comment please quote the exact words you are referring to. This avoids much of the misunderstandings that plague the intarwebs. I can and am happy to defend my own words. I can\u2019t defend your interpretation of my words.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A Technical Note:<\/strong> Over the 21-year period, the upwelling LW from the surface has increased by ~1.5 W\/m2, of which about 1 W\/m2 makes it to space without being absorbed by GHGs and redirected back downwards. This should have decreased<\/strong> the TOA imbalance by about 1 W\/m2.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And over the same period, the increase in CO2 forcing should have increased<\/strong> the TOA imbalance by about 0.6 W\/m2. The net result should have been a 0.4 W\/m2 decrease<\/strong> in the TOA imbalance over the period.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Instead, we\u2019ve seen a 0.8 W\/m2 increase<\/strong> in the TOA imbalance \u2026 which is why I said \u201cYIKES!\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

via Watts Up With That?<\/mark><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

December 14, 2021<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
Unbalanced At The Top<\/a><\/blockquote>