One of the things that has regularly nagged at me is the simple way the world is seen by the Warmers.
Look at that model image.
See the “negative space”.
What is NOT in that image?
There is no sun and there is no day / night cycle. That vision is “static scored”.
(In reality, some of the climate models do have a more dynamic “day”, but they still suffer some of the same issues due to their construction in a way that reduces the impact of the daily cycle. The mind set is “static scored”. Also, as you make the ‘time step’ minutes instead of days or weeks and as you make the surface grid size small enough to capture individual convective processes, the model becomes too slow to run. We limit our understanding to what our computers are able to compute.)
The Earth is seen as having these very long duration trends, but the daily changes all just get averaged out. We have an average earth with an average insolation with an average area at an average temperature. Seasons don’t matter. Days don’t matter. Day night cycling of temperatures and convection don’t matter. The differences between oceans and land don’t matter. Mountains, lakes, and rivers don’t matter. Trees and grass don’t matter.
It’s all just a large smiling Disk Of Earth getting a constant average solar flux day in and day out year after year with only CO2 as the gatekeeper.
In a world where everything but CO2 is held constant (or even just regularly wiggled inside fixed bounds) the only free axis, CO2, must by definition carry the full burden of any changes.
But the real world is not like that.
The real world has seasons. It has oceans and land each with different behaviours. Desert, such as the Sahara, can heat dramatically. Then that 4th power increase in radiant energy with temperature can really kick in. The oceans on the other hand barely change their temperatures at all in comparison; yet they can evaporate vast quantities of water that falls again as rain. All these things happening inside a single day.
This is very easy to observe at night when the desert becomes very cold. All that heat radiating away through the clear DRY air. During the day, it warms dramatically. On the ocean the temperatures are much more constant. Sure, the sun can warm your skin, but let a cloud get in the way and the non-irradiated surface temperature rapidly moderates toward the temperature of that body of water.
So why does this matter?
Because the daily cycle of warming and cooling, and of evaporation and rain, is far greater than any change of CO2.
Convection, Rain, and IR Heat Transfer
There are two dominant issues here.
One is the direct example of the Stefan–Boltzmann law giving a 4th power function driving heat off the planet via radiation (such that a small increase in temperatures result in a gigantic increase in radiated energy, that is, cooling). If you make it a little harder to radiate the heat away, we’ll still dump it out just by taking a trivial bit longer during the hottest part of the day.
The second is the simple fact of convection and it’s variation, over time and over space. These are gigantic processes in comparison to CO2 impacts on surface temperatures. Attempt to raise the surface temperature by a couple of percent and you will simply evaporate a nearly indetectable bit more water, that convects toward space to dump its heat, then falls with all the OTHER rain as a near zero change in the total.
These two processes ‘give the lie’ to the dominance of CO2.
There are many articles on convection. But we can see it ourselves. Look at any thunderstorm. Massive convection moving tons of water from the land surface, up to altitude, condensing that water to rain, hail, and snow; then returning that water to the surface to complete another heat transfer cycle. Even in dry air there is convection. Watch vultures and eagles floating on rising columns of air. Go to a Glider School and learn how they spot the rising bits of air to ride. These are called “Thermals” for a reason. Add heat, more hot air rises (to cool at altitude and fall again as cold air somewhere else, repeating that cooling cycle).
There are great bands of convection all around the planet. We would be very hard pressed to even detect the increase in rate of flow or of total rainfall. Most of the rain falls in the oceans where we do not monitor. Much of what’s left falls in a very few geographies.
Notice how much of global rainfall, those dark blue parts, falls where there is little or no effective measurement. Central Africa, the equatorial ocean band, center of the Amazon basin. Most of the rain falls out at sea. Would we even know if it increased? Even our land measurements are crude. The increase would be well inside our error band of measuring.
The land based thermals form a bit after sunrise, as the heat begins to be applied, and they die out in the evening as the heat engine driving them runs out of power. They run on a daily cycle. Not based on decades, years, months, or even weeks. The heating is over and done in a day and the heat is dumped in the same day. When the night comes, temperatures drop until that Stefan–Boltzmann law cuts the other way. Output being reduced by a 4th power as the surfaces cool. The cooling takes the fuel away from the convective processes and the still quiet cool air of night settles in.
Even kids know this. I’ve bolded a few bits.
The principles of thermal soaring with an rc glider are very simple, and most medium/large size gliders are capable of ‘riding the thermals’.
Thermals are columns of air that are warmer than the air surrounding them. Warm air is less dense than cool air, and so it rises up – rather like a helium filled balloon does. The rate of rise depends on the temperature of air; the higher the temperature, the less dense the air and so the faster and higher it will rise.
Thermals appear because the sun warms different surfaces at different rates; for example, water absorbs the sun’s rays so thermals won’t be present over the water, but the roof of a house, or a road, will be warmed by the sun quickly and so strong thermals will be generated over these types of surface.
Finding the thermals with an RC glider
For successful thermal soaring, the day needs to be warm and without too much wind, and you should be flying in an open, flat area.
Thermals are of course invisible, but a strong heat haze rising from a surface, or circling birds, can indicate the presence of thermals. It’s really a case of trial-and-error for the first few flights, but once you’ve launched your glider to a good altitude, then you should be able to fly it around and pick out the thermals to keep it aloft.
Once you’ve found a strong thermal, the technique is to keep circling the glider over the thermal to gain altitude – as soon as the glider flies back into the cooler air then it will naturally start to sink as gravity takes the place of the warm rising air.
Heck, even Wiki knows this (and it hasn’t been erased by the AGW Mind Control Police … yet…)
A thermal column (or thermal) is a column of rising air in the lower altitudes of the Earth’s atmosphere. Thermals are created by the uneven heating of the Earth’s surface from solar radiation, and an example of convection. The sun warms the ground, which in turn warms the air directly above it. Dark earth, urban areas and roadways are good sources of thermals.
The warmer air expands, becoming less dense than the surrounding air mass. The mass of lighter air rises, and as it does, it cools due to its expansion at lower high-altitude pressures. It stops rising when it has cooled to the same temperature as the surrounding air. Associated with a thermal is a downward flow surrounding the thermal column. The downward moving exterior is caused by colder air being displaced at the top of the thermal.
The size and strength of thermals are influenced by the properties of the lower atmosphere (the troposphere). Generally, when the air is cold, bubbles of warm air are formed by the ground heating the air above it and can rise like a hot air balloon. The air is then said to be unstable. If there is a warm layer of air higher up, an inversion can prevent thermals from rising high and the air is said to be stable.
Thermals are often indicated by the presence of visible cumulus clouds at the apex of the thermal. When a steady wind is present thermals and their respective cumulus clouds can align in rows oriented with wind direction, sometimes referred to as “cloud streets” by soaring and glider pilots. Cumulus clouds are formed by the rising air in a thermal as it ascends and cools, until the water vapor in the air begins to condense into visible droplets. The condensing water releases latent heat energy allowing the air to rise higher. Very unstable air can reach the level of free convection (LFC) and thus rise to great heights condensing large quantities of water and so forming showers or even thunderstorms.
Thermals are one of the many sources of lift used by soaring birds and gliders to soar.
Yes, there can be storms at night, and convection. Typically this is driven by large heat sinks like the Gulf Of Mexico where a great deal of heat can be stored in the upper layers of water over weeks, then released as a major storm comes through. Churning the water and letting the heat out. Some of the hot wet air lifted during the day can continue to cool and drop rain or snow on into the evening. It all depends on how much water was lifted how far. But the driver of this convective engine stays the same. Heat, at the surface. And that heat at the surface has a very large daily cycle, with a very large 4th power function moving it around. That heat is also moved by gigantic quantities of water. Some storms will drop feet of water as rain. The heat of vaporization of that much water is staggering.
And it all happens on the time scale of hours and days. Not months, years, and decades. Weather dominates climate.
The “Time Scale” of radiation heat loss and convective heat loss is not decadal. It’s not even annual (the annual changes are driven by the tilt of our rotational axis of the planet and orbit of the sun). They are very fast processes.
So what happens to a system with 2 fast methods of letting heat out when one of them is reduced?
The other one picks up speed and does the job instead.
At this point the issue of “night” is important and the issue of daily cycles is important. The argument will be put forward that plugging up one leak will cause heat to build up as the other one simply can’t carry it all. Yet we know that every day the vast excess of heat from the daytime is all ‘leaked away’ by fairly early in the evening. That 4th power starts to bite quickly and convection drops off rapidly as things cool, then we asymptotically approach a minimum set by things like our orbital position and the annual snows; the movement of air masses from the polar regions (where the daily cycle stops as the “day” can last for months) can cool us even more.
It is the existence of this “daily cycle” that tells us that a couple of percent plugging of the IR window would just make more convection. That at most the convection would pick up a couple of percent and perhaps run a tiny bit longer into the evening. In the end, we would end up back at roughly the same stabilization temperature as the process runs down. It is the fact that the process does run down and does so each day that says so. It runs until the temperature drops enough to stop it from running. And that takes hours, not days. Then the “added” heat of the day is gone, just like the “added” heat from CO2 would be gone.
Supposedly, we’ve got about 2 Watts / m^2 of added warming from CO2 and related gasses:
(Calling this “forcing” is a political statement, not one of physics. There is no physics for thermal “force”. There is only energy flows and those are measured in things like watts and joules. The very use of the word “forcing” grates on the ears of folks who expect to deal in the real world with properly defined physics units. But “it’s what they do” in their odd little world… So we have about 2 out of 1000 Watts / m^2 change during the peak of the day.)
Mr. Boltzmann tells us that an increase of 2/1000 in energy to be radiated would take an increase of 0.14 C to take it all away as radiation during the daytime. Yet the “day to night” temperature cycles more than that. Often as much as 10 C (and Phoenix is closer to 15 C). So if we have a 14 C daily range and need 0.14 C to ‘dump’ the hypothetical extra, would that not suggest that we hold our high for just a tiny bit longer (not higher, just longer) and once the profile is back on track, drop back to our 14C colder night-time equilibrium point?
Note the “average” range lines. Plenty of room for a bit more range per day to carry away any change of heat flow in the IR band. Now lets look at a single day in August. What is the range inside a given day?
Clearly there is plenty of opportunity to dump that heat. We WERE at the high temperature at the peak of the heating. A 4th power is a hard master to beat… and once we’ve dumped it, we’re back on track to our equilibrium where energy balances again.
We have available 100 times the temperature range needed to “dump the heat” even if there were no convection.
But there is convection… and evaporation, and condensation, and rain and snow and hurricanes and massive snows. Each and every one of which represents heat transfer off the planet.
How much? At noon in the sunnier parts of the world the sun delivers about 1,300 Watts / square meter. The common figure used for solar heating in more northern areas is around 1,000 Watts. The “CO2 forcing” is closer to 2 W/m^2 (though some of us assert it’s nearer to nothing). Those are the numbers used in the above estimate of heat loss. ( I also assumed a 280 K base temperature and did a trivial estimate of the 4th power delta needed. Hope I got it right ;-)
So answer me this: If we, daily, dump over a Kilowatt of radiative energy per hour of sunlight and do so in very short order after sundown, exactly how much will 2 W matter? For a 10 hour day we would have about 10,000 kW-hr of heat to dump. Add 2 x 10 or 20 W-hrs to that, you get 10,020 kW-hr to dump. That is pretty much gone by 10 hours later in either case. The 4th power function will dump most of it in the first few hours and you will rapidly approach an identical end point as you asymptotically approach DAILY equilibrium. The heat doesn’t “build up”.
Basically, the CO2 effect is lost in the noise of convection and clouds.
The Warmers are a couple of orders of magnitude out of touch with the TIME SCALE of the processes involved.
A bit of cloud can easily block several hundred Watts of energy inbound. Folks using solar for energy know this. From this article:
Will Clouds Affect My Solar Panels?
Clouds do affect solar panels. The amount of power your solar panels can produce is directly dependent on the level of light they receive.
In full, bright sunlight, solar panels receive maximum levels of light. During those “peak” sunlight hours, your solar panels will produce power at their maximum capacity.
When clouds cover the sun, light levels are reduced. This does not shut down power production, however. If there is enough light to cast a shadow, in spite of the clouds, your solar panels should operate at about half of their full capacity. Thicker cloud cover will reduce operations further. Eventually, with heavy cloud cover, solar panels will produce very little useful power.
The Warmers are about an order of magnitude out of touch with the SCALE OF CLOUD impacts involved.
A kiloWatt-hr can boil about 1.6 kg of water, so that 20 W-hrs would take roughly 20/1000 or 2/100 * 1600 gm or 32 GRAMS of water, per square meter, of added evaporation / rainfall. Would folks in Florida in a summer rain storm even be able to MEASURE 32 grams more per square meter? To even detect it? A square meter is 100 cm on a side or 10,000 square centimeters. At 2.54 cm to the inch, an inch of rain would be 25,400 grams or 2.54 kilograms of water. We’re in the 4th digit of precision on that and it would be lost in the noise.
Nope. The Warmers are an order of magnitude or so out of touch with the SCALE OF WATER processes involved.
So every day we have tons of air convecting and tons of water evaporating rising, dumping heat, and falling again. We have kilowatt scale impacts from changes of cloud cover. And all of it drops off each night as it finishes it’s job of dumping the 1,300 kW/m^2 of added heat back to space. And in that milieu CO2 counts for nothing. It does nothing.
Put at it’s most basic: The decision to use a DAILY AVERAGE temperature hides the actual processes involved in dumping heat. Using a MONTHLY AVERAGE simply assures that all the interesting processes are completely hidden and their effects sterilized.
From the very first step, the creation of a “monthly average temperature” for each place in the temperature data set, the “Climate Science” of “Global Warming” is broken and un-physical. They have their “time scale” all wrong.