One of the most intriguing parts of the Climate debate is how people on both sides blindly follow some past concepts
and argue vehemently about others using precepts that may not be right.
There are many contrary things in Climate science that do notwork in the obvious way.
Today I wish to discuss the concept of World Temperature rises going up and down due to the effects of El Nino, La Nina.
Standard cause and effect.
The starting point to arguing whether these changes augment or distort Climate warming and as to whether there actually is
global warming or merely natural variation.
My contention is that neither El Nino or La Nina actually do anything.
They simply reflect where the heat currently is, they do not cause a temperature rise or fall.
Thus a La Nina actually reflects the fact that the earth’s sea and atmosphere is cooling.
An El Nino reflects that the earth’s sea and atmosphere is heating up.
In so doing there is a natural change in the temperatures of the oceans as they are part of the system gaining or losing energy,
not causing it to happen.
Where does that leave us?
For one it helps us to focus on the important changes in energy flux occurring to cause these variations in the earth’s temperature.
Which are not the observable phenomenon but the causes of the phenomenon.
Here is where the science knows what is happening but is curiously quiet on investigating it.
There are very few variables that actually count in determining temperature input and output on a daily basis.
The sun is the primary energy source.
The earth provides a steady and important minuscule backdrop of internal energy.
This varies depending on orbital position.
Radiation from all other areas in space is so much smaller again though not nil.
Perhaps someone could comment on gravitational forces and wave energy creation,
but if and what they are one presumes they are basically pretty constant.
That leaves changes in surface and atmospheric reflection which sum up as albedo changes.
Whether one is a believer or not the variation in temperatures is independent of the warming potential.
CO2 does not vary day by day enough to create temperature variations.
Water vapour and ice in the air in the form of clouds are the biggest variables in both GHG effect and albedo effect.
Here is where one of those seems obvious but is wrong factors comes into play.
El Nino is associated with increased global temperature.
At the same time El Nino is characterized by increased cloudiness at the equator.
La Nino is associated with colder temperatures but has much clearer skies at the equator.
There is the puzzle.
The more energy that hits the earth directly, the colder the atmosphere gets.
The less energy that gets through the more warm the atmosphere gets due to trapping of that lower energy in the atmosphere under the clouds,
warming both the air and sea.
Leaving that aside for the moment we could concentrate on the amount of water in the atmosphere.
Here the surprising fact is that this is almost invariant as well, at least it has much less fluctuation than most people think.
People who espouse the GHG theory do not like to admit this. The talk of the short residence time of water in the atmosphere
is a crutch to distract from the fact hat water is by far and away the greatest GHG by volume and is permanently in the air,
just like O2 CO2 and Nitrogen.
How does a fairly constant amount of water vapour in the atmosphere come to play a major role in the variability of the earth’s temperature?
The answer is in the amount of cloud formed by the water vapour and where and when it is formed.
This is one of the major areas that needs to be explored and documented more fully.
Cloud formation is seasonal, aerosol dependent and both ocean and atmospheric current dependent.
There may be other more exotic theories and practicalities in cloud formation but these are the main ones.
How does it work? Again counterintuitively.
The more clouds there are, the less actual energy reaches the earth’s surface but this lower amount of energy persists longer
and causes a higher atmospheric temperature than clear skies and no clouds.
When we talk about the temperature of the world increasing due to cloud formation or lack of
we are measuring the wrong parameter in terms of global warming.
The actual temperature changes are not related to the GHG effects of CO2 or water
but rather the amount of cloud induced warming of the lower atmosphere.
The actual warming due to CO2 increase is real and both known and unknown.
We know what the warming should be, usually expressed in terms of doubling of CO2.
But we do not know the nature of the feedbacks.
The simple positive feedback due to an increase in CO2 and water vapour in the atmosphere is countered by the effects of more cloud cover.
The height at which the cloud cover appears, The amount of actual energy that enters the system.
Which is lower due to increased albedo from the clouds, greening due to vegetation and lower if less ice is present.
Counter intuitively more albedo may lead to a higher atmospheric temperature.
While less albedo might lead to more energy returning to space and a lower temperature.
The opposite of that we naively expect.
How to sort out the conflicting ideas?
The first thing to realise is that Climate Change is
in some senses a zero sum game.
That is that any change which provokes an increase or decrease in temperature of the atmosphere is almost immediately countered by
an array of feedbacks that negate the increase.
Easy to say and easy to prove.
Any changes in forcing that could lead to a runaway GHG temperature increase has had the equivalent of 3 billion years to do so in.
And yet the hottest the globe has been able to reach in 3 billion years of trying is a mere 4 degrees higher than today and is quite compatible with life.
How do we know?
Because you are alive today and reading these words.
In other words it has never been able to get hot enough to wipe out life on this planet.
Is the reverse true?
Sadly not.
A lot of mechanisms exist that can decrease the temperature of the earth.
While water vapour increase heats the earth up [33 degrees] dust provides an increased albedo with no heat retentive properties.
Snowball earth has been a reality several times with life existing by virtue of underground life forms and Equatorial temperatures
still consistent with life.
The planet as a whole is cooling slightly but life will be able to continue to exist
in the nexus between the cold of space and the underground warmth of the plane for aeons.
The conundrum we are faced with today is that human activity is increasing the potential temperature of the earth slightly.
There are a lot of feedback mechanisms that in the past have averted any catastrophe of warming.
Warming overall is good for life, we are energy dependent depending on the sun
producing enough heat for plants to thrive and provide oxygen to keep us alive.
The chances of any harmful increase in temperature are remote.
Life just moves to the region which has the right temperature and enough of it to sustain it.
What is more important is recognizing the potential of human activity to produce short term deleterious effects on the planet.
This end is shared by warmists and skeptics alike though they both seem to deny it at times by their shortsightedness.
Some green measures are desired by everybody.
Less pollution for a start.
More care for our shrinking wild life.
As many curbs on human overpopulation as possible.
There is no excuse for abusing science and the scientific process in achieving this however.
No matter how much one wants to save the planet.
Ignoring the realities of Climate having many short term changes and long term variability in order to push a concept that
every change in the weather is due to CO2 increase is not noble.
When it fails, the consequences on trying to do something sensible about the planets problems will be much more difficult.
If it succeeds, by ignoring science and probability and frightening people, the type of world it will produce is not one that
is helpful.
One of the most intriguing parts of the Climate debate is how people on both sides blindly follow some past concepts and argue vehemently about others using precepts that may not be right.
There are many contrary things in Climate science that do notwork in the obvious way.
Today I wish to discuss the concept of World Temperature rises going up and down due to the effects of El Nino, La Nina.
Standard cause and effect.
The starting point to arguing whether these changes augment or distort Climate warming and as to whether there actually is global warming or merely natural variation.
My contention is that neither El Nino or La Nina actually do anything.
They simply reflect where the heat currently is, they do not cause a temperature rise or fall.
Thus a La Nina actually reflects the fact that the earth’s sea and atmosphere is cooling.
An El Nino reflects that the earth’s sea and atmosphere is heating up.
In so doing there is a natural change in the temperatures of the oceans as they are part of the system gaining or losing energy, not causing it to happen.
Where does that leave us?
For one it helps us to focus on the important changes in energy flux occurring to cause these variations in the earth’s temperature.
Which are not the observable phenomenon but the causes of the phenomenon.
Here is where the science knows what is happening but is curiously quiet on investigating it.
There are very few variables that actually count in determining temperature input and output on a daily basis.
The sun is the primary energy source.
The earth provides a steady and important minuscule backdrop of internal energy.
This varies depending on orbital position.
Radiation from all other areas in space is so much smaller again though not nil.
Perhaps someone could comment on gravitational forces and wave energy creation,
but if and what they are one presumes they are basically pretty constant.
That leaves changes in surface and atmospheric reflection which sum up as albedo changes.
Whether one is a believer or not the variation in temperatures is independent of the warming potential.
CO2 does not vary day by day enough to create temperature variations.
Water vapour and ice in the air in the form of clouds are the biggest variables in both GHG effect and albedo effect. Here is where one of those seems obvious but is wrong factors comes into play.
El Nino is associated with increased global temperature.
At the same time El Nino is characterized by increased cloudiness at the equator.
La Nino is associated with colder temperatures but has much clearer skies at the equator.
There is the puzzle.
The more energy that hits the earth directly, the colder the atmosphere gets.
The less energy that gets through the more warm the atmosphere gets due to trapping of that lower energy in the atmosphere under the clouds,
warming both the air and sea.
Leaving that aside for the moment we could concentrate on the amount of water in the atmosphere.
Here the surprising fact is that this is almost invariant as well, at least it has much less fluctuation than most people think.
People who espouse the GHG theory do not like to admit this. The talk of the short residence time of water in the atmosphere is a crutch to distract from the fact that water is by far and away the greatest GHG by volume and is permanently in the air,
just like O2, CO2 and Nitrogen.
How does a reasonably constant amount of water vapour in the atmosphere come to play a major role in the variability of the earth’s temperature?
The answer is in the amount of cloud formed by the water vapour and where and when it is formed.
This is one of the major areas that needs to be explored and documented more fully.
Cloud formation is seasonal, aerosol dependent and both ocean and atmospheric current dependent.
There may be other more exotic theories and practicalities in cloud formation but these are the main ones.
How does it work? Again counterintuitively.
The more clouds there are, the less actual energy reaches the earth’s surface but this lower amount of energy persists longer and causes a higher atmospheric temperature than clear skies and no clouds.
When we talk about the temperature of the world increasing due to cloud formation or lack of
we are measuring the wrong parameter in terms of global warming.
The actual temperature changes are not related to the GHG effects of CO2 or water
but rather the amount of cloud induced warming of the lower atmosphere.
The actual warming due to CO2 increase is real and both known and unknown.
We know what the warming should be, usually expressed in terms of doubling of CO2.
But we do not know the nature of the feedbacks.
The simple positive feedback due to an increase in CO2 and water vapour in the atmosphere is countered by the effects of more cloud cover.
The height at which the cloud cover appears, The amount of actual energy that enters the system.
Which is lower due to increased albedo from the clouds, greening due to vegetation and lower if less ice is present.
Counter intuitively more albedo may lead to a higher atmospheric temperature if it is due to clouds trapping IR.
While less albedo might lead to more energy returning to space and a lower temperature in a GHG environment without clouds of IR trapping GHG.
The opposite of that we naively expect.
How to sort out the conflicting ideas?
The first thing to realise is that Climate Change is in some senses a zero sum game.
That is that any change which provokes an increase or decrease in temperature of the atmosphere is almost immediately countered by an array of feedbacks that negate the increase.
Easy to say and easy to prove.
Any changes in forcing that could lead to a runaway GHG temperature increase has had the equivalent of 3 billion years to do so in.
And yet the hottest the globe has been able to reach in 3 billion years of trying is a mere 4 degrees higher than today and is quite compatible with life.
How do we know?
Because you are alive today and reading these words.
In other words it has never been able to get hot enough to wipe out life on this planet.
Is the reverse true? Sadly not.
A lot of mechanisms exist that can decrease the temperature of the earth.
While water vapour increase heats the earth up [33 degrees], dust provides an increased albedo with no heat retentive properties.
Snowball earth has been a reality several times with life existing by virtue of underground life forms and Equatorial temperatures still consistent with life.
The planet as a whole is cooling slightly but life will be able to continue to exist
in the nexus between the cold of space and the underground warmth of the plane for aeons.
The conundrum we are faced with today is that human activity is increasing the potential temperature of the earth slightly.
There are a lot of feedback mechanisms that in the past have averted any catastrophe of warming.
Warming overall is good for life, we are energy dependent depending on the sun
producing enough heat for plants to thrive and provide oxygen to keep us alive.
The chances of any harmful increase in temperature are remote.
Life just moves to the region which has the right temperature and enough of it to sustain it.
What is more important is recognizing the potential of human activity to produce short term deleterious effects on the planet.
This end is shared by warmists and skeptics alike though they both seem to deny it at times by their shortsightedness.
Some green measures are desired by everybody. Less pollution for a start.
More care for our shrinking wild life. As many curbs on human overpopulation as possible.
There is no excuse for abusing science and the scientific process in achieving this however.
No matter how much one wants to save the planet.
Ignoring the realities of Climate having many short term changes and long term variability in order to push a concept that every change in the weather is due to CO2 increase is not noble.
When it fails, the consequences on trying to do something sensible about the planets problems will be much more difficult.
If it succeeds, by ignoring science and probability and frightening people, the type of world it will produce is not one that is helpful.
The views expressed here are my own and are contestable.
I try to get the science right but acknowledge that some of the scientific comments here may be due to misunderstanding on my part.
Please correct them as soon as possible .
Sent in to WUWT but unlikely to be published Needs some work.
