Advection – Do you like that?

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

I have to bother with MODTRAN infrared light in the atmosphere paradigm. Are from Help file.

Figure 1. Description of the MODTRAN model.

I’m interested in this model because I want to see the difference between the amount of energy escaping from the surface into space at the equator versus the poles. So, in my usual amnesiac style, I wrote a program that downloads the results of a MODTRAN run so I can analyze them.

What I found is that in clear sky, subarctic summer conditions, about 70% of the high-level surface radiation makes it into space. And in clear sky conditions, subarctic winter, about 81% passable. Finally, in the clear, tropical tropics, only about 65% of the uplifted surface radiation makes it into space.

This happens for a few reasons. First, at cold temperatures, more energy at a frequency is less absorbed by CO2. And second, the poles are much drier than the tropics, and water is the main greenhouse gas.

Figure 2. Water content by latitude.

After looking at the MODTRAN results, I looked to see how the MODTRAN numbers fit the CERES data. Here’s a CERES view of how clear blue sky surface radiation made it into space.

Figure 3. Global view, percentage of ascending radiation into space. Only clear skies.

This shows that the tropics lost 63.7% of their long-wave surface radiation to space. MODTRAN says 65%…close enough.

For the summer and winter subarctics, the subarctic is generally considered to be the region of latitude between 50°-70° North. To test this, I took the percentage of longwave rising in summer and winter by latitude. Figure 4 shows that graph.

Figure 4. Spatial percentage of longwave surface elevation CERES (LW) by latitude and season, and percentage of SubArctic LW in space of MODTRAN in summer and winter. Only clear skies.

Once again there is a great agreement between MODTRAN and CERES. And as you can see, there is a big difference in the amount of LW escaping in the tropics and towards the poles. The values ​​in Antarctica are higher because the Antarctic Plateau is quite high and extremely dry, thus lying above most greenhouse gases.

So why is all of this important? That brings us back to the title of this post, “Advection”. In contrast to convection, which is the movement of energy in the vertical direction, convection is the movement of energy in the horizontal direction. And it’s a huge movement. This is where the energy is moving from and to — it’s going from the tropics to the poles.

Figure 5. CERES average grip. Positive areas are strengthening the energy of negative areas.

And this is important because energy is moving from locations where there is little escaping into space, to locations where more energy escapes into space.

Next, I look at the change of the total amount of energy equipped over time. Figure 6 shows that result.

Figure 6. Increase in total fitted energy flow (petawatts)

So… how much excess energy is escaping into space from the increase in convection from the equator to the poles? To calculate that, we take the increase in petawatts, multiply it by the average increase in longwave work in the poles versus the increase in the tropics, and divide it by the surface area. of the earth … this results in an increase in long-wave radiation in the upper atmosphere of 0.6 watts per square meter (W/m²).

And how does this increase in long-wave escape compare to other energy flows? Well, any increase in CO2 causes a corresponding decrease in the long wave escaping at the top of the atmosphere. How much reduction? Assuming that the IPCC is correct in its estimate that doubling CO2 would reduce longwaves in the atmosphere by 3.7 watts per square meter (W/m²), the change for the period 2000-2021 shown above is… wait for it… decrease 0.6 W/m².

Thus, during this period, at least 0.6 . decrease W/m² in long waves in the upper atmosphere due to CO2 are precisely balanced by an increase of 0.6 W/m² in long waves in the upper atmosphere due to increased convection.

Is this a coincidence? It is entirely possible that it is. But if so, it’s an interesting coincidence…

And whether that’s a coincidence or not, it shows that the standard CO2 theory of surface heating has been oversimplified.

That theory says that if CO2 cuts down on the amount of longwaves heading out into space, then surface temperatures must rise to restore the atmosphere’s peak balance between incoming and outgoing radiation. Or more specifically, the theory says:

• The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing.

• This absorbs more of the longer-wave radiation, resulting in peak-atmospheric (TOA) unbalanced radiation. This is the TOA balance between incident sunlight (after some is reflected back into space) and longwave radiation traveling from the surface and atmosphere.

• To restore balance so that the incoming radiation equals the outgoing radiation, the surface force must heat up until enough additional long waves are present to restore balance.

But this analysis shows it, as I discussed in my post.”Unbalanced at the top“, There are more ways to restore equilibrium than to raise the surface temperature… and thus the conventional CO2 theory is misleading.

My best New Year wishes to all,

w.

PS—For those interested, other ways to reset TOA balance include:

• Increased surface or cloud reflectivity can reduce the amount of sunlight entering.

• Increased absorption of sunlight by aerosols in the atmosphere and clouds can lead to larger swept long waves.

• An increase in the number or duration of thunderstorms moves additional surface heat into the troposphere, moving it above some of the greenhouse gases and leading to increased wavelengths.

• A change in the ascending versus descending portion of the atmospheric radiation can lead to an increase in the stratosphere.

MY USES—I choose my words carefully, and I take pleasure in defending them. However, I cannot defend your interpretation of my words. So when you comment, please quote the exact words you’re discussing, so we can all be clear on your subject.