Is there really a climate crisis? NASA knew better than #NASA_Knew
David Dibbell
Looking into space from the surface, the radiative warming effect of the atmosphere is a real thing in the static sense of the absorption and emission of long wave energy by greenhouse gases (GHGs). But the atmosphere is not still. It is also the active fluid of its own dynamic heat engine operation, putting stored mass and energy into motion.
Consider that the distribution of warming over land and in the ocean to increases in concentrations of non-condensable greenhouse gases may arise from too much emphasis on the static concept and too little on the observable dynamics. Do we have to expect the heat that has accumulated down here to do the damage caused by what non-condensing GHGs do? That’s how the problem statement is best framed.
To address this question, I refer to “Earth and Climate Energy Budgets,” an article published January 14, 2009 on the NASA Earth Observatory website. It is worth reading to understand that both the static and dynamic aspects of the climate system are addressed. It is still available here: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/EnergyBalance
NASA expressed a sense of stillness in the last paragraph of that article, concluding: “However, as long as greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise, the amount of solar energy absorbed will continue to exceed the amount of energy absorbed. amount of infrared heat can escape into the void. The energy imbalance will continue to grow, and surface temperatures will continue to rise.”
But the dynamic nature of mass and energy flow has been covered in previous sections of the paper on how the atmosphere and oceans work. Key quote:
“The net heat coefficient imbalance between the equator and the poles drives atmospheric and oceanic circulation that climate scientists describe as a ‘heat engine’.”
So NASA understood the strong response of heat engines, beyond the question of increased GHG concentrations. The result are global-scale circulation patterns in the atmosphere.
“This combination of the atmosphere and the oceanic cycle is known as the Earth’s heat engine.
The climate heat engine must not only redistribute solar heat from the equator toward the poles, but also from the Earth’s surface and lower atmosphere back into space.
So NASA also knows that the local movements of the atmosphere are in response to absorbed energy and result in temperature differences. Heat engines run because there is a heat source, radiator, and working fluid. Consider convective weather in this context, with its dramatic update to high altitude.
“Satellite measurements indicate that the atmosphere radiates thermal infrared energy equivalent to 59% of incident solar energy.”
Total thermal radiation has been assumed to be 71% of the incoming solar energy. So NASA knows that, by far, most of the longwave energy emitted into space has come from the atmosphere itself. This means that the analysis of increased GHG concentrations must consider what will happen to the efficiency of the fluid acting as an emitter and the rate of circulation. What happens to the effect of surface emissions directly into space through the “window of the atmosphere” will be a lesser factor.
“At an altitude of about 5-6 km, the concentration of greenhouse gases in the upper atmosphere is so small that heat can radiate freely into space.”
So NASA knows that the “greenhouse effect” diminishes with altitude to the point where “heat can be released to space freely.” This implies that the circulation from the lower half of the atmosphere to the upper half of the atmosphere has great significance for the distribution of absorbed energy. 5-6 km is about 500 mb, so about half the mass is below this altitude; Global cyclic traffic reaches much higher than that, and local convective weather can reach 15 km or more. Similar non-condensable GHG molecules, which absorb and emit when looking down, also emit upward through the decreasing internal mass of the atmosphere as altitude increases.
“The amount of heat a surface gives off is proportional to the fourth power of its temperature. If the temperature is doubled, the radiant energy increases by a factor of 16 (2 to the 4th power). If Earth’s temperature rises, the planet will rapidly radiate an increasingly larger amount of heat into space. This large increase in heat loss in response to a relatively smaller increase in temperature — known as radiative cooling — is the main mechanism that prevents warming on Earth.”
So NASA knows better than to expect runaway climate conditions, based on the 4th power relationship of radiant energy to temperature. It’s worth noting that the Earth is clearly not really a single transmitter. The figures in the paper show a range of radiation outputs averaged over the planet’s surface. Keep that thought.
What else did NASA know? In the paper there are several references to CERES satellite measurements of outgoing long-wave emission and short-wave reflection. (Note: this essay does not discuss the validity of using CERES data to estimate the planet’s overall heat balance. That is a separate issue.)
In Figure 1, hourly observed TOA (top of the atmosphere) longwave values (in W/m^2) plotted for all of 2008 giving a grid point of 1 degree x 1 degree latitude average near where I live. In Figure 2, the shortwave reflection is plotted for the same grid point. The shape of such cells varies from the tropics to the poles, but the point is the same: NASA knows that from space, each grid point is observed to act as a highly active emitter/reflector. The variable output is not what one would expect from a passive radiated insulation. And if powered rather than passive, it is heat engine operation that must drive this very variable performance. Undoubtedly, cloud variability, due to the motion of the atmosphere, drives this effect on both long-wave emission and short-wave reflection.
Figure 1. The observed Syn1deg TOA longwave longwave CERES, W/m^2, gave 73.5W 42.5N for the whole of 2008.
Figure 2. Hourly CERES Syn1deg TOA observed shortwave reflection, W/m^2, for 73.5W 42.5N for all of 2008.
(The data plotted in figures 1 and 2 originate from this portal, where relevant citation reports are available: https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/data/#synoptic-toa-and-surface-fluxes-and-clouds-syn )
Discuss
These diagrams illustrate that NASA already knew that the planet, when observed from space, appears as a series of highly variable, highly energetic reflectors/generators. They know that the long-wave energy emitted from every location in all time periods originates from quaternary radiation emissions, mainly from the atmosphere itself. This is consistent with the heat engine nature of atmospheric motion and the importance of altitude described in the paper.
However, NASA ended the article by emphasizing a static sense of what to expect: “The energy imbalance will continue to grow and surface temperatures will continue to rise.” Why? Perhaps this is to deflect potential objections, considering the obvious implications of the heat engine concept. Even so, the paper does present a dynamic sense of atmospheric activity so that future readers can consider and avoid using crisis or dangerous language.
So does the increased concentration of non-condensable GHG inhibit the variable emission of long-wave radiation into space? Actively powered transmitters are most important at altitude, not at the surface, and the altitude is not fixed. The working fluid’s motion heat engine provides power from below. Descending lower, the active liquid undergoes progressively stronger radiative coalescence of the atmosphere with the surface. This energy – “forced” static GHG – cannot be accumulated at the surface. It is too easily transferred to the working fluid of the heat engine, to circulate to whatever height is needed. The mass flow rate will be whatever is required as the active fluid reacts to the solar input in real time and to its own stored energy. Sufficient thermal energy is eventually emitted back into space as longwave radiation, and just enough cloud activity reflects incoming sunlight to manage the input energy. Taken together, it is highly self-regulating as a dynamic response to surface temperature.
Inference
Are we facing a warming crisis due to non-condensing GHGs? Evidence for how the atmosphere behaves does not support such a claim. The small incremental static warming effect due to a slow increase in GHG concentration is easily outweighed by the efficiency of the heat engine. The output of the long wave transmitter is highly variable and the active shortwave reflectance performance observed from space provides direct evidence. At the time this article was written, NASA understood better than using the language of crisis or disaster. They also know that the static concept of GHG forcing/disequilibrating/rising surface temperature would be misleading without further explanation of the atmospheric and oceanic cycles as the dynamic response to the difference. temperature.
David Dibbell
11-24-2021
Related
