Most incoming solar radiation is intercepted by tropical oceans. This is where most of the heat comes from, the real heat on Earth.
The world’s oceans move some heat to the higher latitudes including North America and Europe by ocean currents.
Should a lot of solar radiation come in on one exceptionally sunny day, the oceans still won’t overheat because excess energy can always move vertically by which I mean up. I have observed that this is especially the case late in the afternoon through the formation of cumulonimbus clouds as part of thunderstorms.
Once high up in the atmosphere all this energy can be radiated to space. And there is a lot of space, I mean there is still a lot of room in outer space.
This is why, despite more than one billion people, with so many cars, and all the factories producing plastic straws and bottles, the oceans on planet Earth are still not boiling.
Heat energy can be lost as noisy electro-magnetic radiation. The tiny moving charges move more and faster on hotter things. This means they generate more electrostatic and magnetic field changes.
When I go out on boats over the ocean late in the afternoon, I can be a part of thunderstorms that include light shows and so much crackling and banging. There was a big thunderstorm and light show just yesterday, late in the afternoon not far from the Tropic of Capricorn above the western Pacific Ocean where I live.
Meanwhile the people with much of the economic power in this world, they mostly don’t live in the tropics. And they don’t take the time to observe the different components of the atmosphere or even to sit outside during a tropical thunderstorm.
I wonder if they even know what rain smells like. I wonder if they think the smell of rain has changed with the climate that is always changing.
It was a few white men sitting inside, around a table in Massachusetts that is even further north than New York in another hemisphere, that came up with the idea that a doubling of carbon dioxide would cause global temperatures to increase by exactly 3 degrees Celsius and for the whole Earth.
They came up with this idea while acknowledging they had little idea about clouds – and had never visited the tropics.
That was in 1979, the same year that Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the same year that Rupert Murdoch founded the global media holding company the News Corporation Ltd. Suddenly there was a push for globally relevant temperatures, news and within a few years the coal miners who had underpinned British manufacturing were to become villains in a new narrative about global overheating.
******
I am considering beginning a monthly Zoom group, to discuss these things. If you would like to be invited, leave a public comment in the thread that follows. Your email address will be visible only to me, and I can then use it to send the Zoom invite.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
A great idea!! I would like to join a discussion of the possible effect of man-made carbon-dioxide emissions on the earth’s energy transport process.
Jennifer I am old enough to remember that in the 1970’s the same sort of Elites and Left Wing types were telling us that we were going into a new ice age (Google Lenard Nimoy Ice Age) Unfortunately it is a political problem not a meteorological one. Gloom and Doom sells media better than common sense reason and facts.
We need to push the political side of it through people like the CO2 Coalition and the IPA. These people are driven by ideology not science or logic.
Snoopy
If the political problem began in 1979, and then was carried forward by Margaret Thatcher, and through into the Kyoto Protocol and on it goes… If it is essentially about the hijacking of science, and progressed often by imposters with no real understanding of what they are talking about.
Then shouldn’t one perhaps be looking to actually expose this. Shouldn’t one be actually looking to explain that the right of politics, not Greta Thunberg, is responsible for our fear of carbon dioxide?
Furthermore, it is never rebuttal that actually achieves changes. There is a need for a new paradigm, and that will not come from the CO2 Coalition and others obsessed with ‘rebuttal’. They have some vague idea of what they are against, but they have no idea of what a new and useful theory of climate might look like.
Under the ‘canopy’ of an orbiting Dry Cycle, surface temperatures rise over land and oceans/water bodies, as a result of the destruction of water vapour Albedo(reflectivity) by the ‘invasion’ into the upper atmosphere of expelled, charged Solar Particles.
However, the Drought conditions resulting for a land mass by such increased temperature, evaporation – and a subsequent reduction in precipitation, are juxtaposed with increased temperature and evaporation over various bodies of water,(such as Oceans/Seas/Lakes,) which may result in severe storms near the Westward-moving vanguard of the Dry Cycle as it moves around the planet. The weather patterns
near the Dry Cycle vanguard also remain influenced by the continuing effect of the West to East and towards the Poles travel of ‘normal’ weather patterns,(Axial Spin.)
This Temperature/Precipitation Paradox is very evident, when the Precipitation Satellite Radar Map is followed, in relation to the development and travel of a relevant Dry Cycle.
The vanguard of the current Regional Two Year Orbital Solar-induced Dry Cycle (which started its Terrestrial Footprint circa August 1, 2024) from 50 degrees East Longitude,(Madagascar,) has moved Westward at 15 degrees per 30 Day/Night Interval Month, to where it has now passed 0 degrees Prime Longitude, bringing Drought Conditions to most of Africa and Europe. This Dry Cycle will now continue across the Atlantic and bring Drought Conditions to North and South America and beyond throughout 2025/26.
I have been documenting the Global Satellite Precipitation Radar data from July, 2024 – and will publish it as an addendum to to ‘Tomorrow’s Weather’ thirty years on…. after the Dry Cycle Vanguard has cleared Europe and Africa,(circa mid-December, 2024.)
The set frequency, longitudinal geographical positioning and Orbital nature of these Solar-induced raised temperatures – and the reverting to the cooler ‘default’ Wet/Normal conditions after the relevant Dry Cycle has passed – shows there is NO significant overall Anthropogenic Global Warming – and never has been. The vilification of CO2 is especially reprehensible, by those who should know better.
Yes, I am interested in joining your zoom discussion sessions.
I would like to participate in your proposed Zoom discussions as I am a retired forester /ecosystem manager and I share your enthusiasm for clear thinking on these issues
Jennifer wrote:
Furthermore, it is never rebuttal that actually achieves changes. There is a need for a new paradigm, and that will not come from the CO2 Coalition and others obsessed with ‘rebuttal’. They have some vague idea of what they are against, but they have no idea of what a new and useful theory of climate might look like.
Even bad publicity can sell products or ideas. the rebuttals, mainly discussing CO2, reinforce the alarmist story that only CO2 matters.
If we consider the GOES data, CO2 has one IR out map, Water in its changing states has several. Water, as ice, is also sequestered on land and it accomplishes cooling by thawing and reflecting many years later.
There is a need to promote study, understanding and teaching of other factors that matter.
Water is abundant, water changes states, water collects most of the solar energy, water transports the tropical energy all the way to the polar regions, of all the materials that humans use for cooling, water is the most abundant. Of all the materials that nature uses for cooling, water is the most abundant.
Over fifty million years, a most significant correlation was that as warm tropical water was diverted such that the warm currents flowed more into polar oceans, as more ice accumulated and ocean levels went down, the climate cooled.
Responding to Don Gaddes says November 15, 2024 at 1:12 pm:
“the destruction of water vapour Albedo(reflectivity) by the ‘invasion’ into the upper atmosphere of expelled, charged Solar Particles.”
That’s a bit compressed for my tiny mind. Please expand a little, for my education.
Responding to ‘Brian Combley says November 15, 2024 at 12:27 pm’:
“Jennifer I am old enough to remember that in the 1970’s the same sort of Elites and Left Wing types were telling us that we were going into a new ice age.”
That idea was not and still is not absurd, nor even far fetched. We are currently in about the thirteen thousandth year of an interglacial (technically so called, not an ‘ice age’), an epoch of worldwide comfortable climate. On past records, we are overdue to return to yet another glaciation, an epoch of about 90,000 years of great cold, for example putting Chicago under 1 km of ice, with lowered sea levels, so that we might be able almost to walk to India. About our tenth interglacial in the (about a million year long) Ice Age in which we currently live. I seem to remember that ours is the fourth Ice Age of Planet Earth.
1977–1978 marked the end of a period of global cooling that ran down from a high at about 1935. Just in time for 1979 to begin the rebound that is recorded in the satellite global temperature data. People can be forgiven for speculating that the cooling might have been the beginning of the overdue glaciation. I think they weren’t élites and lefties; I think they were sober scientists.
Responding to ‘jennifer says November 15, 2024 at 12:42 pm’: “If the political problem began in 1979, …”
Indeed the drivers should be talked about. My knowledge of the history is scarce and meagre. I think Margaret Thatcher wanted a stick to beat the striking coal miners, and the French wanted a reason for nuclear power, of which they were well supplied. I don’t know about other establishment original drivers. Today, I believe that the principal driver is the Marxist WEF (Klaus Schwab, George Soros, Bill Gates, the usual suspects), using the IPCC, but followed also by the thousands of scientists who make their living from it, and partly sustained by religious followers such as baby Greta.
Responding to ‘jennifer says November 15, 2024 at 12:42pm’: “Furthermore, it is never rebuttal that actually achieves changes. There is a need for a new paradigm, and that will not come from the CO2 Coalition and others obsessed with ‘rebuttal’. They have some vague idea of what they are against, but they have no idea of what a new and useful theory of climate might look like.”
I think there are several purposes.
(1) Prediction for sailors, farmers, fishermen, dam builders, …
(2) Prevention of the global warming scam
(3) General scientific understanding
As to (1) & (3), we want an understanding of natural energy transport processes, and of external drivers (often cyclic, such as Milankovitch), and of longer-term factors such as continental drift, plate tectonics, … The natural energy transport processes operate on many respective time scales, which makes it hard to track them down. Vast learning is required, beyond the separate powers of most individuals.
As to (2), I think we have to explicitly and directly address at least some of the narratives of the scammers, as well as appealing to the understanding supplied at (1) & (3). Of course their narratives are like Hydra’s heads, infinitely inventive and proliferative, as with any paranoia. We can use understanding supplied at (1) & (3) to organise and trim our rebuttals. As with any paranoia, eventually reason is inadequate; they are eventually not open to reason.
Jennifer, thank you. Please include me in the call.
With much appreciation,
I would join the zoom meeting if I thought there might be science-based discussion.
Hi Christopher,
I draw your attention to the following work ….
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TFFDXyhe5b0ZfLCiFt23W4PbubQaQfQo/view?usp=sharing
Page 203 outlines the destruction/conversion of water vapour in the upper atmosphere by the interaction with charged particles expelled from the Sun. This is scientifically termed a ‘metal/water,’ or ‘metal/steam reaction’ – and resulted in the hydrogen explosion that destroyed the Fukushima reactor in 2011.
Responding to ‘Don Gaddes says November 16, 2024 at 10:22 am’.
Thank you for that.
Jennifer , I should very much like to be involved in your zoom group.
I would like to hear what yourself and others have to say on the sorry state of climate science as it exists in the world today . .
A big thank you to everyone for your encouraging comments, and to so many for agreeing to be a part of a zoom series.
Christopher has useful listed three potential purposes for a new paradigm, and my suggestion is that we focus on:
(3) General scientific understanding.
We could begin with what we actually ‘understand’ about ‘climate change’, including that it occurs at different time scales.
This post is about ‘thunderstorms’ as a mechanism for moving energy quickly to the top of the atmosphere where it can be radiated to space.
I have suggested this as a mechanism for preventing the tropical oceans from ‘overheating’. I would be keen to hear arguments for and against such an hypothesis, and how it could be tested?
What has already been written about this?
There are various recent publications that seem relevant, and looking for open access article I stumbled upon, Jyothi et al. 2023 https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=126021
I was actually looking for Riehl, H & Simpson, J. 1979. The heat balance of the equatorial trough zone … I can’t find it amongst my reprints, yet I was sure I had read it.
Which are some best technical articles to begin with that shed light on this issue including how heat moves from our tropical oceans, that seem to have a quite definite upper temperature limit.
For sure the poles change temperatures more than the tropics? Is that a fair statement?
Responding to ‘jennifer says November 16, 2024 at 3:13 pm’:
“This post is about ‘thunderstorms’ as a mechanism for moving energy quickly to the top of the atmosphere where it can be radiated to space.
I have suggested this as a mechanism for preventing the tropical oceans from ‘overheating’. I would be keen to hear arguments for and against such an hypothesis, and how it could be tested?”
There are two aspects to this mechanism. ONE: simply as a mechanism amongst many, not judged for its ‘function’ or ‘place in the scheme of things’. TWO: as serving a ‘function’ in the scheme of things.
In my opinion, the hypothesis states one of the main features of the earth’s energy transport process. (Another main feature is oceanic transport of energy from tropical to polar regions.) As to ONE, it moves a large proportion of tropically absorbed solar radiation to higher altitudes, where it can be radiated more readily to outer space as part of the outgoing longwave radiation (OLR). It is an intermittent or scattered process. At any one time, there are perhaps about 1500 tropical storms busy about their work, scattered around the tropics. Like many other intermittent dissipative processes, it works by transient local positive feedback. Once a storm gets going, it recruits nearby energy sources, exhausts them and itself, and disappears. It works because of dynamic instability in natural circulatory convection. But overall, as to TWO, considering the effects of all the local storms, it is a mechanism of negative feedback. If the tropics get extra hot, the storms are more frequent. If the tropics get extra cold, the storms are less frequent. Like any negative feedback dynamic, it has what may be called a ‘set-point’. The whole system is very complicated with many factors and drivers, and variable, so that the set-point isn’t tightly defined, but we can allow it to have a dynamic status. Jennifer writes: “heat moves from our tropical oceans, that seem to have a quite definite upper temperature limit.” That may be thought of as the set-point, and varies somewhere around 27°C or 28°C. This may be summarised by saying that the earth’s energy transport process is overall dynamically stable. In other words, overall, it tends to go for a ‘stationary point’, and to tend to a ‘steady state’; these two ideas are great oversimplifications, because the system is oscillatory, very dynamic, and fluctuating, but they are perhaps partly useful. (In my opinion, in this context, the use of the word ‘equilibrium’ is a recipe for muddled thinking; I think one should avoid it like the plague.)
I think of this in an eccentric or personally idiosyncratic way, but a way that I think helps understand the whole process. It is like a pot of water boiling on a stove. Once it gets to boiling point, no extra gas will get the water any hotter. Extra energy will just be boiled away faster. If it gets cooler, it will stop boiling till more energy is accumulated.
I live in a rural area which does not suffer from the effects of urban heat island increasing night time temperatures. Urban heat islands are often close to temperature recording devices and consequently give artificially higher mean temperatures which appear to match the so-called global warming trend.
Responding to ‘Richard Bennett says November 16, 2024 at 8:36 pm’.
A very important point. Studied by Roy Spencer.
We live near Cape Leeuwin in WA and the lighthouse there has been recording temperatures since the late 1800’s The hottest temperature ever recorded there was in February 1932. It however like you describe is surrounded by oceans and not heat islands. To its South is the Southern Ocean and to its West is Indian Ocean. Even with a massive amount of what our Bureau of Meteorology calls “Homogenization” using data from stations that are inland many kilometers they have been unable to erase the facts.
Happy to join the Zoom group
Paul
Hi Jennifer, I would like to participate. I’m even in the same time zone as you. I don’t have expertise in the field, just an interest in the weather.
You should read Wllis Eschenbachs post on the above going back over a decade. All based on his time in the tropical
Greg
Responding to ‘Paul Greg says November 17, 2024 at 7:21 pm’:
“You should read Wllis Eschenbachs post”
What about a link to that, or your abstract of it?
Christopher Game says November 16, 2024 at 6:11 pm
Thunderstorm have been discuss much in the past but the so-called climate scientists have ignored it. I refer to you the publication
ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT
VOLUME 21 · NUMBER 4 · 2010
SPECIAL ISSUE: PARADIGMS IN CLIMATE RESEARCH
In this on page 217 is an excellent article by the late Dr Noor Van Andel
TROPICAL RAINSTORM FEEDBACK
Dr (hc) Noor van Andel
Fiwihex bv.. In sustainable energy innovation
here is the ABSTRACT
In the set of radiative feedbacks to global warming due to a doubling of the CO2
concentration, from all the models the increase in latent heat transfer as a
consequence of an increase of [sea] surface temperature is left out. Starting from
measurements of increased evaporation and increase of wind speed as a function of
sea surface temperature increase, I derive a large global feedback of −20 Wm−2
K−1 This negative feedback is much larger than the balance of feedbacks, range +0.8 to
+2 Wm−2K−1, included in the climate models. If the latent heat transfer feedback, i.e.
tropical rainstorms, would be included in the models, the local climate sensitivity
would decrease from 1.5 to 4 ºC for a doubling of CO2 to less than 0.2 ºC. This is
lower than the temperature variations due to solar magnetic, ocean current and
volcanic aerosol effects.
Dr Van Andel is the only person I have noted in the many articles on Climate assessment who makes reference to dimensionless numbers that are used by engineers in heat and mass transfer calculation. He makes reference to the Reynolds number (Re), the Schmidt number (Sc) and the Sherwood number (Sh) in relation to evaporation from the sea surface with wind effects.
Fluid dynamics, Thermodynamics, Heat & Mass transfer are engineering subject that it appears no scientist understands. Scientists it seems can not get simple equations concern force and pressure correct.
I just found a couple of emails I sent and received from Steffen. I sent him a copy of the article in Nov 2011 which it seems he did not understand (he had no engineering qualification and only a basic industrial chemistry degree from some US university)
Jen would be happy to join in zoom discussions. These days I am not so quick to contribute much. I now need time to think.
Responding to ‘cementafriend says November 17, 2024 at 8:48 pm’:
“ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT VOLUME 21 · NUMBER 4 · 2010”.
“In the set of radiative feedbacks to global warming due to a doubling of the CO2 concentration, from all the models the increase in latent heat transfer as a consequence of an increase of [sea] surface temperature is left out.”
The warmist dogma asserts great importance for the increase in the radiative effect of increased atmospheric water vapour, caused by increase of atmospheric temperature, caused by retention of radiation caused by added CO2.
In order for the virtual no-feedback increase in atmospheric temperature to affect atmospheric water vapour, the sea surface temperature must first increase, with consequent increase in evaporation. The increase in evaporation tends to cool the sea surface, so that the full virtual increase of sea surface temperature, the dreaded ‘Planck response’, is not realised. The evaporative negative feedback occurs before the advocated development of the dreaded positive feedback, which therefore is scarcely realised.
The time rates and causal sequences of the various effects must be considered. The warmist dogma of “positive feedback through the radiative effect of increased water vapour” is expressed in the warmists’ widely celebrated “forcing and feedback” formalism. That formalism is a static model, with no allowance for the various relevant time rates. A static model is thoroughly inadequate for such a dynamic scenario as the present one. It is the relative actual rates of the various mechanisms, not their virtual completion values, that determine the eventual outcome.
As remarked above by Greg and by cementafriend, Willis Eschenbach and Noor van Andel wrote articles about this in 2010 in the journal ‘Energy and Environment’.
I’m only a geologist. I’m writing an essay on how jet streams can spawn extreme weather. I’m 81 and not likely to attend on a Zoom call.
In my opinion, meteorology has not had a ‘plate tectonic- continental drift’ moment where the sun’s impact is considered. Meteorology needs to have that moment.
The idea of a steady state for the planet’s climate appeals to my simple reasoning.
And for such a steady state, there has to be a ‘heat equals heat out’, as any imbalance would result in either a temperature rise or a temperature fall.
Of course, ‘heat movement in’ at any given time does not necessarily have to balance ‘heat movement out’, but over time they must be equal.
Jennifer please let me know you think . .
Further to my above post ‘heat in equals heat out’ . .