NASA Earth Radiation Budget (ERB) measurements from satellite data don’t support global warming claims.
Analyst blogger Zoe Phin downloaded and analyzed 10 gigabytes of NASA instrumental data on the earth’s radiation budget (ERB) fully covering the years 2003 to 2019 [site] [data].
The idea is to see the effect of clouds at the surface, especially the so-called Upwelling Longwave Radiation (LW_UP).
High clouds supposedly warm the planet
But first, NASA tells us high clouds are much colder than low clouds and the surface and so they radiate less energy to space than low clouds do. And because high clouds absorb energy so efficiently, they have the potential to raise global temperatures.
In a world with high clouds, much of the energy gets captured in the atmosphere. High clouds make the world a warmer place.
If more high clouds were to form, more heat energy radiating from the surface and lower atmosphere toward space would be trapped in the atmosphere, and Earth’s average surface temperature would climb.
Low clouds said to cool the planet
NASA also adds that low stratocumulus clouds – on the other hand – act to cool the Earth system because they are much thicker and not as transparent. This means they do not let as much solar energy reach the Earth’s surface.
Instead, they reflect much of the solar energy back to space (their cloud albedo forcing is large).
NASA adds that stratocumulus clouds radiate at nearly the same intensity as the surface and do not greatly affect the infrared radiation emitted to space (their cloud greenhouse forcing on a planetary scale is small). The net effect of these clouds is to cool the surface.
But 16 years of satellite measurements tell a different story!
Zoe looked at 4 different types of observed LW_UP: All, Clr, AllNoAero, and Pristine. All is normal, observed sky. Clr (clear) is no clouds. AllNoAero is All minus aerosols. Pristine is Clr minus aerosols.
Since clouds are said to play an important role in Earth’s supposed greenhouse effect, and this effect leads to supposed serious warming at the surface, we should see a very large difference between all these four scenarios.
Very little difference
But when looking at the results, Zoe finds there is very little difference. The difference in surface LW_UP between a Pristine sky (no clouds, no aerosols) and All sky is just 0.82 W/m², she finds.
“I would even argue it might be ZERO. It’s only not zero because a satellite can’t measure the same scenario in the same place at the same time. They can only measure someplace nearby or same place at another time,” reports Zoe. “Even if I’m wrong on this, this value is still very unimpressive.”
Hardly changes outgoing surface radiation
Next, the former Wall Street analyst looked at downwelling longwave radiation (LW_DN) and longwave radiation at the top of the atmosphere (TOA_LW) and compares the averages side-by-side for all 3:
Series Average
clr_toa_lw_up 262.503
all_toa_lw_up 237.889
pristine_toa_lw_up 262.979
allnoaero_toa_lw_up 238.168
clr_sfc_lw_dn 317.924
all_sfc_lw_dn 347.329
pristine_sfc_lw_dn 316.207
allnoaero_sfc_lw_dn 346.359
clr_sfc_lw_up 397.445
all_sfc_lw_up 398.167
pristine_sfc_lw_up 397.387
allnoaero_sfc_lw_up 398.129
“Clearly not the case”
According to the greenhouse gas theory, infrared absorbing gases are supposed to be preventing radiation from reaching space, thus causing warming at the surface.
“Well, we clearly see that’s not the case. If clouds (water vapor + aerosols) hardly changes outgoing surface radiation, then the whole hypothesis is in error,” Zoe concludes. “Less top-of-atmosphere outgoing radiation doesn’t cause surface heating and thus more radiation from the surface, despite the increase in downwelling radiation.”
Read rest at No Tricks Zone
They just dont want anyone to know that back in the 1970’s it was global Cooling and New Ice Age was coming Liberal rags like Time and Newsweek was giving it the Front Page Coverage
You can bet that if the opposite was true, it would have been on the front page of all MSM all over the western world a long time ago.
The New York Pravda(Times)and the Fake News Network(CNN)would give it top coverage
And Satellites can not be effected by placing them in Asfualt Parkinglots
Congratulations to Zoe Phin. She is an accomplished data analyst and it is good to see her work recognised. Interested parties may also wish to review her work on geothermal heat.
Thank you!
Sigh, I think I’m going to end up refuting my own geothermal theory soon. It looks like one shouldn’t remove albedo from the sun! The radiation budget is a purposefully confusing mess. I think I was hoaxed. lol
For Earth, sorry. My theory is still 100% correct for Venus.
Thank you for that clarification Zoe.
With regards.
Sorry, last effort was a premature posting, but I think it’s still accurate, if you self correct the typos.
CO2 is lossy audio rather than noise.
Why are we always talking about LWIR when the natural dominant effects and controls are so much larger?
The lapse rate to space is mainly determined by pressure on the ideal gasses of the atmosphere, modified by water vapour, PV = nRT. Thermodynamics 101. The ideal gas surface temperature is 288K, Water vapour reduces this a bit. This fundamentally natural thermodynamic effect establishes the thermal gradient to the Tropopause that the surface IR passes through.
IF that energy is scattered and absorbed in the atmosphere, as the TOA spectrum suggests, then that must change the lapse rate, slightly. Mostly due to water vapour, with a small contribution from natural CO2, and smaller still contribution by human additions to this that are not eliminated by plant activity or are naturally emitted from the naturally warming oceans, where CO2 comes from originally. not from the atmosphere. All this is known.
Any effect of IR modification to the lapse rate on the SST is simply nullified by the dominant natural feedback of the oceans, currently ar 105W/m^2 of latent heat convected to the troposphere , plus the 50W/m^2 of reflective cloud albedo formed that reflects sunlight. This is the dominant control of the climate system. Not CO2, a small effect within the system,.
There are no tipping points that come near to the dominant power and range of this control system. Closest on the cooling side in fact, as its evaporative effects diminish exponentially with temperature. Why is this simple reality so hard to understand? CO2 is not a control. The oceans are.
Within this control, LWIR is a small contribution to the natural lapse rate. Any perturbation that affects SSTs is quickly matched by the natural feedback to maintain equilibrium. Which is why this warming period has been so similar to the Mediaeval, Roman and Minoan warming periods of these regular 2 degree range cycles, each one warmer back to 8Ka, the warmest period during this interglacial per both polar ice core records.
AS the record if the ice cores and other proxies shows, THis is the coldest warm phase of the natural 2 DEG range intra interglacial cycle there has been so far. It’s cooling on any realistic time scale. Just not an unrealistic human time scale.
Why does no one mention the natural forcing of the dominant Lapse rate warming effect, pressure, and the dominant feedback of the evaporating oceans that has maintained climate stability, through SST stability, through all the global cyclic and exceptional changes – since there were oceans. Not CO2, which is noise, not even showing an anomaly between the current warming and the prior cycles. The observations say NO. The oceans control the climate and release the CO2, not the other way around. The ice age is another story 😉
If your central argument is that GHGs only change the lapse rate and NOT surface temperature, I completely agree.
The lapse rate change of all 410 ppm CO2 at 2 meters above the surface is so tiny, probably <0.02C, that it should be completely ignored, as was done in US Standard Atmosphere.