The 2013-2022 warming trend and the extreme warmth in 2023 were “not associated with” declining outgoing long-wave radiation induced by rising greenhouse gases. [emphasis, links added]
Instead, a new study published in the journal Science contends that decreasing cloud albedo and the consequent increase in ASR, or absorbed solar radiation (+0.97 to 1.10 W/m²/decade according to ERA5 and CERES, respectively) explains the warming over the last decade. (Less cloud cover means more solar radiation reaches the Earth’s surface, warming it.)
A rising trend in anthropogenic greenhouse gases was supposed to reduce the Earth’s outgoing long-wave radiation (OLR), and a declining OLR was thought to be the driver of modern warming.
Instead, the opposite has occurred. There has been an increasing OLR trend since 2013.
This enhancement of the Earth’s OLR trend actually serves to counteract the ASR-induced warming strongly associated with the aforementioned declining cloud cover albedo.
In other words, the total greenhouse effect impact from rising greenhouse gases has recently been contributing to a reduction in global warming, partially offsetting the warming induced by rising ASR.
“The EEI trend and 2023 peak are not associated with decreasing outgoing longwave radiation (OLR), as one would expect from increasing greenhouse-gas concentrations in the absence of shortwave feedbacks. Instead, OLR has been increasing and largely offsetting even stronger absorbed solar radiation (ASR) anomalies, consistent with climate models.
“The decadal 2013–2022 trend in ASR amounts to +1.10 W/m²/dec−1 in CERES and +0.97 W/m²/dec−1 in ERA5, reaching astonishing anomalies of +1.82 W/m² in CERES and +1.31 W/m² in ERA5 in 2023. Variations of incident solar radiation (ISR), including by the 11-year solar cycle, are an order of magnitude smaller, implying that reduced planetary albedo is the dominant cause.
“It is however striking that, according to CERES, ISR attained a positive anomaly in 2023 of +0.28 W/m², well above the previous solar-cycle maximum, whereas ERA5 forcing still assumed a negative anomaly of -0.08 W/m².”
Read more at No Tricks Zone
Wondering when the warming contributions from wind and solar power will be noticed and accounted for?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326025905_Renewable_Energy_Technologies_and_Carbonless_Anthropogenic_Global_Warming_CAGW
The only reason to blame CO2 is that our civilisation rests on it, as do the nature on earth. What is that to say? That behind it all, the net zero strategy, is another goal, lets say a Maltheusan goal, while those frenetically stacking riches at unprecedented pace counts on survival. Al Gore has somehow managed to stack some 300 million $, not so much but enough. For me, professor William Happer’s statements, and professor Simon Micheaux investigations are all I need in the maze of opinions covered in thousands of unreadable pages and smearing of any attempt to avoid the traincrash coming.
A few quick comments about the erroneous statements above regarding how earth maintains its stability in space. Not the actual warming figure,nor the suggested cuases of more insolation, but how petrturbations to the system are stabililised at a new energy balance that determines the temperature, not vice versa.
The stable condition of Earth in space is an energy equilibrium where energy in equals energy out. Any imbalance is quickly corrected in Earth scale terms, given the timescales required for this due to the heat capacity of the earths oceans – the top 200 m of the ocean hold over two years of solar energy.
Accepting the CERES figure of increased insolation at the surface, the Earths climate system beloe the troposphere will warm until it is again losing an equivalent amount of additional energy to space as is now arriving at the surface from space, and balance is restored. So if incoming radiation increases, outgoingmust increase to balance it, so it gets warmer inside the system to lose more,
The fractional differences between incoming radiation and outgoing radiation above is likely to do with measurement errors and time to adjust to the new level of energy balance as anything else. Nature will enforce a tendency to balance the system, not imbalance it.
To also correct the statements about how the greenhouse effect works, there is no sustained imbalance in energy in and out resulting from a change in the greenhouse effect, there is change created by the imbalance UNTIL energy equlibrium is restored at a new temperature, so GHE does not warm anything directly, the radiative imbalance warms the system slightly to maintain the energy balance with space.
Enrgy balance is the only available natural control of Earths climate stability. The whole Earth system has no other means of achieving this state, which it has maintained through a range of 15deg K over the last 500Million years. Through 2.8million years of the current ice ages and the warmer 480Million years of warmer times. Energy in equals enrgy out. At whatever temperature that requires. Energy balance is the control.
Yes. Additional greenhouse effect restricts the amount of longwave radiation that can leave for Space, which was in balance before recent times but changed slightly due to us, by 1.6W/m^2 per the IPCC. This radiative perturbation is very small amount compared to the total OGR to space of 240W/m^2, a negative feedback to energy imbalance, which is delivered by direct enrgy loss to space by radiation of energy absorbed by the atmosphere and. terrestrial surface, PLUS a large feedback by radiation created from latent heat of evapoartion of the ocean surface which becomes radiative loss in the troposphere.
Both are strongly variable with temperature so can lose a lot of energy by the slight warming caused by the GHE change. So when GHE increases and reduces enrgy loss to space the energy balance is restored by a slight surface warming to increase radiative losses at the same enrgy in/insolation level.. Energy balance is maintained at the new higher surfacte temperature/GMST . The imbalance is rebalanced.
I hope that it is clear enough. It’s simple thermal physics of a natural energy balance system. Once in equlibrium, all the heat reaching Earth must be continually returned to space at the same energy level, but at a different spectral distribution (VIsible versus LWIR). Any imbalance from whatever perturbation to this balance is corrected by a change in heat loss from the system which stabilises the system at anew temperature – the control is one of dynamic energy equilibrium.
So Earth’s energy balance is not hard to follow, and an enrgy imbalance is not sustainable. Temperature is changed by an energy imbalance to create a new balance, at whatever temperature that requires.
I have calculated the total feedback available per deg change in the 240W/m^2 of LWIR , which suggests the 1.6W/m^2 of GW is rebalanced by 0.2K of surface temperature change, if this is of interest. In section 2 of this paper: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4950769
The Balance of the Earth: An Empirical Quantification of Earth’s Energy Balance
It’s really not that hard, if you consider the whole system in space and the natural feedbacks to any change. Not just the atmospheric perturbation in isolation. We have the observations to assess the temperature change required to maintain a system radiative energy balance in response to a given radiative perturbation. Because we know how the overall balance is maintained. Probably.
If Earth’s energy balance was perfectly in equilibrium, meaning the amount of energy coming in (from the sun) equals the amount of energy going out (radiated back into space), the average global temperature would remain very stable.
Earth’s average temperature is not very stable
It is always warming or cooling
Earth is not in thermodynamic equilibrium. It is a complex, open system far from equilibrium, constantly exchanging energy and matter with its surroundings.
And your attempt to explain climate change is, to use a scientofoc term: Baloney
Instead of messing about with a very limited range of temperatures, from freezing point to boiling point of water, lets look at real temperatures, from Absolute Zero and up.
The question now becomes, why does the earth’s temperature remain so stable?
More baloney from junk science author Keneth Richard,
The measurements of percentage cloud cover are not accurate. They have a margin of error of at least +/- 10%. The claimed change in the past two decades was -7%, which is statistically insignificant. In addition that measurement is only a proxy for the total climate effect of clouds. The total effect requires data that are not available: Types of clouds, timing of clouds and locations of clouds. It is possible a small reduction of the percentage of cloud cover would be associated with A SMALL REDUCTION OF ASR, rather than an increase, ALTHOUGH NOT LIKELY
ALSO, THERE IS NO WAY TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN HIGHER ASR FROM CLOUD CHANGES VERSUS HIGHER ASR FROM REDUCED AIR POLLUTION (A REAL TREND SINCE 1980)
Most important are the characteristics of the warming after 1975 that most resemble the warming expected from a stronger greenhouse effect:
Warmer TMIN during the six coldest months of the year in colder nations and states. And no warming of Antarctica.
ASR warming would most affect TMAX in the warmer months of the year in the tropics
Kenneth Richard is a biased CO2 Does Nothing crackpot whose articles should be ignored. He is one of the worst conservative climate writers I have found in 28 years of reading. I read an average of 12 climate and energy articles every day of the year.
If Richards is correct, then reducing emissions has no effect. On the other hand, if Greene is right, decreasing emissions (reducing air pollution) would warm the planet instead of cooling it. Either way, CO2 reduction policies are misguided since short-wave radiation is the primary factor at play, contrary to the beliefs of those who support the greenhouse effect theory.
Look at the difference between global boiling en global warming. Less air pollution gives the sun more influence.
Reducing air pollution is always good news even though it increases global warming.
Decreasing CO2 emissions are bad news because those emissions cause warmer winters and greening of our planet
.
That means CO2 emissions using modern pollution controls have a net benefit for Earth while CO2 emissions with no modern pollution controls are net harmful for Earth/.