Magnitude Of Recent Surface Solar Radiation Forcing Over US Is Tens Of Times Greater Than From CO2

Several published papers in the link show that CO2 is a very small player in the "heat budget", hopefully people stop being taken in by the dumb CO2 is a climate driver absurdity which is factually IMPOSSIBLE!

NTZ

Magnitude Of Recent Surface Solar Radiation Forcing Over US Is Tens Of Times Greater Than From CO2

By Kenneth Richard on 7. June 2021

EXCERPT:

Over the US, the modest change in cloud cover from 1996-2019 predominantly drove the +11.77 W/m² surface solar radiation forcing during 1996-2012 (then -2.35 W/m² from 2013-2019). These “brightening” and “dimming” magnitudes easily overwhelm the values associated with an annual 2 to 2.5 ppm rise in CO2 forcing (0.2 W/m² per decade).

When cloud cover changes by even a percentage point or two from one decade to the next, the magnitude of the associated forcing can be compared directly to the impact of rising CO2 concentrations. And in a new study, Augustine and Hodges (2021) point out:

“Documented magnitudes of brightening are significant and much larger than the projected increase in downwelling longwave radiation (LW↓) expected for a doubling of CO2 since industrial times (~4 W/m²)”

Translated, the total projected forcing associated with a doubling of the CO2 concentration since 1750 (280 ppm to 560 ppm) is only 3.7 W/m² (Seinfeld, 2008).

Lot More in the LINK

 

The link, wow? Their rate for factual reporting is low. They report unverified science, are into conspiracy and pseudo science. Can you provide a credible link, please. This one, while a nice effort, is trash.

 

The published papers are in the link for YOU to read, there are only 7 papers listed all of them quoted.

Your prejudice keeps you ignorant and useless in debate.

 

I would be more than happy to read anything credible you can find for me. Assuming you now accept evidence which may be contrary to your opinion and set piece. I strongly doubt that you have, so until you come up with something that can be taken seriously I will sit on the side and watch.

 

Well gee the article is in front of you which I started the thread with, YOU decide if you want to discuss it or you can leave, it is that simple.

 

There are multiple peer-reviewed papers linked in the NTZ post. I suggest you familiarize yourself with them instead of offering baseless commentary.
As for the "rating" of NTZ, that's just another facet of "consensus" propaganda.

 

One of the important points to take into account when reading this information about changes in solar radiative forcing is
that they are talking about regional effects that go through cycles that show periods of increasing solar flux followed by decreasing
solar flux. The net effect isn't necessarily zero but if the average is summed over the surface of the earth it does sum to something
close to zero based on observations.

I'll include this portion from the report.

Variability of Surface Radiation Budget Components Over the U.S. From 1996 to 2019—Has Brightening Ceased? - Augustine - 2021 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres - Wiley Online Library

Plain Language Summary
Since the 1980s, it has been known that solar radiation at the surface of the Earth goes through increases (brightening) for two-to-three decades followed by decreases (dimming) over similar periods. These cyclic patterns are not caused by variations in the sun's emission but rather by changes in cloud cover and dust in the atmosphere. Brightening and dimming occur all over the globe. Dimming was documented in the U.S. from the 1950s to about the mid-1980s. In the mid-to-late 1980s, solar radiation at the surface reversed course and increased for more than 20 years

This graph at skeptical science shows so significant trend over the tropics and part of the sub-tropical region of the planet from 2000 to 2010.
The albedo effect and global warming (skepticalscience.com)



These graphs are from an article by an AGW skeptic and they are useful in showing the lack of any trend for the global TOA albedo from 1990 to 2020.
Water | Free Full-Text | Rethinking Climate, Climate Change, and Their Relationship with Water | HTML (mdpi.com)



Figure A4. Time series of (upper) TOA albedo, (middle) cloud albedo and (lower) total cloud area fraction, as provided by NASA’s MERRA-2 International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP).

 

This article is relevant and indicates that changes in short-wave (SW) radiation are not nearly as significant to changes in the energy budget as
long-wave (LW) radiation changes, which are driven by increasing greenhouse gases. LW instantaneous forcing was 0.43 watts/square meter from 2003 to 2018
SW instantaneous forcing was 0.10 watts/square meter over the same period. Instantaneous forcing does not include any feedbacks that can occur
within hours after the initial forcing.

Direct Observations Confirm Humans Affect Earth's Energy Budget | NASA...

This study used a new technique to parse out how much of the total energy change is caused by humans. The researchers calculated how much of the imbalance was caused by fluctuations in factors that are often naturally occurring, such as water vapor, clouds, temperature and surface albedo (essentially the brightness or reflectivity of Earth’s surface). For example, the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) instrument on NASA’s Aqua satellite measures water vapor in Earth’s atmosphere. Water vapor absorbs energy in the form of heat, so changes in water vapor will affect how much energy ultimately leaves Earth’s system. The researchers calculated the energy change caused by each of these natural factors, then subtracted the values from the total. The portion leftover is the radiative forcing.



The team found that human activities have caused the radiative forcing on Earth to increase by about 0.5 Watts per square meter from 2003 to 2018. The increase is mostly from greenhouse gases emissions from things like power generation, transport and industrial manufacturing. Reduced reflective aerosols are also contributing to the imbalance.


Conclusions:

We have diagnosed the global IRF directly from observations using radiative kernels. Table 1 summarizes linear trends. We find that from 2003 to 2018, the observed IRF has increased 0.53±0.11W/m2 , almost entirely accounting for the positive trend in CERES TOA radiative flux anomalies ( dR). The intrinsic LW and SW climate radiative responses largely cancel out. This IRF increase mostly occurs in the LW (0.43±0.1W/m2), driven by rising greenhouse gas concentrations. This serves as direct observational evidence that an-
thropogenic activity is impacting the Earth’s energy balance. The SW IRF has also increased (0.1±0.05W/m2). In part, this is a reflection of government-mandated aerosol emission reductions throughout major source regions, which may have a greater direct impact than inferred by the SW IRF, which does not include aerosol cloud-albedo effects in this analysis.
Diagnosing the observed IRF is important for our fundamental understanding of Earth’s response to climate change and a valuable piece of information for policy decisions. Conceivably, observed IRF could be used as a top-down approach for monitoring the climate response to mitigation efforts. By applying

 

Google up "Southern Magnetic Anomaly"....has the future possibility of making "climate change" look benign in comparison.

 

The flow of uninformed blather about CO2 continues.
The Disappointing Nature Of Some Science Writing
Guest Blogger
By Jim Whiting, MD, FACR It’s very discouraging to find, with some frequency, people with training in science who are willing to subscribe to rather unscientific statements, proposals, and predictions.…

". . . . It does not note that during the depression years 1929-1931, when human CO2 production declined 30%, CO2 continued its languid rise, with temperatures continuing to rise till 1941 when they began a slight decline to 1972, again with no change in CO2 rise despite WWII and post-war reconstruction. Thus the “Oncoming Ice Age!” scares in the early 70s (see Time and Newsweek and ScienceNews in the early ’70s). Nor that CO2 change has never preceded any temperature reversal for the last 550 million years. Nor does it note, to supplement the WMO scare text, that humans produce less than 5% of the annual contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere. . . . "

 

The facts seem to be correct in this case but you aren't getting all of the facts; not the whole story.
If short wave radiation can increase by as much as around 7 watts/square meter for more than a decade for the U.S. then why don't we notice
any significant warming of the continental U.S.? The reason is that when there is an increase in clear-sky conditions across the U.S. there is a
concomitant decrease in long-wave downward irradiation that nullifies most of the increase in short-wave radiation. There is little change in the total
amount of energy being absorbed by the Earth's surface. Under cloudier conditions more short-wave radiation is reflected away but more long-wave
radiation coming from water vapor is radiated downward. The net effect under the cloudy conditions is usually cooling.

 

In my previous post I was talking about low clouds (cumulus), not high clouds.

Clouds in the Balance (nasa.gov)

Clouds play a fundamental role in maintaining the Earth's energy balance, or "radiation budget," the amount of radiation that enters and leaves the Earth. Through a process known as "shortwave cooling," clouds reflect some of the sun's radiation back into space, which has a net cooling effect on the Earth's surface-atmosphere system. At the same time, clouds help contain the radiation that would otherwise be emitted to space, through "longwave warming," which has a net warming effect on the climate system.

Until recently, scientists were uncertain whether clouds had an overall net cooling or heating effect on the Earth's climate. But recent studies show that, in the tropics, a "near cancellation" between shortwave cooling and longwave warming exists, which indicates that the amount of incoming radiant energy is roughly equal to the amount of outgoing radiation. However, small changes in tropical cloudiness can disrupt this precarious balance.