On this page:
- One-table summary
- Bulleted summary
- Plain text summary
- Graphical summary
- Arithmetic summary
- How-to-proceed summary
- Critical summary
- Quoted summary
- Analogical summary
One-table summary
CERES EBAF Edition 4.1, 264 monthly means (April 2000 - March 2022), completed, archived
Bulleted summary
We have discovered that
- There are coherent integer ratios in published global mean energy flow distributions;
- The same system is there in CERES datasets;
- The values are within the stated range of uncertainty for each flux component;
- There are four Schwarzschild-type radiative transfer constraint equations;
- The integer system is a solution of the four equations;
- There is a geometric representation of the four equations and their integer solution;
- Other components of the global mean energy flow system (which are not represented in the equations) occupy integer positions as well
- Most importantly, TOA SW reflection is integer, both in the clear-sky and the all-sky;
- Thus Total Solar Irradiance can be placed into the integer ratio system.
We pointed out that
- The four equations have a mean bias of zero on the completed, archived 22-year CERES EBAF Edition 4.1 data product;
- The all-sky equations are verified on the GEWEX energy flow diagram (published in BAMS 2023) with 0.1 Wm-2 accuracy;
- The geometry of the equations is there in Trenberth's greenhouse model;
- Both the four equations and their geometric representation may be derived without any reference to the gaseous composition or the lapse rate of the atmosphere.
Plain text summary
What is wrong with this idea? Nothing: it is not wrong, only incomplete. It lacks internal regulations (stabilizing feedbacks) which make the greenhouse effect constrained.
The first should have been known for more than a century: basic physical rules of radiation transfer connect some surface radiations to other components in the system (like the total cooling of the whole Earth into space, which in equilibrium conditions depends only on the energy rreceived from the Sun). This connection between internal energy flow components in itself casts a strict constraint on the greenhouse effect.
The second is revealed from accurate satellite Earth observations of the past two decades, showing that each component in Earth’s annual global mean energy flow system is accurately connected to the others. A part of this definite internal structure can be reconstructed by four simple radiative transfer equations.
The third recognition is the most intriguing: even the total reflected solar radiation, both in cloudless and average-cloudy case, is part of the structure, although they are not involved in the four equations. This shows that the whole set of global energy flows are under deeper physical (or geometric) regulations than our know theory of radiation. According to this observation, our energy flow system can be uniquely connected to the incoming solar radiation, that is, to Total Solar Irradiance.
But then, where does the warming come? If it is not an increase of the internal (terrestrial) radiation system, it must arise from an increase of the absorbed solar radiation. Really, some studies show that there is a slight decrease in aerosols in the air [1] (mainly in Europe, where the oil crisis in 1973, then the collapse of the Soviet Union's heavy industry cleaned the air substantially, but also elsewhere, for example in Los Angeles, where the famous smog disappeared, London's infamous fog is over, even in Asia, after the Beijing Olympics 2006 air quaility failure, and the invention and commissioning of green electric cars and public transport in Paris, Berlin, Budapest, where we experience brilliantly clean air in these years), and these all made the atmosphere more transparent to sunlight, therefore Earth’s surface receives more energy from the Sun; and satellites also show a decrease in low cloud cover (less reflection by clouds), pointing to the same direction. Whether this global (or at least, regional and local) "brightening" is the main cause of recent heat waves, is to be further investigated. ( [1] Graeme Stephens, Maria Hakuba, Seiji Kato and others: The changing nature of Earth's reflected sunlight. Proceedings of the Royal Society A, July 2022. Abstract: ... "Here, we show that the global changes observed appear largely from reductions in the amount of sunlight scattered by Earth's atmosphere.... ")
Anyhow, a wonderful new science is emerging in this “atomic” structure, only partly understood yet, the final causes of the change are not exactly known, so be careful, do not change the composition of our atmosphere too much and always keep in mind the precautionary principle!
Graphical summary
There is no "groundtruth " for the radiation budget
Bruce Barkstrom (1989)
There is no "truth" available
Norman Loeb (2022)
Bruce Barkstrom (1989)
There is no "truth" available
Norman Loeb (2022)
An elementary 1-2-1 model, the simplest greenhouse geometry, might provides us with the "groundtruth" (an absolut calibration basis) without any reference to the gaseous composition or the vertical structure of the atmosphere, in a graphical representation:
* * *
The unit is net specified yet; let's multiply it by 10:
* * *
Introduce the unit L = 1 = LWCRE (in red, bold typeface):
This is the solution of the four equations in integer units:
Two equations for the clear-sky, two for the all-sky.
* * *
The all-sky equations are valid on the diagram published in BAMS 2023
(presenting the result of 30 years of GEWEX research)
with a difference of 0.09 Wm-2 and 0.12 Wm-2..
.Q.E.D.
Arithmetic summary
- predicting Total Solar Irradiance as 51 units = 1360.68 ± 0.5 Wm-2 in spherical weighting and 1361.84 ± 0.5 Wm-2 in geodetic weighting;
- with the unit flux = 1 = 26.68 ± 0.01 Wm-2 as the best fit on CERES EBAF 22 years of observations for the annual global mean flux values;
- predicting a theoretical planetary emissivity = 9/15 = 0.6 (compared to the IPCC WGI AR6 2021 Fig. 7.2 value of 239/398 = 0.6005);
- with a corresponding all-sky greenhouse factor of g = 6/15 = 0.4 (compared to the IPCC WGI AR6 2021 Fig. 7.2 value of 159/398 = 0.3995);
- and a clear-sky greenhouse factor of g(clear) = 5/15 = 1/3 (compared to the IPCC WGI AR6 2021 Fig. 7.2 value of 131/398 = 0.33, or CERES EBAF Ed2.8 g(clear) = 132.81/398.40 = 0.33336);
- with an empirical extension to TOA SW reflection = 15/4 units, with TSI = 51 and ISR = 51/4 leading to a planetary albedo of 15/51 = 5/17 (being arithmetically identical to the IPCC value of 100/340).
This way, the fundamental parameters regulating Earth's climate are theoretically defined.
How-to-proceed summary
- One of the most intriguing features is the empirical recognition that other flux components that not involved in the four equations fit into the integer system within the same accuracy:
- The components of the convective (non-radiative) fluxes, Sensible Heat and Latent Heat, have integer positions separately;
- Atmospheric window radiation, which cannot be observed, with its computed value for the clear-sky has a difference of less than 0.3 Wm-2 from an integer position;
- TOA SW Reflection, both for clear-sky and all-sky, occupy integer positions in the system within 1 Wm-2, allowing TSI to place into the structure.
The latter fact is the most important of all. If the Schwarzschild-constraints (and the simplest geometric constructions representing them) are valid, the GHG-induced greenhouse theory should be improved, but the basic science as we know it remains the same. But if the fact that top-of-atmosphere solar reflection (containing surface, atmospheric and cloudy reflections) has a definite small integer ratio to the incoming solar radiation (8/4 related to 51/4 in the clear-sky, and 15/4 related to 51/4 in the all-sky) is true (with the accuracy of less than 0.5 Wm-2 difference in the clear-sky and about 1 Wm-2 difference in the all-sky, according to the CERES data producats), then this would require (demand!) a new interpretation, pointing beyond the known material reflection theories and opening the way before geometric or mathematic considerations.
A professor of History and Philosophy of Science once said: "The science of the 21st century will be as strange and counterintuitive compared to that of the 20th century, as quantum theory and relativity were implausibe and incomprehensible compared to the classical physics of the 19th century."
Well, it's time to arrive to the 21st century!
Critical summary
Why we propose EEI = 0.9 Wm-2 at the surface, when EEI = 0.54 Wm-2 is indicated at TOA?
Because E Wm-2 energy surplus at TOA would result in (5/3)E energy surplus at the surface; this is the immanent feature of the greenhouse effect. If EEI at TOA = 0.54 Wm-2, then EEI at the surface must be (5/3) x 0.54 = 0.9 Wm-2. For this reason, the published energy budgets with the same EEI at TOA and at the surface are erroneous. For example, the CERES diagram states EEI = 0.6 Wm-2 for both.
Correctly: either EEI = 0.6 Wm-2 at TOA, then 1.0 Wm-2 at the surface,
or 0.6 at the surafce, then it must be 0.36 Wm-2 at TOA, since EEI (TOA) = f(all) × EEI (SFC).
Quoted Summary
- predicting Total Solar Irradiance as 51 units = 1360.68 ± 0.5 Wm-2 in spherical weighting and 1361.84 ± 0.5 Wm-2 in geodetic weighting;
- with the unit flux = 1 = 26.68 ± 0.01 Wm-2 as the best fit on CERES EBAF 22 years of observations for the annual global mean flux values;
- predicting a theoretical planetary emissivity = 9/15 = 0.6 (compared to the IPCC WGI AR6 2021 Fig. 7.2 value of 239/398 = 0.6005);
- with a corresponding all-sky greenhouse factor of g = 6/15 = 0.4 (compared to the IPCC WGI AR6 2021 Fig. 7.2 value of 159/398 = 0.3995);
- and a clear-sky greenhouse factor of g(clear) = 5/15 = 1/3 (compared to the IPCC WGI AR6 2021 Fig. 7.2 value of 131/398 = 0.33, or CERES EBAF Ed2.8 g(clear) = 132.81/398.40 = 0.33336);
- with an empirical extension to TOA SW reflection = 15/4 units, with TSI = 51 and ISR = 51/4 leading to a planetary albedo of 15/51 = 5/17 (being arithmetically identical to the IPCC value of 100/340).
This way, the fundamental parameters regulating Earth's climate are theoretically defined.
How-to-proceed summary
- One of the most intriguing features is the empirical recognition that other flux components that not involved in the four equations fit into the integer system within the same accuracy:
- The components of the convective (non-radiative) fluxes, Sensible Heat and Latent Heat, have integer positions separately;
- Atmospheric window radiation, which cannot be observed, with its computed value for the clear-sky has a difference of less than 0.3 Wm-2 from an integer position;
- TOA SW Reflection, both for clear-sky and all-sky, occupy integer positions in the system within 1 Wm-2, allowing TSI to place into the structure.
The latter fact is the most important of all. If the Schwarzschild-constraints (and the simplest geometric constructions representing them) are valid, the GHG-induced greenhouse theory should be improved, but the basic science as we know it remains the same. But if the fact that top-of-atmosphere solar reflection (containing surface, atmospheric and cloudy reflections) has a definite small integer ratio to the incoming solar radiation (8/4 related to 51/4 in the clear-sky, and 15/4 related to 51/4 in the all-sky) is true (with the accuracy of less than 0.5 Wm-2 difference in the clear-sky and about 1 Wm-2 difference in the all-sky, according to the CERES data producats), then this would require (demand!) a new interpretation, pointing beyond the known material reflection theories and opening the way before geometric or mathematic considerations.
A professor of History and Philosophy of Science once said: "The science of the 21st century will be as strange and counterintuitive compared to that of the 20th century, as quantum theory and relativity were implausibe and incomprehensible compared to the classical physics of the 19th century."
Well, it's time to arrive to the 21st century!
Critical summary
Why we propose EEI = 0.9 Wm-2 at the surface, when EEI = 0.54 Wm-2 is indicated at TOA?
Because E Wm-2 energy surplus at TOA would result in (5/3)E energy surplus at the surface; this is the immanent feature of the greenhouse effect. If EEI at TOA = 0.54 Wm-2, then EEI at the surface must be (5/3) x 0.54 = 0.9 Wm-2. For this reason, the published energy budgets with the same EEI at TOA and at the surface are erroneous. For example, the CERES diagram states EEI = 0.6 Wm-2 for both.
Quoted Summary
"Instead of the traditional paradigm of properties define processes, study how processes define properties".
Graeme Stephens
I would add: study how principles define processes, then properties.
Graeme Stephens
I would add: study how principles define processes, then properties.
Let us assume scientist were aware only of cold-blooded animals
(reptiles). You
put it on the sun, its temperature goes up; you put it into the shadow,
its
temperature goes down — evident, we understand it.
But let us assume a scientist once, deep in the jungle, finds an animal
which
behaves differently. Either on the sun or in the cold, its body
temperature
remains the same. Impossible! Nonsense! But yes, you have disvovered
the
warm-bkooded animals. What happens? Internal processes keep its
temperature
constant.
The ruling climate theory thinks we add extra greenhouse gases into the
atmosphere, it
will become warmer, we remove GHGs, it wil be colder. But look, there
are
internal processes, however counterintuitive, that keep the
greenhouse temperature constrained. Either by redistributing the water
vapor or
the clouds, they maintain a constant "temperature" with a given
greenhouse function of g = 0.4, and a corresponding transfer function
and
planetary emissivity of f = 0.6.