Tero Jousi

Entrepreneur. Technologies and international business.

[Tero Jousi @terojousi]

@KIVUNature @cohler I’m asking if the specific methodology is valid.

You’ve explained several ways emissivity can in principle be calculated, but I still don’t see the actual numerical calculation that gives your global value 0.612. What measured values go into it and produce the global 0.612?

[Tero Jousi @terojousi]

@KIVUNature @cohler The issue isn’t me liking. The methodology has changed during the discussion. The last method is closer to climate modelling. It is not the claim that surface temperature comes directly from measured incoming/outgoing energy. I’m trying to see which methodology is valid.

[Tero Jousi @terojousi]

@KIVUNature @cohler Well, I’ve seen the gmst derived primarily from the surface measurements, not satellite data.

If you base it on satellite data, you normally end up making even more assumptions.

In the end, there is no valid method for GMST.

[Tero Jousi @terojousi]

@KIVUNature @cohler What two measured flux values are you dividing to obtain 0.612?

You’d need global mean upward longwave surface flux.

Is this method of deriving the global 0.612 from surface pyrgeometer measurements and TOA OLR a published climate science methodology?

[Tero Jousi @terojousi]

@KIVUNature @cohler Your step by step got ~255K. To get ~288K you introduced 0.612.

I assume we agree that 0.612 is a parameter calibrated using an estimate of Ts, which comes from 2m land air temperatures and SST.

[Tero Jousi @terojousi]

@KIVUNature @cohler Yes, Alan.

That surface observation aggregate is the Ts I’m asking about. If Ts is needed to obtain the 0.612, then 0.612 is not an independent TOA measurement that can be used to derive Ts.

[Tero Jousi @terojousi]

@KIVUNature @cohler Ok, but we are still in the same question.

To get 0.612, you need Ts. Where are you obtaining Ts independently?

[Tero Jousi @terojousi]

@KIVUNature @cohler No.

I’m trying to separate measurement from inference.

OLR is measured.
Surface temperature is inferred.

I am not questioning the result for its own sake. I am questioning if the methodology used to derive it is valid and verifiable.

[Tero Jousi @terojousi]

@KIVUNature @cohler We are just going in circles.

OLR gives effective radiating temperature. My question still is how you independently obtain the global relationship that converts that into the surface temperature.

[Tero Jousi @terojousi]

@KIVUNature @cohler Maybe you should not assume you are standing on the tracks in the first place. Taking one step on the side based on assumptions might just get you on the tracks you tried to avoid.

[Tero Jousi @terojousi]

@KIVUNature @cohler But 0.612 isn’t directly measured from space. 0.612 is a derived value that already needs surface temperature.

[Tero Jousi @terojousi]

@KIVUNature @cohler You still need to show how those heterogeneous local measurements produce the global 0.612 coefficient in your TOA equation.

[Tero Jousi @terojousi]

@KIVUNature @cohler If the estimates are important enough to influence major decisions, we should be careful about what is actually measured, reconstructed/modeled, or assumpted, and what the resulting uncertainty is. Science has to be straight about those limitations or we cannot rationally weigh.

[Tero Jousi @terojousi]

@PCarterClimate Yes, and no downturn has been encountered.

[Tero Jousi @terojousi]

@KIVUNature @cohler There is a disconnect. That is the radiative flux. And the direction matter.

How do you derive that global effective emissivity of 0.612 from those pyrgeometer measurements without already using a global surface temperature?

[Tero Jousi @terojousi]

@KIVUNature @cohler The crucial assumption is 0.612. It is not independently measured from TOA radiation. It already depends on the assumed surface T.

~288K was not independently derived from CERES fluxes.

You encoded Ts into 0.612, then solved the same relationship backwards to recover Ts.

[Tero Jousi @terojousi]

@KVahakyla @p123415251 @MaaritAarni_S Kyllä siinä on ihan asiaa ja kerrotaan nimenomaan myös virheistä. Artikkelista tosin puuttuu myös paljon tähän liittyvää oleellista tietoa, mitä jo kommentoinkin. Huomattavaa on myös, että Suomen asemilla on enimmäkseen passiiviset suojat, jolloin 0,1C virhe on utopiaa.

[Tero Jousi @terojousi]

Tämä on myös totta. Fysikaalisesti ei ole olemassa merien keskimääräistä pH-arvoa. Eli ei voida sanoa, että maailman merien pH putosi 0,1:llä.

[Jonathan Cohler @cohler]

OCEAN pH HAS NOT DROPPED

You may have heard scientists and parrots say that ocean pH has dropped by 0.1 since the industrial revolution.

The only problem with that statement is that

GLOBAL OCEAN pH DOES NOT EXIST

I'll say it again

GLOBAL OCEAN pH DOES NOT EXIST

So HOW does something that

DOES NOT EXIST

drop, rise, go sideways, or do anything at all????

IT DOES NOT EXIST.

Let that sink in.

[Tero Jousi @terojousi]

@KVahakyla @p123415251 @MaaritAarni_S Tarkennuksena: myös modernien vapaasti tuulettuvien sääasemien virheet ovat lähes samaa luokkaa. Vain ventiloiduilla se on huomattavasti pienempi. Tästä on myös paljon vertailumittauksia.

[Tero Jousi @terojousi]

@KVahakyla @p123415251 @MaaritAarni_S Aikasarjoissa ei päästä. Sinun kannattaa tutustua, miksi ilmastotieteilijät haluavat pitää nuo vanhanaikaiset säteilysuojat, eikä siirtyä pelkästään uusiin.

[Tero Jousi @terojousi]

@p123415251 @KVahakyla @MaaritAarni_S Kyllä. Noin se juuri menee. Ei ole helppoa tämä.

Tuon heterogeenisyyden vuoksi ja koska maapallo on jatkuvassa epätasapainossa, maapallolla tai UK:lla ei ole olemassa mitään fysikaalisesti merkitsevää keskilämpötilaa(GMST tai UKMST), vaikka niin usein väitetään.