Re: [HPAC] Updated interactive visualization of climate forcing data - 2025 data now added

[John Nissen]

Hi Clive,

Thanks for your updated interactive graph of forcing from 1850 to 2025.  There was a spurt in the 70s, and from 1980 the global temperature was rising and the Arctic temperature rising about 4x faster.  The overall forcing tripled from around 1.0 W/m2 in 1980 to 3.1 W/m2 in 2025.  The rate of warming has doubled from 0.18C per decade to around 0.36C per decade.  If it stays at 0.36C per decade, on a linear extrapolation global temperature will reach 2C by 2040, 3C by 2070 and 4C by 2100.  

Many of us believe that there is an existential threat for civilisation without cooling intervention: both to keep global warming below 2C and to halt the Arctic meltdown.  Environmentalists assume that the global temperature will continue to rise, and we will all have to adapt to climate change and more extreme heat.  Climate experts continue to peddle emissions reduction as the best that can be done, claiming  intervention is too risky.  The public are kept in the dark.

BTW, does the natural forcing in your graph include the cooling effect from increased thermal radiation as the planet heats?

Cheers, John

On Sat, May 2, 2026 at 9:13 AM Clive Elsworth <Cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk> wrote:

All - you might like to see my updated interactive visualization of climate forcing data used by the IPCC in their reports. Today I added data from 2025:

https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiMTgzYTU4YWItMTc4Ni00NDBmLWI3OGUtMTY5MTVjYWFlOTQxIiwidCI6IjZlY2YzYTJkLTE4ZDMtNDdlNi1hYzZiLTFjNTIwMGE3ZjhmOSIsImMiOjh9

(Data from Forster et al, University of Leeds, UK, via Github.)

 

On the so-called energy transition, Mark Mills makes the most sense to me:

• Green Energy Dreams, Fossil Fuel Realities: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qq2hYZ-JJ6k
• Global Markets "Recoupling" to Oil and Commodities: https://youtu.be/PipEtGPA-tk?t=522

 

Clive

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/018501dcda0b%249e751180%24db5f3480%24%40EndorphinSoftware.co.uk.

[Clive Elsworth]

Good question John, which made me think for a while.

 

The answer below from Gemini is much as I thought:

 

In short: Radiative forcing (RF) data is calculated using a specific reference temperature profile (usually the pre-industrial state), but the definition itself requires holding the surface temperature constant to isolate the "push" from the greenhouse gas. While the values are "roughly correct" for Earth-like conditions, they are not universal constants; they would change significantly if Earth’s baseline temperature were substantially different.

 

Most "best-estimate" forcing data is calculated using the Earth’s state in the year 1750 as the baseline (IPCC, 2021).

 

Effective Radiative Forcing (ERF): This is the modern standard used by the IPCC. It allows "rapid adjustments" (like the stratosphere and troposphere warming up slightly or clouds shifting) but strictly holds the global mean surface temperature constant (Smith et al., 2020).

 

My chart uses ERF data from Forster et al, all of which we can assume is calculated for the baseline mean surface temperature of 1750. This applies to all ERF data including volcanic and solar forcings (‘Natural’ in my chart). ERF data is not perfect, but close enough to be considered useful. That’s how I understand it.

 

N.B. So, given that baseline temperature is assumed, there is no accounting for feedbacks such as water vapour or cloud and sea-ice feedbacks.

 

Someone from the Forster team confirmed to me that their ERF forcings can be simply added, which is what my interactive chart does. Page 2 enables different forcings to be selected in isolation and displayed separately or added together depending on the Detail Level selected:

 

 

Here’s a more friendly link to it: Interactive Radiative Forcings Chart - 6 pages 

 

(Error bars are calculated as approximations.)

 

Clive Elsworth

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CACS_Fxp5rcRCrFpzXts%2B2Q%3DXmRFzgwT1Y%2B7RTnDgBmiMvnUKCA%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Nissen]

Thanks, Clive, 

But you've not quite understood the question.  As the planet warms, it produces more thermal radiation.  This extra radiation power can be calculated in W/m2 using Boltzman's formula assuming it is effectively black-body radiation.  This is then masked by GHGs such that the increase in thermal radiation output from the planet is much less than calculated.  If a baseline of 1750 is used by IPCC, it suggests that the increase in thermal radiation has been ignored. I would like to see an extra line in the graph for natural cooling through extra thermal output, as opposed to volcanoes etc.

When you look at the CERES satellite data, it measures all thermal output.  As the planet has warmed considerably over the 20 years of data, the thermal output may have actually decreased.  I would need to examine the data more closely.  Nobody seems to have distinguished between the black-body radiation effect and the GHG masking effect in the total thermal output (longwave radiation).

Having said all that, the important thing for our future is to react to the extraordinary decrease in outgoing shortwave radiation due to the planet's decreased albedo over recent years, markedly affecting the Earth's Energy Imbalance.   It is commensurate with a reduction in SO2 from ships and planes, and the CERES location data supports this.  Ships and planes should have tanks of less refined fuel which they can use when away from populated areas where the SO2 could harm health.  The SO2 from the refinement process should go into the stratosphere for maximum cooling effect!

Cheers, John

[Clive Elsworth]

Hi John

 

You said: “Nobody seems to have distinguished between the black-body radiation effect and the GHG masking effect in the total thermal output (longwave radiation).”

 

I asked Gemini AI: “What are the most accessible papers that distinguish between and explain the black-body radiation effect and the GHG masking effect that results in Earth's total thermal output (longwave radiation)?”

 

Here’s its answer:

Distinguishing between the black-body radiation effect (often called the Planck response) and the greenhouse gas (GHG) masking effect is fundamental to understanding Earth's energy balance. While the black-body effect dictates how much energy a surface wants to radiate based on its temperature, the GHG masking effect determines how much of that energy actually escapes to space.

 

1. Conceptual Distinction

·         The Black-body Radiation Effect (Planck Response): Based on the Stefan-Boltzmann Law ($j^* = \sigma T^4$), any object with a temperature $T$ emits thermal radiation. As Earth's surface warms, it emits significantly more infrared energy. This is a powerful "stabilizing feedback" because it allows the planet to shed excess heat quickly as it warms (IPCC, 2021).

·         The GHG Masking Effect (Greenhouse Effect): Greenhouse gases like $CO_2$ and $H_2O$ are opaque to specific frequencies of this infrared radiation. They absorb the "upward" thermal energy from the warm surface and re-emit it at the colder temperatures of the upper atmosphere. Because the emission to space now comes from a colder layer, the total thermal output (Outgoing Longwave Radiation, or OLR) is reduced or "masked" compared to what the surface originally emitted (Jeevanjee et al., 2021).

 

2. Most Accessible Papers

The following papers are widely regarded by educators and researchers for their clarity in separating these two mechanisms.

A. The Best General Overview: Pierrehumbert (2011)

Raymond Pierrehumbert’s article in Physics Today is arguably the most cited "accessible" explanation of planetary temperature.

·         Key Distinction: He explains the "energy balance" by showing that the greenhouse effect doesn't just "trap" heat; it shifts the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) emission point to a higher, colder altitude. He clearly separates the "black-body" emission of the surface from the "atmospheric insulation" provided by GHGs.

·         Why it’s accessible: It uses clear analogies (like the "stratified" atmosphere) and focuses on the fundamental physics rather than complex climate modeling code.

Source: Pierrehumbert, R. T. (2011). Infrared radiation and planetary temperature. Physics Today, 64(1), 33–38. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3541943 (Cited by: 120+)

 

B. The "Spectral Masking" Perspective: Jeevanjee et al. (2021)

This paper is unique because it introduces the term "spectral masking" to describe why Earth’s warming doesn't look like a simple black-body shift from space.

·         Key Distinction: The authors show that while the surface warms and tries to emit more energy (the black-body effect), the increased humidity ($H_2O$ is a GHG) "masks" that extra emission in specific spectral bands. This "masking" is why the net increase in OLR is much smaller than the $T^4$ law would suggest for the surface alone.

·         Why it’s accessible: It provides beautiful, "colorful" visualizations of the infrared spectrum that make the abstract concept of "forcing" immediately intuitive.

Source: Jeevanjee, N., Seeley, J. T., Payne, A. E., & Fueglistaler, S. (2021). A colorful look at climate sensitivity. Physics Today, 74(4), 40–46. https://doi.org/10.1063/PT.3.4724

 

C. The Formal Framework: IPCC AR6 (2021)

For the most precise definitions used in modern science, Chapter 7 of the Sixth Assessment Report is the definitive source.

·         Key Distinction: It formally defines the Planck Feedback (the black-body response) as the primary stabilizing factor of the climate and distinguishes it from Radiative Forcing (the masking effect of GHGs). It explains that the "Effective Radiative Forcing" is the net result of the GHG mask minus the initial atmospheric adjustments (IPCC, 2021).

·         Why it’s accessible: While the full report is massive, the "Executive Summary" and "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQ 7.1) sections of Chapter 7 are written specifically for a broad audience.

 

Source: IPCC. (2021). The Earth's Energy Budget, Climate Feedbacks, and Climate Sensitivity. In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896.009

 

---

Summary of Mechanisms

Feature	Black-body (Planck) Effect	GHG Masking Effect
Physics Law	Stefan-Boltzmann ($T^4$)	Beer-Lambert (Absorption)
Role in Climate	Stabilizing: Increases OLR as Earth warms.	Destabilizing: Decreases OLR by blocking surface emission.
Visual Signal	Shift in the height/area of the curve.	"Bites" or "notches" taken out of the spectrum.
Primary Paper	Pierrehumbert (2011)	Jeevanjee et al. (2021)

References

Jeevanjee, N., Seeley, J. T., Payne, A. E., & Fueglistaler, S. (2021). A colorful look at climate sensitivity. Physics Today, 74(4), 40–46. https://doi.org/10.1063/PT.3.4724

IPCC. (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896

Pierrehumbert, R. T. (2011). Infrared radiation and planetary temperature. Physics Today, 64(1), 33–38. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3541943

 

My charts show only climate forcings, which I loosely describe (and think of) as warming/cooling influences. Jim Hansen calls them perturbations.

 

Further answers in blue below.

 

Clive

 

 

From: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of John Nissen
Sent: 04 May 2026 11:19
To: Cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk
Cc: healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; Peter Wadhams <peter....@gmail.com>; Chris Vivian <chris....@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: [HPAC] Updated interactive visualization of climate forcing data - 2025 data now added

 

Thanks, Clive, 

 

But you've not quite understood the question.  As the planet warms, it produces more thermal radiation.  This extra radiation power can be calculated in W/m2 using Boltzman's formula assuming it is effectively black-body radiation.  This is then masked by GHGs such that the increase in thermal radiation output from the planet is much less than calculated.  If a baseline of 1750 is used by IPCC, it suggests that the increase in thermal radiation has been ignored. I would like to see an extra line in the graph for natural cooling through extra thermal output, as opposed to volcanoes etc.

 

When you look at the CERES satellite data, it measures all thermal output.  As the planet has warmed considerably over the 20 years of data, the thermal output may have actually decreased. 

That’s right. Today’s energy imbalance of more or less 1.2W/m^2 means that 1.2W/m^2 is going into heating up mainly the oceans. That assumes the amount of energy (strictly power) entering the top of the atmosphere hasn’t changed. As shown on my chart, the solar forcing changes but much less than many of the other forcings.

 

I would need to examine the data more closely.  Nobody seems to have distinguished between the black-body radiation effect and the GHG masking effect in the total thermal output (longwave radiation).

See main answer above from Gemini.

 

Having said all that, the important thing for our future is to react to the extraordinary decrease in outgoing shortwave radiation due to the planet's decreased albedo over recent years, markedly affecting the Earth's Energy Imbalance.   It is commensurate with a reduction in SO2 from ships and planes, and the CERES location data supports this.  Ships and planes should have tanks of less refined fuel which they can use when away from populated areas where the SO2 could harm health.  The SO2 from the refinement process should go into the stratosphere for maximum cooling effect!

 

SO2 emissions away from populated areas:

• Ships – yes, especially in areas where typically a single low cloud layer is susceptible to brightening (MCB).
• Planes – only when flying high enough up in the stratosphere. In the upper troposphere they would increase cirrus clouds, which would produce an overall warming effect. That’s because they block more heat than they radiate upwards because it’s so cold there in the upper troposphere.

 

As you know, people like me prefer MCB to SAI. But either of them would be much better than the current ‘emissions reduction alone’ policy.

 

Cheers, John

 

 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CACS_FxqzYOyEV6F7%2B6j%2BbXKP34CT7x4%2BpWPdkcs37WOu_jZCdQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Clive Elsworth]

>Are “fast oxidizable” and “slow oxidizable” based on gases that react quickly or slowly with reactive oxygen free radicals?

 

Yes, see example below, drilled down to ‘Fine’ level. I chose them myself and would be keen to hear if you think there’s a better selection:

 

 

If you hover over the big volcanic periods the salient ones indicate the volcano and location:

 

Clive

 

From: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Tom Goreau
Sent: 04 May 2026 11:53
To: Cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk; 'John Nissen' <johnnis...@gmail.com>
Cc: 'healthy-planet-action-coalition' <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; 'Planetary Restoration' <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; 'Peter Wadhams' <peter....@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [HPAC] Updated interactive visualization of climate forcing data - 2025 data now added

 

Sorry sent too soon. The “natural” line is clear, and includes volcanic eruptions with the strongest being Krakatoa and the strongest of all, Tambora, missing off the time scale.

 

Are “fast oxidizable” and “slow oxidizable” based on gases that react quickly or slowly with reactive oxygen free radicals, such as nitrogen and sulfur gases versus methane?

 

From: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>
Date: Monday, May 4, 2026 at 06:48
To: Cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk <Cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk>, 'John Nissen' <johnnis...@gmail.com>
Cc: 'healthy-planet-action-coalition' <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>, 'Planetary Restoration' <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>, 'Peter Wadhams' <peter....@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [HPAC] Updated interactive visualization of climate forcing data - 2025 data now added

Sorry Clive, the “natural graph” (basically solar radiation variability at the ground) how do you define “fast oxidizable” and “slow oxidizable” categories below?

 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/009001dcdb9a%24bf524a40%243df6dec0%24%40EndorphinSoftware.co.uk.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/BY3PR13MB49946C5432E5C603A67BA066DD312%40BY3PR13MB4994.namprd13.prod.outlook.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/BY3PR13MB499472DB91AFF59B64DE6C42DD312%40BY3PR13MB4994.namprd13.prod.outlook.com.

[John Nissen]

Hi Tom,

Thanks for the excellent and detailed breakdown of CERES data for 2000 to 2025.  It explains a lot for everyone's benefit.  I can hardly fault it; but is some of it controversial among the climate experts?

CERES data

On the longwave/thermal radiation (LW) side, you explain that the GHG growth has been just greater than the increase from black-body (Planck) radiation, though this might change due to a sharp increase in the global temperature to over 1.5C just over the past three years:

Long wave clear sky radiation should be providing cooling and up until 2020 it was doing so. It has now flipped to providing some additional heating. The trend is for this to continue as more and more GHGs accumulate in the atmosphere. It is likely this aspect will temporarily return to zero or even be positive as the last year has seen a strong increase in output, probably due to the surface heating experienced in the last three record warm years, which have averaged more than +1.5ºC, being slowly radiated upwards.

On the shortwave/solar radiation (SW) side, you confirm what I was saying.  It does appear that the decrease in SO2 emissions has had a major effect on the EEI.

Implications of EEI on global warming

As for the implications on EEI, I think you should have pointed out that the equilibrium sensitivity for climate forcing is based on doubling of CO2e rather than just CO2.  Because the forcing from other gases is about half the forcing from CO2, we can make a rough calculation of where we are now.  CO2e is now over 500 ppm, according to NOAA [1].  CO2 is now 434 ppm, which is 156 ppm above the preindustrial 278 ppm.  64% of forcing comes from CO2, and 36% from other gases [1].   This gives ~522 ppm for CO2e (156 * 100/64 = 243.75 above preindustrial).  Doubling of CO2e to 556 ppm could come very soon, giving a possible equilibrium temperature of 4C.  With current warming of 0.35C or 0.36C per decade, we are likely to reach 4C before 2100.  With accelerated warming, it could be worse.

Implications for the future of humanity

The implications for the future of civilised society are absolutely dire without a lot of SAI cooling!  At 4C, climate change and sea level rise would be existentially catastrophic, even without tipping points.  When we consider tipping points in the Arctic, then the slide towards inevitable existential catastrophe has already started.  SAI deployment is extremely urgent.

Climate restoration is eminently feasible

If the SAI nettle is grasped NOW, then there is a real possibility of restoring the planet to a healthy state over the next few decades.  The window of opportunity is closing by the day.

Cheers, John

[1] Google AI search result:

As of early 2026, the effective atmospheric concentration of all greenhouse gases, expressed as \(CO_{2}\) equivalent (\(CO_{2}e\)), is now over 500 ppm, according to NOAA's Annual Greenhouse Gas Index (AGGI). [1]

While \(CO_{2}\) alone has reached roughly 422.7 ppm, the total warming impact is much higher when including methane (\(CH_{4}\)), nitrous oxide (\(N_{2}O\)), and other synthetic gases. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Key Metrics (2025–2026 Context)

• Total \(CO_{2}e\) Concentration: ~500 ppm (including direct forcing from major greenhouse gases).
• Total \(CO_{2}e\) Emissions: Global greenhouse gas emissions reached over 55 gigatons (\(GtCO_{2}e\)) in 2021, with 2022 energy-related greenhouse gases reaching an all-time high of 41.3 Gt.
• Methane's Role: Methane accounts for approximately 16% of the warming effect of long-lived greenhouse gases. Methane has a GWP of 28–30 (over 100 years), or up to 80+ over 20 years.
• \(CO_{2}\) Concentration: The global average \(CO_{2}\) concentration hit 422.7 ppm in 2024. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]

Understanding \(CO_{2}e\) (Forcing Included)

The \(CO_{2}e\) figure is a standardized measure that converts the warming impact of other gases into the amount of \(CO_{2}\) that would create the same amount of warming. [1, 2]

• \(CO_{2}\) (64%): Main driver of warming, with a 50% increase over pre-industrial levels.
• \(CH_{4}\) (16%): Strong short-term effect (around a decade in the atmosphere).
• \(N_{2}O\) (6%): Persistent over a century, with a high GWP.
• Other Gases (24%): Includes F-gases (HFCs, CFCs) which have high warming potential. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Note: The IEA 2022 Report indicates that energy-related greenhouse gas emissions (including \(CO_{2}\) and methane) reached 41.3 Gt, with 2022 showing a 1% increase. [1]

On Mon, May 4, 2026 at 11:46 AM Dr Tom Harris <hp...@tomharris.uk> wrote:

Hi John,

Dissecting the CERES data does show an increase in outgoing long wave radiation from the Planck effect you suggest. Interestingly though the increase is not coming from clear sky areas since the GHG accumulation seems to be rising fast enough to counter the increase in radiation from the surface. The increase is coming from long wave radiation from clouds. I think there are two reasons for this, firstly clouds are warming up and also condensing at higher altitudes so releasing their latent heat with less of an air barrier to pass through the GHGs before reaching space. The value is big though, since 2000 cloudy area long wave outgoing radiation has increased by 0.88W/m2. This is despite the drop in cloud area over the same time which is roughly 1.5million km2 of average global annual cloud cover (roughly the land area of Mongolia).

I’ve an article breaking it down here: https://drtomharris.substack.com/p/earths-energy-imbalance-quarter-century 

Tom

Dr Tom Harris
Ross-on-Wye UK
Born at 318 ppm CO2 - 26% less than today

HPAC Member

https://drtomharris.substack.com

Any views or opinions expressed in this email are entirely my own and do not represent the views of my previous clients including InnovateUK or any projects I was involved in professionally.

On 4 May 2026, at 11:19, John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks, Clive, 

But you've not quite understood the question.  As the planet warms, it produces more thermal radiation.  This extra radiation power can be calculated in W/m2 using Boltzman's formula assuming it is effectively black-body radiation.  This is then masked by GHGs such that the increase in thermal radiation output from the planet is much less than calculated.  If a baseline of 1750 is used by IPCC, it suggests that the increase in thermal radiation has been ignored. I would like to see an extra line in the graph for natural cooling through extra thermal output, as opposed to volcanoes etc.

When you look at the CERES satellite data, it measures all thermal output.  As the planet has warmed considerably over the 20 years of data, the thermal output may have actually decreased.  I would need to examine the data more closely.  Nobody seems to have distinguished between the black-body radiation effect and the GHG masking effect in the total thermal output (longwave radiation).

Having said all that, the important thing for our future is to react to the extraordinary decrease in outgoing shortwave radiation due to the planet's decreased albedo over recent years, markedly affecting the Earth's Energy Imbalance.   It is commensurate with a reduction in SO2 from ships and planes, and the CERES location data supports this.  Ships and planes should have tanks of less refined fuel which they can use when away from populated areas where the SO2 could harm health.  The SO2 from the refinement process should go into the stratosphere for maximum cooling effect!

Cheers, John

On Mon, May 4, 2026 at 8:51 AM Clive Elsworth <Cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk> wrote:

Good question John, which made me think for a while. 

 

The answer below from Gemini is much as I thought:

 

In short: Radiative forcing (RF) data is calculated using a specific reference temperature profile (usually the pre-industrial state), but the definition itself requires holding the surface temperature constant to isolate the "push" from the greenhouse gas. While the values are "roughly correct" for Earth-like conditions, they are not universal constants; they would change significantly if Earth’s baseline temperature were substantially different.

 

Most "best-estimate" forcing data is calculated using the Earth’s state in the year 1750 as the baseline (IPCC, 2021).

 

Effective Radiative Forcing (ERF): This is the modern standard used by the IPCC. It allows "rapid adjustments" (like the stratosphere and troposphere warming up slightly or clouds shifting) but strictly holds the global mean surface temperature constant (Smith et al., 2020).

 

My chart uses ERF data from Forster et al, all of which we can assume is calculated for the baseline mean surface temperature of 1750. This applies to all ERF data including volcanic and solar forcings (‘Natural’ in my chart). ERF data is not perfect, but close enough to be considered useful. That’s how I understand it.

 

N.B. So, given that baseline temperature is assumed, there is no accounting for feedbacks such as water vapour or cloud and sea-ice feedbacks.

 

Someone from the Forster team confirmed to me that their ERF forcings can be simply added, which is what my interactive chart does. Page 2 enables different forcings to be selected in isolation and displayed separately or added together depending on the Detail Level selected:

 

<image001.png>

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CACS_FxqzYOyEV6F7%2B6j%2BbXKP34CT7x4%2BpWPdkcs37WOu_jZCdQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Dr Tom Harris]

Hi John,

Dissecting the CERES data does show an increase in outgoing long wave radiation from the Planck effect you suggest. Interestingly though the increase is not coming from clear sky areas since the GHG accumulation seems to be rising fast enough to counter the increase in radiation from the surface. The increase is coming from long wave radiation from clouds. I think there are two reasons for this, firstly clouds are warming up and also condensing at higher altitudes so releasing their latent heat with less of an air barrier to pass through the GHGs before reaching space. The value is big though, since 2000 cloudy area long wave outgoing radiation has increased by 0.88W/m2. This is despite the drop in cloud area over the same time which is roughly 1.5million km2 of average global annual cloud cover (roughly the land area of Mongolia).

I’ve an article breaking it down here: https://drtomharris.substack.com/p/earths-energy-imbalance-quarter-century 

Tom

Dr Tom Harris
Ross-on-Wye UK
Born at 318 ppm CO2 - 26% less than today

HPAC Member

https://drtomharris.substack.com

Any views or opinions expressed in this email are entirely my own and do not represent the views of my previous clients including InnovateUK or any projects I was involved in professionally.

On 4 May 2026, at 11:19, John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks, Clive, 

But you've not quite understood the question.  As the planet warms, it produces more thermal radiation.  This extra radiation power can be calculated in W/m2 using Boltzman's formula assuming it is effectively black-body radiation.  This is then masked by GHGs such that the increase in thermal radiation output from the planet is much less than calculated.  If a baseline of 1750 is used by IPCC, it suggests that the increase in thermal radiation has been ignored. I would like to see an extra line in the graph for natural cooling through extra thermal output, as opposed to volcanoes etc.

When you look at the CERES satellite data, it measures all thermal output.  As the planet has warmed considerably over the 20 years of data, the thermal output may have actually decreased.  I would need to examine the data more closely.  Nobody seems to have distinguished between the black-body radiation effect and the GHG masking effect in the total thermal output (longwave radiation).

Having said all that, the important thing for our future is to react to the extraordinary decrease in outgoing shortwave radiation due to the planet's decreased albedo over recent years, markedly affecting the Earth's Energy Imbalance.   It is commensurate with a reduction in SO2 from ships and planes, and the CERES location data supports this.  Ships and planes should have tanks of less refined fuel which they can use when away from populated areas where the SO2 could harm health.  The SO2 from the refinement process should go into the stratosphere for maximum cooling effect!

Cheers, John

On Mon, May 4, 2026 at 8:51 AM Clive Elsworth <Cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk> wrote:

Good question John, which made me think for a while. 

 

The answer below from Gemini is much as I thought:

 

In short: Radiative forcing (RF) data is calculated using a specific reference temperature profile (usually the pre-industrial state), but the definition itself requires holding the surface temperature constant to isolate the "push" from the greenhouse gas. While the values are "roughly correct" for Earth-like conditions, they are not universal constants; they would change significantly if Earth’s baseline temperature were substantially different.

 

Most "best-estimate" forcing data is calculated using the Earth’s state in the year 1750 as the baseline (IPCC, 2021).

 

Effective Radiative Forcing (ERF): This is the modern standard used by the IPCC. It allows "rapid adjustments" (like the stratosphere and troposphere warming up slightly or clouds shifting) but strictly holds the global mean surface temperature constant (Smith et al., 2020).

 

My chart uses ERF data from Forster et al, all of which we can assume is calculated for the baseline mean surface temperature of 1750. This applies to all ERF data including volcanic and solar forcings (‘Natural’ in my chart). ERF data is not perfect, but close enough to be considered useful. That’s how I understand it.

 

N.B. So, given that baseline temperature is assumed, there is no accounting for feedbacks such as water vapour or cloud and sea-ice feedbacks.

 

Someone from the Forster team confirmed to me that their ERF forcings can be simply added, which is what my interactive chart does. Page 2 enables different forcings to be selected in isolation and displayed separately or added together depending on the Detail Level selected:

 

<image001.png>

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CACS_FxqzYOyEV6F7%2B6j%2BbXKP34CT7x4%2BpWPdkcs37WOu_jZCdQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Tom Goreau]

Sorry Clive, the “natural graph” (basically solar radiation variability at the ground) how do you define “fast oxidizable” and “slow oxidizable” categories below?

 

From: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Clive Elsworth <Cl...@EndorphinSoftware.co.uk>

Date: Monday, May 4, 2026 at 03:51
To: 'John Nissen' <johnnis...@gmail.com>
Cc: 'healthy-planet-action-coalition' <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>, 'Planetary Restoration' <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>, 'Peter Wadhams' <peter....@gmail.com>

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/009001dcdb9a%24bf524a40%243df6dec0%24%40EndorphinSoftware.co.uk.

[Tom Goreau]

Sorry sent too soon. The “natural” line is clear, and includes volcanic eruptions with the strongest being Krakatoa and the strongest of all, Tambora, missing off the time scale.

 

Are “fast oxidizable” and “slow oxidizable” based on gases that react quickly or slowly with reactive oxygen free radicals, such as nitrogen and sulfur gases versus methane?

 

From: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>

Date: Monday, May 4, 2026 at 06:48

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/BY3PR13MB49946C5432E5C603A67BA066DD312%40BY3PR13MB4994.namprd13.prod.outlook.com.

[Dr Tom Harris]

Hi John,

Thanks for the feedback.

The climate sensitivity thoughts are interesting. As I understand it, traditionally Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ESC) only deals with CO2 and only contains fast feedbacks such as water vapour, clouds and any feedbacks that kick in within a decade or so, while Earth System Sensitivity contains all the slow feedbacks, such as ice sheet melt. I think the reason they use CO2 rather than CO2e is that the other gases, essentially methane, don’t last long enough in the atmosphere. If you doubled CO2e as we are doing, and left the planet to settle, after a decade or two the methane contribution would disappear so you’d end up with warning to the point of the CO2 only induced equilibrium. It’s part of the reason how they can claim we on track for 2.7ºC of warming following SSP2-4.5 because that model scenario has methane emissions dropping as well as CO2. 

Of course the reality is much worse, as you suggest. A fast feedback seems to be the constant and growing methane emissions from wetlands and permafrost melt making CO2e much more relevant on longer timescales. 4ºC will be very hard to avoid without SRM. Even with it, it may still be hard to stop warming overall, just slow it down temporarily while humanity gets its act in order. 

Time is indeed running out, I don’t think that a major economic crash is too far away. That will reduce emissions but also cost us the ability to invest in restoration work. I guess that’s why we’re here urging action. 

Cheers,

Tom

Dr Tom Harris
Ross-on-Wye UK
Born at 318 ppm CO2 - 26% less than today

HPAC Member

https://drtomharris.substack.com

Any views or opinions expressed in this email are entirely my own and do not represent the views of my previous clients including InnovateUK or any projects I was involved in professionally.

[Paul Klinkman]

Many climate modelers recognize latent heat transport in the meridional direction.  Few prefer to recognize the importance of latent heat transport in the vertical direction.  I see a problem.

The planet's atmosphere is an insulating blanket, or alternatively it could be seen as a series of several thinner insulating blankets stacked on top of each other.  Radiant heat can get a few meters up or sometimes downward and then it gets re-absorbed, often by some greenhouse gas molecule in the atmosphere.  After a vast number of re-emissions of this heat in random directions, some of the radiant heat will finally radiate through the very top thin blanket, into space and away.

Creating latent heat, transporting it vertically and then releasing that heat moves that heat above the first few thin blankets to where it will more quickly radiate into space.  

We wouldn't bother to understand so precisely how the vertical transport of latent heat works, except this latent heat transport is key to understanding the complex role that water vapor plays in the greenhouse effect.  Above a desert, water vapor helps to keep heat close to the surface in the daytime and clouds don't block the incoming sunlight, but low water vapor levels in air allow more radiative heat to escape at night.  A different set of rules exists in the atmosphere above a rain forest.  The white clouds block, or more properly the water droplets above a rain forest either diffract or absorb and re-emit, wavelengths of incoming solar light/heat.  I theorize that clouds should be slightly heating up the very local stratosphere next to the clouds.  However, the prime reason that clouds cool the rain forest is the vertical latent heat transfer engine.  Vast quantities of solar heat creates a layer of troposphere near the forest with saturated humidity.  

Warm, saturated air forms blobs of air, thermals that explode upward.  Then the thermals form thunderclouds that pull a region's supersaturated ground air into themselves.  In the lower air pressure of the stratosphere the supersaturated air forms cloud droplets, then rain droplets.  The weight of the rain drops out of the relatively heated air thermal, causing the thermal to continue to explode upward.  By this method, forests are cooled.  

One practical application of such a theory would be to plant or to assist the growth of trillions of trees on the earth.  Everyone knows that urban trees will cool a neighborhood or a city, but we should have a good theory as to why this works.  The city's heat gets exhausted perhaps 10 kilometers straight up, and then that greenhouse heat more easily radiates off into space.  

The second practical application would be mechanically generated thermals of humid air through misters that could easily be confused with sea salt microparticle producing misters.  The misters would take heat out of the near=ocean air or out of the surface water in one design, ship that latent heat 10 kilometers high and then a portion of that solar heat would simply be gone into space forever.  

Adding rivers of humidity to the air might be a public service in some desert areas.  Coast redwood trees live all summer off of night fog, sometimes for centuries.  Why shouldn't local crops get a bit more moisture?  Is your particular region of the world headed straight toward climate-induced megadroughts?

Just to ask, if water droplets are sprayed into surface air to create salt microparticles, won't that small river of upward bound humid air rise into a new or an existing rain cloud where most of the sea salt microparticles will immediately be washed back down into the ocean?

To sum up, I'm bothered by the possibility that the scientific community doesn't understand the basic science of vertical latent heat transfer, and it doesn't understand the possible major climate implications, both good and bad.  Sorry to toss this monkey wrench, but you're in the business of solving such conundrums.  I have read a recent paper's interpretation of the vertical latent heat transport phenomenon, so you'll need to play the message not the messenger.

Yours in Hope,

Paul Klinkman

[Gene Fry]

On CO2 doubling and CO2e.

Concentrations of at least two other other greenhouse gases besides CO2 were not zero immediately pre-industrial.  Notably methane and nitrous oxide, perhaps also low-altitude ozone.

So Doubling of CO2e to 556 ppm is not quite the correct number about doubling from (immediately) pre-industrial.

Gene Fry

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CACS_FxrV%2BsCNV4hs56%3DkCnfWMkjEdROzYTQr8aTw3ahNrapmrQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Gene Fry]

From what I can tell, losing cloud cover (especially over the oceans) provides the biggest warming effect.

What is left (systematic vegetation color change, great ice sheets melting) is a modest fraction of the fast feedbacks.  And negation color change seems to be cooling now.

That suggests to me that most ECS estimates are still too low.

Gene

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/1EA3AC1F-85CB-4A95-8DDA-244A53F24166%40tomharris.uk.

[Bru Pearce]

Hi Tom and all,

 

I think many of you will find this paper from 2014 by David Wasdale very interesting. At the time, his earth system sensitivity predictions were an outlier, but it looks like he's now being proved to be 99% right.

 

Kind regards,

 Bru Pearce

 

E-mail   b...@envisionation.org  

Mobile  +44 7740 854713

Web      www.envisionation.org  

The Biosphere Restoration Plan enabled by Empathy Economics

Partisipate with Empathy Coin options

Information contained in this email and any files attached to it is confidential to the intended recipient and may be covered by legal professional privilege.  If you receive this email in error, please advise by return email before deleting it; you should not retain the email or disclose its contents to anyone.  Envisionation Ltd has taken reasonable precautions to minimise the risk of software viruses, but we recommend that any attachments are virus checked before they are opened.  Thank you for your cooperation.

 

 

From: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Dr Tom Harris

Sent: 05 May 2026 14:02
To: John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com>

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/1EA3AC1F-85CB-4A95-8DDA-244A53F24166%40tomharris.uk.

[Tom Goreau]

One minor comment is that he says ice cap melting will produce 120 metres of sea level rise, but I think now the general consensus is more like 60-80 metres, enough to drown all coastal areas and drive hundreds of millions of people inland.

 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/LO0P123MB4218B060303BA6E71D9EF045B93F2%40LO0P123MB4218.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.

[Bru Pearce]

You're right, Tom. I think he just got that upside down. As far as I'm aware, at the depth of an ice age, sea levels are 120 m lower than they are now. When all the ice is gone, somewhere around 70 m higher is what we'll get, which would be fine because I will then have a beachfront property. Assuming I live long enough to upload my consciousness into a digital cloud somewhere waited for the ice to melt and have become part of the quantum world, I'm wondering if by then I will be remotely interested in going to the beach.

[Dr Tom Harris]

Hi Gene et al.,

ECS does seem to be incredibly complex with CO2e making it even more so. I get the feeling that basic ECS is probably along the lines that models propose in the 2-4ºC range and that would be true if we weren’t taking other actions to force it higher. Some of the albedo loss is certainly warming related, as in clouds over the oceans and ice retreat, but being added to by natural aerosol reduction through land use change. Biotic cloud formation is dropping, but not just through baseline warming but deforestation. 

Those other human actions seem to be acting as ECS multipliers. For example emissions based ECS may be 3ºC but it is multiplied by 1.5 by land use change so driving the apparent 4.5ºC we observe today. Maybe in addition to ESS and ECS for long and short term feedbacks, we need an ACS - Anthropogenic Climate Sensitivity. This would include all the other warming effects we are pilling on in addition to the GHG emissions. It would also allow us to add cooling effects like sulphate emissions (perhaps a multiplier of 0.9) and quantify potential SRM inputs. 

Tom

Dr Tom Harris
Ross-on-Wye UK
Born at 318 ppm CO2 - 26% less than today

HPAC Member

https://drtomharris.substack.com

Any views or opinions expressed in this email are entirely my own and do not represent the views of my previous clients including InnovateUK or any projects I was involved in professionally.