Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

https://dlib.scu.ac.ir/bitstream/Hannan/343857/2/9781138027954.pdf
1.1.1 The greenhouse effect
The atmosphere diffuses part of the sun’s rays in all directions, but a high proportion

is transmitted towards Earth, which heats up and radiates in turn. The range of a ray’s

wavelength depends on the temperature of the emitting body. Thus, the sun, whose

surface temperature is around 5,800 K, emits visible radiation, whereas the Earth,

whose average temperature is 15◦C, emits long-wave radiation (infra-red).
Some gases present in the atmosphere (CO2, water vapour, methane, etc.) are more
transparent to the sun’s radiation than to the Earth’s infrared radiation, thus producing

the greenhouse effect: the radiation is partly trapped, which provokes heating. The

Earth emits around 390 W/m2 at the surface, whereas the radiation emitted towards
space is 240 W/m2. The difference is called “radiative forcing’’. A doubling of the
concentration of CO2, compared to pre-industrial levels, could increase this value by
4 W/m2, which would cause a temperature rise.
The greenhouse effect exists naturally, and without it the average temperature of
the Earth would have been−18◦C instead of about +15◦C for the last 10,000 years
(only +10◦C 20,000 years ago during the ice age). It is its increase that brings problems.
Human activity has resulted into a rise in greenhouse gas emissions: the CO2 given
off by using fossil fuels is responsible for 55% of the increase in greenhouse gases

(during the 1980s), of which 25% CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) and 15% methane,

with nitrous oxide (N2O), SF6 and the ozone formed making up the remaining 5%6.
The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere rose from 280 ppm (parts per million)
before the industrial era to 379 in 2005.

 " 390 W/m2 " : is this number right ? not 340 W/sqm !?

 A doubling of the
concentration of CO2, compared to pre-industrial levels, could increase this value by
4 W/m2, which would cause a temperature rise.
The greenhouse effect exists naturally, and without it the average temperature of
the Earth would have been−18◦C instead of about +15◦C for the last 10,000 years
(only +10◦C 20,000 years ago during the ice age). It is its increase that brings problems.

It is not written 4° Kelvin,it is written 4 W/sqm or 4 W/m2 increase by 278 ppm (1750) to 556 ppm CO2 doubling


Now important in climate research :
                 climate change feedback,also called Planck feedback
                  Radiative Forcing

                  Radiative Balance ( of the Earth)
https://www.weather.gov/jetstream/energy   or in W/sqm   https://www.wetterdienst.de/maps/topics/s_2019_2_20.png

https://www.pnas.org/content/115/41/10293
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1260/0958-305X.25.8.1439?journalCode=eaea
The Beer-Lambert law does not apply strictly to the relationship between radiative forcing (RF) of CO₂ and concentration in the atmosphere, i.e., ΔRF = 5.35ln(C/C_o). It is an approximation because water vapour competes unevenly with CO₂ over the IR absorption wavelength range. We propose a quadratic model as an improved approximation. It links concentration to RF thereby allowing RF calculation at any concentration, not just ΔRF. For example, at 378 ppmv of CO₂, the level in 2005, it calculates RF = 8.67 W m⁻², or approximately 2.7% of the total RF of all the greenhouse gases. A second and independent method based on worldwide hourly measurements of atmospheric temperature and relative humidity confirms this percentage. Each method shows that, on average, water vapour contributes approximately 96% of current greenhouse gas warming. Thus, the factors controlling the amount of water vapour in the air also control the earth's temperature.
Partial citation end .


Taking the moon,without atmosphere,as reference : - 18 °C   and

       Earth average temperature :                              + 15 °C                                                                           

                                                                                      33 °K difference

https://www.wetterdienst.de/maps/topics/s_2019_2_20.png 
How much the 4 W/sqm by CO2 ppm doubling increase reflects in temperature increase ,°K or °C ?
4 W/sqm /100 W/sqm = 0,04 x moon/Earth difference 33 °K = 1,32 °K increase ,expected 2060 !
But from 1750 temperature base
Since 1850, the average global temperature has risen by 0.7 K and by 1 K in France
according to Météo France. The concentration of CO2, according to IPCC provi-
sions11, will rise by 1.4 to 5.8 K by 2100 based on evolution scenarios.
Taking the 1,32 °K and decrease the above given 0,7 °K rising since 1850 = + 0,62 °K more up to 2100 temperature rising !


one problem : Since 1850, the average global temperature has risen by 0.7 K and by 1 K in France
                       Between Mid 80´ to 90´ the stationary temperature measurement method changed,international             

                       from mechanical thermometer to digital thermometer ,
                       up to 1° K difference in measure !


https://de-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Globale_Erw%C3%A4rmung?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=deThe greenhouse gas water vapor (H ₂ O) contributes 36 to 66%, carbon dioxide (CO ₂ ) 9 to 26% and methane 4 to 9% to the natural greenhouse effect. ^[33]
compared

 Each method shows that, on average, water vapour contributes approximately 96% of current greenhouse gas warming.

        Thus, the factors controlling the amount of water vapour in the air also control the earth's temperature.
The resulting additional radiative forcing is discussed in the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCCin 2011 compared to the reference year 1750 net (i.e. after deducting cooling effects such as aerosols) at 2.3 W / m². Gross, all long-lived greenhouse gases caused radiative forcing of 2.83 W / m². The most important greenhouse gas was CO ₂ with 1.82 W / m², followed by methane with 0.48 W / m². Halogenated hydrocarbons caused a radiative forcing of 0.36 W / m², nitrous oxide 0.17 W / m². Of the short-lived greenhouse gases, ozone , the formation of which is stimulated by nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide or hydrocarbons, has the highest radiative forcing at 0.4 W / m². Aerosols cause negative (i.e. cooling) radiative forcing of −0.9 W / m².^[37]                                                                         
 The IPCC rates the degree of scientific understanding of the effects of greenhouse gases as "high". ^[32]
                                                                         
                                                               Ansichtssache !

Sincerely
OCWL

That we human influences with our consume the climate numbers ? Yes,we do !

But : a. winter/sommer north-planet    and             summer/winter south-planet                temperatur change from 1750 to 2021

         b. day and night temperature change since 1750 to 2021
         https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island


         c. land temperature and sea/oceanic temperature since 1750 to 2021 change
         Jet-stream and Gulf-stream currents orientation

This/Such strong differences we do not get by a such a diagram

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/db/Global_Temperature_And_Forces.svg/800px-Global_Temperature_And_Forces.svg.png

to observe


Sincerely
OCWL
p.s.:   I please for "Pardon-me !"  I did an incorrect relationship related " time window" !

https://www.wetterdienst.de/maps/topics/s_2019_2_20.png 
How much the 4 W/sqm by CO2 ppm doubling increase reflects in temperature increase ,°K or °C ?
4 W/sqm /100 W/sqm = 0,04 x moon/Earth difference 33 °K = 1,32 °K increase ,expected 2060 !
But from 1750 temperature base

Since 1850, the average global temperature has risen by 0.7 K and by 1 K in France
according to Météo France. The concentration of CO2, according to IPCC provi-
sions11, will rise by 1.4 to 5.8 K by 2100 based on evolution scenarios.
Taking the 1,32 °K and decrease the above given 0,7 °K rising since 1850 = + 0,62 °K more up to 2100 temperature rising !

  " + 0,62 °K more up to 2100 temperature rising !" clearly correct ,by above given time scheme :

                              " + 0,62 °K more up to 2060 temperature rising !

This related the the given base :

A doubling of the concentration of CO2,

compared to pre-industrial levels = 1750 with 278 ppm CO2,

could increase this value by 4 W/m2, which would cause a temperature rise.
4 W/sqm increase  in this given https://www.wetterdienst.de/maps/topics/s_2019_2_20.png  +- 340 W/sqm receiving spectrum
                                         how calculates this "340 W/sqm " number ?
                                       https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_constant 

https://www-leifiphysik-de.translate.goog/astronomie/sonne/grundwissen/solarkonstante-und-strahlungsleistung?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de

The mean value for the solar constant was established in 1982 by the World Meteorological Organization in Geneva S.0= 1367W.m2.

                    The solar constant includes radiation over the entire electromagnetic spectrum. It is measured by satellite as being 1.361 kilowatts per square meter (kW/m²) at solar minimum (the time in the 11-year solar cycle when the number of sunspots is minimal) and approximately 0.1% greater (roughly 1.362 kW/m²) at solar maximum.<sup>[1]

   The Earth receives a total amount of radiation determined by its cross section (π·R_E2), but as it rotates this energy is distributed across the entire surface area (4·π·R_E2).
Hence the average incoming solar radiation, taking into account the angle at which the rays strike and that at any one moment half the planet does not receive any solar radiation, is one-fourth the solar constant (approximately 340 W/m2).
The amount reaching the Earth's surface (as insolation) is further reduced by atmospheric attenuation, which varies. At any given moment, the amount of solar radiation received at a location on the Earth's surface depends on the state of the atmosphere, the location's latitude, and the time of day.                                  
                                              1367 W/sqm solar constant / 4 =  341,75 W/sqm
https://www-photovoltaik-org.translate.goog/wissen/globalstrahlung?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de</sup>Composition of global radiation Global radiation is made up of two components with different proportions:
 direct radiation , i.e. solar radiation that occurs directly on the earth;

diffuse radiation , that is the part of the radiation that arises from scattering of solar radiation and from reflection.
https://www-photovoltaik-org.translate.goog/wissen/diffuse-strahlung?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de
Share of diffuse radiation The solar radiation on the earth's atmosphere is 1340 W / m2.
Even with a cloudless sky, this radiation is reduced by adsorption, scattering and reflection to an average of 1000 W / m2.


https://www.energie-experten.org/erneuerbare-energien/photovoltaik/planung/sonnenstunden#c29459


While the direct radiation is only given off by the sun, the diffuse radiation comes from the entire celestial hemisphere with the exception of the solar disk and does not cast any shadows.

 The ratio of both types of radiation is about 50:50. Depending on the weather, the result is different radiation levels.

Table 1: Radiation power of solar energy according to weather situation and season Weather situation summer winter

                                                                     sommer                              winter                         annual average
clear to slightly diffuse sky                     600 to 1,000 W / m2          300 to 500 W / m2            600 W / m2

light to medium cloudy sky                     300 to    600 W / m2          150 to 300 W / m2            338 W / m2

Heavily cloudy to foggy-cloudy sky         100 to   300 W / m2             50 to 150 W / m2            150 W / m2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Average values (all weather conditions)      483 W / m2                     225 W / m2                     363 W / m2


                                                                              RELATIVITY !

                                                       From 1367 W/sqm to 1000 W/sqm
                                                                                PEAK

                                                           to all weather conditions annual

                                                                             AVERAGE                                                                  
                                                                            363 W/sqm                             

                     " ....  could increase this value by       4 W/m2        , which would cause a temperature rise. ...."   

                                    by doubling the 278 ppm CO2 (1750 )  to 578 ppm CO2 (2060 estimation )     


    https://wiki-bildungsserver-de.translate.goog/klimawandel/index.php/Klimawirkung_von_Aerosolen?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de
                  However, aerosols are the antagonists of greenhouse gases. They mask part of global warming, according to the IPCC by around -0.9 W / m2 and thus around a third of the radiative forcing of greenhouse gases since 1750.   

                 https://wiki.bildungsserver.de/klimawandel/upload/thumb/Aerosole_temp_zonal.gif/320px-Aerosole_temp_zonal.gif                                                                  RF or Radiative Forcing
https://wiki-bildungsserver-de.translate.goog/klimawandel/index.php/Strahlungsantrieb?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de
 
                                 to differ : on land and on sea changes observation (priority !)
https://bfw-ac-at.translate.goog/rz/wlv.lexikon?keywin=4389&_x_tr_sch=http&_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de The negative radiative forcing is in the order of magnitude of -1.5 W m ^-2 ("direct climate effect of the aerosol").

                                                             - 0,9 W / m² or - 1,5 W /  m²  ?
https://www-klimanavigator-eu.translate.goog/dossier/artikel/012000/index.php?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de
According to the 5th report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) from 2013, the cooling effect due to the increasing, man-made pollution of the atmosphere with aerosols between 1750 and 2011 was around -0.9 W / m2 (IPCC, 2013).

The uncertainty range is relatively large at -1.9 to -0.1 W / m2, because aerosols are very difficult to quantify due to their small size, their diversity, their short lifespan and complex reactions with one another and with other components of the atmosphere. Above all, the influence of aerosols on clouds is still poorly understood. More recent studies are about the same order of magnitude (Bellouin, N., J. Quaas, E. Gryspeerdt et al., 2020).

 Aerosols have masked a third of the radiative forcing from anthropogenic greenhouse gases (approx. 3.0 W / m2) since 1750 and reduced climate change from 1.5 ° C to 1.0 ° C by 2018 (Samset, B. H, 2018) . A recent study by Zheng et al. (2020) comes to the conclusion that aerosols have delayed climate change by around 40 years so far (Zheng, Y., Davis, S.J., Persad, G.G. et al., 2020).
                                     
                                                                        New study claim :
https://www.tudelft.nl/en/2021/tu-delft/aerosol-particles-cool-the-climate-less-than-we-thought

                                                                  Taking as base :
Aerosols have masked a third of the radiative forcing from anthropogenic greenhouse gases (approx. 3.0 W / m2) since 1750 and reduced climate change from 1.5 ° C to 1.0 ° C by 2018 (Samset, B. H, 2018) .
                                                                          Statement :
from 1750 to 2018 we have had - all climate changing factors completed/excluded aerosols influence -

                                                          an average 1,5 °C higher temperatur !
                    The influence from (all !)anthropogenic greenhouse gases from 1750-2018   : approx.  3.0 W/m²

one problem : Since 1850, the average global temperature has risen by 0.7 K ( and by 1 K in France )
                       Between Mid 1980´ to 1990´ the stationary temperature measurement method changed,international             

                       from mechanical thermometer to digital thermometer ,


                      with up to    1° K/1 °C    difference in measure !


               one measure in 1,25 meters high,others in 2 metres high ! Theoretical/practical world standarts : are different !

             
                                                   by ever observing and differing

                                                            °C   and  W/sqm use

                                      we can now read the IPCC information brevier
   
            https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf

Counter-/productive climate change action risc :

https://www-deutschlandfunk-de.translate.goog/windparks-als-klimakiller-100.html?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=deAmerican researchers have measured a warming of 0.72 degrees within a decade in an area with over 2000 wind turbines.

Similarly the "urban - heat bulb/heat island - effect " https://community.wmo.int/activity-areas/urban/urban-heat-island                            The urban heat-island effect can raise temperatures by 5^oC to 10^oC, exacerbating heat waves.
https://www-swr-de.translate.goog/wissen/1000-antworten/umwelt-und-natur/1000-antworten-1730.html?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de0.72 degrees changes clearly also the total estate numeric temperature measurement !

https://www-nnz--online-de.translate.goog/news/news_lang.php?ArtNr=273203&_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de
For the science portal “scinexx.de”, German scientists had determined that the 1,300 wind turbines installed at sea and 29,000 (as of 2018) on land in Germany had already caused an additional temperature increase of 0.27 degrees Celsius within the last five years.

https://www-eskp-de.translate.goog/energiewende-umwelt/offshore-windkraftanlagen-verwirbeln-wasser-und-luft-9351111/?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de
   Understand wake vortices in the air better     Offshore wind power turbines take energy and momentum (“momentum”) from the wind field. In the lee of the turbines, a wake vortex arises with lower wind speed (wind speed deficits of up to 20% were measured) and higher turbulence. At some distance from the wind turbine, the wake vortex gradually dissolves and the conditions adjust to the ambient conditions. This adjustment ("diffusion") takes place faster if the ambient air is also already turbulent. Therefore, wake vortices are less pronounced when the air stratification is unstable and at higher wind speeds.
   For the conditions in the German Bight, for example, the horizontal and vertical structure of the atmospheric boundary layer is strongly influenced by the coastline. When the wind blows seaward from the land and warmer layers of air come to lie over the colder sea surface, a stable layer is created offshore. A situation that is often observed in spring and summer. Such stable stratification is a favorable condition for the development of extensive wake vortices. For wake vortices of individual wind farms, lengths of up to 32 km were measured; when the effects of different wind farms were superimposed, the length was up to 72 km or even more than 100 km (Djath et al., 2018; Djath & Stellenfleth, 2019). If, on the other hand, there is an unstable stratification - with cold air, which often comes from the northwest,above a warmer sea surface - the wake vortices are weakened and are shorter. In winter, wake vortices are therefore less pronounced. These regularities not only occur in the course of the year, but can even be observed during the day: In the evening, the stratification (due to the warm air during the day) is often more stable than in the morning and the probability of wake vortices is therefore somewhat higher (Djath & Stellenfleth, 2019) .In the evening, the stratification (due to the warm air during the day) is often more stable than in the morning and the probability of wake vortices is therefore somewhat higher (Djath & Stellenfleth, 2019).In the evening, the stratification (due to the warm air during the day) is often more stable than in the morning and the probability of wake vortices is therefore somewhat higher (Djath & Stellenfleth, 2019).

https://eifelon-de.translate.goog/umland/windsterben-durch-windkraft.html?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de
After the german Eigen-expression "Waldsterben" now in future also to read   "Windsterben" ?!


 Repeating :  For wake vortices of individual wind farms, lengths of up to 32 km were measured; when the effects of different wind farms were superimposed, the length was up to 72 km or even more than 100 km (Djath et al., 2018; Djath & Stellenfleth, 2019).                                                       
    Lee and/or Luv wake vortice direction  ,Yo-Yo-effect (wave)https://www-sueddeutsche-de.translate.goog/wissen/windraeder-energiewende-windkraft-wirbel-1.5209098?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de

the turbines in "windward", i.e. on the windward side, generate wake vortices with complicated turbulence patterns. These take the wind out of the leaves of the wind turbines that are further back (in "lee"). 
                 local/regional/national/without borderline drought/rain/storm/tornado/blizzard -incubatoren :
                                                                 on-/off-shore Wind Parcs !
http://oops.uni-oldenburg.de/1162/1/kaedop11.pdf

Okay,here a first useable link related temperature influence factor and their quotes :
https://www2.klett.de/sixcms/media.php/229/29260X-1202.pdf
Beitrag zum natürlichen Treibhauseffekt
absolut                      °C            Anteil in %
Wasserdampf           20,6              62,4
Kohlenstoffdioxid       7,2               22
Ozon (bodennah)      2,4                 7,2
Distickstoffoxid          1,4                 4
Methan                      0,8                 2,4
FCKW                        0,7                 2


translated :
Contribution to the natural greenhouse effect

absolute                                 ° C            share in%

Water vapor                          20.6           62.4

Carbon dioxide                       7.2            22 

Ozone (near the ground)       2.4              7.2

Nitrous oxide                         1.4              4

Methane                                0.8              2.4

CFC                                        0.7             2

20,6 + 7,2 + 2,4 + 1,4 + 0,8 + 0,7 in °C    = totals 33,1 °C   =   the -18°C to +15 °C as natural greenhouse temperature amplitude

https://wiki-bildungsserver-de.translate.goog/klimawandel/index.php/Wasserdampf?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de

https://wiki-bildungsserver-de.translate.goog/klimawandel/index.php/Strahlungshaushalt_der_Atmosph%C3%A4re?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de
3 reflection and absorption On average, the atmosphere receives only a quarter ^{[1] of} the solar constant or 342 W / m ² of the total solar radiation due to the spherical shape of the earth and the night side facing away from the sun .
Of this radiation, however, only 235 W / m ² or 69% are actually available for warming the atmosphere and the earth's surface, since 31% or 107 W / m ² , the so-called planetary , due to the reflection on the earth's surface and in the atmosphere Albedo , immediately reflected back into space.

Of the 342 W / m ² it becomes 67 W / m ²are absorbed by clouds, water vapor, dust and ozone in the atmosphere and thus heat the atmosphere directly, while 168 W / m ² are absorbed by the earth's surface and heat it up.


http://www.pci.tu-bs.de/aggericke/PC5-Atmos/Strahlung.pdf


https://wiki-bildungsserver-de.translate.goog/klimawandel/index.php/Klimawirkung_von_Aerosolen?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de3 Global darkening and global brightening   (https://wiki.bildungsserver.de/klimawandel/upload/thumb/Aerosole_dimming.gif/320px-Aerosole_dimming.gif)   The global solar radiation on the ground according to the geographical latitude    With regard to the natural influencing factors, an astonishing paradox emerges. On the one hand, the global temperature has increased significantly; on the other hand, numerous measuring stations around the world show a decrease in solar radiation on the ground of around 7 W / m ² from the 1960s to the 1980s .

The explanation is seen in the increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gases and the associated increase in water vapor on the one hand and in anthropogenic aerosols and the associated increase in the reflection of solar radiation and cloud cover on the other. ^[4]

Aerosols weaken solar radiation both directly in a cloud-free atmosphere and indirectly by changing the cloud cover.
In addition, aerosols change the vertical temperature profile due to the strong cooling effect on the ground and the partial warming in the middle troposphere. This can have significant consequences for the hydrological cycle.
Since the middle of the 20th century, recent studies have distinguished three phases in the radiation effect of aerosols: ^[5]
 a significant weakening of solar radiation in the 1950s-1980s, which is referred to as "global dimming",
an increase in solar radiation from the 1980s to 2000, sometimes called "global brightening",
from 2000 a decrease in the "brightening" with a renewed weakening of the solar radiation.
 Accordingly, the course of the global mean temperature since the middle of the 20th century can at least partially be explained by the influence of aerosols. ^[5]

This is especially true for the northern hemisphere, from which by far most of the anthropogenic aerosols originate.

From 1950 to 1980, the strong aerosol concentration in the northern hemisphere had a cooling effect that roughly offset the greenhouse effect through anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Accordingly, there was no significant warming or a minimal cooling of -0.002 ° C per decade during this time. Since the 1980s, the emission of aerosol precursors, especially sulfur dioxide, has decreased significantly as a result of air pollution control measures in developed industrial countries and the partial collapse of old socialist industry. The significant increase in the mean temperature of the northern hemisphere between 1980 and 2000 by 0.3 ° C per decade was certainly influenced by this.



The southern hemisphere, on the other hand, shows a continuous warming of a little more than 0.1 ° C per decade between 1950 and 2000.
Since the turn of the century, aerosol pollution has been increasing again due to the rapid industrialization in the emerging countries, especially in China and India. This may explain the small changes in temperature since around 2000. ^[5] The anthropogenic emissions of sulfate aerosols have risen from 106 Tg SO ₂ in 2000 to 112 Tg SO ₂increased in 2005. The main reason was the increased share of Asia, especially China and India, from 41 to 52% of global emissions, while in the same period the share of North America and Europe (including Russia) fell from 38 to 25%. However, between 2005 and 2011 global emissions fell again from 112 to 101 Tg SO2 because China, the largest aerosol emitter, significantly reduced its emissions through control measures at power plants. ^[6] A share of anthropogenic aerosols in the lack of temperature rise can therefore not be assumed. ^[7] 

Let us not go back to 1750 but to the beginning from the 20th century :

https://wiki.bildungsserver.de/klimawandel/upload/thumb/CCC_global_temp1850-2020.jpg/440px-CCC_global_temp1850-2020.jpg
when,at which fixed hour/time from day/night ,these temperatures were measured ?!

Influencefactor : "chronological natural/anthropenic "summer/winter time" !

https://de-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Sommerzeit?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de
BUT : Such a regulation is used almost exclusively in temperate zone countries.
"temperate zone" : ?             https://www.greenfacts.org/glossary/tuv/temperate-zone.htm

For comparation : 1 year temperature measurement in "temperate zone countries" a. with and b. without anthropogenic time change !

Seconds : the greatest terrestric active GWpotential ?
1. the "urban heat islands"(energy source-green or black energy-independent) 
    the urban subsurface heat deposit

2. and the agriculture/florestal work by ground color change !
    Color and its absorption or reflection effect and ground surface roughness !
https://www-fis-uni--bonn-de.translate.goog/recherchetools/infobox/profis/was-ist-fernerkundung/reflexion-und-absorption?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de
https://www-spektrum-de.translate.goog/lexikon/geowissenschaften/bodenrauhigkeit/2106?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de

Going back to 1750 : circa  750 Mio. habitants on earth with sqm " soil/floor/ground sealing " per capita !?
                      2020 : circa 7500 Mio. habitants on earth with sqm "soil/floor/ground sealing " per capita !?

https://de-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Fl%C3%A4chenversiegelung?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de
https://www-tagesspiegel-de.translate.goog/wissen/ich-mache-mir-grosse-sorgen-berlins-grundwasser-heizt-sich-immer-weiter-auf/24416078.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de
Cholera from the groundwater That it should therefore be protected from contamination became clear in the middle of the 19th century. Several thousand people died as a result of cholera outbreaks. Soon the "underground water" was suspected to have something to do with it. According to a request by the doctor Rudolf Virchow, a total of 30 pipes were driven underground in 1869 at the instigation of city planning officer James Hobrecht in order to observe the groundwater, i.e. to measure the water level and temperature.
The approach was correct: Robert Koch later found the pathogen, the bacterium Vibrio cholerae, and it was recognized that these had got into the groundwater from faeces and infected numerous people. Virchow's request had another use.


Thanks to her, there have been groundwater observations in Berlin for 150 years, the longest series of measurements of this kind in Germany.
In the nineties, the researcher systematically set up a city-wide monitoring network.


                                                              "What's that for? It's no use,"   
the geologist remembers who would have said at the time.
He went on, drawing on the ancient records dating back to Virchow's time, and making amazing discoveries.Limberg shows on a map how the temperature of the groundwater is distributed across Berlin at a depth of 20 meters:
in the peripheral areas it is around eight to ten degrees, i.e. close to the mean air temperature.

In the center, however, it is over 13 degrees, locally up to 20 degrees.

The air temperature is also higher there , but not to the same extent.


                                "heat islands air temperature" and "heat island ground temperature"
                                                            heat storage-effect like :
             https://de-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Latentw%C3%A4rmespeicher?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de
When using latent heat storage for solar heat storage of heating energy for the winter, the investments are higher, but the system saves a lot of space compared to the use of water tanks or gravel and can give off heat more evenly than these because of the utilization of latent heat.
                                    all urban regions are today like  solar heat storage working !


https://www-buch--der--synergie-de.translate.goog/c_neu_html/c_10_07_e_speichern_thermisch.htm?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de

                                                        Material  heat storage

The commonly used heat accumulators are usually very voluminous, have to be very well insulated and are nevertheless not able to store the heat over long periods of time.



As an alternative, there are various materials that are available everywhere and in virtually unlimited quantities, such as sand, soil and rock. Concrete or ceramic elements can also be used as storage materials.

                                   " anthropogenic geothermal heat storage " as GWPotential
                        https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials

                                                                 

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep33708
Urban areas are major contributors to air pollution and climate change, causing impacts on human health that are amplified by the microclimatological effects of buildings and grey infrastructure through the urban heat island (UHI) effect.

But : this anthropogenic "geothermic heat islands"-effect can also be seen as source :
https://www.axpo.com/ch/en/about-us/magazine.detail.html/magazine/renewable-energy/geothermal-heat-islands.html

A nice productive week wishing


OCWL
p.s.: interestant   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland

without ice : https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/Topographic_map_of_Greenland_bedrock.jpg/290px-Topographic_map_of_Greenland_bedrock.jpg
also interestant :
In 1950, Denmark agreed to allow the US to regain the use of Thule Air Base; it was greatly expanded between 1951 and 1953 as part of a unified NATO Cold War defense strategy. The local population of three nearby villages was moved more than 100 kilometres (62 mi) away in the winter. The United States tried to construct a subterranean network of secret nuclear missile launch sites in the Greenlandic ice cap, named Project Iceworm. According to documents declassified in 1996,^[64] this project was managed from Camp Century from 1960 to 1966 before abandonment as unworkable.^[65] The missiles were never fielded and necessary consent from the Danish Government to do so was never sought. The Danish government did not become aware of the program's mission until 1997, when they discovered it while looking, in the declassified documents, for records related to the crash of a nuclear equipped B-52 bomber at Thule in 1968.^[66]

and related

https://www-geo-de.translate.goog/natur/geheimes-us-projekt-offenbart--groenlands-eis-juenger-als-gedacht-30438114.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de

As the researchers report in their study published in the journal PNAS, such plants can only have grown at a time when Greenland was largely ice-free. For example in a boreal coniferous forest.

  Greenland's ice sheet less stable than expected  The real sensation, however, came with the age determination: An isotope analysis showed that the "freeze-dried" plant parts and minerals can only be a few hundred thousand to a maximum of a million years old. The previous assumption that the ice sheet in Greenland has existed in its current extent for around 2.6 million years is therefore no longer valid. Just like the ideas about the stability of the kilometer-thick ice sheet in the face of climate change.

greener,warmer, Groenland climate than today periods :   

https://www.derstandard.de/story/2000125475271/was-die-klimageschichte-der-arktis-ueber-die-erderwaermung-verraet
Strong sunlight The dating of the sample led the team of scientists to a warm period 549,000 to 588,000 years ago. "This section is actually considered to be globally cool compared to the present. The growth of this sinter of soil at that time shows, however, that the Arctic must have been warmer than it is today," explains Moseley.

Today the north-east of the Arctic is dry and with little precipitation, a polar desert characterized by permafrost. At that time it was warm enough that there was running water in a cave.

 The existence of the speleothemes in this region as well as the analysis of the chemical signatures contained therein showed that it was at least 3.5 degrees Celsius warmer than it is today. The analysis of the sample also suggests that soils are covered with humus in this region - and thus that there is vegetation. Today there is nothing but bare rock.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2948/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/
                                                            International  Standarts ( eventually by international conference convention)
                                                        "International        Standarts" by national point of view

                                                                                 
https://www-wissen-de.translate.goog/raetsel/hoehenangaben-warum-beziehen-sie-sich-auf-verschiedene-nullpunkte?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de
During the construction of the Rhine bridge between the German and Swiss parts of the city of Laufenburg, something embarrassing happened:

there is a height difference of 54 centimeters between the two sides.
                                                   
The cause: Switzerland takes the level of the Mediterranean as the zero point,
                  Germany (its zero point ) is based on the North Sea.

Ideal world, real world In an ideal world with an ideal sea, the level would be the same everywhere. The sea surface would be smooth and would have the same physical height everywhere:



                                              zero meters or sea level (NN).


However, there are some things in the real world that do not allow such an ideal picture:
 tides, uneven mass distribution within the rock masses of the earth,

a greater centrifugal force at the equator than at the pole,

different salinity, different temperatures, currents, waves and winds.
Reading climate-new and numbers relativation to real world heights :

https://www-spiegel-de.translate.goog/wissenschaft/natur/groenlaendischer-eisschild-schmilzt-massiv-ab-a-23a996a9-eca2-4c98-b7a1-b895217b29e1?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de
According to a European study published in January, sea levels will rise ten to 18 centimeters by 2100 - or 60 percent faster than previously thought - if the Greenland ice sheet melts as quickly as it does now.
From 2012 - 2100 ten to 18 centimeters more/higher "mean sea level" -
Groenland  2.166.000 km² area and the total Arctis with ice melting potential 21 000 000 km²
and
the continent Antarctica  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic and South-America

+ regional https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound up to 0,5 mm or 0,05 cm per annum
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
summa summarum : 50 centimeters or 0,5 m up to 2100 p.C. the "mean sea level " increase potential
                                                          Nordsee/North-Sea
https://halligen-de.translate.goog/halligleben/halligleben-heute/landunter?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de
                                                          Ostsee/Baltic Sea
a regional example about several different factors/parameters and the result :
 The tides and the Baltic Sea  After so much theory, we now know how the tides are formed, how they affect and we have even got to know the displacements and inequalities, but what does it look like in concrete terms on the Baltic Sea?



We remember in April 2003 the water level was almost 1 meter higher than usual. 
We know that the influence of the tides on marginal seas and the Baltic Sea is a marginal sea, is very limited. In the Kattegat, for example, we have a tidal range of around 30 cm, which decreases to around 10 cm in the central Baltic Sea and increases again to 20 cm in St. Petersburg due to the length of the Finnish sea bosom. In contrast, the tidal range decreases to a few centimeters in the northern part of the Baltic Sea. 
We know what is meant by tide, but what is a tidal range? According to DIN 13312, the tidal range is the arithmetic mean of the rise and fall of a tide . This is necessary because the water level before and after a tide can have different water levels. 
To summarize: 10 cm of the water rise could at best have been caused by tides. But that's not enough, what about the remaining 90 cm?
 
https://www-nautisches-com.translate.goog/index.php?id=gezeiten&_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de
                                                                       the tide
https://www-nautisches-com.translate.goog/index.php?id=gezeiten_ostsee&_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de
If we transfer our findings to the Baltic Sea, we can assume that a water height difference of approx. 30 to 60 cm could arise due to changes in air pressure.If we add our 10 cm from the tides, we have a water height difference of 40 to 70 cm. It looks pretty good, but unfortunately these values ​​are still not enough.

https://www-nautisches-com.translate.goog/index.php?id=wind_wasserstand&_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de

If the wind turns to the southwest and lasts again for a few days, it pushes the water masses of the Baltic Sea towards the northeast and the water level in the Bay of Kiel can be one meter below the mean water level.
Hear and be amazed, even on the Baltic Sea, water level changes of plus one meter to minus one meter, i.e. two meters, can occur, which are caused by the wind.
So that is the remaining water height that we were missing!

About real world meteorological/climatological mesurement I mean to recommend :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Geiger
https://books.google.com.cu/books?id=X6-TBwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
https://books.google.pt/books?id=X6-TBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA129&lpg=PA129&dq=einfluss+bodenfarbe+auf+lufttemperatur&source=bl&ots=6dU2xLqn1t&sig=ACfU3U27o9AzsemdYUo4tVtwZVeSUJn7eA&hl=de&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwih3q7Aod_0AhUHJBoKHVznDnYQ6AF6BAgpEAM#v=onepage&q=einfluss%20bodenfarbe%20auf%20lufttemperatur&f=false
           free radiation surface temperature                     /         shadowed and wind-free near-surface (= 2 mtr hight ) air temperature

New scientifical study disclosure :

 https://www-n--tv-de.translate.goog/wissen/Baeume-wachsen-nur-an-einigen-Tagen-article22993971.html?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de