Guest essay by Robin Pittwood, Kiwi Thinker
Abstract
The core of the human caused global warming proposition is that an increasing level of greenhouse gases acts to reduce heat loss from the planet making the atmosphere here warmer. The amount of warming anticipated by the IPCC models is from about one to several degrees C for a doubling of CO2 concentration. But a conundrum has arisen lately: While CO2 has continued rise significantly the temperature has not. There has been no global warming since about 1997. Scientists on both sides of the debate have noticed this and have offered something like 55 explanations as to why this could be so. Some of those explanations lock into the dogma built into the IPCC models, taking for certain that the greenhouse effect is increasing, but because there is no atmospheric temperature rise, they then have to explain the retained heat is somewhere else.
But is the greenhouse effect occurring as the IPCC models propose?
This study analysed two important factors directly associated with the greenhouse effect; atmospheric temperature and outgoing radiation, and finds that outgoing radiation has not declined. The missing heat has gone back to space as usual. But more importantly the (lack of a) trend observed in an empirical derivation of the Stefan Boltzmann relative emissivity factor directly contradicts the greenhouse theory built into the IPCC models.
Article
Regular readers at any of the main climate change blogs will be aware that since about 1997 there has been nearly no global temperature rise. And they will know too, that this is despite atmospheric CO2 concentration continuing to rise. To date there are some 55 ideas to explain this slowdown in global warming. Some of the ‘explanations’ presume the so-called ‘greenhouse effect’ must still be increasing as the IPCC models calculate; it’s just that the heat has hidden elsewhere, maybe deep in the ocean.
This study, based on 34 years of satellite data; outgoing longwave infrared radiation (OLWIR) and temperature, demonstrates otherwise.
I used three data sets, OLWIR from NOAA, and the average of both UAH and RSS for global temperature.
I obtained monthly average OLWIR (W/m2) for each 2.5 degree latitude by 2.5 degree longitude area of the globe. After converting the netCDF files to Excel, I scaled each 2.5*2.5 area’s OLWIR to account for the varying size of its area, resulting in a global average OLWIR. (There was some missing data mid 1994 to early 1995. I populated this by a linear interpolation). The resulting annual average OLWIR is shown in the graph below for the years 1979 to 2012. While there is some variation, OLWIR has generally increased over the period, maximising lately at around 233 W/m2.
The temperature data is also plotted on the graph below.
It is noted that while there is some variation, temperature also has generally increased over the period, maximising lately at around 0.2 oC.
The relationship between temperature and emitted radiation should follow a universal law of physics. Stefan Boltzmann’s law states the emitted radiation is the product of the fourth power of absolute temperature and an emissivity factor. A reduction in the emissivity factor means less outgoing radiation for a given temperature, and that would indicate a stronger greenhouse effect. An increase in the emissivity factor means more outgoing radiation for a given temperature, and that would indicate a more transparent atmosphere. The study derived earth’s emissivity factor for each of the 34 years and the results displayed.
Using an average global temperature of 287 Kelvin added to the temperature anomaly, the relative emissivity has been derived for each year using the formula:
RE = j / (k*T^4)
where RE is the relative emissivity, j is OLWIR, k is the Stefan Boltzmann constant, and T is the temperature.
If the greenhouse effect was increasing, relative emissivity should be declining. A quick look at the graphs shows clearly this is not the case. Our planet’s relative emissivity has been flat-lining, despite increasing CO2 concentration over the study period. The derived emissivity factor, being basically constant, directly contradicts all of the IPCC models. No increased greenhouse effect is observed.
Findings:
The two primary findings of this empirical study are:
· Outgoing radiation has not declined over this period as expected by IPCC models. In fact it has increased. The missing heat has gone back to space – as usual and in the quantity as per Stefan Boltzmann’s law, via OLWIR, and
· The increasing greenhouse effect expected by IPCC models, is not evident in the measurements. It appears there has been no increased greenhouse effect over this period. [A closer inspection of the relative emissivity trend shows the atmosphere is even becoming a little more transparent – though little should be made of this given the variability of the data] and the scale.]
Conclusion:
The core of the human caused global warming proposition is that an increasing level of greenhouse gases acts to reduce heat loss from the planet making the atmosphere here warmer. But is the greenhouse effect occurring as the IPCC models propose? This study analysed two important factors directly associated with the greenhouse effect, atmospheric temperature and outgoing radiation, and finds that the trends observed, along with an empirical derivation of the Stefan Boltzmann relative emissivity factor directly contradicts the greenhouse theory built into the IPCC models.
The original post on this study may be found here.
Nicely done. CO2 is definitely not the control knob on temperatures. But how many times are we going to have to disprove AGW and CAGW? Time and time again, skeptics have shown CO2 is an incredibly weak GHG.
Concise, nice article showing emissivity has remained relatively constant from 1979-2013. No indication that increasing CO2 is doing anything to influence the corresponding mean annual temperature over the same period. Thank you.
We face the task of putting the toothpaste back in the tube when we attempt to convince the public that CO2 is not harmful….the results of “big lie” psychology. The same is true in another way with the “big liars” in that simply too much is invested in this hypothesis by many alarmist scientists.
Nature will eventually decide, but until then I am just going to enjoy this rare interlude of pleasant climate.
One thing has been bothering me about using a trend lines and averages for the temperature. Temperature is only a proxy for the total heat content of the atmosphere. Given everything else being equal, the energy that is not radiated away shows up as a temperature increase, but only in terms of the minimum temperature. Any temperature higher than that minimum represents energy that is going to be radiated to space. So over time, the net increase (or decrease) is the change in the lowest global temperature recorded. The higher values are just noise riding on top of the signal. Averaging over time is bad because you would be averaging the noise into the signal.
Of course this doesn’t account for the affect of ocean heat absorption/release. However consider the 1998 super el ninõ. Temps dropped rapidly after that showing that the energy released to the atmosphere must have either been radiated away or somehow reabsorbed by the ocean since that is the only sink that I can see.
Nice data sets. 1998 El Nino is visible at the top of the athmosphere with lack. Do we have differences in these curves between land and sea areas, hemispheres ?
CO2 curves are implicit in this report. What else is diffrerent in our athmosphere? No big volcanoes lately? Humidity ? Clouds? O3, S, C particles .. ?
What has Roy Spencer to say about this?
The NOAA data I used has a separate W/m2 figure for each 2.5 degree latitude by 2.5 degree longitude, so theoretically someone could allocate each of the areas to land or ocean. It is possible to get higher resolution data too, ie: 1 degree by 1 degree.
There are of course lots of reasons the temperature rises and falls, you’ve mentioned several possibilities. Those things happen and it causes variability. My aim was to look at the greenhouse effect using SB-RE in relation to temperature, whatever it was.
“Stefan Boltzmann’s law states the emitted radiation is the product of the fourth power of absolute temperature and an emissivity factor.”
There are caveats here, and they affect your analysis. SB states that emission from a black body. over all wavelengths, varies with the absolute temperature at the emitting surface. Issues:
1. The earth is not a black body. The outgoing spectrum has a very big dip in the CO2 absorption region. This reflects that the emission there is from high altitude. So there is no constant (over frequency) emissivity factor. This matters.
2. You have used the UAH/RSS lower troposphere temperatures. But a large part of the radiation comes from the tropopause, and another chunk (atmospheric window) from the surface. LT temp is a very rough approx.
A further point on temperature. Although you have used lower troposphere anomalies, you have converted to absolute by adding 287K, the ground average temperature. Not only do they not match, but ground is certainly a poor approx for the actual emission region (at most frequencies).
Nick raises some valid questions. Attempting to model the whole climate system as a uniform “grey body” is as abhorrent as the simplistic GHG warming the author is trying to refute.
The article is interesting and I’ll give it a closer look but Nick points are legitimate.
I’m not sure that I see one grossly simplistic and physically unrealistic account is sufficient to disprove another one.
AGW has had a good run even though it does not match for 18 years of the 36 years of the satellite record. It is probably helpful to show you can prove whatever result pleases you with such simplistic analyses.
Strawman again Nick.
OLR ?
I’m not sure that I see one grossly simplistic and physically unrealistic account is sufficient to disprove another one.
======================
If the “accepted” GHG treatment of SB yields a contradiction when applied consistently, then the only valid argument is that the “accepted” treatment must be wrong.
Given that A is true, then applying A to observation yields a contradiction. Thus, either the observations are false or A is false. Since we accept that the observations are true, then A must be false.
A = GHG theory.
Hair splitting. If CO2 is increasing surface temperature as proposed, then OLR should be growing slower than surface temperatures would suggest. Especially given the alarms raised worldwide over this subject.
But instead the opposite is observed. OLR is actually growing slightly faster than temperature, which suggests if anything that CO2 has a negative GHG effect.
This result directly contradicts one of the central predictions of CO2 GHG theory.
GHG is a stupid term coined by someone who does not know how a greenhouse works. All the so called GHG’s are in fact good adsorbers of IR and therefore must be good emitters of IR. Extra GHG’s will increase cooling as energy adsorbed is emitted to outer space, thus increasing the planet’s overall OLR. Another reason why the GHEtheory is rubbish.
For once, I agree with Nick Stokes. For references to atmospheric models, see
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2009/03/radical-new-hypothesis-on-the-effect-of-greenhouse-gases/
http://www.geo.utexas.edu/courses/387h/Lectures/chap2.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealized_greenhouse_model
For a simple numerical example:
Let the flux from the sun to the ground be 4 joules/unit time*unit
area,
and stay constant.
–> SUN
–>
–>
–>
–>
With no greenhouse gases, the earth will either heat up or cool down
until
the outgoing flux from the earth is equal to the incoming flux from
the sun.
Sun –> O O O O <– <– <–O O–> <–
You've now got an unbalanced situation where 5 joules/unit time*unit
area
are hitting the earth, 4 from the sun and half of the 2 from the
atmosphere,
and only 3 joules per second are leaving the earth, the 2 not
absorbed by
the gas, and half of the 2 from the atmosphere. The atmosphere will
gradually
warm up until outgoing flux from the atmosphere, plus the fraction of
the flux from the
earth not intercepted by the atmosphere, equals the incoming amount
from the sun.
Since in my example, half of the outgong flux is intercepted by the
atmosphere,
the watts hitting the earth's surface will increase to
1/(1-1/4) = 4/3 of 4 joules/(unit time*unit area) = 5 1/3 joules/(unit
time*unit area).
Remember the atmosphere is intercepting half of this, so 16/6 joules
(unit time*unit area)
is intercepted by the greenhouse gas atmosphere, and another half,
16/6 joules, escapes
directly to space.
The final equilibrium balance is
16/12 Earth
O–>16/12 16/12(from atmosphere)–>Earth
Sun –>4
16/6 to atmosphere <– Earth
of which 8/6 to space, 8/8 back to Earth
16/6 to space <– Earth
Kiwi Thinker is trying to measure the INSTANT when the additional outgoing CO2 suddenly blocks outgoing radiation from earth's surface. If a significant fraction of CO2 were instantaneously dumped into the atmosphere, Kiwi Thinker's algorithm would work. The REAL world starts out just about in equilibrium,
while an infinitesmal amount of CO2 is constantly being added to the atmosphere.
With NO change in atmospheric CO2, Kiwi Thinker's algorithm might measure a constant 232 watts/square meter being radiated to space, fluctuating a little over time due to random variations in cloud cover, changes in distance from sun, etc. Doubling Earth's CO2 instantaneously would show an instantaneous drop of 3.7 watts, before the atmospheric radiation regained equilibrium.
Applying his system to the REAL world, with the atmosphere and earth balance changing infinitesmally, and trying to get back into balance, his system might measure a constant 231.99 watts radiated from earth. The difference would be less than measurement error and fluctuations due to cloud cover, etc.
LT temp is a far more atmosphere then the surface stations cover, which are more questionable for many reasons. OLWIR covers all energy escaping to space yes? The surface energy must pass through the LT no? Troposphere T was expected to rise at about double the surface rate as I recall yes? It has not come close. The projected warming at the surface and in the troposphere has failed to happen. The expected reduction in OLWIR has also apparently failed to happen.
The emission is given by the fourth power of the temperature, multiplied by the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, and for emitters other than black bodies, an emissivity factor. Robin seems to have contracted both factors into a single emissivity factor. We can assume he is aware that the earth is not a black body.
Of course, this is not a strict analysis of the IR emission of the real earth-atmosphere system, and this should have been stated more clearly. However, the pseudo-emissivity calculated here can still provide a useful relative measure of the greenhouse effect. The ground temperature should determine how much energy is radiated into the lowest layer of the atmosphere. If the impedance of the atmosphere increases, than the pseudo-emissivity should decrease, as stated by the author. It would be better, of course, if the temperatures were analysed on the same grid as the OLR, if the satellite data sets provide that resolution (I would abstain from using the garbage collected by GISS and the other station data sets).
BTW it is not Stefan Boltzmann’s law — both Stefan and Boltzmann are last names, so it is the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
The outgoing spectrum has a very big dip in the CO2 absorption region.
So presumably an even bigger dip in the H2O absorption region, I imagine.
Nick raises some valid questions
==================
Unfortunately Nick is selective in his application of the facts. SB is the basis of GHG theory. You cannot selectively discount SB when it disproves GHG theory, and then at the same time claim that GHG theory based on SB is valid.
Either GHG based on SB is invalid because you cannot treat earth as a black body, or you must accept that applying SB directly contradicts one of the central predictions of GHG theory.
BINGO.. thank you! ferdberple
Ferdberple,
You have hit the nail on the head. Nick is in part correct saying that you can’t treat the land/ocean/atmosphere system as a blackbody. But this caveat also applies to the 255K “surface without atmosphere calculation.
The oceans are not a near blackbody, they are a SW selective surface and standard SB equations cannot be used. We do not have a 255K surface being raised 33K by a radiative atmosphere, we have an ocean surface being cooled from around 335K by a radiatively cooled atmosphere.
What Robin is showing is a perfect fit for a radiatively cooled atmosphere having a net cooling effect on the surface. The failed radiative GHE hypothesis does not fit, as OLR should drop as surface temperatures rise.
Nick:
I find it interesting that the climate cabal seem to think that they have a lock on the understanding of radiative heat transfer. Hottel was studying this in the 1940’s at MIT. He brought his analysis to 4 ft.atm with a maximum emissivity of about 0.2 from 0 F to 3,600 F. Leckner showed that CO2 emissivity maxes out at about 0.18 at a path length of about 500 bar.cm (or about 16 ft.atm). In the 4.3 um vibration rotation band of CO2, HITRAN has about 12,500 lines. HITEMP has about 185,000. So it isn’t that we consider fewer bands. It is interesting that Leckner’s sensitivity is lower than Hottel’s. In combustion engineering, as in climate, the closer you look, the lower the impact, at high levels (300 ppm is high) of CO2. Note that these consider concentration and distance. The “blanket” argument you are using is double counting.
Good point John. However it falls on deaf ears. I and others have noted this for years. I have asked several persons that post here what the emissivity of CO2 is at 1 atmosphere and 255 K. Crickets.
In reply to:
>mkelly November 9, 2014 at 9:30 am
>I have asked several persons that post here what the
>emissivity of CO2 is at 1 atmosphere and 255 K. Crickets.
I have a pdf of just such an analysis and a forcing curve generated from it here:
http://johneggert.wordpress.com/2010/09/26/the-path-length-approximation/
Also, I have posted a PDF of the leckner curves for those who want to see how little the impact of increasing CO2 is at very high concentrations . . . such as 300 ppm in the atmosphere.
Cheers
JE
“The law is highly accurate only for ideal black objects, the perfect radiators, called black bodies; it works as a good approximation for most “grey” bodies.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law
Using words such as “this matters” and “rough” without context, and ignoring the article’s context, and your response is nothing more than a strawman.
But a large part of the radiation comes from the tropopause …
What do you mean by the above statement? IIRC the tropopause marks the altitude at which the stratosphere begins, a fictitious line in the atmosphere. A large part of the radiation comes from a fictitious line?
Yes Nick, the earth is not a black body. It’s a grey body. I certainly didn’t mean to imply it was a black body. I calculated the ‘relative emissivity’ from the numbers I had, and got close to 0.6 with a presumed ground temperature of 287K. So my result was that earth is a grey body with 60% emissivity of a black body.
I took satellite temperatures because they cover the whole planet. I thought they’d be best for a global calculation. I tried two other offsets, 273k and 263k, and the derived relative emissivities were about 0.73 and 0.85 respectively. However, the trends are the same. Basically a horizontal line – with a tiny move upwards over the 34 year period.
My argument is not based on the absolute value of the relative emissivity factor, it is based on its trend not diminishing to a lower value over the period.
Bottom line, in many temp records, we are on track for a record warm year and there is no El Niño. When is that last time that happened?
Both satellite data sets show the 2014 warming anomaly at only 1/2 the 1998 anomaly (Nowhere near the warmest) NH snow cover is near an all time high. SH sea ice is near an all time high. NH sea ice is about 75% above two years ago. The great lakes are very cool, up to 6 C lower then normal.
Only the surface stations, with 30% of the readings extrapolated (not real) has this year near a record year.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/11/09/massive-data-tampering-with-us-temperature-records-reverse-century-long-cooling-trend/
We don’t live in the troposphere.
We don’t live in the sea either!
If SST’s really were at the record levels claimed, this TLT temperatures would have responded by now, just as they do everytime there is an El Nino.
We do live in the NH with record snow cover We live in the cooling USA. And the divergence is not logical and indicative of errors and adjustments in the surface data set.
trafamadore,
On your planet you don’t live in the troposphere, we understand that.
But we on Earth do. We like it there. All Earthlings live in the troposphere.
You don’t live in the troposphere huh? I think we have crab people among us.
We are on track for a recoed year of temperature fraud. The satelite data indicate between the 8th and 4th warmest. Still 2 months to go. At least show your data when stating “Bottom line, in many temp records, we are on track for a record warm year “
Are you serious? What happens in a single year is not significant, what matters is the trend.
There’s been no global warming in this century – but there’s been no significant cooling either. So, by definition, we’re still at the top. Therefore it’s very easy for short term variations to set new records.
trafamadore said: “We don’t live in the troposphere”
The troposphere is the lowest portion of Earth’s atmosphere. We all live in the troposphere.
trafamadore which “many temp records”?
the 1930’s
Trafamadore:
I hope things are going better for you in your developmental genetics research than they are in your climate studies.
By the way, does ontogeny recapitulate phylogeny?
Record warm year since when? Only 135 years of comparable data?
There is an El Nino albeit weak.
On the site CO2now they go into debt explaining the IPCC models and how accurate they have been with previous years. They show a lovely graph that demonstates the models ability to follow the real temperature trend. The graph conveniently ends at 2005, almost 10 years ago
When visiting junk sci websites I leave a comment that unbiased information can be obtained at WUWT. Then I run Malwarebytes, just to be sure…
The empirical observations and subsequent analysis presented here agrees with Ferenc Miskolczi’s work recently high-lighted at Tallbloke’s Talkshop.
Let’s not get dogmatic about this just yet. The presented graphs show the trend of exported IR going in the direction described by the author, but don’t we need to relate the numbers for IR and temperature a bit more carefully before we jump to conclusions? Surely we would expect increased radiation according to SB with or without a greenhouse effect? And, as Nick Stokes points out, identifying the quantum we would need to use for the budget is a lot more complicated than stated?
“Surely we would expect increased radiation according to SB with or without a greenhouse effect?” — my published study on total solar radiation and net radiation showed 10.5 plus or minus 0.5 years cycle and its multiples. That means, these two parameters follow natural rhythm.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Where is “my published study”?
SB Law is easily applied to a surface, or to a system as a whole. But in the context of the global warming debate, care must be taken in its application. The GHE can increase surface temperatures without changing emissivity. SB Law is about how much energy is radiated, the GHE is in part about from where it is radiated. Photons escaping to space from earth could originate anywhere from surface to TOA. Changing the percentage of them that escape from any given altitude would change the temperature profile from TOA to surface without changing the total energy flux to space.
I hate to agree with Nick, but in this case he is correct in my opinion.
Why is the emotion of “hate” involved in a scientific question? Ego? Ego and reputation is what led Ptolemy’s followers to the dust-bin of history — i.e. forgotten.
For this intellectual Climate “Enterprise”, we all must become LtCommander Data’s or Commander Spock’s. So ditch the emotions. Understand the data and the science, and leave egos behind. Discard discredited explanations of the data and accept that what is left may be correct.
So ditch the emotions.
OK. With no emotion at all, I agree with Nick.
Nick being a warmist, and I being a skeptic, make of that what you will.
Hate in this context means unwilling. It’s a figure of speech, the richness of the english language. If we had no ego then we would not be human.
I’d say, it shows that davidmhoffer is human and a fair one. Warmists are generally doing things which take away our freedom to thrive, but they can be right about things. Being fair and balanced shows the high level of open minded thinking davidmhoffer has. He is both human and open minded. That’s what I take of his statement.
David, you say “Photons escaping to space from earth could originate anywhere from surface to TOA. Changing the percentage of them that escape from any given altitude would change the temperature profile from TOA to surface without changing the total energy flux to space.”
Yet, if the T profile changes at different elevations within the atmosphere, but overall the atmosphere does not gain energy, then said warming and off setting cooling of disparate elevations of the atmosphere, is somewhat limited and this is not the main warming expected from the GHE as I understand it.
My understanding of the GHE is that given steady state insolation, more up welling LWIR is redirected back into the atmosphere and surface, thus increasing the residence time of LWIR radiation within the earth, while solar insolation continues, thus resulting in less OLWIR, and more overall warming, not just a change in the lapse rate.
Please feel free to correct this impression.
A further thought if you please. If the surface warms, but the atmosphere above that does not, then would not convection and conduction between those levels accelerate, somewhat offsetting the change in radiation due to changes in the GH composition of the atmosphere?
According to SB Law, the effective black body temperature of earth (the temperature of the earth/atmosphere system as a whole as seen from space) is exactly the same (at equilibrium) after CO2 doubles as before.
Think of it like a teeter totter, one end on the ground, the other in the air. Measure its height above ground every ten centimeters from one end to the other, and calculate an average. Then push the high end of the teeter totter down by some amount. Measure height above ground at the same points as before and calculate the average again. Hmmm. Exactly the same number. But the high end is now lower than it was before, and the low end is higher…..
So, assuming we are talking about equilibrium states and ignoring all the messy stuff in between while CO2 levels are in flux rather than fixed at the before and after values, the increase in CO2 results in a change in the Mean Radiating Level, with temps above the MRL going down and temps below the MRL going up. As seen from space though, the exact same amount of energy is escaping. Any particular photon that escapes however, does so (on average) from a higher altitude.
As to your follow up question, yes, to figure out what the end result is, you’d have to figure out what all the feedback effects of changing evaporation, convection, conduction, etc etc etc were to calculate the actual effect at surface. The climate models are clearly not capable of doing this, and are predicated upon faulty assumptions about the science itself. That, coupled with cleverly worded descriptions of the science that give a false impression of the physics have lead to the current CAGW hysteria. That doesn’t change the physics that is correct though, and I am in agreement with Nick Stokes for that reason.
If the radiation remains in balance but the CO2 alters the thermal profile of the atmosphere there is a possibility for there to be climatic change.
I’m not sure of where or what but different is possible.
But CAGW would be hard to support in this context. a very trivial change in cloud could be the only outcome.
Very very interesting Ha
davidmhoffer says,
“According to SB Law, the effective black body temperature of earth (the temperature of the earth/atmosphere system as a whole as seen from space) is exactly the same (at equilibrium) after CO2 doubles as before.”
Exactly. That’s the idea. So under no circumstance is total OLR from the ToA allowed to increase over time if a strengthened rGHE is to be the cause of the warming in the medium and long term. The OLR is only ever allowed to grow back (through surface/troposphere warming) to where it started before the enhanced ‘radiative forcing’ was effectuated. We would see decadal/multidecadal warming with the total global OLR from the ToA remaining at the same mean level. That’s how the warming mechanism of the rGHE is supposed to work, isn’t it?
Thanks David, regarding “So, assuming we are talking about equilibrium states and ignoring all the messy stuff in between while CO2 levels are in flux rather than fixed at the before and after values, the increase in CO2 results in a change in the Mean Radiating Level, ”
Yes, this makes sense to me, yet clearly with increasing CO2, we are not at equilibrium yes? I am curious how long this would be expected to take. Since we are dealing with very fast photons, I expect not long.
However, as you say, changes in convection, conduction, evaporation, cloud cover, acceleration of hydrological cycle, all could be negative feedbacks to a little additional GHG.
Also, determining what percentage of GHG molecules received energy is from conduction, vs. surface LWIR radiation, therefore cooling (via radiating away conducted energy) relative to said energy packet simply conducting to other non GHG molecule and staying within the local thermodynamic equilibrium, is a question I have never seen addressed. At lower levels I would think most of the energy received by CO2 is from conducted energy from non GHG molecules, as the transfer rate of conducted energy is far more likely. I am not certain how this changes at higher elevations.
Regarding Krisitan says; Thank you, I should have thought of that. Initially OLWIR should decrease as additional CO2 captures said radiation in that small band, and then equalize back to balance with assumed steady state insolation and a slightly greater heat capacity within the atmosphere. (assuming a million other things not in evidence)
Instead of “captures said radiation in that small band” I should have stated “redirects some outgoing radiation back into the atmosphere…
David A, you said …
Try Jinan Caos’ blog where he presents some figures regards this.
http://jinancaoblog.blogspot.com.au/
no correction needed 🙂
What does CAGW theory actually predict when CO2 increases? Changes in the temperature gradient? A hotspot as its signature? Or changes in OLWIR?
Robin Pittwood’s post have been few days on the blogosphere and has got surprisingly few comments. One commenter said that the NOAA’s OLWIR should not be used – because it is following the temperature? At Joannenova, IIRC. Of course, this is not anything new. I remember earlier discussions about measurements at TOA and Earth’s energy balance.
Global cooling says,
“One commenter said that the NOAA’s OLWIR should not be used – because it is following the temperature?”
No, what I said was this:
“Sorry, but the NOAA OI OLR dataset is not a good one to use here. That is basically the AVHRR dataset which in this regard is riddled with problems and unsolved inhomogeneities. It is basically useless for mid to long-term trend analysis.
Better then to collate the ISCCP-FD, the HIRS and the ERBE-CERES data. Which, of course, would show you the same thing, only better and more precise. The OLR at the ToA simply follows global temps. So it’s gone up in steps over the last 35 years, but flattened and finally dropped ever so slightly during the last 10-12-15-17 years.”
More specifically, it follows tropospheric temperatures, although tropospheric temps normally just mimic (although amplify) surface temps. This, however, has not been the case over the last year or so, with the strange North Pacific warming:
http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/CERESTOALWvsRSStlt_zps9ad46841.png
(CERES EBAF Ed2.8 ToA LW Flux (blue) vs. RSS tlt (yellow).)
http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/CERESTOALWvsHadCRUt3_zpsb8affa98.png
(CERES vs. HadCRUt3 (red).)
Notice how, towards the end, the surface runs slightly on the high side compared to RSS and the OLR, but this is precisely during the period where the surface heat (of extratropical North Pacific) isn’t very well transferred to the troposphere:
http://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/10/28/what-of-the-pause/
CERES radiation anomalies from Norman Loeb, the principal investigator for CERES.
Looks a little flat, as in no change in net radiation since 2000. The assumption is that the net imbalance is 0.6 W/m2 (based on ocean heat content uptake) since CERES’ numbers don’t really balance out perfectly. I believe these are changes/anomalies from the average values,
http://s27.postimg.org/kzn3tepub/CERES_Net_Radiation_2000_2013.jpg
http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/atmosphaere/WCRP_Grand_Challenge_Workshop/presentations/GC_Loeb.pdf
Updated to April, 2014.
http://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/ceres_ebaf-toa_ed2-8_anom_toa_net_flux-all-sky_march-2000toapril-2014.png
CAGW theory “predicts” a change in the global surface air temperature at equilibrium that rises
linearly with the change in the CO2 concentration. I place “predicts” in quotes because this temperature cannot be measured.
In my post of Nov. 9 at 7:43 am please replace “change in the CO2 concentration” with “change in the logarithm of the CO2 concentration.”
Another nice post Kristian.
davidmhoffer
November 8, 2014 at 11:39 pm
////////////////////////////////////////////////
David,
therein lies they foundation error in the radiative GHE hypothesis. SB law is not easily applied to surfaces, if surface properties are not properly measured. The foundation claim that the oceans are a near blackbody was a grave error. They are instead a complex SW selective surface. They have IR emissivity asymmetric with SW absorptivity. They are SW translucent, they convect and they are intermittently illuminated.
Just the emissivity to absorptivity asymmetry leads to error of around 25K in the 255K “surface without atmosphere” calculation. On top of this the five rules for SW translucent materials need to be added –
http://i59.tinypic.com/10pdqur.jpg
– and you run hotter again. These factors were clearly not considered in the 255K “surface without atmosphere” calculation. A better figure for “surface without atmosphere” would be 312K, which means the net effect of our radiatively cooled atmosphere is surface cooling.
There is a greenhouse effect on our planet, but it is in the oceans not the atmosphere.
Can you link to your Excel file please? You said on the other link that you could supply it if asked.
Yes, happy to provide. If you leave a comment at Kiwithinker, I will be able to send you a copy.
Why not make it available to all and link it here, rather than just to individual, personal requests?
I have uploaded all the files to Google Drive. Here is a link to the folder. https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0BwCJWmtRR6xeeUxlajM5MXVsVXc&usp=sharing
My Climate mea culpa came 12 months (or so) ago.
I am a PhD scientist (not a physicist, but a BS CE and a PhD in Bio-med, and 4 years of ME EE work), and I KNOW this one thing:
I have deeply studied the science, the non-linear mathematics of chaos theory, and issues at hand over the past 16 months.
Despite all the bleatings from the AGW believers (like I was once), and Al Gore, and NASA, and the IPCC, my conclusion is simply:
The science is NOT settled on what the effect of increasing CO2 is on our planet’s temperature “set point.”
(yes I saw “Inconvenient Truth” when it came out and I accepted it. Looking back, it was sad moment in my own critical thought.)
CO2 may or may not act to trap upwelling LWIR, but certainly in mid-term feed-backs, the sea surface, water vapor and atmospheric processes MUST mitigate and they MUST largely negate the effects that increasing atmospheric CO2 will have. The mere fact that Earth has had a relatively stable atmosphere and climate for 550 Million years of changing CO2 levels demands the acceptance of this.
As an engineer I understand this: Every computer model MUST be validated against real world data. The IPCC’s CMIP5 models are no exception. In that regard, they are now utter garbage due to their obvious failures. It is far past time for those relevant scientists and mathematicians to openly acknowledge those GCM’s glaringly obvious failures in their fidelity with hard observational data. That includes those many papers that have used reanalysis computations through those models. All are garbage. Acknowledge that, and move on.
An entire Climate Science Mea culpa for Climate Change protagonists is coming.
Attributing our changing climate to man’s CO2 is a fundamentally flawed theory, IMO.
Good man Joel.
I took AR4 at face value when it first came out and went straight to look at some ice core data expecting it all to be verifiable science. I soon found out that transparency and archiving is only skin deep. You quickly come up against undocumented “calibrations” for which data is not openly available and relies upon “pretty please” requests to unresponsive authors who do not reply to requests outside their own professional clique.
I never watched Al Gore’s convenient untruths because politicians are professional liars, not scientists and for the same reason that I would not watch B. de Mill’s “Ben Hur” if I wanted to study history of the roman period.
I watch de Mill’s work for his interpretation of the very human story between our physical humanity and our supra-physical existential desire to know what is the “higher” good. And because my grandmother was in his movies way back in the silent era. A 5’2″ red headed, green-eyed roaring 20’s flapper clad in VERY skimpy set costumes.
Cecil B. DeMille never made a version of Ben Hur, but he did strive for historical accuracy, down to underwear that wouldn’t be visible. Of course he also lit scenes in a Roman era movie, Cleopatra, so that a slave girl could get away with wearing not only no underwear, but apparently nothing at all. The Liz Taylor version was less inventive, strategically wrapping its naked slave girl in a snake.
Strikes me that Gore’s movie is to Climate education what ‘Reefer Madness’ is to drug education.
Joel You say “It is far past time for those relevant scientists and mathematicians to openly acknowledge those GCM’s glaringly obvious failures in their fidelity with hard observational data. That includes those many papers that have used reanalysis computations through those models. All are garbage. Acknowledge that, and move on. ”
I have been saying he same thing for several years. Check
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
I said
“In summary the temperature projections of the IPCC – Met office models and all the impact studies which derive from them have no solid foundation in empirical science being derived from inherently useless and specifically structurally flawed models. They provide no basis for the discussion of future climate trends and represent an enormous waste of time and money. As a foundation for Governmental climate and energy policy their forecasts are already seen to be grossly in error and are therefore worse than useless. A new forecasting paradigm needs to be adopted.”
The same post provides forecasts of the probable coming cooling based on the 60 and 1000 year periodicities clearly seen in the temperature data and using the 10 Be and neutron record as the most useful proxy for solar “activity” on recent millennial time scales .
We are just past the peak of the latest 1000 year cycle and the simplest working hypothesis is that we are about to repeat the general temperature trends from 1000 AD on. It is of interest to note when considering the immediate future the substantial variability about the 50 year mean trend shown in Fig 9 in the linked post.
Joel,
Your altered viewpoint, from believer to skeptic, may be the exception. Of your acquaintances, how many others have likewise changed their views? I ask, because basically I am interested in whether the debate has any influence on those who are decided on the AGW view.
Mpainter,
If I may. As you know, I am no scientist. I came with a tendency to “believe” that AGW is occurring due to a lifelong friendship with one who’s been deeply involved in this topic since 1998. But due to an excess of liberal leanings my radar went up so I started looking myself. Just recently I found this site. Everywhere I turn, I’m directed elsewhere for more information. And in my research (admittedly lacking scientifically) I find more: mights, maybe, likely, potentially and the like than I can accept comfortably. So for me, I began as an unscientific AGW’er and now find myself a resounding “skeptic” of AGW but comfortable that GW is occurring. Due to changes in land use such as deforestation in the Amazon, conversion to Ag uses around the world, water removal for human use et al, we’re having some climatic effects but I see them as more regional. I can’t see that nature isn’t just toying with us and with that question in mind I perceive that others see it the same way. This transition has been forming over the years. I have one other lifelong friend in our group of 3 from high school days that have remained close and I’d venture to say he’d be comfortable with me grouping him in similar fashion. I would not say that “the debate” is the influence due to “the debate” itself but instead it’s due to the numerous references, arguments, and abundance of sharing. This applies to many sources both pro and con. Interaction has helped me to learn to ask better questions.
Great to see you back Danny. You survived the initiation… just kidding. I’m impressed with your humble attitude. I sensed you wanted to seek truth… but that you were pushing some buttons… and that is why I stepped in when you were fighting with my friend in this forum.
Seeking truth is a lifelong quest for anyone who’s a skeptic. It’s also good for the brain to figure out things for ones’ self. I really believe that’s what separates the two camps of people. One group is in a quest to be right so that an agenda can be moved forward, the other group is in a quest to find what is true, so that decisions that affect the masses can be made based on, —well, good information!!!
Regardless of whatever you end up believing, you are a skeptic.. That puts you on the right side of the debate. Notice how the term ‘skeptic’ is a positive thing?
Interesting: Before I watched Inconvenient Truth, I accepted that the climate was warming because of CO2. The first part of the movie got me a bit upset and while watching it, I felt manipulated and then skeptical… by the end of the movie and while looking at the hockey stock chart, I was offended… and felt like I was being swindled… I became a skeptic by the end of the movie and on a mission to seek truth be it convenient or not.
I am now more skeptical than ever, and quite certain that the CAGW mantra is full on politically driven to use fear to control our lives. This realization for me drives my quest for truth. I work with lots of young people as a volunteer and a promote skepticism from our future leaders! I tell them that the debts left for their “benefit” will have to be paid by THEM… and so they should care. That’s just doing my part, my duty as a US citizen.
Yes, we should always be skeptics about everything that any politician say or promote. The probability it’s more for their benefit than ours is huge !
Well said Joel O’Bryan. Hope you canl keep us informed.
I would be cautious about assuming black body behavior for the outgoing radiation. The assumption requires that the radiation of the system is in complete equilibrium with all sources and sinks within the system, which should not be the case for the earth. Some work has been published on outgoing earth spectrum directed toward characterizing what to look for in exoplanets. One such is Tinetti et.al. in Astrobiology 6-1, 2006, p34 at
http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/ast.2006.6.34
It requires subscription access, but they do present disk averaged measured spectra of the earth in their Figure 7. They particularly note the spectrum in the 8-20 micron region is generally not very nearly black body except for the case of high cirrus clouds.
Thank you for reminding. Now I remember more about energy balance at TOA and discussions about measurement accuracy.
In the first reading, I did not find how Pittwood took changes in incoming solar radiation into account.
Every man made structure and artifice stands as testament that the earth does not behave as a black body for outgoing radiation. The ton of coal that warmed the furnace…
Has less soot has made atmosphere more more transparent?
Not in China or in Korea and Japan where the Chinese particulates are born by prevailing winds.
I wish someone with more intellectual capability/specialist expertise/time on their hands than I would look closely at the tropospheric hot-spot (or lack thereof)
In my opinion it is the Achilles Heel of the AGW hypothesis. Global Temperature data is subject to so many variables it can be made to say almost anything, as can most of the AGW ‘supporting evidence’. We need to do proper science – examine the hypothesis, construct an experiment which isolates the individual phenomenon we are interested in, and determine if it is occurring or not.
Only then can we build on firm foundations.
That was my understanding: The tropospheric hot-spot was a widely-agreed upon as a first-order effect to be be expected. Last report I heard was that Kevin seemed to think it couldn’t be found because the pesky thing was moving around too much. I never heard that one fully explained.
On the still missing hotspot.
Abstract – 2012
Environmental Research Letters
“Discrepancies in tropical upper tropospheric warming between atmospheric circulation models and satellites”
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/044018
2013
“Yet another paper shows the hot spot is missing”
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/02/yet-another-paper-shows-the-hot-spot-is-missing/
“IPCC plays hot-spot hidey games in AR5 — denies 28 million weather balloons work properly”
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/04/ipcc-plays-hot-spot-hidey-games-in-ar5-denies-28-million-weather-balloons-work-properly/
See discussion between sceptics and consensus scientists about it
http://www.climatedialogue.org/the-missing-tropical-hot-spot/
Basically, it hasn’t been found.
The Stephan-Boltzmann Law applies to a surface which is at one temperature. It is nonsense to attempt to apply it as in this article. Nonsense!
The Earth’s emissions to space originate from arrange of altitudes. Some come directly from the surface (via the atmospheric window) but others come from different altitudes in the atmosphere, where the air is much colder, and it is simply wrong to assume that represent the surface temperature but with a different emissivity. That is nonsense. Have I said that be before?
I must agree with Nick Stokes and David Hoffer on this one. Though they were more polite, this is nonsense
Agreed, this is total nonsense.
basing any S-B calculation on an “average” temperature implies an assumption that radiation and temperature are at least approximately linearly related over the range of temperatures concerned.
For a forth power law, you may get away with this over about 1 degree at surface temps.
Comparing T^4 for SST at 10 deg C and 20 deg C , gives a factor of 7.7 difference in the S-B relationship.
This is a typical seasonal change in temperate latitudes in any one location, so is not even remotely valid just for an annual averaging at a single location. There’s 30 deg. C difference between SST at equator and poles and the stratosphere is more like -60.
The author clearly does not have the first idea what he is doing.
Typical spreadsheet climatology.
Ax+Bx≠(A+B)x
I hope that it came out right.
Once more: A°+B°≠(A+B)°
[Easiest to use the “test” page for formatting trials. .mod]
David A November 9, 2014 at 1:16 am
Regarding Krisitan says; Thank you, I should have thought of that. Initially OLWIR should decrease as additional CO2 captures said radiation in that small band, and then equalize back to balance with assumed steady state insolation and a slightly greater heat capacity within the atmosphere. (assuming a million other things not in evidence)
Agreed. The increased heat capacity in the atmosphere would be predicated upon the amount of heat trapped by the increased number of CO2 molecules. At a concentration of just 280 ppm (pre-industrial) and doubling them to 560 ppm , we’re still talking about a tiny, Tiny, TINY percentage of the molecules in the atmosphere with a heat capacity that is miniscule and may as well be considered zero. That’s why I get all bent out of shape when the MSM yammers on about heat trapping gas. Technically true but at a value so small it may as well be rounded off to zero.
Global cooling November 9, 2014 at 12:09 am
What does CAGW theory actually predict when CO2 increases? Changes in the temperature gradient? A hotspot as its signature? Or changes in OLWIR?
What they claim is a moving target that evolves as each element of their theory gets debunked. But at the simplest level, they are making two claims:
1. CO2 increases raise the MRL. Above the MRL, temps decrease and below the MRL temps increase.
2. For the portion where temps increase ,there will be positive feedbacks, mostly in the form of increased water vapour due to higher evaporation rates and as air warms it can “hold” higher amounts of water vapour, itself a GHE that adds to the initial effects of the increase in CO2 levels.
This theory falls apart at multiple points. The main one being that observations show much lower temperature increases than predicted by the models, suggesting that they have one or more pieces of the puzzle wrong. But in answer to your original query, that’s the basics.
There is no greenhouse effect. Atmospheric mass not atmospheric composition is the dominant condition determining the thermal enhancement of a planet that an atmosphere provides. The ideal gas laws are the appropriate physics to be studying on this matter and greenhouse theories need to be put to rest.
Careful you’ll get ID’ed as a “pressure head”.
I have already problems with the first sentence:
The core of the human caused global warming proposition is that an increasing level of greenhouse gases acts to reduce heat loss from the planet
As far as I remember from long ago: the reduction in heat loss is only temporarily and causes an increase of surface/lower troposphere temperature until the heat balance is restored.
So I don’t see any discrepancy between the increased temperature and increased OLWIR, as that says next to nothing about the greenhouse effect of one of the drivers in a dynamic changing system and where there are a lot of influences at work: changes in water vapor en especially clouds. A small 1% change in the latter has more influence than a CO2 doubling in the radiation budget..
More interesting would be the recent findings in the CO2 bands: some years ago there was a publication that showed that the absorption in the CO2 band had increased over time, but that was based on different instruments in different satellites and different periods in the solar cycle.
A more recent work by Chen e.a. expands that to 2006 and takes into account the difference in instruments and has a longer time span.
This is true but there is – or should be – a TOA energy imbalance. If not then all the warming from the atmospheric CO2 increase over the past ~150 years has been fully realised which implies low climate sensitivity.
If , however, outgoing LWIR has remained constant over time AND there is an imbalance at TOA then the TOA imbalance must also have remained constant. This would seem to be a bit unlikely since the rates of warming have changed of the the past 30 odd years. Given the recent slowdown in warming we might expect to see an increase in the TOA imbalance though I’m not sure it would be measurable given the limitations of the data.
The other ‘variable’ is solar energy. If that changes then all other things being equal OLWIR should change. This is actually the key to the whole argument. How much solar energy is entering earth’s climate system versus how much LW energy is leaving. Even if we had accurate.precise measurements of these two variables we are left with a calculation to find a small number from the difference between 2 big numbers. Unfortunately we do even seem to have that option.
Others have been saying this for some time too.
http://judithcurry.com/2012/01/24/missing-heat-isnt-missing-after-all/
Very interesting. This reminds me of a paper by Richard Lindzen a few years ago where he also analyzed global IR emissions. If I remember correctly, he found that the trend was not just different to the IPCC’s model predictions, it was the opposite sign. Once again, the IPCC’s predictions seem to be as wrong as it’s possible to be. But we knew that already, didn’t we?
It’s a shame this piece doesn’t include the IPCC OLWIR model predictions, so that they could be checked against reality.
It seems the science is slowly moving toward lower CO2 sensitivity values, a recent paper gave just 0.4C for a doubling.
I think the real value is probably very close to zero. As far as I’m aware, the ice core data provides not a single example of temperature following CO2 as predicted by AGW. Not a single one. Of course, what the ice cores do show is that the CO2 follows the temperature, for a well-known reason. If Nature’s one million year laboratory experiment shows zero evidence for CO2 as a climate driver, then it’s not happening.
It’s claimed that the Earth is tens of degrees warmer due to CO2 and the other greenhouse gases. But this warming occurs when moving from zero CO2 to today’s finite amount, in other words an infinite number of doublings. If the greenhouse gases do make Earth significantly warmer, then it shows that they are rather a good thing. But it says nothing about the sensitivity except that possibly it’s not zero. But a sensitivity of 0.01 would be perfectly compatible with a warmer Earth.
So, until there is any evidence to the contrary, my assumption is that the warming sensitivity of CO2 is as close to zero as makes no difference. It’s not happening. The warming is primarily natural, just as it was 1000, 2000 and 3500 years ago. The slightly worrying thing is that each warm period is a bit cooler than the previous one.
I assume the CO2 warming effect works in a laboratory experiment, though it’s odd that Gore resorted to fraud in his video. But the only laboratory that matters is the planet we live on.
Chris
Lindzen showed that as the earth warmed, it let out more heat… and that the feedbacks were generally NOT positive based on fluxes shown by satellite records. I wrote to him, and he personally provided this link here:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/lindzen_testimony_11-17-2010.pdf
+1
I treasure that link…it was the first deep look into the claims from the Left as presented by a brilliant person to bring balance and truth to the discussion. It was a brilliant read. I suggest everyone take a look at Lindzen’s testimoney.
There are two issues here. Issue one is that no one has ever demonstrated to my satisfaction that a warming of “about one to several degrees” would be anything but a Good Thing (TM) for life on planet Earth. We are in an interglacial period of an ice age right now. I read that the warmest weather we’ve had in recent times (since the rise of mammals) came 55 million years ago. The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum saw global surface temperatures increased by up to 10° compared with today and parts of North America experienced a tropical climate and there was spring-like temperatures in the Arctic. This is hell on earth????
Issue two is that CO2 may very well not do any warming at all in the lower atmosphere. Since the molecule will receive a photon of energy and then most often “bump” into a non-radiating molecule (nitrogen or oxygen) and lose said energy before it has a chance to radiate that photon up or down or sideways. Convection dominates in the lower atmosphere. CO2 is at most a tiny, tiny bit player in the dynamics of the lower atmosphere.
As a side note, I don’t see how we can ever “break on through to the other side” (h/t The Doors) as long as we play on the alarmist’s grounds. They are using the James Hansen theory of atmospherics and he has never been right about anything. If he said that the sun rose in the east I would be forced to get up before dawn and watch the sunrise to verify his statement. The Scottish Sceptic who occasionally comments here once said that those who believe Hansen was totally wrong on atmospherics were good on the physics but horrible, horrible on PR. If he was right about that, woe unto us — it may be generations before science once again honestly looks at the climate and until then we will just have these faith-based post-science types shouting “the sky is falling”.