Another Look At Polar Amplification

Posted by invitation, from Bob Tisdale’s website – original here. Photo/caption below added by Anthony.

Guest post by Bob Tisdale

Graphic added by Anthony

On two occasions I’ve attempted to leave a comment at Joe Romm’s Climate Progress. I discussed the first try back in July 2008 in my post Climate Progress Posts My Comment, Returns It To Awaiting-Moderation Limbo, Then Deletes It. Yesterday, I posted a comment on the Exclusive: New NSIDC director Serreze explains the “death spiral” of Arctic ice, brushes off the “breathtaking ignorance” of blogs like WattsUpWithThat thread at Climate Progress, but was thwarted again by the moderator.

Note: The original Climate Progress title included a misspelling “breathaking” that made the quoted “breathaking ignorance” quite comical.

In the recent Climate Progress post, Joe Romm wrote, “Humans are cranking up the Arctic heat by pouring steadily increasing amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, which in turn cranks up warming in the Arctic, a very well documented phenomenon (see “What exactly is polar amplification and why does it matter?“). The linked Climate Progress explanation of Polar Amplification pertains primarily to positive feedbacks from albedo changes caused by the retreat of ice and snow, and to contradict Romm’s statement in his recent post, the term “Greenhouse gases” does not appear in Joe’s earlier explanation of Polar Amplification, nor does CO2, methane, GHG, etc.

The comment I tried to post yesterday at Climate Progress contained the quotes and illustrations from RealClimate that I used in my July 28, 2008 post on Polar Amplification and Arctic Warming. It also included an annotated RSS MSU TLT Time-Latitude Plot and Time-Series Graph from my post “RSS MSU TLT Time-Latitude Plots… …Show Climate Responses That Cannot Be Easily Illustrated With Time-Series Graphs Alone”.

There was nothing earth shattering in my comment, no reason for it to be deleted. Here take a look. It simply illustrated cause (El Nino events) and effect (poleward heat redistribution).

THE DELETED COMMENT

Regarding the well-documented Polar Amplification, refer to RealClimate thread here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends

Real Climate writes, “Whether the warming is from greenhouse gases, El Nino’s, or solar forcing, trends aloft are enhanced. For instance, the GISS model equilibrium runs with 2xCO2 or a 2% increase in solar forcing both show a maximum around 20N to 20S around 300mb (10 km):”

#

The following are two illustrations from the RealClimate thread. The first shows the tropical enhancement and polar amplification for a doubling of CO2 and the second illustrates the same effects for a 2% increase in solar irradiance.

http://i33.tinypic.com/10fu8p2.jpg

http://i38.tinypic.com/w8l4c0.jpg

RealClimate continues: “The first thing to note about the two pictures is how similar they are. They both have the same enhancement in the tropics and similar amplification in the Arctic. They differ most clearly in the stratosphere (the part above 100mb) where CO2 causes cooling while solar causes warming. It’s important to note however, that these are long-term equilibrium results and therefore don’t tell you anything about the signal-to-noise ratio for any particular time period or with any particular forcings.

If the pictures are very similar despite the different forcings that implies that the pattern really has nothing to do with greenhouse gas changes, but is a more fundamental response to warming (however caused). Indeed, there is a clear physical reason why this is the case – the increase in water vapour as surface air temperature rises causes a change in the moist-adiabatic lapse rate (the decrease of temperature with height) such that the surface to mid-tropospheric gradient decreases with increasing temperature (i.e. it warms faster aloft). This is something seen in many observations and over many timescales, and is not something unique to climate models.” [My Emphasis]

#####

To create the polar amplification profile illustrated in the above figures in the GCMs, there had to be a doubling of CO2 or a 2% increase in solar irradiance. Neither happened in the last 3 to 4 decades, so what created the polar amplification profile? Real Climate provides the answer. El Nino events.

Since 1976, did we endure a string of El Nino events whose frequency and magnitude greatly outweighed La Nina events? Most assuredly.

And when did polar amplification become evident in the Northern high latitudes? Immediately after the 1997/98 El Nino. It’s very visible in the RSS MSU Time-Latitude plot. I’ll make it easier to see with a time-series graph along side.

http://i42.tinypic.com/e9b04g.jpg

Regards

UPDATE

And for those looking for papers describing the poleward transport of heat resulting from El Nino events, the following paper can serve as a starting point. It’s Jevrejeva et al (2004) “Oceanic and atmospheric transport of multiyear El Nino–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) signatures to the polar regions” (GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 31, L24210, doi:10.1029/2004GL020871, 2004):

http://www.glaciology.net/Home/PDFs/Jevrejeva_grl04_-_enso_to_polar.pdf?attredirects=0

Their Conclusion reads:

“We provide evidence of ENSO influence on the winter climate variability in NH during the last 150 years via signals in the 2.2, 3.5, 5.7 and 13.9 year bands. The contribution from the signals to the total variance is relatively weak, varies considerably with time, but is statistically significant. Phase relationships for the different frequency signals suggest that there are different mechanisms for distribution of the 2.2–5.7 year and the 13.9 year signals. The 2.2–5.7 year signals are most likely transmitted via the stratosphere, and the AO mediating propagation of the signals, through coupled stratospheric and tropospheric circulation variability that accounts for vertical planetary wave propagation.

“The delay of about two years in the 13.9 year signals detected in polar region can be explained by the transit time of the 13.9 year signal associated with ECW (0.13– 0.17 ms_1) propagation in the Pacific ocean, KBW (1–3 ms_1) propagation along the western margins of the Americas and by poleward-propagating of atmospheric angular momentum [Dickey et al., 2003]. This mechanism is supported by similar features in the Pacific sector of the Antarctic SST field.

“Our results highlight the importance of tropical variations for the Arctic and NA climate and probably at least the Pacific sector of the Antarctic, suggesting a global mode of interaction between atmosphere and ocean and consistent with GCM experiments of a proposed ENSO-NA link [e.g., Trenberth et al., 1998; Dong et al., 2000; Merkel and Latif, 2002].”

Posted by Bob Tisdale at 5:50 AM

Advertisements

89 thoughts on “Another Look At Polar Amplification

  1. “To create the polar amplification profile illustrated in the above figures in the GCMs, there had to be a doubling of CO2 or a 2% increase in solar irradiance. Neither happened in the last 3 to 4 decades, so what created the polar amplification profile?”
    You seem to think that polar amplification wouldn’t be predicted for forcings of less that 2xCO2 or a 2% increase in TSI. This is a horrible misunderstanding. I advise you to go to this web page, where you can find the figures you refer to and many others. Please check the 1.2xCO2 and 1.5xCO2 graphs, and the “sol.irrad. 1880-2000,Lean” graphs. Lat-Hgt is what you want.

  2. Are you implying that “Climate Progress” cherry picks their research papers and comments?
    Possible alternate bear caption, “I love these things, crunchy on the outside, chewy on the inside!”

  3. Bob, this is what a NASA article said about the big 2006 & 2007 Arctic summer ice melts:
    “[Dr.] Nghiem said the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds. “Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic,” he said. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters. “The winds causing this trend in ice reduction were set up by an unusual pattern of atmospheric pressure that began at the beginning of this century,” Nghiem said.”
    (From: http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/quikscat-20071001.html.)
    The term “El Nino” is not mentioned in the article, but is that what he is talking about? Is NASA’s Dr. Nghiem, in effect, corroborating your proposition?

  4. So we are still seeing the effects of the El-Nino of the century 11 years later? It does make sense that way, also it seems from the recent dropping of temps that the effects of 1998 are starting to wear off, you can also use the trends spotted here
    http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html
    To look at perhaps where SST’s, temps. and perhaps ice as a result will go, notice the telltale horseshoe shaped cool area surrounding a warm area of the cool PDO phase and what seems to be a continued dropping of the AMO. About the cooling of the North Atlantic as seen from buoy readings one could spin it by saying melting arctic ice is causing the cooling, but wouldn’t that be a negative feedback then? Plus I’d take buoy readings over SurfaceStation readings any day because you usually don’t have heatsinks or heat sources in the middle of the ocean.
    Also a number of people here will likely tell you why they don’t expect another El-Nino this year to maintain or increase the amplification effect.

  5. Adolfo Giurfa says:

    With sincere affection for those who have been deceived with the tale of green house gases: The famous danish physicist Niels Bohr demonstrated almost a hundred years ago that such a “green house effect” does not exist at all.

    Adolfo, all your link shows is what you can already read many places, including the Wikipedia page on the greenhouse effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect , which is that the term is somewhat of a misnomer because the mechanism by which greenhouses heat is primarily by preventing convection. Thus, the analogy to greenhouses is at the level of both of them trapping radiation (although some atmospheric scientists like Alistair Fraser http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/Bad/BadGreenhouse.html would quibble with the terminology of “trapping radiation” to describe the atmospheric greenhouse effect), but they do so by different mechanisms.
    So, what you are essentially arguing about is a pedagogical issue.

  6. Evidently THEY do not pay those colour ink cartridges with THEIR money but with YOUR money. What an expenditure of reds and oranges!. It is plainly stupid, now everybody realizes that whatever paper they get in their hands they just wet it red and orange in order to cheat their peers (these kids should be punished).

  7. There are two immutable truths that I have found. The first applies to many people and especially establish organizations with a lot to lose. The first: The quickest way to make someone really angry is to be right. The second is related to the first: Facts are a climate change/global warming advocate’s worst nightmare.
    The AGW crowd is threatened by the truth. They have HUGE influence and a veritable cash cow. If their sheep learn the truth, there goes the influence and the money. Not everyone in the AGW camp is like this, of course. You also have the Gaia worshipers. Humans are religious by nature and they don’t much like you questioning their beliefs. It has been said before: “Jesus, save me from your followers.” Well, “Mother Earth, save me from your followers.”

  8. RW, you wrote, “You seem to think that polar amplification wouldn’t be predicted for forcings of less that 2xCO2 or a 2% increase in TSI. This is a horrible misunderstanding. I advise you to go to this web page, where you can find the figures you refer to and many others. Please check the 1.2xCO2 and 1.5xCO2 graphs, and the ‘sol.irrad. 1880-2000,Lean’ graphs. Lat-Hgt is what you want”
    First, the Lean et al 1995 and 2000 data is obsolete. Its misuse by climate modelers was discussed in this thread.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/05/ipcc-20th-century-simulations-get-a-boost-from-outdated-solar-forcings/
    Second, apparently you stopped reading when you found something you disagreed with. If you had continued reading this post and if you had read the linked posts, you would have discovered that the majority of the high-latitude warming in the Northern Hemisphere since 1979 occurred immediately after the 1997/98 El Nino. It’s difficult to miss it in the last graphic I provided above. There was also a smaller upward step change that happened after the 1986/87/88 El Nino.

  9. Climate Progress:
    WattsUpWithThat labels people who advocate putting a price on global warming pollution as “criminal,” the same as “murdering people”
    June 6th, 2009
    Ubuntu (NIMBY you GWers!)

  10. Perhaps Joe Romm deleted your post because he feels threatened by what he doesn’t umderstand.

  11. OT:
    the model temperature over latitude/pressure pictures also indicate, that global temperatures should increase must faster for satellite data (e.g. UAH at 600 mbar) than on the ground (GISS, HadCRUT).
    However, measured (and”corrected”) data show no difference and even the opposite, thus implying
    – the models are wrong
    or
    – correctionsare wrong, especially for UHI
    or
    – both.

  12. How can Climate Progess call itself a science blog when it allows posters to make life threatening statements against those who dare disagree with their agenda. As a layman I have been happy to read both sides of the debate however the display of arrogance and personal attacks on Climate Progress, RC and other AGW science bloggs is a huge put off. Cheers Mr Watts your blog is oustanding.

  13. I’m glad to see this get posted here, Bob. And thanks for the article reference.
    While not to minimize the work you’ve done, I think the unedited TLT time-latitude plot is an eyeopener, so I’ll post a direct link to it here for the interested readers:
    http://i42.tinypic.com/2hfukjm.jpg
    I was blown away by the obvious “regime shift” in the northern latitudes after the 1997-98 El Nino. What remains unclear to me is what is the normal time lapse of poleward heat transfer, and when we would normally expect for the effect of a super El Nino to dissipate and high latitude temperatures to return to something typical of normal climatological conditions.
    In our discussion of PDO and ENSO, I stated that 50% more tropical heat is transported poleward by atmospheric circulation than by ocean currents. I recently came across the source of that figure:
    http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/3sj.html
    My “50% more” is based on 60% of the energy being transported by atmospheric circulation, and 40% of it by ocean currents.
    I have a reasonable understanding of the three-cell atmospheric circulation model. What is not clear to me is what is the normal time horizon for this process. Does it take years? Does anybody (here) know?

  14. Mike Abbott: You wrote, “Bob, this is what a NASA article said about the big 2006 & 2007 Arctic summer ice melts…”
    The link you provided didn’t work for me, but I presume it’s the same as this redOrbit story:
    http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1085491/nasa_examines_arctic_sea_ice_changes/index.html
    You continued, “The term ‘El Nino’ is not mentioned in the article, but is that what he is talking about? Is NASA’s Dr. Nghiem, in effect, corroborating your proposition?
    It would have been nice if they’d referenced a dataset. But I would have to say he’s not referring to ENSO. Normally I think of the Arctic Oscillation (AO) in those circumstances. Unfortunately, I believe the anomalous behavior of the AO occurred in the late-1980s/early-1990s, so that disagrees with the timing mentioned in the article. Hopefully someone else can fill in the blanks for you.

  15. Daddy Greenbucks is giving me $1500 to put in a wood stove? I can trash the albedo in my yard this winter -and- further starve the emaciated treasury? Ummkay.
    Stupidity is the new patriotism…

  16. Pssst James….
    Actually the threatening comments were from a WUWT poser – Adolfo Giurfa. I won’t repeat the threatening statements he made or his intolerance of conflicting views, either. Peace be with you.
    Ubuntu
    REPLY: By the way, why did you switch from the name “Dill Weed” to “Ubuntu” Prior to that you were “John Boy” and “Darth” and originally “Dill Weed”. We frown on the fake persona switcheroo here, especially when it is used for snark. Stick with one, or bug off, I don’t have time for the shenanigans.- Anthony

  17. “Indeed, his website and writing goes beyond that. He, like Morano, is actually shouting “The firemen are liars and are trying to hurt you.” Shame on him. Rational people have every right to be very angry with such disinformers.
    climateprogress
    The lies grow and accusations fly. It says the two of you are actually shouting this
    The most antiscientific news last week was when a plane was lost, the fearmongering greenies claimed it was global warming. Who needs data or recorders. The answer is forced before the question is asked. Not the “observible” part of real science I studied.

  18. Adam from Kansas: You wrote, “So we are still seeing the effects of the El-Nino of the century 11 years later?”
    I have yet to find a paper that discusses the time required to dissipate El Nino heat that’s been transported to high latitudes, regardless of whether or not it’s a “normal” El Nino or the “El Nino of the Century”.
    But I would be more apt to say that we had been seeing the effects of the 1997/98 El Nino with additional boosts from the El Nino events of 2002/03, 2004/05, and 2006/07. The La Nina of 2007/08 was the break in the pattern.

  19. This is a very interesting site for temperature in Alaska.
    http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/ClimTrends/Change/TempChange.html
    Look at the graph. It is plotted on the mean temp from 1949-2008.
    In 1976 something very strange happend, the temp increased by almost 3 degrees throughout Alaska. It happened in One Year! Due to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
    This graph shows temp. since the big increase in 1976. It is from 1977-2008.
    http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/ClimTrends/Change/7708Change.html
    Temperature have been stable since 1977 but about 3 degrees higher than 1949-2008.
    This paper goes into further detail about the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and what happened in 1976.
    http://nofreewind.com/alaska_pdo.pdf
    This paper reviews historical artic temperature:
    http://nofreewind.com/artic_temps.pdf
    “It is concluded that climate changes the last decade are dramatic but that similar
    changes in air temperatures have occurred previous within the last 130 years.”
    http://nofreewind.blogspot.com/

  20. Caption:
    SSN ### to COMSUBLANT STOP HAVE BEEN SIGHTED BY THREE RUSSIAN BEARS STOP THEY LOOK HUNGRY STOP PLEASE ADVISE STOP

  21. Joel Shore (12:47:46) : Adolfo, all your link shows is what you can already read many places, including the Wikipedia page on the greenhouse effect
    Unfortunately, since wikipedia has become a politicized advocacy group dominated site, postings there can not be trusted to either contain the truth or remain a stable reference. What one refers to today can be trashed tomorrow. For example, here is my commentary on what the AGW Langoliers did to the Jevons Paradox page:
    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/05/12/jevons-paradox-coal-oil-conservation/
    It was turned from a simple statement that increased individual efficiency of use results in more total uses such that energy efficiency improvements raised aggregate consumption rather than lowering it; into a Green Tax advocacy misdirection.
    Consequently, I can no longer use Wiki for anything other than immediate quotes (i.e. cut / paste the text) or as a basis on which to build my own pages. I no longer use a link to wiki as a reference if there is any alternative and I can no longer trust wiki to be fair, balanced, have a neutral point of view, or be stable at all. Wiki is not a good reference. Period.
    (What was done to the Bond Event, Roman Warm Period, Little Ice Age, etc pages amounts to criminal fraud, IMHO.)
    I saved some of the prior text, but a lot was lost. It is now a stub that I need to expand over time to preserve the actual history of extreme temperature variation in our past.
    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/04/06/bond-event-zero/
    So, what you are essentially arguing about is a pedagogical issue.
    No, it isn’t. The presentation of “how it works” to the lay public by the AGW side clearly exploits the idea that it is IR trapping “like a greenhouse”. This is fundamentally a lie, not a “pedagogical issue”, and Adolfo does a great service by pointing out this, I’ll be charitable, “error” in the AGW thesis.
    It is not a particularly fine line between a necessary simplification for explanation and a deception. One leaves out detail that does not add to the basic understanding while keeping the basic truth; the other misleads into an understanding that is broken.
    For example: Newtonian mechanics are incomplete. To omit Relativity is a reasonable simplification for a new learner and does not impair either the understanding of the student or their ability to get correct answers to many decimal places.
    In contrast: No “greenhouse effect” on IR exists at all. Greenhouses work by preventing air movement and providing some physical insulation (especially double wall polycarbonate panels) To term whatever mechanism you believe is driving AGW “greenhouse gasses” or “greenhouse effect” is to either 1) Deliberately lie about how a greenhouse works or 2) Assert that CO2 somehow prevents convection and conduction. That is, it is decent propaganda, but lousy science. The student is left with a broken understanding that does not lead to correct answers.
    You could, of course, always come up with some other term that is a physically correct description of what you think is going on. But that would require that there be something else going on to describe. The deliberate decision to continue using a known broken metaphor is either profound laziness or deliberate deception; neither of which is welcome in Real Science …
    Adofo: Keep it up! It is essential that folks come to understand that the term “Greenhouse gas” is a completely broken term devoid of physical merit.

  22. Basil: Thanks for posting the unmarked RSS TLT Time-Latitude plot. It is an eye-opener. Brett Anderson posted it at the Accuweather GW blog about a week ago. The transport of heat from the tropics to the NH high latitudes after the 1997/98 El Nino stood out above all else.
    As noted in my reply to Adam From Kansas, I have searched for and have been unable to find the anticipated time for heat from El Nino events to be radiated into space from high latitudes. I guess we’ll find out………eventually.

  23. James Allison (13:41:06) : Perhaps Joe Romm deleted your post because he feels threatened by what he doesn’t umderstand.
    My, admittedly brief, experience there (early on, when I blankly believed the AGW thesis and just wanted to find out how it worked) was that contrary statements or questions are only allowed through if they provide a basis for an AGW rant. Anything that disrupts the tranquility of the fantasy inside the bubble gets deleted. Things that can’t be answered, things that point out loose ends, things that point out errors, etc. etc. get a slap down or vaporize.
    Having worked on a psych ward for a few years, it reminded me of how some folks respond to anything that disrupts their “perfect” world view; with vehement rejection. I’ve also seen a similar behavior in contexts where the Powers That Be were trying to indoctrinate (be it military induction or “sales jobs”) where anything that deviates from The Script is very strongly rejected. (Partly to prevent further “disruption” and partly to show the “marks” that discipline is rewarded and deviance is punished.) Now, I have no way of knowing if this is a fair description of their actual motives; all I can do is say what I experienced and what it looked like to me as an outsider.
    If you are reasonable “fodder” for the mill, the post gets through. If you are an irritant in any way to any degree that threatens the indoctrination process, your post is deleted, often with derision. I bailed within a couple of days and went on to other sites, eventually landing here.
    Why I love it here:
    1) I can ask a question and see both sides. No propaganda filter.
    2) I can post links to things that can then be either shot down or explained.
    3) The folks here have clue, and know how to use it. There is an atmosphere of ‘learning together’ that is now, sadly, missing from many college campuses.
    4) The depth of understanding is great, including the depth of understanding of what we do not understand. One of my basic steps it to outline the limits of understanding. When someone says “It is settled and All Is Known” my BS-O-Meter pegs high / red …
    5) The sporadic playfulness and humor. The OT sporadic richness of the experience
    6) The generally polite and professional ambiance.
    100% of those things are missing elsewhere…

  24. Ive never been to the other site.. seems to me by going there and even reading you become a hit on their total number of visits. Personally I dont want to be a source of funding for them especially if they are one sided. If you write a blog and no one comes to read it, wouldnt you think about changing it? Well thats just my way of dealing with them. I do the same with news agencys like papers and news stations. The bottom line in all of this is money, not science for them… let THEM eat cake:P

  25. E.M.Smith (14:31:06)
    Dear E.M.
    unfortunately, that’s was wikipedia did become – hypepedia – and purge what’s
    inconvenient. And it’s increasing by the year.
    I even had to notice that they totally erased some items I wrote about
    five years on the Maxwell equasion s- complex equasions vs. quaternion equasions.
    Hence, originally Maxwell did write his equasions in the quaternion algebra.
    Most of the stuff I wrote is simply gone.

  26. Sorry, this is OT. Didn’t see a current thread where it fit.
    June 3rd – “Bituminous coal is now West Virginia’s official state rock”
    http://www.dailymail.com/News/200906030410
    Way to go West Virginia and Gov. Joe Manchin!
    I wonder if Gov. Joe Manchin and other state governors are brushing up on state nullification rights when it comes to Federal cap-and trade regulations.

  27. pkatt (15:04:07) :

    I’ve never been to the other site [realclimate]. seems to me by going there and even reading you become a hit on their total number of visits. Personally I don’t want to be a source of funding for them especially if they are one sided…

    Agree completely. RealClimate is thoroughly dishonest.
    I wouldn’t give them the parsley off my fish.

  28. Basil @14:05:47,
    Some graphs display data, some, like this one, display information.

  29. E.M.Smith @14:56:05,
    Agreed. I have had many preconceptions disabused right here, not by the AGWERS. Your discription of this site as being a place of ‘learning together’ is quite on the spot.
    Now, onto another pet issue:
    I find there is a lack of reliable albedo tracking; it appears that the Moonshine Project is showing up some interesting stuff. Can we lobby NASA, in any way, to put up an Albedo Monitoring satellite.
    Perhaps Canada could do it; I’ll check. It is a good science project; maybe some high school could get an experiment onto the space station.

  30. I visited the site Climate Progress for the first time and they seem very fond of acting like they never make any ad hominem attacks, while doing just that about this site and other “deniers” in the very article itself. Pure hypocrisy. Sure there are some on this site from time to time, but certainly not by the authors or moderators as seems so common on their blog. Typical of their movement, may cooler times bring an end to all of this.

  31. Jame Allison,
    I was one of the ones threatened over at climate progress or the accuweather blog- I cannot remember which, nor do I care.
    The only other time I was ever threatened on line was by the late, unlamented, William Cooper, a conspiracy nut
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_William_Cooper
    I enjoyed flaming him online back in the early days of internet communications. Busting him was not really different from dealing with the AGW true believers of today.
    I am still here, and still busting popular myths at every opportunity. From UFOologists, to basically any sort of apocalyptic belief system, to conspiracy wack jobs of any sort.
    They are all about the same. And there is always a true believer who, when the meme of the moment starts falling apart, resorts to threats.
    I laughed at Cooper. I see much in common between him and Gore, except Gore and the rest of the AGW promoters have a better vocabulary.

  32. Hunter,
    “I was one of the ones threatened over at climate progress or the accuweather blog- I cannot remember which, nor do I care.”
    But have you been accused of mass murder, then threatened with the death penalty and then invited to a picnic all in the same breath? I am exaggerating but not much…
    Mike Bryant

  33. E. M. Smith:
    Same reasons why I, as a layman, follow this site. I wasn’t impressed with Climate Progress at all. I always think that if your argument is any good you wouldn’t need to be quite so murderous towards your opponent. Now can you (or anyone) enlighten me as to how (or if) water vapour acts as a “greenhouse gas”? Does it absorb Infra-red, or prevent warm air rising? If it’s the latter it wouldn’t add to the atmosphere’s total warmth at all, would it? Or am I being incredibly silly here?

  34. Dave F. 16:35:91
    You are not being the least bit silly. That is a good question for a newbie, one who I notice understands the morbid rhetoric at Climate Progress. CO2 acts by absorbing infrared that would otherwise be radiated to space. Were it to act to halt convection it would be acting as the glass in greenhouses does, but this gaseous greenhouse phenomenon is all about the absorption of rays and energy.
    =========================================

  35. ubuntu-various star-dates
    A Googlong produced this:
    Ubuntu is a community developed, Linux-based operating system that is perfect for laptops, desktops and servers
    Further research came up with this:
    “Ubuntu” – in the WUWT context (What’s Up with Trolls) was close but replaced community, laptops and servers with “hockey-team”, “lapdogs” and “self-servers”
    Am I romm?

  36. Thanks Bob T and Basil. I’d always felt the recent Arctic warming must be a delayed effect – had to be the big El Nino.
    Like others inspired by a disturbing reference, I too visited Romm’s blog for the first time today. I was gasping for air.. it seems he accuses the skeptics of precisely the things of which he himself is most guilty. Very little science, very much rudeness. His update maintains that Watts has said he agrees with anyone not deleted after three hours when clearly this is not the case! it’s those who are rude, thoughtless and unpleasant who get stopped. And that’s what makes this blog good, and opens the way for real science, and makes that blog worthless, to me. Funny thing is, Romm could practice courtesy too, and get satisfaction as well as real science.

  37. DaveF. 16:56:35
    Oh, I see. Yes, water vapor also absorbs infrared, and re-emits some of it, but water vapor, when it clouds up, works its magic on visible light, too.
    ======================================

  38. Robert Wood (15:44:17) :
    E.M.Smith @14:56:05,
    I find there is a lack of reliable albedo tracking; it appears that the Moonshine Project is showing up some interesting stuff. Can we lobby NASA, in any way, to put up an Albedo Monitoring satellite.
    Perhaps Canada could do it; I’ll check. It is a good science project; maybe some high school could get an experiment onto the space station.

    The satellite has been designed and built to do this however it was mothballed by the Bush administration in 2001. Rumor has it that Cheney was responsible which given the reluctance of anyone in NASA to talk about DSCOVR seems plausible. It’s a pity since we could have about 8 years of data by now.

  39. stumpy says:

    Apparently the next El Nino will demonstrate anthropogenic global warming continues making this decade the warmest on record, forgetting that El Nino is a natural internal variation unrelated to Co2 levels.

    Okay the point is this: The “skeptic” community is having a field day right now because there has been a moderately-strong and fairly long-lived La Nina the last couple of years so that they can now draw lines through several years of data and point to a “cooling trend”. That, combined with the extremely strong El Nino that we had in 1998, which is still the record year by most accounts (although not NASA GISS, for which 2006[?] beat it out slightly), means that these people can make claims like, “Global warming stopped in 1998” and so forth.
    Romm’s point is simply that once we go back into an El Nino phase, such claims will no longer be so convincing for those who don’t understand how to interpret noisy data and it will become obvious that the trend of a slow but steady rise in temperatures due to greenhouse gases continues with the normal fluctuations of things like El Nino and La Nina superimposed on top of it.

  40. Joel Shore:

    “…it will become obvious that the trend of a slow but steady rise in temperatures due to greenhouse gases the slow, steady and natural increase in temperatures since the LIA continues with the normal fluctuations of things like El Nino and La Nina superimposed on top of it.”

    Fixed.

  41. If it’s a slow, steady increase (for whatever reason), I see no particular longterm danger. We humans are adaptable beasties; it’s perhaps our foremost defining characteristic.
    Two hundred years ago we were almost everywhere at the mercy of the forces of nature. We are now in control of them to an unprecedented degree, yet we worry more than we ever did.

  42. “slow”
    And you could be right. But I don’t see any smoke yet, much less fire.
    I’m not ready for carbon rationing just yet (or health care rationing either).

  43. ” El-Nino of the century’.
    Wasn’t the Nino of 1983 at least as strong as 1998?

  44. “…state nullification rights “.
    John C. Calhoun lives!
    I’m afraid the issue of nullification was settled by the Civil War.

  45. And here is the real mechanism behind Polar Amplification:
    F*rting Reindeer
    That’s right. According to this article, farting reindeer is a climate hazard in the Norwegian polar region:
    http://www.dagbladet.no/2009/06/04/nyheter/landbruk/innenriks/politikk/miljo/6567101/
    According to the Norwegian government, reindeer is an enemy of the environment. One of the suggestions from the Ministry of Agriculture this week is to reduce the number of reindeer by 30 000. “This will reduce the farting from the animals, which contain methane gas hazardous to the climate” reports the Lappish newspaper SAGAT.
    So there you have it.

  46. Arthur Glass (20:22:04) :
    ““…state nullification rights “.
    John C. Calhoun lives!
    I’m afraid the issue of nullification was settled by the Civil War.”
    Actually, Arthur,
    State nullification was a strategy by the NORTHERN states to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act’s authority to allow bounty hunters to kidnap people from northern states claiming they were escaped slaves. Pre-war SCOTUS rulings upheld that nullification was not constitutional. The Civil War didnt settle it, it was settled years before the war.
    What WAS settled during the war was the idea that state representatives could walk out of congress and the Senate in order to prevent a quorum and leave the government in a rump status, as the Constitution was not built to deal with such a situation. Lincoln rightly considered that an attack upon the Constitution. During early reconstruction, occupied southern states were not allowed back into the union and into congress without having ratified the 13th and 14th amendments. However, the actual right of peaceful secession by proper due process has never been prevented, as shown later when both Cuba and the Phillipines, US territories following the Spanish American War, successfully voted to secede from the US. The Constitution does have a means for legally voting to transfer territory from one state to another and out of US control, it requires votes by the legislatures of any states involved and approval of congress. Unfortunately, most people have been led to believe that somehow the martial action of the civil war magically legislated to outlaw secession by peaceful means. There is no law in federal statute barring peaceful secession.

  47. Arthur Glass: You asked, “Wasn’t the Nino of 1983 at least as strong as 1998?”
    The peak NINO3.4 SST anomaly of the 1982/83 El Nino was close to that of the 1997/98 El Nino BUT the 1982/83 El Nino was suppressed by the eruiption of El Chichon. The difference in TLT response is visible in the RSS MSU TLT Time-Latitude plot here:
    http://i42.tinypic.com/2hfukjm.jpg
    Or Compared to a Time Series Graph of NINO3.4 SST Anomalies:
    http://i40.tinypic.com/6rj1p4.jpg

  48. JAN (21:35:18) : “According to the Norwegian government, reindeer is an enemy of the environment. One of the suggestions from the Ministry of Agriculture this week is to reduce the number of reindeer by 30 000. “This will reduce the farting from the animals, which contain methane gas hazardous to the climate” reports the Lappish newspaper SAGAT.”
    Oh my… one example why this greenhouse gas hysteria is absolutely dangerous. People have lost their mind, and are in fact threatening life.
    I just hope in few years this movement has been cooled down, by cooling climate. Otherwise this madness and propaganda will continue.

  49. The bears are thinking: “We won’t see any of these again soon once this current warm period is over and the water all freezes again”,

  50. Love the shot. Alt caption?:
    “Shocking new evidence emerges of the startling effect warming climate is having on the genetics of marine mammals” 🙂

  51. DaveF (03:31:28):
    Absolutely! The logic is …..what’s that word again…. breathtaking. It’s almost as good as global warming causing global cooling…
    Somebody was talking about “breathaking ignorance”(sic)?
    Headline of the piece is: THE REINDEER FART TOO MUCH
    Picture caption: “Enemies of the Environment? Crown Prince Haakon and (crown princess) Mette Marit are today visiting a climate conference in Sarpsborg. Earlier this winter they were on site in Kautokeino, among what the government now declares enemies of the environment. Whether the royal couple were affected by the emissions from the reindeer, is unknown.”
    You can’t make this stuff up!

  52. Phil wrote:
    The satellite has been designed and built to do this however it was mothballed by the Bush administration in 2001. Rumor has it that Cheney was responsible which given the reluctance of anyone in NASA to talk about DSCOVR seems plausible. It’s a pity since we could have about 8 years of data by now.
    Typical Bush/Cheney bashing by innuendo.
    Except its not at all true.
    The DSCOVR TIMELINE went like this:
    1998 — Al Gore championed a low cost satellite that would broadcast
    real-time images of Earth to the Internet at the relatively cheap
    cost of $20 million. Dubbed Triana (after the sailor on Columbus’
    voyage who first spotted the New World), Gore hoped the probe would
    foster greater awareness of the fragility of the planet.
    1999 — Congress halts funding on Triana and directs review by
    National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences. This
    of course happens before Bush/Cheney are even elected.
    A little history:
    “The Triana mission was announced to the public in March 1998. The
    concept proposed was to build and launch a small spacecraft that
    would provide the public with continuous views of the sunlit
    hemisphere of the Earth via the Internet by the end of the year 2000.
    The spacecraft would be launched into an orbit around the L1 point, a
    location one million miles from Earth where the gravity of the Earth
    and Sun effectively cancel each other out.
    University students, industry, and government would team in the
    design, development, operations, and data analysis of the mission.
    Total mission cost, including launch and operations, was not to
    exceed $50 million.”
    On October 27, 1998, after a scientific and technical peer review,
    NASA selected a proposal from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography
    at the University of California, San Diego (Scripps). The Scripps
    proposal featured two primary instruments: a radiometer to measure
    the radiance of the Earth at different wavelengths and the Earth
    polychromatic imaging camera (EPIC), designed to take color pictures
    of the Earth. NASA also selected portions of a proposal from Goddard—
    an ultraviolet capability for the camera and a plasma magnetometer
    to monitor magnetic fields and the solar wind. To pay for the
    enhancements, NASA increased the mission budget to $77 million.
    NASA (under the Clinton/Gore Admin) in early 1999, added more
    scientific instruments to make it palatable. The increase in function also changed the launch vehicle to the Shuttel. The switch to the Shuttle was was advantagous though because at that time, NASA was not using
    full cost accounting and thus NASA designated DSCOVR as a Secondary
    payload and thus its launch costs on the Shuttle were absorbed by NASA and not the mission budget.
    The Inspector General’s office wasn’t pleased by these shenanigans.
    From the Inspector General’s report on Triana in Sept of 99.
    “In the context of NASA’s constrained budget and the widespread
    availability of satellite pictures of the Earth, we are concerned
    about the cost and changing goals of the Triana mission. A relatively
    simple and inexpensive mission focused primarily (though not
    exclusively) on inspiration and education has evolved into a more
    complex mission focused primarily on science. The added scientific
    capabilities will increase the amount of data gathered by the
    mission, but they will also increase the mission’s total cost. In
    addition, due to the mission’s circumscribed peer review process, we
    are concerned that Triana’s added science may not represent the best
    expenditure of NASA’s limited science funding”
    “We are also concerned that the Triana spacecraft, originally
    conceived as a cooperative effort between university students,
    industry, and government, is essentially being built, launched,
    and operated by NASA. Although NASA’s major role in developing and
    launching the spacecraft helped to keep the mission within its
    budget, the costs of the project’s civil servant salaries and
    overhead, government furnished equipment, and launch on the Space
    Shuttle must still be borne by the taxpayer”
    Finally, from the IG report:
    Estimated total cost of Triana mission:
    Excluding the potential costs involved with a delayed launch, we
    estimate the total cost for the Triana mission (as currently planned)
    to be approximately $144 to $220 million.
    2000 — NRC report is positive about cost/benefit of project IF
    sdditional science capabilities are added. Thus funding was reinstated
    for the mission but included the proviso that the science package
    would be significantly upgraded to allow the spacecraft to not only
    beam back pictures of the earth (original mission) but to monitor the
    energy budget of the planet. The spacecraft was renamed DSCOVR to
    reflect the new scientific capabilities. Note that this science upgrade, to monitor the energy budget of the planent occured during the Bush Administration.
    NASA puts DSCOVR on slate for a shuttle launch.
    2001 — Amid deep NASA budget cuts NASA was forced to reduce Shuttle
    flights, DSCOVR was removed from 2001-2 Shuttle schedule
    2002 — DSCOVR put into environnmental storage at $1M/yr (this expenditure ensures that the satellite is kept in a ready condition such that NASA can launch it if an opening occurs (like an unforseen delay in another mission)
    2003 — DSCOVR put back into schedule for 2004 launch on STS 107 after the major ISS construction is complete
    2003 — Columbia accident delays entire Shuttle manifest including
    DSCOVR
    2006 — Shuttles begin to fly again, but ISS remains the priority and
    there are no slots left in the launch schedule to fit DSCOVR onto a
    Shuttle flight prior to the end of life for the SST.
    2007 — NASA and NOAA looking into other methods besides the SST to
    get DSCOVR launched.
    2009 — Congress passes Omnibus Appropriations Bill 1105. The bill provides $9 Million for NASA to refurbish and ensure flight and operational readiness of DSCOVR earth science instruments. But does not appropriate money to launch it.
    Still, the point is if Columbia not happened NASA would have launched DISCOVR via the Shuttle.
    Following the Columbia breakup, and the long redesign prior to
    restarting shuttle flights there were no Shuttle slots left to launch DSCOVR.
    You can’t just take a satellite, designed for the Shuttle’s cargo bay
    and launch characteristics and put it on another rocket.
    And since it can’t piggyback on the Shuttle it will take the appropriation of another ~ $100 million to launch it.
    Which is why DSCOVR is likely to remain mothballed for quite a few more years.
    Arthur

  53. I twice posted at Climate Progress, the link to the ice extent and ice area graphs from ther Arctic Roos website
    http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic
    with a factual comment that ice area was within one standard deviation of the 1979-1997 average and ice extent was slightly outside of one standard deviation, and that both were higher than 2007 and 2008. There was no sarcasm, no snark, just a statement of fact. Both times the post disappeared. For Romm and his minions to say there is no censorship is a load of horsesh*t.

  54. Something that gets lost or ignored in the Evil CO2 debate: It is close to total saturation. Absorbing over 97% of what it can absorb. So doubling it won’t do much. I suppose it will change (slightly) the altitude where absorbtion nears total, but not by much. With little effect.
    Mr.Watts (I think it should be “Dr.”, out of respect) has had several threads on this in the past. So comments about ‘dumping vast amounts of greenhouse gasses’ ring hollow. It just don’t work that way.
    Changes in the sun’s output? Maybe 0.1% Not a biggie.
    You can’t amplify what isn’t there.

  55. Bob Tisdale: Thanks for the clarification on the relative strngths of the two Ninos.

  56. Mike Lorrey:
    I was referring to the Nullification Crisis over the ‘Tariff of Abominations’ during the early years of the Administration of Andrew Jackson, which saw the first of only two resignations of Vice Presidents in U.S. history, that of John C. Calhoun.
    ” In his anonymous Exposition Calhoun laid out an argument for action to be taken by the state. He argued that the Union was a compact between states. The states had the power to nullify a federal law that exceeded powers given to Congress in the constitution. The law could then be declared null and void in that state. Congress could repeal the law or could pass a constitutional amendment giving it the powers in question. If the amendment passed the state could accept the law or secede from the Union. The state legislature adopted the Ordinance of Nullification in 1833 and declared both tariffs null and void. In the text of the ordinance they also made clear ‘that we are determined to maintain this, our ordinance and Declaration, at every hazard…’”
    http://americanhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/john_c_calhouns_theory_of_nullification
    The supposed right of states, as members of a voluntary compact, to nullify Federal laws that constituted, from Calhoun’s point-of-view, a usurpation of the powers reserved to the states, was thus intimately bound with the right to secede. What Lincoln argued, and what the Civil War decided ‘on the ground’ was the falsity of the notion that the Union was forever a voluntary compact among ultimately sovereign states from which states could opt out at will.
    It seems obvious to me from Article IV, Section 2, para. 3 of the Constitution that Tawney and the Court made the correct decision in Dred Scott, unless you believe that ’empathy’ overrules the clear intent of the language of the framers.

  57. The polar cusps are allowing additional heat to enter the atmosphere due to the precession, obliquity and inclination of the earth. When the combined angle is low enough, the polar cusp window closes and we loose the additional heat that brought us out of the last ice age. Looking at the angles of each during the mini ice age(1450 – 1850), we should be able to calculate the critical angle and predict when it will happen again. The auroras may disappear at this point.

  58. Retired Engineer (08:30:54) :
    Something that gets lost or ignored in the Evil CO2 debate: It is close to total saturation. Absorbing over 97% of what it can absorb. So doubling it won’t do much. I suppose it will change (slightly) the altitude where absorbtion nears total, but not by much. With little effect.

    This is totally incorrect, CO2 absorption in the 15μm band is not 97% saturated.

  59. Phil. (11:48:15) :
    Retired Engineer (08:30:54) : Something that gets lost or ignored in the Evil CO2 debate: It is close to total saturation. Absorbing over 97% of what it can absorb. So doubling it won’t do much. I suppose it will change (slightly) the altitude where absorbtion nears total, but not by much. With little effect.
    This is totally incorrect, CO2 absorption in the 15μm band is not 97% saturated.

    But 15μm lies in the water absorption band, and there isn’t much left for CO2 to catch. The only band where CO2 makes a difference is at 4μm, where upward radiation is but a fraction of the 15μm radiation, and Raleigh scattering gets what’s left after CO2 finishes.

  60. Mike McMillan (16:13:54) :
    Phil. (11:48:15) :
    Retired Engineer (08:30:54) :” Something that gets lost or ignored in the Evil CO2 debate: It is close to total saturation. Absorbing over 97% of what it can absorb. So doubling it won’t do much. I suppose it will change (slightly) the altitude where absorbtion nears total, but not by much. With little effect.”
    “This is totally incorrect, CO2 absorption in the 15μm band is not 97% saturated.”
    But 15μm lies in the water absorption band, and there isn’t much left for CO2 to catch. The only band where CO2 makes a difference is at 4μm, where upward radiation is but a fraction of the 15μm radiation, and Raleigh scattering gets what’s left after CO2 finishes.

    Yet another fallacy, there are only a few water lines in the 15μm CO2 band and they contribute very little. The major CO2 absorption band in the Earth’s atmosphere is indeed the 15μm band. Rayleigh scattering is elastic and has an extremely small cross-section so is irrelevant in this context.

  61. (haven’t figured out how to post a graph)
    The graph posted here a few months back shows CO2 getting nearly 100% at 15um. And that band has a lot less energy than the shorter wavelengths. There is little incoming energy longer than 3um. Reradiated from the surface pretty much dies out at the 15um band. Not much there.
    Rayleigh scattering has little effect beyond 1um, so isn’t a factor.
    CO2 is doing pretty much all it can. More won’t change much of anything, other than making EMS’s tomato plant grow bigger.

  62. RE: Mike Lorrey (21:41:01), Arthur Glass (20:22:04) :
    Actually I was referring back to the 1799 Kentucky Resolution written by Thomas Jefferson and, in it, his reinforcement of the Tenth Amendment – that all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved for the individual states or to the people.
    http://blog.mises.org/archives/003811.asp

  63. What I am getting from El Nino events is that they represent a re-distribution of existing energy, not a fresh influx of energy to Earth. Same thing with La Nina. Robbing Nino to pay Nina.
    The real cause of warming or cooling would be albedo, orbital changes and Solar output.
    In order to get significant changes for the globe, you need mechanisms which dramatically alter the net energy state. TSI and trace gas content won’t get the job done. Whether you refect incoming energy out at ground level(ice), low cloud level (GCR induced aerosols) or high-cloud level (volcanic emission) is academic. If it doesn’t get here, the battery is drained. If it get here and gets into the oceanic system, it’s charge on the battery.

  64. Because Shuttle launches are precious (as well as expensive) due to the risk to the crews, perhaps they should be rigged with automated flight controls (yes, I know about the existing remote capability). Instead of relegating the Shuttles to museums, they could be used to launch some of the accumulated satellites such as DSCOVER. If their tiles are damaged and they fail on reentry, at least they’ll have gotten some more work done.

  65. “”” They both have the same enhancement in the tropics and similar amplification in the Arctic. They differ most clearly in the stratosphere (the part above 100mb) where CO2 causes cooling while solar causes warming. “””
    Now that is a new revelation to me. Please explain the Physics by which stratospheric CO2 causes cooling. CO2 has negligible absorption shorter than 2.5 microns, and less than 3.5% of the solar spectrum lies beyond that in the infrared.
    So what is the mechanism whereby CO2 in the stratosphere cools the earth ?
    George

  66. Retired Engineer: You wrote, “haven’t figured out how to post a graph.”
    Assuming it’s a graph that you’ve created on your computer, open Microsoft Paint, then copy and paste your graph onto a blank. Save the graph in a conveneient place as a jpg. Go to a picture sharing website such as TinyPic.
    http://tinypic.com/
    Click on browse. Find and link your graph file. Under tags, give the graph a name. Click Upload. The resulting webpage will provide you with a number of “Links to Share”. Copy and paste the html for the “Direct Link for Layouts” to the comment you’re going to post.

  67. I really liked those two garrish pictures after the polar bear gang attacked the big seal; the ones with the oranger, red and brown colors.
    My immediate conclusion is that nobody at Real Climate ever heard of the Nyquist Sampling Theorem.
    Even our 15 x 15 to 32 x 32 pixel mouse cameras take better pictures than that.
    Yes I can imagine the UN dictating the future economy of this planet and its people on the basis of some “Scientific data” like those two pictures.
    And they have the gall to suggest that the two pictures are meaningfully different.
    Try pulling my other leg.
    George

  68. “”” Bruce Foutch (21:33:09) :
    RE: Mike Lorrey (21:41:01), Arthur Glass (20:22:04) :
    Actually I was referring back to the 1799 Kentucky Resolution written by Thomas Jefferson and, in it, his reinforcement of the Tenth Amendment – that all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved for the individual states or to the people.
    http://blog.mises.org/archives/003811.asp “””
    Well far more important than Article 10 of the Bill of Rights, is Article 9; which essentially declares that “The People” retain ALL of the rights that they don’t specifically transfer to the government in the various articles of the Constitution.
    In other words; if the Constitution never mentions some “right” anywhere; then clearly that is a right the people have reserved unto themslves; and in the declaration of Independence they assert that that is “self evident” so it needs no explaining by any branch of the Government; including the courts.
    But I am not supposed to be schooling Americans in their own Constitution; most don’t even care anyway; based on the way they let their government behave, contrary to that remarkable document.
    If that document is supposed to live and breathe as some insist, then I can’t say I have ever heard a wheeze out of it. It does change; and in accordance with an amendment process which it itself lays out in plain English; that being the language of its framers.
    George

  69. Retired Engineer (20:46:11) :
    (haven’t figured out how to post a graph)
    The graph posted here a few months back shows CO2 getting nearly 100% at 15um. And that band has a lot less energy than the shorter wavelengths. There is little incoming energy longer than 3um. Reradiated from the surface pretty much dies out at the 15um band. Not much there.
    Rayleigh scattering has little effect beyond 1um, so isn’t a factor.
    CO2 is doing pretty much all it can. More won’t change much of anything, other than making EMS’s tomato plant grow bigger.

    Repeating the same rubbish doesn’t make it right! Here’s a low res graph from Modtran showing a typical outgoing spectrum illustrating some of your fallacies, you need high res to see the effect of increased CO2.
    http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn107/Sprintstar400/Modtran-dry.gif

  70. George E. Smith (17:17:21) :
    “”” They both have the same enhancement in the tropics and similar amplification in the Arctic. They differ most clearly in the stratosphere (the part above 100mb) where CO2 causes cooling while solar causes warming. “””
    Now that is a new revelation to me. Please explain the Physics by which stratospheric CO2 causes cooling. CO2 has negligible absorption shorter than 2.5 microns, and less than 3.5% of the solar spectrum lies beyond that in the infrared.

    Radiational losses from the excited rovibrational levels of the CO2 direct to space.

Comments are closed.