September 2009 UAH Global Temperature Update +0.42 deg. C
October 7th, 2009 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
YR MON GLOBE NH SH TROPICS
2009 1 +0.304 +0.443 +0.165 -0.036
2009 2 +0.347 +0.678 +0.016 +0.051
2009 3 +0.206 +0.310 +0.103 -0.149
2009 4 +0.090 +0.124 +0.056 -0.014
2009 5 +0.045 +0.046 +0.044 -0.166
2009 6 +0.003 +0.031 -0.025 -0.003
2009 7 +0.411 +0.212 +0.610 +0.427
2009 8 +0.229 +0.282 +0.177 +0.456
2009 9 +0.424 +0.554 +0.295 +0.516
The global-average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly in September 2009 rebounded again, from +0.23 deg. C in August to +0.42 deg. C in September. The tropics and Northern Hemisphere continue to dominate the signal.
NOTE: For those who are monitoring the daily progress of global-average temperatures here, we are still working on switching from NOAA-15 to Aqua AMSU, which will provide more accurate tracking on a daily basis. We will be including both our lower troposphere (LT) and mid-tropospheric (MT) pre-processing of the data. We have added the global sea surface temperature anomalies from the AMSR-E instrument on board the NASA Aqua satellite, computed from files at Remote Sensing Systems, although we are still not done adjusting the display range of those data.
===
RSS: update
RSS for September 2009 is: +0.48 °C
The rank is #2 out of 31 Septembers of data.
Source: RSS (Remote Sensing Systems, Santa Rosa)
RSS data here (RSS Data Version 3.2)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Re: Ripper (03:13:30) :
Appears to be the same thing in 1911. Negative anomaly for the year but hot summer.
Can you post your source for European temperatures?
In Holland summer 1911 was hot (2006 pressed it just out of the top ten since 1901) but the winter was fairly mild (40-percentile) and the year was in the 30-percentile warmest.
But obviously Holland is not at all representative for Europe.
Nasif Nahle (22:01:16) :
Phil. (17:57:09) :
Nasif Nahle (10:37:18) :
“By the way, given that you are a physicist, do you know what the absorptivity of CO2 is, at its current atmospheric Pp? How is it possible that a gas with such very low absorptivity-emissivity, which is not a primary source of energy because it doesn’t burn in the air, could heat up the Earth? Impossible!”
Low absorptivity, what are you talking about? Here’s the actual spectra for the 15 micron band of CO2.
“Obviously, you don’t know even what thermal absorptivity is.”
You obviously don’t know what you’re talking about, for a start where is the word ‘thermal’ in your post?
In any case what is important for CO2 in the atmosphere is the spectral absorptivity, as shown in the spectra I linked to CO2 does not have a low absorptivity in the portion of the IR spectrum of relevance to the Earth’s energy balance.
Phil. (18:24:59) :
I think the point of the whole matter is do the models agree with their predictions? And the answer to that is – so far not. The heating predicted by the models is far more than actuals. There is way too much uncertainty in the models to state with such certainty that temperatures will rise as predicted by the IPCC.
Phil. (18:24:59) :
Nasif Nahle (22:01:16) :
Phil. (17:57:09) :
Nasif Nahle (10:37:18) :
“By the way, given that you are a physicist, do you know what the absorptivity of CO2 is, at its current atmospheric Pp? How is it possible that a gas with such very low absorptivity-emissivity, which is not a primary source of energy because it doesn’t burn in the air, could heat up the Earth? Impossible!”
Low absorptivity, what are you talking about? Here’s the actual spectra for the 15 micron band of CO2.
“Obviously, you don’t know even what thermal absorptivity is.”
You obviously don’t know what you’re talking about, for a start where is the word ‘thermal’ in your post?
In any case what is important for CO2 in the atmosphere is the spectral absorptivity, as shown in the spectra I linked to CO2 does not have a low absorptivity in the portion of the IR spectrum of relevance to the Earth’s energy balance.
Well… What the spectral absorptivity and the thermal absorptivity of carbon dioxide are?
@ur momisugly Phil.
This issue deserves a better explanation (sorry for not transcribing the paragraphs from the quotes; I don’t like to do it and you must read them directly from the sources):
Spectral absorptivity, thermal absorptivity and monochromatic absorptivity coefficients are the same. (Pitts and Sissom. 1998. Page 309).
For spectral absorptivity of carbon dioxide, the maximum coefficient at its maximum Pp in the atmosphere (i.e. 1 atm = 100%) would be 0.3. How is it? The spectral absorptivity of any gas depends on the thickness of the gas layer, although it doesn’t happen linearly. (Modest. 2003. Page 24)
For practical calculations, we iterate spectral absorptivity of any gas according to its Pp in the atmosphere.
Given that the carbon dioxide doesn’t constitute a layer in the atmosphere, but it is mixed with other gases, and the Pp of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not 1 atm, but 0.0034 atm, its spectral absorptivity is not 0.3, but 0.001.
For knowing how much thermal energy emitted by the surface the carbon dioxide absorbs, we invoque the next formula:
q = α (σ) (A) [(Ts) ^4 – (Ta) ^4]
Where α is the spectral absorptivity of the substance. We have to introduce the difference of temperature in Kelvin between the emitter system and the absorber system, the surface and the carbon dioxide respectively.
Let’s see a simple example:
Let’s suppose that the temperature of the soil is 40 °C (313.15 K) and the temperature of the carbon dioxide in the air is 27 °C (300.15 K). How much thermal energy in form of heat the carbon dioxide absorbs?
Introducing magnitudes:
q = 0.001 (5.6697 x 10^-8 W/m^2*K^4) (1 m^2) [(313.15 K) ^4 – (300.15 K) ^4]
q = 0.001 (5.6697 x 10^-8 W/m^2*K^4) (1 m^2) (1500124615.1905 K^4) = 0.085 W = 0.085 J/s.
How much thermal energy is transferred from the surface to the atmospheric carbon dioxide in, let’s say, 1 s?
Q = 0.085 J/s (1 s) = 0.085 J
That’s the reality about the spectral absorptivity of carbon dioxide in its current concentration in the atmosphere.
Just remember four important issues (there are more than ten):
1. The carbon dioxide is not a black body, so its emissivity-absorptivity cannot be 1.
2. The carbon dioxide does not occupy the whole of the atmosphere, but a small fraction of it.
3. There are limits for the spectral, thermal or monochromatic absorptivity (or emissivity) of any substance.
4. The carbon dioxide’s vibration-rotational band does not permit the gas to absorb energy ad infinitum.
Scott Mandia (15:54:40) :
@ur momisugly Nasif Nahle (10:37:18) :
From your comments I guess you are only considering conduction. I am talking about radiation which is emitted in all directions. You are mistaken about some basic physics and atmospheric temperature profiles. The upper troposphere is colder than anywhere in the stratosphere yet outgoing LW still moves toward this “hotter sphere”. Using your logic, do you realize that there would never be outgoing heat at the top of the atmosphere? Using your logic, the troposphere could never give heat to the regions above and we would all burn up!
No, emissivity and absorptivity refer to radiation, not to conduction, so you are the one who lost the basic concepts. You are thinking exactly in the opposite way with respect to my argument. What my logic is from your standpoint?
The stratosphere is cooling faster at higher altitudes than it is at lower altitudes. Yes, ozone depletion is partly responsible for the lower stratospheric cooling but a larger portion is due to less heat being absorbed from below in the troposphere. The CO2 in the stratosphere is still very good at emitting its LW upward. The incoming sunlight is not affected, meaning uv absorption by ozone (heat source) is unchanged.
The stratosphere is cooling faster than what? The CO2 is well mixed with the other gases in the troposphere, so it cannot act as a “blanket” which impedes the transfer of heat to the stratosphere. The heat transfer from the troposphere to the stratosphere and from the stratosphere to the space is quite natural, i.e. normal.
If the region is cooling over time then there is a radiation imbalance in the stratosphere. If heat is being trapped in the lower troposphere due to increasing greenhouse gases, there will be less incoming heat into the stratosphere. The rate of cooling is much greater at higher altitudes where there is little to no ozone but still CO2. That means that the stratosphere is cooling due to increased greenhouse gases in both the troposphere and in the stratosphere. Ozone depletion cannot account for these unequal rates of cooling.
Heat is not trapped anywhere. As a physicist you should know that the heat, as you are handling it here, is a process function. How could you “trap” a process function?
BTW, climate models predicted that this profile would occur under an increased greenhouse gas atmosphere.
Predictions A posteriori, yes. The reality is that the stratosphere is cooling due to a decrease of the incoming solar radiation to the Earth and a decrease of longwave infrarred radiation emitted from the surface to the air; logically, if the surface absorbs lesser solar energy, it would release lesser LW radiation. Lesser energy for being transferred to the stratosphere.
One other point to note is that because CO2 in the troposphere and in the upper stratosphere are causing cooling, there will be a negative side effect: more ozone loss which occurs under colder conditions.
Cooling or warming? I thought AGW idea was that the CO2 is a “strong” GHG.
BTW, what’s the concentration of CO2 in the stratosphere?
Answer to Nasif Nahle (09:13:21) from Nasif Nahle:
The concentration of CO2 in the stratosphere is 88% from its concentration in the troposphere, that is, ~340 ppmV.
Given that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the stratosphere increases proportionally to the increases of the concentration of carbon dioxide in the troposphere, i.e. 1.4 ppmV / year, it would be logical that, if carbon dioxide was the cause of any warming of the troposphere, the stratosphere would be warming up also.
Nevertheless, the stratosphere temperature is not increasing, but decreasing, despite the fact that the content of carbon dioxide over there is increasing (remember that AGWers say the carbon dioxide is a “strong” GHG).
It is absolutely nonsensical to think that the carbon dioxide is a “coureur de bois” hunting for “heat” in the lower-middle tropospheric layers (i.e. a radiator system) while it is supposed to operate in the opposite way from the upper troposphere to the upper stratosphere. Unless you assume the induced photon emission, which would disintegrate the whole idea of AGW.
Thus, I do not find a physical reason by which the stratosphere could be cooling down instead of warming up; unless the GH effect by carbon dioxide is a myth or has been disproportionally exaggerated, which of course it what has happened.
On the other hand, the homogeneity of the mixture of carbon dioxide with other gases from the middle troposphere to the upper stratosphere is not homogeneous. Some volumes of air as from the middle troposphere and upper layers have 386 ppmV of carbon dioxide and other volumes have by far lower concentrations of carbon dioxide than the lower troposphere. Thus, A Priori modeling of the temperatures in those atmospheric layers becomes impossible.
The reality is that the stratosphere is cooling due to a decrease of the incoming solar radiation to the Earth and a decrease of longwave infrarred radiation emitted from the surface to the air; logically, if the surface absorbs lesser solar energy, it would release lesser LW radiation. Lesser energy for being transferred to the stratosphere.
Not true, the stratosphere cools by radiational heat loss to space from the GHG molecules such as CO2 and O3. In the stratosphere, unlike in the troposphere, there are so few collisions that any excited molecules can emit a photon and the chance of the photon hitting another GHG molecule is exceptionally low. Yet again you don’t know what you’re talking about.
See Clough and Iacono: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995JGR…10016519C
Phil. (17:34:12) :
The reality is that the stratosphere is cooling due to a decrease of the incoming solar radiation to the Earth and a decrease of longwave infrarred radiation emitted from the surface to the air; logically, if the surface absorbs lesser solar energy, it would release lesser LW radiation. Lesser energy for being transferred to the stratosphere.
Not true, the stratosphere cools by radiational heat loss to space from the GHG molecules such as CO2 and O3. In the stratosphere, unlike in the troposphere, there are so few collisions that any excited molecules can emit a photon and the chance of the photon hitting another GHG molecule is exceptionally low. Yet again you don’t know what you’re talking about.
See Clough and Iacono: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995JGR…10016519C
I’m not saying there is not radiation to the cold, 3D, unbounded space. On the contrary, I’m assuring that process. That is what has been happening always in the stratosphere; however, we observe now a cooling of the stratosphere, which means the energy absorbed by the molecules of the stratosphere is lesser than usual.
That’s the simpliest point you are constantly lossing, besides of disregarding the first law of thermodynamics and creating energy from the nothingness… As it is usual with AGWer arguments. 🙂
@Phil….
Your link takes us nowhere.
Evidence on cooling of the Stratosphere:
http://www.biocab.org/Temperature_Anomaly_Stratosphere.jpg
Phil. – why dont you cut to the chase? Is it correct that as per the CO2 greenhouse warming hypothesis there should be a “hotspot” over the tropics in the stratosphere which doesn’t exist (the so called CO2 greenhouse warming signature)?
More importantly is it not true that the temperatures are not rising as predicted by the IPCC according to the rise in CO2?
When the experiment doesnt agree with the hypothesis the hypothesis is proved false. Why quibble over why this is so.
Nasif Nahle (20:44:18) :
Phil. (17:34:12) :
“The reality is that the stratosphere is cooling due to a decrease of the incoming solar radiation to the Earth and a decrease of longwave infrarred radiation emitted from the surface to the air; logically, if the surface absorbs lesser solar energy, it would release lesser LW radiation. Lesser energy for being transferred to the stratosphere.”
Not true, the stratosphere cools by radiational heat loss to space from the GHG molecules such as CO2 and O3. In the stratosphere, unlike in the troposphere, there are so few collisions that any excited molecules can emit a photon and the chance of the photon hitting another GHG molecule is exceptionally low. Yet again you don’t know what you’re talking about.
See Clough and Iacono: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995JGR…10016519C
I’m not saying there is not radiation to the cold, 3D, unbounded space. On the contrary, I’m assuring that process. That is what has been happening always in the stratosphere; however, we observe now a cooling of the stratosphere, which means the energy absorbed by the molecules of the stratosphere is lesser than usual.
No you have it backwards, the cooling is due to increased concentration of the radiators (predominantly CO2).
That’s the simpliest point you are constantly lossing, besides of disregarding the first law of thermodynamics and creating energy from the nothingness… As it is usual with AGWer arguments. 🙂
More of your nonsense, you just don’t understand the physics.
Nasif Nahle (21:16:56) :
@Phil….
Your link takes us nowhere.
Sorry about that it works for me, try googling Clough and Iacono JGR vol 100
Richard (23:29:49) :
Phil. – why dont you cut to the chase? Is it correct that as per the CO2 greenhouse warming hypothesis there should be a “hotspot” over the tropics in the stratosphere which doesn’t exist (the so called CO2 greenhouse warming signature)?
No that’s not true, the tropical tropospheric ‘hotspot’ is a result of the moist lapse rate, not GHG.
More importantly is it not true that the temperatures are not rising as predicted by the IPCC according to the rise in CO2?
No, for one thing IPCC doesn’t make predictions, secondly the temperatures are rising along with CO2 subject to perturbations due to volcanos and other fluctuations.
When the experiment doesnt agree with the hypothesis the hypothesis is proved false. Why quibble over why this is so.
Nothing to quibble over, do you apply that logic to cosmic ray and the ‘sun did it’ schools?
Sorry the previous version of this didn’t turn out right.
Phil. (06:22:05) :
Nasif Nahle (20:44:18) :
Phil. (17:34:12) :
The reality is that the stratosphere is cooling due to a decrease of the incoming solar radiation to the Earth and a decrease of longwave infrarred radiation emitted from the surface to the air; logically, if the surface absorbs lesser solar energy, it would release lesser LW radiation. Lesser energy for being transferred to the stratosphere.
“Not true, the stratosphere cools by radiational heat loss to space from the GHG molecules such as CO2 and O3. In the stratosphere, unlike in the troposphere, there are so few collisions that any excited molecules can emit a photon and the chance of the photon hitting another GHG molecule is exceptionally low. Yet again you don’t know what you’re talking about.
See Clough and Iacono: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995JGR…10016519C”
I’m not saying there is not radiation to the cold, 3D, unbounded space. On the contrary, I’m assuring that process. That is what has been happening always in the stratosphere; however, we observe now a cooling of the stratosphere, which means the energy absorbed by the molecules of the stratosphere is lesser than usual.
No you have it backwards, the cooling is due to increased concentration of the radiators (predominantly CO2).
That’s the simpliest point you are constantly lossing, besides of disregarding the first law of thermodynamics and creating energy from the nothingness… As it is usual with AGWer arguments. 🙂
More of your nonsense, you just don’t understand the physics.
Phil. (06:40:27) :
Sorry the previous version of this didn’t turn out right.
See Clough and Iacono: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995JGR…10016519C”
It’s a model, not the reality.
Nasif: I’m not saying there is not radiation to the cold, 3D, unbounded space. On the contrary, I’m assuring that process. That is what has been happening always in the stratosphere; however, we observe now a cooling of the stratosphere, which means the energy absorbed by the molecules of the stratosphere is lesser than usual.
No you have it backwards, the cooling is due to increased concentration of the radiators (predominantly CO2).
You are who doesn’t know physics. The values for absorptivity are the same than the values for emissivity. You pretend that the “radiators” behave in a particular way in the troposphere and into another way in the stratosphere, which is pure pseudoscience
That’s the simpliest point you are constantly lossing, besides of disregarding the first law of thermodynamics and creating energy from the nothingness… As it is usual with AGWer arguments. 🙂
More of your nonsense, you just don’t understand the physics.
I have demonstrated you are who don’t know the physics. You’re inventing your own “pseudophysics”.
Phil. (06:36:37) :
Richard (23:29:49) :
Phil. – why dont you cut to the chase? Is it correct that as per the CO2 greenhouse warming hypothesis there should be a “hotspot” over the tropics in the stratosphere which doesn’t exist (the so called CO2 greenhouse warming signature)?
No that’s not true, the tropical tropospheric ‘hotspot’ is a result of the moist lapse rate, not GHG.
Sorry Phil., Richard is correct:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/11/spotting-the-agw-fingerprint/
I’ll take you back to the basics. The next paragraph (I don’t like to do this, but it is neccessary now) is from the book Radiative Heat Transfer (2003), by Michael F. Modest, page 1 (bolds are mine:
“All materials continuously emit and absorb electromagnetic waves, or photons, by lowering or rising their molecular energy levels.”
However, you say the molecules of the stratosphere only radiate energy towards de cold, 3D, unbounded space…
The question for you, Phil., to answer is: What the mechanism is by which your “radiators” in the stratosphere radiate energy towards the cold, 3D, unbounded space if there is not a supplier of energy? Is there a creation of energy from the nothingness or something of the kind? 🙂
From the same book, page 2:
“Other applications include solar energy collection (Nasif’s note: not “trapping”, which is the mystical unreal process preferred by AGWers) and the greenhouse effect (both due to emission from our high temperature Sun)”
From this quote you can see that the greenhouse effect depends absolutely on the emissions from the sun. Is it now clear to you?
1. For emitting energy towards the cold, 3D, unbounded space, the gases compounding the stratosphere must to absorb energy from a source.
2. The source of energy is the Sun. Once the incoming solar energy has been absorbed by the surface of the Earth and by the atmospheric water vapor, it is emitted towards de cold, 3D, unbounded space, but a portion of the emitted energy by the surface is absorbed along its way by the atmospheric gases, mainly by water vapor and methane, and exiguously by the carbon dioxide.
3. The thermal radiative properties of the tropospheric carbon dioxide are the same than the thermal radiative properties of the stratospheric carbon dioxide.
4. As the water vapor density dramatically falls in the stratosphere, the greenhouse effect in that layer of the atmosphere is utterly affected by the load of thermal energy released from the surface and the lower and middle troposphere towards the cold, 3D, unbounded space.
5. No way in nature for energy transfer from a low energy density system to a high energy density system.
6. There is not a single possibility that a molecule impulsively emits more thermal energy than the total of thermal energy it contains.
Nasif Nahle (07:22:18) :
Phil. (06:40:27) :
Sorry the previous version of this didn’t turn out right.
See Clough and Iacono: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995JGR…10016519C”
It’s a model, not the reality.
Which is supported by observation, it is reality.
Nasif: I’m not saying there is not radiation to the cold, 3D, unbounded space. On the contrary, I’m assuring that process. That is what has been happening always in the stratosphere; however, we observe now a cooling of the stratosphere, which means the energy absorbed by the molecules of the stratosphere is lesser than usual.
“No you have it backwards, the cooling is due to increased concentration of the radiators (predominantly CO2).”
You are who doesn’t know physics. The values for absorptivity are the same than the values for emissivity. You pretend that the “radiators” behave in a particular way in the troposphere and into another way in the stratosphere, which is pure pseudoscience
They do! You still don’t understand how the atmosphere works!
Near the earth’s surface an excited state CO2 is constantly bombarded by collisions with its neighboring molecules (about 10 collisions/nsec mostly N2 and O2). The fluorescence lifetime of the CO2 is much longer than that so in general the excitation energy is lost to the surroundings as kinetic energy rather than re-radiating. This physics is well known being the basis of the CO2 laser.
As the CO2 rises into the stratosphere the mean time between collisions increases greatly allowing progressively more re-radiation, hence in the upper stratosphere this is the predominant heat loss mechanism.
“That’s the simpliest point you are constantly lossing, besides of disregarding the first law of thermodynamics and creating energy from the nothingness… As it is usual with AGWer arguments. 🙂
“More of your nonsense, you just don’t understand the physics.”
I have demonstrated you are who don’t know the physics. You’re inventing your own “pseudophysics”.”
All you have demonstrated is your own ignorance of the subject, I strongly recommend that you read Clough & Iacono where you will find the physics described for you.
Phil. (09:28:24) :
All you have demonstrated is your own ignorance of the subject, I strongly recommend that you read Clough & Iacono where you will find the physics described for you.
I’m not saying the gases in the troposphere don’t absorb energy, but only radiate it to the space… It’s you who is saying that. Heh!
Read my post:
Nasif Nahle (08:58:26) :
🙂
Nasif Nahle (08:58:26) :
Phil. (06:36:37) :
Richard (23:29:49) :
“Phil. – why dont you cut to the chase? Is it correct that as per the CO2 greenhouse warming hypothesis there should be a “hotspot” over the tropics in the stratosphere which doesn’t exist (the so called CO2 greenhouse warming signature)?”
Phil.: “No that’s not true, the tropical tropospheric ‘hotspot’ is a result of the moist lapse rate, not GHG.”
Sorry Phil., Richard is correct:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/11/spotting-the-agw-fingerprint/
No he isn’t, Spencer in the cited post agrees with me (my emphasis added)!
“But the hotspot is not a unique signature of manmade greenhouse gases. It simply reflects anomalous heating of the troposphere — no matter what its source. Anomalous heating gets spread throughout the depth of the troposphere by convection, and greater temperature rise in the upper troposphere than in the lower troposphere is because of latent heat release (rainfall formation) there.
For instance, a natural decrease in cloud cover would have had the same effect. It would lead to increased solar warming of the ocean, followed by warming and humidifying of the global atmosphere and an acceleration of the hydrologic cycle.
Thus, while possibly significant from the standpoint of indicating problems with feedbacks in climate models, the lack of a hotspot no more disproves manmade global warming than the existence of the hotspot would have proved manmade global warming. At most, it would be evidence that the warming influence of increasing GHGs in the models has been exaggerated, probably due to exaggerated positive feedback from water vapor.”
I’ll take you back to the basics. The next paragraph (I don’t like to do this, but it is neccessary now) is from the book Radiative Heat Transfer (2003), by Michael F. Modest, page 1 (bolds are mine:
“All materials continuously emit and absorb electromagnetic waves, or photons, by lowering or rising their molecular energy levels.”
Should be ‘discretely’ but otherwise ok.
However, you say the molecules of the stratosphere only radiate energy towards de cold, 3D, unbounded space…
No I don’t, and in any case your quote says nothing about direction. However the downwardly emitted radiation is into a thicker atmosphere and therefore is more likely to be absorbed by other molecules unlike the photons emitted outwards.
The question for you, Phil., to answer is: What the mechanism is by which your “radiators” in the stratosphere radiate energy towards the cold, 3D, unbounded space if there is not a supplier of energy? Is there a creation of energy from the nothingness or something of the kind? 🙂
Where do you get the idea that there was no supplier of energy? Even if there wasn’t they would still cool until they were in the lowest vibrational state in the ground electronic state. See below.
From the same book, page 2:
“Other applications include solar energy collection (Nasif’s note: not “trapping”, which is the mystical unreal process preferred by AGWers) and the greenhouse effect (both due to emission from our high temperature Sun)”
From this quote you can see that the greenhouse effect depends absolutely on the emissions from the sun. Is it now clear to you?
Ultimately all emissions from the earth depend on emissions from the sun, so what?
1. For emitting energy towards the cold, 3D, unbounded space, the gases compounding the stratosphere must to absorb energy from a source.
To continuously emit they must absorb energy.
2. The source of energy is the Sun. Once the incoming solar energy has been absorbed by the surface of the Earth and by the atmospheric water vapor, it is emitted towards de cold, 3D, unbounded space, but a portion of the emitted energy by the surface is absorbed along its way by the atmospheric gases, mainly by water vapor and methane, and exiguously by the carbon dioxide.
Indirectly from the sun, either by absorbing IR from the surface (or lower parts of the atmosphere, clouds etc.) or via collisions from other high energy molecules (even though less frequently than in the troposphere).
3. The thermal radiative properties of the tropospheric carbon dioxide are the same than the thermal radiative properties of the stratospheric carbon dioxide.
Yes but their collisional environment isn’t which is what makes the difference, as I explained above.
4. As the water vapor density dramatically falls in the stratosphere, the greenhouse effect in that layer of the atmosphere is utterly affected by the load of thermal energy released from the surface and the lower and middle troposphere towards the cold, 3D, unbounded space.
I’ve no idea what this is supposed to mean, try again in English.
5. No way in nature for energy transfer from a low energy density system to a high energy density system.
Yes there is, it’s called radiation. Had you said ‘net energy transfer’ it would be more accurate. If you were right then thermocouple radiation shields in combustion chambers wouldn’t work.
6. There is not a single possibility that a molecule impulsively emits more thermal energy than the total of thermal energy it contains.
Which has nothing to do with this discussion.
Phil. (13:01:39) :
Sorry Phil., Richard is correct:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/11/spotting-the-agw-fingerprint/
No he isn’t, Spencer in the cited post agrees with me (my emphasis added)!
“But the hotspot is not a unique signature of manmade greenhouse gases. It simply reflects anomalous heating of the troposphere — no matter what its source. Anomalous heating gets spread throughout the depth of the troposphere by convection, and greater temperature rise in the upper troposphere than in the lower troposphere is because of latent heat release (rainfall formation) there.
You didn’t read it well… 🙂 You lost the next sentence from Roy’s article:
“For instance, the famous “hot spot” seen in the figure has become a hot topic in recent years since at least two satellite temperature datasets (including our UAH dataset), and most radiosonde data analyses suggest the tropical hotspot does not exist.”
Bolds are mine… 🙂
For instance, a natural decrease in cloud cover would have had the same effect. It would lead to increased solar warming of the ocean, followed by warming and humidifying of the global atmosphere and an acceleration of the hydrologic cycle.
Phil. Why you snipped the last sentence in the above paragraph? 🙂
“…and most radiosonde data analyses suggest the tropical hotspot does not exist.”
It’s seems your pseudophysics is hastily progressing.
I’ll take you back to the basics. The next paragraph (I don’t like to do this, but it is neccessary now) is from the book Radiative Heat Transfer (2003), by Michael F. Modest, page 1 (bolds are mine:
“All materials continuously emit and absorb electromagnetic waves, or photons, by lowering or rising their molecular energy levels.”
Should be ‘discretely’ but otherwise ok.
Oh, no! Not discretely, but continuously. The energy radiated depends on the energy absorbed. Quite simple.
However, you say the molecules of the stratosphere only radiate energy towards de cold, 3D, unbounded space…
No I don’t, and in any case your quote says nothing about direction. However the downwardly emitted radiation is into a thicker atmosphere and therefore is more likely to be absorbed by other molecules unlike the photons emitted outwards.
Another problem on thermodynamics knowledge. Now you are saying that the stratosphere radiates towards a hotter system instead a colder one.
The question for you, Phil., to answer is: What the mechanism is by which your “radiators” in the stratosphere radiate energy towards the cold, 3D, unbounded space if there is not a supplier of energy? Is there a creation of energy from the nothingness or something of the kind? 🙂
Where do you get the idea that there was no supplier of energy? Even if there wasn’t they would still cool until they were in the lowest vibrational state in the ground electronic state. See below.
You said it.
From the same book, page 2:
“Other applications include solar energy collection (Nasif’s note: not “trapping”, which is the mystical unreal process preferred by AGWers) and the greenhouse effect (both due to emission from our high temperature Sun)”
From this quote you can see that the greenhouse effect depends absolutely on the emissions from the sun. Is it now clear to you?
Ultimately all emissions from the earth depend on emissions from the sun, so what?
Good!!! You’re learning.
1. For emitting energy towards the cold, 3D, unbounded space, the gases compounding the stratosphere must to absorb energy from a source.
To continuously emit they must absorb energy.
2. The source of energy is the Sun. Once the incoming solar energy has been absorbed by the surface of the Earth and by the atmospheric water vapor, it is emitted towards de cold, 3D, unbounded space, but a portion of the emitted energy by the surface is absorbed along its way by the atmospheric gases, mainly by water vapor and methane, and exiguously by the carbon dioxide.
Phil. says: Indirectly from the sun, either by absorbing IR from the surface (or lower parts of the atmosphere, clouds etc.) or via collisions from other high energy molecules (even though less frequently than in the troposphere).
And you will say you didn’t say it… There is no other primary source of energy than the Sun. If the solar energy doesn’t warm the surface, the atmosphere either would be warmed.
3. The thermal radiative properties of the tropospheric carbon dioxide are the same than the thermal radiative properties of the stratospheric carbon dioxide.
Phil. says: Yes but their collisional environment isn’t which is what makes the difference, as I explained above.
Again, are the thermal properties of the carbon dioxide different in the stratosphere than in the troposphere? No, they are the same, and the same laws apply.
4. As the water vapor density dramatically falls in the stratosphere, the greenhouse effect in that layer of the atmosphere is utterly affected by the load of thermal energy released from the surface and the lower and middle troposphere towards the cold, 3D, unbounded space.
Phil. says: I’ve no idea what this is supposed to mean, try again in English.
El vapor de agua está presente en exiguas cantidades en la estratósfera, es por eso que el efecto de calentamiento es mucho menor que en la troposfera. Aún cuando la concentración de bióxido de carbono es casi la misma en la estratósfera (340 ppmV) que en la troposfera (386 ppmV).
Check?
5. No way in nature for energy transfer from a low energy density system to a high energy density system.
Yes there is, it’s called radiation. Had you said ‘net energy transfer’ it would be more accurate. If you were right then thermocouple radiation shields in combustion chambers wouldn’t work.
Now you’re integrating a pseudothermodynamics to your pseudophysics. 🙂
You’re changing the second law of thermodynamics. Please, don’t come with the myth that the second law can be violated by the carbon dioxide, or that the second law is different in your world; Ok?
6. There is not a single possibility that a molecule impulsively emits more thermal energy than the total of thermal energy it contains.
Which has nothing to do with this discussion.
It’s the root of the discussion. You’re creating energy from the nothingness.
A thought about the tropopause.
I have previously suggested that the oceans introduce variations in the flow of (originally) solar energy through the Earth system which the air circulations then have to counter in order to ensure that energy leaving the Earth matches energy reaching the Earth.
The variable speed of the hydro cycle moves energy at variable speeds from the surface to the top of the tropopause.
Variations in the air circulations in the stratosphere would then control the rate of energy release to space.
Both processes are always opposing each other and it is the ever changing balance between them that causes climate variability.
It seems obvious that there would be a boundary between the predominance of the hydro cycle in the tropopause and the predominance of the other air circulations in the stratosphere. That would be the tropopause.
Furthermore the height of the tropopause would vary depending on which process was ‘winning’ at any given moment.
Warming should produce a higher tropopause and cooling a lower tropopause (on average globally in each case).
The presence of a sharp discontinuity at the tropopause gives some weight to my general climate description.
Nasif Nahle (13:57:18) :
Phil. (13:01:39) :
Sorry Phil., Richard is correct:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/11/spotting-the-agw-fingerprint/
No he isn’t, Spencer in the cited post agrees with me (my emphasis added)!
“But the hotspot is not a unique signature of manmade greenhouse gases. It simply reflects anomalous heating of the troposphere — no matter what its source. Anomalous heating gets spread throughout the depth of the troposphere by convection, and greater temperature rise in the upper troposphere than in the lower troposphere is because of latent heat release (rainfall formation) there.
You didn’t read it well… 🙂
I’m afraid it’s your comprehension of English that’s at fault, Spencer agrees with me that the ‘hotspot’ is not a consequence of the GHE.
You lost the next sentence from Roy’s article:
“For instance, the famous “hot spot” seen in the figure has become a hot topic in recent years since at least two satellite temperature datasets (including our UAH dataset), and most radiosonde data analyses suggest the tropical hotspot does not exist.”
Bolds are mine… 🙂
For instance, a natural decrease in cloud cover would have had the same effect. It would lead to increased solar warming of the ocean, followed by warming and humidifying of the global atmosphere and an acceleration of the hydrologic cycle.
Phil. Why you snipped the last sentence in the above paragraph? 🙂
“…and most radiosonde data analyses suggest the tropical hotspot does not exist.”
Which has no impact on the GHE as Spencer says in that post!
I’ll take you back to the basics. The next paragraph (I don’t like to do this, but it is neccessary now) is from the book Radiative Heat Transfer (2003), by Michael F. Modest, page 1 (bolds are mine:
“All materials continuously emit and absorb electromagnetic waves, or photons, by lowering or rising their molecular energy levels.”
“Should be ‘discretely’ but otherwise ok.”
Oh, no! Not discretely, but continuously. The energy radiated depends on the energy absorbed. Quite simple.
Actually it doesn’t, there’s the matter of quantum mechanics and collisional quenching to be considered.
However, you say the molecules of the stratosphere only radiate energy towards de cold, 3D, unbounded space…
“No I don’t, and in any case your quote says nothing about direction. However the downwardly emitted radiation is into a thicker atmosphere and therefore is more likely to be absorbed by other molecules unlike the photons emitted outwards.”
Another problem on thermodynamics knowledge. Now you are saying that the stratosphere radiates towards a hotter system instead a colder one.
Yes it radiates in all directions, the molecule emitting a photon doesn’t know anything about the temperature of distant objects, according to your physics a satellite passing between the sun and the earth wouldn’t be able to see the earth because all the molecules on earth would know not to emit in that direction!
The question for you, Phil., to answer is: What the mechanism is by which your “radiators” in the stratosphere radiate energy towards the cold, 3D, unbounded space if there is not a supplier of energy? Is there a creation of energy from the nothingness or something of the kind? 🙂
I’ve already told you, absorption of IR and collision with other energetic molecules.
“Where do you get the idea that there was no supplier of energy? Even if there wasn’t they would still cool until they were in the lowest vibrational state in the ground electronic state. See below.”
You said it.
No you dreamt it up.
From the same book, page 2:
“Other applications include solar energy collection (Nasif’s note: not “trapping”, which is the mystical unreal process preferred by AGWers) and the greenhouse effect (both due to emission from our high temperature Sun)”
From this quote you can see that the greenhouse effect depends absolutely on the emissions from the sun. Is it now clear to you?
“Ultimately all emissions from the earth depend on emissions from the sun, so what?”
Good!!! You’re learning.
1. For emitting energy towards the cold, 3D, unbounded space, the gases compounding the stratosphere must to absorb energy from a source.
“To continuously emit they must absorb energy.”
2. The source of energy is the Sun. Once the incoming solar energy has been absorbed by the surface of the Earth and by the atmospheric water vapor, it is emitted towards de cold, 3D, unbounded space, but a portion of the emitted energy by the surface is absorbed along its way by the atmospheric gases, mainly by water vapor and methane, and exiguously by the carbon dioxide.
Phil. says: Indirectly from the sun, either by absorbing IR from the surface (or lower parts of the atmosphere, clouds etc.) or via collisions from other high energy molecules (even though less frequently than in the troposphere).
And you will say you didn’t say it… There is no other primary source of energy than the Sun. If the solar energy doesn’t warm the surface, the atmosphere either would be warmed.
There appears to be something missing here.
3. The thermal radiative properties of the tropospheric carbon dioxide are the same than the thermal radiative properties of the stratospheric carbon dioxide.
Phil. says:” Yes but their collisional environment isn’t which is what makes the difference, as I explained above.”
Again, are the thermal properties of the carbon dioxide different in the stratosphere than in the troposphere? No, they are the same, and the same laws apply.
The same laws apply but the environments are different hence you have collisional quenching in the troposphere but not it the stratosphere.
4. As the water vapor density dramatically falls in the stratosphere, the greenhouse effect in that layer of the atmosphere is utterly affected by the load of thermal energy released from the surface and the lower and middle troposphere towards the cold, 3D, unbounded space.
Phil. says: I’ve no idea what this is supposed to mean, try again in English.
El vapor de agua está presente en exiguas cantidades en la estratósfera, es por eso que el efecto de calentamiento es mucho menor que en la troposfera. Aún cuando la concentración de bióxido de carbono es casi la misma en la estratósfera (340 ppmV) que en la troposfera (386 ppmV).
Funny sort of English. In Spanish it makes more sense but it’s still not right as far as the physics is concerned, ‘en la estratósfera no hay un efecto de calentamiento pero hay un efecto de enfriamiento’.
5. No way in nature for energy transfer from a low energy density system to a high energy density system.
“Yes there is, it’s called radiation. Had you said ‘net energy transfer’ it would be more accurate. If you were right then thermocouple radiation shields in combustion chambers wouldn’t work.”
Now you’re integrating a pseudothermodynamics to your pseudophysics. 🙂
You’re changing the second law of thermodynamics. Please, don’t come with the myth that the second law can be violated by the carbon dioxide, or that the second law is different in your world; Ok?
Actually it’s you that is changing the second law, the one you apparently believe in doesn’t work in this universe!
6. There is not a single possibility that a molecule impulsively emits more thermal energy than the total of thermal energy it contains.
Which has nothing to do with this discussion.
It’s the root of the discussion. You’re creating energy from the nothingness.
Only in your head!
Phil. (16:49:51) :
“But the hotspot is not a unique signature of manmade greenhouse gases. It simply reflects anomalous heating of the troposphere — no matter what its source. Anomalous heating gets spread throughout the depth of the troposphere by convection, and greater temperature rise in the upper troposphere than in the lower troposphere is because of latent heat release (rainfall formation) there.
You didn’t read it well… 🙂
Phil. says: I’m afraid it’s your comprehension of English that’s at fault, Spencer agrees with me that the ‘hotspot’ is not a consequence of the GHE.
And you don’t read English. What “hotspot”? Spencer is saying it clearly:
“…and most radiosonde data analyses suggest the tropical hotspot does not exist.”
Again… You lost and snipped that sentence from Roy’s article:
For instance, a natural decrease in cloud cover would have had the same effect. It would lead to increased solar warming of the ocean, followed by warming and humidifying of the global atmosphere and an acceleration of the hydrologic cycle.
Phil. Why you snipped the last sentence in the above paragraph? 🙂
“…and most radiosonde data analyses suggest the tropical hotspot does not exist.”
Phil. says: Which has no impact on the GHE as Spencer says in that post!
No impact? The “hotspot” doesn’t exist but in your pseudoclimatology! 🙂
“Should be ‘discretely’ but otherwise ok.”
Oh, no! Not discretely, but continuously. The energy radiated depends on the energy absorbed. Quite simple.
Actually it doesn’t, there’s the matter of quantum mechanics and collisional quenching to be considered.
Someone here is confunding liquids and solids with gases and it’s not me… Heh! From the same Modest’s book, page 3:
“Thermal radiative energy may be viewed as consisting of electromagnetic waves (as predicted by electromagnetic wave theory) or as consisting of massless energy parcels, called photons (as predicted by quantum mechanics).
If you say that the energy radiated is not part of the energy absorbed,, as Modest and all physicists say, you are saying that energy is created from the nothingness or that molecules are changing their physical nature, which is plain pseudoscience.
Another problem on thermodynamics knowledge. Now you are saying that the stratosphere radiates towards a hotter system instead a colder one.
Phil. says: Yes it radiates in all directions, the molecule emitting a photon doesn’t know anything about the temperature of distant objects, according to your physics a satellite passing between the sun and the earth wouldn’t be able to see the earth because all the molecules on earth would know not to emit in that direction!
You are trying to get rid of the second law of thermodynamics, uh? Your example of a satellite is similar to the question: Have you seen your brain? No? Then you cannot demonstrate you have brain.
I’ve already told you, absorption of IR and collision with other energetic molecules.
Pointless argument.
There appears to be something missing here.
Yes, you lost the second law of thermodynamics.
Again, are the thermal properties of the carbon dioxide different in the stratosphere than in the troposphere? No, they are the same, and the same laws apply.
The same laws apply but the environments are different hence you have collisional quenching in the troposphere but not it the stratosphere.
The mechanisms of heat transfer are the same, everywhere, and the laws of thermodynamics governs all, everywhere.
El vapor de agua está presente en exiguas cantidades en la estratósfera, es por eso que el efecto de calentamiento es mucho menor que en la troposfera. Aún cuando la concentración de bióxido de carbono es casi la misma en la estratósfera (340 ppmV) que en la troposfera (386 ppmV).
Funny sort of English. In Spanish it makes more sense but it’s still not right as far as the physics is concerned, ‘en la estratósfera no hay un efecto de calentamiento pero hay un efecto de enfriamiento’.
You see? I told you that yesterday, and I am right. The stratosphere is undergoing a cooling period despite the large concentration of carbon dioxide over there (340 ppmV and increasing day by day).
BTW, the stratosphere receives energy from the Sun, through UVB collisions with ozone. The thermal energy is transferred from the upper layer to the lower layer of the stratosphere by conduction. The stratosphere also receives thermal energy in form of heat from below, through the troposphere, and the energy is transferred from the troposphere to the lower layer of the stratosphere by convection. The thermal energy absorbed by the gases in the stratosphere is transferred inside the stratosphere through horizontal convection, since there is not vertical mixing in the stratosphere.
Graph on the cooling of the stratosphere:
http://www.biocab.org/Temperature_Anomaly_Stratosphere.jpg
5. No way in nature for energy transfer from a low energy density system to a high energy density system.
“Yes there is, it’s called radiation. Had you said ‘net energy transfer’ it would be more accurate. If you were right then thermocouple radiation shields in combustion chambers wouldn’t work.”
Now you’re integrating a pseudothermodynamics to your pseudophysics. 🙂
You’re changing the second law of thermodynamics. Please, don’t come with the myth that the second law can be violated by the carbon dioxide, or that the second law is different in your world; Ok?
Actually it’s you that is changing the second law, the one you apparently believe in doesn’t work in this universe!
Are you suggesting the heat transfer occurs from cold systems to hot systems? Wow! Not new in AGW postmodernist ideology.
6. There is not a single possibility that a molecule impulsively emits more thermal energy than the total of thermal energy it contains.
Which has nothing to do with this discussion.
It’s the root of the discussion. You’re creating energy from the nothingness.
Only in your head!
And in the head of all scientists on this world. No source of energy, no energy added to the system. You are arguing that the thermal energy is not transferred from the Sun and from the troposphere to the molecules in the stratosphere; consequently, you are suggesting the creation of energy from the nothingness; then, it is the most important thing to handle on this “discussion”.
Nasif your lack of physical knowledge and inability to understand English is mind boggling, it’s a waste of everyone’s bandwidth trying to explain it to you (reminiscent of a similarly futile discussion between you and Leif)!
An example:
You say: “You are arguing that the thermal energy is not transferred from the Sun and from the troposphere to the molecules in the stratosphere;”
Whereas I actually said referring to CO2 in the stratosphere: “Indirectly from the sun, either by absorbing IR from the surface (or lower parts of the atmosphere, clouds etc.) or via collisions from other high energy molecules (even though less frequently than in the troposphere).”