UAH Global Temperature Update July, 2011: +0.37 deg. C
By Dr. Roy Spencer
How ironic..a “global warming denier” reporting on warmer temperatures 
The global average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly for July, 2011 increased to +0.37 deg. C (click on the image for a LARGE version):
Even though the Northern Hemisphere temperature anomaly cooled slightly in July, as did the tropics, warming in the Southern Hemisphere more than made up for it:
YR MON GLOBAL NH SH TROPICS
2011 1 -0.010 -0.055 +0.036 -0.372
2011 2 -0.020 -0.042 +0.002 -0.348
2011 3 -0.101 -0.073 -0.128 -0.342
2011 4 +0.117 +0.195 +0.039 -0.229
2011 5 +0.133 +0.145 +0.121 -0.043
2011 6 +0.315 +0.379 +0.250 +0.233
2011 7 +0.372 +0.340 +0.404 +0.198
For those who want to infer great meaning from large month-to-month temperature changes, I remind them that much of this activity is due to natural variations in the rate at which the ocean loses heat to the atmosphere. Evidence for this is seen at the end of the sea surface temperature record through last month, which has a down-tick during the recent up-tick in atmospheric temperatures:
Global Sea Surface Temperature through July:
Here are the SST anomalies from AMSR-E on the NASA Aqua satellite (note the different base period, since Aqua has been flying only since 2002…click for a larger version):
Was the 1930’s heat and dry spell due to CO2 ? The dirty 30’s referred to a decade of hot dry temperatures, was this due to CO2 ? If anyone is attributing this hot weather to CO2 please explain the 1930’s.
USA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_temperature_extremes
Canada
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extreme_temperatures_in_Canada
Robert Sheldon S.C. says:
August 2, 2011 at 12:21 am
“How come the science related by you guys on here never sees the light of day in mainstream media?”
Mainstream media survives by shifting units and is never interested in non-alarming news so by and large they will side with the alarmists, no matter in which area. To cover their behinds, they do publish a skeptic piece once a year when they’re not Der Spiegel or the BBC.
In other words: From the media, always expect alarm.
@ur momisugly HenryP
August 2, 2011 at 7:30 am
[“Global warming caused by CO2 therefore comes down to a belief system: you just have to have “faith”. There is no real proof. It is all in the mind of man behaving badly. The applied logic is simply: “let us have a planet, let us add some CO2 and let us see if the temperature went up. It did. So that must be it”. My question is: how could this type of logic have passed the desks of so many scientists without them having raised one single flag? The only answer that I can give to this question, is: money…..A whole “green” industry has been built up in the last 2 decades on the assumption that carbon dioxide is bad….”]
HenryP.
That is one of the most enlightened and telling pieces of prose I have witnessed in the ‘global warming’ debate. Kudos.
It is also the reason why warmists and lukewarmists will always refuse to answer a query for proof or evidence of the ‘science’ upon which their dogma is based. The assumption that a trace gas can contribute significantly to the Greenhouse Effect is all they have.
Regards,
AB
I knew I was going to get a slew of “correlation is not causation”. That is quite true.
But there is also the simple fact that theory predicts GHGs should warm the world (and more GHGs should produce more warming). And there is a second simple fact that the earth is indeed warmer than it should be from simple radiation balance without GHGs. Computer sales or # of pirates or the stock market have neither of these properties.
Correlation by itself is weak. Theory by itself is weak. Theory supported correlation is a scientific relationship.
You can argue that other factors like sunspots have an effect.
You can argue how much other factors like water vapor provide positive or negative feedback.
But that does not change the fact the the stated hypothesis is statistically and theoretically clear.
Take one of Smokey’s favorite hypotheses — that more CO2 makes plants grow better.
* There is theoretical reason to believe that.
* There are statistical studies to show that.
It IS a scientifically verified hypothesis. The experiments can be a bit better controlled than global warming, but in principle, CO2 –> higher temperatures and CO2 –> better plant growth are equally “scientific” and pretty much equally supported.
“The assumption that a trace gas can contribute significantly to the Greenhouse Effect is all they have.”
NO!
It is no “assumption — it is a theory supported by facts. Trace gases not only CAN contribute to the Greenhouse effect — they ARE the greenhouse effect! They keep the earth significantly warmer than it would be without those trace gases. I disagree with Smokey about a number of things, but even he admits that CO2 (and CH4 and H2O) help warm the earth. It is just a question of how much warming (and then the extent of the effect of that warming on the world).
Now, some extremist certainly overplay the extent of the warming and the extent of the damage. But ignoring the science of the greenhouse effect will not turn it into “an assumption”.
Hey Henry P,
I’m not scared about being saved or not when the real threat is CAGW! Anyway, I follow Jesus’ teachings away from all that Christian orthodoxy. You better head over to Lucia’s Blackboard and get educated by an atheist. I’m too skeptical to be an atheist, but just for the moment, pretty cyncical about the faith all you warmists and alarmists have in your climate models despite ignorance of the variables, and on your Christ and how the church ignored so much of Jesus’ teachings and twisted so much of the rest. If the certitude in religious beliefs is the poster child for confirmation bias and selective reading of evidence, then climate science has become its twin sister. It’s said that no (climate) models are accurate, but some some (climate) models are useful. Useful, you bet, for demostrating confirmation bias. When was the last time an alarmist or warmist had anything good to say about a model that didn’t support his, her, their bias? Yes, an honest scientist and an honest religionist would say more times than not, “I don’t know.”
Certitudo absurdus.
Thank you again “timetochooseagain”
“Caleb says:
August 2, 2011 at 3:49 am
davidmhoffer says:
August 1, 2011 at 9:07 pm
“…it takes a LOT of change at hot temperatures to get a 1 degree change and much less to get a 1 degree change at cold temperatures…”
David, could you explain this further?”
I will try taking a stab at this. Warm air can hold much more water vapor than cold air, and the specific heat capacity of water vapor is about double that of air, so there could be a small effect here. However I think the major difference is due to phase changes of ice to water and water to vapor. Take a look at how the temperature spikes up and down like a yo-yo when well below freezing, but stays very constant when it gets above freezing. It is almost as if huge brakes are being applied once the freezing point is reached. See
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
No doubt, similar things happen near large bodies of water. If the temperature were to try to go much above the water temperature, much of the extra heat would go into evaporating more water instead of raising the temperature.
In rare cases where there is fog in the air at 100 F versus -40 F, it is obvious that there are much more tiny liquid water droplets that would evaporate at 100 F than at -40 F so in this scenario, it would also take much more heat to go from 100 to 101 than from -40 to -39.
Brian says:
August 1, 2011 at 4:03 pm
Jeremy says:
August 1, 2011 at 1:58 pm
Down here in GA it was already hitting in the mid-90′s in June when the average temps are supposed to be in the mid to upper 80′s. Now it’s due to reach the upper 90′s and lower 100′s in the next few days.
CO2 causin’ this heatwave is it? So, instead of a ‘typical’ type of a heatwave hitting your area at the peak of the summer warming curve such as is the case this week, you blame CO2? Huh, that’s interesting. I’m a meteorologist and never considered it in my temperature forecasts today. Oh well, carry on….
Caleb;
I’d love to expand on the issue but I haven’t the time, and it isn’t a simple explanation unless you have some background in physics already. And you need a whiteboard to go through it logically.
That said, if you search for Stefan’s Law or Stefan Boltzman Law, you’ll find articles that get you going. The Wikipedia one is actually pretty good. There’s plenty of confusion because we report temperature in “degrees” but we talk about the effects of additional CO2 in terms of watts/m2 per CO2 doubling. So first, we can’t compare degrees directly with w/m2. Second, we can’t compare additional amounts of CO2 without considering the starting point (280 ppm for example) and the amont we’re adding from that point. In essence, every time you hear someone quote some end result, there are three different factors that go into coming up with that calculation, and none of them mean the same thing at any given point of comparison. I’ll try and give you some quick examples of how each unto itself is fairly simple, but collected into a single statement they are very complex.
CO2 is logarithmic, which is why you will always see, even the IPCC, quoting the effects of CO2 in terms of w/m2 per doubling of CO2. Note, they do NOT quote degrees per CO2 doubling except as an average, and that will become plain as to why further along this explanation. Let’s stick with 3.7 w/m2 per CO2 doubling for now. That simply means that if we accept 280 ppm as “normal”, then doubling that amount would result in the earth retaining an extra 3.7 w/m2 as a result. But what does that mean in terms of where we are now, and versus the amount of CO2 that can be attributed to human activity?
280 x 2 = 560 ppm = 3/7 w/m2
That’s fine, but context is everything. We’re currently at around 390 ppm, with supposedly 110 ppm due to human activity. For easy figuring, let’s use 380 and 100 to illustrate.
280 + 100 ppm = 380 ppm
280 x 2 = 560 (doubling)
280 ppm = 0.5 of 560
380 ppm = 0.68 of 560
or…
100/560 = 17.9% of the amount needed to “double” the CO2 concentration
But let’s consider +100 ppm from where we are now, which is 380.
380 + 100 ppm = 480
380 x 2 = 760
380 ppm = 0.5 of 760
480 ppm = 0.63 of 760
or….
100/760 = 13.2% of the amount needed to double the CO2 concentration.
In other words, the more CO2 is in the atmosphere inthe first place, the LESS difference adding another 100 doubling ppm makes. If doubling from 280 to 560 means +3.7 w/m2, then double the watts per m2 (7.4 w/m2) would mean quadruple the amount of CO2, or 4 x 280 = 1160 ppm! So if the IPCC is correct, that CO2 adds 3.7 w/m2, and ALSO that this equates to an AVERAGE of +1 degrees, then to get to +2 degrees, would mean 1,120 ppm of CO2. It took over a century to get from 280 to 380! +2 degrees would be another 7 centuries! Of course they start talking about feedbacks at this point which is a whole different discussion.
But let’s move on to the relationship between “w/m2” and “degrees”. According to the known physics, which is used by engineers every day to make millions of calculations to design everything from curling irons to jet engines, any given “ideal black body” radiates a certain number of w/m2 at a certain temperature. Now there’s no such thing as a “perfect” black body, but the earth is close enough to allow the calculations to be illustrative. The Stefan Boltzman Law is actually the formula to do the calculation. For those not familiar with what ^-8 means, I’ll type it out in words:
w/m2 = 5.67 times 10 the power of -8 times T to the power of 4.
where T is in degrees Kelvin (degrees C +273)
or
P (w/m2) = 5.67*10^-8*T^4
It doesn’t take much figuring to realize that if you start at 273 K, it takes a lot LESS watts to raise the temperature by one degree than if you start at 300 K.
In other words, it isn’t as simple as +100 ppm = X degrees.
+100 ppm….starting from where? what % of doubling does +100 represent based on what the starting point is? Then convert that to degrees. again, starting from where? From -40 C? You’ll get a pretty big change in degrees for CO2 doubling if you start at -40 C. Start at +40 C, and you will get a much smaller number.
If you’ve followed along so gfar, you can see the complexity of the question. What does CO2 doubling = +3.7 w/m2 = +1 degrees actually mean? Pretty much nothing.
But again, if you’ve followed along so far, you should be able to do the math yourself. In Dr Spencer’s intro, he mentions that the NH (which is in summer = hot) and the tropics (which = hot) have cooled, but the SH (which is in winter = cold) has “warmed” enough to raise the global “average”. That means what in terms of CO2 warming the earth?
Nothing.
If we were to break down Dr Spencer’s data into a gridded temperature set like GISS and HadCrut, we’d be able to turn the “degrees” for each grid point into w/m2. Given the relative area of the NH + tropics, and that they are “hot”, a cooling of (for example) 1 degree would represent a LARGER drop in w/m2 bye several times that of the increase in w/m2 from the smaller area and colder SH.
Hope that helps. If nothing else, search for well laid out articles on Stefan Boltzmann Law and also on CO2 being logarithmic. Once you’ve got the math straight, coming to the logical conclusions isn’t very hard.
Of course when you try and explain it to hardcore warmists, you’ll get retorts like “but the polar bears are going extinct!” or “the glaciers are melting!” or any other anecdotal retort they can come up with to avoid talking about…the physics. If they did, this debate would have been over long before it started.
Tim Folkerts:
At August 2, 2011 at 2:55 pm you write:
“I knew I was going to get a slew of “correlation is not causation”. That is quite true.”
OK, so you admit that you wasted space on this thread with bollocks that you knew to be bollocks.
Why would anybody do that unless they are just another troll?
Richard
GixxerBoy says
——-
Massive snow falls, best ski season in ages but bitterly, bitterly cold. Seems like a lot of Aus was the same – cf Pat above – I haven’t checked the rest of Australian states.
——-
Overall the winter in the southern states has been cold, but there have been isolated days that have broken temperature records for this time of year.
I am predicting, given La Nina is finished, a warm tail to Winter and a hot summer. When El Niño comes back records will be smashed and smashed and smashed.
Tim Folkerts,
“And there is a second simple fact that the earth is indeed warmer than it should be from simple radiation balance without GHGs.”
Where is your evidence to support that statement? At what temperature do you believe the Earth should be?
I suspect that any support for that statement is purely from IPCC models that do not account for clouds, nor ocean flows, nor several other things.
The simple fact is that there was a LIttle Ice Age. CO2 was not involved.
There was a Medieval Warm Period. CO2 was not involved. And a Roman Warm Period, again, no CO2 involved.
There was a warming out of the Little Ice Age. CO2 was not involved.
Sunspots, however, appear to play a massive role in both warming and cooling periods. It may very well be that ocean cycles, especially when they coincide, produce temperature effects.
The physics is not on your side. Trying to control the Earth’s average temperature by adjusting CO2 in the atmosphere is like trying to regulate a car’s speed by raising or lowering the power antenna while it is moving at 50 miles per hour. It may have an effect, in theory, but it will make zero difference in practice.
henry@ur momisugly Doug
I am here to put things right, aren’t I?
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
henry@ur momisuglyArthur
Thx!.
henry@ur momisuglyDavid, Tim, & others
I am watching with some amusement the discussion here as I realised again that most people here and indeed on most other blogs don’t understand the chemistry principle of absorption and susequent re-radiation. In fact very few people do understand it because if they did they would have raised the alarm bells ringing long time ago. But they all got stuck at Tyndall and Svante A. …
They know that CO2 “absorbs” in the 14-15 um. Most people think that what it means is that the molecules absorbs photons here which then subsequently get transferred as heat to neighbouring molecules. Then is absorbs again, and so on…
Although this may happen up to a certain saturation point, that is not what is causing the heat entrapment.
The best way to experience re-radiation is to stand in a moist dark forest just before dawn. Note that water vapor also absorbs in the visible region of the spectrum. So as the first light of sun hits on the water vapor around you can see the light coming from every direction. Left, right, bottom up, top down. You can see this for yourself until of course the sun’s light becomes too bright in the darkness for you to observe the re-radiated light from the water vapor.
What happens is this: in the wavelengths areas where absorption takes place, the molecule becomes like a little mirror, the strength of which depends on the amount of absorption taking place inside the molecule. Because the molecule is like a perfect sphere, 62,5% of a certain amount of light is send back in the direction where it came from. This is the warming or cooling effect of gas hit by radiation.
If people would understand this principle, they would not singularly identify GHG’s by pointing at the areas in the 5-15 um region (where earth emits pre-dominantly) but they would also look in the area 0-5 um (where the sun emits pre-dominantly) for possible cooling effects.
So what everyone should be doing is looking at the whole spectrum of the molecule 0-20 um. Unless you come to me with a balance sheet of how much cooling and how much warming is caused by a gas, we don’t actually know whether a substance is a GHG or not.
All that we can say now is that we don’t know what the net effect is of an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere…..
Seeing that CO2 also causes cooling by taking part in the life cycle (plants and trees need warmth and CO2 to grow), I think the total net effect might be zero, or there abouts.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
Caleb,
I remembered writing this up for a discussion with someone a while back and was able to dig it up. These are exactly what you get of you apply the laws of known physics correctly, and this illustrates nicely why temperature is a lousy measurement of what CO2 does… or does not do.
Let’s consider an earth with just two grid points. I shall call them Zone 1 and Zone 2. Let’s say Zone1 is pretty cold and Zone2 is pretty warm. From Stefan Boltzman Law we can set a temperature for each zone, and then calculate the w/m2 each zone would radiate:
Zone 1 233K 167.1 w/m2
Zone 2 313K 544.2 w/m2
“Average” temperature = 273K
“Average” w/m2 = 355.7
Our pretend earth experiences “climate change”. Zone 1 gets an extra 3.7 w/m2 more than before, and Zone 2 (of equal area of course) gets the exact amount less or -3.7 w/m2. Logic says that the earth as a whole should average out to the same exact temperature as before. But IT DOESN”T BECAUSE W/M2 AND DEGREES ARE NOT DIRECTLY LINKED:
Zone 1 234.3K 170.8 w/m2
Zone 2 312.5 540.7 w/m2
“Average” temperature = 273.37K
“Average” w/m2 = 355.7
Temperature anomaly = 0.37 degreesK
W/m2 anomaly = 0.00000000
See the problem? The net change in w/m2 “on average” is 0. But the “average” temperature is +0.37 degrees! If you monkey a bit with the numbers you can show a DECREASE in net w/m2 and still have an INCREASE in temperature anomaly. And vice versa.
And one of the oddest thoughts ever crossed my mind some time ago. Dr Spencer’s satellite data is derived from sensors that measure w/m2 from a given spot on the earth’s surface. SB-Law is then applied to calculate the temperature of that spot in degrees. Then everyone gets into an argument about how many degrees can be attributed to how much CO2. Except that the CO2 known physics measures the effects in w/m2…
So…we’re arguing about how many w/m2 CO2 does or does not add to the earth’s energy balance. Up in space we have a few billion dollars worth of satellite equipment measuring w/m2 across most of the earth’s surface. All we need do is average the w/m2 and compare to the theoretical increase in w/m2 attributed to CO2 (including feedbacks). That would be pretty simple would it not? But is that what we do?
No. We take the w/m2 which could be directly correlated to GHG theory, and convert it to degrees. Which mean one thing in terms of energy balance at high temps, and a completely different thing at low temps. In other words, useless.
If Dr Spencer were to publish the average w/m2 that the satellite is measuring, it would give a completely different picture than converting to degrees and then averaging them. And I’m betting that in this specific instance, the combined cooling of the NH and tropics would add up to more than the warming of the SH.
If we’re all in a tizzy about CO2 changing the energy balance by a certain number of w/m2, then why in heck don’t we measure, average, and report…w/m2? Its what the satellite is measuring and it is what the argument is about. How many degrees that results in is a function of what temperature you start at, so averaging the SH in winter with the NH in summer is just silly.
How about it Dr Spencer? Can you give us…just the WATTS? The one’s going UP? Perhaps WITH an average? THAT is the question! WATTS UP WITH THAT.
oh how lame, but I couldn’t resist.
Seriously. billions in satellite equipment…measuring w/m2….against a physics theory measured in w/m2….so convert to temperature instead. LOL.
Even if partly out of context with respect to the post’s subject, there should be many more comments regarding the physics of CO2 in the atmosphere, and it’s theoretical effects on temperature. Isn’t this the single most important issue in climate science?
We should all know where science stands at the moment in this respect. All scientists, media, governments, and public. Show us! Spread the science!
davidmhoffer:
For more than a decade I have been proclaiming the need for consideration of the ‘temperature distribution effect’ you mention in your post at August 2, 2011 at 11:56 pm. Indeed, I have argued it here on WUWT.
As you say, a shift in weather systems or the positions of warm SST can – of themseves – provide a change to mean global temperature.
The following paragraphs were one of my (ignored by the IPCC) review comments for the IPCC AR4:
Page 1-24 Chapter 1 Section 1.5.11 Line 32
“For accuracy, replace the words “create a” with “contribute to” because the statement in the draft very wrongly suggests that the radiative contribution to the Earth’s greenhouse effect alone “creates” the Earth’s greenhouse effect. But the radiative component of Earth’s greenhouse effect is not its only component. For example, two other components of the greenhouse effect are its convective and evaporative components, and they would continue to provide the Earth with a greenhouse effect if all gases with radiative properties were removed from the atmosphere.
The convective component increases mean global temperature by transfer of heat from the hottest regions to cooler ones. Radiation from the Sun heats the Earth’s day side and most heats the equator on the day side. It does not heat the Earth’s night side and does not heat the poles in winter. So, air in contact with the day-side surface is (on average) heated by conduction especially near the equator. The heated air rises by convection, and circulation cells move that heat polewards (and nightwards) where the surface is (on average) heated by conduction from the air. But the thermal energy radiated by a surface is proportional to the fourth power of the surface temperature. Hence, the cooling of the day-side especially near the equator (i.e. the hottest surface) much reduces the thermal heat loss from the planet and, therefore, the average temperature of the planet must rise to maintain thermal equilibrium
(i.e. [solar heat absorbed by the planet ] = [ heat radiated from the planet ] ).
The evaporative component of the greenhouse effect works in the same way as the convective component but more efficiently because water absorbs much heat as latent heat when it evapourates. Heat is transported from the hotter surface regions as latent heat of evaporation.
Both these mechanisms raise the mean global temperature and reduce the range of surface temperatures over the planet (e.g. the temperature rises hundreds of degrees within an hour of dawn on the Moon, but nowhere on Earth experiences such large temperature variations and such large temperature differences do not exist between points on the Earth).
Both the evaporative and the convective components of the greenhouse effect would continue to operate if water were not a radiative greenhouse gas. And nowhere on Earth has large day to night temperature variations (as on the Moon) which indicates they are at least as important to climate as the radiative component of the greenhouse effect. Also, polar regions are net radiation emitters because they obtain almost all their heat from ocean currents and winds.”
Richard
TheWonderer:
Your post at August 3, 2011 at 2:11 am says;
“Even if partly out of context with respect to the post’s subject, there should be many more comments regarding the physics of CO2 in the atmosphere, and it’s theoretical effects on temperature. Isn’t this the single most important issue in climate science?
We should all know where science stands at the moment in this respect. All scientists, media, governments, and public. Show us! Spread the science!”
Wih respect, I think you are on the wrong thread of WUWT. And I think you would be interested to read – perhaps to contribute to – the current thread at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/02/aerosol-sat-observations-and-climate-models-differ-by-a-factor-of-three-to-six/
That thread provides an article about a recent paper by Penner et al. followed by several comments. The article is very difficult to read but the implications of the findings of Penner at al. are explained in the thread by several posts.
These explanatory posts include those from
myself at August 2, 2011 at 6:46 am and August 2, 2011 at 8:52 am
Matt G at August 2, 2011 at 1:15 pm
D. J. Hawkins at August 2, 2011 at 2:59 pm
I hope this helps.
Richard
Steve Mosher: “GHGs cause the earth to be warmer than it would be naturally. But you will always find people who refuse to accept the physics we used to defend this great country.”
That’s SIMPLETON physics. The LEAP from the radiative properties of CO2 (and H2O) to the atmosheric CO2 (and H2O) warming effect is bad science. Very bad. There are many things happening in the atmosphere (convection, evaporation…).
Hey Henry P and the dueling models crowd,
Some (children of all ages) play with models airplanes or trains and pretend they are the real thing. Some children of all ages play with climate models and pretend they are the real thing!
The empirical record- the temperature record- is the real thing and climate models based on the rather poor understanding of all the variables including radiation physics and especially feedbacks is silly self-deception by both sides in the dueling model debates. Yes, it would be desirable if we understood climate well enough to have useful models. If that were true, there wouldn’t be these silly “my model is better than your model” debates. I know plenty about CO2 and plenty about models from genetics and from economic fundamental and technical analysis.
We don’t need more multi-variable models. We need much simpler two or three variable, testable hypotheses- granted, not easily done in climate science- before useful models can be developed. If such simple testable hypotheses are not possible, then we just have to wait a long time to see what how the global temperature responds to the increasing CO2 and the other variables that drive climate. We may never be able to sort it all out. It’s certainly worth trying- with modesty and humility.
Care to “make it interesting”?:
https://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=743901
Richard S Courtney says: August 2, 2011 at 9:42 pm
“OK, so you admit that you wasted space on this thread with bollocks that you knew to be bollocks.
Why would anybody do that unless they are just another troll?”
And you are apparently admitting that you have not read and/or understood what I wrote. So why are you wasting space on this thread by replying?
I specifically said that there is correlation AND a theoretical expectation of correlation.
* Correlating warming with pirates or computer sales would be “bollocks” (although rather humorous) since there is no reasonable connection with temperature.
* Correlating warming with CO2 would be reasonable, since there IS a reasonable connection.
henry@ur momisugly Doug&David
I am not against models provided that the science that gives the basics for the models is sound or known to be sound and proven in various ways.
e.g. we can use models to predict the arrival of comets or the revolution time of a planet around the sun because we know Newton’s laws work here.
The problem I have is that Arrhenius law of GHG causing warming did not work for CO2 because he did not see what I am seeing happening.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/01/july-uah-global-temperature-up-slightly/#comment-711115
We can measure radiation specific only to CO2 bouncing back from the moon, – so it went sun-earth-moon-earth, which means that it (the CO2) also has a cooling effect. If nobody has worked out what the net effect is of the radiative cooling and -warming of CO2 , how can I or anyone else be expected to trust any model? I know where the supposed “laws” come from. It comes from the IPCC.But what the IPCC did, is look at the problem from the wrong end. It is the worst mistake any scientist can make. They assumed that global warming is caused by an increase in CO2 (even though not everybody agreed with this at the time) and made an allocation (forcing) largely based on the observed global warming since 1750 versus the increase of the gas noted since 1750. This is where David’s figures come from. None of the IPCC “profs” ever seem to have realised that CO2 also causes cooling, in two completely different ways…..it appears that this was simply forgotten or ignored.
Henry P says:
“Most people think that what it means is that the molecules absorbs photons here which then subsequently get transferred as heat to neighbouring molecules. Then is absorbs again, and so on…”
That actually sounds pretty close to correct. Of course, the GHG molecules also absorb energy from the surrounding gas and emit IR photons.
“The best way to experience re-radiation is to stand in a moist dark forest just before dawn. Note that water vapor also absorbs in the visible region of the spectrum.”
You can find lots of copies of graphs like this: http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/images/image7.gif
Gaseous water does not absorb significant amounts of visible light. (Nor do any other common atmospheric gases).
“So as the first light of sun hits on the water vapor around you can see the light coming from every direction. “
You seem to be talking about Mei scattering (http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/%28Gh%29/guides/mtr/opt/mch/sct.rxml) and/or total internal reflection from liquid water droplets. These are completely different phenomena from CO2’s (or even gaseous H2O’s) radiation of IR.
“…they would also look in the area 0-5 um (where the sun emits pre-dominantly) for possible cooling effects. ..”
That sounds like clouds scattering sunlight away from the earth! People do, of course, study this, although there is still much to learn to know how clouds vary over the decades and how that affects earth’s energy balance.
Roger says “The simple fact is that there was a LIttle Ice Age. CO2 was not involved.
There was a Medieval Warm Period. CO2 was not involved. And a Roman Warm Period, again, no CO2 involved.
There was a warming out of the Little Ice Age. CO2 was not involved. ”
That is a ridiculous statement Roger. To say that the Earth’s atmosphere wasn’t involved in the changes that the climate experienced is just inherently wrong.
What he (a different Roger) meant (obviously) was, “a change in the CO2 level was not involved.”