An important new paper published today in Global and Planetary Change finds that changes in CO2 follow rather than lead global air surface temperature and that “CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2” The paper finds the “overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere,” in other words, the opposite of claims by global warming alarmists that CO2 in the atmosphere drives land and ocean temperatures. Instead, just as in the ice cores, CO2 levels are found to be a lagging effect ocean warming, not significantly related to man-made emissions, and not the driver of warming. Prior research has shown infrared radiation from greenhouse gases is incapable of warming the oceans, only shortwave radiation from the Sun is capable of penetrating and heating the oceans and thereby driving global surface temperatures.
The highlights of the paper are:
► The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.
► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.
► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5-10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.
► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.
► Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.
► CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.
The paper:
The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature
- a Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1047 Blindern, N-0316 Oslo, Norway
- b Department of Geology, University Centre in Svalbard (UNIS), P.O. Box 156, N-9171 Longyearbyen, Svalbard, Norway
- c Telenor Norway, Finance, N-1331 Fornebu, Norway
- d Department of Physics and Technology, University of Tromsø, N-9037 Tromsø, Norway
Abstract
Using data series on atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperatures we investigate the phase relation (leads/lags) between these for the period January 1980 to December 2011. Ice cores show atmospheric CO2 variations to lag behind atmospheric temperature changes on a century to millennium scale, but modern temperature is expected to lag changes in atmospheric CO2, as the atmospheric temperature increase since about 1975 generally is assumed to be caused by the modern increase in CO2. In our analysis we use eight well-known datasets; 1) globally averaged well-mixed marine boundary layer CO2 data, 2) HadCRUT3 surface air temperature data, 3) GISS surface air temperature data, 4) NCDC surface air temperature data, 5) HadSST2 sea surface data, 6) UAH lower troposphere temperature data series, 7) CDIAC data on release of anthropogene CO2, and 8) GWP data on volcanic eruptions. Annual cycles are present in all datasets except 7) and 8), and to remove the influence of these we analyze 12-month averaged data. We find a high degree of co-variation between all data series except 7) and 8), but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature. The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11–12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5-10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is high, but do not explain all observed changes.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Philip Bradley says:
August 30, 2012 at 2:24 pm
The paper is behind a paywall unfortunately.
Bears cause winter by hibernating?
Colorado winter resorts cause winter by preparing for skiers?
Your assertion is pure nonsense.
Correlation is NOT proof of causality.
Hell I have a better one. I have always naturally woken up before the Sun rises above the horizen. Therefore I make the Sun…
Sacrificial goddess gifts gladly accepted at my cave entrance and services are Sundays at Sun-up.
Gail Combs,
the graph you link to from the University of Colorado appears to show that near IR radiation from the sun is absorbed in the first 10m of the ocean, which is what I would expect. I’m more curious to know what the upper ocean is doing to thermal radiaiton of a much higher wavelength?
and even before it rises above the horizon.
“There is a well-studied planet in the solar system with lots of CO2 in the atmosphere. Give that man in the back row who said “Mars” a big round of applause.”
We have barely scratched the surface of Mars, and the little we do know about the planet is hardly enough to use to shore up or counter any argument about Earth’s atmosphere or climate.
“Now I’m wondering why CO2 warms Mars, but it doesn’t warm Earth.”
Other than as an atmosphere in general, please show me the published studies are that pinpoint CO2 as being responsible for “warming Mars”.
Thanks in advance.
davidmhoffer says:
August 30, 2012 at 6:36 pm:
“Then there’s Greg House who jumps in with his usual cold things can’t send energy to warm things argument”
=====================================================
No, this is not true.
My argument is that apparently nobody has proven experimentally, that colder things can either warm warmer things or slow down cooling of the warmer things by means of infra-red radiation. Simply because no warmist I talked to on various blogs has been able to present a link to such a scientific experiment.
All I got was ad hominem, unrelated stuff and obfuscation. And, of course, repeated distortion of my position, like this one of davidmhoffers.
OK, let me see if I can super simplify this thing. For the record, I’m ignoring secondary responses (feedbacks) and I’m ignoring conduction and convection and I’m ignoring the argument about it being a new photon or the same photon. Anything I’ve forgotten to list as being ignored, I am also ignoring, which should cover a lot of territory.
Suppose we have just four photons. Suppose we have no CO2 (and no other radiatively active gases) so there is a 0% chance of absorbing any given photon between ground and top of atmosphere. Let’s suppose that distance is 10 meters.
Release the photons!
All four photons go straight through.
Average emission height = 0 meters.
Now we add enough CO2 that there is a 50% chance that any given one will get absorbed and re-emitted (or a new one disguised as the old one take your pick).
Release the photons!
Two photons goes straight through. One photon gets absorbed at 2.5 meters and then once re-emitted, goes straight through. The other one gets to 7.5 meters before being absorbed and re-emitted and then goes straight through.
Average emission height = 2.5 meters
Now we double CO2 which raises the chance of any given photon being absorbed to…. 75%. CO2’s effects are logarithmic, not linear. Yes, yes, I know, that’s not the exact right value but itz good enough for this illustration.
Release the photons!
One photon goes straight through.
One photon goes 5 meters, is absorbed and re-emitted and goes straight through from there.
Two photons get absorbed at 2.5 meters, and again at 7.5 meters, and then go straight through.
Average emission height = 4 meters
And so on and so forth. Of course for the model to be accurate we’d have to include the fact that photons get released in random directions, so some go back down before they come back up and escape, but the net effect is the same. Then we’d have to add in water vapour which competes with the CO2…. but more so at high temps close to water and less so at low temps and dry areas. Then we’d have to add in the conduction and the convection and the kvetching and complaining about the few hundred other factors that I left out….
But this should be good enough to illustrate the issue.
Pamela Gray says:
August 30, 2012 at 7:46 pm
Hell I have a better one. I have always naturally woken up before the Sun rises above the horizen. Therefore I make the Sun…
Sacrificial goddess gifts gladly accepted at my cave entrance and services are Sundays at Sun-up.
=========================================================================
You live in a cave?
No wonder the Greenies worship you!
As this paper suggests, it’s the SUN, stupid; not CO2.
Dr. Solanki’s paper (Nature, Oct 2004) shows that the solar cycles between 1930’s to the late 90’s were the strongest in 11,400 years. When this 70-year string of solar cycles in 11,400 years ended, so did global warming.
During high sunspot activity, UV radiation increases by as much as 16%, which CAUSES ocean warming. CO2 has little to do with it. Add to this the Svensmark Effect (higher sunspots=less cloud cover/higher global temps), the 0.6C of warming in the 20th century is basically accounted for.
Why this CAGW “debate” is still taken seriously following roughly 16 years of flat temperature trends, in spite of RECORD levels of man-made CO2 emissions during that time, is simply proof of the political drive behind CAGW dogma, rather than its validity.
The analysis shown in the paper isn’t novel, and it isn’t any good. It will be panned as the previous incarnations were.
The increasing trend in CO2 concentrations is likely responsible for the increasing trend in temperatures. Nobody believes that variability around the trend in CO2 concentrations causes variability around the trend in temperatures, but this is what their analysis on detrended data is testing. They are testing a straw man.
The fluctuations around the trend are dominate by El Nino. All this paper has found without realising it is that El Nino causes large positive anomalies in temperature, and a lagged response in CO2 concentrations. This has been known for years, and is mainly because of drought over the Indonesian forests reducing their uptake of CO2.
#Moderator: This is a repost as the first attempt never appeared
[it was posted to the wrong thread, and thus off topic ~mod]
Greg House says:
August 30, 2012 at 8:00 pm
———————————————–
Greg, you are very persistent with your claims regarding the inability of LWIR emitted from a cooler object to slow the cooling of a warmer object. Sadly you are incorrect. I have conducted several empirical experiments into an issue discussed elsewhere on this thread concerning the ability of LWIR to slow the cooling rate of liquid water.
I have found that LWIR incident on the surface of a most warm materials CAN slow the cooling rate of those materials (even if emitted from a cooler matter). However if that material is liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool then LWIR has no measurable effect.
Early claims about global warming centred on increased DWLWIR, however as this has no effect over 71% of the Earth’s surface (and probably only over dry deserts) the pseudo scientists have moved on to claims relating to absorption, thermalisation and radiation from the atmosphere. The good news is that these claims such as the ERL claim raised by Mosher are also junk, unsupported by empirical evidence.
First to absorption and thermalisation causing warming. Take two insulated boxes with a double glazed SW and IR transparent windows in their upper surface. Enclose identical matt black aluminium target plates on the floor. Add identical circulation fans and k-type thermometer probes shielded from incoming and outgoing radiation. Ensure an small 5mm bleed hole in the base of each box so both boxes remain at 1 bar. Fill one box with dry air and one with 100% CO2. Illuminate the target plates in each box with identical SW sources. The temperature rise in each box is identical. Cut the SW sources. Both boxes cool at the same rate. The reason? CO2 can absorb and re radiate LWIR, however it also radiates IR from energy it has acquired conductively. In the constant pressure boxes the warming ability of CO2 is matched by its cooling ability. This is why the ERL claim was was proposed in a storm of wrist endangering hand waving.
The first problem with the ERL hand waving is that CO2 at altitude is not just radiating at the local air temperature. It is also being illuminated by IR from the increased CO2 below. The second problem is that CO2 is heavier than air and the “well mixed” argument does not hold at the altitudes in question. The third and most serious problem for the ERL argument is that it is indeed testable in the lab. A gas column similar to the boxes described in the experiment above is placed on a centrifuge arm, without the bleed hole and with the addition of a cryo cooled matt black upper cap with a small window for incoming SWR. The centrifuge can then create a pressure gradient along the chamber from the SWR illuminated black target plate to the cooled black sky. This device can make the ERL claim vaporise, but there will just be a new claim until warmest funding runs out.
Greg, there is no way anthropogenic emissions of CO2 can cause dangerous or catastrophic global warming even if we burnt all known and projected geological hydrocarbon reserves. However your claim that LWIR emitted from a cool object cannot slow the cooling of a warmer object is incorrect.
This post and paper are timely – I am reposting the following entry from a few days ago.
I personally discovered the relationship between dCO2/dt and temperature in late 2007 and published the paper below on icecap.us in January 2008. This dCO2/dt is the source of the 9 month lag in CO2 after temperature, also demonstrated in my paper ( but the latter fact was previously noted by Kuo et al in 1990, Keelng et al in 1995, and Veizer in 2005 ).
The correlation between dCO2/dt and temperature is far more robust than stated by one of the previous commentators – all the data and calculations are available in Excel at icecap.
The evidence suggests that varying atmospheric CO2 is not a cause of climate change, it is an effect.
__________________
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/27/how-ocean-currents-affect-global-climate-is-a-question-oceanographer-may-be-close-to-answering/#comment-1066653
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/18/time-lags-in-the-climate-system/#comment-1012683
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/20/premonitions-of-the-fall-in-temperature/#comment-991087
Re: Time lags and cycle lengths – I’ve written comments like the following since 2008.
Excerpt::
The ~~4 year cycle in this 1997 paper is associated with a lag of atmospheric CO2 after atmospheric temperature T of ~9 months, and the rate of change dCO2/dt varies ~contemporaneously with T. This CO2 cycle is caused by biological (photosynthesis, etc.) and physical (shallow water dissolution and exsolution) factors.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/carbon_dioxide_in_not_the_primary_cause_of_global_warming_the_future_can_no/
Then there is the much longer ~~800 year lag of CO2 after T (as measured in ice cores), which I suspect is associated with the upwelling of deep ocean currents. Note that ~800 years ago was the Medieval Warm Period.
It appears that CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales.
Each temperature cycle has its own CO2 delay, and its own approximate period (cycle time length).
There may also be one or more intermediate cycles between the above two (the late Ernst Beck believed there was), and other shorter cycles.
I think there is ample evidence of a daily localized cycle, driven by photosynthesis..
http://co2.utah.edu/index.php?site=2&id=0&img=30
The evidence suggests that varying atmospheric CO2 is not a cause of climate change, it is an effect.
I further believe that humanmade CO2 emissions are relatively small compared to natural daily, weekly, seasonal and millennial CO2 flux, and are probably insignificant in this huge dynamic system.
No small irony here – if I am correct, both sides of the rancorous “mainstream” global warming debate are wrong. Both sides assume that humanmade CO2 is the primary driver of temperature, and are only arguing about the amount of warming (climate sensitivity to CO2, feedbacks positive or negative, etc.). If I am correct, both sides of the mainstream debate have “put the cart before the horse”. I think Veizer (2005, GSA Today) already understood most of this.
One photon goes straight through.
One photon goes 5 meters, is absorbed and re-emitted and goes straight through from there.
Two photons get absorbed at 2.5 meters, and again at 7.5 meters, and then go straight through.
Average emission height = 4 meters
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Aw cr@p. Should be 5 meters. Physics Im good with. Arithmetic not so much.
Vince Causey says:
August 30, 2012 at 1:07 pm
“I read somewhere that they “proved” the rising co2 levels were from fossil fuels based on carbon isotope analysis. Either their proof is somewhat overreaching, or this analysis is incorrect.”
The carbon isotope would be 12C because fossil fuels are biological (living things select 12C when they can because it’s lighter). But guess what? The oceans are also enriched in 12C from paleobiological carbonate as well as recent human contributions.Warm the oceans by any means and you get disproportionate 12C.
davidmhoffer says (August 30, 2012 at 6:42 pm): “(yes, yes, I know, its a NEW photon that finishes the last leg of the journey, not the SAME photon. sigh.)”
🙂 I admire your patience.
gymnosperm says:
August 30, 2012 at 10:57 pm
But guess what? The oceans are also enriched in 12C from paleobiological carbonate as well as recent human contributions.Warm the oceans by any means and you get disproportionate 12C.
The oceans have a 13C/12C ratio that is a lot higher than in the atmosphere: deep oceans are at a d13C level of zero to 1 per mil, the oceans surface, due to biological depletion of 12C, are at +1 to +5 per mil. The atmosphere is currently at -8 per mil, decreasing from -6.4 per mil since the start of the industrial revolution. Fossil fuel burning is average at -24 per mil. Thus any substantial contribution of the (deep) oceans would INcrease the 13C/12C ratio in the atmosphere, but we see a steady and accellerating DEcrease… Thus the oceans are NOT the cause of the increase in the atmosphere.
Neither is the biosphere, as the net balance is more oxygen production than oxygen use, thus a net CO2 uptake and thus preferential 12CO2, thus that is not the cause of the CO2 increase or d13C decline…
davidmhoffer says:
August 30, 2012 at 8:16 pm
————————————–
It is in the nature of the carbon dioxide molecule and the behavior of the interacting electron shells that control which photons will get absorbed and/or emitted. To assume that CO2 in the atmosphere can absorb any photon in the range emitted by a surface at 15C is misleading to say the least.
“The oceans are also enriched in 12C from paleobiological carbonate as well as recent human contributions.Warm the oceans by any means and you get disproportionate 12C”
Very helpful comment.
I’ve been looking for a simple way to show why the isotope ratio isn’t helpful in determining how much of the ‘new’ CO2 is due to humans.
Is the answer really that simple ?
Allan MacRae:
At August 30, 2012 at 9:34 pm you say
Well, I make no such “assumption”.
Indeed, my refusal to adopt that assumption is the reason for the disagreement between Ferdinand Engelbeen and myself which has been raging for over a decade. Ferdinand asserts his ‘side’ of the argument in this thread where he says at August 30, 2012 at 3:44 pm
But I say the AGW-hypothesis is based on three assumptions; viz.
1. The recent rise in atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations is mostly an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration that has an anthropogenic cause.
2. The anthropogenic cause of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is mostly or entirely accumulation in the atmosphere of CO2 emitted by combustion of fossil fuels.
3. Increase to atmospheric CO2 concentration causes significant rise in global temperature when atmospheric CO2 concentration is greater than 280ppmv.
If any one one of those assumptions were shown to be incorrect then the AGW-hypothesis would be shown to be incorrect. And there are reasons to doubt each of these assumptions.
Importantly, although ‘assumption 1’ may be correct, it is certain that ‘assumption 2’ is wrong.
This certainty has much evidence and one piece of this evidence is the lag of CO2 changes behind temperature changes. Another is that if simple accumulation were the cause of the CO2 rise then the rise should directly relate to the anthropogenic emissions. But there is no such direct relationship: in some years almost all the emissions seem to be sequestered from the air, and in other years almost all the emissions stay in the air.
And although ‘assumption 2’ is wrong it is possible that the CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion may be the major cause of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. This is because the recent rise in the CO2 is probably a result of the climate system moving towards an altered equilibrium state, and the anthropogenic emissions may be significantly altering the equilibrium state.
Each of the assumptions 1 to 3 deserves scientific investigation.
Richard
“If the outgoing LW energy from the earth (including it’s atmosphere) is emitted from a higher, colder layer then, according to the S-B law, the energy emitted is reduced”
What if the effective radiating height is NOT colder, just higher ?
If the atmosphere holds more energy for whatever reason then it will expand and the height at which any given temperature occurs will rise.
However, the adiabatic lapse rate stays the same because there has been no change in atmospheric mass or insolation.
So why is it suggested that the effective radiating height will be any colder ?
It might be from a height that was colder before the atmospheric expansion but that height would have become warmer, surely ?
The net outturn would be that the increased heights arising from the expanded atmosphere would leave the surface temperature just the same and the adiabatic lapse rate just the same but the atmospheric heights a little further up and energy out would still equal energy in.
So the change in height compensates for the increase in energy in the air with no change in surface temperature required.
Unless I’ve missed something obvious.
Several have linked to the 13C/12C ratio articles of Roy Spencer, but forget to look at the discussion there. My reaction at that time starts here.
The change in 13C/12C ratio is not proof that human CO2 is the cause of the CO2 increase, but it adds to the evidence. More important, it excludes the oceans as main source. That is where Dr. Spencer and others are wrong. The 13C/12C ratio of the (surface and deep) oceans is higher than of the atmosphere, thus any substantial contribution of the oceans would increase the atmospheric d13C/12C ratio, but we see a continuous and accellerating decline, completely in ratio with the human emissions.
As the other probable source of low d13C, vegetation decay is surpassed by additional vegetation growth, the biosphere as a whole is a net sink for CO2 and preferably 12CO2, thus leaving more 13CO2 in the atmosphere, thus not the cause of the d13C decline either.
Most of all other inorganic CO2 sources like volcanic releases, carbon rock weathering, etc. are higher in d13C than the atmosphere, thus not the source of the d13C decline.
That leaves only human emissions as the only source of the decline.
As Richard Courtney said, the decrease of d13C in the atmosphere is only 1/3rd of what may be expected from the releases from fossil fuel burning. That is true, but one may not forget that the current atmospheric composition in part sinks near the poles, but what is upwelling has about the composition of the sinks many centuries ago, thus at a higher d13C level. It is possible to estimate the deep ocean exchanges, based on this d13C “thinning”:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/deep_ocean_air_zero.jpg
“Steven Mosher says:
August 30, 2012 at 12:17 pm
“Prior research has shown infrared radiation from greenhouse gases is incapable of warming the oceans, only shortwave radiation from the Sun is capable of penetrating and heating the oceans and thereby driving global surface temperatures.”
follow the cite and you end up with a blog post by a lawyer who has nothing of scientific interest to say about radiation physics. The issue is not whether or not IR warms the oceans. The mechanism is quite simple: GHGs raise the temperature of the earth by raising the ERL. When the ERL is raised the earth radiates from a higher colder zone. That means it cools less rapidly”
Nonsense, Steven. “Back” scattered IR radiation cannot heat the earths surface or atmosphere. The radiation is a consequence of that temperature, not the cause. Heat only flows from warm to cold, NEVER the other way round. Clearly Steven Mosher knows nothing about radiation physics!
Listen to Jo Posthma, he knows his stuff!
regards
John
icarus62 says:
August 30, 2012 at 3:55 pm
Smokey: You’re aware that most of the warming from glacial maximum to interglacial occurs *after* atmospheric CO2 has started to rise, yes?
Yes, and?
You’re aware that co2 levels continue to fall for 800-2800 years after the temperature starts to rise at the end of a glacial period, yes?
Therefore the natural cyclic driver of temperature (change in insolation due to cyclic change in orbital parameters) is easily overcoming the alleged negative forcing of the drop in co2 and is therefore stronger, yes?
And this despite the fact that due to the approx logarithmic nature of the alleged temperature response to co2, yes?
How then is co2 going to suddenly, magically, cause the majority of the warming from glacial to interglacial temperatures when it eventually and laggardly starts to increase?
Especially considering that we know that its alleged effect on temperature would decrease logarithmically with increased concentration.
And especially considering that natural cyclic forcings then make the temperature fall into a new glacial despite the fact co2 continues to increase for another 800-2800 years.
So natural forcings stronger than the alleged co2 effect end a glacial, and natural forcing stronger than the alleged co2 effect begin the following glacials. But you would have us believe that natural forcing goes all weak at the knees in between those events and co2 becomes the stronger driver?
Even though the lags of co2 behind temperature are around equal at both the beginning and end of glacial periods, when due to the logarithmic response of the alleged co2-T relationship, there should be a big difference in the length of the lags, yes?
Your story doesn’t stack up icarus.
Bart says:
August 30, 2012 at 6:17 pm
“The 13C/12C ratio of the deep oceans …”
Already refuted upthread here and here.
Not refuted at all, see my previous comments…
“…the oceans are a net sink for CO2…”
Inferred based on assumed carbon cycle. Circular reasoning.
Sorry, measured in millions of samples taken by ships surveys over decades:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/mean.shtml
“The yellow-red colors indicate a region characterized by a net release of CO2 to the atmosphere, and the blue-purple colors indicate a region with a net uptake of CO2 from the atmosphere. This map yields an annual oceanic uptake flux for CO2 of 2.2 ± 0.4 GtC/yr.”
“…the deep ocean sinks near the poles must absorb the 25% human emissions plus all of the deep ocean upwelling CO2…”
…for your narrative to work. This, again, is circular reasoning.
No, that is a simple mass balance: what is released into the atmosphere must be absorbed somewhere or should show up in the atmosphere, no matter if that is by humans or by nature. As only 50% of the human emissions as mass show up in the atmosphere, the other halve plus all natural releases (again as mass) must be absorbed by natural sinks. The sinks in the biosphere and the ocean surface are known as measured/calculated, thus the difference must be going into the deep oceans, as all other possible sinks are either too small or too slow.
Your hypothesis, however, requires something which is prohibited by the fact that temperature leads CO2 by a substantial amount (90 degrees of phase), and effect cannot precede cause.
As far as I know, I always insisted that dCO2 lags dT, which is what the current article shows: a lag of about 9 months between temperature changes and CO2 rate of change changes. That indeed is a phase change and is exactly what I expected, if dCO2 reacts on dT and not T. Your approach doesn’t show a lag, thus your approach is wrong, besides that it violates a lot of observations…
Ian W says:
August 30, 2012 at 6:39 pm
John Finn says:
August 30, 2012 at 5:27 pm
If the outgoing LW energy from the earth (including it’s atmosphere) is emitted from a higher….
But the emissions due to latent heat of fusion and condensation are NOT governed by S-B law so that radiation is NOT reduced. Not only that but the radiation is often above or close to the ERL (which is not a hard limit) especially where there is most convection in the Hadley cells of the tropics.
But latent heat and condensation don’t remove energy from the “climate system” (i.e. the earth’s surface AND it’s atmosphere). They do move energy to higher altitudes where it can be more effectively radiated away but it is only by radiation that the “climate system” loses energy.
It is the incoming/outgoing radiation budget that is key. The earth (including it’s atmosphere) receives ~235 w/m2 (after albedo reflection). It must therefore radiate ~235 w/m2 to retain a relatively stable temperature. This outgoing radiation is emitted directly to space from all layers of the atmosphere including ~40 w/m2 which is emitted directly from the earth’s surface via the ‘IR window’. A significant proportion is emitted directly to space from CO2 molecules in the higher, colder, drier regions of the troposhere. As far as the earth’s radiation budget is concerned it’s largely irrelevant how heat energy reached the uppermost CO2 molecules. Some may have gone through multiple absorptions and emissions, some via convectoion etc. The point is radiation is the ultimate ‘cooling’ mechanism.