Guest post by John Kehr
With two completed months of the year there is starting to be discussion of how 2013 is shaping up for the annual anomaly. Several comments around the web have caught my attention as they demonstrate a basic misunderstanding of how the Earth’s climate is behaving. This is one of those articles that may seem OCD, but this one misunderstanding is what allows warmists to get away with as much as they do when it comes to climate.
I am going to pick on Anthony Watts and Roy Spencer for this one. The article in question was the one where Roy Spencer provided an update of the UAH anomaly. Here is a screen shot of the article.
From March 4th, 2013
The title states that there was a big drop in surface temperature in the month of February from ~ 0.5 to 0.2 °C. This is correct for the anomaly, but it has nothing to do with the Earth’s temperature. The reality is the Earth warmed up, but the anomaly dropped.
Let me explain. January is the coldest month of the year for the planet as a whole. Depending on the source, the average temperature is between 12.0 and 12.5 °C for the month. February is on average 0.18 °C warmer than January, also source dependent. Here is what the basic generic behavior of the Earth is on an annual basis.
Illustration 1: Annual Temperature of the Earth and the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. The average temperature of the Earth is different for each month of the year.
This is based on the average from the 1900-1990 data and I have used this extensively as the baseline behavior for the Earth today. Anomaly has no place on this chart because this shows the actual temperature of the Earth and each hemisphere. How the seasons affect the global average is readily apparent. To me it also shows how many factors can influence the global anomaly. January and February are perfect examples of this.
If I switch to Weatherbell I can show some cool graphics that they produce.
Here is January and February of 2013 from their site.
Notice that the Earth is about 0.25 °C warmer in February, but since it was closer to average the anomaly was much less. Climate scientists hate it when people show real temperature because it is impossible to see much warming when you look at the seasonal changes in the actual temperature.
Now for something interesting. In January the anomaly in the Arctic was well above average. By simple physics that meant the Arctic was losing energy to space at a much higher rate than average. Normally the Arctic is losing energy at a rate of 163 W/m^2. In January of 2013 it was losing energy at a rate of 173 W/m^2. That 6% increase in rate of energy loss meant that the Arctic ended up with a negative anomaly in February. The dramatic change in Arctic anomaly played a big role in the drop of the global anomaly in February.
The rate of energy loss is a self-correcting mechanism. Physics don’t allow it to operate in any other way. As a whole the Earth lost ~ 4 W/m^2 more than average over the entire surface in the month of January. Data for February is not yet available, but it will be close to average because the anomaly was closer to average. The higher rate of energy loss in January resulted in a more average February. That is how the climate operates.
Finally I have to get a dig in at CO2. In January of 2013 it was 395 ppm and in 1985 it was 50 points lower at 345 ppm. So despite the fact that CO2 was higher, the Earth was losing energy at a higher rate to space. CO2 was not blocking the energy from escaping despite all the claims that increased CO2 prevents heat from escaping the Earth. The Earth 30 years later was losing a significantly larger amount of energy to space than it was in the past.
CO2 doesn’t create heat, and it only holds heat (i.e. traps heat) as per its thermal capacity. Just like any other substance known to the universe, it can’t increase its own temperature with internal redistribution of its own energy. Also, in terms of radiation, temperature is a function of the frequency distribution of the radiation, i.e., the heating potential of radiation is a function of its frequency distribution. CO2 in the atmosphere does *not* cause a shift to higher frequencies of the radiation spectrum, which would be an increase in temperature.
Sunshine at TOA at the zenith is 1370 W/m^2 or +121C. The functional and actually-existent distribution of sunshine is the cosine function with 0 degrees the zenith, and 90 degrees the terminator. The average of this function is the integrated-average value, i.e., integral(cos(theta)) / (B-A) with the limits of integration, B & A, of pi/2 and 0 radians, respectively;
so then (sin(B) – sin(A))/ (B – A) = (1 – 0) / (pi/2 – 0) = 2/pi = 0.6366.
So, 0.6366 is the integrated functional average projection factor of sunlight on the hemisphere where it actually causes heating: 0.6366 * 1370 W/m^2 * (1 – 0.3) = 610 W/m^2 = 322K = 49C.
So, in actuality, as sunshine actually comes in on a hemisphere, in real time, its actual functional average heating input corrected for albedo is +49C. There’s no such thing as an average heating potential where the heating doesn’t actually occur, and also if it ignores the geometry of the physical system. The geometry and hence the boundary conditions and the thermodynamic limits of the system are such that sunlight causes active heating where it actually occurs, and as per its geometric projection function. So 610 W/m^2 or +49C. The question is how the system distributes this heat *which causes cooling* overnight and at the poles, in the ocean, land, and atmosphere, in order to establish the blackbody expectation of 240 W/m^2 global average output. That is obviously through the weather, circulation, etc etc, and, CO2 would be a part of that energy distribution cooling process.
The suns energy is carried as radiation and has no aspect of heat but it does have intensity. For anything to have heat/temperature it must have mass and motion. Motion can be called velocity.
Molecules have mass and if they have velocity they posses kinetic energy and it is kinetic energy that we experience as heat.
Radiation has velocity but no mass it is therefore not hot. When the radiations path is blocked by by something that has mass the mass may reflect or absorb the energy. If it absorbs the energy it will vibrate whilst it is re-radiating the energy away. At that point it has internal velocity that can be dispersed by collision with any other gas molecule and this propagates kinetic energy throughout the earths gas envelope.
@rgbatduke you spent a lot of words to excuse nonsense. And you did it by spouting nonsense of your own. In your example, the jacket does not create warmth. The warmth is caused by the continual input of heat from a heat source (your body). Put the Jacket on a fresh killed corpse (I.E.one that hasn’t cooled to room tempurature yet) and the corpse will not get any warmer, and in fact will eventually reach room tempurature. Because cooling no matter how slow is *NOT* warming, it’s the exact opposite of warming. For the cause of warming you need to look to the source of the warmth. The two words have precise meanings and they are not synonomus. Hate to break it to you (and Mosh) but “slowing the cooling” does not mean the same thing as “warming”, You might want to pick up a dictionary to find out why that is so.
Great discussions from everyone, and as far as understanding the sun’s role in providing energy to the earth, they are excellent.
But the critical point for CO2 is—the anthropogenic component emitted each year (~3%) is negligible compared to the natural component (~97%). If CO2 is the problem, we have no way of controlling the outcome. And that still doesn’t address the 25 to 100 times greater role that water vapor might have. Again, human activity cannot affect the global climate from the production of anthropogenic CO2.
Bottom line: Attributing global warming to anthropogenic CO2 does not make sense.
rgbatduke says:
March 7, 2013 at 7:46 am
..
Did not know that a couple of ppm of CO2 was akin to putting on a heavy down jacket.
I thought it was akin to putting on a tank top with a lot of holes.
Opsie daysie my bad.
Stephen Mosher: heat is not blocked from escaping. It escapes. But with more GHGs this escape happens from a higher colder location, and consequently it happens less rapidliy than it would otherwise.
Are you disputing the author’s assertion that energy is now leaving the Earth at a higher rate than before?
Hockey Schtick says this: Yes, NOAA outgoing longwave radiation data shows an increase of ~1.3 Wm-2 from 1975-2012 despite a steady increase of CO2 levels. In contrast, the IPCC formula predicts that OLR should have decreased .93 Wm-2 since 1975, and MODTRAN likewise predicts OLR should have decreased .83 Wm-2 since 1975.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/03/man-made-global-warming-theory-is.html
The source cited by Hockey Schtick (figure legend at that site) is: NOAA global outgoing longwave radiation [OLR] from annualized monthly means, via the KNMI Climate Explorer, entry point but not exact page here: http://climexp.knmi.nl/start.cgi?id=someone@somewhere.
to Hockey Schtick, it would be nice if you would post the exact page at KNMI displaying the data that you used (we could find it, but might find a different page somehow without knowing it.)
I only got part way down, till I saw Mosher’s post.
I don’t disagree, but it’s not the limit to nightly cooling either.
I’ve been looking at nightly cooling, and it’s an almost exact match to day time warming, graphs here.
About your daily temp trend, I’ve been subtracting tonight’s drop, from today’s rise, here’s the average difference across stations North of 23 Lat that have 240 or more day/night records for at least 60 years. I’ve been looking at the rate of difference changing spring to fall, and fall to spring for each of these years, and I’m finding that the rate is changing on a 30 year cycle (10 year running average), we’re just about through the current peak, and the last peak corresponded to the temp minimum of the late 70’s.
Phobos, you’re misunderstanding the discussion. Water vapor and other factors far overwhelm the GHG spectra specific changes at the surface.
Mario Lento: 2) It makes sense that since the planet is slightly warmer now than it was in 1985, the atmosphere would be losing more heat into space because the delta T is larger… the warmer it gets, the more heat goes into space… otherwise, we’d boil 😉
It also “makes sense” that since the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased since 1985, the net outward radiation would be less than in 1985. Which of these two sensible assertions is actually the more accurate is what the debate is mostly about. Also of interest are where the temperature has changed (i.e., surface and lower troposphere where most life is vs upper troposphere); where the CO2 is distributed; where the water rises, condenses and falls; and many others. But the most fundamental unknown the balance of inward radiation and outward radiation.
RE: Mosher: 10:05 pm
Mosher’s CO2 -> ERL -> colder height -> lower loss rate -> silver thermos bottle explanation doesn’t sit with me well. Little errors compound into a big misconception. Let me detail my objections.
1. C02 and other gases are relatively, not completely, opaque to LW radiation. We know this from measurements. So far so good.
2. Because of this earth radiates energy to space from a point in the atmosphere known as the ERL.
The ERL is at best a simplified contrivance. It isn’t a point. CO2 radiates to space from diffuse band of the atmosphere without definable edges (except the surface of the earth) with a probability density that CO2 LW (or other GHG) photon escapes to space. This diffuse band is at lots of temperatures depending upon altitude, latitude, and time of day among other variables.
A center of gravity is a point contrived to make mathematics easier for problems where it can safely be used. A cube and a sphere both have a center of gravity. That doesn’t mean you assume the gravitational field of the cube is the same as a sphere. We cannot always treat the cube as a point source.
Neither can we assume CO2 radiation comes from a point source ERL. Even its name is a give away: ERL = “Effective Radiation Level”
3. Add more GHGs to the atmosphere and you raise the ERL
That is not at all clear when more than one gas is involved. But let’s assume for CO2 it holds. ERL is not a point source. It is a shape, a diffuse band. How does it change it’s shape? How does the temperature profile change and probability density change?
4. When the ERL is raised, earth radiates from a higher colder place.
Why is this important? Are you about to treat the CO2 of the ERL as a blackbody?
5. Radiating from a colder height means the loss rate is lower.
You ARE treating the ERL as a blackbody. The ERL is not a blackbody. It is not a “point”- the ERL is not a real thing.
heat is not blocked from escaping. It escapes. But with more GHGs this escape happens from a higher colder location, and consequently it happens less rapidliy than it would otherwise.
The Errors have fully compounded. The “temperature” of the atmosphere at the ERL means squat to a cloud of excited CO2 molecules radiating LW photons in a narrow spectral band.
Slowing the cooling, is referred to as warming.
John Endicott is right. This is horribly sloppy language.
My answer to that is in the R.W.Woods post, Feb 07 11:36am
The silver lining of a thermos does not warm the coffee.
Oh, good. Back to reality.
By reflecting radiation it slows the rate of cooling and keeps your coffe warmer than it would have been otherwise. Think of C02 and other greenhouse gases as a leaky radiation screen. eventually the radiation escapes, but at a slower rate than it would otherwise.
Yes, but what has this to do with the Earth? With a thermos you are not adding heat to the coffee. The “slower rate” is very temporary. The errors in 4 and 5 make it seem permanent.
Let’s take your coffee thermos. We stick a 1 watt heat source in it (electric or radioactive, you choose). We wait. Eventually, the coffee will be warmer than the surroundings of the thermos to the point where the heat transfer through the thermos, silver lining and all, will be 1 watt. Equilibrium.
Now, we add a layer of silver molecules to the lining. Let us assume that adds, not detracts from the thermos insulation. That 1 watt heater continues. Momentarily, the heat flow through the thermos will be at a slower rate —- UNTIL the temperature of the coffee rises so that the heat flow through the thermos reaches 1 watt again.
Adding a pulse of CO2 to the atmosphere does not change the equilibrium heat loss rate through the atmosphere. It might change equilibrium the temperature profile of the atmosphere. It might temporarily change the heat flow rate, but that same equilibrium rate will be returned. In a planet with a day and night, I think it would be returned very quickly.
But the heat flow rate is not permanently reduced by an ERL radiating from a higher, colder altitude.
It would seem that some people do not understand that land/ocean ratios matter in Global temperature terms, as well as distance from the Sun.
The Northern hemisphere is about 60.7% water and 39.3% land.
The Southern hemisphere is about 80.9% water and 19.1% land.
That appears to be the reason for Jan being colder than July Globally.
from Matthew R Marler:
“Hockey Schtick says this: Yes, NOAA outgoing longwave radiation data shows an increase of ~1.3 Wm-2 from 1975-2012 despite a steady increase of CO2 levels. In contrast, the IPCC formula predicts that OLR should have decreased .93 Wm-2 since 1975, and MODTRAN likewise predicts OLR should have decreased .83 Wm-2 since 1975.”
This is an indication of how ridiculously backwards and inverted climate science is. ANY warming object would be associated with an increase of OLR. That’s what a warmer object does, is emit more OLR. OLR is a function of temperature T to the fourth power, so, an increase in temperature means an increase of OLR (or shorter wavelength radiative energy depending on how high T gets).
But in climate science, a warming object emits LESS radiation! The Earth is supposed to get hotter the less energy it emits. The Stefan-Boltzmann LAW is *thrown* out the window. It’s fairyland science. All inverted and backwards in order to fabricate blame on CO2. Can we do this with stellar atmosphere – with stars? That a star becomes hotter the less intense energy it emits? So, if the Earth emitted zero radiation, would it have infinite temperature? That is actually what their equations show. Interesting that an object that emits zero radiation is either 0 Kelvin, or infinite Kelvin.
So, this is how they set it up. They set up their models with the assumptions they wanted, in the form of invented physics, built in, to produce what they assumed. That trapping radiation causes an increase in temperature and thus CO2 is bad and must be taxed. What has the real-world shown? It has shown the Stefan-Boltzmann Law – that a warmer object emits more radiation, and hence all of the assumptions which went into the models, all the invented physics, and finally all the models, are bunk. We already know the models failed to predict the last 15 years…and this is why. Because they’re wrong…they’re political junk. They’re more than 200% wrong (-.83 modelled vs. +1.3 actual). They violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. They say that something colder emits more energy, and that something warmer emits less. Fairyland pseudoscience.
JPS says:
March 7, 2013 at 7:54 am
While it is blocking energy leaving Earth, it is not altering surface temperature one bit. Which means something else is controlling surface temps, not Co2.
If you want proof from observations, my post above links to a series of graphs based on NCDC data, it shows no trends in the loss of nightly cooling since the 50’s. Some years it’s positive, some it’s negative.
@ur momisugly micro
“While it is blocking energy leaving Earth, it is not altering surface temperature one bit.”
simple physics says this cannot be true- i promise you an atmosphere without greenhouse gases would be cold indeed. now, the RELATIVE effect of changes in CO2 as it relates to climate are clearly up for debate, but to suggest there is not “one bit” of influence is just plain wrong.
rgbatduke: Perhaps — and I’m just throwing this out there, understand — it matters which hemisphere is pointing towards the Sun when perihelion occurs. Perhaps global atmospheric circulation patterns matter. Possibly the state of ocean currents in the world’s oceans have some effect.
“Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps” — there’s a song in that.
from Richard LH:
“It would seem that some people do not understand that land/ocean ratios matter in Global temperature terms, as well as distance from the Sun.
The Northern hemisphere is about 60.7% water and 39.3% land.
The Southern hemisphere is about 80.9% water and 19.1% land.
That appears to be the reason for Jan being colder than July Globally.”
Yes great point. This obviously contributes to the Milankovic cycles, because the ocean has a far lower albedo than land surface and so the phase relationship (which changes smoothly) between aphelion/perihelion distance and the precession of the equinox has very long term effects. Also, If Antarctica wasn’t where it is now, we would just have water flowing through the south pole and therefore not so low of temperatures as currently experienced on land there, which would probably support a warmer global environment.
rgbatduke: Either way, lacking any convincing theory that can explain the details of the climate record from the last (say) million years in a quantitative and predictive way, we are stuck empirically resolving a signal (if any) from a non-intuitive annual counteroscillation driven by forcing variations two orders of magnitude larger than the supposed atmospheric composition variation at baseline, which is itself somewhat dubious as it is functional on things like stratospheric water vapor content, soot/particulate content, aerosol content, and possibly even subtle variations induced by other solar factors distinct from “just” instantaneous insolation.
That’s a pretty good sentence.
rgb: The Climate Rhino — I love it! It deserves its own posting, I think.
@ur momisugly martingatkins
not sure what you are talking about. heat transfer can definitely occur in a vacuum without mass. its called “radiation heat transfer”. granted there needs to be a physical object around for us to measure its effects but even in absence of an object the heat transfer is still occuring.
Joseph E. Postma: So, this is how they set it up. They set up their models with the assumptions they wanted, in the form of invented physics, built in, to produce what they assumed.
The absorption/emission spectra of the GHGs were discovered by empirical research, not “invented” in any pejorative sense. The models are based on the best available empirical results and modern computational methods. I think the models are inadequate and imprecise, but there is no good reason to dismiss totally the idea that increased CO2 concentrations might result in a warmer Earth surface and lower troposphere.
“Climate scientists hate it when people show real temperature because it is impossible to see much warming when you look at the seasonal changes in the actual temperature.”
http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/NCDCabs1880.html
Dangerous global warming since 1880 courtesy of the NCDC.
Promises about physics don’t really count for much. An atmosphere without GHG’s will still be warmest at the bottom, and warmer than the blackbody averrage, and that’s not a promise.
Matthew R Marler: “The absorption/emission spectra of the GHGs were discovered by empirical research, not “invented” in any pejorative sense. The models are based on the best available empirical results and modern computational methods. I think the models are inadequate and imprecise, but there is no good reason to dismiss totally the idea that increased CO2 concentrations might result in a warmer Earth surface and lower troposphere.”
Note that I did not say that absorption and emission spectra were invented by models, so, the opening in the above statement is insensible and lacks credibility in its intent. The invented and arbitrary part is in saying that trapping radiation causes an increase in temperature, which is inconsistent with the actual physics of both the Stefan-Boltzmann Law and Planck’s Law. One good reason to dismiss the idea that increased CO2 causes a warmer surface is because 1) it has never been observed in the historical record 2) it hasn’t been observed in the last 15 years 3) it is only a correlated interpretation with no known causative basis, other than the invention which was used to subsequently justify it, of a relatively minor span of data from the 20’th century, and in which all other possible causes were purposely dismissed without exploration.
JPS says:
March 7, 2013 at 10:25 am
@ur momisugly micro
“While it is blocking energy leaving Earth, it is not altering surface temperature one bit.”
Let me rephrase this, the change in Co2 since 1950 has not changed surface temps one bit.
Now, as for the temp of the sky, on a clear 35F day, it’s ~-41F.
Stephen Rasey says:
But the heat flow rate is not permanently reduced by an ERL radiating from a higher, colder altitude.
=====
even imagining it’s a band..
It seems if you increase CO2/GHG, that expands the ERL…which would greatly increase surface area
If increasing temps and CO2/GHGs gives it a much greater surface area, exposing it to colder temps (greater difference in temps), etc, which should lose the less cooling faster….
expand ERL, increase surface area, greater difference in temps between the two, etc
Is it possible it’s regulating temps?
So, were the February temperatures more anomalous or less anomalous than what?
Show us the actual aggregate temperature graphs.
Then, if you insist, show us a little graph of the oh so precious anomalies, carefully notated as to what they’re anomalies from.
Now, go on and play nice, children… er, uh, honored scientists.