An analysis of night time cooling based on NCDC station record data

@ur momisugly _Jim says: May 17, 2013 at 5:41 pm
“On a really ‘macro’ scale – Given the general circulation of a Hadley (Mid-level etc) cells, eventually all air parcels arrive in more northern (toward the poles) latitudes where the majority of the heat energy gets ‘dumped’ above say about 55 deg (or so) latitude where there is (on average) a net-loss of radiative energy into space, so it becomes important for Hadley, Mid-level and Polar cell circulations to physically transport in ‘warmer’ air masses (parcels) from equatorial and mid-level regions.”
Thank you. Does this imply that there is significant broadband LWIR emitted from cloud tops as well as the narrow band LWIR from ‘greenhouse gases’? The process for cooling of non-radiative gasses in the atmosphere has my interest.
(I’ll go read the link now. 🙂 )

I’m perplexed. Am I not understanding something here?
M(i) is the maximum on day i
m(i) is the minimum on day i
M(i) – m(i) is what you call the warming
M(i) – m(i+1) is what you call the cooling
The difference = m(i+1) – m(i) the change in the minimum temperature.
Average warming = (Average maximum) – (average minimum)
Average cooling = (Average maximum) – (average minimum) – (M(n) – m(1))/(n-1)
The difference between Average warming and average cooling is just a fencepost effect and is simply the total change in temperature at the station over the length of the record divided by the number of days. It is not a useful measure (it depends mostly on the dates that the record starts and ends at), and will shrink to zero when the station has a lot of records anyway. Essentially the difference is just noise as far as I can see. At any given station the average warming and the average cooling as you have defined them must be more or less equal or else the station would be heating up or cooling down.
Are you sure you are not just graphing noise?
Help me out. Am I going nuts here? What have I not understood?

I was using both of your ( Henry P and MiCro) analyses and jumping to the sun/greenhouse gas conclusion
using mathematics,
For the earth, we get an average of 480 watts from the sun and 250 watts from the atmosphere during the day, when it is warming, and get 0 watts from the sun and 250 watts from the atmosphere at night, when it is cooling.
Suppose there’s a change in temp due solely to greenhouse gases, say an increase to 300 wats.
Then the earth will be receiving an average 480 watts from the sun and 300 from the atmosphere during the daytime, and 300 from the atmosphere during the nighttime.
Temperature is proportional to the 4th root of wattage, the ratio of
(480 + 250)//(250 is greater than (480 + 300)/(300) so as the the ratio between daytime highs and nighttime lows should drop with an increased greenhouse effect, rise with at decreased greenhouse effect.
If it;s the sun, changes in temperature of the sun can effect the distribution of the sun;s spectrum, and the fraction of sunlight reflected, absorbed by the atmosphere, and hitting the earth’s surface. To simplify, letting the sun’s temperature stay the same, but letting
it’s luminosity increase- I suppose the greenhouse magnifier would act proportionally the same as it does now.
With a 5% incrrease in the sun’s luminosity, wed get 1.05 times 480 watts from the sun during the day, 1.05 times 250 watts from the atmosphere both during the day and during the night, ,
and the RATIO of day to nighttime temps would stay the same, but with ABSOLuTE warming, the
DIFFERENCE between day and nighttime temps should INCREASE with increased solar luminosity
Likewise, a DROP in greenhouse gases would lead to an INCREASE in the day/night temperature differential, along with decreased overall temperatures and a drop in solar activity would result in a DECREASE in the day/night differential with an overall decrease in temperatures.

That’s suppose to be AMO/PDO.

People who think the atmosphere makes the planet colder and that the drive of that cooling is large have good points.
The atmosphere is heated by infrared but the earth by many more spectra therefore raw atmosphere temp vs raw earth temp will always be dramatically different.
Basically the earth is an internally warmed, and externally warmed, solid object, spinning at the bottom of an ocean of frigid gas. The gas is a fluid and pulled against the surface, air molecules take heat from the surface which absorbed light from blue, (high energy) through green, yellow, orange, red light (low energy)
and the earth giving that off is what the earth’s total energy would be without the gas.
Obviously the gas is doing nothing but cooling.
=====
Immediately following that is analysis of what is cooling the most.
The oceans are water, a greenhouse gas. The oceanic basin covers some 50 + percent of the globe.
That oceanic basin is all blue. It’s very blue, and everyone knows the color you see is the color that object is kicking back. Not absorbing.
So if the earth were exposed without oceans of water the sunlight would be, being trapped just like in the desert or forest. Those places aren’t blue. They absorb much, much more light energy.
So those oceans are directly – not indirectly somehow – directly responsible for kicking back many many times more heat than if they weren’t there in liquid phase.
Then there’s the other 25% or whatever of the earth covered in cloud, or snow, or ice.
Snow is white: kicking back all spectra evenly. Kicking back much more light energy than ground below would, if it could get the full sunlight load.
The tops of clouds are white: kicking back much more light than their bottoms, anytime the sun hits them. Everyone knows the load intensity from the sun side is much higher than from the ground side: so every time there’s a cloud in sunlight, it’s blocking light getting into the planet a lot more, than anything it’s blocking, getting out. The ground doesn’t emit white light: it’s energy is so low that just a few u over, at 20 u, is where commercial infrared sensing starts getting more expensive because there’s simply not enough energy in it to disturb sensors’ thermal/photo inertia.: the light’s just too weak.
Ice, is blue: it also, kicks back much more energy than any substrate below it, because it’s very color defines it as, kicking back much more energy than a darker substrate ever would.
=====
Then, there is the refrigerative cycling the water does, to make that snow: to make those clouds. The storm system kicks massive amounts of heat up away from the earth that otherwise would be depending on the convective characteristics of oxygen and nitrogen.
Plus there’s the augmentation effect involving the movement of the nitrogen and oxygen themselves: hastening their mixing therefore their ability to remove heat from the surface.
All that – driven by water – and someone wants to make the claim, they believe water and CO2 are the heaters of the atmosphere?
Oh there’s the additional effect water and CO2 have as reflecting infrared out before it gets to earth, when they’re not in the storm cell configuration. Together they block some 25% of the sun’s energy before it even has an opportunity to GET to the surface.
Before it has an opportunity to GET kicked back by the ocean,
before it has an opportunity to GET kicked back by snow, by lower level cloud tops;
before it has an opportunity to GET kicked back by ice,
before it has an opportunity to GET kicked back by the storm cell system.
So exactly where is this warming signature that everyone must know, is creating a warming of the earth? In all that cooling, where is it?
=====
N.A.S.A. and N.O.A.A. we know, admit, that CO2 is cooling the upper atmosphere.
Yet there’s someone after all this cooling who has the idea that water, and CO2 are responsible for warming the earth?
Water warms the atmosphere some by enhancing nitrogen/oxygen contact hence conduction, cooling the earth further.
So there’s claim that after all the above kicking back of energy,
there’s some extremely low energy – it is, extremely low, just go look at the energy in the light spectrum, it’s easy to find. If I find it someone will be claiming I’m cherry picking.
There’s some extremely low energy light leaving the earth that’s being pinged back by contact with water and CO2, but it’s just a simple fact that, as long as there’s sunlight, impinging on that particular gas column under analysis at any given moment, that gas, is blocking infrared light, a lot more from the sun side,
than it’s blocking from the earth side,
because it’s just a simple fact the sun side is much, much more energy dense, anywhere it’s impinging on the atmosphere.
So there’s the visible light we see coming off the sides of clouds, that otherwise would just pass on through the atmosphere out the other side,
there’s the heat the falling ice in the water refrigeration cycle picks up on the way back down each cycle making it land as rain: that heat comes back down –
and there’s the occasional pingbacks from energy headed out, but that infrared light coming back to earth.
If it were an amount of feedback anyone could accurately measure and verify like real science does, and is trying to do, someone would have done so, and we would agree we all, some 70 or 80 or 90 percent of us, would agree: that’s it.
No one’s going to tie more light getting to the earth, to the class of gases that are the only ones to BLOCK light getting to the earth.
That statement’s made in conjunction with the evident knowlege that the fact all those oceanic basins are kicking back so much blue light, that the planet’s CALLED – the blue planet.
With the knowledge of the refrigeration cycle water is responsible for; with the knowledge that everywhere sunlight falls on water in any phase at all, the amount of light kicked out, is more, and by quite a bit.
This can only be, a cooling: and the warming done, even at night: amounts to pretty much whatever falls in rain, or is impeded by clouds, or the other, already mentioned means.
And I really am surprised people say they think water and CO2, warm the earth.
What I’m really surprised to see as well, is people having the concept the atmosphere is a warming device. The atmosphere is a heat conductive mass, that’s transparent to incoming light pretty much and is therefore as cold as your ex’s lawyer’s heart.
When you want to bring the temperature at which an object ejects heat up, you put it into a vacuum: so that conduction and it’s adjunct convection can’t cool the object. Indeed the primary cooling fluid of all mankind’s machinery is atmospheric air.
When you have X atmospheric air molecules striking a warm object, you can remove a certain amount of heat.
The directly sought and achieved effect of hitting objects with fanned air is further conduction, due to an increased number of contacts with atmospheric air mix, and that object.
The earth’s surface is cooled in an identical way, as nitrogen and oxygen and water and CO2 as a mix, contact the surface, and heat.
If that atmospheric mix wasn’t here, the compounds comprising the substrate, would radiate, at a higher temperature than if that atmosphere wasn’t there.
Why do you think automobile radiators must receive air flow, to cool effectively? Because if you mount the radiator in the rear of that vehicle where there’s a high degree of vacuum relative to that compressed bow wave of air, the radiator doesn’t cool as well.
This is auto shop level heat management. In the deep cold winter of Minnesota you put cardboard in front of a radiator, to stop freezing air molecules from striking your radiative surfaces, your fins on your radiator.
So anyone can gush and snort about the magnificence of the hotness water and CO2 bring, but as everyone knows, people who believe the atmosphere is a heater, when it’s actually a giant frigid gas fluid bath, the marble of the globe is spinning at the bottom of, having the gas pulled conductively against the surface by gravity – further slammed into it by the earth’s rotational speed –
everyone knows, these people can not tell you where the temperature is headed most of the time. Their models never work, their predictions are something we collectively laugh at.
So… it just doesn’t sound like people studying a frigid fluid miles-deep bath, that’s being underlain by a 55% oceanic coverage with working phase change refrigeration going on.
It just sounds like someone’s been hitting the bubbly to talk about how ‘hot’ the atmosphere’s going to make everything, because there’s a lot more cooling going on,
espectially by water and also by CO2
than any demonstrable heating: and indeed, any theoretical heating. People laugh outright at the warmist’s energy budgets. More energy leaving an entity than comes in? What?? LoL.
It’s a shame, really, to watch people the world over, intimidated into talking about a giant frigid fluid bath as a heater. It really is sad to see, and I’ll bet there are a whole lot of people who study thermal handling of materials who feel the same way.
There are no industries where light is talked about as darkness, or more pressure is called less pressure, or where more rigidity is called flexibility, just because people in Academia tell them, they’re too stupid to talk about it the straight way.
It’s just a shame. I have been studyiing this now for about a year and I can not believe the state of climate analysis and the purely infantile assertions I see being made by people in the various arms of the several fields, associated with it.
People need to insist that the entire thing be discussed in appropriate terms or it’s always going to remain as it is: ScamLand.

My first comment did not appear but my second one did. Please Mr. Moderator post them up in sequence, thank you.
[Don’t know what happened the the first one – no sign of a comment from you in the spam bin ~mod]

“MiCro says:
May 18, 2013 at 8:17 am
” if the warming is due to the sun, or other extraneous factors, Tmax – Tmin should remain the same, or be increasing over time. If the warming is due to greenhouse gases, and NOT the sun or other factors Tmax – Tmin should be DECREASING over time.”
“HenryP’s t-max – t-min is the same as my Rising temp, and it seems remarkedly stable over time.”
What and HenryP have demonstrated, if your figures are correct, is that current warming has nothing to do with a hypothetical increased greenhouse effect and positive water vapor feedback. Something else, like the sun, or tidal cycles due to changes in the moons orbit, or delayed feedback from ocean current flow, must be the major cause of warming.
If temps were increasing solely because of the increased CO2 greenhouse effect, overall warming would be less in the daytime than at night. The Tmin would be greater than the Tmax increase.
If there was POSITIVE water vapor feedback, more water vapor would be evaporated during the day, increasing the latent heat flux due to evaporation more than the sensible heat flux causing Tmax increases. At night, we’d hit the condensation level at a higher temp, and Tmin would increase . I suspect that there would be an even bigger decrease in Tmax-Tmin difference with water vapor feedback than with CO2 alone.
Since warming is 0.036 C/ yr max > 0.014 C/yr avg > 0.006 C /yr min from HenryP’s figures,
that’s PROOF that the greenhouse increase due to CO2, positive water vapor feedback models are WRONG.
If they were right, warming would be more like 0.01 C max, 0.014C ave 0018 C min with warming at night greater than warming in the daytime.
i