A Big Picture Look At “Earth’s Temperature” – Santer 17 Update

Image Credits: NASA,  BP.Blogspot.com, Wikimedia.org

By WUWT regular “Just The Facts”

NOAA’s State of the Climate In 2008 report found that:

The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.

In 2010 Phil Jones was asked by the BBC;

“Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?”

Phil Jones replied:

Yes, but only just.

In 2011, the paper “Separating signal and noise in atmospheric temperature changes: The importance of timescale” by Santer et al. moved the goal posts and found that:

Because of the pronounced effect of interannual noise on decadal trends, a multi-model ensemble of anthropogenically-forced simulations displays many 10-year periods with little warming. A single decade of observational TLT data is therefore inadequate for identifying a slowly evolving anthropogenic warming signal. Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.

In October 2013, the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) satellite temperature data set reached a period of 204 months/17 years for which the slope is = -0.000122111 per year. For those not familiar, the RSS satellite temperature data set is similar to the University of Alabama – Huntsville (UAH) dataset that John Christy and Roy Spencer manage. Information about RSS can be found at here and the data set can be found here.

In November 2013, Dr. Robert G. Brown, Physics Department of Duke University wrote on WUWT:

This (17 years) is a non-event, just as 15 and 16 years were non-events. Non-events do not make headlines. Other non-events of the year are one of the fewest numbers of tornadoes* (especially when corrected for under-reporting in the radar-free past) in at least the recent past (if not the remote past), the lowest number of Atlantic hurricanes* since I was 2 years old (I’m 58), the continuation of the longest stretch in recorded history without a category 3 or higher hurricane making landfall in the US (in fact, I don’t recall there being a category 3 hurricane in the North Atlantic this year, although one of the ones that spun out far from land might have gotten there for a few hours).        * Links added subsequently

While I must disagree with Dr. Robert G. Brown as to what one can and can’t be make into a headline, I do otherwise agree wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, with mainstream media outlets like PBS are running erroneous headlines like, “UN Panel: ‘Extremely Likely’ Earth’s Rapid Warming Is Caused by Humans” we are stuck reporting on average climate data. Amusingly, it has proven a quite effective method of informing the public and disprove erroneous alarmist claims and headlines, as Dr. Brown’s comment above attests.

For those not too familiar with the “Pause” in Earth’s warming, recommended reading includes: “Over the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar.” The Economist “Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released… and here is the chart to prove it.” Daily Mail “Twenty-year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientists puzzled.” The Australian “Has the rise in temperatures ‘paused’?” Guardian “On Tuesday, news finally broke of a revised Met Office ‘decadal forecast’, which not only acknowledges the pause, but predicts it will continue at least until 2017.” Daily Mail “RSS global satellite temperatures confirm hiatus of global warming, while the general public and mainstream press are now recognizing the AWOL truth that skeptics long ago identified…global temperatures are trending towards cooling, not accelerating higher” C3 Headlines

In terms of exactly how long the “Pause” has lasted, it depends on the data set and what it is being measured, e.g. in Werner Brozek’s recent article Statistical Significances – How Long Is “The Pause”? he showed that;

1. For GISS, the slope is flat since September 1, 2001 or 12 years, 1 month. (goes to September 30, 2013)

2. For Hadcrut3, the slope is flat since May 1997 or 16 years, 5 months. (goes to September)

3. For a combination of GISS, Hadcrut3, UAH and RSS, the slope is flat since December 2000 or 12 years, 10 months. (goes to September)

4. For Hadcrut4, the slope is flat since December 2000 or 12 years, 10 months. (goes to September)

5. For Hadsst3, the slope is flat since November 2000 or 12 years, 11 months. (goes to September)

6. For UAH, the slope is flat since January 2005 or 8 years, 9 months. (goes to September using version 5.5)

7. For RSS, the slope is flat since November 1996 or 17 years (goes to October)

Here’s what that looks like graphically;

WoodForTrees.org – Paul Clark – Click the pic to view at source

However, to really see the big picture on “Earth’s Temperature” we must take into account many more measurements than just Surface and Tropospheric Temperatures. As such, the following is an overview of many of them. NASA’s Earth Observatory claims that;

“Global warming is the unusually rapid increase in Earth’s average surface temperature over the past century primarily due to the greenhouse gases released by people burning fossil fuels.”

so let us start there…

Global Surface Temperatures:

NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) Global Monthly Mean Surface Temperature Anomaly – 1996 to Present:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) – Click the pic to view at source

NOAA’s – National Climate Data Center – Annual Global Land and Ocean Temperature Anomalies:

NOAA – National Climate Data Center – Click the pic to view at source

UK Met Office’s – Hadley Center – Climate Research Unit (CRU) Annual Global Average Land and Ocean Temperature Anomaly;

Met Office – Hadley Center – Click the pic to view at source

the UK Met Office – Hadley Center – Climate Research Unit (CRU) Monthly Global Average Land Temperature;

Met Office – Hadley Center – Click the pic to view at source

and HadCRUT4 Global, Northern and Southern Hemispheric Temperature Anomalies:

University of East Anglia (UEA) – Climatic Research Unit (CRU) – Click the pic to view at source

The Pause appears to apparent in Earth’s Land and Surface Temperature record. It is important to note that the reason that the IPCC claims to be;

“95% certain that humans are the “dominant cause” of global warming since the 1950sBBC

is because prior to 1950 Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuels were insufficient to have a significant influence on “Earth’s Temperature”, i.e. Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuels;

Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center – Click the pic to view at source

and Cumulative Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuels:

Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center – Click the pic to view at source

In May 2013, the Economist noted that;

The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO₂ put there by humanity since 1750. And yet, as James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, “the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.”

Additionally, surface temperature records are burdened with issues of questionable siting, changes in siting, changes in equipment, changes in the number of measurement locations, modeling to fill in gaps in measurement locations, corrections to account for missing, erroneous or biased measurements, land use changes, anthropogenic waste heat and the urban heat island effect.  Thus to see the Big Picture of “Earth’s Temperature”, it also helps to look up.

Atmospheric Temperatures:

Since 1979 Earth’s “temperature” has also been measured via satellite. “The temperature measurements from space are verified by two direct and independent methods. The first involves actual in-situ measurements of the lower atmosphere made by balloon-borne observations around the world. The second uses intercalibration and comparison among identical experiments on different orbiting platforms. The result is that the satellite temperature measurements are accurate to within three one-hundredths of a degree Centigrade (0.03 C) when compared to ground-launched balloons taking measurements of the same region of the atmosphere at the same time.” NASA

Here is RSS Global Temperature Lower Troposphere (TLT) – Brightness Temperature Anomaly- 1979 to Present;

Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) – Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) – Click the pic to view at source

and this is the University of Alabama – Hunstville (UAH) Global Lower Atmosphere Temperature Anomalies – 1979 to Present:

University of Alabama – Huntsville (UAH) – Dr. Roy Spencer – Click the pic to view at source

Note: Per John Christy, RSS and UAH anomalies are not comparable because they use different base periods, i.e., “RSS only uses 1979-1998 (20 years) while UAH uses the WMO standard of 1981-2010.”

The March UAH Lower Atmosphere Temperature Anomaly was .29 degrees C above the 30 year average and RSS Global Global Lower Troposphere shows a .127 degrees C increase per decade.

When we look at Earth’s “canaries”, i.e. RSS Northern Polar Temperature Lower Troposphere (TLT) Brightness Temperature Anomaly;

Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) – Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) – Click the pic to view at source

appears to have Paused for the last 18 years and RSS Southern Polar Temperature Lower Troposphere (TLT) Brightness Temperature Anomaly;

Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) – Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) – Click the pic to view at source

looks like it has been on Pause for its entire record.

To this point we’ve only addressed the Lower Troposphere Temperatures, the following Temperature Anomaly plots from RSS will increase in altitude as is illustrated here:

Here is RSS Temperature Middle Troposphere (TMT)- Brightness Temperature Anomaly- 1979 to Present;

Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) – Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) – Click the pic to view at source

According to Remote Sensing Systems, “For Channel (TLT) (Lower Troposphere) and Channel (TMT) (Middle Troposphere), the anomaly time series is dominated by ENSO events and slow tropospheric warming. The three primary El Niños during the past 20 years are clearly evident as peaks in the time series occurring during 1982-83, 1987-88, and 1997-98, with the most recent one being the largest.” RSS

Middle Tropospheric temperatures appear to show slow warming overlaid with the El Niño/La Niña Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycle, including several comparatively large El Niño events. Middle Tropospheric temperatures appear to entered The Pause with the large El Niño in 1998.

Moving higher in the atmosphere, RSS Temperature Troposphere / Stratosphere (TTS) – Brightness Temperature Anomaly- 1987 to Present;

Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) – Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) – Click the pic to view at source

has been in The Pause since records began in 1987, with a trend of just -.004 K/C per decade.

The 1997-98 and 2009 – 10 El Niño events are still readily apparent in the Troposphere / Stratosphere plot above, as is a spike from the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo. Note that the effect of Mt. Pinatubo is the opposite in the Lower and Middle Troposphere versus the Troposphere / Stratosphere (TTS), i.e. “Large volcanic eruptions inject sulfur gases into the stratosphere; the gases convert into submicron particles (aerosol) with an e-folding time scale of about 1 year. The climate response to large eruptions (in historical times) lasts for several (2-3) years. The aerosol cloud causes cooling at the Earth’s surface, warming in stratosphere.”

Ellen Thomas, PHD Wesleyan University

It is interesting that, incorporating the impact of three significant surface driven warming events, Troposphere / Stratosphere Temperatures (TTS) have been quite stable, however there is a bit of regional variation here, e.g.:

RSS Northern Hemisphere Temperature Troposphere / Stratosphere (TTS) – Brightness Temperature Anomaly- 1987 to Present;

Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) – Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) – Click the pic to view at source

has been increasing by .047 K/C per decade, whereas the RSS Southern Hemisphere Temperature Troposphere / Stratosphere (TTS) – Brightness Temperature Anomaly- 1987 to Present;

Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) – Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) – Click the pic to view at source

has been decreasing by -.039 K/C per decade.

Moving higher still in the atmosphere, the RSS Temperature Lower Stratosphere (TLS) – Brightness Temperature Anomaly – 1979 to Present;

Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) – Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) – Click the pic to view at source

“is dominated by stratospheric cooling, punctuated by dramatic warming events caused by the eruptions of El Chichon (1982) and Mt Pinatubo (1991).” RSS

The eruptions of El Chichon and Mt Pinatubo are readily apparent in the Apparent Atmospheric Transmission of Solar Radiation at Mauna Loa, Hawaii:

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL) – Click the pic to view at source

“The stratosphere” … “in contrast to the troposphere, is heated, as the result of near infrared absorption of solar energy at the top of the aerosol cloud, and increased infra-red absorption of long-wave radiation from the Earth’s surface.”

“The stratospheric warming in the region of the stratospheric cloud increases the latitudinal temperature gradient after an eruption at low latitudes, disturbing the stratospheric-troposphere circulation, increasing the difference in height of the troposphere between high and low latitudes, and increasing the strength of the jet stream (polar vortex, especially in the northern hemisphere). This leads to warming during the northern hemisphere winter following a tropical eruption, and this warming effect tends to be larger than the cooling effect described above.” Ellen Thomas, PHD Wesleyan University

The Lower Stratosphere experienced “dramatic warming events caused by the eruptions of El Chichon (1982) and Mt Pinatubo (1991).” RSS “The long-term, global-mean cooling of the lower stratosphere stems from two downward steps in temperature, both of which are coincident with the cessation of transient warming after the volcanic eruptions of El Chichon and Mt. Pinatubo.” … “Here we provide observational analyses that yield new insight into three key aspects of recent stratospheric climate change. First, we provide evidence that the unusual step-like behavior of global-mean stratospheric temperatures is dependent not only upon the trend but also on the temporal variability in global-mean ozone immediately following volcanic eruptions. Second, we argue that the warming/cooling pattern in global-mean temperatures following major volcanic eruptions is consistent with the competing radiative and chemical effects of volcanic eruptions on stratospheric temperature and ozone. Third, we reveal the contrasting latitudinal structures of recent stratospheric temperature and ozone trends are consistent with large-scale increases in the stratospheric overturning Brewer-Dobson circulation” David W. J. Thompson Colorado State University

Above the Stratosphere we have the Mesosphere and Thermosphere, neither of which have I identified current temperature time series for, but of note is that on “July 15, 2010” “A Puzzling Collapse of Earth’s Upper Atmosphere” occurred when “high above Earth’s surface where the atmosphere meets space, a rarefied layer of gas called “the thermosphere” recently collapsed and now is rebounding again.”

“This is the biggest contraction of the thermosphere in at least 43 years,” says John Emmert of the Naval Research Lab, lead author of a paper announcing the finding in the June 19th issue of the Geophysical Research Letters (GRL). “It’s a Space Age record.”

The collapse happened during the deep solar minimum of 2008-2009—a fact which comes as little surprise to researchers. The thermosphere always cools and contracts when solar activity is low. In this case, however, the magnitude of the collapse was two to three times greater than low solar activity could explain.

“Something is going on that we do not understand,” says Emmert.

The thermosphere ranges in altitude from 90 km to 600+ km. It is a realm of meteors, auroras and satellites, which skim through the thermosphere as they circle Earth. It is also where solar radiation makes first contact with our planet. The thermosphere intercepts extreme ultraviolet (EUV) photons from the sun before they can reach the ground. When solar activity is high, solar EUV warms the thermosphere, causing it to puff up like a marshmallow held over a camp fire. (This heating can raise temperatures as high as 1400 K—hence the name thermosphere.) When solar activity is low, the opposite happens.” NASA

In summary, “the Pause” is apparent in Earth’s atmospheric record, Lower and Middle Troposphere appear to have warmed slowly, overlaid with the El Niño/La Niña Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycle, including four comparatively large El Niño events, and tempered by the cooling effects of the eruption of El Chichon (1982) and Mt Pinatubo (1991). Lower and Middle Tropospheric temperatures appear to have paused since the large El Niño in 1998. Tropospheric / Stratospheric temperatures appear to have been influenced by at least three significant surface driven warming events, the 1997-98 El Niño, and the eruptions of El Chichon in 1982 and Mt Pinatubo in 1991, but have maintained a stable overall trajectory. Stratospheric temperatures appear to have experienced two “dramatic warming events caused by the eruptions of El Chichon (1982) and Mt Pinatubo (1991).”, and “unusual step-like behavior of global-mean stratospheric temperatures” which has resulted in a significant stratospheric cooling during the last 30 years. Lastly, “during deep solar minimum of 2008-2009” “the biggest contraction of the thermosphere in at least 43 years” occurred and “The magnitude of the collapse was two to three times greater than low solar activity could explain.”

Ocean Temperatures:

“The oceans can hold much more heat than the atmosphere. Just the top 3.2 metres of ocean holds as much heat as all the world’s air.” Commonwealth of Australia – Bureau of Meteorology

From a surface perspective Hadley Center’s HadSST2 Global Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly;

climate4you.com – Ole Humlum – Professor, University of Oslo Department of Geosciences – Click the pic to view at source

NOAA’s – National Climate Data Center – Global Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly;

climate4you.com – Ole Humlum – Professor, University of Oslo Department of Geosciences – Click the pic to view at source

Reynolds OI.v2 Global Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly

Bob Tisdale – http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com – Click the pic to view at source

all appear to be well into The Pause.

Obviously Sea Surface temperature only scratch the surface, thus changes in Ocean Heat Content are important in understanding “Earth’s Temperature”. Here is NOAA’s NODC Global Ocean Heat Content from 0-700 Meters – 1955 to Present;

National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – National Oceanographic Data Center (NODC) – Click the pic to view at source

and here is the same from Ole Humlum’s valuable climate data site Climate4you.com, NODC Global Ocean Heat Content – 0-700 Meters – 1979 to Present:

climate4you.com – Ole Humlum – Professor, University of Oslo Department of Geosciences – Click the pic to view at source

It seems apparent from the plots above that Global Ocean Heat has increased over the last several decades, and has not paused per se, however the rate of increase seems to have slowed significantly since 2004.

Sea Level:

“Global sea level is currently rising as a result of both ocean thermal expansion and glacier melt, with each accounting for about half of the observed sea level rise, and each caused by recent increases in global mean temperature. For the period 1961-2003, the observed sea level rise due to thermal expansion was 0.42 millimeters per year and 0.69 millimeters per year due to total glacier melt (small glaciers, ice caps, ice sheets) (IPCC 2007). Between 1993 and 2003, the contribution to sea level rise increased for both sources to 1.60 millimeters per year and 1.19 millimeters per year respectively (IPCC 2007).” Source NSIDC

Global Mean Sea Level Change – 1993 to Present:

climate4you.com – Ole Humlum – Professor, University of Oslo Department of Geosciences – Click the pic to view at source

Global Mean Sea Level Change Map with a “Correction” of 0.3 mm/year added May, 5th 2011, due to a “Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA)” – 1993 to Present;

University of Colorado at Boulder – Click the pic to view at source

While it appears that Sea Level Rise has continued recently;

Wikipedia – Click the pic to view at source

it is important to note that Sea Levels were increasing at a similar pace during the first half of the 20th century, before anthropogenic CO2 emissions were sufficient to have a significant influence on “Earth’s Temperature” and Sea Level:

Snow and Ice:

A proxy often cited when measuring “Earth’s Temperature” is amount of Snow and Ice on Earth. According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS), “The vast majority, almost 90 percent, of Earth’s ice mass is in Antarctica, while the Greenland ice cap contains 10 percent of the total global ice mass.” Source USGA

However, there is currently no generally accepted measure of ice volume, as Cryosat is still in validation and the accuracy of measurements from Grace are still being challenged. Sea Ice Area and Extent are cited as proxies for “Earth’s Temperature”, however there is significant evidence that the primary influences on Sea Ice Area and Extent are in fact wind and Atmospheric Oscillations.

With this said, Global Sea Ice Area;

Cryosphere Today – University of Illinois – Polar Research Group – Click the pic to view at source

had it’s largest maximum in 2013, since 1996 and has remained stubbornly average for the entirety of 2013. Antarctic Sea Ice Extent has remained above the 1981 – 2010 “normal” range for much of the last four months;

National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC) – Click the pic to view at source

we had the third most expansive Southern Sea Ice Area measured to date;

Cryosphere Today – Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois – Click the pic to view at source

and Southern Sea Ice Area has remained above average for almost all of the last two years:

Cryosphere Today – Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois – Click the pic to view at source

At the other pole Arctic Sea Ice Extent has remained within the 1981 – 2010 “normal” range for the entirety of 2013;

National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC) – click to view at source

and Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area had it’s smallest decline since 2006:

Cryosphere Today – University of Illinois – Polar Research Group – Click the pic to view at source

There appears to have been a negative trend in Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area and Extent, a positive trend in Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area and Extent, thus the resultant Global Sea Ice Area trend appears to be slightly negative. However, in the last 6 years there does appear to be a Pause in Global Sea Ice Area.

In terms of land based data, here is 20 Year Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover with 1995 – 2009 Climatology from NCEP/NCAR;

Florida State University – Department of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Science – Click the pic to view at source

Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover Anomalies 1966 – Present from NCEP/NCAR;

Florida State University – Department of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Science – Click the pic to view at source

Northern Hemisphere Winter Snow Extent – 1967 to Present from Rutgers University;

Rutgers University – Global Snow Lab (GSL) – Click the pic to view at source

Northern Hemisphere Spring Snow Extent – 1967 to Present:

 alt=
Rutgers University – Global Snow Lab (GSL) – Click the pic to view at source

Northern Hemisphere Fall Snow Extent – 1967 to Present:

Rutgers University – Global Snow Lab (GSL) – Click the pic to view at source

While none of the Snow plots offers a global perspective, when looking at the Northern Hemisphere, there appears to have been a slight increase in Winter Snowcover and Snow Extent, a decrease in Spring Snow Extent and no change in Fall Snow Extent over the historical record.

Based on the limited Global Ice and Snow measurements available, and noting the questionable value of Sea Ice Area and Extent as a proxy for temperature, not much inference can currently be drawn from Earth’s Ice and Snow measurements. However, there does appear to be a Pause in Global Sea Ice Area.

Conclusion:

The Pause in “Earth’s Temperature” appears in many of Earth’s observational records, it appears to extend for between 6 – 16 years depending on the data set and what it is being measured.

Additional information on “Earth’s Temperature” can be found in the WUWT Reference Pages, including the Global Temperature Page and Global Climatic History Page

Please note that WUWT cannot vouch for the accuracy of the data/graphics within this article, nor influence the format or form of any of the graphics, as they are all linked from third party sources and WUWT is simply an aggregator. You can view each graphic at its source by simply clicking on it.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
175 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
barry
November 16, 2013 9:25 am

In 2011, the paper “Separating signal and noise in atmospheric temperature changes: The importance of timescale” by Santer et al. moved the goal posts

Hardly. They were asking different questions to those posed by NOAA and asked of Phil Jones.
NOAA – “How long with no temp rise before doubting the models?”
Jones – “Is the warming trend for this period statistically significant?”
Santer – “What is the least possible time needed to discern human influence on global temps?”
Santer’s ultimate answer (in the paper’s conclusions) was that multidecadal periods were required for robust analysis of AGW.
No goalposts were shifted. Each was playing on a different field.

November 16, 2013 9:45 am

geran;
I’m not an EXTREME skeptic? LOL. I frequently describe myself as a “raging skeptic”.
In any event, Stefan, Boltzmann, Planck, Einstein and many others are on my side on this point. I’m a raging skeptic because I HAVE studied the science. It is of little value in this debate to be right for the wrong reasons, which is where you are at right now.
To try and simplify it for you, the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is:
P=5.67*10^-8*T^4
With P in watts/m2 and T in degrees Kelvin. If you know the amount of energy flux an object is exposed to in w/m2, and its albedo, you can calculate its equilibrium temperature. We know those numbers for earth and the equilibrium temperature is 255K. The surface temperature however, is 288K, 33 degrees higher. How can this be true and Stefan-Boltzmann Law also be true?
Stefan-Boltzmann Law describes the temperature of a surface. The earth as seen from space has a surface surrounded by a fuzzy sorta thing called an atmosphere. For the earth to be in equilibrium, energy must be radiated from earth to space in the amount calculated by SB Law. BUT, it doesn’t get radiated from the surface. Some of it gets radiated from the surface, some from the lowest reached of the atmosphere, some from the middle, some from the top.
If you could view the earth from space with an IR thermometer, you would read a temperature that exactly equals the SB Law calculation. But your IR thermometer only knows the total number of photons per second and their energy levels that it is seeing. It doesn’t know if they came from the surface, lower, middle, or upper atmosphere. It only knows the average of what it sees and calculates temperature from that.
If you were to measure the temperature of the atmospheric column from surface to TOA at thousands of altitudes, and average it, you would get the exact same number. Now double CO2 and wait for equilibrium to be once more established.. From space you would STILL see the exact same number. If you measured the temperature at thousands of points from surface to TOA you would ALSO get the exact same number.
BUT, the lower altitude numbers would be higher and the high altitude numbers would be lower, and the average would be the same.

geran
November 16, 2013 9:58 am

davidmhoffer says:
November 16, 2013 at 9:45 am
“We know those numbers for earth and the equilibrium temperature is 255K.”
>>>>>>>>>>>
I stopped reading right there!
See, that is exactly what I am talking about. You got that figure from modern pseudo-science. I can guarantee it did not come from Einstein. The valid application of SB equation does not give 255K.

NZ Willy
November 16, 2013 10:14 am

One reliable aspect is that temperature increase is reported where people ain’t. The classical example is the Antarctic peninsula where all manned bases are on the west side because the east side is too cold — so of course they report that the east side has warmed three times as much as the west — but not enough to move any manned base there, of course. Easy to report phony temperature increases where there are no witnesses.

November 16, 2013 10:19 am

geran;
I calculated that number for myself from known physics over 20 years ago well before I ever heard of this debate. No point explaining further since you have declared your refusal to even read the explanation. You are exactly the same as the raging warmists who equally don’t have a clue what they are talking about, you’ve made up your mind and refuse to even consider reading factual information that disagrees with your point of view.

geran
November 16, 2013 10:32 am

David,
You got the equation right, but you did not use it correctly. (P=5.67*10^-8*T^4)
The equation will not give you 255K. You either need a better physics book or a better calculator.

November 16, 2013 10:45 am

geran;
Feel free to publish the “correct” math.

geran
November 16, 2013 10:58 am

Gladly, David.
The SB equation requires an ideal absorber so that it can be properly applied. Assume TSI of 1365 W/sq.m, and albedo of .3, then 955.5 is the number we use in the SB equation. So, solving for T, we get 360K.
The “politically correct” [WRONG] pseudo-science wants us to divide the 955.5 by 4, but there is no “divide by 4” in the SB equation.

November 16, 2013 11:20 am

Wow geran. So according to you the correct temperature of earth is just below the boiling point of water? Did you stop to think through the stupidity of making such a claim?
SB Law is predicated on the average TSI. Since the sun shines only on half the earth at one time, you must first divide by 2. Then you must account for the fact that the earth is round and so even on the side with sunshine, while the TSI at the equator at noon might be 1365, it tapers off to zero at the poles and at the edges of the lit area. If you do the geometry, you’ll find that dividing by 2 again gives you a fair approximation for that.
But feel free to continue demonstrating your complete ignorance of the subject. I’m done with you.

Richard M
November 16, 2013 11:24 am

One of the problems with ERL/MRL conjecture is that it is based on energy radiated from the surface in isolation. That is, it ignores all the energy in the atmosphere. By itself it follows from basic physics, but it is not by itself and the “other stuff” is quite important. Like most of global warming science it is nothing but a half truth.
CO2 and other GHGs increase the flux of energy from the atmosphere to space. This process in isolation would lead to a lowering of the ERL/MRL. As far as I’ve been able to discover, no one has looked at the affects of both of these processes in combination in any detail. However, given the stability of our temperature across a billion years despite significantly different CO2 levels. I have a distinct feeling they come close to cancelling each other out.

Jquip
November 16, 2013 11:58 am

davidmhoffer: “If you do the geometry, you’ll find that dividing by 2 again gives you a fair approximation for that.”
Uh, that only works for a flat disc and – which does *not* taper off – and is under the idea of converting surface area to surface area. If you take the flux incident on the sphere given the angle of the sphere, it is decidedly different for the average flux. And as T is non-linear with respect to flux you get a different answer still if you take T before you take the average flux.
Angles on a pin though, really. At least, so long as no one gives too much credibility to absolute temperatures derived from impossible geometry constructed out of non-rotating unobtanium.

geran
November 16, 2013 12:06 pm

davidmhoffer says:
November 16, 2013 at 11:20 am
“Wow geran. So according to you the correct temperature of earth is just below the boiling point of water?”
>>>>>>>
See, I said earlier you were not a dummy. To be accurate, 360K = 87ºC, 189ºF (The implication is, of course, that the Earth has cooling mechanisms that can easily handle the excess solar energy.)
“Did you stop to think through the stupidity of making such a claim?”
>>>>>>
It’s exactly how the math turned out. The stupidity is in trying to “spin” it around, as Warmists attempt.
“SB Law is predicated on the average TSI.”
>>>>>>>>
NOPE, SB Law is a mathematical relationship between E/M energy and temperature. The equation just calculates the corresponding temperature for any level of TSI.
“Since the sun shines only on half the earth at one time, you must first divide by 2.”
>>>>>>>>>
NOPE, you have just invalidated the results. The SB temp must coincide with the actual insolence, not some estimated average value.
“Then you must account for the fact that the earth is round and so even on the side with sunshine, while the TSI at the equator at noon might be 1365, it tapers off to zero at the poles and at the edges of the lit area. If you do the geometry, you’ll find that dividing by 2 again gives you a fair approximation for that.”
>>>>>>>>>
NOPE, the SB equation does not calculate well with “fair approximations”. You MUST use the equation based on the conditions of its derivation. Making up approximations is the pseudo-science you need to run away from.
“But feel free to continue demonstrating your complete ignorance of the subject. I’m done with you.”
>>>>>>>>
“Demonstrating complete ignorance” is taking a precise equation and dividing the input by 4. You cannot “divide by 4”, make up excuses, and expect the answer to mean anything. But, you are free to do that. Heck, “divide by 5” and call it “fried chicken” if you want. Or, “divide by 6” and call it a “1957 Chevy”. But, it is all pseudo!
(I suspect that you really want to learn, but are just confused by all the nonsense out there. Feel free to come back whenever you desire.)

November 16, 2013 12:08 pm

Jquip;
Uh, that only works for a flat disc and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Good god, did no one graduate from grade 10 geometry?
Area of a disk = piR^2
Area of a 1/2 sphere = 2piR^2
ratio = 1/2

milodonharlani
November 16, 2013 12:19 pm

Richard M says:
November 16, 2013 at 11:24 am
I’d say our temperatures have been stable, ie fluctuating within about a ten degrees C range (~12 to 22), since over 540 million years ago (when the sun was around 5% less powerful), but not a for a billion years, which would include Snowball Earth intervals.

Jquip
November 16, 2013 1:02 pm

davidmhoffer: “Good god, did no one graduate from grade 10 geometry?”
Really not terribly sure what your point is. Yes that’s the correct ratio of surface area from a disk to a hemisphere. Or 1/4 to a whole sphere, which is the ‘approved’ manner of calculating the black body temperature of a planetary body. It’s also quite wrong, as the flux is in m^2 and is modulated by the angle of incidence on the surface of a sphere, not the angle of incidence on a circular wall called Earth.
Savvy up with Euclid and go sort out the average height of a hemisphere and why that makes any difference.

November 16, 2013 1:05 pm

davidmhoffer says on November 16, 2013 at 9:45 am:
“I’m not an EXTREME skeptic? LOL. I frequently describe myself as a “raging skeptic”.
In any event, Stefan, Boltzmann, Planck, Einstein and many others are on my side on this point. I’m a raging skeptic because I HAVE studied the science. It is of little value in this debate to be right for the wrong reasons, which is where you are at right now. —– — – — – -.We know those numbers for earth and the equilibrium temperature is 255K. The surface temperature however, is 288K, 33 degrees higher. How can this be true and Stefan-Boltzmann Law also be true?
= = = = = = = = = = =
I do suspect that you are using one of the editions of “Kiehl & Trenberth’s Earth’s Annual Mean Energy Budget” plans as a basis for your calculations, which divides the so called “Solar Constant” by 4 (don’t worry – I do know the calculus or formulas for areas of discs & spheres) which has the effect of portraying a situation that happens nowhere in this “Solar – System.” As long as you carry on using ¼ of the ‘Solar Irradiation’ in your calculations you will carry on being wrong.
It is easy really, because if you ““Know” the “equilibrium temperature”” is 255K but that the surface temperature is 288K, 33 degrees higher, then it is more likely your calculations are wrong – and that the “measured” surface temperature is “near enough” correct. – So – Ditch the K&T plan – and wait, patiently until all the necessary temperature data are in – – – – – – -.
You see when you talk about temperature (T) of the surface. You cannot ignore facts. One of these facts is that the Earth stores heat (T) in the ground. Try for example to find out where the T from the planet’s core meets the solar induced T percolating downwards from the top of the surface. – Too complicated? – not enough data? – too many problems? If so then that’s correct, but if you want the right answers – there are no short-cuts.
Remember also that Trenberth, who is the one best known by us here on WUWT, is an EXTREME CAGW enthusiast. –
I suggest that you take a look at the science as it was before Arrhenius and his misunderstood back radiation nonsense, i.e. write “Fourier 1824” into your search engine and see what “The father of the GHE” had to say about it. – And while you are at it, look up “John Tyndall” in the same manner. –
There is a GHE, yes sure there is, but it has to do with the fact that “The GHGs” that are in contact with the surface “block” the path of “Energy- radiation” away from the surface. Nothing to do with “Back-radiation” – at all. Once the energy has left the surface as ‘IR radiation’, there is no way back into the surface for it. IR radiation cannot penetrate solids – not even transparent solids like glass – nor can it penetrate fluids or liquids like water. – Just think about it – We just have not, as yet, got the “necessary correct numbers to work it all out”

November 16, 2013 1:47 pm

Jquip;
Really not terribly sure what your point is. Yes that’s the correct ratio of surface area from a disk to a hemisphere.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
From the sun looking at the earth, the earth presents as a disk. The total joules/s being radiated into the earth is the area of the disk times the TSI. The area of the hemisphere being twice the area of the disk, the w/m2 averaged over the area is 1/2 the TSI. Given that only 1/2 the earth is being radiated at any given time, the average for the earth is 1/4 the TSI.
O H Dahlsveen;
I do suspect that you are using one of the editions of “Kiehl & Trenberth’s
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
Your suspicions would be completely wrong.

Jquip
November 16, 2013 2:02 pm

davidmhoffer: “From the sun looking at the earth, the earth presents as a disk. The total joules/s being radiated into the earth is the area of the disk times the TSI.”
In raw Joules, sure. But we’ve been talking about this “With P in watts/m2 and T in degrees Kelvin.” (Your quote) the whole time. Now project a unit meter over the surface of a sphere. If you’re absolutely certain there’s no difference then TSI/2 will be equal to TSI * average height of a unit hemisphere. But that would be 2TSI/3. Which is.. yeh, not the same.
So I’ll leave it to beaver. Since no more than one of those can be correct: You go figure out how a unit square projects on an incline or conic.

November 16, 2013 2:09 pm

Jquip;
I was right the first time. You failed grade 10 geometry.

geran
November 16, 2013 2:28 pm

davidmhoffer says:
November 16, 2013 at 1:47 pm
O H Dahlsveen;
I do suspect that you are using one of the editions of “Kiehl & Trenberth’s
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
Your suspicions would be completely wrong.
>>>>>>
So, you came up with the “divide by four” all by yourself?

November 16, 2013 2:40 pm

The Arctic vortex is elongated in shape, with two centres, one roughly over Baffin Island in Canada and the other over northeast Siberia.
=================
strange that the vortex would align with the dual magnetic poles in the N hemisphere.

Jquip
November 16, 2013 2:43 pm

davidmhoffer: “I was right the first time. You failed grade 10 geometry.”
And you have sex with underage girls. Every assertion is awesome without reasoning, yes? Or you could take that path Stokes failed, the one of the knowledgable and honest man and show why any of the following are false:
1) The SB law doesn’t use watts/m^2 as you stated.
2) That a unit square projected on a plane 60 degrees off the perpendicular doesn’t cover two unit squares.
3) That a sphere is not a set of infinitely small planes at different inclinations.
4) That the average height of a hemisphere is not equal to a plane inclined at 60 degrees

geran
November 16, 2013 3:00 pm

Jquip says:
November 16, 2013 at 2:43 pm
And you have sex with underage girls.
>>>>>
Jquip, I have taken numerous insults from David today, only trying to help him understand. He has insulted you also. But, do not get down in the mud with him. If he is a phony, he will try to bring you down to the bottom with him. If he realizes he has been misled, he will be appreciative of our efforts.
Mudding with him is only a “lose/lose”.

Genghis
November 16, 2013 3:06 pm

This discussion has almost been funny : )
The surface area of a Sphere is 4πR^2 which converts to 1/4 for a perpendicular area. So if the S-B law is applied with emissivity matching absorptivity of 1366 W/m^2 the answer is 279K (6˚C) or exactly the average temperature of the oceans.
And yes Davidmhoffer I am familiar with S-B, Planck, Kirchoffs (I am an EE), etc, but mostly I am a sailplane pilot and sailor. I am also convinced that evaporation from the ocean controls the earths surface temperature.

November 16, 2013 3:10 pm

This is a very nice collection of plots.
But…. you are missing some important plots, chiefly the chart of adjustments GISS / GHCN adds to the raw data. Steven Goddard has some charts that should be included in the reference.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/data-tampering-at-ushcngiss/
The WUWT post “GHCN’s Dodgy Adjustments in Iceland” is worth studying in this regard.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/15/ghcns-dodgy-adjustments-in-iceland/
It really ought to be named: GHCN’s Adjustments shown to be Dodgy BY Iceland Iceland has several, at least six, long record, well located professionally run temperature stations. Yet GHCN sees fit to adjust these readings.

The “Pairwise Algorithm” is claimed to isolate non-climatic changes by comparison with other stations. But in Iceland this clearly has not happened. Every single station exhibits the same trend and at every one the algorithm has adjusted it out. There are no stations [in Iceland] that the algorithm could possibly have used to have come to the conclusions that it did.
It is impossible to come to any other conclusion than that the software is hopelessly flawed.

As I put it in comments then:
Iceland is THE control. It is the laboratory where the algorithm must work in isolation. If the Algorithm breaks on Iceland, the algorithm is broken. If the algorithm gives untrustworthy results because of human error, the entire process is untrustworthy.
It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong. – Richard P. Feynman
BTW, the Dodgy Adjustments post is one I put in my Watts’ Best list.