Global Temperature Update – Still no global warming for 17 years 10 months

clip_image002_thumb.pngEl Niño has not yet shortened the Great Pause

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Remarkably, the El Niño warming of this year has not yet shortened the Great Pause, which, like last month, stands at 17 years 10 months with no global warming at all.

Taking the least-squares linear-regression trend on Remote Sensing Systems’ satellite-based monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature dataset, there has been no global warming – none at all – for 214 months. This is the longest continuous period without any warming in the global instrumental temperature record since the satellites first watched in 1979. It has endured for about half the satellite temperature record. Yet the Great Pause coincides with a continuing, rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

clip_image002

Figure 1. RSS monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies (dark blue) and trend (thick bright blue line), October 1996 to July 2014, showing no trend for 17 years 10 months.

The hiatus period of 17 years 10 months, or 214 months, is the farthest back one can go in the RSS satellite temperature record and still show a zero trend.

Yet the length of the Great Pause in global warming, significant though it now is, is of less importance than the ever-growing discrepancy between the temperature trends predicted by models and the far less exciting real-world temperature change that has been observed.

The First Assessment Report predicted that global temperature would rise by 1.0 [0.7, 1.5] Cº to 2025, equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] Cº per century. The executive summary asked, “How much confidence do we have in our predictions?” IPCC pointed out some uncertainties (clouds, oceans, etc.), but concluded:

“Nevertheless, … we have substantial confidence that models can predict at least the broad-scale features of climate change. … There are similarities between results from the coupled models using simple representations of the ocean and those using more sophisticated descriptions, and our understanding of such differences as do occur gives us some confidence in the results.”

That “substantial confidence” was substantial over-confidence. A quarter-century after 1990, the outturn to date – expressed as the least-squares linear-regression trend on the mean of the RSS and UAH monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies – is 0.34 Cº, equivalent to just 1.4 Cº/century, or exactly half of the central estimate in IPCC (1990) and well below even the least estimate (Fig. 2).

clip_image004

Figure 2. Near-term projections of warming at a rate equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] K/century , made with “substantial confidence” in IPCC (1990), January 1990 to June 2014 (orange region and red trend line), vs. observed anomalies (dark blue) and trend (bright blue) at 1.4 K/century equivalent. Mean of the three terrestrial surface-temperature anomalies (GISS, HadCRUT4, and NCDC).

The Great Pause is a growing embarrassment to those who had told us with “substantial confidence” that the science was settled and the debate over. Nature had other ideas. Though more than two dozen more or less implausible excuses for the Pause are appearing in nervous reviewed journals, the possibility that the Pause is occurring because the computer models are simply wrong about the sensitivity of temperature to manmade greenhouse gases can no longer be dismissed.

Remarkably, even the IPCC’s latest and much reduced near-term global-warming projections are also excessive (Fig. 3).

clip_image006

Figure 3. Predicted temperature change, January 2005 to June 2014, at a rate equivalent to 1.7 [1.0, 2.3] Cº/century (orange zone with thick red best-estimate trend line), compared with the observed anomalies (dark blue) and –0.1 Cº/century real-world trend (bright blue), taken as the average of the three terrestrial surface temperature anomaly datasets (GISS, HadCRUT4, and NCDC) and the two satellite lower-troposphere temperature anomaly datasets (RSS and UAH).

In 1990, the IPCC’s central estimate of near-term warming was higher by two-thirds than it is today. Then it was 2.8 C/century equivalent. Now it is just 1.7 Cº equivalent – and, as Fig. 3 shows, even that is proving to be a substantial exaggeration.

On the RSS satellite data, there has been no global warming statistically distinguishable from zero for more than 26 years. None of the models predicted that, in effect, there would be no global warming for a quarter of a century.

The Great Pause may well come to an end by this winter. An el Niño event is underway and would normally peak during the northern-hemisphere winter. There is too little information to say how much temporary warming it will cause, but a new wave of warm water has emerged in recent days, so one should not yet write off this el Niño as a non-event. The temperature spikes caused by the el Niños of 1998, 2007, and 2010 are clearly visible in Figs. 1-3.

Why RSS? Well, it’s the first of the five datasets to report each month, so it’s topical. Also, it correctly shows how much bigger the el Niño of 1998 was than any of its successors. It was the only event of its kind in 150 years that caused widespread coral bleaching. Other temperature records do not distinguish so clearly between the 1998 el Niño and the rest. It is carefully calibrated to correct for orbital degradation in the old NOAA satellite on which it relies. The other satellite record, UAH, which has been running rather hotter than the rest, is about to be revised in the direction of showing less warming. As for the terrestrial records, read the Climategate emails and weep.

Updated key facts about global temperature

Ø The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 214 months from October 1996 to July 2014. That is more than half the 427-month satellite record.

Ø The fastest measured centennial warming rate was in Central England from 1663-1762, at 0.9 Cº/century – before the industrial revolution. It was not our fault.

Ø The global warming trend since 1900 is equivalent to 0.8 Cº per century. This is well within natural variability and may not have much to do with us.

Ø The fastest warming trend lasting ten years or more occurred over the 40 years from 1694-1733 in Central England. It was equivalent to 4.3 Cº per century.

Ø Since 1950, when a human influence on global temperature first became theoretically possible, the global warming trend has been equivalent to below 1.2 Cº per century.

Ø The fastest warming rate lasting ten years or more since 1950 occurred over the 33 years from 1974 to 2006. It was equivalent to 2.0 Cº per century.

Ø In 1990, the IPCC’s mid-range prediction of near-term warming was equivalent to 2.8 Cº per century, higher by two-thirds than its current prediction of 1.7 Cº/century.

Ø The global warming trend since 1990, when the IPCC wrote its first report, is equivalent to 1.4 Cº per century – half of what the IPCC had then predicted.

Ø Though the IPCC has cut its near-term warming prediction, it has not cut its high-end business as usual centennial warming prediction of 4.8 Cº warming to 2100.

Ø The IPCC’s predicted 4.8 Cº warming by 2100 is well over twice the greatest rate of warming lasting more than ten years that has been measured since 1950.

Ø The IPCC’s 4.8 Cº-by-2100 prediction is almost four times the observed real-world warming trend since we might in theory have begun influencing it in 1950.

Ø Since 1 March 2001, the warming trend on the mean of the 5 global-temperature datasets is nil. No warming for 13 years 4 months.

Ø Recent extreme weather cannot be blamed on global warming, because there has not been any global warming. It is as simple as that.

Technical note

Our latest topical graph shows the RSS dataset for the 214 months October 1996 to July 2014 – more than half the 427-month satellite record.

Terrestrial temperatures are measured by thermometers. Thermometers correctly sited in rural areas away from manmade heat sources show warming rates appreciably below those that are published. The satellite datasets are based on measurements made by the most accurate thermometers available – platinum resistance thermometers, which not only measure temperature at various altitudes above the Earth’s surface via microwave sounding units but also constantly calibrate themselves by measuring via spaceward mirrors the known temperature of the cosmic background radiation, which is 1% of the freezing point of water, or just 2.73 degrees above absolute zero. It was by measuring minuscule variations in the cosmic background radiation that the NASA anisotropy probe determined the age of the Universe: 13.82 billion years.

The graph is accurate. The data are lifted monthly straight from the RSS website. A computer algorithm reads them down from the text file, takes their mean and plots them automatically using an advanced routine that automatically adjusts the aspect ratio of the data window at both axes so as to show the data at maximum scale, for clarity.

The latest monthly data point is visually inspected to ensure that it has been correctly positioned. The light blue trend line plotted across the dark blue spline-curve that shows the actual data is determined by the method of least-squares linear regression, which calculates the y-intercept and slope of the line via two well-established and functionally identical equations that are compared with one another to ensure no discrepancy between them. The IPCC and most other agencies use linear regression to determine global temperature trends. Professor Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia recommends it in one of the Climategate emails. The method is appropriate because global temperature records exhibit little auto-regression.

Dr Stephen Farish, Professor of Epidemiological Statistics at the University of Melbourne, kindly verified the reliability of the algorithm that determines the trend on the graph and the correlation coefficient, which is very low because, though the data are highly variable, the trend is flat.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
449 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
August 3, 2014 12:08 am

Jeff Alberts says:

Whether or not it’s cherry picking seems irrelevant, since there is no global temperature. It’s essentially an “angels on the head of a pin” argument.

Before multicellular life, there were times when the ocean temperature reached 40C. I think you might reconsider your “angels…” argument if that happened today, regardless of whether there is a single, unique measure of the planetary temperature.

August 3, 2014 12:14 am

Patrick,
Right you are. I don’t know why H Grouse can’t understand the basics. It seems everyone else can.
============================
TNA,
Thank you for that link. It’s nice to see WUWT getting some international recognition.

August 3, 2014 12:34 am

H. Grouse, you are asking a question that shows you are about three levels of physics knowledge below the point at which even a clear explanation would make any sense. When I get some time I want to write at length about this matter, but for here and now, a few basic facts.
The relevant temperature of a radiating object is the temperature at the radiating surface, not at “the surface” (meaning the solid surface). At different frequencies, this radiating surface will be at different altitudes. On Earth, the atmosphere is transparent to visible light, so for visible light, the real surface is the radiating surface. In the CO2 absorption band, it is almost to the top of atmosphere, because that band is saturated. Then whatever temperature in the upper atmosphere these factors determine, the surface will be hotter because of adiabatic compression of gas. (Strictly this is a maximum temperature increase rate, as convection acts to reduce it.) Then, as others point out, rotation, water, clouds, etc., all have further influences. In short, your attempts to extract an “explanation” for the differences you see between airless and atmospheric bodies is based on an extremely muddled lack of understanding of the physics involved. You need to ask your question in a forum pitched at a much more basic level. In this thread, at least, the cruel truth is that you are just cluttering the discussion.

Stacey
August 3, 2014 12:54 am

Thank you Christopher for this post.
Please could you or any other poster demonstrate the actual climate sensitivity in respect of the last 30 years due the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere?
My guess is that it’s Zero 🙂

August 3, 2014 12:59 am

Reblogged this on The Real World and commented:
Now 17 years and 10 months with zero warming globally….

Patrick
August 3, 2014 1:10 am

“dbstealey says:
August 3, 2014 at 12:14 am”
It’s rather incredible really isn’t it? I’ve known these facts since I was 8. In fact when I was in primary school in the UK, we used to have afternoon story time. During one reading by the teacher I was “doodling”. Teacher was annoyed and called me up to the front of the class to explain to him (Mr. Harris) and the class what I was doing. I was doodling a CME/solar flare. After explaining what it was, I was allowed to go back to my seat.

Editor
August 3, 2014 1:13 am

Per Strandberg (@LittleIceAge) says: “Given in my view the importance of what I have found and the implication of this finding, both in forecasting ENSO and for its importance in the AGW debate, I would like to make my findings public in such a way as to make as much damage to the CAGW theory and subsequent policy as possible.”
The first problem you’ll encounter is that warmists view ENSO as noise, not as a contributor to global warming, so you will be ignored even if you’re correct.
Second problem, I read the post at your blog as far as your statement, “The only mechanism by which ENSO can be driven by changes in Earth’s rotation is by variations in the tidal force.”
That of course is incorrect. The coupled ocean-atmosphere mechanisms that drive ENSO are well understood and they do not need to be “driven by changes in Earth’s rotation…by variations in the tidal force”.

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
August 3, 2014 12:20 pm

1: “That of course is incorrect. The coupled ocean-atmosphere mechanisms that drive ENSO are well understood”
No, the main drivers that drive ENSO are not well understood. In fact they are ignored. With the main drivers I mean tidal effects and electromagnetic changes in solar activity. One may call them the steering forces of ENSO that are working in the background. The notion the ENSO forcing best can be described as Gaussian Noise or with some form of Chaos Theory as suggested by the IPCC is phony.
Of course the dynamic and its forcing as described with ENSO models with effects such as Kelvin wave, Walker circulations or Bjerknes feedbacks are still valid.
With the ANN I built, I’ve followed the data rather than preconceived notions.
Because today’s ENSO forecasters don’t include the main ENSO drivers in their ENSO models they are unable to make reliable ENSO forecasts with a time span longer than 2 to 3 months in advance, even with ever more powerful computers.
I’m able to make reliable ENSO forecast years in advance with my ANN projection although I have to admit that the results don’t include high frequency variations, only low frequency result. Nevertheless, the next large El Niño event is going to occur during the year 2018. I think it is going to be similar to the El Niño of 2010.
I now have daily data for solar electromagnetic changes although with some data with some gaps and I have daily data over the positions and distance of the Moon and the Sun which lets me calculate the tidal force with high precision. Hopefully with that I could be able to get results with high frequency variations, right.
2: I now that I’m going to by the most part being ignored by the climate scientist crowd.
The only ways to stop them and their green policies are if the none warming continues, we enter a cooling period or if we continue to pond them with evidence science, backedup with empirical data and reproducible data and software code.

Tim
August 3, 2014 1:46 am

Perhaps there should be some moderation of the ‘Off Topic’ people.
Not that I’m saying that they’re here simply to distract from the topic. mind you.

richardscourtney
August 3, 2014 2:16 am

John Finn:
You begin your post at August 2, 2014 at 5:39 pm saying

Before responding to any more posts

Well, perhaps you could take time to answer my post at August 2, 2014 at 3:01 pm.
It replied to assertions you made to me by saying and asking

No, I am only confusing you with the person with the name John Finn who has often posted on the web notably on WUWT and Jo Nova’s blog.
I would be grateful for any reference you can give me to your having disputed the definition of global warming prior to the cessation of global warming. I would especially appreciate this reference because this is the second WUWT thread where during this week you have adopted a definition that is not accepted as a method to pretend that global warming has not stopped.

As I recall, people like you were reviling me across the web because I was saying what you now try to use as an excuse to deny the fact that global warming has stopped. So, please provide the reference which it seems you have overlooked providing.
Richard

Eliza
August 3, 2014 2:21 am

Maybe this posting should be evaluated in the light of this bombshell:
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/08/02/proof-that-us-warming-is-mann-made/#comments

richardscourtney
August 3, 2014 2:23 am

H Grouse:
At August 2, 2014 at 6:01 pm you say

Throughout this thread, I’m not all that concerned with what happens on Earth.

Yes, and many have noticed that.
Your purpose seems to be to troll this thread from its subject and onto anything else that you can.
Richard

John Finn
August 3, 2014 2:37 am

dbstealey says:
August 2, 2014 at 5:58 pm
John Finn,
The Little Ice Age [LIA] was one of the coldest periods of the Holocene. That fact is reflected in ice cores and in contemporary accounts. Pretending the LIA didn’t happen is crazy.

1. A LIA which extends into the 18th and 19th centuries is not evident in the CET record which was my original point. The 1700-1800 trend is more or less flat; the 1800-1900 trend is even flatter. Conclusion from CET data: No LIA and NO recovery.
2. Anecdotal accounts are meaningless. The flooding throughout the past winter has convinced many in the UK that we are undergoing significant climate change.
3., The ice core data is from a single location. It does not represent the global picture.
4. The Non tree ring reconstruction only extends up to 1900. The link also fails to report the source of the reconstruction. I suspect it’s BS.
5. But, possibly the worse problem with your evidence is that it is contradictory. The Greenland ice core data shows a Roman Warm Period. The Non T-R reconstruction shows the Roman period to be cold which again leads me to conclude that the reconstruction is BS.
I am sceptical about both the LIA and MWP as truly global events. There are many studies from around the world but the timing of the cooling/warming events do not match up.

PLS
August 3, 2014 2:53 am

>rogerknights says:
>August 2, 2014 at 3:37 pm
>[If a writer is submitting from Facebook or similar limited screens and platforms, a “carriage
>return” (paragraph) is a “submit & send right now” signal.
On most browsers where a carriage return is “submit & send”, shift-CR will produce a CR in the text. Two shift-CR’s will produce a blank line.

John Finn
August 3, 2014 3:19 am

richardscourtney says:
August 3, 2014 at 2:16 am
As I recall, people like you were reviling me across the web because I was saying what you now try to use as an excuse to deny the fact that global warming has stopped. So, please provide the reference which it seems you have overlooked providing.

What do you mean by “people like me”? What reference am I supposed to provide? If you think I have reviled you for some reason on a web blog provide me with a link or a quote, at least, and I’ll try to respond to it.
The only point I recall making about the surface temperature trend is that (a) there is No significant cooling trend and (b) the error bars include the previous pre-2000 trend and I know how you like to see error bars, Richard. In fact, I’m a bit surprised you haven’t challenged Christopher Monckton on this issue.
If you are trying to argue that heat accumulation in the oceans is not an indication of global warming then good luck with that.

Patrick
August 3, 2014 3:41 am

“John Finn says:
August 3, 2014 at 3:19 am
If you are trying to argue that heat accumulation in the oceans is not an indication of global warming then good luck with that.”
Exactly. its not happening!

MikeB
August 3, 2014 4:22 am

mellyrn says:
August 2, 2014 at 7:43 pm
Mellyrn, some basics. When you say that “400 CO2 molecules in every million atmospheric molecules literally intercept 400 of every million IR photons” this would be true if the atmosphere was only one molecule thick. But, as you know, the atmosphere is many kilometres deep and that contains a lot of layers one molecule thick. Consequently, all IR (at 15 microns) is absorbed by CO2 in a very short distance (95% within one metre).
As for incoming solar radiation, at 15 microns it is negligible whereas this wavelength is close to the peak of the outgoing Earth radiation [ Incoming radiation at 15 microns is less than one millionth the intensity of the outgoing radiation]. The CO2 blanket thus acts as a filter, letting solar radiation in but stopping the Earth’s radiation getting back out. The warming effect of CO2 and other greenhouse gases which act in this way is quite considerable, making the surface of the Earth about 30 degrees Celsius warmer than it would otherwise be.
It is sad that so many people commenting here are still unaware of the basic facts. Some even think that the because the name’ greenhouse effect’ is somewhat inappropriate then this in itself proves that the greenhouse effect is not real.. The trouble with continually repeating this sort of nonsense is that other people form the conclusion that all sceptics are ill-informed or stupid.

August 3, 2014 4:33 am

Ron House says, August 3, 2014 at 12:34 am:
“At different frequencies, this radiating surface will be at different altitudes.”
Meaning, for Earth there is no radiating surface. There is a continuum of radiating layers all the way from the surface up to the ToA. The average final, total flux from the Earth system to space is about 239 W/m^2. This is accumulated from all of these layers. They all contribute some tiny amount. Yes, mathematically you can calculate a mean temperature from the evened-out total flux, get 255K and pretend that this correlate to one real ‘radiating surface’ at this particular temperature, and then from there draw the temperature profile down to the real surface at 288K and pretend that the difference makes up the rGHE (288-255=) 33K. In the real world, such a radiating surface at 255K doesn’t exist.
Some incremental layers contribute more than others to that final, accumulated flux (simply balancing the average incoming from the Sun), some considerably more. One such layer is the solid/liquid surface itself. A second region lies high in the troposphere. Here H2O is the radiator. In fact, throughout the tropospheric column, H2O is the prime, almost exclusive radiator to space.
http://chiefio.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/stratosphere-radiation-by-species-1460.jpg
http://chriscolose.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/upwelling_brightness1.jpg
It is quite evident here how the Sun first heats the surface, then convective/evaporative processes responding brings the energy up into the troposphere, distributing it along the lapse rate, all the way to the tropopause (convection top), for it to be radiated back to space from these different layers.
“Then whatever temperature in the upper atmosphere these factors determine, the surface will be hotter because of adiabatic compression of gas. (Strictly this is a maximum temperature increase rate, as convection acts to reduce it.)”
Which means you (and climate ‘science’) get it completely backwards. You’re putting the cart before the horse. The radiating layers don’t determine or control anything going down. They are where they are because of upward-working surface processes bringing and keeping them there: solar surface heating >> convective/evaporative response >> radiation to space. The tropospheric temperature profile starts with the surface heating the surface air layer, making it rise. The surface temperature is thus the starting point, not the end point. The surface temp is set first, then the tropospheric temp and finally, the OLR out through the ToA.
This is how we observe the real world works (as opposed to the purely theoretical bubble world of climate ‘science’).

Editor
August 3, 2014 5:14 am

MikeB says:
August 3, 2014 at 4:22 am
mellyrn says:
August 2, 2014 at 7:43 pm

As for incoming solar radiation, at 15 microns it is negligible whereas this wavelength is close to the peak of the outgoing Earth radiation [ Incoming radiation at 15 microns is less than one millionth the intensity of the outgoing radiation]. The CO2 blanket thus acts as a filter, letting solar radiation in but stopping the Earth’s radiation getting back out. The warming effect of CO2 and other greenhouse gases which act in this way is quite considerable, making the surface of the Earth about 30 degrees Celsius warmer than it would otherwise be.

Right, except ISTR the warming estimate is 18 C°. However, don’t get so excited about a single wavelength as there’s a lot more IR being radiated at other wavelengths. Also, some of that 18 C° means Earth isn’t a snowball, and water vapor is a stronger GHG. If you look at that Ceres image I posted, you may note that:
1) Radiation from cloud tops is low.
This means that the areas where radiation is reaching space (call it effective radiation) is mainly from lower levels.
2) Most of the ground features are obscured.
This may mean that a lot of effective radiation is coming from the lower atmosphere, or it may mean that the emissivity of much of the planet is equal and it’s glowing with equal brightness. Or both – low level clouds radiate well.
3) Hot dry ground features (hot deserts) do stand out.
CO2 is pretty well dispersed, water vapor is not. This helps show both that while the atmosphere is saturated at some wavelengths, it most definitely is not at others, especially when water vapor isn’t obscuring things.

It is sad that so many people commenting here are still unaware of the basic facts. Some even think that the because the name’ greenhouse effect’ is somewhat inappropriate then this in itself proves that the greenhouse effect is not real.. The trouble with continually repeating this sort of nonsense is that other people form the conclusion that all sceptics are ill-informed or stupid.

Well, I’ll agree with some of that. One pet peeve I have is that people get distracted by the long wave spectrum that is absorbed by CO2 and lose sight of those parts absorbed by water vapor and worse, forget about the portions of the spectrum that are wide open. Every morning I go outside after a clear windless night, I’m reminded how much energy the Earth’s surface radiates into space. It is sad that so many people don’t seem to incorporate that basic fact into their understanding of of Earth’s radiation budget.

richardscourtney
August 3, 2014 6:34 am

John Finn:
Thankyou for your reply to me at August 2, 2014 at 5:01 pm.
OK. So you did not dispute the definition of global warming until global warming stopped. But you now say

The warming may not be as great as predicted (or projected) but it is still happening. To keep arguing that it isn’t is inviting trouble further down the line. Increasing CO2 will make the world warmer but it shouldn’t be extreme or catastrophic and may even be beneficial.

NO! Failing to adhere to the truth is “inviting trouble further down the line”.
Global warming has stopped.
Nobody knows if the plateau of global temperature will end with warming or cooling.
Your warmunist faith that “Increasing CO2 will make the world warmer” is misplaced when “increasing CO2” has not made the world warmer this century.
Richard

richardscourtney
August 3, 2014 7:01 am

John Finn:
First,please allow me to apologise for failing to see your post at August 2, 2014 at 5:01 pm. Having now seen it I have replied to it with my post at August 3, 2014 at 6:34 am.
However, my missing your post resulted in my writing my post at August 3, 2014 at 2:16 am so you have provided your reply at August 3, 2014 at 3:19 am.
Your reply concludes saying

If you are trying to argue that heat accumulation in the oceans is not an indication of global warming then good luck with that.

I am not “arguing” anything. I am stating facts.
As I said in my post at August 2, 2014 at 11:08 am

Please consider {your} daft assertion that “The earth is still warming” because “earth’s climate system is still gaining energy”.
Warming is an increase in temperature not an increase energy.
Global warming is an increase in global average surface temperature anomaly (GASTA).
That is why HadCRU, NASA GISS, et al. have been determining time series of GASTA, and why climate models predict and project GASTA.
All determinations of GASTA show global warming has stopped and this thread concerns the fact that RSS says global warming stopped nearly 18 years ago.

If you want to redefine global warming to include “heat accumulation in the ocean” then you need to get NASA, CRU , IPCC and many others to agree with John Finn that now global warming has stopped they have been assessing the wrong thing. Good luck with that.
Richard

PMHinSC
August 3, 2014 7:15 am

milodonharlani says:
August 2, 2014 at 5:23 pm
H Grouse says:
August 2, 2014 at 4:47 pm
Earth 0.367 geometric
0.306 Bond
Thanks. How is albedo determined; is it calculated or measured? Do we know how much albedo has changed, if at all, over the past 35 years?

mellyrn
August 3, 2014 7:19 am

MikeB, is all the CO2 in a layer at the bottom of the atmosphere, then?
Sure, 15 microns is a tiny portion of incoming IR, but it remains that if there is ANY coming in, then there is some that can be blocked from getting here (and, however tiny, with the Sun being so much bigger than the Earth, “a tiny fraction” is still going to be a goodly amount). That one-molecule-thick layer of CO2 at the top of the atmosphere will effectively “shade” the planetside from that solar contribution, just as the CO2 at the bottom “blankets” the surface. And if any incoming 15u photons get past the upper CO2, they could still be “turned around” by the lower ones, and if any outbound 15u photons get past the lower CO2, they could still be “turned around” by the upper ones.
For CO2 to cause warming, it has to act like a check valve, allowing the relevant photons to pass in one direction (downward, planetside) but not the other. Show me how CO2 can possibly have a preference for “down” over “up”.

August 3, 2014 7:34 am

Kristian says:
August 3, 2014 at 4:33 am
Some incremental layers contribute more than others to that final, accumulated flux (simply balancing the average incoming from the Sun), some considerably more. One such layer is the solid/liquid surface itself. A second region lies high in the troposphere. Here H2O is the radiator. In fact, throughout the tropospheric column, H2O is the prime, almost exclusive radiator to space.
http://chiefio.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/stratosphere-radiation-by-species-1460.jpg

It’s bad practice to link to a graph without its legend since you can be misled as to what is being plotted.
It is quite evident here how the Sun first heats the surface, then convective/evaporative processes responding brings the energy up into the troposphere, distributing it along the lapse rate, all the way to the tropopause (convection top), for it to be radiated back to space from these different layers.
“Then whatever temperature in the upper atmosphere these factors determine, the surface will be hotter because of adiabatic compression of gas. (Strictly this is a maximum temperature increase rate, as convection acts to reduce it.)”
Which means you (and climate ‘science’) get it completely backwards. You’re putting the cart before the horse. The radiating layers don’t determine or control anything going down. They are where they are because of upward-working surface processes bringing and keeping them there: solar surface heating >> convective/evaporative response >> radiation to space. The tropospheric temperature profile starts with the surface heating the surface air layer, making it rise. The surface temperature is thus the starting point, not the end point. The surface temp is set first, then the tropospheric temp and finally, the OLR out through the ToA.

Here’s how Clough and Iacono describe it in the paper from which that figure was taken:
“The principal effects of adding carbon dioxide are to reduce the role of the water vapor in the lower troposphere and to provide 72% of the 13.0 K d−1 cooling rate at the stratopause. In general, the introduction of uniformly mixed trace species into atmospheres with significant amounts of water vapor has the effect of reducing the cooling associated with water vapor, providing an apparent net atmospheric heating. The radiative consequences of doubling carbon dioxide from the present level are consistent with these results.”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/95JD01386/abstract

August 3, 2014 7:42 am

John Finn says:
August 3, 2014 at 3:19 am
richardscourtney says:
August 3, 2014 at 2:16 am
“As I recall, people like you were reviling me across the web because I was saying what you now try to use as an excuse to deny the fact that global warming has stopped. So, please provide the reference which it seems you have overlooked providing.”
What do you mean by “people like me”? What reference am I supposed to provide? If you think I have reviled you for some reason on a web blog provide me with a link or a quote, at least, and I’ll try to respond to it.

I wouldn’t bother John, courtney exhibits narcisstic behavior, any criticism of his posts constitutes ‘stalking’ or ‘reviling’ him. You’ll just get into what Anthony described as a ‘food fight’ , it’s not worth the trouble.

MikeB
August 3, 2014 7:55 am

Ric, ISTR is what?
If you mean that the Earth is only 18 degree warmer because of greenhouse gases then you probably got confused with minus 18 (being the temperature of the surface without a greenhouse effect). CO2 of course affects a much wider band than just 15 microns itself. The fact that some radiation escapes through the atmospheric window does not change the fact that some is ‘blocked’.
Some people (not me) do argue that without CO2 the temperature would be lower (true) and so water vapour concentration would be lower and so the world would cool and water vapour would be even lower and so on. They argue that CO2 is the control knob that ultimately controls temperature and that water vapour is just a ‘feedback’. They may be right? But that was not the point I was addressing.
mellyrn says:
August 3, 2014 at 7:19 am

MikeB, is all the CO2 in a layer at the bottom of the atmosphere, then?

No, Mellyrn. No, CO2 is an evenly mixed gas in the atmosphere. The fact that the Earth is bigger than the Sun has also been taken into account when I said that its input at 15 microns is only one millionth of the outgoing radiation at that wavelength. Just assume that ALL the Sun’s radiation at 15 micron is prevented from reaching the surface. It makes no difference because bulk of the solar radiation is at shorter wavelength and passes through the atmosphere unhindered.
Since it appears you managed to learn to read how about trying to understand what is written.

1 7 8 9 10 11 18