Paper finds a decrease of IR radiation from greenhouse gases over past 14 years, contradicts expected increase – cloudiness blamed for difference.
A paper published in the Journal of Climate finds from 800,000 observations a significant decrease in longwave infrared radiation from increasing greenhouse gases over the 14 year period 1996-2010 in the US Great Plains. CO2 levels increased ~7% over this period and according to AGW theory, downwelling IR should have instead increased over this period.
According to the authors,
“The AERI data record demonstrates that the downwelling infrared radiance is decreasing over this 14-yr period in the winter, summer, and autumn seasons but it is increasing in the spring; these trends are statistically significant and are primarily due to long-term change in the cloudiness above the site.”
The findings contradict the main tenet of AGW theory which states increasing greenhouse gases including the primary greenhouse gas water vapor and clouds will cause an increase of downwelling longwave infrared “back-radiation.”
The paper also finds a negative trend in precipitable water vapor, as do other global datasets, again the opposite of predictions of AGW theory that warming allegedly from CO2 will increase precipitable water vapor in the atmosphere to allegedly amplify warming by 3-5 times. Is the unexpected decrease in water vapor the cause of the decrease in downwelling IR?
Global datasets also show an increase of outgoing longwave IR radiation to space from greenhouse gases over the past 62 years, again in contradiction to the predictions of AGW theory.
Gero, P. Jonathan, David D. Turner, 2011: Long-Term Trends in Downwelling Spectral Infrared Radiance over the U.S. Southern Great Plains. J. Climate, 24, 4831–4843.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/2011JCLI4210.1
Long-Term Trends in Downwelling Spectral Infrared Radiance over the U.S. Southern Great Plains
P. Jonathan Gero
Space Science and Engineering Center, University of Wisconsin—Madison, Madison, Wisconsin
David D. Turner
NOAA/National Severe Storms Laboratory, Norman, Oklahoma, and Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Wisconsin—Madison, Madison, Wisconsin
Abstract
A trend analysis was applied to a 14-yr time series of downwelling spectral infrared radiance observations from the Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer (AERI) located at the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Program (ARM) site in the U.S. Southern Great Plains. The highly accurate calibration of the AERI instrument, performed every 10 min, ensures that any statistically significant trend in the observed data over this time can be attributed to changes in the atmospheric properties and composition, and not to changes in the sensitivity or responsivity of the instrument. The measured infrared spectra, numbering more than 800 000, were classified as clear-sky, thin cloud, and thick cloud scenes using a neural network method. The AERI data record demonstrates that the downwelling infrared radiance is decreasing over this 14-yr period in the winter, summer, and autumn seasons but it is increasing in the spring; these trends are statistically significant and are primarily due to long-term change in the cloudiness above the site. The AERI data also show many statistically significant trends on annual, seasonal, and diurnal time scales, with different trend signatures identified in the separate scene classifications. Given the decadal time span of the dataset, effects from natural variability should be considered in drawing broader conclusions. Nevertheless, this dataset has high value owing to the ability to infer possible mechanisms for any trends from the observations themselves and to test the performance of climate models.
via the Hockeyschtick with thanks
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Kristian,
It appears that we have been discussing completely different phenomena.
I have been explaining how heat arises at a surface beneath an atmosphere in the first place. That is either by transfer of matter via the impact of photons (hardly any matter but lots of energy) or by work done with and against gravity.
The temperature obtained from the impact of photons (transfer of matter) is what S-B predicts.
S-B says nothing about the thermal effect of work done with and against gravity. That requires the Gas Laws and that is what results in the surface temperature above the S-B prediction and creates the ideal lapse rate slope (lots of variation in that slope within any given atmosphere but it all nets out to the ideal slope)
You have been talking about how heat then gets moved around within the system other than by work done or tansfer of matter.
The trouble then is that your account is incomplete because it omits the thermal effect of work constantly being done with and against gravity within the convective cycle.
My comments are not in opposition to yours. You just need to integrate the two aspects as I think I have done.
If you integrate the two aspects you will see that radiative loss to space is not necessary to achieve cooling with height. All that is necessary is work done against gravity in the course of convective uplift.
Do you not see?
Stephen Wilde says, August 8, 2014 at 8:55 am:
“Kristian,
Heat is different from heating.”
Hahaha! I was actually waiting for that one. Anything to be used as a straw.
Read the whole quote, not just the first two words, Stephen. It is very clear (it’s stated in plain words several times) that ‘heating (verb) is accomplished by a transfer of energy AS HEAT (noun)’. Couple this with ALL the other quotes I’ve provided you with and people will see that you’re being nothing but pigheaded here. Heat is that energy which is transferred from one region/system to another (or surroundings) at a lower temperature because of the temperature difference. And that’s it. Period.
A well-respected physicist teaching on the subject (Mark Zemansky) tells you in plain words that heat is a thermal transfer of energy and is NOT something that is contained within a system, it is NOT a state function of that system.
But I guess he is as ‘confused’ as I am … And you, of course, are right.
Read my last post.
You are talking about distribution of heat (heating) once it has been created from transfers of mass or work done.
I am talking about how transfers of mass and work done put the heat there in the first place.
Stephen 7:15am: “That is correct for the planet as a whole when viewed from space but not true at a surface beneath an atmosphere. We observe that the Earth’s surface is 33C higher than the S-B prediction whilst at the same time Earth radiates to space at a temperature consistent with S-B.”
NO. That WOULD be a bombshell. S-B is shown to be correct for a surface beneath an atm., Max Planck’s orig. paper even explcitly tells us so – that is what his disciplined tests showed. We do NOT observe Earth’s surface higher than S-B; S-B says 288K and we observe 288K global Tmean. S-B works all the time everywhere at all temperatures for all frequency intervals for all matter as long as Planck distribution is applicable (positive radii macro objects and negligible diffraction.)
If only you could read the basic physics (or take a course) and not stumble around so much in the dark.
“The adjoining molecules also vibrate more…”
Well if so then they didn’t transmit any energy to the others now did they, sheesh Stephen. You are so in the dark on this stuff. LEARN THE BASIC PHYSICS. Out.
“We do NOT observe Earth’s surface higher than S-B; S-B says 288K and we observe 288K global Tmean”
Why does AGW theory start from the proposition that the Earths surface is 33C warmer than it ‘should’ be?
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2005/JudyTang.shtml
“Well if so then they didn’t transmit any energy to the others now did they”
Who said they did?
The energy was conducted to all the molecules from the surface. The amount of energy absorbed by each molecule is then determined by density because greater density results in more conduction from the surface to the mass of the air above for a given level of irradiation.
The amount of energy held by each molecule as gravitational potential energy is then determined by the amount of convection.
The amount of gravitational potential energy being returned to the surface in convective descent determines the surface temperature enhancement.
Stephen 10:37am – You continue, as always, to be a science disaster. Seek help, self improvement reading is a good thing.
“Why does AGW theory start from the proposition that the Earths surface is 33C warmer than it ‘should’ be?”
It doesn’t. Earth’s surface Tmean should be 288K by S-B, and voila thermometers say Tmean is 288K. Search that link for the word “should”: ‘Not found’. “Should” is your word from your imagination. Stop imagining stuff. Quote exact words. That page talks about “gases in earth’s atmosphere”. That leads to optical depth tau. Go there. Learn.
“Who said they did?” Your imagination did, come on back from the other side of the looking glass and start to make sense by going and learning the pre-req.s for a science discussion. Here is a good place to start, test all your imagination can produce against the basics 1) 2) 3) then post, pressure does not produce energy, heat doesn’t exist in nature – so it cannot “arise” – except in your imagination – nor do thermometers measure heat as it doesn’t exist except in your imagination:
There is 1) thermals energy, 2) latent/sensible energy, 3) EM energy components of the surface 1st law balance: energy in = energy out.
1) You agree what goes up comes down. Conclude: Thermals do not produce energy for the surface balance since they use up no fuel.
2) You agree as much evaporation as rain. Conclude: Latent & sensible do not produce energy for the surface balance since no fuel is used up.
3) All that is left is the EM energy produced in the sun using up (transforming) a fuel keeping global surface Tmean at ~288K.
Better study Maxwell EM energy & his sources and sinks.
“Earth’s surface is 33 degrees warmer than it would be if it had no atmosphere. A planet the size of earth at earth’s distance from the sun, and in thermodynamic equilibrium with solar radiation, would have a surface temperature of -18 degrees C. Earth’s average surface is 15 degrees C, or 33 degrees C warmer.”
from here:
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2005/JudyTang.shtml
“pressure does not produce energy, ”
Never said it did.
Pressure increases density which allows more of the radiative throughput to be conducted to the mass of the atmosphere for a higher temperature.
“nor do thermometers measure heat as it doesn’t exist except in your imagination:”
???
Stephen 11:16am – See the word “would” that is not the same as the word “should”. Quote exact words. Let’s try this: does ERBE/CERES in orbit feel bumps from convection like an airplane in the troposphere? No. Does that ERBE/CERES ever get rained on like an airplane in the troposphere? No. All it gets is Maxwellian EM.
That is because there is no atmosphere (or very, very little atm.) at its orbit and it measures 255K. That’s why that link says if no (or very, very little) atmosphere measure 255K. That’s all. Pretty easy, earth surface atm. = 288K thermometry & S-B as it should be, earth where no atmosphere (or very, very little) = 255K S-B as it should per CERES measurements. Get it? Got it? Good.
???? = AGAIN thermometers are calibrated to measure mean kinetic energy which exists. Heat does not exist so thermometers can’t fricken’ measure it. Get it? Got it? Good.
mpainter 8:22am: “By this formulation there can be no convective cooling of the atmospher if the energy is simply cycled up and back down, it seems.”
A lag while I am in time out with Stephen. You need consider global with local. Stephen agrees (as you should) globally whatever energy is convected up, comes back down being in ~balance over eons. Locally, of course, convection can remove energy from the surface say in a low pressure system but it is being replaced to the surface by a high pressure system somewhere else. Globally convective energy up from surface = globally convective energy down to surface. No logs added to the surface fire. Thanks for following along. Questions are good.
“earth surface atm. = 288K thermometry & S-B as it should be, earth where no atmosphere (or very, very little) = 255K S-B as it should per CERES measurements.”
S-B is a radiative only equation.
How does the S-B equation get to 288K for a planet with an atmosphere ?
“Globally convective energy up from surface = globally convective energy down to surface. No logs added to the surface fire.”
The first convective cycle DID add a log to the surface fire but thereafter equlibrium was maintained.
That first convective cycle reduced radiative loss to space whilst leaving radiation in and the surface temperature the same at 255K.
Once the first convective cycle closed the loop the surface was receiving the same energy from the sun PLUS the additional energy from convective energy down to the surface so the surface rose to 288K.
The surface then remained at 288K because the additional surface energy gets taken straight up again in the next convective cycle and so does not radiate to space.
Have you got it yet?
“???? = AGAIN thermometers are calibrated to measure mean kinetic energy which exists. Heat does not exist so thermometers can’t fricken’ measure it”
Mere semantics.
Mean kinetic energy is represented by IR emission which is sensed as heat by a thermometer.
Stephen 12:40pm: “How does the S-B equation get to 288K for a planet with an atmosphere ?”
There is 1) thermals energy, 2) latent/sensible energy, 3) EM energy components of the surface 1st law balance: energy in = energy out.
1) You agree what goes up comes down. Conclude: Thermals do not produce energy for the surface balance since they use up no fuel.
2) You agree as much evaporation as rain. Conclude: Latent & sensible do not produce energy for the surface balance since no fuel is used up.
3) All that is left is the EM energy produced in the sun using up (transforming) a fuel keeping global surface Tmean at ~288K.
Better study Maxwell EM energy & his sources and sinks.
“Mean kinetic energy is represented by IR emission which is sensed as heat …”
Geez Stephen a thermometer can’t sense what doesn’t exist – heat – & not for mercury bulb or spring steel thermometers which measure the mean kinetic energy, IR thermometers measure the brightness temperature. Stephen please try a little harder to get this stuff.
******
Stephen 11:16am:“pressure does not produce energy, ” “Never said it did.”
Yes. You did. Twice at least in this thread and in the past “due the gas laws”: In your same post “Pressure increases…..for a higher temperature.”
And you wrote “Pressure….generates sensible heat…” Since heat doesn’t exist you must mean energy when parsed right here:
11:22pm: “Pressure acts against the internal movement of the components of the molecule by trying to compress those movements into a smaller space. In the process, those internal movements fight against the constraining force of pressure and become smaller but faster which generates sensible heat in the form of the release of IR.”
Queen’s English is very clear. Get it right, equilibrium pressure does not produce or generate sensible energy. The sensible energy Newton reportedly felt while rubbing his head & looking at the apple was from the apple’s potential energy being converted to kinetic energy.
Trick @ur momisugly 12:17pm
Now I see the problem. You are neglecting to account for insolation. In the real atmosphere latent heat does not go up and come back down. It goes out of the system, radiated to space.
Sure you not confusing a pétard confused with a pikestaff or lamppost?
policycritic says:
August 8, 2014 at 3:01 pm
Positive.
Sometimes a staff might be used to help emplace or secure a petard to the gate or wall to be blown, but the petard was the explosive charge itself.
Petardiers were to sappers or combat engineers what grenadiers (in their original role) were to the poor bloody infantry. If the infernal device worked, then assault troops, the forlorn hope, would try to exploit the breach. They continued in use into the 18th century, by which time the flintlock musket and bayonet had replaced the matchlock shot and pike formations of the 16th and 17th centuries.
mpainter 12:17pm: “You are neglecting to account for insolation. In the real atmosphere latent heat does not go up and come back down. It goes out of the system, radiated to space.”
No. There is the same amount of rain and evaporation at the global surface; the same amt. energy lost thru evaporation (latent) is returned to the surface as rain (sensible) globally not necess. locally, no logs added to the fire. Can’t neglect insolation logs which drive the global Tmean to 288K enabled by the effects of the optical depth (tau) of Earth’s thick atm.
******
Stephen 12:40pm: “That first convective cycle reduced radiative loss to space whilst leaving radiation in and the surface temperature the same at 255K.”
The global surface temperature mean was not 255K “in the beginning”; Earth surface was molten for eons to start. You are going to have to imagine something else. That 1st convective cycle was MUCH higher temperature than 255K.
Trick you could help yourself a lot if you would get yourself a primer on climate processes and study. The fact is that cloud tops emit at times over 1500 W/M-2 and this the latent heat convected from the surface. This emission is detected by satellite.
mpainter 5:16pm: “…get yourself a primer on climate processes and study.”
Good tip. Offer a suggestion – but been there, done that. I rec. Bohren 1998 & 2006 texts. Of course the cloud tops radiate to space since they radiate in all directions. The latent to sensible amount radiated to the ground exactly balances what comes up globally & what radiation goes out to space is in balance with what comes in from space globally (see p. 33 Bohren 2006). Or a lot more of the oceans would be in the atm. at this point. There is long term balance mpainter. The sun uses up fuel to provide the necessary energy for Tmean ~288K.
“Earth surface was molten for eons to start”
Not as a result of solar input it wasn’t.
You can’t suddenly introduce internal energy in a discussion about the S-B equation.
There is nothing in the S-B equation about the thermal effect of the mass of an atmosphere.
“equilibrium pressure does not produce or generate sensible energy”
Equilibrium pressure sets the scenario whereby greater density conducts and convects a greater proportion of the solar radiation passing through.
As long as the flow of solar radiation continues, the excitation of molecules caused by that flow of energy continues and as long as that excitation continues the vibratory motion of the molecules constantly does work with and against the surrounding gravitational field.
That releases IR as a by product. In common parlance that IR is usually decribed as heat.and is detected by thermometers.
Some of that IR escapes direct to space from the surface and some is reabsorbed within the atmosphere and re-radiated to space from within the atmosphere.
Convection ensures that the total of radiation of IR to space from within the atmosphere and direct from the surface always balances with energy coming in from space.
If a more radiative atmosphere sends more out to space then less will escape direct from the surface and vice versa. All that will change is the speed of convection.
If you still don’t get it there is no point continuing.
:”“pressure does not produce energy, ” “Never said it did.”
Yes. You did.”
I never said that energy was produced by pressure.
I did say that pressure allows more of the radiative energy passing through to be converted to sensible energy (IR) due to greater gas density at the surface conductively absorbing a greater proportion of the solar energy passing through.
Unfortunately your use of English and the relevant concepts is not good enough to result in a fruitful exchange of ideas.
Trick said:
“The latent to sensible amount radiated to the ground exactly balances what comes up globally ”
Incorrect as mpainter told you. What comes up globally is both radiative and convective and the same applies for downward energy transfer but:
The radiation to space comprises leakage of energy out of the adiabatic convective exchange.
Consequently, less energy goes down convectively than comes up convectively if there is radiation to space from within the atmosphere.
That reduction of convective energy downward exactly offsets the additional DWIR downward for a zero net thermal effect at the surface.
It has to exactly offset the DWIR because the cloud tops radiate in all directions equally so the UWIR sent to space (which reduces downward convection) is exactly the same as the DWIR sent to the ground.
Your conclusion about it all balancing is correct but the reason it all balances is because of the reduction in downward convection caused by the radiative leakage to space negating the effect of more DWIR.
You have to treat the radiative exchange with space and the conductive / convective exchange between surface and atmosphere as two separate loops of energy transfer each of which responds in an equal and opposite manner to a change in the other.
That is the only way to get stability in response to changes in internal energy transfer dynamics such as more, or less, radiative capability within the atmosphere.
Stephen 11:44pm: “You can’t suddenly introduce internal energy in a discussion about the S-B equation.”
I can if the molten surface is radiating into the surface volume & it is. Do you not think the molten surface is radiating? Do you not think the surface was higher than Tmean 255K at that time? If not, you are confused as usual.
“There is nothing in the S-B equation about the thermal effect of the mass of an atmosphere.”
Yes. There is. The mass of the atm. radiates.
“..that IR is usually decribed as heat.and is detected by thermometers.”
That IR is not heat. If the IR were heat, then heat would exist. Heat doesn’t exist in nature; no thermometer of any kind has ever detected heat. Some thermometers detect IR; IR exists. Some thermometers detect KE, KE exists (as does PE in a gravity field). You demonstrate profound confusion of science. Read & understand a physics text.
“I did say that pressure allows more of the radiative energy passing through to be converted to sensible energy (IR) due to greater gas density at the surface conductively absorbing a greater proportion of the solar energy passing through.”
Just stick to that and you will go far; equilibrium pressure cannot produce energy when no fuel is used up.
1) “…less energy goes down convectively than comes up convectively…”
2) “…Your conclusion about it all balancing is correct…”
Both of your reasonings cannot be correct: 1) is wrong, 2) is correct because:
1) You agree what goes up comes down. Conclude: Thermals do not produce energy for the surface balance since they use up no fuel.
“That is the only way to get stability…”
No. You have asserted this without evidence or ruling out other ways. Get Tmean = 288K with an atm. optical depth as Earth and get 255K where the atm. thins out at CERES orbit to negligible optical depth. No wriggling out once you have agreed:
There is 1) thermals energy, 2) latent/sensible energy, 3) EM energy components of the surface 1st law balance: energy in = energy out.
1) You agree what goes up comes down. Conclude: Thermals do not produce energy for the surface balance since they use up no fuel.
2) You agree as much evaporation as rain. Conclude: Latent & sensible do not produce energy for the surface balance since no fuel is used up.
3) All that is left is the EM energy produced in the sun using up (transforming) a fuel keeping global surface Tmean at ~288K.
Better study Maxwell EM energy & his sources and sinks.