Guest essay by Robin Pittwood, Kiwi Thinker
Abstract
The core of the human caused global warming proposition is that an increasing level of greenhouse gases acts to reduce heat loss from the planet making the atmosphere here warmer. The amount of warming anticipated by the IPCC models is from about one to several degrees C for a doubling of CO2 concentration. But a conundrum has arisen lately: While CO2 has continued rise significantly the temperature has not. There has been no global warming since about 1997. Scientists on both sides of the debate have noticed this and have offered something like 55 explanations as to why this could be so. Some of those explanations lock into the dogma built into the IPCC models, taking for certain that the greenhouse effect is increasing, but because there is no atmospheric temperature rise, they then have to explain the retained heat is somewhere else.
But is the greenhouse effect occurring as the IPCC models propose?
This study analysed two important factors directly associated with the greenhouse effect; atmospheric temperature and outgoing radiation, and finds that outgoing radiation has not declined. The missing heat has gone back to space as usual. But more importantly the (lack of a) trend observed in an empirical derivation of the Stefan Boltzmann relative emissivity factor directly contradicts the greenhouse theory built into the IPCC models.
Article
Regular readers at any of the main climate change blogs will be aware that since about 1997 there has been nearly no global temperature rise. And they will know too, that this is despite atmospheric CO2 concentration continuing to rise. To date there are some 55 ideas to explain this slowdown in global warming. Some of the ‘explanations’ presume the so-called ‘greenhouse effect’ must still be increasing as the IPCC models calculate; it’s just that the heat has hidden elsewhere, maybe deep in the ocean.
This study, based on 34 years of satellite data; outgoing longwave infrared radiation (OLWIR) and temperature, demonstrates otherwise.
I used three data sets, OLWIR from NOAA, and the average of both UAH and RSS for global temperature.
I obtained monthly average OLWIR (W/m2) for each 2.5 degree latitude by 2.5 degree longitude area of the globe. After converting the netCDF files to Excel, I scaled each 2.5*2.5 area’s OLWIR to account for the varying size of its area, resulting in a global average OLWIR. (There was some missing data mid 1994 to early 1995. I populated this by a linear interpolation). The resulting annual average OLWIR is shown in the graph below for the years 1979 to 2012. While there is some variation, OLWIR has generally increased over the period, maximising lately at around 233 W/m2.
The temperature data is also plotted on the graph below.
It is noted that while there is some variation, temperature also has generally increased over the period, maximising lately at around 0.2 oC.
The relationship between temperature and emitted radiation should follow a universal law of physics. Stefan Boltzmann’s law states the emitted radiation is the product of the fourth power of absolute temperature and an emissivity factor. A reduction in the emissivity factor means less outgoing radiation for a given temperature, and that would indicate a stronger greenhouse effect. An increase in the emissivity factor means more outgoing radiation for a given temperature, and that would indicate a more transparent atmosphere. The study derived earth’s emissivity factor for each of the 34 years and the results displayed.
Using an average global temperature of 287 Kelvin added to the temperature anomaly, the relative emissivity has been derived for each year using the formula:
RE = j / (k*T^4)
where RE is the relative emissivity, j is OLWIR, k is the Stefan Boltzmann constant, and T is the temperature.
If the greenhouse effect was increasing, relative emissivity should be declining. A quick look at the graphs shows clearly this is not the case. Our planet’s relative emissivity has been flat-lining, despite increasing CO2 concentration over the study period. The derived emissivity factor, being basically constant, directly contradicts all of the IPCC models. No increased greenhouse effect is observed.
Findings:
The two primary findings of this empirical study are:
· Outgoing radiation has not declined over this period as expected by IPCC models. In fact it has increased. The missing heat has gone back to space – as usual and in the quantity as per Stefan Boltzmann’s law, via OLWIR, and
· The increasing greenhouse effect expected by IPCC models, is not evident in the measurements. It appears there has been no increased greenhouse effect over this period. [A closer inspection of the relative emissivity trend shows the atmosphere is even becoming a little more transparent – though little should be made of this given the variability of the data] and the scale.]
Conclusion:
The core of the human caused global warming proposition is that an increasing level of greenhouse gases acts to reduce heat loss from the planet making the atmosphere here warmer. But is the greenhouse effect occurring as the IPCC models propose? This study analysed two important factors directly associated with the greenhouse effect, atmospheric temperature and outgoing radiation, and finds that the trends observed, along with an empirical derivation of the Stefan Boltzmann relative emissivity factor directly contradicts the greenhouse theory built into the IPCC models.
The original post on this study may be found here.
Insightful analysis.
Two decades of flat atmospheric temperatures but rising IR emissions? This means net loss of heat, maybe from rising SSTs.
The transparency point is interesting. Adding an IR-radiative gas to the atmosphere may be expected to increase IR transparency – or perhaps translucency.
Willis E.
If you are still reading this thread I have a question for you which is sort of related to the current topic. In one of your WUWT posts you discuss CERES data and make the point that using CERES yields an unrealistic energy imbalance (~5 w/m2 I think). You also say that the mean imbalance has been adjusted to fit the Hansen estimate of ~0.85 w/m2. I’m sure you are correct but is there a link which explains that this is exactly what has been done. I’ve been ‘debating’ on pro-AGW blogs and have tried to make the point that scientists are unable to measure the energy imbalance directly (even leaving aside the problem of determining a small number from 2 ‘noisy’ large numbers). TIA
By the way I agree completely with this
In fact I think I actually commented somewhere upthread to the effect that Robin’s logic was fairly sound but whether any changes were measurable was an issue. I’ve not expressed that very well but you get the gist.
Can somebody explain to me why the stratosphere isn’t cooling as predicted? Wait! I think Robin just did!
Since the stratosphere is cooling as predicted such an explanation isn’t necessary. Here’s the RSS result:
http://images.remss.com/figures/climate/RSS_Model_TS_compare_globe_tls.png
Phil, I must confess, I despise uncited graphs with no provenance and no explanation. In your graph above, for example, what on earth is the yellow line?
Whatever the yellow line is, it is EXTREMELY deceptive. Look at the period from 1984 to 1991, for example. The actual data (black line) actually trends slightly upwards. But the yellow section is craftily designed to make that section look like it is cooling.
In reality, the stratosphere is not “cooling as predicted. It was predicted to cool steadily as CO2 rose. Perhaps that’s what the yellow area means, who knows. In any case, instead of dropping steadily, stratospheric temperature has dropped after the two volcanoes (El Chichon on the left and Pinatubo to its right), and in between it has basically stayed level. Why? Well … as far as I know, no one knows why.
Bad commenter, no cookies. Posting that kind of uncited graphic just means that in future people will pay less attention to what you have to say.
w.
OK Willis it’s the RSS Stratospheric result (TLS). When I click on the graph it gives the source, I guess it doesn’t do that for you, sorry.
The graph and discussion can be found at: http://www.remss.com/research/climate
Here is the figure legend, which contradicts the assertion that I was rebutting:
“Fig. 4. Global (80S to 80N) Mean TLS Anomaly plotted as a function of time. The thick black line is the observed time series from RSS V3.3 MSU/AMSU Temperatures. The yellow band is the 5% to 95% range of output from CMIP-5 climate simulations. The mean value of each time series average from 1979-1984 is set to zero so the changes over time can be more easily seen. Note that the response to the volcanic eruptions of El Chichón (1983) and Pinatubo (1991) is too large in some of the models, and that the models tend to show less overall cooling than the observations.”
Thanks for that info, Phil. Since the yellow band is the model results, and the black line spends most of its time outside the yellow band, and the yellow band drops from 1984-1991 while the data is rising … I fear that your claim that the stratosphere is “cooling as predicted” doesn’t match up with reality.
I can’t tell you how tired I am of people waving their hand at some model result that looks vaguely like observations, and saying that things are going “as predicted”. It reminds me of the line from the old song:
“She could easily pass for forty-three
In the dusk with the light behind her.”
So yeah, in the dusk with the light behind it you might mistake the yellow model predictions for the black observations … but a closer look reveals the problems.
w.
When q person waves his hand at some model result that looks vaguely like observations, and says that “things are going “as predicted” an argument is made that is of the form of an equivocation for the word “predicted” has a variety of meanings and changes meanings in the midst of this argument. A logically proper conclusion may not be drawn from an equivocation. To draw such a conclusion is an “equivocation fallacy.”
So where was your indignation Willis and Terry when cogniscentum waved his hands and claimed that the stratosphere wasn’t cooling? As predicted by Manabe and Wetherald in 1967, Journal of Atmospheric Sciences: “Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity” the stratospheric temperature is cooling, TLS by about 0.3ºC/decade, upper stratosphere by about 1ºC/decade.
I made no reference to the models, they were included on the RSS graph and in their report. RSS is good enough for Monckton’s ‘pause plots’, so they’re good enough for the stratosphere as far as I’m concerned.
So yes Willis, the stratosphere is cooling, as predicted.
Phil
I don’t entirely catch your drift. I do observe that your argument employs terms that are polysemic (have several [meanings]). These include “about 1ºC/decade” and “predicted.” Use of these terms makes of your argument an equivocation. One cannot logically draw a conclusion from an equivocation. Nonetheless you proceed to do so. In doing so you are guilty of an “equivocation fallacy.”
[We assumed “meanings” vice “Mannings”, right? But, then again, this is Phil. He might have meant Mannings. .mod]
Terry, your arguments about ‘polysemic’ words and ‘equivocation’ are a load of nonsense. ‘About 1ºC/decade’ is not ambiguous or equivocating, depending on exactly which altitude you measure at and over which period you get a slightly different values close to 1ºC/decade. Manabe and Wetherald ‘predicted’ that increasing GHGs in the stratosphere would lead to cooling, which increases with increasing altitude, exactly as is observed, no equivocation there. Come back when you have a real substantive argument instead of this nonsense.
Phil:
Contrary to your assertion,‘about 1ºC/decade’ is ambiguous and equivocating. Is the claim that it is 1.01 ºC/decade’? Is the claim that it is 1.02 ºC/decade’? Who knows?
Phil.,
So, CO2 now causes cooling! I guess you’ve got all the bases covered then.
“Come back when you have a real substantive argument instead of this nonsense.”
Phil.:”The stratosphere is cooling as predicted”
#####
Look closer, Phil. The stratosphere is not cooling. It has had two stepdowns in T the past 30 years, but no cooling. The last stepdown occurred 20 years ago.
The model looks like a bad imitation of the T record, and I imagine that is precisely what it is.
Well painter I’m not interested in your imaginations which are far from the truth. The lower stratosphere is particularly sensitive to large volcanic eruptions and the influence of O3 as well as CO2, above the Ozone layer the CO2 has the major influence as predicted by Manabe and Wetherald, and Clough and Iacona. As shown by RSS cooling continues, for example centered at 30km:
http://data.remss.com/msu/graphics/C12/plots/RSS_TS_channel_C12_Global_Land_And_Sea_v03_3.png
Great article! I would suggest the addition of the atmospheric CO2 curve to the last graph, though.
It’s my understanding that the greenhouse warming effect of man-made CO2 is very minor, less than 1/10 of a degree. But the IPCC models have “forcings” which predict a rise in the temperature, the main one being water vapor. Theses forcings have not materialized. My opinion is that just because you raise the temperature slightly does not mean you have the energy necessary to evaporate much more water. This is my understanding correct me if I’m wrong.
The sensible heat for water is 1 Btu/lb-F. Water’s latent heat of evaporation is 950 to 1,000 Btu/lb – no F involved.
http://www.writerbeat.com/articles/3713-CO2-Feedback-Loop
I think Robin Pittwood is using the same faulty reasoning as the CAGWers who believed in an atmospheric “hot spot”.
He is trying to measure the INSTANT when the additional outgoing CO2 suddenly blocks outgoing radiation from earth’s surface. If a significant fraction of CO2 were instantaneously dumped into the atmosphere, Robin Pittwood’s algorithm would work, just as a “hot spot” would appear.
The REAL world starts out just about in equilibrium,
while an infinitesmal amount of CO2 is constantly being added to the atmosphere.
With NO change in atmospheric CO2, his algorithm might measure a constant 232 watts/square meter being radiated to space, fluctuating a little over time due to random variations in cloud cover, changes in distance from sun, etc. Doubling Earth’s CO2 instantaneously would show an instantaneous drop of 3.7 watts, before the atmospheric radiation regained equilibrium.
Applying his system to the REAL world, with the atmosphere and earth balance changing infinitesmally, and trying to get back into balance, his system might measure a constant 231.9 watts radiated from earth. The difference would be less than measurement error and fluctuations due to cloud cover, etc.
You’ve got to measure DOWNWELLING radiation from several levels in the atmosphere to see if there’s any significant effect from increasing CO2. OLWR should stay about the same regardless of CO2 increase, unless the atmospheric portion of CO2 changes drastically in a short period of time.
Your reply is a concise explanation of why the radiative forcing theory is non-falsifiable.
Changes in down-welling IR (or rather the lack thereof) could never falsify the theory. There are too many other confounding variables inbetween the TOA and the surface or wherever inbetween, where the measurements are made. You could never conclusively say “it should have changed but it didn’t”.
And for the observations of total OLR at TOA, what you say applies.
There’s just no way to falsify it. Therefore this isn’t science this is metaphysics. It’s just the same as trying to prove The Matrix isn’t real, or God and the Flying Spaghetti Monster don’t exist.
This entire debate is an exercise in maddening futility that will end with humanity none the wiser.
In theory, the radiative forcing theory of CO2 IS falsifiable- by measuring downwelling radiation all over the world at various times of day, and various heights in the atmosphere- and seeing if there is an increase matching the theoretical increase from CO2- in practice, you’re right- measurements would be even less reliable than surface temperatures- as shown by Anthony Watts.
Reminds me of a purported Yogi Berra quote,, ” In theory, results from theory and practice come out the same, but in practice they don’t.”
A couple of barriers to the falsifiability of the radiative forcing theory are:
1) The “downwelling radiation” is a vector that does not generally point downward and
2) The “theoretical increase from CO2” is in the equilibrium temperature but this temperature is not observable.
Alan McIntire November 12, 2014 at 8:56 am:
“In theory, the radiative forcing theory of CO2 IS falsifiable- by measuring downwelling radiation all over the world at various times of day, and various heights in the atmosphere- and seeing if there is an increase matching the theoretical increase from CO2…”
+++++++++
I read Lindzen’s report years ago (also linked in this discussion) –and it seems that the radiative fluxes do not suggest there is a CO2 induced hotspot or build up of heat going on. I took away that as the world warmed, it let off more heat –thus the feedbacks were not overall positive, and leaned negative. There’s no way to attribute any portion of the flux to CO2. That’s not proof CO2 GH Effect does not exist, but it also does not support the CO2 greenhouse “hypothesis”.
Beyond 3 significant figures people are just flat guessing. 111.1 – that third “one” represents 1%. Measuring the real world to that accuracy, to that level of certainty, is challenging. Claiming you know some piece of data at and below that third character, pretty unlikely.
The NOAA OLR data they use here, as far as I can tell, is window-frequency (around 11 microns as I recall) from AVHRR….not broadband IR which is what matters for this application. It would NOT pick up the IR effect of increasing CO2…you need a satellite with a broad-band IR sensor like CERES to do that. The increase in window IR radiation, show here, is to be expected with warming. Nothing new.
Phil. November 10, 2014 at 3:11 pm
1967?? In 1967, my indignation was directed against the Vietnam War.
By posting the graph, and by claiming that the “stratosphere is cooling as predicted”, you are making explicit reference to the “predictions” by the CMIP-5 models. If you were NOT referring to them, then what predictions is your statement about “cooling as predicted” referring to? Nostradamus’s predictions? Jimmy the Greek’s? You are obviously referring to the models, don’t try to deny it, we can all read.
As to whether the RSS is “good enough”, I raised no objections to the use of RSS data, so I have no clue what you are on about.
w.
I asked “So where was your indignation Willis and Terry when cogniscentum waved his hands and claimed that the stratosphere wasn’t cooling?”, that was November 10, 2014 at 3:36 am, not 1967! You complain about my reply to him but not a dickybird about his unsupported claim. Why not? My reference was back to his ‘cooling as predicted’, does not explicitly refer to the CMIP-5 models, in fact I made no mention of models until later when I referred to Manabe and Wetherald. By the way that’s a famous paper you don’t have to have read it in 1967, when you had other things on your mind! Just like you can be aware of Einstein’s 1905 papers without having been around at the time. It has long been understood that increased GHGs would cause increased stratospheric cooling and data such as the RSS bears that out, no need for the models, that RSS chose to put the model results on their page was their choice, I wanted to show the measurements, as I have in the past when posters here have made the same bogus claim that cogniscentum did.
I also frequently have made reference here to the radiation calculations by Clough and Iacono which have no dependence on models such as CMIP-5. As they say:
“It is evident that CO2, due to its relatively high atmospheric concentration and due to the large values for the absorption coefficients associated with the rotational-vibrational bands of the molecule, is a primary contributor to stratospheric radiative cooling.”
With reference to your statement: “You are obviously referring to the models, don’t try to deny it, we can all read”, I would suggest you take your own advice, “QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU DISAGREE WITH”.
Phil
Who or what is “cogniscentum” and what is his/its relationship to this issue?
The poster to whom I was replying, who claimed that the stratosphere was not cooling.
Phil. November 10, 2014 at 7:45 pm
Because I didn’t see it …
Actually, I did quote the words I disagreed with. I’ll quote them again, this time in more detail. This is your entire and complete comment:
Since the only prediction in that RSS graph is the CMIP5 model predictions, that certainly appears to be what you were referring to when you showed that graph to demonstrate that it was “cooling as predicted”.
Now, perhaps that wasn’t your meaning, but that’s sure how it reads. It reads that you put up that graph to show that the stratosphere was cooling as predicted by the model results.
w.
It reads that way because you (and Terry) didn’t take the trouble to read the post to which I was replying and jumped the gun by making assumptions. What I was obviously referring to had you taken the trouble to read the post before mine was the statement: “Can somebody explain to me why the stratosphere isn’t cooling as predicted? ”
So Willis, why aren’t you interested in which predictions he’s talking about?
Also if you’d taken the trouble to read the source I gave for the lower stratosphere temperature you would have seen that there was no reference to ‘predictions’, it refers to ‘historical simulations’. The predictions of enhanced stratospheric cooling due to GHGs were from radiative physical chemistry like Manabe & Wetherald and Clough and Iacona, not models like CMIP-5. So no, I wasn’t referring to the non-existent model predictions in RSS, in fact they say: “The basic features of the changes in stratospheric temperature are captured by the models, though some models appear to show too much response to volcanic eruptions and also appear to show too little overall cooling.”
Well, Phil,
Why isn’t the stratosphere cooling as predicted?
As I posted in my earlier reply to your nonsense:
“Well painter I’m not interested in your imaginations which are far from the truth. The lower stratosphere is particularly sensitive to large volcanic eruptions and the influence of O3 as well as CO2, above the Ozone layer the CO2 has the major influence as predicted by Manabe and Wetherald, and Clough and Iacona. As shown by RSS cooling continues, for example centered at 30km:”
http://data.remss.com/msu/graphics/C12/plots/RSS_TS_channel_C12_Global_Land_And_Sea_v03_3.png
Here is a link to the data and graphs if anyone wants a look. https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0BwCJWmtRR6xeeUxlajM5MXVsVXc&usp=sharing
Phil,
I ‘believe’ in anthropogenic warming because of the circumstantial evidence that the Earth is in a long-term warming phase roughly coinciding with a long-term buildup of greenhouse gas concentrations, and because I’m aware of no alternative mechanism that more plausibly explains it.
However, stratospheric cooling is not the slam-dunk you seem to think it is.
A study published last year by Benjamin Santer and colleagues (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/43/17235.full.pdf+html) in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), alluding to the IPCC’s iconic attribution statement, proudly proclaimed “clear evidence for a discernible human influence on the thermal structure of the atmosphere.”
Since 1979, the troposphere has warmed (albeit less than predicted) while the stratosphere has cooled. This observed pattern matches the model-predicted vertical structure (“fingerprint”) of anthropogenic climate change.
Santer in an interview (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/1/3.full.pdf) offered the following explanation. If the Sun were responsible for global warming, then the stratosphere should also get warmer. Instead, it has cooled, which is consistent with the hypothesis that rising greenhouse gas concentrations in the troposphere trap heat that would otherwise radiate out to space through the stratosphere.
Such evidence, however, is not conclusive, as Santer et al. seem to acknowledge through their careful — perhaps artful — choice of words.
A “discernible human influence” can include the cooling effects of manufactured substances, such as hydroflourocarbons, that destroy ozone in the stratosphere. Ozone is itself a greenhouse (heat-absorbing) gas. So some significant part of stratospheric cooling could be due to ozone depletion rather than to greenhouse gas emissions trapping more heat in the troposphere.
Gillett et al. (http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/599/2011/acp-11-599-2011.pdf), a study cited by the Santer team and led by one of its co-authors, acknowledges that possibility:
“In the mid and upper stratosphere the simulated natural and combined anthropogenic responses are detectable and consistent with observations, but the influences of greenhouse gases and ozone-depleting substances could not be separately detected in our analysis.”
@Marlo Lewis November 14, 2014 at 1:08 pm: You wrote:
“I ‘believe’ in anthropogenic warming because of the circumstantial evidence that the Earth is in a long-term warming phase roughly coinciding with a long-term buildup of greenhouse gas concentrations, and because I’m aware of no alternative mechanism that more plausibly explains it.”
++++++++
Your whole premise needs to find an alternative mechanism by which the earth warmed since the little ice age. By your logic, there is no answer. You say only until you found a short term correlation (which you call long term) where CO2 increased and temperatures increased, it must be due to CO2. Sadness… you’re looking to believe in something by not looking to seek evidence. The correlation was relatively short lived.
Mario,
I am not “looking to believe.” But being human, I can’t help having opinions. I seek to replace my opinions (beliefs) with knowledge. The point of my comment is that Phil mistakes his opinion (belief) for knowledge. Even if one assumes the “fingerprinting” method is the decisive test of the greenhouse hypothesis, the test results are still inconclusive.
You say that by my logic, there is no answer. No. Natural variability obviously plays a bigger role than the greenhouse faction assumed, or else model predictions would not be so out of wack with observations. That doesn’t mean, however, that the greenhouse effect is a hoax, or that the ongoing rise in atmospheric greenhouse concentrations could not possibly be responsible for some non-negligible portion of warming since 1950.
If you KNOW that anthropogenic greenhous gas emissions are climatologically irrelevant, please share your evidence! To be fully persuasive, though, you’ll not only have to provide alternative mechanisms that explain current warmth, you’ll have to quantify their contribution. Only then will we be able to rule out the fossil-fuel greenhouse effect as a significant contributing factor.
Your statement here is reasonable right here: “That doesn’t mean, however, that the greenhouse effect is a hoax, or that the ongoing rise in atmospheric greenhouse concentrations could not possibly be responsible for some non-negligible portion of warming since 1950.”
Saying that it is possible is a fine statement. However, I take extreme issue with the claim that “they” know how much warming with great certainty is caused by increases in CO2 and that it requires immediate drastic measures to address a crisis. Simply because there is no evidence that the net effect is measurable in our climate system with the given science. That claim is a hoax because they do not know! There is an effect, most of us believe, that increases in CO2 to the atmosphere should cause some change. Based on all of the research the answer is that truthfully, there is no actual believable measurement of the effect caused by CO2 to the global temperatures.
So I put the question to you… How do you determine what is that increase, and is it good or bad? When they talk of no benefit and all bad outcomes including climate refugees, I see hoax written all of it. What say you?
I agree with your position as clarified above. Best, Marlo
Ah – good.. our names look so much alike… maybe that has something to do with our common ground here. 🙂
If a pound of air at 70 F & 50% RH has to absorb 9 Btu of energy without any change in its water vapor content, the dry bulb temperature would have to increase about 37.5 F, (9 Btu/lb) / (0.24 Btu/lb-F), or 107.5 F & 16% RH.
However, by evaporating water into the air until saturated (clouds) that same energy could be absorbed by that pound of air – with absolutely no change in the dry bulb temperature! 0.0078 lb water/lb air to .016 lb water vapor/lb of air.
Water vapor is considered the most powerful GHG for a reason. It is water vapor, clouds, precipitation that regulate the atmospheric temperatures, CO2’s influence is less than trivial.