UAH V6.0 Global Temperature Update for April, 2015: +0.07 deg. C

May 1st, 2015 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

NOTE: This is the first montly update with our new Version 6.0 dataset. Differences versus the old Version 5.6 dataset are discussed here.

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for April, 2015 is +0.07 deg. C, down a little from the March, 2015 value of +0.14 deg. C (click for full size version):

UAH_LT_1979_thru_April_2015_v6

The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 4 months for the old Version 5.6 and the new Version 6.0 are:

YR MON GLOBAL NH SH TROPICS
v5.6

2015 1 +0.351 +0.553 +0.150 +0.126
2015 2 +0.296 +0.433 +0.160 +0.015
2015 3 +0.257 +0.409 +0.105 +0.083
2015 4 +0.162 +0.337 -0.013 +0.074
v6.0
2015 1 +0.261 +0.379 +0.143 +0.119
2015 2 +0.157 +0.263 +0.050 -0.074
2015 3 +0.139 +0.232 +0.046 +0.022
2015 4 +0.065 +0.154 -0.024 +0.074

The global image for April, 2015 should be available in the next several days here.

The new Version 6 files, updated shortly, are located here:

Lower Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt
Mid-Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tmt
Tropopause: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/ttp
Lower Stratosphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tls


117 Responses to “UAH V6.0 Global Temperature Update for April, 2015: +0.07 deg. C”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Werner Brozek says:

    With an average of 0.156 after 4 months, this would rank in 6th place if it stayed this way. Up to this point, the lower troposphere does not seem to be aware of the fact that we have had an El Nino since October. See:
    http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml

    However GISS and Hadcrut4.3 are solidly in first place after 3 months by about 0.12 so it would take a huge drop in April to knock either one out of first place in April.

  2. dave says:

    The two Versions show similar downward movement over the last three months. To be anal, -0.189 C for V5.6 and -0.196 C for V6.0. El Nino is still only “phoning in” its performance.
    I wouldn’t pay it!

  3. That is the kind of data I like.

    • fonzarelli says:

      Salvatore, it looks like COOLING to me! Looks, also, like david owes you a dinner (or perhaps a six pack of your favorite beer…). Should we be charitable to him and give him another five years to prove himself right?

      • David A says:

        Warming of the planet depends on a lot more than the temperature of the lower troposphere. (“Global warming *IS* ocean warming” say NOAA oceanographer Greg Johnson.)

        And remember, this version is still in beta.

        • Kristian says:

          The warmists argue that modern global warming/climate change comes as a result of an ‘enhanced greenhouse effect’. Well, the ‘greenhouse effect’ is supposed to be – by definition – a MEAN GLOBAL SURFACE TEMPERATURE effect. It is not about the atmospheric temperature. It is not about the temperature of the bulk ocean. It is specifically meant to be about the surface temperature. The global surface of the Earth is supposed to be warmer, on average, WITH a ‘greenhouse effect’ than WITHOUT. So it follows that an ‘enhanced GHE’ would necessarily need to make the average global surface temps rise.

          The problem is that the mechanism for such postulated atmosphere-induced warming of the surface cannot occur without defined layers of the atmosphere itself warming in step with the surface (in reality even before the surface, but one wouldn’t be able to see that in the data). That’s how the ‘raised effective radiating level’ explanation works.

          So if the lower troposphere isn’t warming (since 1996/97), then, if the surface still warms over the same period, this cannot be the result of an ‘enhanced GHE’. There must be other processes causing it.

          This conclusion is corroborated by surface radiation data from CERES. It shows that global mean DWLWIR from the atmosphere to the surface has diminished in intensity since 2000. At the same time, global mean UWLWIR from the surface up has increased. So the cooling ability of the global surface of the Earth via radiation (its ‘net’ radiation loss (its ‘radiant heat loss’)) has become significantly STRONGER (by about 1.5 W/m2) over the last 15 years, NOT weaker:

          https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/ceres_ebaf-surface_ed2-8_areaaveragetimeseries_deseasonalized_surface_net_longwave_flux-all-sky_032000to092014.png

          All the while, global OHC has gone up. And so has the average global surface temp (according to GISS, HadCRU and NOAA).

          • geran says:

            “So if the lower troposphere isn’t warming (since 1996/97), then, if the surface still warms over the same period, this cannot be the result of an ‘enhanced GHE’.”

            =========

            It’s almost as if there is no ‘enhanced GHE’, huh?

          • mpainter says:

            “There must be other processes causing it”
            ###
            Quite so, and this has been identified: increased insolation via reduced cloud coverage since circa 1985. This conclusion through analysis of public cloud data. These studies are studiously ignored by the climate science community. Here is straightforward observation and it is ignored, utterly. It is no wonder, as it threatens the extinction of the whole of AGW.

          • mpainter,

            “Quite so, and this has been identified: increased insolation via reduced cloud coverage since circa 1985.”

            How can a reduced cloud coverage be the primary cause for global surface warming, or anything? Clouds are not a climate driver. Clouds are a dependent variable. Their formation depends on energy and moisture flux, and the presence of cloud condensation and/or ice nuclei. Variability of cloud formation depends on the variability of the others.

            “These studies are studiously ignored by the climate science community.”

            What studies do you mean, exactly? References, please.

            “It is no wonder, as it threatens the extinction of the whole of AGW.”

            Wishful thinking.

          • geran says:

            “How can a reduced cloud coverage be the primary cause for global surface warming, or anything?
            ++++++++
            Hilarious! Clouds, reflecting solar energy, are harmless, but CO2, “trapping” heat, is disastrous?

            Clouds are not a climate driver.”
            +++++++++
            But, a harmless, super-“minority” gas is going to drive the climate past the “tipping point”?

            In climate “science”, the hilarity never ceases.

          • mpainter says:

            John McLean published the latest study in 2014; there are others you will find if you search for them. McLean put 2.5-5 W/m2 on the increase in insolation. Our host has published on cirrus clouds, their decrease and the cooling effects, this several years ago, as I recall.

          • geran,

            “Hilarious! Clouds, reflecting solar energy, are harmless, but CO2, “trapping” heat, is disastrous?”

            If something is hilarious, then it is your nonsensical protestation in reply to an argument about physics. A judgement about something being “harmless” or “disastrous” wasn’t part of my argument. You don’t seem to understand what the argument is, though.

          • geran says:

            Jan, you are hilarious, and you don’t seem to understand that.

          • lgl says:

            Kristian

            1. The total DWLW includes LW from the coulds. To find the LW from GHGs you have to use clear sky data, and they show an increase.
            2. LW will give warming even if it is not increasing. Constant high LW is sufficient.
            3. The LT temp is higher now than two decades ago, so even if the GHG concentration had remained constant the DWLW from GHGs would have increased.
            4. The surface temp is also higher now, which means the surface is radiating more LW than two decades ago, so there must be a higher energy input to the surface. The input from the sun has not increased as much as the LW out, so where is that additional energy coming from? (and not from the ocean because OHC has also increased)

          • Kristian says:

            lgl says, May 3, 2015 at 4:23 AM:

            “1. The total DWLW includes LW from the coulds. To find the LW from GHGs you have to use clear sky data, and they show an increase.”

            Sure, but we’re not interested in LW from ‘GHGs’. We’re interested in the total atmospheric DWLWIR to the surface, which is what allegedly constitutes the atmospheric ‘RF’ on the surface. The rGHE includes the LW CRE, lgl. Clouds supposedly contribute 25% of the rGHE. Is that news to you?

            “2. LW will give warming even if it is not increasing. Constant high LW is sufficient.”

            First of all, it’s not ‘constant’. It’s dropping. Since 2000. We don’t have similar data from before 2000, lgl. So all we know is it’s sloping gradually downhill, even as tropospheric temps stay flat and CO2, WV and clouds all increase globally.

            If we want to test our hypothesis that an ‘enhanced GHE’ is what’s causing the warming, then the data we have available are from 2000 to the present. And according to the data from 2000 to the present, our hypothesis fails.

            What you’re basically saying is: “Nevermind this! It could still be, because the GHE could’ve strengthened all the way up until 2000 and only then start weakening (surely only for a while).” Heard of Occam’s razor, lgl? Your hypothetical scenario is equivalent to saying: “Aliens did it! Even if there’s no data around to back up my claim, you can’t prove it wrong, because I can just say they’re really good at covering their tracks.”

            Problem is, this is not how you do science, lgl. This is how you do pseudoscience, where your conclusion is preconceived and carved in stone, and the data simply has to comply or be ignored. Such propositions can never be falsified, because you can just keep on adding ad hoc hypotheses (all completely speculative and of course totally unsubstantiated) to save it. You can always make up some hypothetical precondition that no one can disprove, because there’s no data around to do so. But then you’re not doing science. Then you’re defending dogma.

            Have you heard of the concept of “God of the gaps”, lgl? That’s essentially what you’re promoting here. Good luck with that 🙂

            “3. The LT temp is higher now than two decades ago, so even if the GHG concentration had remained constant the DWLW from GHGs would have increased.”

            Your point being …?

            “4. The surface temp is also higher now, which means the surface is radiating more LW than two decades ago, so there must be a higher energy input to the surface. The input from the sun has not increased as much as the LW out, so where is that additional energy coming from? (and not from the ocean because OHC has also increased)”

            Well, from the available data, it doesn’t seem to be coming from the atmosphere, is it?

            The global sfc temp has grown graudally higher from 2000 to 2014 (according to GISS, HadCRU and NOAA), so it radiates more. Still, over that same period, the incoming energy from the atmosphere (the DWLWIR) has grown gradually less. The UWLWIR has increased, the DWLWIR has decreased. So the ‘net’ LW flux up from the sfc – its radiative heat loss – has strengthened significantly.

            So how come, then, OHC goes up? Well, here’s how the OHC is dynamically maintained:

            # The Sun puts the energy into the ocean. HEAT GAIN.
            # Ocean surface processes release it back out. HEAT LOSS.

            The solar input is always positive, even when constant. Conversely, the surface output is always negative. If the output is as negative as the input is positive over a certain time interval, OHC stays unchanged.

            We know from the data that solar input to the global sfc has increased somewhat since 2000 – it has grown more positive. This would cause an increase in OHC, if the surface processes weren’t able to keep pace, growing equally more negative over the same period.

            So what have we? From 2000 to 2014, the radiative heat loss of the global surface grew much more negative (by ~1.5 W/m2), an increase in loss much greater than the increase in gain (from solar input). This in itself should’ve caused a reduction in global OHC. The opposite has happened.

            What does Occam’s razor tell us in this situation? With the data at hand.

            Does it tell us that it’s still somehow (via convoluted, alternate routes) the atmosphere reducing the radiative cooling ability of the sfc, thus forcing more of the solar energy to stay in the ocean?

            Or does it suggest that 1) the solar heat GAIN increases, but 2) the radiative heat LOSS increases more, so that 3) there must be a reduction in OTHER (non-radiative) heat loss mechanisms available to the ocean surface, offsetting and even outstripping the increased radiative loss, accounting for the increase in OHC.

            The ocean’s main (and most responsive) heat loss mechanism is (and always will be) evaporation …

          • David A says:

            Kirstan: an enhancing greenhouse effect is a planetary energy imbalance that causes the planet to warm. By far, the best way to detect such an imbalance is by measuring heat changes in the ocean. (See Roger Pielke Sr.) That’s observed to be happening, steadily:

            http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

            The atmosphere is much more subject to natural variability than total ocean heat content. It is also warming, but will be more influenced by ENSOs, volcanic eruptions, etc.

            If OHC is increasing, the planet is warming.

          • Roger Pielke Sr. was dismissed by RC (the climate geniuses who made the warming-as-catastrophe fad possible), right up until the atmosphere stopped warming. Suddenly there was vast renewed interest in ocean warming. The sats are dismissed by David Appell because ” no body lives there” but he only now wants to talk about ocean warming and deep ocean warming. Presumably he thinks that’s where people live.

        • David A says:

          mpainter says:
          “Quite so, and this has been identified: increased insolation via reduced cloud coverage since circa 1985. This conclusion through analysis of public cloud data.”

          Which studies do you have in mind? (Real studies, not blog posts.)

          • mpainter says:

            You missed it, see above, the real stuff.

            Tell ’em that you found out about it on the _blog_ of Roy Spencer, PH D.

            Your response to Kristian above pretty well illustrates his point: how the definition of the GHE is shifting from surface effect (as per the global temperature anomaly) to OHC. That won’t work either, I’m afraid.

          • David A says:

            I don’t see any studies listed above. Are you just making this stuff up?

          • mpainter says:

            Above mpainter @ 2:40 pm. Peel your lids

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          ““Global warming *IS* ocean warming” say NOAA oceanographer Greg Johnson”.

          NOAA???? You mean alarmists who have been slashing the number of reporting stations from about 5000 to 1000 and using climate models to fill in the missing stations? All that while ignoring their own satellites used by UAH.

          I am afraid NOAA is totally unreliable as a scientific body. As UAH points out, they are a government body, like NASA, that follows the policies of the current government.

  4. John Bills says:

    Global warming of 0.2C since 1990 (same as Giss, Hadcrut, NCDC).
    Yyou can asume that the years 1992,1993, 1994 would have been at least as warm as 1990 and 1991 taking Pinatubo into acount)

  5. One must remember the items that influence the climate will likely continue to phase into an overall colder trend going forward which should last for several years.

    The same items AMO,PDO, ENSO, and SOLAR ACTIVITY-primary/secondary effects were in a warm phase from 1978-2000,followed by a slow transitioning into a colder phase from 2000- present.

    Even so over the past two to three years, these items have at best have been neutral. This should end going forward in that these items should progressively phase into a colder trend, and with it the global temperature trend.

  6. NOTE AMO WARM PHASE 1995-PRESENT. COLD PRIOR.

  7. Ken Gregory says:

    Blogger Lance Wallace said in comments on April 29, 2015 at 2:12 PM of the blog post “Version 6.0 of the UAH Temperature Dataset Released…” (see link at the top of this post:

    I calculated the value for the 1981-2010 reference period and it was between -0.020 and -0.022 for all entries (global, tropics, etc.) Doing the same for v. 5.6 results in 0 to within 10^-5.

    Dr. Spencer replied:

    yes, we are fixing this now, thanks for the heads up.

    The first 3 months of April 2015 of the data at the link for TLT, the first file “/tltglhmam_6.0beta1” at this point in time is:
    YEAR MON GLOBAL NH SH TRPC
    2015 1 0.238 0.346 0.129 0.106
    2015 2 0.14 0.257 0.023 -0.103
    2015 3 0.117 0.199 0.034 0.01

    The difference between the the data above minus the data shown in this post is:
    YEAR MON GLOBAL NH SH TRPC
    2015 1 -0.023 -0.033 -0.014 -0.013
    2015 2 -0.017 -0.006 -0.027 -0.029
    2015 3 -0.022 -0.033 -0.012 -0.012

    This is the correction of the anomalies so that the 30-year average by month of the base period 1981 – 2010 equals zero.

    In other words, this post has the correction, but the links (which show data only to March 2015 at this time) do not.

    • Lance wallace says:

      Yes the delta of -0.0207 or so does make a difference. The comparison of RSS tropics (-20 to +20) with UAH 6.0 (beta2 if I did it right) shows a nearly perfect overlay:

      https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/75831381/UAH%206%20vs%20RSS%20tropics.pdf

      The slope in both cases was 0.0101 degree C per year.

    • David A says:

      I would still like to know why the data has 3 decimal places in some lists, and 2 decimal places in others.

      It shouldn’t be a matter of whim — it is detemined by the precision of the instruments doing the measurements.

      And the error bars — for the monthly numbers, and for the annual averages?

  8. Werner Brozek says:

    “In other words, this post has the correction, but the links (which show data only to March 2015 at this time) do not.”

    Thank you very much! That explains things I was puzzling over. But this leads me to another question. At the time, I asked about the ranking of all years and was promptly given a reply for which I was thankful. But now I am left wondering if those anomalies were the correct ones or if they should all be lowered or raised by about 0.02.

  9. Roy spencer says:

    Werner the ranking anomaly numbers should be lowered. The new data files will be labeled beta2.

  10. Roy spencer says:

    …I mean raised.

    • Werner Brozek says:

      Thank you! That really changes things! The first 4 months are now in 8th place. And the 0.065 would correspond to 15th place.

      • David A says:

        Werner, are these statistically signficant conclusions?

        • Jake says:

          David;

          I would guess they are about as statistically significant as ocean temperature rise. In fact, I would also guess they are more so. I just don’t feel like doing the specific math right now. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

          Jake

  11. JohnKl says:

    Hi Roy,

    Well we approach the June 21 Summer solstice when the northern hemisphere will tilt furthest toward the sun (longest day) but the Earth will be at an orbital region farthest from the sun. It shouldn’t then surprise anyone that global temps would dip. According to UAH data the last couple years dips never fell below the data-set temperature average. Not long after June it will likely start rising again.

    Have a great day!

    • Ken Gregory says:

      John,
      The satellite data is presented as anomalies so that the 30-year average by month of the base period 1981 – 2010 equals zero.

      Therefore, for the V6.0Beta1 data, the July 2014 anomaly is the July 2014 temperature minus the average of all 30 July temperatures of the years 1981 through 2010. The January 2015 UAH anomaly is the January 2014 temperature minus the average of all 30 January temperatures of the years 1981 through 2010.

      The result: the average of all 30 July temperature anomalies of the years 1981 through 2010 is equal to the average of all 30 January temperature anomalies of the same period. The monthly anomalies removes seasonal signals from the temperature data sets. There is no reason to think that the UAH temperature anomalies will “start rising again” after June.

    • dave says:

      “It shouldn’t surprise anyone that [absolute] global temps would dip [i.e. are dipping seasonally])”.

      Actually, absolute total global brightness RISES during the Northern summer, because the Northern Hemisphere is land-rich, and heats up more quickly than the Southern Hemisphere does during its summer.

      As Ken Gregory points out below, the UAH and RSS series are anomalies series and so the matter is moot.

  12. Thanks, Dr. Spencer.
    I have updated your graph in my climate and weather pages (English and Spanish).
    Great work!

  13. nigel says:

    Kristian references:

    “surface temperature”.

    “Surface temperature” is simply the HAIR…

    on the TAIL of the “tropospheric temperature”…

    connected to the “temperature of the annually-mixed-hundred-meters-deep-ocean-layer” DOG…

    which is on a long choke-chain from its deep-ocean OWNER.

    • Kristian says:

      Nevertheless, the temperature of the ‘hair’ is what defines the ‘greenhouse EFFECT’.

      • Christian says:

        @ Kristian

        Also not correct, in a simple way, if you looking for antropogenic GHGs and how this effect climate, you just need to look into the oceans and their heat-content. This is because, the ocean has a long inertia and atmosphere responses very quickly but is coupled to the oceans and their warming near the surface. So and if heat-uptake into deeper sides in the ocean is greater then near the surface (as we measured) you can get less warming in free atmosphere while CO2 is increasing. This is often to such internal varibility like PDO, but can also switch sign and increase warming in free troposhere.

        On the other hand:

        That surface-Temps are increased while RSS/UAH not shown an similar increase is simply a effect of the stronger effects from the ENSO to UAH/RSS, if adjust their dataset to make them freee from ENSO, they looks very fimilar to surface-messurments.

        • mpainter says:

          Christian,
          I have to say that nothing is more dubious than the posited warming of the oceans by means of an enhanced atmospheric radiative flux at the 15 micron wavelength. This wavelength is absorbed at the very surface of water, within the upper 3 microns.

          • mpainter,

            “I have to say that nothing is more dubious than the posited warming”

            The warming of the oceans is not “posited”. It is measured. The global mean sea level rise is also measured, which is consistent with the measured ocean warming.

            It’s not the empirical data that are wrong, if they are in contradiction to your beliefs.

            “by means of an enhanced atmospheric radiative flux at the 15 micron wavelength. This wavelength is absorbed at the very surface of water, within the upper 3 microns.”

            It still changes the vertical gradient in the ocean skin, decreasing heat conduction in the ocean skin, reducing the net heat loss from the subsurface ocean layer that is warmed by absorption of incoming shortwave radiation. More energy is retained in the subsurface ocean, warming the subsurface ocean, until a new equilibrium between the energy gain from absorbed solar radiation and heat loss is reached on average.

          • mpainter says:

            Perlwitz:
            I note how you segmented my comment in order to change its meaning and so furnish yourself a straw man to knock over.

            Of course SST has increased since 1985, as one would certainly expect under an increase in insolation. In fact, I regard increase in SST as corroboration of McLean’s study, as the ocean is opaque to the 15 micron band.
            Concerning this, the incident energy of 15 micron IR is too transient to affect SST as this energy is transformed into latent heat within a few seconds. This is confirmed by the temperature profile of the ocean surface, which see ( there is one on the web posted on the web by met office). This profile shows the air/water interface as cooler than the skin and sub skin. Obviously heat is conducted upward to the interface which cools evaporatively. The heat differential appears as about .3 C over a mm.

            Concerning your attempt to change the meaning of my comment, this type of behaviour is what I meant in my comment on the preceding thread where I noted those types who altered data, records, documents, etc&ect&ect…. Thank you for this illustration of that sort of despicable behavior.

          • mpainter,

            “I note how you segmented my comment in order to change its meaning and so furnish yourself a straw man to knock over.”

            I segment comments merely for the reason that I prefer to cite the specific statements to which I reply. Your comment contained two distinguishable aspect. One was your statement regarding the empirical data, the other one was regarding the physical explanation for the empirical data.

            The comments before yours referred to the empirical data that show the warming of the oceans. You stated in reply that the ocean warming was “posited”. I commented on that. How did I change the meaning of your statement? I didn’t.

            “Of course SST has increased since 1985, as one would certainly expect under an increase in insolation.”

            “Of course SST”? The talk wasn’t about the sea surface temperature. Instead it was about the increase in the ocean heat content, i.e., the warming of the ocean water body. As much for “straw man”.

            You doubted that there was a physical explanation for ocean warming by increased longwave radiation, because of the miniscule penetration depth of the radiation. However, I have given you one, which is perfectly consistent with physics.

            “In fact, I regard increase in SST as corroboration of McLean’s study, as the ocean is opaque to the 15 micron band.”

            Well, I doubt that the explanation by McLean, according to which global warming since the 1980s was caused by total cloud cover decrease, can be right, since I don’t believe that climate can change by magical cloud cover changes. Clouds are a dependent variable. If the radiation fluxes at TOA or the surface change due to cloud cover changes, then this is feedback to changes in the energy fluxes that are caused by something else. Cloud changes are not a forcing (except for the aerosol indirect effect). Besides, McLean relies on the cloud cover trend in the ISCCP data, for which it has been shown that the strong trend is an artefact in the data caused by non-climatic influences.

            “Concerning this, the incident energy of 15 micron IR is too transient to affect SST as this energy is transformed into latent heat within a few seconds.

            What is “too transient to affect SST” even supposed to mean? An incremental warming of the top of the ocean skin is also the prerequisite for an incremental increase in the latent heat flux due to the radiative perturbation in the longwave range. The same incremental warming decreases the vertical temperature gradient in the ocean skin (the direction of it is downward, which allows upward heat conduction).

            “This is confirmed by the temperature profile of the ocean surface, which see ( there is one on the web posted on the web by met office). This profile shows the air/water interface as cooler than the skin and sub skin. Obviously heat is conducted upward to the interface which cools evaporatively. The heat differential appears as about .3 C over a mm.”

            Yes, exactly (except that cooling doesn’t take place only by evaporation, also by radiation and sensible heat flux). What did I say in contradiction to that? And the additional energy absorption in the upper few micrometers of the ocean skin due to increased longwave back radiation decreases this vertical gradient a tiny bit, reducing the amount of conducted heat, retaining more energy in the subsurface ocean, warming it up.

            “Concerning your attempt to change the meaning of my comment, this type of behaviour is what I meant in my comment on the preceding thread where I noted those types who altered data, records, documents, etc&ect&ect…. Thank you for this illustration of that sort of despicable behavior.”

            You confused the words. It’s not “noted”. It’s still “smeared”. Despicable is your smearing of scientists, which is not based on evidence. But that is what AGW-denial must rely on, since it can’t refute the science. Thus, it must rely on attacking the scientists, fantasies about sinister manipulations of data, and on conspiracy ideation instead to keep the belief system whole.

          • mpainter says:

            Yes, radiation and conduction are but minor compared to evaporation, which accounts for over 70% of the energy loss at the interface. You have utterly missed the significance of the temperature profile: this shows that incident IR does not reside in the skin but is entirely transient and cannot be conducted to depth.

            In the final analysis, it will be determined that water vapor feedback is negative, as well as clouds and ECS is too low to have any effect on the global temperature index. Mankind is saved and you can run your AC this summer with a clear conscience and
            Think Happy Thoughts.

          • “Yes, radiation and conduction are but minor compared to evaporation, which accounts for over 70% of the energy loss at the interface.”

            According to a very recent estimate by Wild et al., Clim. Dyn., 2014, http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-014-2430-z

            the partitioning between latent heat flux, net longwave radiation, and sensible heat flux is 100, 53, and 16 W/m^2, respectively, at the ocean surface, i.e., latent heat flux accounts for about 60% of the total heat flux between ocean and atmosphere. And even if it was 70%, the remaining 30% wouldn’t be a negligible fraction.

            “You have utterly missed the significance of the temperature profile: this shows that incident IR does not reside in the skin but is entirely transient and cannot be conducted to depth.”

            That the infrared radiation “resided” in the ocean skin or that it was “conducted to depth” is not what is said.

            Please try at least to understand the argument.

            Absorption of longwave radiation doesn’t mean that the radiation “resided” in the absorbing medium. Upon absorption it is transformed into heat energy, i.e., the kinetic energy distribution of the water molecules at the top of the ocean skin is incrementally shifted to higher values. Without this, there couldn’t be any incremental increase in the latent heat flux from the top of the ocean skin to the atmosphere, either. This incremental heat increase at the top of the skin isn’t conducted downward, but it decreases the temperature differential between the cooler top of the ocean skin and the bottom of the ocean skin. Heat conduction from the bottom of the skin to the top is reduced, since that is a function of the temperature gradient. More heat is retained in the subsurface ocean layer, until a temperature gradient in the skin is reached at which incoming radiation and outgoing heat are in equilibrium again. The new equilibrium requires a slightly increased subsurface ocean temperature.

            “In the final analysis, it will be determined that water vapor feedback is negative, as well as clouds and ECS is too low to have any effect on the global temperature index.”

            More wishful thinking I would say. What you believe will be the outcome of the final analysis is in contradiction to the empirical evidence. For instance, the water vapor content in the atmosphere has been increasing with global warming like it has been predicted. More water vapor means a stronger greenhouse gas effect. This is a positive feedback.

          • mpainter says:

            Yes, correct, incident radiation is immediately transformed to kinetic energy, that understood. That quickly transforms to latent heat. All understood in my comment though not spelled out. Do you understand that the referenced temperature profile is determined under conditions of strong insolation and incident IR? The profile curve is not altered by any incident IR as you seem to suggest, since evaporation is a function of water temperature. Raise the kinetic energy of the molecules at the interface, you simply increase the rate of evaporation. You also ignore that only the interface is involved. The rest of the skin undergoes no change in temperature, no change in temperature gradient which is a function of the water temperature max at approximately one mm depth, according to the referenced profile.
            There are further considerations which support the conclusion that incident 3 micron IR adds no energy to the ocean:
            There is also the question of the composition of the atmosphere at the interface which perforce must be 100% water vapor, this changing gradationally away from the interface due to mixing. It now becomes a question of how much IR is absorbed by this water vapor and what portion actually passes through to the interface. Wind conditions have a great effect on these dynamics as wind disperses the water vapor from the interface while increasing evaporation. So question : does wind have the effect of adding energy (by dispersing the water vapor from the interface) to the ocean or is the net effect to facilitate removal (via aiding evaporation) the energy? There is a definite answer: hurricanes leave a cooling track across the ocean, as determined by satellite imagery.
            Wind does not add enegy but removes it.
            As a clincher, we have the simple experiments which show that LWIR does not warm water.

          • mpainter says:

            One more bit of information to cheer you:
            IR astronomers, who certainly are intimately familiar with the DWLWIR of our atmosphere, tell us that atmospheric CO2 generates only 3% of that. The rest is from water vapor. It appears that our modeling friends have vastly overstated the role of CO2 in our atmosphere. .. tsk, tsk.

          • mpainter says:

            Also,
            Any increase in water vapor is certainly due to higher SST, naturally, as I am sure you will agree. And I have no doubt that you now understand that the increase in SST is due to increased insolation, not incident DWLWIR. Congradulations on your newfound knowledge.
            Think Happy Thoughts.

          • David A says:

            mpainter says:
            “I have to say that nothing is more dubious than the posited warming of the oceans by means of an enhanced atmospheric radiative flux at the 15 micron wavelength. This wavelength is absorbed at the very surface of water, within the upper 3 microns.”

            This radiation also warms the air. Some of that heat is conducted into the ocean, just as if you placed a heat lamp above a pot of water.

          • mpainter says:

            DavidA:
            I believe that if you look into it, you will find that SST determines the air temperature, the air temperature usually within a degree or two of SST. There are exceptions to this of course, but it serves as a general rule.
            To get up to speed on the subject, study the temperature profile of the surface of the ocean and the radiative physics of water, paying close attention to the attenuation curve of water in the LWIR.
            Also helpful is surface data from Argo floats. The notion that air temperature determines SST is insupportable.

          • FTOP says:

            I guess it is completely impossible for the zealots to give up the faith. As soon as the argument devolves to AGW heating the oceans, alarmists are proving their own theory wrong.

            The physics and math end the debate

            Ocean has 1200 times the heat capacity of the air
            DWLIR can’t penetrate at depth
            Heat transfers up / not down in the ocean
            Somehow the same vapor that cooled the ocean when it left is now reheating it

            If the only proof of AGW is a warmer ocean, it actually proves it’s the sun and there is no AGW.

          • mpainter on May 2, 2015 at 11:38 PM,

            “Yes, correct, incident radiation is immediately transformed to kinetic energy, that understood.”

            Which mean nothing else than that the temperature at the top of the skin has increased incrementally.

            “The profile curve is not altered by any incident IR as you seem to suggest, since evaporation is a function of water temperature.”

            And how is evaporation, i.e., the latent heat flux, increased w/o increase in the ocean skin temperature then? Don’t you notice that you are contradicting yourself?

            “You also ignore that only the interface is involved. The rest of the skin undergoes no change in temperature, no change in temperature gradient which is a function of the water temperature max at approximately one mm depth, according to the referenced profile.”

            Even if, at first, only the upper few micrometers of the skin experience the temperature increase due to the additionally absorbed infrared radiation, it still is a decrease of the vertical temperature gradient in this part of the skin, which will lead to a decrease in heat conduction from below, retaining more heat below this part. This will lead to a progressing adjustment throughout the whole skin until the flux from below to the top is restored. The vertical gradient may be the same after the adjustment, only that the temperature throughout the whole skin has shifted to slightly higher values.

            “There is also the question of the composition of the atmosphere at the interface which perforce must be 100% water vapor, this changing gradationally away from the interface due to mixing. It now becomes a question of how much IR is absorbed by this water vapor and what portion actually passes through to the interface.”

            More water vapor means increased infrared back radiation, not less back radiation. As you correctly state in your following comment, water vapor exerts strong greenhouse effect. Thus, if water vapor in the layer above the ocean is decreased, I rather would expect an increase in outgoing net longwave radiation. The opposite of what you think. This will, of course, have a cooling effect.

            The effect of increased wind speed, on the other hand, is to decrease the vertical temperature gradient in the skin to an asymptotic value.

            Gentemann, C. L., and P. J. Minnett (2008), Radiometric measurements of ocean surface thermal variability, J. Geophys. Res., 113, C08017, doi:10.1029/2007JC004540

            Peter J. Minnett, Murray Smith, Brian Ward, Measurements of the oceanic thermal skin effect, Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, Volume 58, Issue 6, 15 March 2011, Pages 861-868, ISSN 0967-0645, doi:10.1016/j.dsr2.2010.10.024

            “There is a definite answer: hurricanes leave a cooling track across the ocean, as determined by satellite imagery.
            Wind does not add enegy but removes it.
            As a clincher, we have the simple experiments which show that LWIR does not warm water.”

            No, it doesn’t. There are many more things going on with a hurricane, which influence energy and moisture fluxes. Also, with hurricanes we have dynamical processes that are happening far from any equilibrium state. You cannot simply ignore all the different processes and claim an observation proved a single one postulate.

            The surface cold water trail of hurricanes is largely due to the strong mixing and upwelling of deeper ocean water which is colder than the water near the surface. Hurricanes leave a warm water trail in deeper water layers, since water from the layers near the surface is mixed downward. There isn’t really anything here that can be concluded from this regarding whether increased infrared back radiation due to increased greenhouse gases can warm the oceans.

          • mpainter on May 2, 2015 at 11:48 PM,

            “One more bit of information to cheer you:
            IR astronomers, who certainly are intimately familiar with the DWLWIR of our atmosphere, tell us that atmospheric CO2 generates only 3% of that.”

            Please state the source of your “information”. Don’t just refer to some anonymous “IR astronomers”. I really would like to know now where you always pull your claims from.

            Here is a scientific reference for the contributions of the different absorbers to the greenhouse effect.

            “[1] The relative contributions of atmospheric long-wave absorbers to the present-day global greenhouse effect are among the most misquoted statistics in public discussions of climate change. Much of the interest in these values is however due to an implicit assumption that these contributions are directly relevant for the question of climate sensitivity. Motivated by the need for a clear reference for this issue, we review the existing literature and use the Goddard Institute for Space Studies ModelE radiation module to provide an overview of the role of each absorber at the present-day and under doubled CO2. With a straightforward scheme for allocating overlaps, we find that water vapor is the dominant contributor (∼50% of the effect), followed by clouds (∼25%) and then CO2 with ∼20%. All other absorbers play only minor roles. In a doubled CO2 scenario, this allocation is essentially unchanged, even though the magnitude of the total greenhouse effect is significantly larger than the initial radiative forcing, underscoring the importance of feedbacks from water vapor and clouds to climate sensitivity.”
            (Schmidt, G. A., R. A. Ruedy, R. L. Miller, and A. A. Lacis (2010), Attribution of the present-day total greenhouse effect, J. Geophys. Res., 115, D20106, doi:10.1029/2010JD014287)

            “The rest is from water vapor. It appears that our modeling friends have vastly overstated the role of CO2 in our atmosphere. .. tsk, tsk.”

            Nonsense. The role of water vapor is stated and taken into account as it is by the climate modelers. It is a very important greenhouse gas, but like clouds, it is a dependent variable. It doesn’t drive climate variability. The importance of the water vapor, with respect to greenhouse warming, results from its role in the positive water vapor feedback. The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere depends on the temperature, and responds quickly to changes in the temperature, through evaporation and condensation. If you took out the CO2 from the atmosphere, most of the water vapor would condense and precipitate out quickly, plunging Earth into a deep freeze, due to this positive feedback. CO2 is the “control knob” for the water vapor in the atmosphere.

            BTW: You can’t have it both ways. On one hand postulating a negative water vapor feedback, and then, on the other hand, when it is convenient as talking point, suddenly emphasize the importance of the water vapor as greenhouse gas to downplay the role of CO2.

          • mpainter says:

            Jan Perlwitz.
            Thank you for your reply.
            It is no contradiction to say that incident 15 micron IR increases evaporation w/o increasing SST.
            The AGW hypothesis that you recite ignores what can be observed concerning the energy dynamics of the sea surface, namely, the evaporative ablation of the interface.
            This proceeds in the tropics, typically, at the rate of 7 microns/minute ( one cm/day). Thus the interface migrates downward, intercepting the energy conducted upward from the sub skin and rapidly converting this to latent heat. Remember that the 15 micron IR band (that emitted by CO2) is absorbed in the first 3 microns.
            So this dynamic tells us that the conduction of energy from the subskin does not depend on the temperature of the interface but on the rapidity of the downward migration of the interface and this depends on the rate of evaporation, this rate being enhanced by incident IR. Thus these observations make it certain that the temperature gradient is unaltered in these sea surface dynamics.

          • mpainter says:

            Dang nesting, see continued response at bottom. Thanks.

          • David A says:

            mpainter says:
            “The notion that air temperature determines SST is insupportable.”

            Clearly they come into equilibrium. Each of their temperatures adjust accordingly.

        • Kristian says:

          Christian, you say:

          “Also not correct, in a simple way, if you looking for antropogenic GHGs and how this effect climate, you just need to look into the oceans and their heat-content.”

          No, I’m looking for the physical definition of the ‘greenhouse effect’. It does not include ‘ocean warming’. It is ONLY about surface warming.

          The ‘atmospheric radiative/convective greenhouse effect (rGHE)’ in the simplest sense is given by:
          Ts = Te + ΓH, where Ts is the actual mean surface temperature (288K), Te is Earth’s blackbody emission temperature in space (255K), Γ is the environmental lapse rate (6.5 K/km), and H is Earth’s ‘effective emission height (EEH)’ (averaged ~5.1 km above the surface).

          The 33K figure (Γ*H) is the rGHE. It is how much warmer Ts is than Te.

          This whole thing about ‘ocean warming’ all of a sudden being the hallmark of continued human-induced enhancement of the rGHE is nothing but a late ad hoc invention to explain away “The Pause”.

          Also, if global OHC goes up (NODC), but global DWLWIR goes down (CERES) and the lower troposphere does not warm (UAH/RSS) when the surface apparently does (GISS, HadCRU, NOAA), this means that the warming is NOT the result of an ‘enhanced rGHE’, sorry.

          It is the result of solar input + non-radiative processes.

          You need to get out of your dogmatic bubble, where this and that should happen, and join the real world of data and observation, where things actually happen.

          • Christian says:

            Kristian,

            Wrong again.

            “No, I’m looking for the physical definition of the ‘greenhouse effect’. It does not include ‘ocean warming’. It is ONLY about surface warming.”

            Its only a part of, you can cut all other parts, but in real world their is an ocean. In the way that you looking for, you also can reduce GHE to stratosphere cooling, but it is incomplete. So the rest of you post is very incomplete.

            “This whole thing about ‘ocean warming’ all of a sudden being the hallmark of continued human-induced enhancement of the rGHE is nothing but a late ad hoc invention to explain away “The Pause”.”

            What sudden? Its simple physics, the atmosphere and Land-Mass is a terrible heat storage, most of all energy is/will stored in the oceans or is used for melting in the cyrosphere and the ocean need really much time to nearly eqibrilate with a radiative imbalance. So that will also lag your surface warming in magnitude, that we making differences between transient warming and eqibrilate warming, inlcuding ice-sheet we then looking for Earth System Sensivity

            “Also, if global OHC goes up (NODC), but global DWLWIR goes down (CERES) and the lower troposphere does not warm (UAH/RSS) when the surface apparently does (GISS, HadCRU, NOAA), this means that the warming is NOT the result of an ‘enhanced rGHE’, sorry.”

            Do we talk about climate or about weather? This is trivial, i dont talk about a few years.

            “It is the result of solar input + non-radiative processes.”

            More then this, because non-radiative processes are also able to alter radiative forcing and vice versa.

            “You need to get out of your dogmatic bubble, where this and that should happen, and join the real world of data and observation, where things actually happen.”

            Bla, bla bla, sounds strange from a guy who reduce a complex process to surface only

          • geran says:

            “The 33K figure (Γ*H) is the rGHE. It is how much warmer Ts is than Te.
            =======

            Kris, you’re basing this on the fraudulent “255 K” figure produced by IPCC “science”. The “255 K” figure does not exist. It is BOGUS. It is derived by perversion of the S-B equation.