Home/BlogNOTE: 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):
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
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.
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!
That is the kind of data I like.
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?
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.
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).
“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?
“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,
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.
What studies do you mean, exactly? References, please.
Wishful thinking.
“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.
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,
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.
Jan, you are hilarious, and you don’t seem to understand that.
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)
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 …
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.
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.)
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.
I don’t see any studies listed above. Are you just making this stuff up?
Above mpainter @ 2:40 pm. Peel your lids
““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.
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)
see:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n3/fig_tab/ngeo2098_F1.html
GISS’s warming since mid-1990 is 0.40 C, not 0.2 C.
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.
In the last year the PDO has moved to its warm phase:
http://research.jisao.washington.edu/pdo/PDO.latest
David A, are you making a prediction then? Are you saying this time next year will be much warmer than now?
We would like to see your prediction of the next few years.
Geran: First, tell me what volcanic eruptions will take place in the next few years, including the amount of SO2 they will emit.
And what will be the timeline of El Ninos and La Ninas, including their intensities and durations?
Also, changes in solar irradiance, please.
I thought solar influences had NO effect on climate. Isn’t that what you and yours have been saying for decades?
That is my point.
NOTE AMO WARM PHASE 1995-PRESENT. COLD PRIOR.
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:
Dr. Spencer replied:
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.
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.
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?
“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.
Werner the ranking anomaly numbers should be lowered. The new data files will be labeled beta2.
…I mean raised.
Thank you! That really changes things! The first 4 months are now in 8th place. And the 0.065 would correspond to 15th place.
Werner, are these statistically signficant conclusions?
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
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!
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.
“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.
Thanks, Dr. Spencer.
I have updated your graph in my climate and weather pages (English and Spanish).
Great work!
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.
Nevertheless, the temperature of the ‘hair’ is what defines the ‘greenhouse EFFECT’.
@ 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.
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,
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.
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.
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 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”? 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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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,
Which mean nothing else than that the temperature at the top of the skin has increased incrementally.
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?
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.
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
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,
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)
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.
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.
Dang nesting, see continued response at bottom. Thanks.
mpainter says:
“The notion that air temperature determines SST is insupportable.”
Clearly they come into equilibrium. Each of their temperatures adjust accordingly.
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.
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
“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.
geran says, May 2, 2015 at 12:39 PM:
“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.”
Don’t worry. Of course it’s bogus. I’m simply referring to the ‘atmospheric radiative greenhouse effect’ chimaera as defined by the climate establishment.
I’m just surprised how even what appears to be fervent followers of the rGHE dogma, like my near-namesake Christian here, don’t seem to know this fundamental definition.
Roy and others:
Please read Comment #1500 on that previous thread here.
@Kristian “Nevertheless, the temperature of the ‘hair’ is what defines the ‘greenhouse EFFECT’.”
Actually, the entire GHE definition is rather strange. Firstly, the lower temperature of -19C comes from a theoretical model of the planet without an atmosphere OR oceans. Secondly, the upper temp of about +15C is another theoretical construct which even James Hansen admits is whimsical.
I wonder if the GHE is land-based because most of the surface housings are on the non-oceanic surface?
Have you read what Gerlich and Tscheuschner have to say about the GHE with respect to modelling of the planet?
They provide a pretty compelling argument against it, mainly in the latter half of the paper. In one part they claim there is not a computer with sufficient power to model it accurately.
Both are experts in thermodynamics.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
I feel sorry for their students. I wouldn’t want them to be the ones who teach me something about atmospheric thermodynamics, theory of radiative transfer, or physics of climate in general.
Gin and Tonic? Early sky-dragon slayers. Even A Watts agrees with the basic physics. These guys spend most of the paper quibbling over semantics, then get the greenhouse effect completely wrong. This one belongs in the crank category. Don’t be fooled by foolishness.
Where is the ‘blob’ in the NH ocean temperature in the UAH data? In ssh records this raised NH by 0.5 C over several months.
Dr. Spencer, your quote from last September popped into my mind today: “But, as I have cautioned, there tends to be a time lag between SST warming and atmospheric warming…typically 1 month during non-ENSO conditions, and 2-3 months during ENSO. Furthermore, tropospheric temperature variations are somewhat larger than the SST variations that drive them, making direct comparison of the numbers more difficult.”
Any thoughts on why no real atmospheric warmer after last July-October wicked warm ocean temps follow by weak El Niño?
Or, did the wicked warm ocean temps warm the atmosphere but something undetermined offset that warming?
And this with a El Nino, just think what might happen with an La Nina and with some cooling from Calbuco. 18-24 months with -ve global warming. Will kill the IPCC models…
Calbuco has only emitted 0.3-0.4 Mt SO2 — less than 1/50th that of Pinabuto. So far, not influence on global temperatures is expected:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/04/volcano-calbucos-emissions-of-sulfur.html
“The PIOMAS project attempts to measure the “volume” of the arctic sea-ice. This is difficult and has been an elusive piece of data to obtain, and the PIOIMAS project is critisized for various reasons, but likely is our best attempt so far. I find the above graph interesting for it suggests the sea-ice has been thickening the past few years. (The current year is the red line.)
Of course, “average thickness” is a bit of a ridiculous concept, as the thickness of the ice varies greatly. The Laptev Sea, which exports a lot of ice due to winds howling off shore from Siberia, can have open water when it is -40°, and often has only a skim of ice less than a foot thick which will melt easily in the summer sunshine, but all that exported sea-ice tends to be carried by cross-polar flow and crunch up against the north coast of Canada, where the ice can be twenty feet thick.”
https://sunriseswansong.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/ice-thickness-april-28-bpiomas_plot_daily_heff-2sst-1.png?w=700
https://sunriseswansong.wordpress.com/category/arctic-sea-ice/
Daily mean temperatures for the Arctic area north of the 80th northern parallel, plotted with daily climate values calculated from the period 1958-2002.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2015.png
@ren…Have you read the book by Ranulph Fiennes in which he walks to the North Pole across the frozen Arctic Ocean in February and March? It’s an eye opener as to what is meant by Arctic ice.
He apparently failed on one attempt, but in the book I read, he made it to the pole and floated down the North Atlantic on an ice sheet before being picked up by a rescue ship waiting for him near Norway.
That was immediately after ski-dooing across Antarctica.
Captain Henry Larsen also wrote a book on his experience on the RCMP boat St. Roch, which sailed both ways through the Northwest Passage between 1940 and 1945. His comments on the ice are worth noting, that the ice is affected by both wind and ocean currents, making the ice floes highly unpredictable.
For example, it took them 2 years going west to east, from Vancouver to Halifax, due to ice floes forcing them to shore, and they sailed straight through on the return trip.
Warm (>+0.5oC; red stippled line) and cold (<0.5oC; blue stippled line) episodes for the Oceanic Niño Index (ONI), defined as 3 month running mean of ERSST.v3b SST anomalies in the Niño 3.4 region (5oN-5oS, 120o-170oW)]. Base period: 1971-2000. For historical purposes cold and warm episodes are defined when the threshold is met for a minimum of 5 consecutive over-lapping seasons. The thin line indicates 3 month average values, and the thick line is the simple running 7 year average of these. Last 3 month running mean shown: January-March 2015. Last diagram update 14 April 2015.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20CPC%20OceanicNinoIndexMonthly1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
POD and AMO cycles show that there are processes of autoregulationsurface temperature. Currently AMO begins to fall and you can see it in the growth of ice in the Arctic.
Another issue is the changes in solar energy because of weak solar cycle.
Soon you will see ozone depletion due to low UV. Falling temperatures in the stratosphere and high layers of the atmosphere due to low EUV.
Current absorption of solar radiation on the surface is about 237 W / m ^ 2.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/atmosphere/radbud/gs19_prd.gif
The total amount of energy received per second at the top of Earth’s atmosphere (TOA) is measured in watts and is given by the solar constant times the cross-sectional area of the Earth. Because the area of a sphere is four times the cross-sectional area of a sphere, the average TOA flux is one quarter of the solar constant, and so is approximately 340 W/m²).[1][6] Since the absorption varies with location as well as with diurnal, seasonal, and annual variations, numbers quoted are long-term averages, typically averaged from multiple satellite measurements.[1]
Of the ~340 W/m² of solar radiation received by the Earth, an average of ~77 W/m² is reflected back to space by clouds and the atmosphere, and ~23 W/m² is reflected by the surface albedo, leaving about 240 W/m² of solar energy input to the Earth’s energy budget.
Past and future of daily average insolation at top of the atmosphere on the day of the summer solstice, at 65 N latitude. The green curve is with eccentricity e hypothetically set to 0. The red curve uses the actual (predicted) value of e. Blue dot is current conditions, at 2 ky A.D.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/90/InsolationSummerSolstice65N.png/600px-InsolationSummerSolstice65N.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insolation
Jan Perlwitz,
So we see how AGW hypothetical musings fall to the ground when confronted with the reality of observations. More falling to the ground is on the way.
Wind multiplies the rate of evaporation. This is cooling, don’t you know? You seem to think that hurricane force wind is the exception to this principle. You speak of “upwelling” when actually it is overturning of the surface waters. You need to read up on what “upwelling” is and how it differs from overturning. Otherwise, you seem to take the position that wind does not cool SST. Will you say that it warms it?
Water vapor indeed contributes most of the GHE. I never said otherwise. The AGW crowd mischaracterize this effect, however. Water vapor (GHE) moderates temperature, it does not increase it, as AGW hypothesis puts it. This is easy enough to confirm via observations (so hated by the hypothetical Musers): compare the diurnal temperature range where water vapor is low, such as the Sahara with a diurnal range of 85° commonly, with the humid tropics which have a very slight diurnal range. The temp max is much diminished by the GHE, thanks to water vapor.
You repeat the unsupportable claim that CO2 is the “control knob” of climate. Rich! Thank you for that. My view is that the only knob controlled by CO2 is the one on the heads of the AGW zealots.
If you are keeping up, you will know that ECS estimates are in a flux, being continually revised downward. Recently it has been determined that the effect of aerosols has been overstated, so another downward revision is due. In two years, ECS estmates will be below 1.0, I predict. Meanwhile, the pause lengthens, as shown clearly by UAH v6. Also, both the AMO and the PDO will be heading for the blue in a few short years.
Think Happy Thoughts
“Water vapor (GHE) moderates temperature, it does not increase it, as AGW hypothesis puts it.”
So you are claiming that water vapor is not a greenhouse gas??
Read it again
Read it right the first time.
Would you take the knobs and turn them off? Better yet, take them off.
Actually, it should be obvious to anyone that H2O does a lot of moderating. Desert temperatures drop dramatically at night while those in humid climes drop much less. It also should be obvious that the climate of the world has changed much over the years and will continue to change. We have been lucky enough to live in a very moderate climate, I only hope it continues to get warmer. This pause is worrisome as it makes me expect more snow and ice – the bane of agriculture.
For all the time human civilisation has existed, is has never experienced climate conditions on Earth where the planet is very likely heading, currently, if the greenhouse gas increase in the atmosphere continues. The CO2 mixing ratio is currently at 400 ppm, and the increase is continuing. The last time, when Earth had this CO2 mixing ratio in the atmosphere was during the Pliocene, about 3 million years ago. The globally averaged temperature was about 2 to 3 Celsius higher, the mean sea level was about 25 meters higher.
Do you have any scientific evidence that the new climate conditions will be mostly of advantage for humankind? Or do you only fantasize that, based on wishful thinking? I very much doubt the first, and very much suspect the latter.
Perlwitz
It is a matter if common sense, not peer review. Atmospheric CO2 is entirely beneficial, it is the very foundation of life, and with water included, these are the two most vital compounds on earth. The earth is greener, there is more photosynthesis, the base of the food chain is thereby broadened, benefitting all life forms.
Now, if CO2 would only get off its rear and perform the role assigned to it by AGW, then the planet would have the further benefit of milder winters via global warming. But alas, the planet has not warmed for several decades.
Jan P Perlwitz asks:
“Do you have any scientific evidence that the new climate conditions will be mostly of advantage for humankind? Or do you only fantasize that, based on wishful thinking? I very much doubt the first, and very much suspect the latter.”
To speculate about the future lacking requisite information seems dimwitted. However, we do have extensive archeological and geological data establishing the fact that PRIOR WARMER CLIMATES PROVED MORE ADVANTAGEOUS FOR LIFE ON THE PLANET! The fact that we currently suffer ICE AGE conditions should give you pause. You might consider the existence of PERMAFROST in near polar latitudes like Alaska and the Russian North. Permafrost in these regions contain the frozen remains of millions of Mastadons, Woolly Mammoths, Dyre Wolves, Sabre Tooth Tigers, what we today consider tropical flora and much, much more! These remains sit in regions far TOO COLD to support such abundance of life now. They’re carbon datable meaning they must be something less than 30-40,000 years old. Genetic testing has suggested 5000 years and others have claimed more from 7500 to 10-25000 years old. In any case, THE FACT REMAINS THE ONLY CLIMATE CHANGE EVENT KNOWN TO HAVE CAUSED MASS EXTINCTION AND HARM TO LIFE ON THE PLANET REMAINS WHAT WE TODAY CALL THE ICE AGE!!!!!
Have a great day!
mpainter,
Now you finally are explicitly admitting that you reject science as basis for expanding our knowledge about things, risk assessment, or decision making. Appeal to “common sense” (i.e., gut feeling) instead of science.
So you claim that the warmer the climate the better for humankind. Regardless how much warmer. Whether it’s 2 or 4 Celsius on global average, or even 6, 10, 14 C or more on global average. You also claim that biological species have never got extinct from rapid climate change toward a warmer climate. BTW: Have you ever heard of the wet bulb temperature?
And you make this assertions merely based on pure gut feeling, but not based on any empirical evidence and scientific analysis. It was so because you say so.
“several”: more than two but not very many
: different and separate
(Source: Merriam-Webster)
So you claim that the planet hadn’t warmed for three or more decades, i.e., since at least 1985
Here are some empirical data. Mean trends +/- 2 sigma in C/decade since 1985:
Surface temperature:
GISTEMP: 0.167+/-0.054
NOAA: 0.154+/-0.051
HADCRUT4: 0.167+/-0.051
Berkeley: 0.179+/-0.050
Lower troposhere:
RSS: 0.132+/-0.086
The warming of Earth’s surface since 1985 is statistically significant with more than 6 standard deviations. The lower troposphere warming with more than 3 standard deviations (unlike the alleged “pause for 18 years” or so, which is not statistically significantly distinguishable from the longer-term warming trend.)
The oceans have significantly warmed as well since 1985 (and longer) on global average:
http://climateconomysociety.blogspot.com/2014/01/no-hiatus-pausestop-in-global-ocean.html
Thus, the empirical data say that both surface, lower troposphere, and the oceans have significantly warmed for the last three decades. The assertion that the planet hadn’t warmed for “several decades” is totally contrary to the empirical data.
Who again is the “zealot” here who makes claims that run contrary to the empirical evidence and “clings tenaciously to his views even in the face of these contrary observations”?
Good Grief, Jan Perlwitz,
Are you now denying that the temperature trend has been flat since 1997? You are starting to sound like one of those AGW zealots.
Depending on which data set is used, there has been no statistically significant warming for up to 26 years, several decades (more than two decades). Quibble with that.
I am content that others can look at the temperature trend and see for themselves that there has been no warming during this century.And denial of this is one of the traits of the zealots (see my comment below for a definition of an AGW zealot).
Concerning the late warming trend of the last century, it has been shown that this is due to increased insolation via reduced cloud coverage, globally (see my comment above on this).
Please see continuation at my previous comment (May 5, 5:06 pm.) Thanks.
mpainter,
Temperature trends since 1997 in C/decade:
(all derived using the skepticalscience trend calculator)
Surface:
GISTEMP: 0.092+/-0.106
NOAA: 0.052+/-0.101
HADCRUT4: 0.072+/-0.101
Berkeley: 0.104+/-0.101
Lower troposphere:
RSS: -0.005+/-0.176
None of the surface temperature trends is “flat” for the period since 1997. For the matter of fact, the trend signal in the Berkeley analysis has already exceeded the 2 sigma (greater 95%) level. GISTEMP is almost there. The trend in this analysis has exceeded the 90% significance level, assuming normal distribution and random pick (the start year 1997 is unfavorable for the statistical significance of global warming because of the Super El Nino in 1997/98. Thus, the start year 1997 it’s an anti-cherry pick for this purpose). And even if none of the data sets had exceeded any statistical significance levels, lack of statistical significance, i.e., failure to reject the statistical Null-hypothesis of a Zero-trend does not refute the alternative hypothesis. It only would leave the result inconclusive.
Thus, the only “flat” trend since 1997 would be the one from the RSS analysis. Obviously, the assertion of a “flat” trend since 1997 is based on cherry picking the lower troposphere data and ignoring all other data, like the positive surface temperature trend or ocean warming, and on cherry picking the time interval in such a way that it is most favorable for the claim of a “flat” trend.
Additionally, with a 2-sigma range of +/-0.176 C/decade, the clearly statistically significant RSS warming trend since 1979 of 0.122+/-0.065 C/decade lies within the 2-sigma range of the “flat” trend since 1997. That is, the “flat” trend is not statistically distinguishable from the statistically significant longer-term warming trend. Thus, there isn’t any confidence that the “flat” trend wasn’t merely by chance (e.g., due to the random distribution of El Ninos/La Ninas over time).
Stating assertions based on cherry picking of data to support preconceived conclusions makes a false “skeptic”. That is what they do.
So, am I “denying” the “flat” trend since 1997? What I am “denying” is not the technical result of a “flat” trend for the lower tropospheric RSS data since 1997 for the given data. Instead, I am “denying” that this “flat” trend allows any scientific conclusion of no global warming since 1997.
Is this a fact? What alleged data would be the ones with 26 years and for what significance level? Name them. I say, you are just making things up.
So this assertions would be for the time period since the year 2000. Trends since 2000 in C/decade:
GISTEMP: 0.089+/-0.133
NOAA: 0.064+/-0.128
HADCRUT4: 0.075+/-0.124
Berkeley: 0.095+/-0.129
RSS: 0.004+/-0.199
Again, all surface temperature trends are positive. The Berkeley warming trend has exceeded a 90% significance level, assuming normal distribution and random pick. The statistical significance for the other ones is weaker. Also, none of the trends, including the RSS trend, is statistically distinguishable from any of the other ones or from the longer term statistically significant warming trend in all the data sets.
And, again, lack of statistical significance does not allow the conclusion that there wasn’t a warming trend. Otherwise one always could make the claim of “no trend” for a time series that is composed of trend and overlaid fluctuations, because one always will find a time period, for which a trend is not statistically significant, if one chooses the time period only short enough.
The examples above are nicely illustrative how “skeptics” approach the issue of statistical significance. The concept is only applied as talking point, when it appears to be convenient. Lack of statistical significance of a warming trend for a cherry picked shorter time period is used to claim that there wasn’t any global warming (which is false reasoning in statistics). But then, when it comes to the statistical significance of the alleged “pause” for x years, statistical significance suddenly doesn’t matter anymore.
No, it has not been shown. I already have replied to this claim, only I didn’t get any argument back. Instead, you simply resort to repeating the assertion in an endless recursion.
mpainter,
What observations? You haven’t shown any actual observations yet. You only have made assertions. You haven’t provided any link to any actual scientific source for data or cited any scientific reference in support of your assertions. Not a single one. Not even when you are explicitly asked for it.
I haven’t said anything about the relationship between wind and evaporation. The subject was the question whether the process of absorption of an increased infrared back radiation due to increased greenhouse gases can lead to warming of the oceans. Please stay on the subject, instead of trying to change it. One of the discussion techniques of false “skeptics” is to change the subject, when they lose the argument on a given one.
You don’t address my actual argument (which was that the cold water trail of hurricanes doesn’t tell us anything about the subject of warming of the ocean by increased longwave back radiation). Instead you are attacking the terms I use, which is also a diversion tactic.
Also, you are not in the position to tell me what terms I must use and on what I need to read up.
So you are saying that the “greenhouse effect” of water vapor will lead to a decrease of the surface temperature compared to a situation where water vapor is absent?
And what is supposed to be the physics behind this, according to you? How does the “greenhouse effect” of water vapor lower the temperature? How does this work? Please explain.
The amount of water vapor in the air isn’t the only difference between the climates of subtropical desert regions and tropics. They also differ with respect to cloud cover and vertical mixing of the atmosphere. The humid tropics have a lot of cloud cover on average, particularly during the day, leading to lower insolation, keeping the maximum surface temperature lower at day, compared to subtropical desert regions. At night, the greenhouse effect of both clouds and higher humidity elevate the minimum temperature in the tropics, compared to subtropical deserts. Additionally, the temperature can’t drop below the dew point, which poses a higher limit value for the decrease of the night time temperature in the very humid tropics, compared to the very dry deserts.
Also, tropics are regions with strong day time convection, which mixes warmer air upward and cooler air downward in the atmosphere, keeping the daytime maximum temperature lower as well.
Thus, the difference between the amplitudes of the diurnal temperature cycle between subtropical deserts and tropics isn’t any evidence against the elevating effect on the temperature by the greenhouse gas water vapor.
Again, you have to take all influencing factors for an outcome into consideration, instead of picking just one and ignoring all others.
So your counter-“arguments” are name calling and postulating that what I said was “unsupportable”. Very convincing.
And who are the “zealots”? The scientists who do the actual scientific research and publish in the field? Whereas someone like you, obviously a lay(wo)man who hasn’t contributed anything to the science and who seems to draw his/her “information” from some dubious and obscure sources (there must be a reason why you refuse to reveal your sources) is the bringer of “The Truth”? Right.
Here is another scientific study. This one is on the role of CO2 as control knob for the water vapor in the atmosphere:
“Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere. This is because CO2, like ozone, N2O, CH4, and chlorofluorocarbons, does not condense and precipitate from the atmosphere at current climate temperatures, whereas water vapor can, and does. Non-condensing greenhouse gases, which account for 25% of the total terrestrial greenhouse effect, thus serve to provide the stable temperature structure that sustains the current levels of atmospheric water vapor and clouds via feedback processes that account for the remaining 75% of the greenhouse effect. Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other non-condensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state.”
(Lacis, A.A, G.A. Schmidt, D. Rind, and R.A. Ruedy, 2010: Atmospheric CO2: Principal control knob governing Earth’s temperature. Science, 330, 356-359, doi:10.1126/science.1190653)
What can you offer in support of your assertions?
What is the current estimate for ECS? What was it before? References please.
The asserted “pause”, which is not statistically distinguishable from the multi-decadal warming trend since 1979, which itself is statistically significant. But what does a “skeptic” care about uncertainty and scientific concepts like assessing the statistical significance of a difference between data points. Only “AGW-zealots” care about that. Right?
BTW: I would rather rely on RSS currently, because UAH v6 is a dataset with an unpublished methodology. Also, the uncertain range is approximately known for RSS. It is not for UAH v6.
*uncertainty range
“What is the current estimate for ECS?”
Mean ECS estimates (and their ranges) have been slightly different over IPCC reports.
FAR 1990 = 2.5C/doubling CO2 (1.5 – 4.5)
SAR 1995 = 2.5-3C/doubling CO2 (1.5 – 4.5)
TAR 2001 = 2.5-3C/doubling CO2 (1.5 – 4.5)
AR4 2007 = 3C/doubling CO2 (2 – 4.5)
AR5 2013 = (1.5C – 4.5C)
[TAR did not give mean estimate, but said result was unchanged since FAR and SAR. AR5 gave no mean estimate, only range]
While these were the figures given in the reports, the earlier reports had higher sensitivities from ensemble model runs (3.8°C ± 0.78°C in the SAR, 3.5°C ± 0.92°C in the TAR and 3.26°C ± 0.69°C in AR4). Various factors contributed to making more conservative estimates, including alternative model runs.
Other mean estimates have been higher and lower, but the average centre around 3C/doubling.
(Forgive the lack of links – too many tends to make posts disappear)
For developments in estimation of climate sensitivity, see the last three posts at Climate Audit, by Nic Lewis.
barry,
Thanks for the effort to write down the numbers, which clearly contradict mpainter’s assertion that the estimates for the ECS had been “continually revised downward”. I could have done this too, but, what the heck, why am I supposed to be the one who does all the work, providing numbers and references in the exchange with mpainter, while he/she is merely floating one assertion after another w/o ever backing it up with anything (because they mostly all are baseless)?
Perlwitz: go to Climate Audit and learn a few things, as per my advice given above. Or do you insist that the science is “settled”?
Those who wish to inform themselves on developments in estimation of climate sensitivity should see the last 3-4 posts at Climate Audit, by Nic Lewis.
Could someone advise which column of which of those masses of files has the Version 6.0 “Global” tlt figures (0.261, 0.157 etc) that are seen in the post?
RSS number for LTT for April 2015 has been published.
It tracks exactly both versions of UAH, namely it is down by 0.08 C from March to April.
Perlwitz:
Thanks for your reply.
An AGW zealot is a scientist who cannot assimilate observations that are contrary to the hypothetical conjectures that make up the body of his science. He clings tenaciously to his views even in the face of these contrary observations.
Does this call to mind anyone that you know?
You reject the notion that water vapor, the prime GHG, moderates temperatures. You then proceed to give the considerations of how high levels of atmospheric water vapor moderates temperatures via cloud formation, convection, dew points. Hmmm
Well, there is hope for you yet, Perlwitz, so
Think Happy Thoughts.
Perlitz
This continues my response to your last.
I note that you rely on the giss data, the dubious creation of the notorious alarmist James “Boil the Oceans” Hansen and maintained by his understudy, the equally dubious Gavin “38% chance” Schmidt, and also on the data of the maloderous and publicly discredited crew at CRU (Jones, Briffa, et al,ClimateGate, etc.).
I note that you continue to segment my comments and misconstrue them to set up your straw men.You also have attributed to me “claims”and expressions which you fabricated. Tsk, tsk, and in front of the whole world, too. You are unconscionable.
The verdict is in, Warming of SST and the late LT warming trend were due changes in global cloud coverage, shown by studies using public cloud data. CO2 cannot warm SST. See my comments above in regard to all of this.
mpainter,
This is a straw man argument by you. Your original claim was about the direct greenhouse effect, i.e., the radiative effect in the longwave range, of water vapor. Your assertion was that this effect wasn’t properly taken into consideration by climate modelers. This is the claim to which I had replied. Your claim wasn’t about all the other positive or negative feedbacks, in which water vapor was directly or indirectly involved. Your diurnal cycle in the deserts vs. tropics example was very likely still with respect to the direct greenhouse effect of water vapor. Only after my reply to it, which made clear that the things were more complicated, you pretend your argument was allegedly about something else.
And the dew point effect or the effect on longwave back radiation of both water vapor and clouds, are all effects that elevate the temperature in the tropics vs. the desert, which leads to an increase in the minimum temperature at night in the tropics, compared to the subtropical deserts. They aren’t moderating effects.
An assessment of the global net effect of water vapor by its involvement in various positive and negative feedbacks loops would require a much more comprehensive analysis. A cherry picked example doesn’t do it.
Perlwitz:
You continue to fabricate “claims” and attribute them to me. This is getting tedious.
It is obvious that water vapor moderates air temperature. Do you dispute that water vapor=radiative gas=GHE?
You yourself have named the processes of how it does (via cloud formation, generating convection, dew points). I will add to your list the importance of transporting latent aloft away from the surface to be radiated into space as the most important part of convection.
Although water vapor is a radiative gas, its moderating effect on temperature predominates in the atmosphere. It does not increase t-max, but decreases it according to the level of atmospheric humidity. I will stand on that, your egregious GCM’s notwithstanding.
Please do not attribute to me any more of your fabrications.
mpainter,
Let’s look at the original:
“Water vapor (GHE) moderates temperature, it does not increase it, as AGW hypothesis puts it. This is easy enough to confirm via observations (so hated by the hypothetical Musers): compare the diurnal temperature range where water vapor is low, such as the Sahara with a diurnal range of 85° commonly, with the humid tropics which have a very slight diurnal range. The temp max is much diminished by the GHE, thanks to water vapor.”
(mpainter on May 4, 2015 at 1:25 PM, http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/05/uah-v6-0-global-temperature-update-for-april-2015-0-07-deg-c/#comment-191100)
Clearly, your assertion about the alleged moderation effect of water vapor on global warming was respective the greenhouse effect, i.e., the direct radiative effect of water vapor in the longwave range of the spectrum. You stated it explicitly. It wasn’t about any other feedbacks, in which water vapor was directly or indirectly involved.
Are you claiming you didn’t write the text in the quote? Did someone else posted that comment, while pretending it was you?
Are you saying here that the “moderation effect” of water vapor was “obvious”, because water vapor was a radiative gas? (Why else would you ask whether I was disputing the GHE of water vapor in this context?) This is wrong. The greenhouse effect of water vapor, i.e., the direct effect of increasing the longwave back radiation, has an elevating effect on the temperature in the troposphere, not a moderating effect. This is a positive feedback between CO2 and water vapor. There are other feedbacks in the climate system, including negative ones, but this one is a positive feedback.
No, I didn’t. Instead, I named various processes that decrease the amplitude of the diurnal cycle in the tropics, compared to the one in the subtropical deserts. Some of the processes have a moderating effect on the day time maximum temperature at the surface, other ones an elevating effect on the night time minimum temperature at the surface. Both decreasing the maximum temperature and increasing the minimum temperature decrease the amplitude of the diurnal temperature cycle.
If this was true then the globally averaged surface temperature couldn’t be elevated by 33 Kelvin compared to the average radiative equilibrium temperature at the top of the atmosphere or at the surface for an atmosphere w/o greenhouse gases.
This reminds me of some host of some TV-show who said something like, “Anthropogenic global warming is a hoax. THAT IS MY OPINION!”.
Finally, Perlitz, you admit the truth of my assertions without, however, being of generous enough spirit to forthrightly say so. You say:
“I named various processes that decrease the amplitude of the diurnal cycle in the tropics, compared to the one in the subtropical deserts. Some of the processes have a moderating effect on the daytime maximum temperature at the surface, other ones have an elevating effect on nighttime minimum temperatures at the surface.”
This is equivalent to my expression, given in your quote of me above. You have labored long over a semantic quibble. Thus Jan Perlwitz.
Yes, water vapor= prime GHG=GHE which moderates diurnal temperature range, therefore the more the water vapor, the greater the radiative flux, the greater the GHE (per definition) but nonetheless, the greater the moderation of temperatures (the diurnal range) and the lower tmax. I stood on that and thank you for confirming it. So we share the SAME OPINION. How about that? I am finished; no more Jan Perlwitz semantic tirades for me, nothankyousir.
mpainter,
Your original statement was instead,
“Water vapor (GHE) moderates temperature, it does not increase it,…”
Moderating the “diurnal temperature range” is not the same as a moderation effect on the temperature. Higher humidity increases the minimum temperature at night. This isn’t a moderation of the temperature. It is the opposite effect, although the amplitude of the diurnal cycle is moderated.
Joel says,
I think I have been pretty clear to distinguish between denial of the greenhouse effect, which is really denial of physics, and questioning AGW, which does not necessarily involve denying basic physics but does involve adopting a very selective view of the evidence.
My reply
Joel here is the evidence. Why don’t you refute each point with data ,not theory to prove I am wrong. You will not do it because there is no supportive data. I would hardly call all these blunders SELECT EVIDENCE.
AGW theory has predicted thus far every single basic atmospheric process wrong.
In addition past historical climatic data shows the climate change that has taken place over the past 150 years is nothing special or unprecedented, and has been exceeded many times over in similar periods of time in the historical climatic record. I have yet to see data showing otherwise.
Data has also shown CO2 has always been a lagging indicator not a leading indicator. It does not lead the temperature change. If it does I have yet to see data confirming this.
SOME ATMOSPHERIC PROCESSES AND OTHER MAJOR WRONG CALLS.
GREATER ZONAL ATMOSPHERIC CIRCULATION -WRONG
TROPICAL HOT SPOT – WRONG
EL NINO MORE OF -WRONG
GLOBAL TEMPERATURE TREND TO RISE- WRONG
LESSENING OF OLR EARTH VIA SPACE -WRONG? I have a study showing this to be so.
LESS ANTARCTIC SEA ICE-WRONG
GREATER /MORE DROUGHTS -WRONG
MORE HURRICANES/SEVERE WX- WRONG
STRATOSPHERIC COOLING- ?? because lack of major volcanic activity and less ozone due to low solar activity can account for this. In addition water vapor concentrations decreasing.
WATER VAPOR IN ATMOSPHERE INCREASING- WRONG- all of the latest data shows water vapor to be on the decrease.
AEROSOL IMPACT- WRONG- May be less then a cooling agent then expected, meaning CO2 is less then a warming agent then expected.
OCEAN HEAT CONTENT TO RISE- WRONG – this has leveled off post 2005 or so. Levels now much below model projections.
Those are the major ones but there are more. Yet AGW theory lives on.
Maybe it is me , but I was taught when you can not back up a theory with data and through observation that it is time to move on and look into another theory. Apparently this does not resonate when it comes to AGW theory , and this theory keeps living on to see yet another day.
Maybe once the global temperature trend shows a more definitive down trend which is right around the corner (according to my studies ) this nonsense will come to an end. Time will tell.
Greenhouse score card showing more blunders
http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm
Past historical data showing no correlation.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature-history-a-look-at-multiple-timescales-in-the-context-of-the-shakun-et-al-paper/
Current data not agreeing with what AGW calls for.
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/34748
@Salvatore “Joel says,
I think I have been pretty clear to distinguish between denial of the greenhouse effect, which is really denial of physics, and questioning AGW, which does not necessarily involve denying basic physics but does involve adopting a very selective view of the evidence”.
*****************
Salvatore…where is the original quote from Joel? Was it Joel Shore?
I would say to Joel that a lot of people seem to presume the greenhouse effect is covered by physics but according to scientists Gerlich and Tscheuschner, who specialize in thermodynamics, and who have done a fairly thorough research of the literature, there is nothing in physics that references it.
Physics doesn’t dabble in metaphors and one would have to be far more specific when referencing an atmospheric effect that is claimed to have raised atmospheric temperatures by 33 C.
In physics, you would have to reference infrared absorbing molecules, then you’d have serious problems proving that the 1% of atmospheric gases represented by them could raise atmospheric temperatures by 33C.
It’s one thing to create a theoretical model that infers that possibility and quite another to come up with the numbers to back it.
It was Joel Shore.
Once again the argument that water vapor WARMS the planet has been raised.
One may point to the fact that while Phoenix for example has much higher temperatures in the summer their winter temperatures prove colder than tropical regions like Java island or the Malay Peninsula. If one relies on that rhetoric they’ll be lost. Why? Phoenix winter temps in fact prove mild. It has rarely if ever snows in Winter-time Phoenix and while it proves cooler on average than Java island and the Malay Peninsula during the winter one must remember Phoenix receives only a fraction of the incoming solar radiation that Java and Malaysia do. A better comparison with Phoenix would be Charlotte, North Carolina that sits at the same latitude but has much HIGHER HUMIDITY than Phoenix. Phoenix sports average 31 deg C highs and 17 deg C lows. Charlotte, North Carolina sports average 22 deg C highs and 9 deg C lows. This happens despite the fact that the Atlantic ocean waters over North Carolina prove WARMER than the Pacific Ocean waters that rarely (Monsoon season) trickle over Phoenix.
Nevertheless, any such examples will be bandied in this regard. Unfortunately for both of you however, there exists one piece of empirical evidence you cannot gain-say that proves water COOLS! You don’t have to go to Mars or Venus to find it. The evidence can be found right here on good old terra-firma aka THE EARTH!!! Many on this web-site trip over it and don’t like to dig in very far. Why? Well this particular evidence gets cited by the global warming alarmists themselves, but they mis-represent it. They correctly note that the NORTHERN HEMISPHERE PROVES MUCH WARMER THAN THE SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE. In fact, they claim the greater amount of human beings living and polluting (hence emitting CO2) in the Northern hemisphere causes this warming. This proves ridiculous. While much data and many websites contain data establishing greater warmth in the northern than the southern hemisphere please find a few links establishing the obvious FACT that the Northern Hemisphere proves warmer than the Southern Hemisphere below.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21829145.000-ocean-pump-keeps-northern-hemisphere-hot.html#.VUrk3ShiFD0
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/in-global-warming-northern-hemisphere-is-outpacing-the-south-15850
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/pub/seager/Kang_Seager_subm.pdf
However, unfortunately for the alarmists this fact proves that GHG’s in general, liquid water and water vapor in particular COOL the planet and don’t warm it. Why? Well for one thing even though CO2 gets distributed throughout the atmosphere but more heavily distributed in the Northern Hemisphere that proves the opposite with the totality of GHG’s and water vapor specifically. Why? Well that remains due to the fact that land has not been distributed evenly between the North and South Hemispheres. The Northern hemisphere has much more land than the South. The Northern hemisphere land to ocean ration proves to be 1-1.5, while the Southern hemisphere land to ocean ration proves to be 1-4. If you need further data please use this website:
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/8o.html
Do you see the problem!!! If water and water vapor as many seem to maintain WARM the planet WHY DOES THE REGION OF THE PLANET WITH THE LEAST WATER SPORT THE HIGHEST AVERAGE TEMPERATURES? This cannot be shoved off as some small region like Phoenix or Charlotte, NC. The regions comprise half our planet each! In fact, not only do average Northern hemisphere temps exceed Southern hemisphere temps but the highest temperature ever recorded occurred in the Northern hemisphere Highest recorded temperature:
Guinness world records
Record: 134 degress Fahrenheit
Date: July 10, 1913 (recorded)
Place: Recorded at Greenland Ranch, Death Valley, California, United States
Record holder: Death Valley
In addition, the lowest temperature ever recorded occurred in the (you probably guessed it) Southern hemisphere:
“The lowest natural temperature ever directly recorded at ground level on Earth is −89.2 °C (−128.6 °F; 184.0 K), which was at the Soviet Vostok Station in Antarctica, on July 21, 1983. Analysis of satellite data indicated a probable temperature of around −93.2 °C (−135.8 °F; 180.0 K), also in Antarctica, on August 10, 2010; however, this reading was not confirmed by ground measurements.”-Wikipedia
Please note the coldest temperature ever recorded occurred either in 1983 or 2010 long after humans have been spewing CO2 into the atmosphere.
Thanks for your consideration and as always…
Have a great day!
It appears as though the graph plots a 0.70 degree anomaly instead of the stated 0.07C anomaly. This may have been pointed out already in the comments. I’m afraid I didn’t take the time to read through them.
Thanks for all your work, Jan Perlwitz
I note that people here are confusing the various effects of water vapor, like thermal mass, conductivity, latent heat, cooling as a cloud cover, and radiation effects.
Bruce, elucidate and perhaps we can pinpoint exactly who is confused.
Could be it’s you.