All things Solar

[BethesdaWX]

The Ap Index doesn't appear to show the 1997 super El Niño. Do you have the monthly numeric values for the Ap Index?

Yep: http://www.leif.org/...nthly-means.txt

But actually the AP index does show the 1997/98 El Nino in 1991/92, was the highest spike on record in the AP index dataset, it is always a 6 year lag, but the correlation works best when the climate is more stable [closer to equilibrium]. Imagine the AP index and the temp as a flame/boiling vat relationship, and we were warming to reach equilibrium since the AP increased in intensity, except the 2000s saw a weaker cycle but still strong enough to keep us flat [near equilibrium]. When the pot and the flame are near equilibrium to eachother, changes in the flame will manifest more clearly in the temp of the water, while if the water is cooler it'll warm until equilibrium is reached.

Anyway, the net trend of the AP index was downward from 1992 to 1996 [representing the -ENSO from 1998/99 to 2001/02], then increased from 1996 to 2001 [representing 2002/03 through 2006/07), so on and so forth.

[donsutherland1]

Yep: http://www.leif.org/...nthly-means.txt

Thanks BethesdaWx,

I ran the monthly values (using a 6-year lag) against the monthly ENSO R3.4 SSTs and SSTAs and received very low coefficients of correlation for both.

[BethesdaWX]

Thanks BethesdaWx,

I ran the monthly values (using a 6-year lag) against the monthly ENSO R3.4 SSTs and SSTAs and received very low coefficients of correlation for both.

You're very welcome, but I don't think that is the way to do this statistical analysis, I think the correlation is predominately found in the TREND of the AP Index from year to year, rather than very specific monthly details that shouldn't correlate well at all [otherwise we've just discovered a prophecy ] May I suggest testing the 6 year lag correlation in AP index from year to year? If that is possible?

The actual value of the AP index doesn't mean much, it is the variance regardless of how powerful the Sun is at the time.

Also specifically the lag is somewhere in between 6 and 7 years in glancing quickly. But I think if you use the yearly AP you'll find a much higher correlation score unless the lag varies by 6 months as it seems to do, maybe.

[donsutherland1]

Also specifically the lag is somewhere in between 6 and 7 years in glancing quickly. But I think if you use the yearly AP you'll find a much higher correlation score unless the lag varies by 6 months as it seems to do, maybe.

The correlation is higher but still very low. My guess is that the best one might be able to do is to conclude that there might be a various ENSO event 5-7 years down the road, but the AP Index does not allow for much precision in terms of timing or magnitude.

[BethesdaWX]

The correlation is higher but still very low. My guess is that the best one might be able to do is to conclude that there might be a various ENSO event 5-7 years down the road, but the AP Index does not allow for much precision in terms of timing or magnitude.

Are you weighting the # value of the AP index instead of the variance # from year to year? What I did was a more simple analysis that I feel represents chaos.

What I did was during satellite era years, took the AP index in one year, and then where it trended the next year. In almost all circumstances, [on the lag] the trend in the AP index from one year to the next represented the ENSO (Nino/Nina) 6 years later. Then there are almost give-away correlations like the 2009/10 El Nino. I'll try to post a little something on this soon.

It gets complicated though because during weak AP index periods the correlation tends to break down a bit, and then there is the PDO as well as our distance from kinetic equilibrium which complicates it even more.

[skierinvermont]

In general when you have to look that hard for a correlation and manipulate your variables and use a time lag, the correlation is not causative. It is always possible to find spurious correlations when you manipulate the variables by using time lags etc.

[PhillipS]

Even though there is something called 'lightning' which is is flashing like a paparazzi camera storm as we speak, lets pretend that it doesn't exist. The point isn't that thermal energy would increase along with kinetic energy [it would, it has to eventually, or visa versa], but that the FULL BUDGET that we compare in TOA is not present in thermal form, it also exists in kinetic form all over, from the waves in the ocean, to the winds over the deserts, and most importantly in the convection that is DRIVEN BY THE 'GHE'. So you'll never have as much thermal energy leaving as you will entering. Changes in the temperature are driven by cloud cover changes or repositionings, ENSO is a way the climate responds to achieve balance against the Magentic impulse that altered albedo many years beforehand (lag exists because of the transferring of energy modes relative to conductive bodies).

And the thermal energy can easily escape to space enough to achieve equilibrium, it is natural regulation. What happens during convection? Aside from the fact that kinetic energy is present in the convective process, clouds develop, which reflect SW radiation as the process is ongoing, it isn't an imbalanced process at all. Kinetic energy is required for convective overturning that results from the 'GHE', it is part of the budget. The GHE and CO2 being a GHG are very real facts, but it is our understanding of this 'GHE' that is the problem.

Without GHGes, our atmosphere would be warmer.

Wow, Becky, I'll give kudos where kudos are due - you have a real talent for packing more irrational nonsense into a few brief paragraphs than any other denialist I know. And I know that trying to reason with you is a total waste of time. Your mind is totally closed and you are smugly entrenched in your tin-hat hypotheses. (I also know my corgi has a better understanding than you of climate science - but I digress) So I am writing this not for you, and not for the knowledgeable reader who can see right through your BS, but rather for the innocent readers so none of them waste time on your nonsense.

First - GHGs, by definition, are those gases which are transparent to SW radiation (visible light) but which are opaque to most LW radiation (IR). GHGs include CO2, H2O, and CH4. Non-GHGs are transparent to LW radiation and include N2 and O2.

In the absence of GHGs, LW radiation emitted by the surface would travel unimpeded to space and the Earth would be roughly 33 C colder than it actually is. This is based on radiative physics, corroborated by a mountain of experimental data. Good luck refuting that from the safety and comfort of your keyboard.

In the absence of GHGs there would not be any clouds because there would not be any water vapor. Remember, water vapor is a GHG. But even if you allow water vapor and exclude the other GHGs, we would have a 'Snowball Earth". There is strong evidence that this happened several time in Earth's early history.

In the absence of GHGs convenction would be very weak because only the air in contact with the surface would warm. Dr Roy Spencer had a column on this recently. It's worth a read and here is an excerpt:

One of the first things you discover when putting numbers to the problem is the overriding importance of infrared radiative absorption and emission to explaining the atmospheric temperature profile. These IR flows would not occur without the presence of “greenhouse gases”, which simply means gases which absorb and emit IR radiation. Without those gases, there would be no way for the atmosphere to cool to outer space in the presence of continuous convective heat transport from the surface.

Indeed, it is the “greenhouse effect” which destabilizes the atmosphere, leading to convective overturning. Without it, there would not be weather as we know it. The net effect of greenhouse gases is to warm the lowest layers, and to cool the upper layers.

And another:

f you are still confused about whether greenhouse gases warm or cool the climate system, let me make the following 2 points:

1) For the atmosphere as a whole, greenhouse gases COOL the atmosphere, through IR radiation to outer space, in the face of heating of the atmosphere by the solar-heated surface.

2) In the process, however, greenhouse gases drastically change the vertical temperature structure of the atmosphere, warming the lower layers, and cooling the upper layers. Think of greenhouse gases as a “radiative blanket”…when you add a blanket over a heat source, it warms the air between the blanket and the heat source, but it cools the air away from the heat source.

Greenhouse gases change the energy budget of all layers of the atmosphere, and it is the energy budget (balance between energy gain and energy loss) which determines what the average temperatures of those layers will be.

[BethesdaWX]

In general when you have to look that hard for a correlation and manipulate your variables and use a time lag, the correlation is not causative. It is always possible to find spurious correlations when you manipulate the variables by using time lags etc.

Using time lags isn't manipulation if you keep the same exact time lag for all datasets, unchanging. It would be another story if I were to choose different time lags to match the data together. Though there is still no proven causation, just theory and hypothesis, so right now it is just a correlation.

I was iffy on the whole thing until the 2009/10 El Nino basically mirrored the AP index, as did the spike we had this summer. That reflection there is too good to be coincidence. It also happens to be the case that the highest spike ever recorded on the AP index correlates on the exact same time lag to the 1997/98 super Nino.

I never have to change the time lag, keeping it at 6.5 years. So lets see what happens when the reach the plummet period in lag coming in 8-10 months.

[donsutherland1]

Are you weighting the # value of the AP index instead of the variance # from year to year?

Whether one uses the year-to-year change or the annual values, the coefficient of correlation is low.

[BethesdaWX]

Wow, Becky, I'll give kudos where kudos are due - you have a real talent for packing more irrational nonsense into a few brief paragraphs than any other denialist I know. And I know that trying to reason with you is a total waste of time. Your mind is totally closed and you are smugly entrenched in your tin-hat hypotheses. (I also know my corgi has a better understanding than you of climate science - but I digress) So I am writing this not for you, and not for the knowledgeable reader who can see right through your BS, but rather for the innocent readers so none of them waste time on your nonsense.

First - GHGs, by definition, are those gases which are transparent to SW radiation (visible light) but which are opaque to most LW radiation (IR). GHGs include CO2, H2O, and CH4. Non-GHGs are transparent to LW radiation and include N2 and O2.

In the absence of GHGs, LW radiation emitted by the surface would travel unimpeded to space and the Earth would be roughly 33 C colder than it actually is. This is based on radiative physics, corroborated by a mountain of experimental data. Good luck refuting that from the safety and comfort of your keyboard.

In the absence of GHGs there would not be any clouds because there would not be any water vapor. Remember, water vapor is a GHG. But even if you allow water vapor and exclude the other GHGs, we would have a 'Snowball Earth". There is strong evidence that this happened several time in Earth's early history.

In the absence of GHGs convenction would be very weak because only the air in contact with the surface would warm. Dr Roy Spencer had a column on this recently. It's worth a read and here is an excerpt:

One of the first things you discover when putting numbers to the problem is the overriding importance of infrared radiative absorption and emission to explaining the atmospheric temperature profile. These IR flows would not occur without the presence of “greenhouse gases”, which simply means gases which absorb and emit IR radiation. Without those gases, there would be no way for the atmosphere to cool to outer space in the presence of continuous convective heat transport from the surface.

Indeed, it is the “greenhouse effect” which destabilizes the atmosphere, leading to convective overturning. Without it, there would not be weather as we know it. The net effect of greenhouse gases is to warm the lowest layers, and to cool the upper layers.

And another:

f you are still confused about whether greenhouse gases warm or cool the climate system, let me make the following 2 points:

1) For the atmosphere as a whole, greenhouse gases COOL the atmosphere, through IR radiation to outer space, in the face of heating of the atmosphere by the solar-heated surface.

2) In the process, however, greenhouse gases drastically change the vertical temperature structure of the atmosphere, warming the lower layers, and cooling the upper layers. Think of greenhouse gases as a “radiative blanket”…when you add a blanket over a heat source, it warms the air between the blanket and the heat source, but it cools the air away from the heat source.

Greenhouse gases change the energy budget of all layers of the atmosphere, and it is the energy budget (balance between energy gain and energy loss) which determines what the average temperatures of those layers will be.

None of this contradicts what I have said, holy moly. Do you even bother to read posts before you respond to them? Your posts towards me have been consistantly attack-ridden and insulting, full of name calling, etc. I am fed up with it dude, I really am. Stop with the attacks and learn how to behave in a civil manner for chrissake. If you can't do that then just don't respond to me. I have never had to put a member on ignore before nor do I want to, but wow, dude..just wow.

[BethesdaWX]

Whether one uses the year-to-year change or the annual values, the coefficient of correlation is low.

Yes it should be low, because ENSO variation is also subject to other influences such as the PDO and basic chaos. All you need to do is look at the AP index trend [regardless of magnitude] from one year to the next and the ENSO trend from one year to the next [regardless of magnitude], the magnitude of either is irrelavent.

ENSO follows the same directional reflection in a large majority of the years. During powerful AP index spikes, you won't find one that didn't have an El Nino follow 6 years later.

[PhillipS]

Without GHGes, our atmosphere would be warmer.

Completely and totally false

[BethesdaWX]

Completely and totally false

Our atmosphere includes more than just the troposphere, dude. The atmosphere in it's entirety would be warmer without GHGes. The surface and LT would be cooler.

[PhillipS]

Our atmosphere includes more than just the troposphere, dude. The atmosphere in it's entirety would be warmer without GHGes. The surface and LT would be cooler.

Becky, your opinion is noted - but until you back it up with links to some science (as I did in my earlier post) it will remain just your opinion.

[BethesdaWX]

Becky, your opinion is noted - but until you back it up with links to some science (as I did in my earlier post) it will remain just your opinion.

Huh??

Read the link you posted...Roy Spencer is saying exactly what I am saying

Dr Roy Spencer had a column on this recently. It's worth a read and here is an excerpt:.

And another:

f you are still confused about whether greenhouse gases warm or cool the climate system, let me make the following 2 points:

1)

For the atmosphere as a whole,

greenhouse gases COOL the atmosphere, through IR radiation to outer space, in the face of heating of the atmosphere by the solar-heated surface.

2) In the process, however, greenhouse gases drastically change the vertical temperature structure of the atmosphere, warming the lower layers, and cooling the upper layers. Think of greenhouse gases as a “radiative blanket”…when you add a blanket over a heat source, it warms the air between the blanket and the heat source, but it cools the air away from the heat source.

You said it is 'worth a read', and yet you don't understand a thing that was written? Or.......

1) For the atmosphere as a whole, greenhouse gases COOL the atmosphere, through IR radiation to outer space, in the face of heating of the atmosphere by the solar-heated surface.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

And now the personal attacks come along. And I'm the one full of irrational nonsense? You're the one who hasn't provided any evidence that my theory is irrational nonsense...and yet you say that the basic fact I stated regarding the GHE, verified by your own post of Dr. Spencer, is now bunk?

And you attack me baselessly, no evidence, no nothin'. Wazzup wit dat?

Wow, Becky, I'll give kudos where kudos are due - you have a real talent for packing more irrational nonsense into a few brief paragraphs than any other denialist I know. And I know that trying to reason with you is a total waste of time. Your mind is totally closed and you are smugly entrenched in your tin-hat hypotheses. (I also know my corgi has a better understanding than you of climate science - but I digress) So I am writing this not for you, and not for the knowledgeable reader who can see right through your BS, but rather for the innocent readers so none of them waste time on your nonsense.

If I were you I'd quit while ahead. Just some advice

[donsutherland1]

Yes it should be low, because ENSO variation is also subject to other influences such as the PDO and basic chaos. All you need to do is look at the AP index trend [regardless of magnitude] from one year to the next and the ENSO trend from one year to the next [regardless of magnitude], the magnitude of either is irrelavent.

ENSO follows the same directional reflection in a large majority of the years. During powerful AP index spikes, you won't find one that didn't have an El Nino follow 6 years later.

I used dummy variables (1 for El Niño, 0 for Neutral, -1 for La Niña) using AP Index change and AP Index values as independent variables and also received low correlations. I don't believe the AP Index can provide a good indication concerning the timing or magnitude of an ENSO event. The best one might be able to do is to suggest that a given ENSO event might be likely in 5-7 years, but that's probably the extent of it. If one is trying to forecast ENSO over the next 6-12 months (an important, but not exclusive, component for trying to guess global and regional anomalies for seasons and annually), the modeling is probably a far better guide. Even the modeling, at this point in time, is subject to fairly significant uncertainty. In sum, while the AP Index might provide some insight in some situations, I don't believe it's a breakthrough that would greatly improve ENSO forecasting.

I was curious, so I asked for the numbers. Unfortunately, running the correlations proved disappointing, to say the least.

[usedtobe]

I used dummy variables (1 for El Niño, 0 for Neutral, -1 for La Niña) using AP Index change and AP Index values as independent variables and also received low correlations. I don't believe the AP Index can provide a good indication concerning the timing or magnitude of an ENSO event. The best one might be able to do is to suggest that a given ENSO event might be likely in 5-7 years, but that's probably the extent of it. If one is trying to forecast ENSO over the next 6-12 months (an important, but not exclusive, component for trying to guess global and regional anomalies for seasons and annually), the modeling is probably a far better guide. Even the modeling, at this point in time, is subject to fairly significant uncertainty. In sum, while the AP Index might provide some insight in some situations, I don't believe it's a breakthrough that would greatly improve ENSO forecasting.

I was curious, so I asked for the numbers. Unfortunately, running the correlations proved disappointing, to say the least.

I'm not surprised. I remember Jim Hugh's forecasting a nino based on solar factors and failing pretty badly. ENSO ended up the opposite sign to his forecast and Jim had read quite a few articles on the solar cycle and its impacts on the weather.

[BethesdaWX]

I used dummy variables (1 for El Niño, 0 for Neutral, -1 for La Niña) using AP Index change and AP Index values as independent variables and also received low correlations. I don't believe the AP Index can provide a good indication concerning the timing or magnitude of an ENSO event. The best one might be able to do is to suggest that a given ENSO event might be likely in 5-7 years, but that's probably the extent of it. If one is trying to forecast ENSO over the next 6-12 months (an important, but not exclusive, component for trying to guess global and regional anomalies for seasons and annually), the modeling is probably a far better guide. Even the modeling, at this point in time, is subject to fairly significant uncertainty. In sum, while the AP Index might provide some insight in some situations, I don't believe it's a breakthrough that would greatly improve ENSO forecasting.

I was curious, so I asked for the numbers. Unfortunately, running the correlations proved disappointing, to say the least.

I guess we differ in the way we believe the analysis should be done, I never take the AP index # value into account, only the yearly variation, and follow the trend in ENSO 6.5 years later, whatever the magnitude may be, and never go before the satellite era.

It hasn't failed me yet, lets see if this La Nina lasts 3 years if I am properly interpreting the signal.

[BethesdaWX]

I'm not surprised. I remember Jim Hugh's forecasting a nino based on solar factors and failing pretty badly. ENSO ended up the opposite sign to his forecast and Jim had read quite a few articles on the solar cycle and its impacts on the weather.

I'm pretty sure he predicted an El Nino because the actual anomaly in time magnetically was still very high, just not as high as 2003/04, actually significantly lower. The method I use predicts a 3 year La Nina from 2010/11 to 2012/13, and an El Nino in 2013/14, La Nina in 2014/15, if I have analyzed properly.

I started using the method in 2008 and was able to in 15 mintues correctly predict ENSO in 2008/09, 2009/10, and 2010/11, and 2011/12 as well. If the method fails coming up then I'll admit it.

[donsutherland1]

I guess we differ in the way we believe the analysis should be done, I never take the AP index # value into account, only the yearly variation...

I did test using the year-to-year change in the AP Index as an independent variable.

[donsutherland1]

I'm not surprised. I remember Jim Hugh's forecasting a nino based on solar factors and failing pretty badly. ENSO ended up the opposite sign to his forecast and Jim had read quite a few articles on the solar cycle and its impacts on the weather.

I do recall it. Right now, while I believe the sun has an impact on longer climate cycles (not exclusive impact, of course), I don't believe it is a big player in shorter-term ones, including but not limited to ENSO. I just haven't seen sufficient empirical evidence to suggest that the sun is the major, even largest, player when it comes to ENSO, blocking, etc.

[BethesdaWX]

I did test using the year-to-year change in the AP Index as an independent variable.

But why are you correlating the variation in the AP index# directly to the variation in the ENSO#? I don't feel that makes sense.

[donsutherland1]

But why are you correlating the variation in the AP index# directly to the variation in the ENSO#? I don't feel that makes sense.

I tested several possible independent variables: change in AP: Index, AP Index #, AP Index dumming (-1 for decline/+1 for increase) against ENSO R3.4 anomalies, change in R3.4 anomalies, and dummy variables for ENSO events.

[BethesdaWX]

I tested several possible independent variables: change in AP: Index, AP Index #, AP Index dumming (-1 for decline/+1 for increase) against ENSO R3.4 anomalies, change in R3.4 anomalies, and dummy variables for ENSO events.

ENSO events usually peak in DJF which contains portions of two 'years'. The ONI rarely varies more than 4C since there is a threshold of potential variaton before the rest of the energy ends up being added to the thermal budget, since [in my view] ENSO is basically an attempt at balance between the thermal and kinetic portions of the energy budget, driven by variations in albedo [obviously clouds are why weather is chaotic, if there were no clouds, everything would be stable].

Maybe use the AP index from 1990 onward, and the ENSO index in the means of 1996/97, for example, don't seperate 1996 and 1997 because ENSO changes mid year, usually.

There is a threshold of potential interaction before the rest of the energy ends up being added to the thermal energy budget which is also determined by other factors. ENSO is basically an attempt at balance between the thermal and kinetic portions of the energy budget, driven by variations in albedo as the initial source, [obviously], and many theorize, and determined in the CLOUD experiment and a few other magnetic experiments, that the ionization affected by variations in magnetism is the culprit.......with a constantly powerful AP index impacting albedo and the kinetic budget the rest will end up stored in thermal budget since by laws of feedbacks within the atmosphere and convection, an ENSO event can't last very long. But kinetic energy will be affected as well but to note why the gap between incoming and outgoing energies is present is because it is not all thermal, and clouds are the last key to unlocking it, in my view.

[BethesdaWX]

I do recall it. Right now, while I believe the sun has an impact on longer climate cycles (not exclusive impact, of course), I don't believe it is a big player in shorter-term ones, including but not limited to ENSO. I just haven't seen sufficient empirical evidence to suggest that the sun is the major, even largest, player when it comes to ENSO, blocking, etc.

I believe the Sun is the driver of the AO/AAO and ENSO, but many get caught up in the Solar 'strength' and not the variations in the interaction between the Earth's magnetic field and the Sun's magnetic field which account for much of the discrepancy. The Magentic Sun, Interplanetary Magnetic Field, and the various state of the AMO and PDO mean more than many think, in my view. There is clearly something we don't know, but somehow the Sun's polar flips are leading to flips in the AMO and PDO oscillations, and it never fails in the Satellite era.

But you can't deny the AO and AAO have impacts on hemispheric cloud cover, a -AO of -1.5 or more has been shown to reduce cloud cover over the pole and higher lattitudes, while clouds increase over the equator and tropical regions as the jet streams and wind flow are changed over the hemisphere. It matters more than you think because the tropics recieve much much more SW energy from the Sun, and of more of that is reflected you'll see the entire hemisphere cool.

Change in cloud cover of 1% from 20N to 0N = 1.0W/m^2 change in RF. Example, imagine 1% less cloud cover from 30N to 90N, and 1% more cloud cover from 30N to 0/0, it will still lead to a gain net SW energy reaching the surface. Now consider the AAO and AO do the same thing in their relative hemispheres and the effect is now X2, only more prominent in the SH because there is less land mass and more water which contains a much higher energy load to add to the heat budget.

So a -AO and -AAO can lead to RF changes globally of more than 3W/m^2. TERRA satellite.

[PhillipS]

Huh??

Read the link you posted...Roy Spencer is saying exactly what I am saying

[/i]

You said it is 'worth a read', and yet you don't understand a thing that was written? Or.......

1) For the atmosphere as a whole, greenhouse gases COOL the atmosphere, through IR radiation to outer space, in the face of heating of the atmosphere by the solar-heated surface.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

And now the personal attacks come along. And I'm the one full of irrational nonsense? You're the one who hasn't provided any evidence that my theory is irrational nonsense...and yet you say that the basic fact I stated regarding the GHE, verified by your own post of Dr. Spencer, is now bunk?

And you attack me baselessly, no evidence, no nothin'. Wazzup wit dat?

If I were you I'd quit while ahead. Just some advice

Well, Becky, I'll grant that I should have put the quote from Dr Spencer into context but I overestimated your reading comprehension. My Bad. I'll try not to make that mistake again.

In the context of Dr Spencer's column on the integral role of GHGs in the Earth's energy fluxes his statement is accurate. But his statement "For the atmosphere as a whole, greenhouse gases COOL the atmosphere, through IR radiation to outer space, in the face of heating of the atmosphere by the solar-heated surface" is not the same as your claim "Without GHGes, our atmosphere would be warmer".

As I said in my earlier post (and provided a source for), if the Earth's atmosphere had no GHGs there would be a Snowball Earth. Since you rejected my first link, here's NOAA's take on the topic:

The greenhouse effect is unquestionably real and helps to regulate the temperature of our planet. It is essential for life on Earth and is one of Earth's natural processes. It is the result of heat absorption by certain gases in the atmosphere (called greenhouse gases because they effectively 'trap' heat in the lower atmosphere) and re-radiation downward of some of that heat. Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas, followed by carbon dioxide and other trace gases. Without a natural greenhouse effect, the temperature of the Earth would be about zero degrees F (-18°C) instead of its present 57°F (14°C).

Source - http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

If the global temperature were -18 C and there were no GHGs to slow the loss of LW radiation to space, the atmosphere could not possibly be warmer than it is today.

[BethesdaWX]

Well, Becky, I'll grant that I should have put the quote from Dr Spencer into context but I overestimated your reading comprehension. My Bad. I'll try not to make that mistake again.

In the context of Dr Spencer's column on the integral role of GHGs in the Earth's energy fluxes his statement is accurate. But his statement "For the atmosphere as a whole, greenhouse gases COOL the atmosphere, through IR radiation to outer space, in the face of heating of the atmosphere by the solar-heated surface" is not the same as your claim "Without GHGes, our atmosphere would be warmer".

No, you are so wrong its overwhelming. What Spencer said is exactly what I said, GHGes warm the surface and troposphere, but the troposphere is just a small portion of our entire atmosphere. Do you understand? Adding CO2 and other GHGes cools the stratosphere, and the rest of the upper level layers.

You attack me 24/7 and yet don't know the difference between the troposphere and the entire atmosphere...lovely. How can you participate on a climate change forum and not know what the atmosphere is?

[WeatherRusty]

No, you are so wrong its overwhelming. What Spencer said is exactly what I said, GHGes warm the surface and troposphere, but the troposphere is just a small portion of our entire atmosphere. Do you understand? Adding CO2 and other GHGes cools the stratosphere, and the rest of the upper level layers.

You attack me 24/7 and yet don't know the difference between the troposphere and the entire atmosphere...lovely. How can you participate on a climate change forum and not know what the atmosphere is?

Yes, the stratosphere is cooled by the addition of greenhouse gases, but the question then becomes are the upper layers cooled more than the lower layers are warmed? By far most of the atmospheric mass resides within the troposphere. Therefore a great deal more energy is required to warm the troposphere than to cool the stratosphere. Of course, the mass of the oceans and land surfaces are also warmed and ice is melted which results in a longer term warming of the surface and lower atmosphere.

If the surface were cooler (weaker greenhouse effect) the upper air would also be cooler, but not by as much cooler. The system as a whole is warmer due to the greenhouse effect. The level of free emission to space at Earth's effective radiative temperature (255K) is higher up in the atmosphere (~16,000') due to the greenhouse effect. With no greenhouse effect the surface would be 255K rather than 288K, and higher up would be more cold while following an isotropic (adiabatic) temperature profile.

[BethesdaWX]

Yes, the stratosphere is cooled by the addition of greenhouse gases, but the question then becomes are the upper layers cooled more than the lower layers are warmed? By far most of the atmospheric mass resides within the troposphere. Therefore a great deal more energy is required to warm the troposphere than to cool the stratosphere. Of course, the mass of the oceans and land surfaces are also warmed and ice is melted which results in a longer term warming of the surface and lower atmosphere.

If the surface were cooler (weaker greenhouse effect) the upper air would also be cooler, but not by as much cooler. The system as a whole is warmer due to the greenhouse effect. The level of free emission to space at Earth's effective radiative temperature (255K) is higher up in the atmosphere (~16,000') due to the greenhouse effect. With no greenhouse effect the surface would be 255K rather than 288K,

and higher up would be more cold while following an isotropic (adiabatic) temperature profile.

Exactly, but density is not something I was referring to, I was reffering to the atmosphere in terms of space and time, and the temperature value in F or C, not the net energy value required to change temperature. Density aside, adding more GHGes would in AGW theory cool the atmospheric net temperature value, warming the troposphere, and cooling everything else. But there is more to it than that.

Most CO2 warming predictions [Jim Hansen's, for example] rely on the measured 'imbalance' as a base for climate sensitivity and how much we need to 'warm' to reach equilibrium. But knowing none of these analysis take into account the kinetic and electric portion of the budget, and assume it is all thermal [admittedly is it not actually known what exactly the kinetic value is], the false impression is given that there is an imblance and that we need to warm to meet equilibrium by thermal means which is total BS.

But you're right when you say the imbalance is a result of the GHE, it is the reason, the very fact that the GHE exists is what allows for there to be a measurable kinetic budget in the first place [convection is the act of thermal transfer to kinetic, and convection is driven by the GHE, which drives the winds, ocean waves, jet streams, storms, etc]. But there will never be an overload of thermal energy as a result of an increased GHE, it can't happen. When you add all of the energy in the climate system together [thermal, kinetic, electric, etc] you have an equal energy value to the Sun's incoming SW value.

The values of kinetic, thermal, and electric energies can change and vary amongst eachother over time, but that can only really be caused by a change in how much SW energy reaches the surface to transfer to LW before re-emission, but that has to be driven by change in cloud albedo. And that is driven by the Geomagnetic factor.

So changes in the Sun aren't changing the energy budget at all, but rather are changing the porportionate values of kinetic and thermal energies in the climate system, as well as altering how much is reflected by clouds...so it 'seems' like energy is being gained/lost via change in the thermal budget relative to the kinetic budget. With less cloud albedo value in meaning [tropics] more SW energy is getting into the oceans, lower atmosphere, etc, so yes more is getting in, rather than being re-emitted back up in the atmosphere, but it isn't by the means of 'trapping'. So since the warming isn't a property of the GHE and net imbalance between total incoming and outgoing energies, and there is just more thermal energy present as a result of less SW reflected where it matters, you won't find a hotspot, which is why there has been no hotspot! The tropics have warmed the least of any other region in the troposphere, because of this very mechanism. If it were the GHE doing the warming [which can't happen] it would be operating though the process of the GHE [increased water vapor, CO2, CH4, or whatever]. Any increase in water vapor due to warming oceans would not manifest in the sense of sensitivity due to the reasons formentioned. It would only feature a hotspot if the change were solely GHE induced and not the result of increased SW influx.

This isn't my theory, many many many scientists believe, analyze, and respect this aspect.

[WeatherRusty]

Exactly, but density is not something I was referring to, I was reffering to the atmosphere in terms of space and time, and the temperature value in F or C, not the net energy value required to change temperature. Density aside, adding more GHGes would in AGW theory cool the atmospheric net temperature value, warming the troposphere, and cooling everything else. But there is more to it than that.

Most CO2 warming predictions [Jim Hansen's, for example] rely on the measured 'imbalance' as a base for climate sensitivity and how much we need to 'warm' to reach equilibrium. But knowing none of these analysis take into account the kinetic and electric portion of the budget, and assume it is all thermal [admittedly is it not actually known what exactly the kinetic value is], the false impression is given that there is an imblance and that we need to warm to meet equilibrium by thermal means which is total BS.

But you're right when you say the imbalance is a result of the GHE, it is the reason, the very fact that the GHE exists is what allows for there to be a measurable kinetic budget in the first place [convection is the act of thermal transfer to kinetic, and convection is driven by the GHE, which drives the winds, ocean waves, jet streams, storms, etc]. But there will never be an overload of thermal energy as a result of an increased GHE, it can't happen. When you add all of the energy in the climate system together [thermal, kinetic, electric, etc] you have an equal energy value to the Sun's incoming SW value.

The values of kinetic, thermal, and electric energies can change and vary amongst eachother over time, but that can only really be caused by a change in how much SW energy reaches the surface to transfer to LW before re-emission, but that has to be driven by change in cloud albedo. And that is driven by the Geomagnetic factor.

So changes in the Sun aren't changing the energy budget at all, but rather are changing the porportionate values of kinetic and thermal energies in the climate system, as well as altering how much is reflected by clouds...so it 'seems' like energy is being gained/lost via change in the thermal budget relative to the kinetic budget. With less cloud albedo value in meaning [tropics] more SW energy is getting into the oceans, lower atmosphere, etc, so yes more is getting in, rather than being re-emitted back up in the atmosphere, but it isn't by the means of 'trapping'. So since the warming isn't a property of the GHE and net imbalance between total incoming and outgoing energies, and there is just more thermal energy present as a result of less SW reflected where it matters, you won't find a hotspot, which is why there has been no hotspot! The tropics have warmed the least of any other region in the troposphere, because of this very mechanism. If it were the GHE doing the warming [which can't happen] it would be operating though the process of the GHE [increased water vapor, CO2, CH4, or whatever]. Any increase in water vapor due to warming oceans would not manifest in the sense of sensitivity due to the reasons formentioned. It would only feature a hotspot if the change were solely GHE induced and not the result of increased SW influx.

This isn't my theory, many many many scientists believe and analyze this aspect.

balanced in tune by the clouds that reflect SW as a result]. when the imbalance exists because of the GHE, since the GHE is responsible for the existance of almost all the kinetic energy in the climate system [convection].

The planet will radiate to space at a peak wavelength of light (IR) indicitive of it's average temperature. This is demonstrated by the Planck Law which relates wavelength to temperature. We can accurately determine the temperature of stars and planets by this relationship.

Since the Earth recieves a measurable amount of radiative energy from the Sun and we know the planet's albedo we can determine by means of the Stephan-Boltzmann Equation it's gray body temperature to be 255 Kelvins. As viewed from the perspective of outer space this is the temperature of the Earth. The 255K temperature is coming from a average height in the atmosphere of about 16,000', rather than from the surface. The surface is at 288K, or 33K warmer as a result of the greenhouse effect.

Now, if the Sun brightened so that 1 addional watt/m^2 of energy were absorbed by the Earth's surface, we would expect the whole Earth temperature to rise by about 0.3K, again derived from Stephan-Bolztmann which states that the energy emitted is proportional to the 4th power of the temperature.

If we add 1 watt to surface absorbtion due to the greenhouse effect the same relationship applies.

If we double CO2, we add 3.7 Watt/m^2 to surface absorption, and the Planck temperature response is (0.3K * 3.7) = ~1.1K. Then we can talk of climate sensitivity and feedback.

My textbook physics is a lot more simple than yours, and represents an accurate description of what must take place in the real world of tried and true physics.