Satellite/NOAA Measurements of Outgoing LW radiation...Regarding AGW, things just dont add up.

[BethesdaWX]

Overall amount of Outgoing LW radiation and global temperature.

NOAA measurements of Average outgoing LW radiation begin in 1974. This is overall Outgoing LW radiation, from all Factors, (Changes in CO2, GCC, WV, SO2, etc) would all have an Impact on this I read through everything here, and things just don't add up to allow for any basis of conclusion.....when the actual amount picked up overall thru CO2 is impossible to extract in this case.

Its tough to Find any brute Correlation

According to the AGW theory, The Average Outgoing LW radiation will be trapped, some will be Re-emitted, and thus the Atmosphere will end up emitting more energy thru the climate system. But its harder to find that in the overall Emitted LW radiation from Earth. Initial Warming in the 1970's, 1980's,and Early/Mid 1990's correlates with decreased Outgoing LW radiation. But starting near the 1998 El Nino, Outgoing LW radiation begins to Increase, and Global Temperatures lose their correlation completely. I think what needs to be looked at here is GCC (global cloud cover), since Satellites measuring outgoing LW Radiation do not Measure the Reflected Visible light/SW radiation.

GCC makes more sense here, but thats not the topic. I also read through this: Nothing based off it, but whatev.

http://meteora.ucsd...._and_Slingo.pdf

Anyway:

Official NOAA/CPC Outgoing LW radiation Measurements

Outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) at the top of the atmosphere between 180^oW and 179^oE (0^oE and 359.5^oE) and 90^oN and 90^oS since June 1974 according to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The thin blue line represents the monthly value, while the thick red line is the simple running 37 month average, nearly corresponding to the running 3 yr average. The infrared wavelength covered is 10.5-12.5 µm (Gruber and Winston 1978) and covers the main part of the atmospheric infrared window. Last month shown: October 2010. Last diagram update: 13 February 2011.

• Click here to download the entire series of NOAA monthly OLR-values since June 1974. Choose first 'OLR' then 'Select field'
• Click here to read about data smoothing.

http://www.climate4you.com/

Scatter plot showing outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) at the top of the atmosphere between 180^oW and 179^oE (0^oE and 359.5^oE) and 90^oN and 90^oS since June 1974, as function of atmospheric CO₂. OLR data from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). CO₂ data measured at the Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii, reported as a dry mole fraction defined as the number of molecules of carbon dioxide divided by the number of molecules of dry air (water vapour removed), multiplied by one million (ppm). The red line represent a two-degree polynomial fit, specified in the lower left corner of the diagram. As the amount of atmospheric CO₂ has been increasing over the entire period (ignoring annual variations), the x-axis can be seen as as rough timeline from 1974 (left) to 2010 (right). The infrared wavelength covered is 10.5-12.5 µm (Gruber and Winston 1978) and covers the main part of the atmospheric infrared window. Last month shown: October 2010. Last diagram update: 13 February 2011.

Diagram showing outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) at the top of the atmosphere between 180^oW and 179^oE (0^oE and 359.5^oE) and 90^oN and 90^oS since December 1978 ( red line; National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the global monthly average lower troposphere temperature (blue line; University of Alabama at Huntsville, USA). The thin lines represent the monthly values, while the thick lines are the simple running 37 month averages, nearly corresponding to running 3 yr averages. The infrared wavelength covered is 10.5-12.5 µm (Gruber and Winston 1978) and covers the main part of the atmospheric infrared window. Last month shown: October 2010 (OLR) and January 2011 (UAH). Last diagram update: 13 February 2011.

• Click here to read about data smoothing.

Outgoing longwave radiation above Equator

Outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) at the top of the atmosphere between 180^oW and 179^oE (0^oE and 359.5^oE) and 20^oN and 20^oS since June 1974 according to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The thin blue line represents the monthly value, while the thick red line is the simple running 37 month average, nearly corresponding to the running 3 yr average. The infrared wavelength covered is 10.5-12.5 µm (Gruber and Winston 1978) and covers the main part of the atmospheric infrared window. Last month shown: October 2010. Last diagram update: 13 February 2011.

• Click here to read about data smoothing.

Scatter plot showing outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) at the top of the atmosphere between 180^oW and 179^oE (0^oE and 359.5^oE) and 20^oN and 20^oS since June 1974, as function of atmospheric CO₂. OLR data from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). CO₂ data measured at the Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii, reported as a dry mole fraction defined as the number of molecules of carbon dioxide divided by the number of molecules of dry air (water vapour removed), multiplied by one million (ppm). The red line represent a two-degree polynomial fit, specified in the lower left corner of the diagram. As the amount of atmospheric CO₂ has been increasing over the entire period (ignoring annual variations), the x-axis can be seen as as rough timeline from 1974 (left) to 2010 (right). The infrared wavelength covered is 10.5-12.5 µm (Gruber and Winston 1978) and covers the main part of the atmospheric infrared window. Last month shown: October 2010. Last diagram update: 13 February 2011.

Diagram showing outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) at the top of the atmosphere between 180^oW and 179^oE (0^oE and 359.5^oE) and 20^oN and 20^oS since December 1978 ( red line; National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the global monthly average lower troposphere temperature (blue line; University of Alabama at Huntsville, USA). The thin lines represent the monthly values, while the thick lines are the simple running 37 month averages, nearly corresponding to running 3 yr averages. The infrared wavelength covered is 10.5-12.5 µm (Gruber and Winston 1978) and covers the main part of the atmospheric infrared window. Last month shown: October 2010 (OLR) and January 2011 (UAH). Last diagram update: 13 February 2011.

• Click here to read about data smoothing.

Outgoing longwave radiation (OLR; red graph) anomaly at the top of the atmosphere above Equator between 160^oE and 160^oW since 1979 according to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Climate Prediction Center (CPC). Base period: 1979-1995. Surface air temperature change (blue graph) between 20^oN and 20^oS since 1979, according to HadCRUT3. The thin lines represent the monthly values, while the thick lines is simple running 37 month averages, nearly corresponding to running 3 yr averages. Within the time period 1996-2009, light blue areas indicate periods of surface cooling, and light red areas indicate surface warming. The entire OLR data series goes back to June 1974, but is here shown from January 1979 to enable easy comparison with the temperature diagrams shown above. The infrared wavelength covered is 10.5-12.5 µm (Gruber and Winston 1978) and covers the main part of the atmospheric infrared window. Last month shown: January 2011 (OLR) and December 2010 (HadCRUT3). Last diagram update: 12 February 2011.

For the equatorial region, the diagram above suggests a certain chain of events, indicating the existence of a mechanism regulating the surface temperature: Periods of surface warming appears initially to be associated with decreasing outgoing longwave radiation (OLR). After some surface warming, OLR then stops decreasing and instead begins to increase, and after a while, surface air temperature then begins to decrease, etc. This chain of events is clearly illustrated by, e.g., the time period around the 1998 El Niño event (diagram above).

Part of the explanation of the above succession of events might be that tropical surface warming leads to enhanced atmospheric convectional transport of heat to high levels of the atmosphere above the Equator, resulting in enhanced longwave radiation at the top of the atmosphere. This, in turn, eventually leads to surface cooling, which results in reduced atmospheric convection, etc. Also the potential connection to variations in tropical sea surface temperatures and the tropical cloud cover is interesting, and should be considered in a more detailed analysis.

Outgoing longwave radiation above the Arctic

Outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) at the top of the atmosphere between 180^oW and 179^oE (0^oE and 359.5^oE) and 70^oN and 90^oN since June 1974 according to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The thin blue line represents the monthly value, while the thick red line is the simple running 37 month average, nearly corresponding to the running 3 yr average. The infrared wavelength covered is 10.5-12.5 µm (Gruber and Winston 1978) and covers the main part of the atmospheric infrared window. Last month shown: October 2010. Last diagram update: 13 February 2011.

• Click here to read about data smoothing.

Scatter plot showing outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) at the top of the atmosphere between 180^oW and 179^oE (0^oE and 359.5^oE) and 70^oN and 90^oN since June 1974, as function of atmospheric CO₂. OLR data from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). CO₂ data measured at the Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii, reported as a dry mole fraction defined as the number of molecules of carbon dioxide divided by the number of molecules of dry air (water vapour removed), multiplied by one million (ppm). The red line represent a two-degree polynomial fit, specified in the lower left corner of the diagram. As the amount of atmospheric CO₂ has been increasing over the entire period (ignoring annual variations), the x-axis can be seen as as rough timeline from 1974 (left) to 2010 (right). The infrared wavelength covered is 10.5-12.5 µm (Gruber and Winston 1978) and covers the main part of the atmospheric infrared window. Last month shown: October 2010. Last diagram update: 13 February 2011.

Diagram showing outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) at the top of the atmosphere between 180^oW and 179^oE (0^oE and 359.5^oE) and 70^oN and 90^oN since December 1978 ( red line; National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the global monthly average lower troposphere temperature (blue line; <A href="http://www.atmos.uah.edu/atmos/" target=_blank>University of Alabama at Huntsville, USA). The thin lines represent the monthly values, while the thick lines are the simple running 37 month averages, nearly corresponding to running 3 yr averages. The infrared wavelength covered is 10.5-12.5 µm (Gruber and Winston 1978) and covers the main part of the atmospheric infrared window. Last month shown: October 2010 (OLR) and January 2011 (UAH). Last diagram update: 13 February 2011.

[Clifford]

Interesting study.

I can't wait to see the AGW spin on this information, as their basic premise is a fixed input and decreasing output.

The values do get tossed around a lot by the ocean currents.

If TSI is about 1361 w/m²

And OLR is 225 to 240 w/m²

Somewhere we are missing a lot of energy.

[skierinvermont]

Both of the posts in this thread simply reveal a failure to understand basic aspects of climate science.

Outgoing LW radiation isn't supposed to correlate with temperatures. Outgoing LW radiation is modeled to stay nearly the same or slightly decrease due to AGW. CO2 decreases outgoing LW radiation, but surface temperature increase increase it. The two effects nearly cancel.

[skierinvermont]

Interesting study.

I can't wait to see the AGW spin on this information, as their basic premise is a fixed input and decreasing output.

The values do get tossed around a lot by the ocean currents.

If TSI is about 1361 w/m²

And OLR is 225 to 240 w/m²

Somewhere we are missing a lot of energy.

TSI is 1361 W/m2 but the amount of energy actually entering the atmosphere is 341W/m2. The 1361W/m2 number is the amount of energy hitting a satellite in space. But because half of the earth faces away from the sun, and because the earth's surface is curved, the amount actually hitting the top of the earth's atmosphere is 341W/m2. The amount leaving earth is measured to be aproximately equal to that and is composed of 239W/m2 of OLR and 101W/m2 of outgoing SW radiation that is reflected by clouds and the surface of the earth. Instead of assuming you had discovered a massive hole in the energy budget that had gone unnoticed by scientists you could have figured this out in about 3 minutes using google.

[Clifford]

Outgoing LW radiation isn't supposed to correlate with temperatures. Outgoing LW radiation is modeled to stay nearly the same or slightly decrease due to AGW. CO2 decreases outgoing LW radiation, but surface temperature increase increase it. The two effects nearly cancel.

Precicesly.

Climate Science and AGW is predicting a decrease in OLW due to CO₂ blocking the outgoing radiation, and trapping the heat.

There is nothing in the AGW theory that predicts that CO₂ would increase OLW.

On the other hand, temperature increases independent of CO₂ would be expected to increase OLW as has been observed.

[BethesdaWX]

Precicesly.

Climate Science and AGW is predicting a decrease in OLW due to CO₂ blocking the outgoing radiation, and trapping the heat.

There is nothing in the AGW theory that predicts that CO₂ would increase OLW.

On the other hand, temperature increases independent of CO₂ would be expected to increase OLW as has been observed.

Exactly.

Overall OLR is expected to decrease somewhat due to AGW, not a Major Change, But there HAS to be increasingly Less Outgoing energy than Incoming Energy for AGW to work...and the more CO2 we pump out, the larger that differential is expected to be. There has always been an imbalance, that is why the temperature is never stable, there was never a "balance", ever, in TOA.

But if temps are warming, and OLR is increasing, than that warming was not primarily CO2 produced.

An increase in OLR that we're seeing really doesn't fit in to the AGW scenario. But there are other potential causes for the differential that leave the AGW theory intact, which should make Andrew Happy.

3 Scenarios I can think of

- Global Cloud Cover Decrease: (My Theory). Yes, Less LLGCC = Less Reflected Visible Light, more gets to the Surface, and is Emitted as ORL. GCC drop on ISCCP correlates to this...but that is not a proven measurement system yet. However, that would also lead to faster surface warming than LT...and that is what we're seeing. Not saying that CO2 isn't a part of the warming, but this is how it'd work with GCC dropping.

-Water Vapor Decrease: If this were happening, it would allow more LW radiation to escape. I'm surprised Andrew hasn't been arguing this, because It'd allow for his beloved mass AGW to take place with WV increasing.

- Negative Feedback Mechanisms thru energy distribution: This is a wild guess, but earth emits all sorts of different wavelengths of OLR, and though we'd see more decrease in the CO2 spectrum, other frequencies of released Heat at Long Wavelengths & Spectrums may increase? I'm not as experienced in this area, so this I don't really think about it in an energy distribution sense,so don't hold me to this.

Regardless, the point is. there is absolutely no evidence of CO2 dampening the overall OLR, as it has been increasing overall since 1980. That would imply that either the Climate System is somehow releasing the Excess energy, or that GCC and/or WV dropping has masked the small effect CO2 would have on OLR. The GCC theory would also, however, imply that the changes seen in GCC are much stronger than the small effect CO2 is having, sinc CO2 is obviously having a small impact here.

So, we'll see how this goes.

Outgoing LW radiation right now is higher than it has been in about 30 years. Compared with CO2, well, that is....interesting to say the least

Thats a Negative Feedback for ya

[skierinvermont]

Precicesly.

Climate Science and AGW is predicting a decrease in OLW due to CO₂ blocking the outgoing radiation, and trapping the heat.

There is nothing in the AGW theory that predicts that CO₂ would increase OLW.

On the other hand, temperature increases independent of CO₂ would be expected to increase OLW as has been observed.

Did you even read what I wrote? AGW is NOT predicted to decrease OLR.

It is predicted to INCREASE OLR via increased surface temperatures, but decrease it via increased greenhouse effect. The two effects nearly cancel and their is little net change in OLR due to AGW.

Other factors would clearly preponderate over the AGW effect on OLR.

I also like how you dodged the correction of your blatant attempt at fudging the numbers on incoming and outgoing radiation.

[BethesdaWX]

Did you even read what I wrote? AGW is NOT predicted to decrease OLR.

It is predicted to INCREASE OLR via increased surface temperatures, but decrease it via increased greenhouse effect. The two effects nearly cancel and their is little net change in OLR due to AGW.

Other factors would clearly preponderate over the AGW effect on OLR.

I also like how you dodged the correction of your blatant attempt at fudging the numbers on incoming and outgoing radiation.

Calm down, its a freakin internet board. Lets be nice to one another like Adults Set an example for the future of science!

By AGW law, OLR decreases slightly as more CO2 is pumped (temps warm to match equilibrium after CO2 increase which evens out the OLR). There is No Mechanism to which OLR will Increase thru AGW...which is what it has been doing. Since more energy is being released, it is due to warming not caused By CO2, there is no other way around it. Increasing OLR isn't part of AGW at all.

In looking at how much OLR has Increased.....thats actually quite alot dude, and it wouldbe a result of warming not caused by CO2.

[skierinvermont]

Calm down, its a freakin internet board. Lets be nice to one another like Adults Set an example for the future of science!

By AGW law, OLR decreases slightly as more CO2 is pumped (temps warm to match equilibrium after CO2 increase which evens out the OLR). There is No Mechanism to which OLR will Increase thru AGW...which is what it has been doing. Since more energy is being released, it is due to warming not caused By CO2, there is no other way around it. Increasing OLR isn't part of AGW at all.

In looking at how much OLR has Increased.....thats actually quite alot dude, and it wouldbe a result of warming not caused by CO2.

Yes this is a good description you have given. OLR would drop slightly and then return to normal at equilibrium. The drop in OLR would only be .5-1W/m2 though (which is equal to the disequilibrium). I was oversimplifying to make things easier.

1. I have serious doubts this OLR data is accurate for long-term trends... see my post in the other thread. I want to see the peer-reviewed studies that are relevant to the creation of this data.

2. Something else could be increasing OLR that is operating simultaneous to AGW. But I think #1 is more likely (the data is not accurate).

I have serious doubts that OLR has increased by nearly 6W/m2 in the last 8 years. Such a massive change in OLR would have huge effects on climate. That big a change is simply not possible (unless they're right about the apocalypse coming today).

[BethesdaWX]

Yes this is a good description you have given. OLR would drop slightly and then return to normal at equilibrium. The drop in OLR would only be .5-1W/m2 though (which is equal to the disequilibrium). I was oversimplifying to make things easier.

1. I have serious doubts this OLR data is accurate for long-term trends... see my post in the other thread. I want to see the peer-reviewed studies that are relevant to the creation of this data.

2. Something else could be increasing OLR that is operating simultaneous to AGW. But I think #1 is more likely (the data is not accurate).

I have serious doubts that OLR has increased by nearly 6W/m2 in the last 8 years. Such a massive change in OLR would have huge effects on climate. That big a change is simply not possible (unless they're right about the apocalypse coming today).

A few things. 2% decrease in LLGCC alone equates to 1.2W/m2 of warming...that is not including gain/loss of MLGCC/ULGCC, which trap OLR, as LLGCC warms the surface So, until 2005, we not only had all ocean drivers warm, and high El Nino Frequency, but we had an increase in visible light from the Sun (SW) by satellite data, (despite the minimum), and a decrease in LLGCC. The Climate system obviously has ways of countering this Natural warming to keep it in check..it has always done so, as a negative feedback. (Just Bear with me for a sec please! )

The increase in (only) visible light from the Sun since 2007 is a biggy here, and is likely an anomaly to the suns long term behavior, but it stands to reason that satellites were able to catch this.

As for the DATA..........................

1) This is "the" data, from NOAA/CPC, and it is updated only once or twice a yr, and its only purpose is Long Term Readings, nothing else. Yes, satellites have Errors, and they are calibrated as best as possible, but this is The Only Measurement we have at this point....is satellite data. The Difference is, we are seeing the effect of CO2 in the CO2 spectrum, but the question regarding AGW is not only feedbacks within the climate system, but looking at all the different OLR frequencies the Earth Emits, and seeing which ones are decreasing, increasing, etc, so we can understand how the planet responds exactly to Increasing CO2, so we can determine how much warming to be expect regarding feedbacks. The Earth Emits all sorts of different wavelengths/frequencies of OLR, so, its not all that easy to pinpoint what wavelength is increasing, decreasing, etc, and how GCC contaminates the TOA & overall OLR readings. But overall, OLR is increasing.

2) It is obvious that LLGCC has decreased significantly and has bottomed out, and that overall GCC is a slow trending phenomenon....we can essentially Prove this by 3 methods, none involving direct measurements of GCC.

- Looking at 10/BE proxy data

- Noting that the surface is warming faster than the LT

- Noting that overall OLR is increasing, which can be directly tied to decreasing LLGCC, as less incoming SW radiation is reflected, it hits the surface, warms the surface faster, and thus the Earth Emits More OLR. This fits perfect into what we've seen thus far.

Its getting to the point now where it is almost accepted fact that GCC has fallen significantly. What we need to do now is figure out just how much it has dropped. If it has been as much as 4% since 1910, that would explain about 90% of the warming from the Oceans, Land, Etc. Also, be aware that the Ozone Layer being weakened allows more UVA/UVB rays into the atmosphere, and that would warm the oceans Significantly, and increase OLR........UVA/UVB rays and that crazy high frequency would warm the Oceans all the way to the bottom.

So, there are things that need to be looked at, including AGW. But there should be more funding here for all types of research.