2016 Global Temperatures

[ORH_wxman]

2 hours ago, BillT said:

my understanding of climate is the "climate" is the average of the weather statistics from the previous 30 years for a given area.....which means the climate is NOT some force, it has NO power, and exerts NO control over any weather event.......as with any statistical average when the numbers being used constantly change then obviously the "average"(climate) also constantly changes.......also i never see a margin of error given when claiming some single temperature as the global temperature, my opinion is we do NOT have the ability to measure the global temperature with the precision being claimed(hundredths of a degree).

 

I agree with this having read so much about how we calculate global temperature. The adjustments to the datasets often exceed the error bars listed in previous versions (I.E., GISS recently added almost a full tenth of a degree to many of their years between 2008 and 2013 after having error bars of half that amount in their previous version)

 

However despite these issues, we can still calculate a global temperature TREND fairly accurately...especially over periods longer than about 30-40 years. So they are not useless even if their precision is frequently overstated. So do not buy into the false narrative that because we cannot calculate the temperature all that precisely, that any trend analysis is not deemed significant. It is. You just have to take some of the near-term wobbles with a grain of salt.

 

 We really only have two independent sources of temperature data...satellite and surface. The different surface temp datasets are actually not independent of eachother despite what I have read in the blogosphere over the years. They all rely on GHCN temperatures which are already adjusted when they apply them to their own dataset. The only surface temp dataset which is truly independent is the BEST dataset...but they do not update regularly. The two independent sources of temperature agree with eachother fairly closely over their overlapping time period. Recently, the surface datasets have diverged (especially GISS), but the divergence isn't really long enough yet to cause too much concern. If the divergence continues for another decade, then some questions would arise more vigorously in the literature.

 

As for the definition of climate...in the context of climate change, climate really refers to a hypothetical "base climate"....where our climate would be without anthropogenic influence. While it is difficult to state exactly what that base climate is at any given moment, the longer term trend in temperature can give us at least some idea as to how we have affected it. In terms of specific weather events, attribution to climate change is quite weak globally on most weather events with the exception of heat waves. There's been some more regional attribution to things like heavy precipitation events...but the fairly short period of increase requires more caution as to the exact magnitude of the attribution.

[BillT]

47 minutes ago, FloridaJohn said:

 

Take a look at the graph posted earlier (also quoted above yours in this post). See that black line down the middle? That is the "average" temperature. See that grey shading around the central black line? That is the margin or error. So now you have seen a margin of error given when claiming some single temperature as the global temperature. The margin of error is quite often given in these data sets, so it is surprising you have never seen it before. I guess now you have, so one less thing to worry about, I suppose!

i did look at the graph and it makes NO mention of any margin of error it does clearly say the line surrounded by grey is the AVERAGE of 3 data sets which indicates the highest and lowest on either side with the average the dark line in the middle....also the graph begins at the end of the little ice age so common sense says after that period warming it to be expected......finally measuring the "anomaly" from an arbitrary 30 year period really tells you nothing about the reality........as to me worrying, i learned long ago to NOT worry about things beyond my control and the weather certainly falls into that category.

[chubbs]

1 hour ago, ORH_wxman said:

 

 We really only have two independent sources of temperature data...satellite and surface.

For the past 100 months GISS and UAH6 are in pretty good agreement. Most of the differences are concentrated in the 2000-08 period.

[FloridaJohn]

2 hours ago, BillT said:

i did look at the graph and it makes NO mention of any margin of error it does clearly say the line surrounded by grey is the AVERAGE of 3 data sets which indicates the highest and lowest on either side with the average the dark line in the middle....also the graph begins at the end of the little ice age so common sense says after that period warming it to be expected......finally measuring the "anomaly" from an arbitrary 30 year period really tells you nothing about the reality........as to me worrying, i learned long ago to NOT worry about things beyond my control and the weather certainly falls into that category.

If you go to the source (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/2016/global-forecast-2017), scroll down to the chart, and you will see the following note:

"The grey line and shading shows the 95% uncertainty range."

It just takes a little effort to fin the answers to your questions  

 

[BillT]

16 minutes ago, FloridaJohn said:

If you go to the source (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/2016/global-forecast-2017), scroll down to the chart, and you will see the following note:

"The grey line and shading shows the 95% uncertainty range."

It just takes a little effort to fin the answers to your questions  

 

Thank you......which means plus or minus 5 and confirms the claims made of hottest years based on hundredths of a degree are OUTSIDE the measuring capability.......

[FloridaJohn]

18 minutes ago, BillT said:

Thank you......which means plus or minus 5 and confirms the claims made of hottest years based on hundredths of a degree are OUTSIDE the measuring capability.......

You're welcome. Please elaborate on how you came to that conclusion. 

[BillT]

5 minutes ago, FloridaJohn said:

You're welcome. Please elaborate on how you came to that conclusion. 

because the claims about this century being the hottest ever are disputed by the raw data from the 1930's and even using the altered data the claims are still based on hottest by mere hundredths of a degree and i state we do NOT have the precision in measurement to arrive at such a precise number....95% confidence does not yield that precision.

[FloridaJohn]

3 minutes ago, BillT said:

because the claims about this century being the hottest ever are disputed by the raw data from the 1930's and even using the altered data the claims are still based on hottest by mere hundredths of a degree and i state we do NOT have the precision in measurement to arrive at such a precise number....95% confidence does not yield that precision.

I'm not seeing that at all. If I take any measurement from the 1930s on that graph, and I use a point at the very top of the grey area (top of the uncertainty range), and then compare it to the latest measurement, but use the bottom of the uncertainty range, 2016 is still warmer than the 1930s. 

[chubbs]

8 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

 

 

Below is the Atmospheric specific humidity at 300 mb, 600 mb and 1000 mb suggesting moistening in the lower levels, slight rise at 600 mb and falling water vapor

at 300 mb. This suggests a negative feedback. 

 

Another dataset that is based on satellite suggests near steady total water vapor for the ICCSP cloud project. This data ends in 2009, but the Earth warmed during this time. 

So this data suggests a neutral feedback. 

 

\

The AIRS data may correlate well in the short term as does the reanalysis data showing a warmer and moister upper troposphere early 2016. 

But the long term data suggest at least a neutral or negative water vapor feedback where it matters, the upper troposphere. This is different than

the short term climatic variations. I didn't even include the Paltdrige et al 2009 study... 

 

The charts on Humlum's site can be misleading. The top chart is from the NCEP re-analysis and is not measurement data. The 2005 paper below showed that the NCEP re-analysis did not match SSMI satellite data and concluded that the data should not be used for climate evaluation.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjF3a-n1YbRAhUr6IMKHXhRCYAQFggcMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpaos.colorado.edu%2F~fasullo%2Fpapers%2FTrenberth2005FasulloSmith%20copy.pdf&usg=AFQjCNFnEwSSXhInpUQd2vs4tX8Y1c4aVA&cad=rja

The second chart you posted is from an early set of satellites which was limited by poor spatial and temporal resolution and by use of land-based radiosonde data for a first-guess field. These satellites also suffered when compared to later SSMI satellites.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0ahUKEwjFs7Do1obRAhVh7IMKHeNnC_QQFgg9MAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjournals.ametsoc.org%2Fdoi%2Fpdf%2F10.1175%2F1520-0442(1994)007%3C0325%3AAOTGIT%3E2.0.CO%3B2&usg=AFQjCNEpUZhWl-VFMm9oz9qF3qSuGx8fKg&cad=rja

[chubbs]

The 2015 AMS climate summary had a couple of charts which show similar trends to the ones I posted above, i.e. increasing column water vapor and constant relative humidity in the upper troposphere.

 

[chubbs]

The hiatus wasn't as strong as previously thought. Global temps in 2016 briefly hit 1.5C over mid-late 1800s.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.2949/full?utm_content=buffer856af&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

[blizzard1024]

On 12/21/2016 at 9:17 PM, chubbs said:

The 2015 AMS climate summary had a couple of charts which show similar trends to the ones I posted above, i.e. increasing column water vapor and constant relative humidity in the upper troposphere.

 

Once again, total precipitable water is not the key to enhancing the greenhouse effect. Its the upper troposphere that matters. The graph above actually shows declining RH in the upper troposphere with time suggesting a neutral to negative feedback from recent warming. If this dataset is accurate, the the total greenhouse effect has changed little since 1979 suggesting that much of the warming since 1979 is natural. 

[Mallow]

On 12/22/2016 at 7:46 PM, blizzard1024 said:

Once again, total precipitable water is not the key to enhancing the greenhouse effect. Its the upper troposphere that matters. The graph above actually shows declining RH in the upper troposphere with time suggesting a neutral to negative feedback from recent warming. If this dataset is accurate, the the total greenhouse effect has changed little since 1979 suggesting that much of the warming since 1979 is natural. 

I don't understand this post.

First and foremost, it is impossible to tell from that relative humidity plot whether or not the total water vapor mixing ratio has increased or decreased in the upper troposphere. A slight decline in relative humidity (it's not clear that there is a long term decline, but we'll go with that narrative for now) could still correspond with increased water vapor if the temperature increase is sufficient.

Furthermore, I don't know that it's as simple as "it's the upper troposphere that matters." It is true that increasing water vapor in environments that have low vapor to begin with may be more efficient (more warming per molecule of vapor), since the atmosphere in those environments acts more like a "window" in certain infrared wavelengths prior to the introduction of the water vapor. But owing to widening of absorption bands, any increase in water vapor anywhere will provide for more IR absorption.

To suggest water vapor provides not only a neutral feedback, but a negative feedback, seems very counterintuitive and unusual to me. As far as I know, there is no research that supports the idea that the water vapor feedback might be negative. Can you provide some examples?

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I don't understand how any of this suggests that the warming since 1979 is natural. None of the data presented directly addresses the causes of the warming since 1979. I don't know what you mean by "the total greenhouse effect has changed little since 1979." I cannot vouch for the accuracy or even relevance of that statement--it's not clear to me that if "the total greenhouse effect" has changed little, that it cannot have been responsible for the warming we've seen. If one considers "the total greenhouse effect" and "climate sensitivity" to be interchangeable, then indeed that's exactly what would be implied--that the increase in CO2 is exactly what's responsible for the warming. In other words, in order to address this statement, it would be necessary to know what exactly is meant by "the total greenhouse effect." I'd also add that, even in a universe where water vapor provides a negative feedback, increased CO2 would still be associated with warming, and it's not immediately obvious that this can't have been responsible for the warming since 1979. Please provide a quantitative analysis to support this claim.

[chubbs]

 

On 12/22/2016 at 10:46 PM, blizzard1024 said:

Once again, total precipitable water is not the key to enhancing the greenhouse effect. Its the upper troposphere that matters. The graph above actually shows declining RH in the upper troposphere with time suggesting a neutral to negative feedback from recent warming. If this dataset is accurate, the the total greenhouse effect has changed little since 1979 suggesting that much of the warming since 1979 is natural. 

Here is a chart from a Dessler 2008 paper showing the change in OLR with a 1K increase in temperature or a 10% change in water vapor as a function of surface temperature and altitude. Increasing water vapor anywhere in the tropospheric column reduces OLR. The highest layers in the troposphere do not have an inordinate impact.  The effect is strongest at 500mb in mid-latitudes, but moisture in lower layers has a big impact on OLR n the tropics. From this chart it is clear that increasing column water vapor on a global basis will probably reduce OLR. This chart supports the previous chart I posted which shows a strong correlation between TPW and OLR measured on different satellites.

[blizzard1024]

Chubbs and Mallow... if the lower and middle troposphere have more greenhouse gases they will radiate more strongly in ALL directions. Chubbs graphs show this well that there is more OLR from the lower and middle troposphere. However, this cools the upper troposphere which then would via lapse rate adjustment be a net cooling. Its the upper troposphere that matters since by increasing greenhouse gases, radiation in all directions warms the entire troposphere and cools the stratosphere.  Warmer temperatures lead to more surface evaporation which is pretty basic. But how the water vapor cycles through the atmosphere and ultimately affects the climate system is not as simple. More low clouds = higher albedo. Higher precipitation efficiency leads to a stronger sink of water vapor in the atmosphere. But  this is not exactly 100% certain, because low precip efficiency could mean longer lived clouds and higher albedo. More convection in the tropics from higher ocean temperatures could lead to stronger drying in the upper troposphere. Plus, the water vapor bands are pretty much saturated in the lower troposphere especially the tropics. Two papers show drying upper troposphere and a constant greenhouse effect are 

M. Miskolczi, "Greenhouse Effect in Semi-Transparent Planetary Atmospheres", Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Journal, Vol. 111, No. 1, January - March 2007.     Attached. 

 

Paltridge, G., Arking, A. and Pook, M. 2009. Trends in middle- and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data. Theoretical and Applied Climatology: 10.1007/s00704-009-0117-x.

 

Appreciate the civil discussion!! happy holidays to both of you..

 

IDOJARAS_vol111_No1_01.pdf

[BillT]

the greenhouse effect is an "insulating" effect, the physics of insulators is they simply SLOW heat movement, they do NOT block or retain any heat, they again only slow the heat's movement away from its source.......physics say no insulator can ever "trap" any heat.......so those claiming co2 is trapping heat in our atmosphere are missing very basic PHYSICS.

[donsutherland1]

1 hour ago, BillT said:

the greenhouse effect is an "insulating" effect, the physics of insulators is they simply SLOW heat movement, they do NOT block or retain any heat, they again only slow the heat's movement away from its source.......physics say no insulator can ever "trap" any heat.......so those claiming co2 is trapping heat in our atmosphere are missing very basic PHYSICS.

The point that is being made is that the rising atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases has led to an energy imbalance (incoming radiation > outgoing radiation). The result is the well-documented observed warming (oceanic heat content and land/ocean temperatures). 

[donsutherland1]

2 hours ago, BillT said:

the greenhouse effect is an "insulating" effect, the physics of insulators is they simply SLOW heat movement, they do NOT block or retain any heat, they again only slow the heat's movement away from its source.......physics say no insulator can ever "trap" any heat.......so those claiming co2 is trapping heat in our atmosphere are missing very basic PHYSICS.

The point that is being made is that the rising atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases has led to an energy imbalance (incoming radiation > outgoing radiation). The result is the well-documented observed warming (oceanic heat content and land/ocean temperatures). 

[BillT]

2 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

The point that is being made is that the rising atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases has led to an energy imbalance (incoming radiation > outgoing radiation). The result is the well-documented observed warming (oceanic heat content and land/ocean temperatures). 

there NEVER has been any "balance" in that exchange(the entire record shows up and down temps in cycles = NEVER "balanced")..........and the physics of thermodynamics are that whenever it gets warmer the heat loss SPEEDS UP, because the greater the difference between a heat source and the cold body the FASTER the heat moves away from its source.

[donsutherland1]

4 minutes ago, BillT said:

there NEVER has been any "balance" in that exchange(the entire record shows up and down temps in cycles = NEVER "balanced")..........and the physics of thermodynamics are that whenever it gets warmer the heat loss SPEEDS UP, because the greater the difference between a heat source and the cold body the FASTER the heat moves away from its source.

There have always been fluctuations. The persistent and significant positive imbalance is noteworthy and is largely the result of the rising atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases. It has persisted despite the deepest and longest solar minimum since at least the early 20th century.

[blizzard1024]

3 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

There have always been fluctuations. The persistent and significant positive imbalance is noteworthy and is largely the result of the rising atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases. It has persisted despite the deepest and longest solar minimum since at least the early 20th century.

If you look at the Trenberth / NASA radiation balance diagram, you can see that the net greenhouse effect is about 324 W/m2. An imbalance of around 2.5-3 W/m2 from additional GHGs is less than 1% which based on the other aspects of radiation balance, I don't see how this can be labeled as a significant positive imbalance. Its 1%. The other factors, including albedo, convection, latent heat release etc vary too. 

[Mallow]

8 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

Chubbs and Mallow... if the lower and middle troposphere have more greenhouse gases they will radiate more strongly in ALL directions. Chubbs graphs show this well that there is more OLR from the lower and middle troposphere. However, this cools the upper troposphere which then would via lapse rate adjustment be a net cooling. Its the upper troposphere that matters since by increasing greenhouse gases, radiation in all directions warms the entire troposphere and cools the stratosphere.  Warmer temperatures lead to more surface evaporation which is pretty basic. But how the water vapor cycles through the atmosphere and ultimately affects the climate system is not as simple. More low clouds = higher albedo. Higher precipitation efficiency leads to a stronger sink of water vapor in the atmosphere. But  this is not exactly 100% certain, because low precip efficiency could mean longer lived clouds and higher albedo. More convection in the tropics from higher ocean temperatures could lead to stronger drying in the upper troposphere. Plus, the water vapor bands are pretty much saturated in the lower troposphere especially the tropics. Two papers show drying upper troposphere and a constant greenhouse effect are 

M. Miskolczi, "Greenhouse Effect in Semi-Transparent Planetary Atmospheres", Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Journal, Vol. 111, No. 1, January - March 2007.     Attached. 

 

Paltridge, G., Arking, A. and Pook, M. 2009. Trends in middle- and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data. Theoretical and Applied Climatology: 10.1007/s00704-009-0117-x.

 

Appreciate the civil discussion!! happy holidays to both of you..

 

IDOJARAS_vol111_No1_01.pdf

Again, there are several points in this post I don't follow, and several points in my previous response that I do not believe were addressed.

I don't follow how enhanced IR radiation from the lower and middle troposphere would force a cooling in the upper troposphere. And I also don't follow why this would imply a net cooling of the troposphere as a whole, especially since most of the mass is found in the lower and middle troposphere. I don't understand how lapse rate adjustment would imply anything but warming in this scenario.

I agree that the cloud/precipitation feedbacks are very uncertain. However, those are considered separately from the water vapor feedback, which is always considered a positive feedback as far as I've seen. And I don't understand how, physically, that would not be the case.

Finally, I think it's very important that you define what exactly you mean by a "constant greenhouse effect," because I can't address those statements otherwise. In my mind, that implies a constant climate sensitivity, which would mean that increasing the concentration of a greenhouse gas (as has been measured with CO2) would indeed lead to warming. So to me, a "constant greenhouse effect" implies continued warming with the continued increase in CO2.

[Msalgado]

13 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

Chubbs and Mallow... if the lower and middle troposphere have more greenhouse gases they will radiate more strongly in ALL directions. Chubbs graphs show this well that there is more OLR from the lower and middle troposphere. However, this cools the upper troposphere which then would via lapse rate adjustment be a net cooling. Its the upper troposphere that matters since by increasing greenhouse gases, radiation in all directions warms the entire troposphere and cools the stratosphere.  Warmer temperatures lead to more surface evaporation which is pretty basic. But how the water vapor cycles through the atmosphere and ultimately affects the climate system is not as simple. More low clouds = higher albedo. Higher precipitation efficiency leads to a stronger sink of water vapor in the atmosphere. But  this is not exactly 100% certain, because low precip efficiency could mean longer lived clouds and higher albedo. More convection in the tropics from higher ocean temperatures could lead to stronger drying in the upper troposphere. Plus, the water vapor bands are pretty much saturated in the lower troposphere especially the tropics. Two papers show drying upper troposphere and a constant greenhouse effect are 

M. Miskolczi, "Greenhouse Effect in Semi-Transparent Planetary Atmospheres", Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Journal, Vol. 111, No. 1, January - March 2007.     Attached. 

 

Paltridge, G., Arking, A. and Pook, M. 2009. Trends in middle- and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data. Theoretical and Applied Climatology: 10.1007/s00704-009-0117-x.

 

Appreciate the civil discussion!! happy holidays to both of you..

 

IDOJARAS_vol111_No1_01.pdf

Wait, how does the lower and middle troposphere radiating in all directions lead to the upper levels cooling more?  Radiation that moves in the downward direction must still eventually move outward at which point it will warm the upper troposphere through the same warming mechanisms that heat the lower levels.  Heating occurs in the upper levels because there is an increase in the amount of upward radiation which in turns means the upper levels are going to absorb IR than they did previously.  This is the whole basis of the GHE so I'm not sure why you expect cooling.  The amount of radiation that leaves the system will always be the same as what comes in.  The difference is that percentage leaving the earth is lower due to increased GHG concentrations so temperature must rise so that the amount of outgoing radiation is increased.  

I'd lilke an explanation of the thermodynaimcs that would lead to upper tropopsheric cooling that you're claiming.

[donsutherland1]

6 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

If you look at the Trenberth / NASA radiation balance diagram, you can see that the net greenhouse effect is about 324 W/m2. An imbalance of around 2.5-3 W/m2 from additional GHGs is less than 1% which based on the other aspects of radiation balance, I don't see how this can be labeled as a significant positive imbalance. Its 1%. The other factors, including albedo, convection, latent heat release etc vary too. 

By significant, I mean sufficient to make a marginal contribution that has been driving the long-term observed warming. I should have been clearer what I was describing. 

[chubbs]

On 12/24/2016 at 8:57 AM, blizzard1024 said:

Chubbs and Mallow... if the lower and middle troposphere have more greenhouse gases they will radiate more strongly in ALL directions. Chubbs graphs show this well that there is more OLR from the lower and middle troposphere. However, this cools the upper troposphere which then would via lapse rate adjustment be a net cooling. Its the upper troposphere that matters since by increasing greenhouse gases, radiation in all directions warms the entire troposphere and cools the stratosphere.  Warmer temperatures lead to more surface evaporation which is pretty basic. But how the water vapor cycles through the atmosphere and ultimately affects the climate system is not as simple. More low clouds = higher albedo. Higher precipitation efficiency leads to a stronger sink of water vapor in the atmosphere. But  this is not exactly 100% certain, because low precip efficiency could mean longer lived clouds and higher albedo. More convection in the tropics from higher ocean temperatures could lead to stronger drying in the upper troposphere. Plus, the water vapor bands are pretty much saturated in the lower troposphere especially the tropics. Two papers show drying upper troposphere and a constant greenhouse effect are 

M. Miskolczi, "Greenhouse Effect in Semi-Transparent Planetary Atmospheres", Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Journal, Vol. 111, No. 1, January - March 2007.     Attached. 

 

Paltridge, G., Arking, A. and Pook, M. 2009. Trends in middle- and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data. Theoretical and Applied Climatology: 10.1007/s00704-009-0117-x.

 

Appreciate the civil discussion!! happy holidays to both of you..

 

IDOJARAS_vol111_No1_01.pdf

The chart I posted upthread showed outgoing radiation to SPACE and the numbers were negative. Moisture increasing anywhere in the troposphere decreased radiation losses to space. The chart below shows troposphere temperature trends from Sherwood 2015. Temperature is increasing throughout the troposphere. In the troposphere temperature increases with height indicating that heat is flowing upward mainly through mixing but with a radiation component as well. So adding more moisture to lower layers in the troposphere increases temperature in the lower layers which tends to increase temperature throughout the troposphere through mixing and radiation. Again NCEP moisture data has problems, the better quality data from satellites indicates moistening throughout the troposphere.

[blizzard1024]

On 12/24/2016 at 10:36 PM, Msalgado said:

Wait, how does the lower and middle troposphere radiating in all directions lead to the upper levels cooling more?  Radiation that moves in the downward direction must still eventually move outward at which point it will warm the upper troposphere through the same warming mechanisms that heat the lower levels.  Heating occurs in the upper levels because there is an increase in the amount of upward radiation which in turns means the upper levels are going to absorb IR than they did previously.  This is the whole basis of the GHE so I'm not sure why you expect cooling.  The amount of radiation that leaves the system will always be the same as what comes in.  The difference is that percentage leaving the earth is lower due to increased GHG concentrations so temperature must rise so that the amount of outgoing radiation is increased.  

I'd lilke an explanation of the thermodynaimcs that would lead to upper tropopsheric cooling that you're claiming.

This is very basic radiative transfer. So here we go. On a clear night, the strongest IR radiation occurs from the ground. So it cools the most just above the ground. That is why we measure temperatures at 2 meters and not on the ground. Above clouds, there is net cooling above the cloud from radiation. There is more of a radiative substance for lack of a better word above a cloud than clear sky. The ground versus the air just above the ground is a stronger radiator because there is more of a radiative "substance" so the air just above the ground cools the most. So if you increase water vapor in the lower and mid troposphere and also increase clouds you have stronger IR radiation leaving the Earth ABOVE these layers which cools the upper levels. The upper troposphere is where it matters the most because water vapor radiates in all directions and in the upper troposphere it downwells IR for the whole troposphere BUT it leads to cooling in the stratosphere!! That is why the troposphere warms with increased GHGs and the stratosphere cools because CO2 doesn't get into the stratosphere nearly as much . Energy is conserved.   One more point, the main absorption band for CO2 is around 15 microns which by Wiens Displacement law means its maximum emission occurs at roughly -50C which is in the upper troposphere. So increased CO2 at low-levels has little to no cooling affect on the mid to upper troposphere, its the upper levels of the troposphere that matters. Since H20 bands are more extensive H20 affects much of the troposphere with CO2 mainly affecting the upper troposphere. This stuff is pretty complex so if anyone has anything to add please do so. 

[blizzard1024]

5 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

This is very basic radiative transfer. So here we go. On a clear night, the strongest IR radiation occurs from the ground. So it cools the most just above the ground. That is why we measure temperatures at 2 meters and not on the ground. Above clouds, there is net cooling above the cloud from radiation. There is more of a radiative substance for lack of a better word above a cloud than clear sky. The ground versus the air just above the ground is a stronger radiator because there is more of a radiative "substance" so the air just above the ground cools the most. So if you increase water vapor in the lower and mid troposphere and also increase clouds you have stronger IR radiation leaving the Earth ABOVE these layers which cools the upper levels. The upper troposphere is where it matters the most because water vapor radiates in all directions and in the upper troposphere it downwells IR for the whole troposphere BUT it leads to cooling in the stratosphere!! That is why the troposphere warms with increased GHGs and the stratosphere cools because CO2 doesn't get into the stratosphere nearly as much . Energy is conserved.   One more point, the main absorption band for CO2 is around 15 microns which by Wiens Displacement law means its maximum emission occurs at roughly -50C which is in the upper troposphere. So increased CO2 at low-levels has little to no cooling affect on the mid to upper troposphere, its the upper levels of the troposphere that matters. Since H20 bands are more extensive H20 affects much of the troposphere with CO2 mainly affecting the upper troposphere. This stuff is pretty complex so if anyone has anything to add please do so. 

An even easier way to understand why changes in the lower and middle tropospheric water vapor are not important is  related to the fact that water vapor is abundant in the lower and middle troposphere.  The water vapor bands are pretty much close to saturation down low. Its the very dry upper troposphere where any added water vapor makes a difference. 

[Msalgado]

Ok, first, clouds and water vapor are not synonymous.  Both have extremely different radiative properties so when you say that water vapor will have an effect, you can't simply change gears to include clouds as you just did.  When discussing the effect of increasing water vapor in the atmosphere, you can't just lump the effects of clouds in because they are not the same.  Increasing water vapor concentrations due to increasing temperature do not mean  you are increasing the amount of cloud cover.  You're mixing the two which is a big mistake.

 

The reason the ground radiates more than the air above it is because its temperature is higher.  The amount of radiation coming from an object is tied to its temperature.  The temperature of the atmosphere drops faster because it has lower mass than the solid ground so its temperature drops faster.  But as it absorbs the IR the ground emits, it will not cool.  Of course, there are other actions at work such as convection, but the amount a layer will heat or cool is inherently tied to how much radiation it receives and how much of that radiation it absorbs.  So when you add water vapor in those lower layers, they will absorb more radiation, but their temperature will rise in order to facilitate the release the increase which in turn passes on more radiation to the upper layers.  You're welcome to do the calculations of a multilayer model, change the emissivity of the lowest layer to a higher value, and see that this in turn will raise the temperature in the layers above it.

I'm not going to repeat the math here, but you can see the model set up at many places in the internet including the link below.  This is literally the the first part of a basic atmospheric thermodynamics course.  It proves that if you increase the IR absorption of a layer and increase its temperature, it s going to warm the layer above it.  Of course in our atmosphere, a lot of this heat is also transferred through convection.

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming/multilayermodel.html

So then why does the stratosphere cool?  Because the thermodynamics of the stratosphere involve a large source of heat from the Champan cycle.  The stratosphere warms due to heat produced through the absorption of energy from UV radiation and subsequent chemical reactions.  However, increasing the CO2 in this layer makes it a more efficient radiator of this heat to space, and thus allows it to cool.  Also, tropospheric mixing obviously does not make it into the stratosphere.  This does NOT apply to the troposphere.  Real world observations bear this out as we see a warming of the troposphere at all levels.  

Clouds at lower levels vs Clouds at upper levels do cause cooling.  But this is not simply because of how they radiate but instead how they react with incoming SW.  High clouds have very lilmited effects on incoming SW but do absorb and reradiate IR doward.  Hence, they are a net warmer.  Low clouds re radiate IR down, but they also block SW out.  Water vapor does not behave this way as it has virtually no interaction with SW.

 

 

[Msalgado]

The idea that the effect of water vapor in the low levels is saturated is easily proven wrong.  Look at the data earlier in this thread that shows its decreasing outgoing IR.  Not sure what else needs to be shown.

[blizzard1024]

1 hour ago, Msalgado said:

Ok, first, clouds and water vapor are not synonymous.  Both have extremely different radiative properties so when you say that water vapor will have an effect, you can't simply change gears to include clouds as you just did.  When discussing the effect of increasing water vapor in the atmosphere, you can't just lump the effects of clouds in because they are not the same.  Increasing water vapor concentrations due to increasing temperature do not mean  you are increasing the amount of cloud cover.  You're mixing the two which is a big mistake.

 

The reason the ground radiates more than the air above it is because its temperature is higher.  The amount of radiation coming from an object is tied to its temperature.  The temperature of the atmosphere drops faster because it has lower mass than the solid ground so its temperature drops faster.  But as it absorbs the IR the ground emits, it will not cool.  Of course, there are other actions at work such as convection, but the amount a layer will heat or cool is inherently tied to how much radiation it receives and how much of that radiation it absorbs.  So when you add water vapor in those lower layers, they will absorb more radiation, but their temperature will rise in order to facilitate the release the increase which in turn passes on more radiation to the upper layers.  You're welcome to do the calculations of a multilayer model, change the emissivity of the lowest layer to a higher value, and see that this in turn will raise the temperature in the layers above it.

I'm not going to repeat the math here, but you can see the model set up at many places in the internet including the link below.  This is literally the the first part of a basic atmospheric thermodynamics course.  It proves that if you increase the IR absorption of a layer and increase its temperature, it s going to warm the layer above it.  Of course in our atmosphere, a lot of this heat is also transferred through convection.

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming/multilayermodel.html

So then why does the stratosphere cool?  Because the thermodynamics of the stratosphere involve a large source of heat from the Champan cycle.  The stratosphere warms due to heat produced through the absorption of energy from UV radiation and subsequent chemical reactions.  However, increasing the CO2 in this layer makes it a more efficient radiator of this heat to space, and thus allows it to cool.  Also, tropospheric mixing obviously does not make it into the stratosphere.  This does NOT apply to the troposphere.  Real world observations bear this out as we see a warming of the troposphere at all levels.  

Clouds at lower levels vs Clouds at upper levels do cause cooling.  But this is not simply because of how they radiate but instead how they react with incoming SW.  High clouds have very lilmited effects on incoming SW but do absorb and reradiate IR doward.  Hence, they are a net warmer.  Low clouds re radiate IR down, but they also block SW out.  Water vapor does not behave this way as it has virtually no interaction with SW.

 

 

Thanks for the reference. So basically, if water vapor increases in the lower levels and decreases or even stays neutral in the upper levels, the net effect would still be cooling at the upper levels. If you have stronger emission from below which would be indeed be warmer and less absorption at the highest levels(assuming a drying upper troposphere), the emission will exceed the absorption and it will cool up there. Since CO2 is fairly well mixed this isn't as much of an issue. However the effect of CO2 is strongest in the upper troposphere due to its 15 micron band which affects temperatures strongly in the -50C to -60C range way up in the upper troposphere(Wien's Law). The lower level water vapor bands dominate and they are pretty close to saturation or have a logarithmic effect leading to little added warming with more water vapor. The upper troposphere is the key and if eventually we can get confirmation that is conclusive that water vapor is increasing up there, then the higher climate sensitivities will be realized.  Thanks for your polite response.