2016 Global Temperatures

[Msalgado]

You do not see cooling because the lowered emissions upward are temporary.  All the radiation that comes in MUST leave the system.  If you have a system that is imbalanced, warming will result, which then means more IR being sent upward.  You keep missing this and I don't know how else to explain it.  The end result is warming.  As I said, run the math and check it for yourself.

When the emissivity of a layer changes, it results in a temperature increase which then results in a temperature increase for the layer above due to increased emissions and subsequent increased absorption in the upper layer - even if there is no change in the emissivity of the upper layer. 

[blizzard1024]

But you have less air above, so if you don't have increased water vapor up at the tropopause, the emissions from below exceed the absorption of this layer...and you get cooling. This is pretty basic rad tran. But if you are correct, energy would not be conserved, it would increase in the entire Earth system which is impossible because energy is conserved. It has to cool above an area of enhanced greenhouse gases. Increased greenhouse gases do not create energy, they redistribute it, directing more to the ground which leads to warming. But the net effect is cooling above the layer of highest greenhouse gases. So the sum is zero change in the temperature in the column. Extra CO2, H20 and CH4 do not create their own energy. Since the bulk of the enhanced greenhouse effect occurs in the upper troposphere it cools in the stratosphere which leads to a net imbalance of zero for the entire atmosphere (assuming the sun's energy is constant and there is no albedo changes etc). The imbalance you are talking about is in the troposphere.  So its the increased water vapor/CO2 at high levels that causes the bulk of the warming. If these constituents increase only at low-levels it will cool above this layer and warm below otherwise you violate the conservation of energy. Also, why do you think there is so much effort to see if water vapor is increasing in the upper troposphere by climate scientists?  We know total precipitable water has increased mainly from more evaporation in the low-levels.  But what happens up high is the key. 

[Chinook]

2016 Global temperatures were about + 0.5829 C according to Karsten Haustein CFSR-based calculations.

http://www.karstenhaustein.com/climate.php

Weatherbell web site says +0.461C based on CFSR

http://models.weatherbell.com/temperature.php

The NOAA web site says this, including only January-November numbers: "The year-to-date globally averaged land surface temperature was 2.57°F above the 20th century average. This was the highest for January–November in the 1880–2016 record, exceeding the previous record of 2015 by 0.28°F. "

That +2.57F is equal to + 1.428C

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/

[BillT]

so now the precision of these measurements and calculations are precise to within ten thousandths of a degree?

these claims simply are NOT possible to "MEASURE" with the precision claimed.

 

[donsutherland1]

1 hour ago, BillT said:

so now the precision of these measurements and calculations are precise to within ten thousandths of a degree?

these claims simply are NOT possible to "MEASURE" with the precision claimed.

 

Those thousandths of degrees are averages. They do not necessarily mean that thermometers are measuring temperatures within a thousandth of a degree. For example, consider a 3-month period. The monthly anomalies were +1°F, +1°F, and +2°F. The average anomaly for the 3-month period was +1.3333°F. That is an average, even as the monthly anomalies were measured in whole degrees.

[Snow_Miser]

WeatherBell CFSv2 finished with an anomaly of +0.38 for December. That equates to an anomaly of +0.88 to +0.98 on GISS, which would translate to the second warmest December on record, only shy of 2015's record. Assuming a median anomaly of +0.93 for December, that would imply a global temperature anomaly for 2016 on GISS to be +1.00, the warmest year for the GISS record. 

[chubbs]

As scientists get better estimates of CO2 concentrations in the past, the key role of CO2 in past climate change becomes more clear. Here is a recent paper on the Eocene thermal maximum 52  million years ago. CO2 is now thought to be around 1400 ppm with global temperatures roughly 10C warmer than pre-industrial, that puts climate sensitivity in the 2.1 to 4.6C range per CO2 doubling.

http://escholarship.org/uc/item/85c019pr

[Msalgado]

On 1/1/2017 at 3:42 AM, blizzard1024 said:

But you have less air above, so if you don't have increased water vapor up at the tropopause, the emissions from below exceed the absorption of this layer...and you get cooling. This is pretty basic rad tran. But if you are correct, energy would not be conserved, it would increase in the entire Earth system which is impossible because energy is conserved. It has to cool above an area of enhanced greenhouse gases. Increased greenhouse gases do not create energy, they redistribute it, directing more to the ground which leads to warming. But the net effect is cooling above the layer of highest greenhouse gases. So the sum is zero change in the temperature in the column. Extra CO2, H20 and CH4 do not create their own energy. Since the bulk of the enhanced greenhouse effect occurs in the upper troposphere it cools in the stratosphere which leads to a net imbalance of zero for the entire atmosphere (assuming the sun's energy is constant and there is no albedo changes etc). The imbalance you are talking about is in the troposphere.  So its the increased water vapor/CO2 at high levels that causes the bulk of the warming. If these constituents increase only at low-levels it will cool above this layer and warm below otherwise you violate the conservation of energy. Also, why do you think there is so much effort to see if water vapor is increasing in the upper troposphere by climate scientists?  We know total precipitable water has increased mainly from more evaporation in the low-levels.  But what happens up high is the key. 

You're right.  It IS basic radiative transfer, and you can't seem to get it right.  If you'd work out the math youd see.

The layer above has the same emissivity as it had before.  The layer below is now warmer, and is emiting MORE energy than prior to the temperature increase.  Therefore, the layer above WILL WARM.  Why?  Because it is absorbing the same amount of energy as it did previously and the additional radiation due to the warming.  Its that simple.  As stated before, this changes in the stratosphere due to other heat sources but not in the troposphere.

 

Do.  The.  Math.

[blizzard1024]

8 hours ago, Msalgado said:

You're right.  It IS basic radiative transfer, and you can't seem to get it right.  If you'd work out the math youd see.

The layer above has the same emissivity as it had before.  The layer below is now warmer, and is emiting MORE energy than prior to the temperature increase.  Therefore, the layer above WILL WARM.  Why?  Because it is absorbing the same amount of energy as it did previously and the additional radiation due to the warming.  Its that simple.  As stated before, this changes in the stratosphere due to other heat sources but not in the troposphere.

 

Do.  The.  Math.

You arguments violate the conservation of energy. adding greenhouse gases to a planet does not increase the energy of the whole atmosphere, just the lower part. your just wrong my friend. have. a . nice . day. 

[BillT]

2 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

You arguments violate the conservation of energy. adding greenhouse gases to a planet does not increase the energy of the whole atmosphere, just the lower part. your just wrong my friend. have. a . nice . day. 

adding more insulation(ghg) to any system adds ZERO energy into the system........insulation slows the movement of the heat energy but doesnt increase the amount in the system....very simple concepts strange so few grasp them.

[chubbs]

2 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

You arguments violate the conservation of energy. adding greenhouse gases to a planet does not increase the energy of the whole atmosphere, just the lower part. your just wrong my friend. have. a . nice . day. 

That doesn't sound right.  When you add ghg the atmosphere and the ocean absorb more energy from the sun than is lost by radiation to space until the atmosphere warms enough to restore a balance.   Currently the earth is absorbing roughly 0.8 W/m2 more than is radiated, most of that is going into the ocean but the atmosphere is warming as well. That is equivalent to 4 Hiroshima bombs per second. Consider the earth with no GHG - surface temperature -18C, so there has been considerable warming of the atmosphere due to ghg.

[Mallow]

7 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

You arguments violate the conservation of energy. adding greenhouse gases to a planet does not increase the energy of the whole atmosphere, just the lower part. your just wrong my friend. have. a . nice . day. 

As with prior statements, I don't follow this one. How does ghg warming violate conservation of energy? Conservation of energy is a statement about the creation or destruction of energy in a closed system, but the Earth is not a closed system, nor does it remotely approximate one. Solar radiation is an integral input to the energy balance of Earth. GHG forcing simply works to slow the rate at which the Earth loses energy, while it still retains the same rate of incoming solar radiative energy. Hence the energy imbalance so often referred to, which warms the Earth's average tropospheric temperature (and therefore, the average atmospheric temperature, since 90% of the mass of the atmosphere is located in the troposphere). Over time, the increased temperature will increase the radiative energy loss to balance out the decrease caused by GHGs, so that a new equilibrium temperature will be reached. No energy in the sun-Earth system is created or destroyed during this process (the "extra" energy is the same energy that's always been coming from the sun, it's just staying on Earth longer), so conservation of energy is not violated.

[Chinook]

On 1/1/2017 at 3:54 PM, BillT said:

so now the precision of these measurements and calculations are precise to within ten thousandths of a degree?

these claims simply are NOT possible to "MEASURE" with the precision claimed.

 

You are right, we can't know the temperature of the whole planet to the thousandths of a degree accuracy. I am just presenting what's been calculated based off some systems. You can check for yourself web pages showing the CFSR analysis minus CFSR climatology (Karsten Haustein and Weatherbell.com). The truth is, there is always going to be some uncertainty in the global temperature, with uncertainty being several hundredths of a degree. (please correct me if I am wrong.)

[Msalgado]

Nevermind that mixing in the troposphere makes cooling of the upper levels unstable as well.  Its just a bizarre argument from someone that has a degree in meteorology and one that there is certainly no evidence for and there is plenty of evidence for the contrary.

At every level of the atmosphere, you will see the same amount of radiation leave as you see come in once equilibrium is reached.  GHG basically just increase the amount of time the energy spends in the system, an increase in reservoir size if you will, but they do not lower the amount of radiation that travels through a layer and thus don't lead to cooling.  To do so, would indeed be a violation of conservation of energy.

[Msalgado]

I'm not too sure that the mean of a large data set can't be known to a precision higher than the incoming measurements if there is no inherent bias in those measurements.  In fact, I feel its more likely that it can be known to a higher precision as all you're doing is finding the center of the distribution.  

[blizzard1024]

8 hours ago, Mallow said:

As with prior statements, I don't follow this one. How does ghg warming violate conservation of energy? Conservation of energy is a statement about the creation or destruction of energy in a closed system, but the Earth is not a closed system, nor does it remotely approximate one. Solar radiation is an integral input to the energy balance of Earth. GHG forcing simply works to slow the rate at which the Earth loses energy, while it still retains the same rate of incoming solar radiative energy. Hence the energy imbalance so often referred to, which warms the Earth's average tropospheric temperature (and therefore, the average atmospheric temperature, since 90% of the mass of the atmosphere is located in the troposphere). Over time, the increased temperature will increase the radiative energy loss to balance out the decrease caused by GHGs, so that a new equilibrium temperature will be reached. No energy in the sun-Earth system is created or destroyed during this process (the "extra" energy is the same energy that's always been coming from the sun, it's just staying on Earth longer), so conservation of energy is not violated.

You are correct. The Earth is not a closed system it relies on the Sun for its energy. As long as the sun provides a constant amount of energy(which we know isn't 100% true) and the albedo remains the same(which we know isn't 100% true), adding greenhouse gases can't warm the entire atmosphere. By saying this, you are stating that the atmosphere creates additional energy from greenhouse gases.  When you reach a warmer equilibrium temperature in the troposphere there is stronger emission above which cools the stratosphere. Hence there is no net energy gain. Just a reduction in the flow of heat energy which leads to a warmer troposphere and a cooler stratropshere.... 

[blizzard1024]

Check this article out...

https://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/strato_cooling.asp

This is a good  healthy discussion and one in which we can all learn. Thanks. 

[blizzard1024]

Here's another....from realclimate. This is confusing stuff, they even had to correct themselves!!!

see http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=58

 

[Mallow]

2 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

You are correct. The Earth is not a closed system it relies on the Sun for its energy. As long as the sun provides a constant amount of energy(which we know isn't 100% true) and the albedo remains the same(which we know isn't 100% true), adding greenhouse gases can't warm the entire atmosphere. By saying this, you are stating that the atmosphere creates additional energy from greenhouse gases.  When you reach a warmer equilibrium temperature in the troposphere there is stronger emission above which cools the stratosphere. Hence there is no net energy gain. Just a reduction in the flow of heat energy which leads to a warmer troposphere and a cooler stratropshere.... 

As I see it, there are two problems with this statement, and I noted both of them in my previous response.

First and foremost, I still do not understand your assertion that the atmosphere must create "additional energy from greenhouse gases." That is not a necessary condition. A simple way to think about this is that the Earth's emissivity (absorptivity) remains the same for shortwave radiation, but decreases (increases) for longwave radiation. Again, this means that the incoming solar radiative energy flux is unchanged, while the outgoing radiative energy flux is decreased. This leads to the imbalance that was discussed in my previous response. All the energy is still coming from the sun, the difference is that it has a higher residency time in the Earth's atmosphere.

(EDIT: I need to think about the above more carefully. This is a topic that, on it's surface, seems relatively straightforward... but I think it's more complicated than I'm making it out to be.)

Secondly, I have not addressed the cooling of the stratosphere because I do not disagree that it can occur in a warming world. However, I will again point out that the troposphere contains the large majority of the Earth's mass, so, barring a temperature drop above the troposphere an order of magnitude higher than the temperature rise in the troposphere (I do not believe there is evidence that this has occurred or will occur, please correct me if I'm mistaken!), the average temperature of the entire atmosphere should follow that of the troposphere.

[blizzard1024]

2 hours ago, Mallow said:

the average temperature of the entire atmosphere should follow that of the troposphere.

If this is true, then based on the Stefan-Boltzmann law you would be increasing the energy outgoing from the entire atmosphere. This just can't be. It means greenhouse gases are adding energy which we know they don't. According to Dr Jeff Master's article there has been significant cooling above the stratosphere.  In the article I linked above he states 

"Greenhouse gases cause cooling higher up, too

Greenhouse gases have also led to the cooling of the atmosphere at levels higher than the stratosphere. Over the past 30 years, the Earth's surface temperature has increased 0.2-0.4 °C, while the temperature in the mesosphere, about 50-80 km above ground, has cooled 5-10 °C (Beig et al., 2006). There is no appreciable cooling due to ozone destruction at these altitudes, so nearly all of this dramatic cooling is due to the addition of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Even greater cooling of 17 °C per decade has been observed high in the ionosphere, at 350 km altitude."

 

He apparently quotes a paper  Beig et al., 2006 but which is indeed orders of magnitude larger cooling than the tropospheric warming as you surmised. 

[Msalgado]

Ok, first you conflate water vapor and clouds, and now you're doing it to the upper troposphere and stratosphere.  Yes, there is cooling in the stratosphere but this cooling has to do with reasons on why the stratosphere actually exists and cannot be used to draw conclusions on the upper troposphere.  Where it not for the ozone present in the stratosphere and the thermodynamcis of its UV absorption/destruction/formation cycle (the Chapman mechanism I spoke of earlier) we woudln't even have a stratosphere.  It doesn't derive its temperature only from IR because ozone's interactions with UV lead to more heat released in this layer and hence its stability and existence.  It does not react in the same way as the upper troposphere.

Drawing bad thermodyanmic conclusions from the radiative properties of the troposphere cannot be explained by how the stratosphere behaves.  Stop conflating the two layers.

[blizzard1024]

2 hours ago, Msalgado said:

Ok, first you conflate water vapor and clouds, and now you're doing it to the upper troposphere and stratosphere.  Yes, there is cooling in the stratosphere but this cooling has to do with reasons on why the stratosphere actually exists and cannot be used to draw conclusions on the upper troposphere.  Where it not for the ozone present in the stratosphere and the thermodynamcis of its UV absorption/destruction/formation cycle (the Chapman mechanism I spoke of earlier) we woudln't even have a stratosphere.  It doesn't derive its temperature only from IR because ozone's interactions with UV lead to more heat released in this layer and hence its stability and existence.  It does not react in the same way as the upper troposphere.

Drawing bad thermodyanmic conclusions from the radiative properties of the troposphere cannot be explained by how the stratosphere behaves.  Stop conflating the two layers.

The two layers are intimately linked. Ozone absorbs UV radiation which makes it have more energy than the upper troposphere which puts a lid on the troposphere and keep most of our clouds, water vapor etc in the troposphere (aside from overshooting thunderstorm tops). Warming (cooling) of the stratosphere locally that leads to upper lave troughes (ridges) in the troposphere. Bad thermodynamics conclusions??  So you are saying greenhouse gases create energy and warm the whole atmosphere??  Dude, you really need to go back to basic science here. Energy is conserved and greenhouse gases don't create energy. Explain how a CO2 or H2O molecule absorbs outgoing long wave radiation and adds energy to the entire atmosphere? It can't. Emissions are stronger about the "effective" greenhouse radiating layer and hence it cools above and warms below. This is pretty well known. The fact that you question conservation of energy shows you are out of your league on this forum. You need to go back and read basic thermo. Start with the 1st law of thermodynamics.... 

[Msalgado]

It doesn't have more energy than the upper troposphere.  Energy is linked to mass, however temperature is not.  It is the potential temperature of the stratosphere that "puts a lid" on the troposphere, not the energy.

When you can understand that the emissions of a layer is linked to its temperature, that a layer emits all the energy it absorbs, and that a radiation delta of zero leads to no cooling, then perhaps you can tell me I am out of my depth or suggest that I review the basics.  

[chubbs]

52 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

The two layers are intimately linked. Ozone absorbs UV radiation which makes it have more energy than the upper troposphere which puts a lid on the troposphere and keep most of our clouds, water vapor etc in the troposphere (aside from overshooting thunderstorm tops). Warming (cooling) of the stratosphere locally that leads to upper lave troughes (ridges) in the troposphere. Bad thermodynamics conclusions??  So you are saying greenhouse gases create energy and warm the whole atmosphere??  Dude, you really need to go back to basic science here. Energy is conserved and greenhouse gases don't create energy. Explain how a CO2 or H2O molecule absorbs outgoing long wave radiation and adds energy to the entire atmosphere? It can't. Emissions are stronger about the "effective" greenhouse radiating layer and hence it cools above and warms below. This is pretty well known. The fact that you question conservation of energy shows you are out of your league on this forum. You need to go back and read basic thermo. Start with the 1st law of thermodynamics.... 

You are applying conservation of energy the wrong way. The atmosphere is not isolated it exchanges energy with sun, ocean, earth and space. So yes the atmosphere can gain energy at the expense of the other actors without ghg creating any energy. Think of the ocean which is warmed by adding GHG ito the atmosphere. 90% of the warming from GHG is going into the ocean but no energy is being created in the ocean. It all comes from the sun.

[blizzard1024]

7 hours ago, Msalgado said:

It doesn't have more energy than the upper troposphere.  Energy is linked to mass, however temperature is not.  It is the potential temperature of the stratosphere that "puts a lid" on the troposphere, not the energy.

When you can understand that the emissions of a layer is linked to its temperature, that a layer emits all the energy it absorbs, and that a radiation delta of zero leads to no cooling, then perhaps you can tell me I am out of my depth or suggest that I review the basics.  

The lower stratosphere does have more energy than the upper troposphere. The potential temperature is also much higher and even the actual temperatures in the lower stratosphere are higher than the upper troposphere which effectively puts a lid on the upper troposphere. Where are you getting the radiation delta of zero? By the time you get up to the stratosphere and beyond there is less absorption and much more emission from below, hence cooling if you add greenhouse gases below. Read this. its brief and comes from realclimate which is dominated by alarmists. But they got this correct. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/the-sky-is-falling/  Tell me where they are wrong or better yet tell them...

[blizzard1024]

7 hours ago, chubbs said:

You are applying conservation of energy the wrong way. The atmosphere is not isolated it exchanges energy with sun, ocean, earth and space. So yes the atmosphere can gain energy at the expense of the other actors without ghg creating any energy. Think of the ocean which is warmed by adding GHG ito the atmosphere. 90% of the warming from GHG is going into the ocean but no energy is being created in the ocean. It all comes from the sun.

What??? Ok first of all, how can you say that 90% of the warming from CO2 is going into the ocean but no energy is created in the ocean?  That's just wrong. If the ocean heats up it gains energy. If the Land heats up, it gains energy, If the troposphere heats up it gains energy, at some point there has to be cooling so the net gain in energy is zero (assuming a constant sun and constant albedo). What is so hard about this? The upper layers of the atmosphere above the troposphere will cool if greenhouse gases raise the temperatures in the troposphere.  This is something that is so basic and I can't believe we are debating about. Total energy is conserved in the entire earth system which includes the land, the oceans, AND the ENTIRE atmosphere...

[chubbs]

1 hour ago, blizzard1024 said:

What??? Ok first of all, how can you say that 90% of the warming from CO2 is going into the ocean but no energy is created in the ocean?  That's just wrong. If the ocean heats up it gains energy. If the Land heats up, it gains energy, If the troposphere heats up it gains energy, at some point there has to be cooling so the net gain in energy is zero (assuming a constant sun and constant albedo). What is so hard about this? The upper layers of the atmosphere above the troposphere will cool if greenhouse gases raise the temperatures in the troposphere.  This is something that is so basic and I can't believe we are debating about. Total energy is conserved in the entire earth system which includes the land, the oceans, AND the ENTIRE atmosphere...

Simple =- the ocean gets more  energy from the sun and atmosphere than it loses to the atmosphere and space until balance is restored. Will take roughly 1000 years. I can't believe we are talking about it either.

[blizzard1024]

1 hour ago, chubbs said:

Simple =- the ocean gets more  energy from the sun and atmosphere than it loses to the atmosphere and space until balance is restored. Will take roughly 1000 years. I can't believe we are talking about it either.

But you are not disagreeing that cooling takes place above the Earth's effective radiating layer in the atmosphere which was my point all along.... 

[BillT]

2 hours ago, chubbs said:

Simple =- the ocean gets more  energy from the sun and atmosphere than it loses to the atmosphere and space until balance is restored. Will take roughly 1000 years. I can't believe we are talking about it either.

"until balance is restored" another basic you dont get, there is NO BALANCE.......the entire record shows up and down in temps = NOT balanced......the system has countless parts and most all of them constantly change = NO BALANCE....thermodynamics makes it SEEK a balance but the changing parts make that balance impossible to find.

[chubbs]

2 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

But you are not disagreeing that cooling takes place above the Earth's effective radiating layer in the atmosphere which was my point all along.... 

Yes there is cooling but it  occurs well above the effective radiating layer and covers a relatively small part of the atmosphere. The effective radiating layer is near 500mb. The earth is warming through 150mb. So roughly 85% of the atmosphere is warming. The atmosphere is cooling above 100mb but I  disagree with your statements on energy conservation. There is no reason the warming in the lower 85% of the atmosphere needs to balance the cooling in the upper atmosphere because the atmosphere is not independent of the ocean, earth, space etc. Also the cooling in the stratosphere is completely consistent with a strong water vapor feedback. You would have a stronger argument for a minimal GHG impact if the stratosphere was constant in temperature.

Estimates based on Thorne et. al. 2010