2016 Global Temperatures

[lookingnorth]

It looks like 2016 wound up in a statistical tie with 1998 in the UAH satellite temperature data.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/01/

[Msalgado]

You really don't get how the net change in radiation is zero?  And why do you keep linking articles that talk about the stratosphere when your statements were of the upper troposphere?  

 

If the upper troposphere lets in 355 w/m2 of radiation, how much must it let out?  If the incoming radiation never changes, regardless of any GHG changes below, how much must it continue to let out?  If the emissivity of the upper troposphere never changes (read:  no additional water vapor), then does the amount of outgoing IR it absorbs change?

You are hung up on the simple fact that the lower layer is now capturing more of the outgoing IR.  You can't think past this.  Yes, the lower layers now block more IR, but this is not where it ends.  That layer must now warm, and the new IR travels back down and further warms the surface.  So now, the surface and the layer are both emitting more IR.  So the net result is they at the very least cover the amount that was initially blocked and may in fact surpass it and warm the upper layer.  This is why i told you to do the math.

I do not have time right now, but if you have not done so by the time I have time tonight, I will work it out for you since you seem either unwilling or incapable.  

[blizzard1024]

11 minutes ago, Msalgado said:

You really don't get how the net change in radiation is zero?  And why do you keep linking articles that talk about the stratosphere when your statements were of the upper troposphere?  

 

If the upper troposphere lets in 355 w/m2 of radiation, how much must it let out?  If the incoming radiation never changes, regardless of any GHG changes below, how much must it continue to let out?  If the emissivity of the upper troposphere never changes (read:  no additional water vapor), then does the amount of outgoing IR it absorbs change?

You are hung up on the simple fact that the lower layer is now capturing more of the outgoing IR.  You can't think past this.  Yes, the lower layers now block more IR, but this is not where it ends.  That layer must now warm, and the new IR travels back down and further warms the surface.  So now, the surface and the layer are both emitting more IR.  So the net result is they at the very least cover the amount that was initially blocked and may in fact surpass it and warm the upper layer.  This is why i told you to do the math.

I do not have time right now, but if you have not done so by the time I have time tonight, I will work it out for you since you seem either unwilling or incapable.  

First and foremost, the lower troposphere water vapor bands are pretty much saturated and any additional water vapor down there has little impact on IR radiation flux for the troposphere. So even IR downwelling isn't changing from increased water vapor in the lower troposphere.  This is pretty well known. That is why the upper tropospheric water vapor trend is so important. But even if you theoretically increase the IR flux down low from GHGs and don't increase GHGs above in the troposphere, it will cool above from stronger emission since the absorption in the layers above don't change. What don't you get here?      

[blizzard1024]

2 hours ago, chubbs said:

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

 

I give up. You just don't understand radiative transfer which I can see because this is difficult stuff, but the 1st law of thermodynamics???  There is nothing more to say to you or Msalgado. You can't have an ocean and 85% of the Atmosphere warming and not have compensating cooling somewhere in the Earth system (assuming a constant sun and albedo) without violating the 1st law of thermodynamics. You guys are creating energy from greenhouse gases. That's wrong. Enough said. You can live in this fantasy world if you want. Leave me out. 

[Msalgado]

So increased water vapor in the lower troposhere casues cooling but nevermind cause tropospheric water vapor bands are sataurated now?  

 

LOL. 

[chubbs]

16 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

I give up. You just don't understand radiative transfer which I can see because this is difficult stuff, but the 1st law of thermodynamics???  There is nothing more to say to you or Msalgado. You can't have an ocean and 85% of the Atmosphere warming and not have compensating cooling somewhere in the Earth system (assuming a constant sun and albedo) without violating the 1st law of thermodynamics. You guys are creating energy from greenhouse gases. That's wrong. Enough said. You can live in this fantasy world if you want. Leave me out. 

If you are serious about looking at the earth's energy balance you need to focus on the ocean not the atmosphere. In addition to greater mass in the oicean, water has almost 4 times  the heat capacity of air per unit mass. So the ocean has roughly 1000 times the heat capacity of the atmosphere. Fortunately we have good measurements of ocean energy content. Currently the heat content of the ocean is increasing by 1*10^22 calories per year or 0.7 W  per m^2 over the earth's surface. That is about 25 years of GHG increase - so the ocean is lagging way behind the composition of the atmosphere and the earth's is way out of energy balance. What are the implications: 1) this warming isn't a natural fluctuation or a rebound from the little ice age, 2) the earth will continue to warm rapidly, 3) waiting to take action is not a low risk strategy there is a lot of inertia in the climate system and our energy economy.

Does the current energy imbalance mean that energy is being created from greenhouse gases? Hardly, GHG just slow the exit of energy from the earth by a small amount.

So are you serious about looking at the earth's energy balance?

 

[SeanInWayland]

On 1/4/2017 at 2:51 PM, blizzard1024 said:

I give up. You just don't understand radiative transfer which I can see because this is difficult stuff, but the 1st law of thermodynamics???  There is nothing more to say to you or Msalgado. You can't have an ocean and 85% of the Atmosphere warming and not have compensating cooling somewhere in the Earth system (assuming a constant sun and albedo) without violating the 1st law of thermodynamics. You guys are creating energy from greenhouse gases. That's wrong. Enough said. You can live in this fantasy world if you want. Leave me out. 

You keep going back to the conservation of energy, but that's not being violated as far as I can see.

Let's use a really simple example that is similar enough to the problem at hand to be illustrative. Imagine I go outside in the winter with just a thin jacket on, vs. I go outside with a down parka on. My "atmosphere" (the layer of air closest to my body) is warmer in the second example, but no conservation principle is being violated to achieve that. The same amount of energy is being injected into the system (heat generated by my body) and is also exiting the system--it's just that that "atmosphere" when I am wearing the down parka  has to get hotter  so that the amount of energy exiting the system through the parka balances out the input energy. In other words, it has to get hotter to reach equilibrium.

Why is this so contentious?

[HailMan06]

1 hour ago, SeanInWayland said:

You keep going back to the conservation of energy, but that's not being violated as far as I can see.

Let's use a really simple example that is similar enough to the problem at hand to be illustrative. Imagine I go outside in the winter with just a thin jacket on, vs. I go outside with a down parka on. My "atmosphere" (the layer of air closest to my body) is warmer in the second example, but no conservation principle is being violated to achieve that. The same amount of energy is being injected into the system (heat generated by my body) and is also exiting the system--it's just that that "atmosphere" when I am wearing the down parka  has to get hotter  so that the amount of energy exiting the system through the parka balances out the input energy. In other words, it has to get hotter to reach equilibrium.

Why is this so contentious?

It's not contentious at all. If I were you I would save myself the trouble with wasting more time with him. You may as well engage with a brickwall if you try to reason with Blizzard1024.

[blizzard1024]

14 minutes ago, HailMan06 said:

It's not contentious at all. If I were you I would save myself the trouble with wasting more time with him. You may as well engage with a brickwall if you try to reason with Blizzard1024.

You people lack an understanding of basic science. We are talking conservation of energy which is the 8th grade level!!  You shouldn't even be commenting on this forum.  The coat or blanket example is a poor one when comparing to the radiative properties of greenhouse gases.  The positive imbalance that exists is in the troposphere and oceans, which is a only a part of the Earth system.  How many times do I have to say this? The atmosphere above the troposphere has to cool so that energy is conserved if you increase greenhouse gases.  When you add greenhouse gases to the troposphere you are increasing the emission to space along with increasing absorption in the troposphere.  The stronger emissions lead to cooling above. This conserves total energy coming into the Earth system.  If the sun provides a constant source of energy and the albedo remains constant, then how can greenhouse gases add heat to the entire Earth system?  The  oceans, land and troposphere all warm up from added greenhouse gases but the net effect of this has to be zero so layers above the troposphere have to cool. This is very basic science. Its climate change 101 people. 

No I think it is the other way, you people are a brickwall. You just don't understand basic science, let alone radiative transfer and especially atmospheric processes. I am done trying to reason with you and others. You just don't get it and never will based on the fact that there have been multiple posts on this topic. SMH. 

 

[blizzard1024]

2 hours ago, SeanInWayland said:

You keep going back to the conservation of energy, but that's not being violated as far as I can see.

Let's use a really simple example that is similar enough to the problem at hand to be illustrative. Imagine I go outside in the winter with just a thin jacket on, vs. I go outside with a down parka on. My "atmosphere" (the layer of air closest to my body) is warmer in the second example, but no conservation principle is being violated to achieve that. The same amount of energy is being injected into the system (heat generated by my body) and is also exiting the system--it's just that that "atmosphere" when I am wearing the down parka  has to get hotter  so that the amount of energy exiting the system through the parka balances out the input energy. In other words, it has to get hotter to reach equilibrium.

Why is this so contentious?

Because you are saying that your coat is creating energy which it can't!!!!  It gets hotter under your coat so that means you have made energy!!!  This is false.  If you had an Infrared spectrometer, it would measure less IR energy coming from you with your coat on assuming its very cold outside.  If you remove your coat the Infrared spectrometer would see a warmer object( your body) which would then lose heat to space.  

 

[HailMan06]

1 hour ago, blizzard1024 said:

You people lack an understanding of basic science. We are talking conservation of energy which is the 8th grade level!!  You shouldn't even be commenting on this forum.  The coat or blanket example is a poor one when comparing to the radiative properties of greenhouse gases.  The positive imbalance that exists is in the troposphere and oceans, which is a only a part of the Earth system.  How many times do I have to say this? The atmosphere above the troposphere has to cool so that energy is conserved if you increase greenhouse gases.  When you add greenhouse gases to the troposphere you are increasing the emission to space along with increasing absorption in the troposphere.  The stronger emissions lead to cooling above. This conserves total energy coming into the Earth system.  If the sun provides a constant source of energy and the albedo remains constant, then how can greenhouse gases add heat to the entire Earth system?  The  oceans, land and troposphere all warm up from added greenhouse gases but the net effect of this has to be zero so layers above the troposphere have to cool. This is very basic science. Its climate change 101 people. 

No I think it is the other way, you people are a brickwall. You just don't understand basic science, let alone radiative transfer and especially atmospheric processes. I am done trying to reason with you and others. You just don't get it and never will based on the fact that there have been multiple posts on this topic. SMH. 

 

Sigh I'm breaking my own promise but I'll try one more time:

You can't even agree on the laws of thermodynamics it's not even worth discussing the greenhouse effect with you.

The majority of the atmosphere will warm since nearly all of our air is located in the troposphere, the layer that is mostly below the layer of emissivity. Of course the atmosphere above it will cool. Also yes I agree that no energy is being created. However you seem to be implying that because of that the amount of energy within the atmosphere is not increasing and that would be false. 

Say for example the amount of GHG's remained constant and the Earth's energy balance was in equilibrium. The amount of energy entering the system will equal the amount of energy leaving the system. Now say that the amount of GHG's increases (increasing the greenhouse effect). Suddenly the amount of outgoing radiation decreases while incoming radiation remains constant. What you have then is an inbalance in the energy balance and a buildup of infrared radiation. This will increase the temperature over time. This increases ths amount of outgoing radiation and will continue until equilibrium is restored. This equilibrium will be at a higher temperature to maintain balance with increased GHG's.

You can think of temperature as a way of regulating how much radiation is released and counteracts changes in GHG levels. 

The upper atmosphere is and will continue to cool, but there are other processes that complicate your theory.

[blizzard1024]

26 minutes ago, HailMan06 said:

Sigh I'm breaking my own promise but I'll try one more time:

You can't even agree on the laws of thermodynamics it's not even worth discussing the greenhouse effect with you.

The majority of the atmosphere will warm since nearly all of our air is located in the troposphere, the layer that is mostly below the layer of emissivity. Of course the atmosphere above it will cool. Also yes I agree that no energy is being created. However you seem to be implying that because of that the amount of energy within the atmosphere is not increasing and that would be false. 

Say for example the amount of GHG's remained constant and the Earth's energy balance was in equilibrium. The amount of energy entering the system will equal the amount of energy leaving the system. Now say that the amount of GHG's increases (increasing the greenhouse effect). Suddenly the amount of outgoing radiation decreases while incoming radiation remains constant. What you have then is an inbalance in the energy balance and a buildup of infrared radiation. This will increase the temperature over time. This increases ths amount of outgoing radiation and will continue until equilibrium is restored. This equilibrium will be at a higher temperature to maintain balance with increased GHG's.

You can think of temperature as a way of regulating how much radiation is released and counteracts changes in GHG levels. 

The upper atmosphere is and will continue to cool, but there are other processes that complicate your theory.

yes!!!!!!!!!  You got it.... "The upper atmosphere is and will continue to cool..."  That is all I was saying all along and everyone was twisting and distorting this basic fact. 

So in theory, if water vapor in the lowest 100 mb increases and was NOT saturated, it would have a net cooling effect above. But this is not the case since these bands are saturated. Its water vapor in the upper troposphere that matters the most which was my original point. Why do you think this has been a topic of considerable debate bewteen Soden, and Dessler, and Christy, Linzden, Spencer,Paltridge and others??  CO2 concentrations also matter the most in the upper troposphere where temperatures are close to -50 to -60C. This is where the 15 micron absorption band is most effective. Can we agree on this too?? wow. we might be making some progress here.  

[chubbs]

13 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

You people lack an understanding of basic science. We are talking conservation of energy which is the 8th grade level!!  You shouldn't even be commenting on this forum.  The coat or blanket example is a poor one when comparing to the radiative properties of greenhouse gases.  The positive imbalance that exists is in the troposphere and oceans, which is a only a part of the Earth system.  How many times do I have to say this? The atmosphere above the troposphere has to cool so that energy is conserved if you increase greenhouse gases.  When you add greenhouse gases to the troposphere you are increasing the emission to space along with increasing absorption in the troposphere.  The stronger emissions lead to cooling above. This conserves total energy coming into the Earth system.  If the sun provides a constant source of energy and the albedo remains constant, then how can greenhouse gases add heat to the entire Earth system?  The  oceans, land and troposphere all warm up from added greenhouse gases but the net effect of this has to be zero so layers above the troposphere have to cool. This is very basic science. Its climate change 101 people. 

No I think it is the other way, you people are a brickwall. You just don't understand basic science, let alone radiative transfer and especially atmospheric processes. I am done trying to reason with you and others. You just don't get it and never will based on the fact that there have been multiple posts on this topic. SMH. 

 

Do we need the all the insults? If you are trying to make your commentary more credible this is not the way.

[blizzard1024]

3 hours ago, chubbs said:

Do we need the all the insults? If you are trying to make your commentary more credible this is not the way.

"It's not contentious at all. If I were you I would save myself the trouble with wasting more time with him. You may as well engage with a brickwall if you try to reason with Blizzard1024." was what HailMan said. 

 

You are correct. People belittle me all the time and that's seems to be OK on this forum but its still wrong. So I shouldn't stoop to their level. My apologies. Thanks. 

[Sophisticated Skeptic]

there are many known and unknown aspects of (possible) global warming.   many variables we haven't even started monitoring yet, so nobody should be yelling at anybody regarding their general input on the situation. 

I'm one that likes hearing all 'sides' , even the skeptical ones.  

It truly sounds like your pushing for your own agenda and nothing else, when arguing intensely on something we still know so little on.

just sayin..

[Msalgado]

I said I'd post the math, but i haven't had time.  Once I do I will post it.  That being said, the effective emissions level (the place where the brightness temp is 255k0 isn't static.  Its not some place that you get cooling above and warming below becomes of the GHE.  The atmosphere has a temp warmer than the background state of space, so there is absorption occurring above this level.  When you warm the atmosphere by increasing GHG, you can still see warming above this level.  I'm not sure why its being posted in here that you see cooling above this level.  

The temperature of any given portion of the atmosphere has only to do with how much radiation that portion absorbs.  If this layer is located about the 255K height, then it simply means that the radiative balance for that layer dictates a lower temperature.  AGW has led to the increasing in height of the 255k level, which is absolute proof that warming has occurred above that level!  

[Msalgado]

Someone tell this astrophycist he doesn't understand basic physics.

https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/03/05/effective-emission-height/

[blizzard1024]

2 hours ago, Msalgado said:

Someone tell this astrophycist he doesn't understand basic physics.

https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/03/05/effective-emission-height/

Yes raising the effective emission height is well known from increased GHGs.  But you will get cooling above this level eventually, maybe not immediately above it, but you eventually get compensating cooling higher up once the higher emissions exceeds the absorption which of course is not immediately above this level. I hope you understand this. If you could do some math that proves the whole atmosphere warms from GHGs then you will be proving that the 1st law of thermodynamics is invalid. You could win a nobel prize...  

[blizzard1024]

6 hours ago, Bacon Strips said:

there are many known and unknown aspects of (possible) global warming.   many variables we haven't even started monitoring yet, so nobody should be yelling at anybody regarding their general input on the situation. 

I'm one that likes hearing all 'sides' , even the skeptical ones.  

It truly sounds like your pushing for your own agenda and nothing else, when arguing intensely on something we still know so little on.

just sayin..

I agree with your assessment but this is basic radiative transfer and the 1st law of thermodynamics. My only "agenda" is to see if I could get these folks to understand this better and it gets frustrating. I am not arguing about the impacts of increased GHGs which is usually the case.  I do not agree on the whole catastrophic global warming scenarios and because of this I get labeled a "denier" etc. I do believe that there is some warming from increased CO2 and, like you, I understand there are many things we don't understand yet and more to find out. The science is far from settled. Anyway thanks. Have a slice of bacon for me....  

[chubbs]

16 hours ago, Bacon Strips said:

there are many known and unknown aspects of (possible) global warming.   many variables we haven't even started monitoring yet, so nobody should be yelling at anybody regarding their general input on the situation. 

I'm one that likes hearing all 'sides' , even the skeptical ones.  

It truly sounds like your pushing for your own agenda and nothing else, when arguing intensely on something we still know so little on.

just sayin..

The basics have been known for a long time. There really is no scientific controversy over the main points. Agree that we shouldn't be yelling.

[chubbs]

10 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

I agree with your assessment but this is basic radiative transfer and the 1st law of thermodynamics. My only "agenda" is to see if I could get these folks to understand this better and it gets frustrating. I am not arguing about the impacts of increased GHGs which is usually the case.  I do not agree on the whole catastrophic global warming scenarios and because of this I get labeled a "denier" etc. I do believe that there is some warming from increased CO2 and, like you, I understand there are many things we don't understand yet and more to find out. The science is far from settled. Anyway thanks. Have a slice of bacon for me....  

Well we seem to all agree that there is warming and cooling in the atmosphere. As I said abpbe, the data I have looked at shows warming through 150 mb which is the upper troposphere and means that 85% of the atmosphere is warming, inluding the upper troposphere. The fact that the stratosphere is cooling is strong support for GHG as the main cause of the current warming. If the warming was just a recovery from the little ice age or some other natural cause the stratosphere would be warming (sun, volcano) or constant (AMO, enso, PDO etc.) in temperature.

You may not think so, but the science is settled on the main points we have been discussing: positive water vapor feedback + heat accumulation in the climate system. I go back to the chart which started this discussion. There is a very strong correlation between total precipitable water and outgoing longwave  radiation measured by two different satellites. Good support for a strong water vapor feedback. At this point I don't see any point in continuing unless some new data or calculation is presented. Arguing the same points over and over again is not going to get us anywhere.

[Sophisticated Skeptic]

7 hours ago, chubbs said:

There really is no scientific controversy over the main points.

I'd peg to differ. 

[HailMan06]

9 hours ago, chubbs said:

Well we seem to all agree that there is warming and cooling in the atmosphere. As I said abpbe, the data I have looked at shows warming through 150 mb which is the upper troposphere and means that 85% of the atmosphere is warming, inluding the upper troposphere. The fact that the stratosphere is cooling is strong support for GHG as the main cause of the current warming. If the warming was just a recovery from the little ice age or some other natural cause the stratosphere would be warming (sun, volcano) or constant (AMO, enso, PDO etc.) in temperature.

You may not think so, but the science is settled on the main points we have been discussing: positive water vapor feedback + heat accumulation in the climate system. I go back to the chart which started this discussion. There is a very strong correlation between total precipitable water and outgoing longwave  radiation measured by two different satellites. Good support for a strong water vapor feedback. At this point I don't see any point in continuing unless some new data or calculation is presented. Arguing the same points over and over again is not going to get us anywhere.

This is exactly what I was trying to explain to him.

[blizzard1024]

3 hours ago, HailMan06 said:

This is exactly what I was trying to explain to him.

And we are back to square one. Increasing Total precipitable water does NOT have a warming effect unless the water vapor is increasing in the upper troposphere UGHHHHHH. 

Yes there is strong correlation between TPW and outgoing long wave radiation. That is very basic. But increasing water vapor in the low or mid levels has no effect because the bands are saturated. If they aren't saturated and the upper troposphere is not increasing in water vapor, then it would be a net cooling. The water vapor feedback is NOT settled science. The stratosphere is indeed cooling but they haven't been able to discern if that's because of reduced ozone or increased GHGs. Most think its from reduced ozone. Some limited studies are showing cooling above the stratosphere but that could also be from the weaker SUN and its weaker magnetic fields which do vary significantly in the UV and other bands not relevant for the troposphere. If GHGs are warming the planet then there has to be some definitive cooling signal aloft above the troposhere. I don't think they have found that yet conclusively just like we don't know if the water vapor feedback is positive. The science is far from settled. My gosh, its the climate system!!! Its just arrogance that scientists believe they have it all figured out.   

[chubbs]

13 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

And we are back to square one. Increasing Total precipitable water does NOT have a warming effect unless the water vapor is increasing in the upper troposphere UGHHHHHH. 

Yes there is strong correlation between TPW and outgoing long wave radiation. That is very basic. But increasing water vapor in the low or mid levels has no effect because the bands are saturated. If they aren't saturated and the upper troposphere is not increasing in water vapor, then it would be a net cooling. The water vapor feedback is NOT settled science. The stratosphere is indeed cooling but they haven't been able to discern if that's because of reduced ozone or increased GHGs. Most think its from reduced ozone. Some limited studies are showing cooling above the stratosphere but that could also be from the weaker SUN and its weaker magnetic fields which do vary significantly in the UV and other bands not relevant for the troposphere. If GHGs are warming the planet then there has to be some definitive cooling signal aloft above the troposhere. I don't think they have found that yet conclusively just like we don't know if the water vapor feedback is positive. The science is far from settled. My gosh, its the climate system!!! Its just arrogance that scientists believe they have it all figured out.   

Blizz - The chart above shows that outgoing longwave radiation at is well correlated with TPW. This chart below shows that increasing water vapor anywhere the troposphere reduces outgoing longwave radiation at the very tiptop of the atmosphere. It all fits together.

[blizzard1024]

1 hour ago, chubbs said:

Blizz - The chart above shows that outgoing longwave radiation at is well correlated with TPW. This chart below shows that increasing water vapor anywhere the troposphere reduces outgoing longwave radiation at the very tiptop of the atmosphere. It all fits together.

We are on a merry-go round with this topic. It probably should be moved to another thread.  What paper is this from? I would like to read it. This suggests that the water vapor bands are not saturated. That is counter to what I have read. Even so, if you increase an absorbing substance near the Earth's surface you get stronger emission above it. Again, that's why climate scientists are debating what is going in at the upper troposphere. That is where it counts. We either should make another topic or find an appropriate thread. This is the 2016 temperature thread. Please either privately or on this thread send me a link to the paper above with this figure. thx. 

[chubbs]

5 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

We are on a merry-go round with this topic. It probably should be moved to another thread.  What paper is this from? I would like to read it. This suggests that the water vapor bands are not saturated. That is counter to what I have read. Even so, if you increase an absorbing substance near the Earth's surface you get stronger emission above it. Again, that's why climate scientists are debating what is going in at the upper troposphere. That is where it counts. We either should make another topic or find an appropriate thread. This is the 2016 temperature thread. Please either privately or on this thread send me a link to the paper above with this figure. thx. 

Here is an open source copy

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjGuvDZprPRAhUDipAKHavwCUsQFggcMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fpdfs.semanticscholar.org%2Faa17%2Ff2d039c11fc6a7e1636bda0848c8de0e5af3.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEOMmoGL9LxkpFYhZfhBCCUWuLpEw

[chubbs]

NOAA's ERSSTv4 matches 3 separate independent data sets from satellites, argo floats and buoys well. Other SST series have a cooling bias for the past 15 years. So all the fuss from the usual quarters was completely misplaced. There was no conspiracy - only good science. Wonder if congressman Smith will apologize or reimburse the taxpayers for monies wasted.

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/1/e1601207

[Mallow]

On 1/8/2017 at 9:27 AM, blizzard1024 said:

We are on a merry-go round with this topic. It probably should be moved to another thread.  What paper is this from? I would like to read it. This suggests that the water vapor bands are not saturated. That is counter to what I have read. Even so, if you increase an absorbing substance near the Earth's surface you get stronger emission above it. Again, that's why climate scientists are debating what is going in at the upper troposphere. That is where it counts. We either should make another topic or find an appropriate thread. This is the 2016 temperature thread. Please either privately or on this thread send me a link to the paper above with this figure. thx. 

As I noted much earlier in this thread, the potential for widening of spectral bands means an increase in the concentration of the absorber (water vapor) always leads to an increase of absorption (until 100% of all radiation is absorbed). A good (brief) description can be found here:
http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/library/coursefiles/03_abs_emiss_ref.pdf

Quote

Monochromatic emission is practically never observed. Energy levels during energy transitions are normally changed slightly due to external influences on atoms and molecules, and due to the loss of energy in emission. As a consequence, radiation emitted during repeated energy transitions is non-monochromatic and spectral lines are caused by: (1) the damping of vibrations of oscillators resulting from the loss of energy in emission (the broadening of lines in this case is considered to be normal); (2) the perturbations due to collisions between the absorbing molecules and between the absorbing and non-absorbing molecules; and (3) the Doppler effect resulting from the difference in thermal velocities of atoms and molecules. The broadening of lines due to the loss of energy in emission (natural broadening) is practically negligible as compared with that caused by collisions and the Doppler effect. In the upper atmosphere, we find a combination of collision broadening and Doppler broadening, whereas in the lower atmosphere, below about 40 km, the collision broadening prevails because of increased pressure. 

 

This is why, even though the energy of absorption/emission is quantized per molecule, spectral absorption/emission lines aren't monochromatic (found only at a single, exact wavelength). More molecules of the absorber then mean more potential for these effects (especially those due to collisions in the lower atmosphere) to come into play, widening the absorption bands and allowing for more absorption.

[heavy_wx]

On 1/5/2017 at 6:26 PM, blizzard1024 said:

You people lack an understanding of basic science. We are talking conservation of energy which is the 8th grade level!!  You shouldn't even be commenting on this forum.  The coat or blanket example is a poor one when comparing to the radiative properties of greenhouse gases.  The positive imbalance that exists is in the troposphere and oceans, which is a only a part of the Earth system.  How many times do I have to say this? The atmosphere above the troposphere has to cool so that energy is conserved if you increase greenhouse gases.  When you add greenhouse gases to the troposphere you are increasing the emission to space along with increasing absorption in the troposphere.  The stronger emissions lead to cooling above. This conserves total energy coming into the Earth system.  If the sun provides a constant source of energy and the albedo remains constant, then how can greenhouse gases add heat to the entire Earth system?  The  oceans, land and troposphere all warm up from added greenhouse gases but the net effect of this has to be zero so layers above the troposphere have to cool. This is very basic science. Its climate change 101 people. 

No I think it is the other way, you people are a brickwall. You just don't understand basic science, let alone radiative transfer and especially atmospheric processes. I am done trying to reason with you and others. You just don't get it and never will based on the fact that there have been multiple posts on this topic. SMH. 

 

Energy is conserved only for a closed system; the Earth and its atmosphere are not a closed system because the sun transmits radiation to the Earth and its atmosphere and the Earth and its atmosphere transmit radiation to space. 

When the concentration of CO2 molecules increases in the atmosphere, more infrared radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere. This increased absorption occurs because CO2 molecules may become torqued by electromagnetic radiation at these wavelengths given the permanent dipole moment of CO2. The increased rotational energy of the CO2 molecules results in air molecules with higher kinetic energy (due to collisions) and thus warmer temperatures. These increased temperatures will also lead to an increase in infrared emission; however, this emission depends on the temperature and is therefore not, in general, the same as the absorption by these molecules.

If the CO2 concentration increased by a certain amount and then stayed constant, the temperature of the atmosphere would increase to a new equilibrium. This is of course ignoring the feedbacks of the climate system.

The bottom line is that with increased greenhouse gas concentrations, the total energy of the Earth system (the atmosphere, land, and ocean) increases. Energy is conserved in this scenario because the energy that would have been radiated to space without the greenhouse gases is instead stored in the Earth system. Once the new equilibrium is reached, the energy stored in the Earth system is constant.