A simple argument is put forth against the idea that the radiative properties of an atmosphere somehow serve as the CAUSE of elevated steady-state planetary surface temps. Continue reading
I want to applaud Joseph Postma and his latest blog post, spelling out his grievances against the “Greenhouse Apologists” and how they consistently manage to worm their way out of ever providing a definitive, coherent clarification of how the hypothetical “Radiative Greenhouse Effect” (RGHE, rGHE) is actually meant to work physically, brushing all sceptical objections to their vague – as it seems, deliberately equivocal – contentions aside by simply claiming that our differences are purely of a semantic nature. It doesn’t matter to them whether we describe one and the same process as “reducing cooling” or “increasing warming/heating”, because the end result – a higher temperature – will allegedly be the same either way, ignoring the simple fact that, in reality, these are two fully distinct (as in ‘opposite’) thermodynamic processes: 1) INSULATION, 2) HEATING. And so, conflating them, as if they were somehow basically the same process, causes confusion.
Unnecessary confusion. Scientifically pointless confusion.
Postma puts it very neatly and succinctly: Continue reading
UPDATE, June 19, 2017: The new ‘CERES EBAF Ed4 Sfc’ dataset arrived in May. The updated version proves even more detrimental to the idea of an “enhanced GHE” than the older one. The average sfc radiant heat loss (net LW, OLR) in the Congo is now reduced from 51 to 34 W/m2, while the same flux in the Sahara-Sahel has increased from 103 to 107 W/m2. At the same time, the solar heat inputs (net SW, ASR) in both regions are now more or less equal: 173.6 W/m2. Which means that the tropospheric column above the Congo surface appears to restrict its radiant heat loss to less than a third (rather than ‘just’ half) of its equivalent flux in the Sahara-Sahel region. So with the same heat INPUT from the Sun, but with a radiant heat loss more than three times larger (!) per unit time than in the Congo, the Sahara-Sahel surface is STILL several degrees WARMER on average than in the Congo!
OK, so commenter “Norman” asked me at Roy Spencer’s blog to clarify my position on whether a “more IR active atmosphere” would necessarily produce a higher average annual surface temperature at the bottom of that atmosphere. His inquiry in full:
Then you would also agree that increasing GHG in the atmopshere (the quantity makes a difference since it decreases the heat out) will lead to the end result of a warmer surface?
Good. That is what the basic point is all about.
Does the amount of GHG in the atmosphere change the equilibrium temperature of the Earth’s surface?
In your other writings you have states some GHG is necessary but the quantity does not matter. what is your current understanding?
More GHG warmer surface?
Less GHG cooler surface?
Or No change once a certain amount is present?
If in both cases the solar flux to surface remains the same.
So what do we mean by a “more IR active atmosphere”? Well, a proponent of the AGW idea (that of the anthropogenically “enhanced GHE”), like Norman here, would simply say: more “GHGs”. But what does this actually entail? It would lead to an atmospheric column that is more opaque (that is, less transparent) to outgoing surface IR. The idea is that the so-called “GHGs”, the IR active gases (and clouds, mind you), would absorb it more strongly, sort of “capture it” on its way out, and reradiate it in ALL directions, not just the upward one, thus diminishing the net flux of IR moving away from the surface and in the direction of space. And what is this net flux of outgoing IR from the surface? It’s the surface radiant HEAT loss, its Qout(LW).
So Norman’s central claim is this one: “(…) increasing GHG in the atmopshere (the quantity makes a difference since it decreases the heat out) will lead to the end result of a warmer surface (…)”
Well, will it? What does empirically based data from the real Earth system have to say about it?
We return to Africa. Continue reading
In 2011, the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office replaced their global sea surface temperature series, HadSST2, with a new one, HadSST3, an upgrade allegedly necessitated by, among other things, the particular ‘discovery’ that the recorded temperature evolution of the global ocean surface had, since about 1979, for one particular reason followed a path that trended artificially low. The official global sea surface temperature data as compiled simply showed too little overall warming. Since 1978-79, that is, during the satellite era.
This is funny, because the Hadley Centre’s own official global SST dataset, HadSST2, already showed an overall warming since the late 70s that was much larger than the other official datasets out there, like ERSST, Reynolds OI and HadISST:
Note that the new ERSSTv4 series is also included in Anim.1 (red curve), and that it distinctly supports the group of ‘others’: The light blue HadSST2 curve all of a sudden makes a giant upward leap of nearly 0.1K at the 1997-1998 transition (light green vertical line). There is hardly any divergence to be observed between it and the others, however, either before or after this point (save that from ERSSTv4 post 2005; more on that later …). Continue reading
First the SW (that’s measured reflected SW at the top of the atmosphere (ToA), basically an expression of Earth’s albedo). TSI (incoming sunlight) at the ToA minus reflected SW (albedo) at the ToA equals the ASR (“absorbed solar radiation”) at the ToA, the actual radiant HEAT (net SW) transferred from the Sun to the Earth system as a whole:
(ERBS Ed3 + CERES EBAF Ed2.8 vs. ISCCP FD; tropics, 1985-2004 (20 years).)
Spencer and Christy’s new UAHv6.0 gl TLT dataset is impressively and conspicuously corroborated by:
Figure 1. Original found here: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/12/11/ted-cruz-just-plain-wrong/
A good month ago, the perennially unsavoury character calling himself Tamino once again tried to hold up the spotty “global” network of radiosondes (weather balloons) as somehow a better gauge of the progression and trend of tropospheric temperature anomalies over the last 37 years than the satellites, by virtue of being essentially – as he would glibly put it – “thermometers in the sky”.
So his simple take on the glaring “drift” between current surface records and the satellites over the last 10-12 years is this: The surface records are right and the satellites are wrong. Why? Because the surface records agree with the radiosondes while the satellites don’t! The radiosondes implicitly – in his world – representing “Troposphere Truth”.
And so, when your starting premise goes like this: the radiosondes = thermometers in the sky = troposphere truth, then any “drift” observed between them and the satellites (as in Fig.1 above) will – by default – be interpreted by you as a problem with the latter.
To repeat Tamino’s fairly simplistic reasoning, then, in the form of some sort of logical-sounding argument: Surface and satellites don’t agree. Radiosondes and satellites don’t agree. But surface and radiosondes do agree. Which means the latter two are right, their agreement robustly verifying the ‘rightness’ of each. (And also, the radiosondes represent “Troposphere Truth”.) Which leaves the satellites out in the cold …
There is, however, a definite issue to be had with this line of argument.
It doesn’t hold up to scrutiny … Continue reading