How the CERES EBAF Ed4 data disconfirms “AGW” in 3 different ways …..


And also how – in the process – it shows the new RSSv4 TLT series to be wrong and the UAHv6 TLT series to be right.



For those of you who aren’t entirely up to date with the hypothetical idea of an “(anthropogenically) enhanced GHE” (the “AGW”) and its supposed mechanism for (CO2-driven) global warming, the general principle is fairly neatly summed up here:


Figure 1. From Held and Soden, 2000 (Fig.1, p.447).

I’ve modified this diagram below somewhat, so as to clarify even further the concept of “the raised ERL (Effective Radiating Level)” – referred to as Ze in the schematic above – and how it is meant to ‘drive’ warming within the Earth system; to simply bring the message of this fundamental premise of “AGW” thinking more clearly across. Continue reading

Advertisements

Verifying my near-global 1985-2017 OLR record


It appears I was right 😎

33y TLT→OLR connection confirmed!



Turns out the results from my last blog post were challenged even before I published them. In a paper from 2014, Allan et al., the alii notably including principal investigator of the CERES team, Dr. Norman Loeb, went about reconstructing the ToA net balance (including the ASR and OLR contributing fluxes) from 1985 onwards, just like I did; in fact, it’s all right there in the title itself: “Changes in global net radiative imbalance 1985–2012”. I missed this paper completely, even when specifically managing to catch and discuss (in the supplementing post, Addendum I) its follow-up (Allan, 2017). The results and conclusions of Allan et al., 2014, regarding the downward (SW) and upward (LW) radiative fluxes at the ToA and how they’ve evolved since 1985, appear to disagree to a significant extent with mine. I was only very recently made aware of the existence of this paper, by a commenter on Dr. Roy Spencer’s blog, “Nate”, when he was kind enough to notify me (albeit in an ever so slightly hostile manner):

“What is stupid and cowardly is how Kristian refuses to confront the reality that the experts disagree with him about what we actually OBSERVE.

“Kristian, you have tried to draw conclusions from 33 y of data that you’ve stitched together by making various choices about offsets between the sets.

“But as I showed you, and you ignored, Loeb and collaborators have made different choices to produce a continuous set. And do not draw your conclusions.

“Here is a paper. (…)”

Continue reading

THE DATA: Sun – not Man – is what caused, and causes, ‘global warming’


Conclusively confirmed:
There is no “AGW”. Only “SGW”.

The Sun (+ASR; not TSI. A-S-R!) did it.
The “GHE” (–OLR) didn’t.

Read on …



Continue reading

The Congo vs. Sahara-Sahel once more

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:

Kristian

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

What caused the current ToA radiative imbalance?

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).)
Continue reading

Why “GISTEMP LOTI global mean” is wrong and “UAHv6 tlt gl” is right

Ten days ago, Nick Stokes wrote a post on his “moyhu” blog where he – in his regular, guileful manner – tries his best to distract from the pretty obvious fact (pointed out in this recent post of mine) that GISS poleward of ~55 degrees of latitude, most notably in the Arctic, basically use land data only, effectively rendering their “GISTEMP LOTI global mean” product a bogus record of actual global surface temps.

Among other things, he says:

“The SST products OI V2 and ERSST, used by GISS then and now, adopted the somewhat annoying custom of entering the SST under sea ice as -1.8°C. They did this right up to the North Pole. But the N Pole does not have a climate at a steady -1.8°C. GISS treats this -1.8 as NA data and uses alternative, land-based measure. It’s true that the extrapolation required can be over long distances. But there is a basis for it – using -1.8 for climate has none, and is clearly wrong.

So is GISS “deleting data”? Of course not. No-one actually measured -1.8°C there. It is the standard freezing point of sea water. I guess that is data in a way, but it isn’t SST data measured for the Arctic Sea.”

The -1.8°C averaging bit is actually a fair and interesting point in itself, but this is what Stokes does; he finds a peripheral detail somehow related to the actual argument being made and proceeds to misrepresent its significance in an attempt to divert people’s attention from the real issue at hand. The real issue in this case of course being GISS’s (bad) habit of smearing anomaly values from a small collection of land data points all across the vast polar cap regions, over wide tracts of land (where for the main part we don’t have any data), over expansive stretches of ocean (where we do have SST data readily available) AND over complex regions affected by sea ice (where we indeed do have data (SSTs, once again) when and where there isn’t any sea ice cover, but none whatsoever when there is), all the way down to 55-60 degrees of latitude. Continue reading