Tropospheric Hot Spot- Why it does not exist...

[Billy_Bob]

One of the primary Anthroprogenic Global Warming problems is the theoretical "Bottle Neck" in our lower troposphere and its failure to manifest itself.

The IPCC, in its very first report, hypothesized that a loop of energy would occur if CO2 levels continued to rise. This energy loop would have to manifest itself in our lower troposphere as that is where water vapor resides and where the heat would be self feeding due to CO2 concentration. The IPCC also theorized that water vapor would act as a force multiplier and at some point a tipping point would be reached where we could not return and out of control warming would occur.

The IPCC hypothesis has many problems to deal with. The first is the fact that global CO2 levels have been in excess of 7,000ppm for millions of years while earths temperatures have never deviated from its 12 deg C range. This leads to the obvious question, why? Why didn't these levels of CO2 reach a tipping point and the earths temp runaway? The answer is simple, WATER in its various forms.

Water acts as a negative forcing in direct conflict to the IPCC hypothesis. Recent papers have shown that the base LOG forcing of CO2 is being blunted by water in our atmosphere. Where we should have seen 2 deg C in warming, due to CO2 alone, we have seen less than 0.6 deg C.

When we look at the lower troposphere and how the energy exchange actually works we find out why the 'hot spot' does not exist.

Graph Source

This graph above shows where the hot spot should have manifested itself. Between the ground and cloud top. CO2 is supposed to re-emit radiation in the 6-12um band wavelengths towards the surface. But its not occurring how they imagined it. They imagined that the energy would be absorbed by the surface and then re-emited to the water and CO2 in the atmosphere, which would again force it back towards the surface Creating a endless loop of sustaining heat.

The problem comes when water/water vapor absorbs the energy. Unlike CO2 which almost instantaneously re-emits its energy without energy loss, water absorbs the energy and heats itself using some of the energy. Water holds its energy significantly longer than CO2 and the water cools as it rises. The water emits its energy in a much longer wavelength (12-36um) that CO2 is helpless to absorb and is then lost to space.

The AGW energy loop is smashed to bits in the first 150 feet above the ground.

More on how this works tomorrow....

 

[Billy_Bob]

Others have used this graph to "prove" the AGW hypothesis but it is simply the BANDPASS of the wavelengths through gases in our atmosphere. In one of the next posts I will explain why this graph is important and why it does not prove AGW.

 

[Old Rocks]

Understanding the significance of the tropospheric hot spot

The source of the confusion is box c, showing the modelled temperature change from greenhouse gases. Note the strong hot spot. Does this mean the greenhouse effect causes the hot spot? Not directly. Greenhouse gases cause surface warming which changes the lapse rate leading to the hot spot. The reason the hot spot in box c is so strong is because greenhouse warming is so strong compared to the other forcings.

The hot spot is not a unique greenhouse signature and finding the hot spot doesn't prove that humans are causing global warming. Observing the hot spot would tell us we have a good understanding of how the lapse rate changes. As the hot spot is well observed over short timescales (Trenberth 2006, Santer 2005), this increases our confidence that we're on track. That leaves the question of the long-term trend.

What does the full body of evidence tell us? We have satellite data plus weather balloon measurements of temperature and wind strength. The three satellite records from UAH, RSS and UWA give varied results. UAH show tropospheric trends less than surface warming, RSS are roughly the same and UWA show a hot spot. The difference between the three is how they adjust for effects like decaying satellite orbits. The conclusion from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (co-authored by UAH's John Christy) is the most likely explanation for the discrepancy between model and satellite observations is measurement uncertainty.

Weather balloon measurements are influenced by effects like the daytime heating of the balloons. When these effects are adjusted for, the weather balloon data is broadly consistent with models (Titchner 2009, Sherwood 2008, Haimberger 2008). Lastly, there is measurements of wind strength from weather balloons. The direct relationship between temperature and wind shear allows us to empirically obtain a temperature profile of the atmosphere. This method finds a hot spot (Allen 2008).

Looking at all this evidence, the conclusion is, well, a little unsatisfying - there is still much uncertainty in the long-term trend. It's hard when the short-term variability is nearly an order of magnitude greater than the long-term trend. Weather balloons and satellites do a good job of measuring short-term changes and indeed find a hot spot over monthly timescales. There is some evidence of a hot spot over timeframes of decades but there's still much work to be done in this department. Conversely, the data isn't conclusive enough to unequivocally say there is no hot spot.

The take-home message is that you first need to understand what's causing the hot spot. "Changes in the lapse rate" is not as sexy or intuitive as a greenhouse signature but that's the physical reality. Once you properly understand the cause, you can put the whole issue in proper context. As the hot spot is due to changes in the lapse rate, we expect to see a short-term hot spot. We do.

From real scientists, not frauds like you, Silly Billy

 

[Billy_Bob]

Understanding the significance of the tropospheric hot spot

The source of the confusion is box c, showing the modelled temperature change from greenhouse gases. Note the strong hot spot. Does this mean the greenhouse effect causes the hot spot? Not directly. Greenhouse gases cause surface warming which changes the lapse rate leading to the hot spot. The reason the hot spot in box c is so strong is because greenhouse warming is so strong compared to the other forcings.

The hot spot is not a unique greenhouse signature and finding the hot spot doesn't prove that humans are causing global warming. Observing the hot spot would tell us we have a good understanding of how the lapse rate changes. As the hot spot is well observed over short timescales (Trenberth 2006, Santer 2005), this increases our confidence that we're on track. That leaves the question of the long-term trend.

What does the full body of evidence tell us? We have satellite data plus weather balloon measurements of temperature and wind strength. The three satellite records from UAH, RSS and UWA give varied results. UAH show tropospheric trends less than surface warming, RSS are roughly the same and UWA show a hot spot. The difference between the three is how they adjust for effects like decaying satellite orbits. The conclusion from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (co-authored by UAH's John Christy) is the most likely explanation for the discrepancy between model and satellite observations is measurement uncertainty.

Weather balloon measurements are influenced by effects like the daytime heating of the balloons. When these effects are adjusted for, the weather balloon data is broadly consistent with models (Titchner 2009, Sherwood 2008, Haimberger 2008). Lastly, there is measurements of wind strength from weather balloons. The direct relationship between temperature and wind shear allows us to empirically obtain a temperature profile of the atmosphere. This method finds a hot spot (Allen 2008).

Looking at all this evidence, the conclusion is, well, a little unsatisfying - there is still much uncertainty in the long-term trend. It's hard when the short-term variability is nearly an order of magnitude greater than the long-term trend. Weather balloons and satellites do a good job of measuring short-term changes and indeed find a hot spot over monthly timescales. There is some evidence of a hot spot over timeframes of decades but there's still much work to be done in this department. Conversely, the data isn't conclusive enough to unequivocally say there is no hot spot.

The take-home message is that you first need to understand what's causing the hot spot. "Changes in the lapse rate" is not as sexy or intuitive as a greenhouse signature but that's the physical reality. Once you properly understand the cause, you can put the whole issue in proper context. As the hot spot is due to changes in the lapse rate, we expect to see a short-term hot spot. We do.

From real scientists, not frauds like you, Silly Billy

I got the bull shit from you... many times... but how about some real science for a change? OR cant you think for yourself?

 

[Old Rocks]

Carbon dioxide is a very strong absorber of thermal infrared energy with wavelengths longer than 12-13 micrometers, which means that increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide partially “close” the atmospheric window. In other words, wavelengths of outgoing thermal infrared energy that our atmosphere’s most abundant greenhouse gas—water vapor—would have let escape to space are instead absorbed by carbon dioxide.

All atmospheric gases have a unique pattern of energy absorption: they absorb some wavelengths of energy but are transparent to others. The absorption patterns of water vapor (blue peaks) and carbon dioxide (pink peaks) overlap in some wavelengths. Carbon dioxide is not as strong a greenhouse gas as water vapor, but it absorbs energy in wavelengths (12-15 micrometers) that water vapor does not, partially closing the “window” through which heat radiated by the surface would normally escape to space. (Illustration adapted from Robert Rohde.)

The absorption of outgoing thermal infrared by carbon dioxide means that Earth still absorbs about 70 percent of the incoming solar energy, but an equivalent amount of heat is no longer leaving. The exact amount of the energy imbalance is very hard to measure, but it appears to be a little over 0.8 watts per square meter. The imbalance is inferred from a combination of measurements, including satellite and ocean-based observations of sea level rise and warming.

When a forcing like increasing greenhouse gas concentrations bumps the energy budget out of balance, it doesn’t change the global average surface temperature instantaneously. It may take years or even decades for the full impact of a forcing to be felt. This lag between when an imbalance occurs and when the impact on surface temperature becomes fully apparent is mostly because of the immense heat capacity of the global ocean. The heat capacity of the oceans gives the climate a thermal inertia that can make surface warming or cooling more gradual, but it can’t stop a change from occurring.
Climate and Earth’s Energy Budget : Feature Articles

More real scientists.

 

[Old Rocks]

GWP values are calculated as a ratio of the combined effect of these factors if 1 kg of the gas in question is injected into the atmosphere compared to the effect if 1 kg of kilogram of CO2 is injected. CO2 is assigned a value of unity, so the resulting ratio is the GWP. GWPs for a few selected gases are given in the table. To interpret GWPs, consider, for example, the 20 year GWP of 72 for CH4. This means that injecting 1 kg of CH4 into the atmosphere today would have 72 times more atmospheric warming effect over the next 20 years than injecting 1 kg of CO2. However, since the amount of CO2 being injected into the atmosphere is orders of magnitude greater than for these other gases, radiative forcing by CO2still exceeds their combined effect on atmospheric warming.

GWP time horizon
Gas Lifetime, yr 20 yr 100 yr 500 yr
Carbon Dioxide, CO2 see text 1 1 1
Methane, CH4 12 72 25 7.6
Nitrous Oxide, N2O 114 289 298 153
CFC-12, CCl2F2 100 11,000 10,900 5,200
HFC-23, CHF3 270 12,000 14,800 12,200
HFC-134a, CH2FCF3 14 3,830 1,430 435
Sulfur Hexafluoride, SF6 3,200 16,300 22,800 32,600

Note that no lifetime is given for CO2 in the atmosphere. The sources and sinks for CO2 involve the complex interplay of CO2 among the hydrosphere (temperature dependent dissolution and release), the biosphere (respiration and photosynthesis), and the lithosphere (weathering and deposition), all of which complicate its rate of disappearance. About half of a CO2 sample emitted today will be gone in a century, but a portion of the rest will persist for 1000s of years.
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/greenhousegases/properties.html

An understanding of the various GHGs is essential to understanding AGW. The American Chemical Society is a trusted source for those.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Note the Downward energy paths and the Upwards energy paths..

The wave length is important because the longer the wave, the less energy it contains. As the water in the atmosphere cools its wavelength is longer.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Now lets identify the magical CO2 that is supposed to cause a runaway earth temp. (In red - 12-16um)..

The Water Vapor in blue shows that it is the dominant factor in our atmosphere. Note also the width of the spectrum that water absorbs and emits. Water is far greater than CO2 in all aspects and as it cools, the wavelength it emits is much longer and outside of the spectrum for CO2 to have any effect.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Water Vapor is absorbing the CO2 emitted energy, warming itself sightly, rising in the atmosphere through convection and conduction cooling, and then re-emitting the energy left at a wavelength that CO2 can not inhibit or slow its loss.

Water is acting as a negative forcing and not acting as the IPCC envisioned, as a self reinforcing energy loop. The missing heat that Trenberth is still looking for can be found in space... Not on earth. The shear weight and mass of water in our atmosphere makes CO2 a non issue even above 7,000ppm..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Understanding the significance of the tropospheric hot spot

The source of the confusion is box c, showing the modelled temperature change from greenhouse gases. Note the strong hot spot. Does this mean the greenhouse effect causes the hot spot? Not directly. Greenhouse gases cause surface warming which changes the lapse rate leading to the hot spot. The reason the hot spot in box c is so strong is because greenhouse warming is so strong compared to the other forcings.

The hot spot is not a unique greenhouse signature and finding the hot spot doesn't prove that humans are causing global warming. Observing the hot spot would tell us we have a good understanding of how the lapse rate changes. As the hot spot is well observed over short timescales (Trenberth 2006, Santer 2005), this increases our confidence that we're on track. That leaves the question of the long-term trend.

What does the full body of evidence tell us? We have satellite data plus weather balloon measurements of temperature and wind strength. The three satellite records from UAH, RSS and UWA give varied results. UAH show tropospheric trends less than surface warming, RSS are roughly the same and UWA show a hot spot. The difference between the three is how they adjust for effects like decaying satellite orbits. The conclusion from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (co-authored by UAH's John Christy) is the most likely explanation for the discrepancy between model and satellite observations is measurement uncertainty.

Weather balloon measurements are influenced by effects like the daytime heating of the balloons. When these effects are adjusted for, the weather balloon data is broadly consistent with models (Titchner 2009, Sherwood 2008, Haimberger 2008). Lastly, there is measurements of wind strength from weather balloons. The direct relationship between temperature and wind shear allows us to empirically obtain a temperature profile of the atmosphere. This method finds a hot spot (Allen 2008).

Looking at all this evidence, the conclusion is, well, a little unsatisfying - there is still much uncertainty in the long-term trend. It's hard when the short-term variability is nearly an order of magnitude greater than the long-term trend. Weather balloons and satellites do a good job of measuring short-term changes and indeed find a hot spot over monthly timescales. There is some evidence of a hot spot over timeframes of decades but there's still much work to be done in this department. Conversely, the data isn't conclusive enough to unequivocally say there is no hot spot.

The take-home message is that you first need to understand what's causing the hot spot. "Changes in the lapse rate" is not as sexy or intuitive as a greenhouse signature but that's the physical reality. Once you properly understand the cause, you can put the whole issue in proper context. As the hot spot is due to changes in the lapse rate, we expect to see a short-term hot spot. We do.

From real scientists, not frauds like you, Silly Billy

LOL..

Trenbreth... Are you helping him with his math too? Did you find his missing heat?

 

[Billy_Bob]

GWP values are calculated as a ratio of the combined effect of these factors if 1 kg of the gas in question is injected into the atmosphere compared to the effect if 1 kg of kilogram of CO2 is injected. CO2 is assigned a value of unity, so the resulting ratio is the GWP. GWPs for a few selected gases are given in the table. To interpret GWPs, consider, for example, the 20 year GWP of 72 for CH4. This means that injecting 1 kg of CH4 into the atmosphere today would have 72 times more atmospheric warming effect over the next 20 years than injecting 1 kg of CO2. However, since the amount of CO2 being injected into the atmosphere is orders of magnitude greater than for these other gases, radiative forcing by CO2still exceeds their combined effect on atmospheric warming.

GWP time horizon
Gas Lifetime, yr 20 yr 100 yr 500 yr
Carbon Dioxide, CO2 see text 1 1 1
Methane, CH4 12 72 25 7.6
Nitrous Oxide, N2O 114 289 298 153
CFC-12, CCl2F2 100 11,000 10,900 5,200
HFC-23, CHF3 270 12,000 14,800 12,200
HFC-134a, CH2FCF3 14 3,830 1,430 435
Sulfur Hexafluoride, SF6 3,200 16,300 22,800 32,600

Note that no lifetime is given for CO2 in the atmosphere. The sources and sinks for CO2 involve the complex interplay of CO2 among the hydrosphere (temperature dependent dissolution and release), the biosphere (respiration and photosynthesis), and the lithosphere (weathering and deposition), all of which complicate its rate of disappearance. About half of a CO2 sample emitted today will be gone in a century, but a portion of the rest will persist for 1000s of years.
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/greenhousegases/properties.html

An understanding of the various GHGs is essential to understanding AGW. The American Chemical Society is a trusted source for those.

WOW... another math failure.. Boy you are sure picking some real winners...

Tell me again where that magical heat is ?

 

[SSDD]

From real scientists, not frauds like you, Silly Billy

Real scientists?....unemployed cartoonists are real scientists in your mind?....laughing OUT LOUD at you rocks...you get more pathetic every day and when the funding is cut off for the hoax...and real science becomes the path, once again to funding...what will you do then?......get yourself a sandwich board proclaiming that the end is near and go about on the streets trying to frighten children?

 

[Billy_Bob]

I added a transport path that was missed in the theoretical energy loss path. The point of water nucleation and LWIR release in the 16-36um bandwidth. The absorption of energy near earth in water carries the heat away and the energy loss makes the bandwidth where it is emitted to long for CO2 to have further effect..

When water becomes vapor it cools the atmosphere directly as farmers who use CO2 ground enhancement to create more robust plants have discovered.

The so called IPCC "energy loop" never happened and the empirical evidence lays it waste. The missing heat is in space...

 

[Billy_Bob]

From real scientists, not frauds like you, Silly Billy

Real scientists?....unemployed cartoonists are real scientists in your mind?....laughing OUT LOUD at you rocks...you get more pathetic every day and when the funding is cut off for the hoax...and real science becomes the path, once again to funding...what will you do then?......get yourself a sandwich board proclaiming that the end is near and go about on the streets trying to frighten children?

He wouldn't know a real scientist even if it hit him up side the head..

 

[IanC]

... CO2 is supposed to re-emit radiation in the 6-12um band wavelengths towards the surface....

as usual Billy Bob is totally confused and is just spouting bafflegab a la Cliff Clavin

CO2 absorbs and emits at 4 and 15 microns. the 4 micron band is ignored because there is little of that radiation incoming from solar input or outgoing from surface output. the 15 micron band is absorbed to extinction by CO2 in ~10 meters. that energy is mostly transferred to the total energy of the atmosphere because the average time for an excited CO2 molecule to re-emit the photon is more than ten times as long as the average time between molecular collisions at near surface conditions.

as the graph shows, there is NO absorption or emission by CO2 in the 6-12 micron band. BB has been caught bullshitting again.

 

[IanC]

Understanding the significance of the tropospheric hot spot

The source of the confusion is box c, showing the modelled temperature change from greenhouse gases. Note the strong hot spot. Does this mean the greenhouse effect causes the hot spot? Not directly. Greenhouse gases cause surface warming which changes the lapse rate leading to the hot spot. The reason the hot spot in box c is so strong is because greenhouse warming is so strong compared to the other forcings.

The hot spot is not a unique greenhouse signature and finding the hot spot doesn't prove that humans are causing global warming. Observing the hot spot would tell us we have a good understanding of how the lapse rate changes. As the hot spot is well observed over short timescales (Trenberth 2006, Santer 2005), this increases our confidence that we're on track. That leaves the question of the long-term trend.

What does the full body of evidence tell us? We have satellite data plus weather balloon measurements of temperature and wind strength. The three satellite records from UAH, RSS and UWA give varied results. UAH show tropospheric trends less than surface warming, RSS are roughly the same and UWA show a hot spot. The difference between the three is how they adjust for effects like decaying satellite orbits. The conclusion from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (co-authored by UAH's John Christy) is the most likely explanation for the discrepancy between model and satellite observations is measurement uncertainty.

Weather balloon measurements are influenced by effects like the daytime heating of the balloons. When these effects are adjusted for, the weather balloon data is broadly consistent with models (Titchner 2009, Sherwood 2008, Haimberger 2008). Lastly, there is measurements of wind strength from weather balloons. The direct relationship between temperature and wind shear allows us to empirically obtain a temperature profile of the atmosphere. This method finds a hot spot (Allen 2008).

Looking at all this evidence, the conclusion is, well, a little unsatisfying - there is still much uncertainty in the long-term trend. It's hard when the short-term variability is nearly an order of magnitude greater than the long-term trend. Weather balloons and satellites do a good job of measuring short-term changes and indeed find a hot spot over monthly timescales. There is some evidence of a hot spot over timeframes of decades but there's still much work to be done in this department. Conversely, the data isn't conclusive enough to unequivocally say there is no hot spot.

The take-home message is that you first need to understand what's causing the hot spot. "Changes in the lapse rate" is not as sexy or intuitive as a greenhouse signature but that's the physical reality. Once you properly understand the cause, you can put the whole issue in proper context. As the hot spot is due to changes in the lapse rate, we expect to see a short-term hot spot. We do.

From real scientists, not frauds like you, Silly Billy

as usual with SkS, you have to keep track of the pea under the thimble.

the evidence for an increased hotspot is simply not there. the papers that claim that there is are contorted by using highly manipulated datasets or bizarre proxy replacement of temperatures with wind shear.

 

[Billy_Bob]

... CO2 is supposed to re-emit radiation in the 6-12um band wavelengths towards the surface....

as usual Billy Bob is totally confused and is just spouting bafflegab a la Cliff Clavin

CO2 absorbs and emits at 4 and 15 microns. the 4 micron band is ignored because there is little of that radiation incoming from solar input or outgoing from surface output. the 15 micron band is absorbed to extinction by CO2 in ~10 meters. that energy is mostly transferred to the total energy of the atmosphere because the average time for an excited CO2 molecule to re-emit the photon is more than ten times as long as the average time between molecular collisions at near surface conditions.

as the graph shows, there is NO absorption or emission by CO2 in the 6-12 micron band. BB has been caught bullshitting again.

lol...

IF energy going up changes paths, and empirical evidence shows that it does, then the hot spot is totally a myth. But then you like to call bull shit on others while burying your head in the sand with Old Rocks..

 

[IanC]

... CO2 is supposed to re-emit radiation in the 6-12um band wavelengths towards the surface....

as usual Billy Bob is totally confused and is just spouting bafflegab a la Cliff Clavin

CO2 absorbs and emits at 4 and 15 microns. the 4 micron band is ignored because there is little of that radiation incoming from solar input or outgoing from surface output. the 15 micron band is absorbed to extinction by CO2 in ~10 meters. that energy is mostly transferred to the total energy of the atmosphere because the average time for an excited CO2 molecule to re-emit the photon is more than ten times as long as the average time between molecular collisions at near surface conditions.

as the graph shows, there is NO absorption or emission by CO2 in the 6-12 micron band. BB has been caught bullshitting again.

lol...

IF energy going up changes paths, and empirical evidence shows that it does, then the hot spot is totally a myth. But then you like to call bull shit on others while burying your head in the sand with Old Rocks..

Was I not direct enough? You said CO2 emits at 12-16 microns. It doesn't.

Why do you bullshit all the time?

 

[SSDD]

as the graph shows, there is NO absorption or emission by CO2 in the 6-12 micron band. BB has been caught bullshitting again.

Why are you dragging CO2 into the post...he didn't say a thing about CO2...do you believe that radiation only happens in the very narrow CO2 wavelengths? Are you expanding the magical and mystic powers of CO2 now?

The only bullshit is that associated with the claim that CO2 in any way beyond its contribution to the mass of the atmosphere affects the global climate.

 

[IanC]

as the graph shows, there is NO absorption or emission by CO2 in the 6-12 micron band. BB has been caught bullshitting again.

Why are you dragging CO2 into the post...he didn't say a thing about CO2...do you believe that radiation only happens in the very narrow CO2 wavelengths? Are you expanding the magical and mystic powers of CO2 now?

The only bullshit is that associated with the claim that CO2 in any way beyond its contribution to the mass of the atmosphere affects the global climate.

... CO2 is supposed to re-emit radiation in the 6-12um band wavelengths towards the surface....

as usual Billy Bob is totally confused and is just spouting bafflegab a la Cliff Clavin

CO2 absorbs and emits at 4 and 15 microns. the 4 micron band is ignored because there is little of that radiation incoming from solar input or outgoing from surface output. the 15 micron band is absorbed to extinction by CO2 in ~10 meters. that energy is mostly transferred to the total energy of the atmosphere because the average time for an excited CO2 molecule to re-emit the photon is more than ten times as long as the average time between molecular collisions at near surface conditions.

as the graph shows, there is NO absorption or emission by CO2 in the 6-12 micron band. BB has been caught bullshitting again.

lol...

IF energy going up changes paths, and empirical evidence shows that it does, then the hot spot is totally a myth. But then you like to call bull shit on others while burying your head in the sand with Old Rocks..

Was I not direct enough? You said CO2 emits at 12-16 microns. It doesn't.

Why do you bullshit all the time?

edit. in this post I said 12-16 microns. an obvious mistake. it should be 6-12 microns as both BB and myself referenced above.