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

[SSDD]

That graph does NOT support your comment. It clearly shows warming of the troposphere and cooling of the lower stratosphere. The latter is commonplace in a world warming for any reason while the latter is produced ONLY by greeenhouse warming. If you think you have some other explanation for those data, let's hear it whizbrain.

You really are an idiot crick...and should stop using graphs immediately...

I said that the troposphere stopped cooling in 1993...look at your top graph...fron 1960 till about 1993...see the steady cooling trend till 1993?...have any idea what that means...now look at 1993 onward...from that point till the present, there is a warming trend.

Your stratospheric chart says the same thing as my graph except on a different scale....idiot...Maybe that is because they essentially come from the same satellite and radiosonde data set. The stupidity just never stops with you...does it?

 

[Crick]

What a fucking marOON. The UPPER graph is the lower stratosphere, not the troposphere. The LOWER graph is the troposphere.

You haven't got the brains god give a rubber duck. A fucking rubber duck.

 

[SSDD]

What a fucking marOON. The UPPER graph is the lower stratosphere, not the troposphere. The LOWER graph is the troposphere.

You haven't got the brains god give a rubber duck. A fucking rubber duck.

Ive said it before and I will say it again...the stupid just never stops with you does it?

Up in post 37, to your comments in post 36 regarding the stratosphere, I said....and I quote:

"As to the rest... The stratosphere stopped cooling in 1993, and began warming again around 10 years ago. Oddly enough, around 10 years ago is when some of the signs of a new cooling cycle began to appear"

to which I posted a graph from NOAA which supported my statement and to which you posted your own graph which supported my statement...give it up crick....you are just to stupid for words.

 

[Billy_Bob]

That graph does NOT support your comment. It clearly shows warming of the troposphere and cooling of the lower stratosphere. The latter is commonplace in a world warming for any reason while the latter is produced ONLY by greeenhouse warming. If you think you have some other explanation for those data, let's hear it whizbrain.

You really are an idiot crick...and should stop using graphs immediately...

I said that the troposphere stopped cooling in 1993...look at your top graph...fron 1960 till about 1993...see the steady cooling trend till 1993?...have any idea what that means...now look at 1993 onward...from that point till the present, there is a warming trend.

Your stratospheric chart says the same thing as my graph except on a different scale....idiot...Maybe that is because they essentially come from the same satellite and radiosonde data set. The stupidity just never stops with you...does it?

Give it up Crick... you couldn't graph you're way out of a paper bag, even if it was wet.

 

[SSDD]

[
Give it up Crick... you couldn't graph you're way out of a paper bag, even if it was wet.View attachment 101969

I think he jumped on the fact that in one post I misstated and said troposphere instead of stratosphere...he got so excited that I had misspoke and made an error that he forgot what the conversation was actually about...I keep waiting for him to start pointing out spelling or punctuation errors in an attempt to regain some face.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Well here is a new paper that just flushed the toilet on AGW and shows that water vapor is not acting in a positive roll..

An investigation was conducted utilizing the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) 1°x1° gridded total precipitable water (TPW) dataset to determine the magnitude of upwelling long-wave infrared radiation from Earth’s surface since 1988. TPW represents the mass of water vapor in a 1 meter by 1 meter column from the surface to the top of the atmosphere. As referenced in IPCC AR5 WGI Box 8.1, the radiative effect of absorption by water vapor is roughly proportional to the logarithm of its concentration. Therefore it is the fractional change in water vapor concentration, not the absolute change, that governs its strength as a climate forcing mechanism. A time-series analysis utilizing a Loess decomposition filter indicated there is a clear upward trend in the RSS TPW data since 1988. The observed total change over the period is ~ 1.5 kg/m^2, centered around the long-term mean of 28.7 kg/m^2. Utilizing the observed relationship between water content and atmospheric absorption, the RSS TPW data indicates an increase in downwelling longwave radiation of 3.3 W/m2 over the period 1988 – 2015.

And it was presented at the AGU meeting...

Source

 

[Crick]

You think an INCREASE in precipitable water shows water vapor is not increasing?

 

[Billy_Bob]

You think an INCREASE in precipitable water shows water vapor is not increasing?

lol

That's rich... As usual, Crick cant see the forest through the trees..

Key finding:

"The finding of an observationally measured increase in downwelling radiation of 3.3W/m2 since 1988, in addition to the increase in downwelling radiation over the period as calculated by the IPCC, with little corresponding change in temperature, calls into question the applicability of the concept of “climate sensitivity”.

From the paper:

"That is to say, we get a bit over two watts per square meter of increased absorption for every additional kilogram of atmospheric water per square meter.That is an interesting finding which we can combine with the following look at the change in global average total precipitable water since 1988: There is a clear trend in the TPW data. The total change over the period is ~ 1.5 kg/m2, centered around the long-term mean of 28.7 kg/m2. Utilizing the relationship between water content and atmospheric absorption derived above, this indicates an increase in downwelling radiation of 3.3 W/m2 over the period. Note that this 3.3 W/m2 increased forcing from the long-term increase in water vapor since 1988 is in addition to the IPCC-claimed 2.3W/m2 increase since 1750 in all other forcings (see Figure SPM-5, IPCC AR5 SPM 5). The IPCC counts as forcings the long-term changes in the following: CO2, CH4, Halocarbons, N2O, CO, NMVOC, NOx, mineral dust, SO2, NH3, organic carbon, black carbon, land use, and changes in solar irradiance, but not the long-term changes in water vapor."

"This leads us to a curious position where we have had a larger change in forcing from water vapor since 1988 than from all the other IPCC-listed forcings since 1750."


In other words, All other forgings have acted at less than 20% of the IPCC lowest C-scenario assessment.

 

[ding]

You think an INCREASE in precipitable water shows water vapor is not increasing?

"One of the most vivid predictions of global warming theory is a “hotspot” in the tropical upper troposphere, where increased tropical convection responding to warming sea surface temperatures (SSTs) is supposed to cause enhanced warming in the upper troposphere.

The trouble is that radiosonde (weather ballons) and satellites have failed to show evidence of a hotspot forming in recent decades. Instead, upper tropospheric warming approximately the same as surface warming has been observed...."

"...Note that the linear warming trend in the UT product (+0.07 C/decade, bright red trend line) is less than the HadSST3 sea surface temperature trend (light green, +0.10 C/decade) for the same 20N-20S latitude band, whereas theory would suggest it should be about twice as large (+0.20 C/decade).

And what is really striking in the above plot is how strong the climate models’ average warming trend over the tropical oceans is in the upper troposphere (+0.35 C/decade, dark red), which I calculate to be about 1.89 times the models’ average surface trend (+0.19 C/decade, dark green). This ratio of 1.89 is based upon the UT weighting function applied to the model average temperature trend profile from the surface to 100 mb (16 km) altitude.

So, what we see is that the models are off by about a factor of 2 on surface warming, but maybe by a factor of 5 (!) for upper tropospheric warming.

This is all preliminary, of course, since we still must submit our Version 6 paper for publication. So, make of it what you will.

But I am increasingly convinced that the hotspot really has gone missing. And the reason why (I still believe) is most likely related to water vapor feedback and precipitation processes, which largely govern the total heat budget of the free-troposphere (the layer above the turbulently mixed boundary layer).

I believe the missing hotspot is indirect evidence that upper tropospheric water vapor is not increasing, and so upper tropospheric water vapor (the most important layer for water vapor feedback) is not amplifying warming from increasing CO2. The fact that UT warming is indeed amplified — by about a factor of 2 — during El Nino events in the above plot might be related to the relatively short time scales involved, since convective heating and radiative cooling are far out of balance during short term variations, but are much closer to being balanced in the long-term with global warming.

The lack of positive water vapor feedback is an especially controversial assertion to make, given that (1) SSM/I satellite measurements of water vapor have indeed been increasing in lock-step with SST warming, and (2) probably a unanimous opinion in the IPCC climate community that water vapor feedback is positive.

But the SSM/I measurements are largely insensitive to the very low levels of upper tropospheric water vapor, so they can’t tell us anything about upper tropospheric vapor. And while lower-tropospherc water vapor is governed mostly by SST, upper tropospheric vapor is governed by precipitation processes, and we don’t even understand how those might change with warming, let alone have those physics included in climate models.

Instead, I suspect the models have been adjusted so that precipitation systems detrain more water vapor into the upper troposphere with warming, simply because that’s what we see on short time scales, say during El Nino events, and so the convective parameterizations in the models are adjusted to meet that expectation..."

New Satellite Upper Troposphere Product: Still No Tropical “Hotspot” « Roy Spencer, PhD

 

[Billy_Bob]

You think an INCREASE in precipitable water shows water vapor is not increasing?

"One of the most vivid predictions of global warming theory is a “hotspot” in the tropical upper troposphere, where increased tropical convection responding to warming sea surface temperatures (SSTs) is supposed to cause enhanced warming in the upper troposphere.

The trouble is that radiosonde (weather ballons) and satellites have failed to show evidence of a hotspot forming in recent decades. Instead, upper tropospheric warming approximately the same as surface warming has been observed...."

"...Note that the linear warming trend in the UT product (+0.07 C/decade, bright red trend line) is less than the HadSST3 sea surface temperature trend (light green, +0.10 C/decade) for the same 20N-20S latitude band, whereas theory would suggest it should be about twice as large (+0.20 C/decade).

And what is really striking in the above plot is how strong the climate models’ average warming trend over the tropical oceans is in the upper troposphere (+0.35 C/decade, dark red), which I calculate to be about 1.89 times the models’ average surface trend (+0.19 C/decade, dark green). This ratio of 1.89 is based upon the UT weighting function applied to the model average temperature trend profile from the surface to 100 mb (16 km) altitude.

So, what we see is that the models are off by about a factor of 2 on surface warming, but maybe by a factor of 5 (!) for upper tropospheric warming.

This is all preliminary, of course, since we still must submit our Version 6 paper for publication. So, make of it what you will.

But I am increasingly convinced that the hotspot really has gone missing. And the reason why (I still believe) is most likely related to water vapor feedback and precipitation processes, which largely govern the total heat budget of the free-troposphere (the layer above the turbulently mixed boundary layer).

I believe the missing hotspot is indirect evidence that upper tropospheric water vapor is not increasing, and so upper tropospheric water vapor (the most important layer for water vapor feedback) is not amplifying warming from increasing CO2. The fact that UT warming is indeed amplified — by about a factor of 2 — during El Nino events in the above plot might be related to the relatively short time scales involved, since convective heating and radiative cooling are far out of balance during short term variations, but are much closer to being balanced in the long-term with global warming.

The lack of positive water vapor feedback is an especially controversial assertion to make, given that (1) SSM/I satellite measurements of water vapor have indeed been increasing in lock-step with SST warming, and (2) probably a unanimous opinion in the IPCC climate community that water vapor feedback is positive.

But the SSM/I measurements are largely insensitive to the very low levels of upper tropospheric water vapor, so they can’t tell us anything about upper tropospheric vapor. And while lower-tropospherc water vapor is governed mostly by SST, upper tropospheric vapor is governed by precipitation processes, and we don’t even understand how those might change with warming, let alone have those physics included in climate models.

Instead, I suspect the models have been adjusted so that precipitation systems detrain more water vapor into the upper troposphere with warming, simply because that’s what we see on short time scales, say during El Nino events, and so the convective parameterizations in the models are adjusted to meet that expectation..."

New Satellite Upper Troposphere Product: Still No Tropical “Hotspot” « Roy Spencer, PhD

Long term trend of surface and troposphere heat loss are paralleled at the same gradient slope. This indicates that water vapor is acting as the heat transport mechanism and CO2 is incapable of stopping it.. Result is no hot spot..

 

[SSDD]

Long term trend of surface and troposphere heat loss are paralleled at the same gradient slope. This indicates that water vapor is acting as the heat transport mechanism and CO2 is incapable of stopping it.. Result is no hot spot..

CO2 is a heat transporting mechanism as well...CO2 is not the blanket, but small holes in the blanket. It is just goofy to suggest that a radiative gas would inhibit the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself.

 

[Crick]

The two of you take the cake.

Does CO2 transport radiative energy faster than free space?

Duh....

And, Billy, oh Atmospheric-Physicist-at-large, how much water vapor does one find in the stratosphere?

 

[SSDD]

The two of you take the cake.

Does CO2 transport radiative energy faster than free space?

By free space, do you mean empty vacuum?

 

[IanC]

The two of you take the cake.

Does CO2 transport radiative energy faster than free space?

By free space, do you mean empty vacuum?

A significant amount of surface radiation already escapes freely to space via the atmospheric window at 8-14 microns. leaves at the speed of light. if there was no CO2 in the atmosphere then that window would be expanded to 8-16 microns, and all the energy intercepted by CO2 and passed to the atmosphere by molecular collisions would be immediately lost. That would cool the atmosphere, which in turn would cool the surface.

 

[IanC]

Long term trend of surface and troposphere heat loss are paralleled at the same gradient slope. This indicates that water vapor is acting as the heat transport mechanism and CO2 is incapable of stopping it.. Result is no hot spot..

CO2 is a heat transporting mechanism as well...CO2 is not the blanket, but small holes in the blanket. It is just goofy to suggest that a radiative gas would inhibit the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself.

CO2 does increase radiation loss to space at high altitudes where CO2 specific radiation does not get recaptured by another CO2 molecule because of the thinness of the air. Stratospheric cooling. At lower levels it is quickly reabsorbed and cannot escape.

 

[SSDD]

Long term trend of surface and troposphere heat loss are paralleled at the same gradient slope. This indicates that water vapor is acting as the heat transport mechanism and CO2 is incapable of stopping it.. Result is no hot spot..

CO2 is a heat transporting mechanism as well...CO2 is not the blanket, but small holes in the blanket. It is just goofy to suggest that a radiative gas would inhibit the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself.

CO2 does increase radiation loss to space at high altitudes where CO2 specific radiation does not get recaptured by another CO2 molecule because of the thinness of the air. Stratospheric cooling. At lower levels it is quickly reabsorbed and cannot escape.

What small amount of radiation that does get absorbed and emitted from CO2 molecules does not get absorbed by another CO2 molecule because it is emitted at a slightly lower frequency.....unless you are claiming that no energy is required to excite the CO2 molecule to a higher energy state so that it emits a "photon"...

 

[Crick]

That would apply to everything. Water vapor would be eliminated as an effective GHG agent. Is that what you're suggesting.

PS, you might want to look up the definition of the term quanta.

PPS Ian, are you suggesting that increasing CO2 levels increase radiation to space from the stratosphere?

 

[SSDD]

That would apply to everything. Water vapor would be eliminated as an effective GHG agent. Is that what you're suggesting.

It might...except that water vapor absorbs and emits over a far greater range of frequencies than CO2...A slight change in the frequency of IR won't put it out of the range of water vapor.

 

[Crick]

The process of CO2 absorbing a photon and emitting a photon are mirrored. Show us a valid source which states emission and absorption take place at different frequencies because it looks to me as if you're attempting to violate Kirchoff's Law of Thermal Radiation



Came across this while looking around. Thought you'd enjoy it:

6 -- HOW OBJECTS EMIT RADIATION: BLACKBODIES
All material objects emit electromagnetic radiation; the distribution of photon energies and fluxes emitted depend primarily on the object's temperature. This phenomenon is known as blackbody radiation. Because the amount of radiation, and its spectrum depends on the temperature, it is sometimes called thermal radiation, or heat radiation.

The object in question can be large (stars and planets), small (single molecules), solid, liquid, or gaseous. Blackbody radiation is a familiar phenomenon: When the temperature of an object (such as a piece of metal) is increased, it begins to glow reddish orange, and, as the temperature is further increased, its glow becomes progressively whiter. As the temperature is further increased, the glow takes on a bluish cast, however, at such high temperature, the glow is usually so intense that it is painful to look at, and even harmful to the eyes (which is why welders use dark goggles when working).

Even when an object is cool, and we do not see a glow at all, the object is constantly emitting radiation that is mostly in the infrared region. Night vision equipment detects this infrared radiation, and electronically converts the image detected in the infrared to a visible image.

Blackbody radiation is continually removing energy from an object, thereby causing it to cool. This is the reason that Earth's surface cools at night. Why doesn't an object keep cooling and cooling, eventually reaching the absolute zero of temperature? The reason is that at the same time the object is losing energy to outgoing blackbody radiation, it is bathed in the blackbody radiation emitted by everything else in its surroundings, and it absorbs some of this radiation, replacing some of the energy that is being lost. Electromagnetic radiation is continually being "exchanged" among objects. Objects that are warmer emit more energetic radiation than those that are cooler and so they cool faster. Therefore, in the absence of an external heat source, all objects in a confined space will eventually reach the same temperature. That is, they will reach thermal equilibrium. Even after thermal equilibrium is reached, the objects still exchange radiation with each other, but now the objects are absorbing and emitting energy in the form of radiation at exactly the same rate, so no net heat exchange takes place.

The blackbody radiation of the Sun, Earth, Earth's atmosphere, and clouds play an important role in Earth's climate. Most of the Sun's radiation is blackbody radiation radiated from the Sun's surface, or photosphere, whose temperature is about 5700 K. Earth's surface is warmed by absorbing this light. At the same time it is absorbing energy, Earth's surface is emitting its own blackbody radiation. At night, when the surface is no longer being illuminated by the Sun, it is still radiating its own blackbody radiation, Earth's surface to cool. Some of that radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere. The atmosphere also emits blackbody radiation, some of which is absorbed by Earth's surface. The nighttime temperature depends upon the relative rates of absorption and emission by Earth and the atmosphere. If the atmosphere is made more efficient at absorbing radiation, it will trap more of Earth's radiation, and reradiate more of it downward, making Earth's surface warmer on average. This is known as the greenhouse effect.


Remember that all objects are blackbody radiators, and that the spectrum of an object's blackbody radiation is determined by the object's temperature, and by its emissivity.
Chapter 4 Section 6

And this: Advanced Concepts in Quantum Mechanics

Where Kirchoff's Law is spelled out stating clearly that radiation is dependent solely on temperature and demonstrating that it is independent of position, direction and nature of the material.

 

[IanC]

That would apply to everything. Water vapor would be eliminated as an effective GHG agent. Is that what you're suggesting.

PS, you might want to look up the definition of the term quanta.

PPS Ian, are you suggesting that increasing CO2 levels increase radiation to space from the stratosphere?

As with most things determining atmospheric radiative transfer, the devil is in the details. While extra CO2 may increase the percentage of CO2 specific radiation at the fuzzy boundary where it can escape to space, the change in height of that boundary due to the increase may lower the temperature which would mean less available energy to be converted into CO2 specific radiation.

It would be very informative to know how much blackbody radiation is produced by straight molecular collision, and how much takes the extra step of exciting a GHG molecule which then emits in a very specific wavelength. eg. IR guns measure radiation in the bands that would escape to space so that it is known that that radiation is actually created in the atmosphere, rather than GHG radiation which may just be scattered.


I agree with you that SSDD simply has no concept of atomic scale interactions. If electron jumps and bends actually consumed energy then the clockwork universe would have winded down soon after the big bang. Entropy increases but energy is not destroyed.