FairyTales of Global Warming..

[SSDD]

Actually, you fell on your face in that thread, unable to even figure out what the graphs you posted were about.

It's clear how you're too emotionally invested in your fantasies to ever change. You weren't reasoned into your positions, so it's not possible to reason you out of them. You will not change until your cult leaders tell you to change.

I am sure that you wish it were so...the fact is that OLR is increasing and nothing you say can or will change that.

 

[Crick]

Then you really should have little trouble finding some data that actually SHOWS that.

 

[Crick]

This tells me that many conservatives are intolerant bigots with substandard educations


AND THAT THEY KNOW IT.

 

[IanC]

Actual measurements of course.

You misspelled "Yet another mystery graph I got from a denier blog". Such mystery graphs are all you have, which is one big reason we know you're parroting cult pseudoscience.

Meanwhile, the rational people can point to actual documented peer-reviewed data. Like this. There's plenty more, but first I want to watch you flail about making up reasons why these are part of the great conspiracy. Then we can move on to the others.

Satellite-Based Reconstruction of the Tropical Oceanic Clear-Sky Outgoing Longwave Radiation and Comparison with Climate Models -- Gastineau et al. (2014)

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
---
While the tropical ocean surface temperature has risen by roughly 0.2 K from 1982 to 2004, the reconstructed OLR remains stable over the ocean. Consequently, there is an increase in the clear-sky greenhouse effect (GHE) of 0.80 W m^2 decade−1
---

A decade of measured greenhouse forcings from AIRS – Chapman et al. (2013)

SPIE | Proceeding | A decade of measured greenhouse forcings from AIRS
---
Decadal trends for AIRS spectra from 2002-2012 indicate continued decrease of -0.06 K/yr in the trend of CO2 BT (700cm-1 and 2250cm-1), a decrease of -0.04 K/yr of O3 BT (1050 cm-1), and a decrease of -0.03 K/yr of the CH4 BT (1300cm-1).
---

Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth’s infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006 -- Chen et al. (2007)

https://www.eumetsat.int/cs/idcplg?...veAs=1&RevisionSelectionMethod=LatestReleased
---
Previously published work using satellite observations of the clear sky infrared emitted radiation by the Earth in 1970, 1997 and in 2003 showed the appearance of changes in the outgoing spectrum, which agreed with those expected from known changes in the concentrations of well-mixed greenhouse gases over this period. Thus, the greenhouse forcing of the Earth has been observed to change in response to these concentration changes.
---

Right...I already provided you with the graphs from that wackaloon study and they show no such decrease in OLR. What they show is a difference between observation and model output...what a surprise...

I have to side with SSDD on this one. the first two are abstracts, and the last one is all about models.

personally I would take any graph showing historical OLR with a grain of salt because it is very difficult to compare different satellites to each other.

 

[Crick]

Observed changes in top-of-the-atmosphere radiation and upper-ocean heating consistent within uncertainty : Nature Geoscience : Nature Publishing Group

Global climate change results from a small yet persistent imbalance between the amount of sunlight absorbed by Earth and the thermal radiation emitted back to space1. An apparent inconsistency has been diagnosed between interannual variations in the net radiation imbalance inferred from satellite measurements and upper-ocean heating rate from in situ measurements, and this inconsistency has been interpreted as ‘missing energy’ in the system2. Here we present a revised analysis of net radiation at the top of the atmosphere from satellite data, and we estimate ocean heat content, based on three independent sources. We find that the difference between the heat balance at the top of the atmosphere and upper-ocean heat content change is not statistically significant when accounting for observational uncertainties in ocean measurements3, given transitions in instrumentation and sampling. Furthermore, variability in Earth’s energy imbalance relating to El Niño-Southern Oscillation is found to be consistent within observational uncertainties among the satellite measurements, a reanalysis model simulation and one of the ocean heat content records. We combine satellite data with ocean measurements to depths of 1,800 m, and show that between January 2001 and December 2010, Earth has been steadily accumulating energy at a rate of 0.50±0.43 Wm−2 (uncertainties at the 90% confidence level). We conclude that energy storage is continuing to increase in the sub-surface ocean.

You can see the full text if you've got a subscription to Nature Geoscience. If you want to reject this because it's an abstract, you're going to have to explain what other interpretation is possible for that last sentence.

 

[mamooth]

And some more. These papers are just about observations of greenhouse gases decreasing OLR. If we want to include papers about models, I can toss in another 10.

Comparison of Spectrally Resolved Outgoing Longwave Radiation over the Tropical Pacific between 1970 and 2003 Using IRIS, IMG, and AIRS – Griggs & Harries (2007)

Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave radiation between 1970 and 2003: The ν4 band of methane – Griggs & Harries (2005)

Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present – Griggs & Harries (2004)

Absolute, spectrally-resolved, thermal radiance: a benchmark for climate monitoring from space -- Anderson et al. (2001)

First global measurement of mid-tropospheric CO2 from NOAA polar satellites: The tropical zone – Chédin et al. (2003)

Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997 – Harries et al. (2001)

 

[flacaltenn]

And some more. These papers are just about observations of greenhouse gases decreasing OLR. If we want to include papers about models, I can toss in another 10.

Comparison of Spectrally Resolved Outgoing Longwave Radiation over the Tropical Pacific between 1970 and 2003 Using IRIS, IMG, and AIRS – Griggs & Harries (2007)

Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave radiation between 1970 and 2003: The ν4 band of methane – Griggs & Harries (2005)

Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present – Griggs & Harries (2004)

Absolute, spectrally-resolved, thermal radiance: a benchmark for climate monitoring from space -- Anderson et al. (2001)

First global measurement of mid-tropospheric CO2 from NOAA polar satellites: The tropical zone – Chédin et al. (2003)

Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997 – Harries et al. (2001)

Two of the later links there are 404 pages.. So when was the last time YOU read them??

 

[flacaltenn]

From your 1st link.....

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Figures 2 and 3 present the average brightness temperature spectra obtained using the above procedures. These are averages for April, May, and June for IRIS (1970), IMG (1997), and AIRS (2003), respectively, in the central Pacific region (10°N–10°S, 180°–230°E). The spectral resolution is 2.8 cm−1, and the data gaps correspond to those in the AIRS data. Figures 2a and 3a show the three average spectra for the 700–1150 and 1200–1400 cm−1 spectral regions respectively, superposed to show the consistency in the spectral resolution and position of individual features.

This indicates that the resolution and field of view corrections have been correctly applied. The principal features that appear in the spectra are as follows. The water vapor ν2 vibration-rotation band in the 1200–1400-cm−1 region; the ozone ν3 band centered at 1043.4 cm−1; the edge of the carbon dioxide ν2 band observed from 700 cm−1 (the limit of the IMG data) to 800 cm−1; and the methane ν4 band with a strong Q branch centered at about 1304 cm−1 are all observed.


Figures 2b and 3b show the three spectra from Fig. 2a and 3a separated by an offset of 10 K, for greater clarity. The high degree of reproducibility between the three independent cases is indicative of the high accuracy of the measurements and the techniques used to normalize them. It also reminds us that the spectral signatures due to climate change are very small, demanding high accuracy to be detected.

To reduce the amount of variability seen in the spectrum, cloud-free spectra are used. Brindley and Harries (2003a) discuss the use of all-sky data to make similar studies, but conclude that IRIS and IMG do not have adequate sampling to provide the required accuracy. A two-stage process for cloud and dust identification was used. In the first stage, the equivalent blackbody brightness temperature in the most transparent part of the spectrum (1127.71 cm−1): transmittance from surface to space = 95% (Iacano and Clough 1996), is compared to the known sea surface temperature (SST),


The second stage was designed to remove residual cloudy spectra not removed by stage 1, which might be contaminated by thin cirrus (Ackerman et al. 1990). This is based on the fact that the effect of cirrus cloud on the spectrum is to introduce a gradient in brightness temperature across the atmospheric window. Differences between brightness temperatures at 913.57 and 1250.08 cm−1 were compared to an acceptance threshold chosen by the same method as above. A high difference indicates a high tilt across the atmospheric window, indicative of cirrus cloud in the spectrum. In this study, slightly different wavenumbers had to be chosen than those used in Harries et al. (2001), because of the gap in the AIRS spectra at 909.8 cm−1, which was used in the second part of the cloud identification in Harries et al. (2001). The effect of this was that slightly different spectra were included in the IMG and IRIS datasets and so the 1997–1970 difference spectra presented here may show small differences from that presented in Harries et al. (2001)

1) Figure 2A are the 3 sensor readings over 30 yrs of sat data.. THERE is your picture of overall OLR "change"

2) Figure 2B is provided with an intentional OFFSET so that you even see the 3 "differences"..

3) All of this data is selected from 3 months of measurements on CLOUDLESS, VAPORLESS skies. So you are NOT LOOKING at OLR differences where the H20 spectra intersects the GHGas spectra..

4) The only PRAYER of finding a OLR difference in the CO2 bands is to compare the ONE BAND of CO2 that has no H2O overlap as a ratio to some point in the spectra NOT INFLUENCED by H2O or particulates.

And you can ignore the rest.. UNLESS OTHER areas of the OLR are tending to compensate for any change in the ONE CO2 band that matters to the discussion.. Does not matter WHERE in the spectra, that the earth vents it's heat --- and by this methodology, I can't see a way to even BEGIN to state that the TOTAL OLR is either rising or falling..

 

[Kosh]

Still not have seen one valid scientific link that CO2 drives climate.

Not one valid scientific link to datasets with source code that proves the basis for the AGW religion.

Although once you follow the money trail you will see the AGW movement is about the green of money above all else.

 

[Katzndogz]

Bad news for the warming cult.

Antarctic Glacier Melt Due To Volcanoes, Not Global Warming | The Daily Caller

 

[mamooth]

Bad news for the warming cult.

Antarctic Glacier Melt Due To Volcanoes, Not Global Warming | The Daily Caller

Wow. When deniers hook into a big lie, they won't let it go. It doesn't matter what the source actually says, because they'll tell you what it really means.

 

[mamooth]

Two of the later links there are 404 pages.. So when was the last time YOU read them??

Good catch. I was intending to check for dead links, and then just forgot. The links are fixed now.

 

[mamooth]

1) Figure 2A are the 3 sensor readings over 30 yrs of sat data.. THERE is your picture of overall OLR "change"

Correct, with figure 3 showing how OLR is lower 2003 than it was in 1970.

Hence, OLR is down in the CO2 band, and AGW theory is confirmed.

For somewhat better resolution, Chen 2007 also shows the measured OLR drop in the greenhouse gas bands. Figure 3. It's embedded in a pdf, so not easy to post here, but you can check the link.

https://www.eumetsat.int/cs/idcplg?...veAs=1&RevisionSelectionMethod=LatestReleased

 

[flacaltenn]

1) Figure 2A are the 3 sensor readings over 30 yrs of sat data.. THERE is your picture of overall OLR "change"

Correct, with figure 3 showing how OLR is lower 2003 than it was in 1970.

Hence, OLR is down in the CO2 band, and AGW theory is confirmed.

For somewhat better resolution, Chen 2007 also shows the measured OLR drop in the greenhouse gas bands. Figure 3. It's embedded in a pdf, so not easy to post here, but you can check the link.

https://www.eumetsat.int/cs/idcplg?...veAs=1&RevisionSelectionMethod=LatestReleased

Nope.....

Figures 2c and 3c show the standard deviations (&#963 of the three averages for the spectral regions 700–1150 and 1200–1400 cm−1, respectively. Previous similar analyses for the IRIS data have been reported, for example by Iacano and Clough (1996), though this is the first comparison for all three instruments. The similarity of the standard deviation should be noted, indicating that the three average spectra have been equally well cloud-cleared. Working from lower to higher wavenumbers, we note the following:

Very low values of σ toward the center of the CO2 band: the increased optical depth leads to higher layers of the atmosphere, into the stratosphere, being sampled. The stratosphere is more stable than the troposphere, leading to lower values of σ.

The σ values between ±1.0 and 1.7 K in the atmospheric window are dominated by variability of surface temperature and emissivity, and to a lesser extent lower atmosphere temperature and humidity.

There is little evidence for any significant variability of O3, known to be stable in the Tropics.

The σ increases up to ±5.0 K in the ν2 band of water vapor, which in the lower troposphere is highly variable. We shall see this effect dramatically in the analysis of spectra below.

Figure 3C is merely a SANITY CHECK on the process of equalizing and removing water vapor and particulates. There are 3 curves there -- one for EACH of the sat experiments. And the measurement is STANDARD DEVIATION OF EACH data set within itself -- not a comparison between them.. THERE MAY SOME differential OLR analysis deeper in the paper --- but this IS NOT a differential between the measurement systems..

The variance is probably measured over the 3 month May, June, July period that was taken from each data set..

And as i said, any OLR differentials that are derived by REMOVING WATER VAPOR from the data will NEVER tell you what's escaping at TOA. It will only give you the answer the YOU WARMERS WANT --- which is --- that in the absence of WATER VAPOR (the Principle GHouseGas) CO2 will absorb more OLR in the overlapped bands than it usually would.. It MIGHT verify the GHGas property of CO2 (not even sure if it's conclusive) -- but it is NOT a measurement of what's happening to the OLR at Top of Atmos..

 

[mamooth]

And as i said, any OLR differentials that are derived by REMOVING WATER VAPOR from the data will NEVER tell you what's escaping at TOA.

Nice catch-22 on your part. They can't do the measurements unless remove the variable of water vapor, but you declare it's invalid if they do remove it.

It will only give you the answer the YOU WARMERS WANT

Since you've devolved into invoking the GreatConspiracy again, there's no point in further discussion with you. When you make your career switch into climate science, you might want to leave the conspiracies out of your work.

 

[Vigilante]

Still not have seen one valid scientific link that CO2 drives climate.

Not one valid scientific link to datasets with source code that proves the basis for the AGW religion.

Although once you follow the money trail you will see the AGW movement is about the green of money above all else.

 

[Crick]

Look what carbon dioxide did to this ice!

 

[flacaltenn]

And as i said, any OLR differentials that are derived by REMOVING WATER VAPOR from the data will NEVER tell you what's escaping at TOA.

Nice catch-22 on your part. They can't do the measurements unless remove the variable of water vapor, but you declare it's invalid if they do remove it.

It will only give you the answer the YOU WARMERS WANT

Since you've devolved into invoking the GreatConspiracy again, there's no point in further discussion with you. When you make your career switch into climate science, you might want to leave the conspiracies out of your work.

Naww === See. You can do it BOTH WAYS. You can REALLY MEASURE OLR by taking the ENTIRE 3 months in those 3 data sets and analyzing them ----- OR ----- You can inspect the CO2 band(s) for evidence of trapping more heat in the ABSENCE of clouds and water vapor.

The first gives you a real honest OLR change study.. The 2nd just confirms some laws of physics that we already know.. There's room for both.

I think it's brilliant to inspect OLR and try to short cut to clarity. But from looking at the data diff over 30 years, I don't see how you're gonna find a couple watts/m2 out of the 300 or so leaking out. And I don't know how much earth they covered in those missions.

Now I did see some plots awhile back where they had YEARLIES for Total OLR laid out like the ones we just saw -- as full spectral plots. And there WERE some interesting changes "asserted" in those. Lemme dig them up..

 

[Crick]

The observation that there is a radiative imbalance at the ToA was a response to the denier claim that the Earth had stopped warming.

Multiple studies have now concluded that the Earth never stopped warming. The heat energy has been transferred into the deep ocean and thus cooled the ocean's surface. And it seems it's started coming back out (two Cat 4 hurricanes so far in the Eastern Pacific, the first one occurring 2 weeks preseason).

So, the Earth's temperature is increasing. If that is not due to an imbalance at ToA, what COULD be its cause?

 

[Crick]

And how, exactly, were you going to show an increase when aside from a graph 800,000 years long, none of your data were plotted against TIME.

Actual measurements of course.

NOAA global outgoing longwave radiation [OLR] from annualized monthly means, via the KNMI Climate Explorer

This is not a measurement of the imbalance. This is simply proof that despite all your claims that warming had stopped, the Earth has been getting consistently warmer.