A report which looks at all the climate variables that can be measured for 2014 has been released today.
The annual ‘State of the Climate’ report has been published by the American Meteorological Society, presenting summaries for all so-called Essential Climate Variables (ECVs).
These include various types of greenhouse gases, temperatures throughout the atmosphere, ocean, and land, water cycle variables, ocean variables such as sea level and salinity, sea ice extent, permafrost temperatures and others. The majority of these reflect a planet that is continuing to warm.
The exceptional warmth of 2014 occurred against a backdrop of neutral to marginal El Niño conditions. Europe was especially warm and all land regions apart from North America showed above average frequency of warm extremes.
Annual average anomalies (difference to normal) for 2014 for surface temperature from the Met Office’s global temperature dataset, HadCRUT4 relative to a 1981-2010 climatology period.
Over oceans, global sea surface temperatures and ocean heat content were also observed to be exceptionally warm and sea level exceptionally high.
The significant warmth is reflected strongly in regions of snow and ice. Arctic sea ice was well below average but above the exceptional lows seen in 2007, 2011 and 2012. Glacier volume is declining year on year – preliminary results for 2014 make it the 31st consecutive year of decline.
Long-lived greenhouse gases continued to increase, primarily owing to rising carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations, in addition to methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and other minor trace gases.
The Met Office’s Kate Willett, a lead chapter editor on the new report, said: “The comprehensive view of the different variables in the report enables a better understanding of the interconnectedness of our climate system.”
‘State of the Climate in 2014’ is the 25th consecutive instalment of the report, which is lead by scientists from NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information, along with 413 scientists from 58 countries.
Met Office scientist Kate Willett leads the Global Climate chapter and several other Met Office scientists contribute, using Met Office Hadley Centre climate data. All reports are freely available online.
Official blog of the Met Office news team 
Strange that there is no mention that, on the more accurate satellite measurements, last year was only the 6th warmest since 1998?
Or that Arctic sea ice extent has been growing since 2012, and that its thickness is the greatest since 2006?
Or that Antarctic sea ice is at record levels, and that global sea ice has been above average for most of the last two years?
Or that glaciers began retreating in the mid 19thC, and at a much faster rate than anything seen recently?
Or that sea level has been rising since the 19thC, and that the rate of rise was greater in the first half of the 20thC than now?
A suspicious person would think you are trying to hide something.
Or that, even on these figures global warming in the last 15 yrs is much, much less than Met Office models have predicted?
The satellite datasets do not even agree with each other so how can it be claimed that they accurately represent anything? Certainly as a measure of temperature of the atmosphere at altitude they cannot be an accurate measurement of surface temperature.
GISTEMP only 0.04°C Behind Models
http://davidappell.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/gistemp-only-004c-behind-models.html
Satellites are not more accurate. Fixed it for you.
Have you read any Lewandowsky?
Why would anyone want to read what Lewandowsky has to say? He knows nothing about climate science.
Edited under moderation guidlines.
Jsam. How would ‘you’ know?
New study questions the accuracy of satellite atmospheric temperature estimates
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/nov/07/new-study-disputes-satellite-temperature-estimates
When I was being taught in science class I was always told don’t believe anything anyone says who uses the word “consensus”. It means the person saying it has no scientific background and is likely to be a failed arts graduate.
So why do the balloon radiosondes agree with the satellite data then?
Conspiracy?
Roy Spencer’s unpublished graph is much derided for his cherry-picked baseline.
Try http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/learning/science/first-steps/observations
In what way is picking the ‘start’ of the satellite era ‘cherry picking’ when comparing model projections with observations? Should he have picked a date before or after satellite data became available?
How can it be ‘much derided’ for that?
jsam, you really should stop digging when you have lost the debate.
Lost a debate? When every scientific body disagrees with you?
You are very good at ignoring facts, better than most.
Try again.
Jsam. So pleased that you conceded to agree that Dr Spencers choice of start date was correct.
We are making progress. If slowly.
You have conceded that Roy is wrong.
You are regressing.
The globe warms: surface, oceans and melting ice.
The surface warms.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1996/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1996/trend
The oceans warm…
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
…and rise 3.3 mm per year, up from 1.9 mm per year a century ago.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/global-mean-sea-level-time-series-seasonal-signals-removed
…and acidify by 30% since the industrial revolution.
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification%3F
The earth is losing a trillion tons of ice per year:
– 159 Gt Antarctic land ice, McMillan el al, GRL (2014), http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL060111/abstract
+ 26 Gt Antarctic sea ice, Holland et al, J Climate (2014) , http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00301.1
– 261 Gt Arctic sea ice, PIOMAS, http://psc.apl.uw.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/
– 378 Gt Greenland, Enderlin et al, GRL (2014), http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013GL059010/abstract
– 259 Gt other land based glaciers, Gardner et al. Science (2013), http://www.sciencemag.org/content/340/6134/852.abstract
= – 1,031 Gt, total
Guessometer tested jsam.
Nuwurld guessometer failed.
Denial is so last decade.
So guess blind acceptance rules eh? [edit for policy]
Blind acceptance, however, is timeless.
You forgot your evidence. Bless.
None so blind as those that will not see.
Jsam the Earth has been in and out of full glaciation several times over the past 500 thousand years, spending 450 thousand of those in full glaciation. The previous warm period the Eemian, was around 2deg warmer than the current Holocene period. Without man’s help. Interested parties can google ‘Eemian warm’.
The Earth loses very little after its initial hydrogen abundance. Ice, I can assure you isn’t lost. Ice is a potential killer. Think of how much life lives in the tropics, compared with the frozen extremities.
Today’s Climate Change Proves Much Faster Than Changes in Past 65 Million Years
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/todays-climate-change-proves-much-faster-than-changes-in-past-65-million-years/
Rubbish. During the Younger Dryas the Earth’s temperature altered by several degrees within a decade.
0.8 of 1deg in 130years doesn’t compare!
The Younger Dryas was caused by an impact event. Try again.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150727180224.htm
With respect, jsmart. Not everyone agrees;
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/data4.html
Seems you forgot about the bi-polar see-saw old bean. In the ice core data.
Either which way was a ‘natural’ and ‘more dramatic’ event than you elucidated.
Please try harder.
New papers. Do keep up nuwurld.
The most obvious problem with this article is the claim that 2014 was “exceptionally” warm. Both satellite based data sets show this claim to be false. There was nothing exceptional about 2014 whatsoever.
Only the corrupted land based datasets, which do not even cover around 30% of the globe, claim that 2014 was one of the warmest.
Simply untrue, the four datasets mentioned in the report HadCRUT4, NOAA, GISS and JMA are all mixed land/ocean sets.
The satellite datasets do not measure surface temperature at all. There is no reason to assume that ranking in these datasets would follow that in the surface sets. To suggest that it should is an error.
There are no weather stations covering around 30% of the land mass let alone much of the oceans.
Satellites do not measure the upper latitudes.
Satellites do not directly measure temperature.
Satellite data needs extensive modelling and has a long history of corrections.
Satellites do not measure the surface.
The rising ocean is a good thermometer.
Er, except that the energy per unit mass at 7.5km is exactly the shame as the surface energy, perhaps?
Ah spelling mistake, that’s a shame!
7.5 km, and more, up is not the surface. Try again.
Strangely John, we both agree upon something. 7.5km is not the surface.
Never said it was. That’s the point. Re read.
From 7.5km you can calculate the surface temperature without even thinking about a ‘greenhouse effect’ or ‘greenhouse gases’ or ‘back radiation’. So what have you got? Diddly squat. No extra energy in the lower troposphere. Got that?
Junk science John. That’s what the ‘radiative greenhouse effect’ is.
Why? Because 7.5km air per unit mass is the same energy as surface air.
Totally weird that ‘you’ think that physics cares whether this planet has a surface though?
You could project an equilibrium temperature to the core of a gas giant, perhaps.
Bad news when your whole fictional depiction of atmospheric physics isn’t worth a dime eh John?
The correct bit of your post is “without even thinking”.
But I like the handwaving trying to explain away the continued warming of the surface.
Denying the effects of greenhouse gas is, shall we say a “brave” decision.
Simple energy calculations and the International Standard Atmosphere produce vertical thermal profiles without the need to incorporate radiation within the profile to modify it. More detailed calculations involving specific humidity render back radiation and the effects of ‘greenhouse gases’ insignificant.
Publsh nuwurld. Or accept it’s derp.
Pick a simple error that you can identify or conclude that you know ‘derp’. Why would you attempt to ‘bring down’ something without personal reason that you can at least attempt to explain?
Publsh nuwurld. Or accept it’s derp.
Appears you accidentally submitted the same derp twice there site robot.
Run out?
Afraid to be laughed at? Publish. 🙂
Corrupted dataset? Are you a conspiracy theorist?
If you don’t like adjustments you won’t like satellites.
I don’t have a problem with adjustments per se where they are recorded and fully explained. The satellite datasets are fully transparent whereas the land and ocean datasets are corrupted by a huge number of unexplained adjustments and extrapolations.
The surface adjustments are recorded and explained.
Why not the satellites?
The satellite adjustments are all recorded and fully explained, it is the surface datasets which have been subjected to huge amounts of adjustments many of which have no explanation but I suspect you knew that already and were simply being obtuse.
To give one particularly invidious example NOAA have been caught out only this month making monthly adjustments and have even failed to archive the previous pre-adjustment data. Clearly they appear to have something to hide. It is practice unbecoming of any scientific organisation.
Except of course for the continual smoothing and blending algorithm employed by the big boys.
I like the conspiracy theorist expression “insidious”.
The satellite record is the most manipulated and corrected.
Except that from satellite data from altitude you can calculate the surface equilibrium temperature and the significance of accuracy rules out the possibility of a radiative enhancement in the lower troposphere. So everything else is twiddling with algorithms. Who cares beyond that?
You’ve yet to explain why the surface is warming. And the oceans. And why the ice is melting.
Oddly enough the world’s scientists have one and you don’t. Shouldn’t you be more sceptical?
Roman Warm, Dark Ages Cold, Medieval Warm, Little Ice Age, Current Warm.
What is there to explain, the Earth CAN AND HAS DONE THIS, without man’s help.
Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/full/ngeo1797.html
Try again.
Look at the modern North Atlantic Oscillation and its description. Warm in Europe, Cold in Greenland or vice versa depending upon zonal or meridional jet patterns/teleconnected pressure differences. Medieval warm was warm in Europe and warm in Greenland. So where was the Polar Front, jsmart?
Which bit on “no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm” did you struggle with most?
What do you fail to understand about the simpler question?
Where was the polar front during the Medieval Warm where it was warm in Europe and warm in Greenland?
Seeing as you know do much.
I look forward to reading your global paleoclimatology reconstruction that shows a globally synchronous MWP.
Until then…
The oceans, our best thermometers, are the warmest too.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
Why do you not show ocean temperatures in deg C rather than Joules. Are you afraid that it will show the graph would only show temperatures supposedly rising by thousandths of a degree when you are aware that any rises would be dwarfed by the error bars several times their size. That’s because we do not have measuring equipment accurate enough to detect such small measurements.
Energy is measured in joules. Try again.
The oceans are warming faster than climate models predicted
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jul/20/oceans-warming-faster-than-climate-models-predicted
Whilst energy is indeed measured in joules, most people are unfamiliar with the conversion. There is nothing to prevent an honest scientist also showing the resultant increase in temperature on the graph, unless they are frightened that they would be ridiculed for alarmism when the reader realised it amounted to a few thousandths of a degree.
The oceans are heated by the Sun John.
Pretty well everything is heated by the sun. jb.
It’s what’s retained that counts.
[Edited under moderation guidlines]
Jsam, do you have the worlds first jouleometer?
I thought we measured a physical response to flux and through a calibrated instrument interpolated the energy exchange. Thought it was calculated. Wow.
Seems Argo floats actually measure energy. Wow.
Thanks jsam for that info.
Or is the energy flow buried in noise because the Argo floats actually measure ‘temperature’ in a noisy environment where 1/1000th of a degree resolution is required?
You don’t know how heat content is measured?
I have a pretty good idea;
Mass x heat capacity x temperature= Heat content. Full stop.
You don’t know the mass because of the uncertainty in land ice melt. You don’t know the temperature ‘difference’ because you require 1/1000deg resolution. And you cannot resolve from volume because of Glacial Isostatic Adjustment/ post glacial bounce, and the interrelation between thermosteric and mass increase. All confused by the constant variance of tides and the lack of a geodesy reference antenna in local space.
Anything you want to add?
Which of these are certainties in ‘jsam’ world?
So now you accept the oceans are warming too.
We are making progress.
Do not infer things I have not said.
So you don’t think the world is warming. Yet every scientific body does.
Intriguing.
Oceans incorporate lag so whether warming or cooling is not in phase with any driver.
So you agree the oceans are warming. Progress of sorts.
The oceans have far more heat content than the troposphere.
Therefore the earth warms.
Copout.
Failure to appreciate realty jsam.
The radiative greenhouse effect is a lower tropospheric effect. Atmospheric forcing of surface temperatures
Because there is no warming of the lower troposphere or the surface you and yours have DEFAULTED to the fact that the oceans incorporate lag.
Fact. (Feel free to correct me); the thermal inertia of the oceans is 400 to 700 years.
Because you accept that the world was cooler in 1880 by climatological measures then the oceans will uptake heat accordingly. They can’t keep up. (You should intuitively understand that).
SO WHAT?
IS THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT OCEANIC OR ATMOSPHERIC?
Decide what is forcing what by whatever mechanism and we can talk about that.
Copout.
Your attempt to rewrite two centuries of physics is very brave.
And your adhesion to the ‘faith’ of a fake science that you cannot defend because you don’t understand it is ……….?
Denial is fake science. Fixed it for you.
I think you need to define “exceptional”. As I understand it the far more accurate RSS and UHA satellite data shown no warming over the last 18+ years. It’s very easy when the temperature has plateaued to have a highest than ever, but for it to be exceptional it has to be much higher than the inherent errors in measurement and much higher than previously higher temperatures over longer geological periods when man’s influence was missing. If you can’t provide this then readers could be forgiven for thinking this is a propaganda exercise rather than a proper scientific evaluation of what is really happening.
It’s strange that if the RSS and UAH measurements are indeed “far more accurate” they don’t actually agree with one another. A skeptical person might leap to the conclusion that either;
a) they are not more accurate, or
b) they are not measuring the same thing.
Since they claim to be measuring the same thing, the lower troposphere, one can only conclude that one or other (or both) are inaccurate.
The lower troposphere measurements are not even an indirect measure of surface warming, which can best be measured by thermometers at the surface.
On the contrary you have clearly not even looked at the two satellite based datasets otherwise you would see just how remarkably similar they are.
On the Divergence Between the UAH and RSS Global Temperature Records
“On the contrary you have clearly not even looked at the two satellite based datasets…”
Actually I have. Using the woodfortrees trend calculator you can easily see that the trend is positive for all periods ending now and starting any time after 1990 (and possibly before). The same is not true for RSS.
You have been using the old MkI eyeball and not running the numbers, hence your mistake.
I suggest you stop quoting old accounts and instead refer to the up to date data, then you may be in a position to know what you are talking about.
But, the ‘greenhouse effect’ occurs first in the troposphere, do you not read anything? Heat radiated up, trapped in the what?
In which reputable journal is nuwurld’s nufysics to be published?
I like that jsam!
But actually it’s old physics. From a sensible era before the devil invented back radiation from CO2 and proposed carbon taxation upon the air we breath that promotes plant growth like some weird science fiction symbiosis. Ugh!
Phlogiston lives.
As this Office professes levels of accuracy and an exactitude in method and language, yet it still has the first line in error.
“A report which looks at all the climate variables that can be measured for 2014 has been released today.”
I’ve checked that it is not a quote from the report, so I can only think someone within the Met Office has concocted it, or are blindly(and unthinkingly) quoting a press release.
As I understand it most, if not all, the variables quoted in the report are adjusted, calculated, with many as just artificially modeled parameters. Indeed this document is, at many instances, at pains explains how estimations and probabilities are statistically approximated. After a quick read through of all 288 pages I fail to find any raw data, therefore the quoted ‘climate variables’ in this report are what is simulated, and thus a mere artifice of computer modeling and not measured .
Also how much weight should be given to one years worth of mainly modeled figures, even if it were to somehow manufacture a simulation close to the reality of that 2014 weather. Surely one year is insignificant in terms of climate variability.
But Met Office, the entire ‘radiative greenhouse effect’ is an accepted but unproven hypothesis.
It is certain that reducing emissivity forces a higher temperature in pure radiative equilibrium but, and it is a very big ‘but’, the current atmosphere has annihilated surface radiations. The surface hardly loses anything at all via radiation. From a calculable radiance of 370Wm-2 for 288K and emissivity of 0.95 (sea and land) only a piddling 67Wm-2 is lost from the surface by radiation. Of that 67Wm-2 around 40Wm-2 goes straight through the atmospheric window meaning that only around 17Wm-2 heats the atmosphere by long wave radiation. That’s around 10% of the atmosphere’s energy budget.
90% of the atmosphere’s energy comes from latent heat transfer (advected) and direct solar heating. ie the energy by which ridiculous calculations of ‘unavailable for work or power’ back radiative ‘faith’ is the product of other heat transfer mechanisms.
Moreover, from altitude it is possible to predict accurately, from temporally and spatially averaged figures, an accurate surface temperature without considering inter atmospheric or surface to atmospheric radiation both globally and in the tropics where a proposed ‘super greenhouse effect’ apparently occurs.
Can I point out that the line by line methodology of producing radiative transfer codes uses monochromatic analysis such that Kirchoff’s law can be applied as it requires the availability of a physical process linking matter and radiation. In the room you are sitting in ‘bathed’ in terahertz radiation no one single item will raise its own temperature nor force anything else to raise its temperature due to Kirchoff’s law. The radiation code is the numerical analyses sum over the entire spectrum of individual line processes with Kirchoff’s law applied to every one.
The tropospheric thermal gradient is a logical consequence of gravitational containment and appears in any gravitationally bound gaseous envelope.
It is not produced by or requiring special gases. The calculated ‘unavailable for work or power’ massive downwhelling fluxes you and yours have faith in are temperature signals you are referencing to zero Kelvin. Environment products.
Any climate model that increases mean surface kinetic energy (temperature) whilst reducing upper atmospheric mean kinetic energy, ie increasing the gravitationally set lapse is in world of fictional delusion. The entire supposed ‘greenhouse effect’ has not managed this at all.
Why then does just about every scientific body in the world disagree with you? Why would they lie?
Just about every scientific institution agrees. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by_scientific_organizations_of_national_or_international_standing
Many explicitly use the word “consensus”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Scientific_consensus
By papers it’s 99.98% of nearly 11,000. http://www.jamespowell.org
Or just read the journals. Try it. Try and find a reputable recent paper that disagrees.
Jsam sat at his keyboard all day scrolling through the peer supported garbage of a junk science. Well done sir. Do you think I require someone like you to tell me how many sheep live on this planet!? Do I care how many sheep are wrong?
No and no.
I am presenting data and logic. Respond to those, or go and find someone who can.
Best regards.
Logic? Then publish!
Oh dear jsam, you’ve lost the argument so you have no alternative but to resort to the fallacy of argument from authority. That won’t wash with anyone except the very naïve.
Consensus is not a scientific term, back to school I’m afraid.
Consensus is a scientific term. Try again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus
Wikipedia? LOL
Consensus is a term and it’s used in science when there is general agreement on an issue. It doesn’t prove that agreement is correct, but it does prove that a lot of very clever and well informed people agree with that position. It is possible to overturn a consensus but it requires a lot of very strong evidence to do so. Your idea (if indeed it is your idea) fails on both counts.
Jsam, consensus is the ‘death’ of scientific evolution.
Again, I do not care how many sheep agree with you upon this. Nothing would ever change by this approach.
Surely you must realise that we are in the infancy of science and technology.
Do you really believe that we know so much as to deny the opportunity to progress sir?
You don’t like my sources and you have none.
That is a very dull LOL.
Arrhenius and Einstein published in the same decade. Do keep up. It’s only two century old physics.
I am not playing the same game as you jsam. All of your evidence is reliant upon extrapolation of observation due to unwavering ‘faith’ in a fake science. None of your meanderings hold water in light of being based upon ‘knee jerk’ scientific garbage.
I am quite happy to just pull the plug on the fake science of the ‘radiative greenhouse effect’.
Without that all of your ‘observations’ are not worth anything. The Earth can do this all by itself. And it is doing so.
Let’s do Arrenhius first.
If Svent Arrenhius had been aware that the upper tropospheric temperature was in equilibrium, globally averaged over a year with the surface temperature through potential temperature and specific humidity alone as a function of mass then he would never have suggested that it could be forced by tweaking atmospheric variables. Arrhenius measured optical opacity and ‘assumed’ thermalised absorption (like Tyndall) without realising that the lower troposphere was never anywhere near in pure radiative balance. Easily understandable mistake.
This profound statement isn’t intuitively obvious to all. That I understand. If I produced a point of logic and waved it in front of a ‘goldfish’, or a ‘chimpanzee’ chances are that the ability to follow the logical argument would be lost through lack of interest or lack of intrinsic ability to comprehend. That is not the failure of the reduced intellect of the subject unless said subject takes it upon itself to speak for others who, unlike himself, might possess an unbiased ability to reason. The reader can chose for themselves, that is their choice in an educated and free society.
“We still do not know one thousandth of one percent of what nature has revealed to us.”
Albert Einstein
Almost the same as ‘Fake Rubbish Climate Science’s’ claim,
“The Science is Settled,”
No?
You would jump out a window because the science behind gravity is not settled.
No jsam, I respect gravity, and like everyone else appreciate its reality. You however believe in the fake downwhelling radiation, which according to Earth’s energy budget, as of climate science, is twice the power of the Sun globally averaged. So get yourself out tonight and top up your tan after dark buddy. Or are you going to admit a problem with quantum mechanics and entropy?
It’s a very large conspiracy you believe in, isn’t it?
Way too many inconsistencies jsam. What kind of a person would know that and still believe?
Oh, you!
Those inconsistencies only exist in conspiracy theorists’ noggins.
What kind of a person would know that and still believe?
Oh, you!
This is staggering stuff, where did it get published? It did get published I assume?
Gilbert. As you have failed to direct your statement towards anyone in particular and also failed in specifying exactly what it is that ‘has’ or ‘has not’ been published, we are left guessing.
If you are talking to me, perhaps, with respect to atmospheric physics then you could check out the International Standard Atmosphere. The basis for this is that gravity produces the initial density gradient within an atmosphere and accordingly through the hydrostatic condition (that the atmosphere doesn’t fly off into space or collapse onto the surface) we see an accompanying pressure gradient.
dP/dh= -ρg
Also within the ISA the classically derived adiabatic lapse rate is used to predict a vertical temperature profile that is, again, a direct consequence of gravitational containment.
dT/dh = -g/Cp
So we have density, pressure, temperature and also a derivable speed of sound all as functions of height above the surface. The ISA is used for aircraft design and altitude pressure meter calibration. All without considering inter atmospheric radiation which although in existence is an environmental product.
The fact that we can calculate the tropospheric thermal profile without considering radiation is an embarrassment to modern climatology. Yes, on individual soundings the profile can be all over the place as the atmosphere reacts to diabatic heating processes, but long term averages even things out.
Also you are incorrect in saying that “a lot of very strong evidence” is required to change the dogma of consensus. In science a single repeatable experiment is all that is required to disprove a theory. So I don’t need a vast body of evidence. I just need evidence.
The ‘radiative greenhouse effect’ predicts this, let me know if I’ve sold you short;
“The Earth emits radiation in the long wave. Some of which is absorbed by ‘greenhouse gases’ and some of this is re radiated back to the surface thereby increasing the surface temperature”
That is the premise, is it not?
Temperature is a measure of mean kinetic energy;
1/2mv^2 = 1/2kT per degree of freedom, so the ‘radiative greenhouse effect’ predicts an increase in the mean kinetic energy (temperature) in the lower troposphere, due to the proposed ‘radiative heat trapping’. This enhancement is testable through measurement.
Now, upon analysis, the upper troposphere is in exact energy balance with the lower troposphere. Water vapour, apparently the most powerful ‘greenhouse gas’ has mainly precipitated out by 7.5km and so radiative heat trapping cannot maintain the energy levels there, by simple deduction.
However, from altitude if one assumes that the surface is at the same total energy then you can calculate the surface temperature by understanding that the energy is stored in the kinetic (thermal) states, gravitational potential, and latent heat from vaporised water as specific humidity. You do not need to factor for spectral line absorption, line width due to broadening or band optical depth. You do not need to calculate the abundance of ‘greenhouse gases’ or even contemplate their existence. Cp, the thermodynamic specific heat capacity already factors for the statistical effects of vibrational modes upon temperature as a function of energy changes. This applies to any planetary atmosphere.
That should be like a ‘wake up’ call to anyone except those
totally blinkered by preconceptions.
Nuwurld wants someone to debug his blog derp for free.
Write it up. Publish. Or accept it as the nonsense as we already know it is.
You have all the right words but, speaking as a physicist, not many of the sentences make a lot of sense, so it’s hard to tell what you mean.
Is it your contention then that you can establish a pressure/temp profile without considering radiation at all? Because if you are you are on a hiding to nothing.
Gilbert. Mr Physicist. This is how it is done. You go back to the ‘first sentence’ that you ‘don’t understand’ and we can progress from there.
I’ll hold your hand and walk you though it.
I have made it perfectly clear that I am saying that the upper atmosphere, per unit mass is in perfect energy balance with the surface through specific humidity. I have not said anything else, other than radiative effects can be neglected. Where the did you get pressure/ temp from?
OK then…
“I have made it perfectly clear that I am saying that the upper atmosphere, per unit mass is in perfect energy balance with the surface through specific humidity”
Prove it.
“The fact that we can calculate the tropospheric thermal profile without considering radiation is an embarrassment to modern climatology.”
Not true, it’s a standard result in atmospheric physics. The Standard Atmosphere was defined in 1975 for goodness sake, you surely don’t imagine that you’re the only person to have noticed it.
“Also within the ISA the classically derived adiabatic lapse rate is used to predict a vertical temperature profile that is, again, a direct consequence of gravitational containment.”
True, but it tells you nothing about the temperature at the surface. Remove all the greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and the profile would remain more or less the same but the surface temperature would fall. Again this is a standard result. Within the ISA the surface temperature is a fixed value derived from measurement.
“However, from altitude if one assumes that the surface is at the same total energy ….”
Show that this assumption is justified.
“….so the ‘radiative greenhouse effect’ predicts an increase in the mean kinetic energy (temperature) in the lower troposphere, due to the proposed ‘radiative heat trapping’. This enhancement is testable through measurement.”
And when it’s measured we find that it is indeed increasing. You still haven’t explained why you think this is. None of the things you have talked about have any explanatory power related to the observed rise in surface temperatures.
” Where the did you get pressure/ temp from?”
From you when you started wittering on about the ISA.
Obtain a globally averaged temperature at altitude and it’s globally averaged specific humidity. Easy for a man with your resources. Transpose the potential energy into the available thermal states through the specific heat capacity Cp, to give a surface equivalent temperature, cf potential temperature.
dT/dh = -g/Cp as a guide. Standard derivations of the adiabatic lapse are online.
NOAA specific humidity data. Go fish.
The projected surface temperature is an equivalent temperature without the globally averaged surface specific humidity. So calculate the ‘difference’ in specific humidity between the surface and attitude and subtract the necessary energy from the thermal pool to vaporise the water necessary. What is left is the surface temperature at h0.
Any questions?
“The fact that we can calculate the tropospheric thermal profile without considering radiation is an embarrassment to modern climatology.”
Not true, it’s a standard result in atmospheric physics. The Standard Atmosphere was defined in 1975 for goodness sake, you surely don’t imagine that you’re the only person to have noticed it.
But it is still true and still embarrassing. So make your point. I know its a standard result. And does not require concession to radiation. So tell me why I have to?
Strange you have said, “to notice” and not to have “made this mistake”
I have noticed that you have not explained anything here or corrected anything, mr physicist.
What is wrong with the ISA?
“True, but it tells you nothing about the temperature at the surface. Remove all the greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and the profile would remain more or less the same but the surface temperature would fall. Again this is a standard result. Within the ISA the surface temperature is a fixed value derived from measurement.”
Seeing as water, the most powerful ‘greenhouse gas’ precipitates out by 7.5km how can air there contain enough information to calculate the surface temperature? Also pressure broadening and GHG production must make the effect largely in the lower troposphere. But still the thermodynamic properties above are in exact equilibrium with the surface 7.5km below. On Venus it is in equilibrium with 60km below without thinking about radiation. Just heat capacity and gravity, Mr physicist.
The ISA was updated in 1975 from the original 1958 edition but the tropospheric model was not updated. Current models have not updated the original troposphere. Even if the surface level was measured it was 15degC. Which is around 0.4degC warmer than today’s after half a century of unprecedented warming!
““However, from altitude if one assumes that the surface is at the same total energy ….”
Show that this assumption is justified.”
Well if you assume it and then calculate the thermodynamic properties at upper tropospheric levels and am compare them with surface properties globally averaged you can see that the assumption holds. There are only a few ways that thermally interchangeable energy can be stored. Potential, thermal latent and we can neglect radiation as the photon gas has negligible energy content here. No chemistry involved, no nuclear very little quantum.
Equate them. It holds.
The Earth isn’t heated as in IPCC energy budget diagrams. Around 80% of the Earth’s energy budget is delivered within 40deg of the seasonal equator by a near parallel flux that exploits short atmospheric paths. As you know heat is redistributed internally along the horizontal thermal gradient by coupled atmospheric and oceanic circulation. As we witness with the tides the atmosphere and oceans are subject to resonances and harmonics that are modulated externally by the other gravitating bodies that continually redistribute momentum within the solar system. Slight solar changes influence atmospheric height and atmospheric angular momentum. And can only be rectified by turbulent frictional dissipation on the lithosphere thereby modulating fundamental winds and the horizontal thermal gradient in the process.
We have just recently seen a peak in both the Pacific and Atlantic oscillations…..,
But you know all this anyway. Silly me.
“” Where the did you get pressure/ temp from?”
From you when you started wittering on about the ISA.”
Sorry, I never used the accepted derivation of the lapse rate that introduced pressure then eliminated it. It is much simpler to derive it from kinetic theory.
Should be enough there for a paper, nuwurld.
Publish.
2015: Halfway over and hot
http://www.climate.gov/news-features/featured-images/2015-halfway-over-and-hot
I would expect nothing else during an El Nino. Unfortunately that’s got nothing to do with AGW, just weather. Still not likely to be anywhere near as hot as the previous record year 1998.
Don’t worry it will soon reverse as soon as the La Nina takes hold, then you’ll have nowhere to hide.
I do find it amusing that the CAGW alarmists have been praying for an El Nino to raise the temperature. Global warming gone astray has it?
It’s already hotter than 1998 and has been all year. In the important surface temperature datasets 1998 comes after 2005, 2010, 2014 in terms of temperature.
Jsam, where do you find that low resolution rubbish? You must really put in overtime.
Anyway seeing as you are happy with NOAA, let’s run with that. You explain the difference, pal.
Well you see the difference is jsam produced gridded temperature anomaly data, at the normal resolution. Whereas you produced the output of a forecast (i.e. model) for August which necessarily was produced at a higher resolution.
The other difference is jsam probably understood what it she/he was linking to.
Gilbert. Both are model outputs. Do you think the data for forecasts are completely separated from the now casts and their associated anomalies?
The model output as a forecast for August 2015 is based upon and running the data from 23rd June until 2nd July with anomalies based upon 1981-2010 climatology.
The main difference and reason for the massive amount of pink in jsam’s fiasco is that it is a ‘Temperature Percentile Map’ and the ranking for each grid is a minimum of 80year baseline with many representing 135year (to 2015) climatological baseline. This renders nearly every square in the top 10percentile as the world IS warmer by about 0.8degC than in 1880.
The forecast map for August 2015 is based upon near current input data during an El Niño compared with 1981-2010 climatology and shows much more white and much, much less threatening ‘pink’!
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/dyk/global-mntp-percentiles
Nice try though.
It’s pretty disingenuous to claim that both are model outputs, one is the output of a weather/climate model and the other is basically averaged and smoothed data. As you say nice try though..
You can of course have it against the 1981 – 2010 climatology…
You can of course have it against the 1981 – 2010 climatology…
..it tells the same story. I’m glad to see you admit the world has warmed, care to venture an opinion as to why?why?
So you finally accept it’s warming. Phew.
Pretty disingenuous!
Pretty disingenuous?
You are having a laugh pal!
You both have shown me a small, simple, two dimensional representation of a large complex three dimensional object where 3d grid squares have been miraculously presented in Mercator projection.
ITS A MODEL, Duh
Do you think that some artist sat next to some geek with a calculator and drew the image?
No. The ‘model’ was computed from 3d data into a smaller 2d representation. Hence, mr physicist it is a COMPUTER MODEL.
Get it!
And, whether you like it or not, the images are different because of the baseline and incorrectly represented because of percentile representation. Do anomalies.
My apologies (not really) it’s Eckert 111 not Mercator
Anyway, it’s not me who has to explain anything. All three are from NOAA. You tough guys explain why the forecast for August is White and not bright pink. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
[edit for policy]
Gilbert. Mr Physicist. Jsam’s percentile map shows the entire central Pacific for THIS year as;
RECORD WARMEST
In bright red for emphasis. That is by comparison with ALL the available temperature data to 1880. Follow?
You, sir have very graciously altered the climatological baseline to 1981-2010 and miraculously the central Pacific is not record warm anymore. So by altering the baseline this years RECORD WARMTH can be evaporated. Pretty weird?
Or is it that the top percentile is shown in red and labelled as a “record”, irrespective of whether it actually is or not?
Lies, damn lies and statistics eh?
But you reckon “it tells the same story”
“Story” being an unfortunate choice of word.
Teller.
Let’s address each of your concerns in turn.
“Gilbert. Mr Physicist. Jsam’s percentile map shows the entire central Pacific for THIS year as;
RECORD WARMEST”
Actually the map does not, it just says “Warmest”, though the text does indicate some areas were at record warmth.
“You, sir have very graciously altered the climatological baseline to 1981-2010 and miraculously the central Pacific is not record warm anymore. So by altering the baseline this years RECORD WARMTH can be evaporated. Pretty weird?”
Not really. For one thing the map I posted was for June alone and Jsams’s was for the 6 months leading up to June, there’s no reason why these have to be the same. Also the map I posted is in degrees anomaly, so without comparing it with historical data you can’t really say if any particular area was at record heat.
” You tough guys explain why the forecast for August is White and not bright pink. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.”
Because the forecast you posted does not utilise the same colour map as the maps we posted. Yours has white for anomalies between -0.5C and +0.5C. In mine they are light blue to light pink. The pattern however is the same.
Click the large version, right hand panel.
Thanks, nuwurld. Your plot clearly shows a warming earth.
Try again.
Only through your rose tinted specs old bean!
Just about every scientific body says you’re wrong. Can you explain why this is without a conspiracy theory? Nonsense like “funding” or “groupthink” are just euphemisms and will also be mocked.
There are around 125 metrics identified that apparently affect surface temperature John. The bulk of those can be located within the lower troposphere. However, from above that by ignoring around 122 of those you can determine the surface temperature. [edit for policy]
Regards.
Why does no scientific body agree with you>