But that sudden change in v4 data, when daily data begins, is a mistake, because it introduces a distortion. For whatever reason, the v3 monthly averages were mostly underestimated by around 0.1 to 0.5C, so suddenly correcting them only from 1908 results in an overestimation of modern temperatures relative to times before 1908, for this particular station.

]]>green is HADCRUT4. So something has changed in the meantime.

]]>Still cool even now:

https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx/fcst/#gfs.arc-lea.t2anom

1) Are you sure that thermal emission law (Stefan–Boltzmann) applies to fluorescence?

2) Doesn’t the energy migrate down the spectrum, out from the opacity band, on the way to space, because transparent bands get less occupied on altitudes (thermodynamic equilibrium)?

3) Are current models built rather for Martian atmosphere? focusing only on very thin CO2 because altering composition gas mixture with density, pressure, temperature and absorption/emission spectrum is just impossible to model effectively?

4) We know that negative feedback loop capacity is way broader than few degrees. History has seen tens degrees of variation. Still we have all three phases of water, we are stabilized as if in a triple point cell. Latency in these feedback chains causes oscillation. If you look at the multitude of different cycle lengths, you can guess how many there is! (excluding Suns and orbital oscillations of course). Positive feedbacks generate higher harmonics in the system.

]]>https://www.thetimes.co.uk/past-six-days/2019-08-09/scotland/loch-ness-hydropower-proposal-vetoed-over ]]>

thank you.

Dr. Rex Fleming (a former director within NOAA; his resume from his own website: http://rexfleming.com/resume/) has published a review paper last year, which I read. He writes:

“The important equations for radiative transfer are Planck’s equation for the intensity of radiation, and the integration of the Schwarzschild equation for net diffuse radiation. One can see (Houghton 1985) and (Liou 2002) for details.”..

“The Schwarzschild eq. solution using the Liou notation above and equations of Houghton is:

F = – ? B (?, T) (d?*) / du) du + ? B (?, T) (d?*) / du) du; the optical depth (d?*) is due to the radiation being diffuse rather than a parallel beam.

In the first integral, the integration proceeds downward along the optical path from the reference level (Z) with optical path u downward to the surface where the optical path = 0. In the second integral, the integration proceeds upward from the reference level (Z) with optical path u upward to the top of the atmosphere where the total optical path is u1. Both integrals are positive, because of the convention that the path length is measured positive down and then positive up respectively. The net flux at a level is the upward flux at the bottom of a layer minus the downward flux at the top of a layer.”

He then goes step by step through the exact calculations for different bands of CO2 and summarises his results:

“One can summarize these calculations as follows: whatever the “climate-change regime”, whatever surface heat from the Sun on any given day within that regime, that heat is fully absorbed and fully vertically redistributed throughout the troposphere – there is no propensity for CO2 to store heat in a systematic way over time to produce a climate-change effect (as defined in the introduction).

Why does the integrated effect of CO2 have so little effect on the total temperature profile? The reason is that the Planck function change with height (temperature) is very strong in reducing the intensity of those relatively few lines with large absorption coefficients. Another reason is that the longwave radiation is diffuse which depletes the intensity rapidly over distance. The diffuse nature of the radiation also leads to the fact that the net radiation for a given level (that sent upward at the bottom of a layer, minus that sent downward at the top of a layer) further reduces the adsorbed CO2 radiation intensity.

Other so-called “greenhouse gases” (some with larger absorption coefficients, but all with significantly less concentration) have their intensity quickly transferred upward and depleted by the same strong Planck function intensity change that applies to CO2 and H2O.”

You will find the link to the paper here, the relevant section regarding CO2’s greenhouse effect (including the Schwarzschild equation) is in Section 5. The review has been published in a peer-review journal last year. It would be nice if you could comment 🙂 All the assumptions and numbers he uses are included in the paper.

]]>It’s a two stage process. To get an anomaly average, you need a reference period for which as many stations as possible have data. That is, if you aren’t using the greatly superior least squares method. Once you have the average, you can adjust by subtracting the mean for some other period, if the result seems more natural to you. That is what they do.

]]>