Satellite temperature records

So boring. All +T compilations range from 0.124 to 0.174. Or possibly slightly higher. So much dang concordance.

On behalf of those most concerned about rapid warming, this has simply got to increase. But by what mechanism? CO2 can only increase faster if we burn faster, or if biological sequestration (land & sea) goes slower. Water vapor was spoz to be threat multiplier, but +W is also slow.

On behalf of those concerned about rapid cooling, one would need to suppose that ocean heat content (where most heat goes) would not leak back out. Uh-huh.

Being stuck in the boring middle, I think about food/water/energy over coming 2 or 3 decades. Make that work, because it sorta looks like we have non-deadly +T and +CO2 +SLR for such time.

I might be totally wrong about that, and that +CO2 for few decades is suicidal. Some folks say so. But, OK, if you want to stop that train you need to convince a very large 'burning' industry. I am kinda out of the loop here.

 

AustinGreen (still here buddy?) would be disappointed if I did not also reiterate logarithmic effect of CO2 on infrared energy trapping. Logarithmic means that next 30 +CO2 ppm will have less effect than previous 30 have had.

 

Did not mean he'd post it; rather he'd correctly draw our attention to the log ness of absorption. Here is mine

As often, it surprised me. Blue part is annual average values; red part is extrapolation to future based on second-order polynomial that fit best. This is not 'Paris agreement' future because CO2 keeps increasing. I consider it more likely than strong emission decreases.

Because rates have been accelerating they are increasing even expressed as logs. During the first decade of record log CO2 increased by 0.38%. decade ending with most recent data, log CO2 increased by 0.85%. Decade ending in 2050, log CO2 increases by 1.1%.

All this may seem complicated, but I suppose that however fast +CO2 is increasing energy content of earth system now, it will increase similarly for the next few. How that will play out in temperature depends on things in addition to CO2.

First blue is 315 ppm last blue 402 last red 504. Pre-industrial CO2 of 280 ppm has a log of 2.45. Thus log CO2 had increased by 2.1% by when Keeling made first Mauna Loa measurements.

 

They no teacha Beer-Lambert Law ina your school?
It is much simpler than on this particularly icky wiki:

Beer–Lambert law - Wikipedia

Absorption ratios are as log10 of concentration ratios. Over narrow ranges, square roots or other cookery works well enough. Computer math seems to not lend itself to logarithms. Probably you get that better than I. It means my Licor pals in Nebraska use a fifth-order polynomial to 'math out' CO2 absorption. Works very well. Actually, for high [CO2] one swaps out the 10-cm optical path for a 2-cm shorty, CO2 being such a good infrared eater.

Humans are apparently repelled by log-math in general. So sad, because it is just another way of counting and so very useful. You just gotta forget about your fingers.

All this impinges on CO2/climate ...well I don't want to call it fake, just inadequate understanding. Earlier [CO2] increased from 280 to 315 ppm and that (appropriately) expressed as log ratio is 2.1% increase. That should have some direct relationship with heat trapping. During current +T era from 1970 to 2016 [CO2] went 325->402 ppm; expressed as log ratio is 3.7% increase. Compare those energy-trapping ratios to contemporaneous +T and results are not so shabby.

Now compare 2016 to extrapolated 2050 [CO2]; 402->504; log ratio is 3.8% increase. Here we go again. Current +T of about 0.17 oC per decade would (by simple expectation) increase, but not like Venus. Not either like IPCC but it seems my opinion is in the unoccupied middle here.

Beyond that there is paleo-proxy evidence that +CO2 has stronger effects on T at 100 to 1000 year scales. I do not doubt that such could later occur; That our grand^N children might be displeased by needing to sort out their (probably) 600 ppm CO2 world. Yet they might, at least, appreciate that we might decide to get the future 9 or 10 billions human pop on sturdy footing in terms of energy/water/food/climate. Allow them to live and grow economies.

For me this is quite an odd thing. When PriusChat began, I was full-on IPCC. But through those years +T has been as such and not accelerating. Atmos water vapor was supposed to be the amplifier, but it has not yet been so. To painfully repeat myself, ocean energy dynamics remain beyond model capabilities. We suck at planetary management.

Somehow, neither 'we are doomed' nor 'CO2 harms nothing' camps affect me much.

 

Go back a step on spectroscopy. Target CO2 molecules absorb their favorite-color photons, increasing vibration and rotation. That energy is kinetically dispersed to any other molecules they bump into. About half of that energy wanders outward in direction away from planet. I have mentioned studies including Philipona about that loss.

Other half of energy 'thermalizes' downward. As mojo correctly says, IR energy absorption happens in atmosphere. With most of earth ocean-covered, that energy either evaporates water or gets mixed downward. Someday, somebody will figure out those fractions

Over (minority) land, some of that energy evaporates water and remainder heats substrates. Only that last small pie-slice reinforces atmospheric heating.

Since pre-industrial to now, [CO2] log ratios have increased by 6.4%. Let that run unconstrained to 2050, it can become 10.4%. I do expect faster future warming, but not soon doubled rates. We shall see...

For reversals to -T, notrickszone website hosts a betting framework. Our mojo could win big there. Or lose! Sorry guy, this complicated planet is not a toy influenced by your shouting.

 

I had to look far back to dredge up a T increase thread. This suggests that it may not be seen as controversial or newsworthy any more. It just is. Nevertheless, a link:

Comparing temperature series

Not visited that site before, nor am I particularly promoting it. But they have done a straightforward comparison* of T since 1980, with results not entirely as I would have supposed. Also it presents (on my browser) in an 'elder' font I can read even without glasses.

At least look at one graph almost 2/3 down page, called 4 major Temperature series - Global. In this smoothed record, RSS (satellite) cozies up with these 2 surface thermometer analyses. UAH is different, which argues against my guess that satellite use in general leads to discrepencies. Rather it is UAH (vs. RSS) data-processing steps.

A dead horse also needs beating. I swear I saw an eyelash fluttering. Notice that in all 4 records, more +T has happened since 1998 than from beginning to 1998. If I never hear again a new voice saying "warming stopped in 1998" I swear I'll stop beating.

*LOESS is very similar to centered moving average, here with 10-yr window.

 

I am not aware that Berkeley BEST diverges in any notable way from other Surface T since 1980.

Actually I think having yet another was motivated by different (arguably better) ways to extend T record into past. With better understand of uncertainty.

 

Annual swings are the magician's (attractive?) assistant. Distract from matter of interest. Statistics remove fun from function. In this case, minimize mean square errors!

Three unattractive words: Mean. Square. Error. How can a pedant 'sell' such stuff to students? Believe me, it takes a lot of examples related to pee and poo and bunga bunga.