Diurnal temperature range (DTR)

[longview]

I found an interesting paper on how the average temperature is affected
by the Diurnal temperature range (DTR).
Analysis of diurnal air temperature range change in the continental United States
One of the things worth noting is that the warming from the
minimum air temperature is about 3 times greater than the warming from
the maximum air temperature.

As demonstrated in Fig. 1, the annual mean maximum air temperature has a slightly increasing trend at 0.002848 °C/yr, but the annual mean minimum air temperature is rising at a much faster rate, 0.007506 °C/yr.

It looks like about three times as much of the warming observed is from minimum temperatures
not going so low.
This is about the same as Hansen found in 1994
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1995/1995_Hansen_etal_2.pdf

They find that the average minimum temperature increased 0.84°C while the average
maximum temperature increased only 0.28°C.

Hansen expected the damping of daytime highs by negative feedbacks to decline,
and the highs would catch up to the increase in lows.

Thus, except for the small damping due to increased water vapor, the maximum
temperature should increase as fast as the minimum temperature.

This has not been the case in last two decades, the ratio has stayed about 3:1 more
minimum warming.

What this means is that even if we take the most exaggerated of the data sets (GISS)
which shows warming of .95°C since 1880, that only .24 °C of that would be reflected
in daytime highs.
.71°C of the total observed warming would be in night time lows not going as low.

 

[Deuce]

I found an interesting paper on how the average temperature is affected
by the Diurnal temperature range (DTR).
Analysis of diurnal air temperature range change in the continental United States
One of the things worth noting is that the warming from the
minimum air temperature is about 3 times greater than the warming from
the maximum air temperature.

It looks like about three times as much of the warming observed is from minimum temperatures
not going so low.
This is about the same as Hansen found in 1994
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1995/1995_Hansen_etal_2.pdf

Hansen expected the damping of daytime highs by negative feedbacks to decline,
and the highs would catch up to the increase in lows.


This has not been the case in last two decades, the ratio has stayed about 3:1 more
minimum warming.

What this means is that even if we take the most exaggerated of the data sets (GISS)
which shows warming of .95°C since 1880, that only .24 °C of that would be reflected
in daytime highs.
.71°C of the total observed warming would be in night time lows not going as low.

Which is evidence of increased greenhouse forcing.

 

[longview]

Which is evidence of increased greenhouse forcing.

Hansen said, the evidence was that,

the maximum temperature should increase as fast as the minimum temperature. Empirical
evidence for our conclusion about maximum temperature could be provided by the occurrence
of daily maximum temperature records at a frequency exceeding statistical expectations.

That is not happening! The ratio of the increase in minimum temperatures to the increase in maximum
temperatures has remained about the same.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Which is evidence of increased greenhouse forcing.

More likely, the removal of land and replacing it with buildings, concrete, asphalt, etc. changes the transpiration, which affects night temperatures more than daytime.

There is no transpiration where the natural land is covered with man made items.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Hansen said, the evidence was that,

That is not happening! The ratio of the increase in minimum temperatures to the increase in maximum
temperatures has remained about the same.

Yes, if this increased forcing was due to the greenhouse effect, the difference wouldn't be so great.

 

[longview]

Yes, if this increased forcing was due to the greenhouse effect, the difference wouldn't be so great.

I am thinking if greenhouse gasses functioned as they think they do, I.E. like a greenhouse
the asymmetry would be reversed, greater warming when the heating is the highest.
In a real greenhouse the asymmetry is reversed.

 

[Deuce]

No, increased heat retention means nightly minimums end up higher. Increased solar forcing would lead to a higher daily maximum but not necessarily as much an increase in nightly minimums.

To use the extreme example, Mercury plunges to -150C or lower at night and over 400C in the daytime because it retains essentially nothing. Venus, on the other hand, has very little temperature variation. (although from what I can tell we have virtually no data on surface temperatures on venus, due to that thick cloud cover and unfortunate tendency to melt probes)

 

[longview]

No, increased heat retention means nightly minimums end up higher. Increased solar forcing would lead to a higher daily maximum but not necessarily as much an increase in nightly minimums.

You say this, and yet an actual greenhouse does not exhibit this behavior,
increased heat retention causes greater daytime maximums,
the exact opposite asymmetry as the empirical atmospheric data.

 

[Lord of Planar]

You say this, and yet an actual greenhouse does not exhibit this behavior,
increased heat retention causes greater daytime maximums,
the exact opposite asymmetry as the empirical atmospheric data.

Parrots just repeat what they are told.

 

[Deuce]

You say this, and yet an actual greenhouse does not exhibit this behavior,
increased heat retention causes greater daytime maximums,
the exact opposite asymmetry as the empirical atmospheric data.

I know they call it the greenhouse effect, but comparing it to an actual greenhouse is incorrect.

Parrots just repeat what they are told.

Says the guy who couldn't figure out the above.

 

[longview]

I know they call it the greenhouse effect, but comparing it to an actual greenhouse is incorrect.

It seems that Scientist who developed the concept of the greenhouse effect disagrees with you.

"That the atmospheric envelopes limit the heat losses from the planets had been suggested about 1800 by the great French physicist Fourier. His ideas were further developed afterwards by Pouillet and Tyndall. Their theory has been styled the hot-house theory, because they thought that the atmosphere acted after the manner of the glass panes of hot-houses."
Svante Arrhenius

Of course it could be that Ångström's criticism of Arrhenius work was correct, and that
CO2 becomes saturated fairly quickly.
My personal hypothesis is that during the daylight hours CO2 is in an almost constant state
of population inversion, and so only has limited reaction at a quantum level with ground radiation.
During the night hours, CO2 does actually perform as Arrhenius thought.
This would match more closely with the observed data.
If I am correct the blue sky daytime spectrum will include strong IR bands form CO2
at 9.6 and 10.6 um, something that could not come from 15 um excitation.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Says the guy who couldn't figure out the above.

Please show me where I have claimed that the greenhouse effect is just like a greenhouse? Was it because I didn't point it out?

Your statement is erroneous, and crosses that fine line to be a lie!

There are a few similarities. Not enough to class the atmosphere as a greenhouse.

 

[Deuce]

It seems that Scientist who developed the concept of the greenhouse effect disagrees with you.

Of course it could be that Ångström's criticism of Arrhenius work was correct, and that
CO2 becomes saturated fairly quickly.
My personal hypothesis is that during the daylight hours CO2 is in an almost constant state
of population inversion, and so only has limited reaction at a quantum level with ground radiation.
During the night hours, CO2 does actually perform as Arrhenius thought.
This would match more closely with the observed data.
If I am correct the blue sky daytime spectrum will include strong IR bands form CO2
at 9.6 and 10.6 um, something that could not come from 15 um excitation.

Please show me where I have claimed that the greenhouse effect is just like a greenhouse? Was it because I didn't point it out?

Your statement is erroneous, and crosses that fine line to be a lie!

There are a few similarities. Not enough to class the atmosphere as a greenhouse.

Let me know when you guys sort it out.

 

[BmanMcfly]

I found an interesting paper on how the average temperature is affected
by the Diurnal temperature range (DTR).
Analysis of diurnal air temperature range change in the continental United States
One of the things worth noting is that the warming from the
minimum air temperature is about 3 times greater than the warming from
the maximum air temperature.

It looks like about three times as much of the warming observed is from minimum temperatures
not going so low.
This is about the same as Hansen found in 1994
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1995/1995_Hansen_etal_2.pdf

Hansen expected the damping of daytime highs by negative feedbacks to decline,
and the highs would catch up to the increase in lows.


This has not been the case in last two decades, the ratio has stayed about 3:1 more
minimum warming.

What this means is that even if we take the most exaggerated of the data sets (GISS)
which shows warming of .95°C since 1880, that only .24 °C of that would be reflected
in daytime highs.
.71°C of the total observed warming would be in night time lows not going as low.

Of course that's the case, unless your measurements are taken using the kelvin or rankine scale.

 

[longview]

Of course that's the case, unless your measurements are taken using the kelvin or rankine scale.

Both Hansen and Qu are scaled on Celsius.
Changing the scale would change the ratio, but would not change the fact that, The annual mean minimum air temperature is rising
at a much faster rate than annual mean maximum air temperature.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Both Hansen and Qu are scaled on Celsius.
Changing the scale would change the ratio, but would not change the fact that, The annual mean minimum air temperature is rising
at a much faster rate than annual mean maximum air temperature.

It would CORRECT the ratio... These scientists should know this.

 

[Poor Debater]

What this means is that even if we take the most exaggerated of the data sets (GISS)
which shows warming of .95°C since 1880, that only .24 °C of that would be reflected
in daytime highs.
.71°C of the total observed warming would be in night time lows not going as low.

Yet another proof, if any were needed, that the current warming is due to greenhouse gases and not the Sun.

If it were the Sun, then we would be getting more heat during the day, and daytime temps should be rising fastest. If it's greenhouse, then we're losing less heat at night and nighttime temps should be rising fastest.

Q.E.D.

 

[longview]

It would CORRECT the ratio... These scientists should know this.

The ratio would change, but the majority of the observed warming would still be in warmer nighttime temperatures.

 

[longview]

Yet another proof, if any were needed, that the current warming is due to greenhouse gases and not the Sun.

If it were the Sun, then we would be getting more heat during the day, and daytime temps should be rising fastest. If it's greenhouse, then we're losing less heat at night and nighttime temps should be rising fastest.

Q.E.D.

Not the way a greenhouse actually works, greenhouses actually warm more in the daytime.
In the nighttime the glass slows down the cooling, but not as much as it does in the daytime.
Hansen states in his paper,

Thus the unrealized warming for greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere will appear almost equally in daily maximum and daily minimum temperatures.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1995/1995_Hansen_etal_2.pdf
Yet 2 decades on the ratio has remained almost 3:1 in favor of higher nighttime temperatures.
There is one quantum explanation why the majority of the greenhouse effects occur at night.
During the sunlight hours, excited nitrogen, saturates any CO2 molecule it comes in contact with.
The cycle time for a nitrogen excited CO2 molecule is listed as tens of milliseconds.
The probability of a CO2 molecule encountering a nitrogen atom is, well the highest possible,
Nitrogen is far and away the most common gas in our atmosphere.
If the CO2 is kept in a state of population inversion, it cannot process the 14 um ground emission photon
necessary for the direct response warming for CO2.
The effect could happen, but mostly at night, when all the nitrogen is back near ground state.

 

[Poor Debater]

Not the way a greenhouse actually works, greenhouses actually warm more in the daytime.

But the Sun doesn't warm at all during the night. The only nighttime warming is greenhouse, while during the day, greenhouse provides only a small fraction of total warming. Thus if greenhouse is enhanced, its effects will be greater at night than during the day.

In the nighttime the glass slows down the cooling, but not as much as it does in the daytime.

False.

Hansen states in his paper,

Thus the unrealized warming for greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere will appear almost equally in daily maximum and daily minimum temperatures.

"will appear", at some decades into the future. You clearly didn't understand what you read.

Yet 2 decades on the ratio has remained almost 3:1 in favor of higher nighttime temperatures.

And who ever said they shouldn't? Not Hansen. When a model experiment runs for 200 years, and you complain that the final result hasn't been seen after just 20 years, you're dishonestly representing those results and their timeframe.

The effect could happen, but mostly at night, when all the nitrogen is back near ground state.

Nitrogen is transparent at all relevant solar wavelengths. Which means it's always in the ground state. If it weren't, we would be able to see nitrogen during the daytime, as photons bounced off of it.

 

[longview]

But the Sun doesn't warm at all during the night. The only nighttime warming is greenhouse, while during the day, greenhouse provides only a small fraction of total warming. Thus if greenhouse is enhanced, its effects will be greater at night than during the day.


False.

It would appear actual greenhouse data disagrees with you!

Nitrogen is transparent at all relevant solar wavelengths. Which means it's always in the ground state. If it weren't, we would be able to see nitrogen during the daytime, as photons bounced off of it.

Nitrogen absorbs UV from the sun quite well, and one of the paths back to ground state, is a vibration transfer to CO2.
A simple test would show if Daytime and nighttime IR spectra differ at the 9.6 and 10.6 um band.
Those CO2 bands cannot come from the 15 um ground emission band.

 

[Poor Debater]

It would appear actual greenhouse data disagrees with you!

Oh, there's greenhouse data on that graph? Who knew? Who took it? With what instrument? With what error range?

It would appear you will throw anything at a wall to see if it sticks.

Nitrogen absorbs UV from the sun quite well, and one of the paths back to ground state, is a vibration transfer to CO2.

That represents less than 1% of total solar irradiance, and is absorbed high in the atmosphere. Any energy transfer to CO2 would be (a) insignificant; (b) unlikely to make it to the surface; and (c) therefore an insignificant factor in DTR.

 

[longview]

Oh, there's greenhouse data on that graph? Who knew? Who took it? With what instrument? With what error range?

It would appear you will throw anything at a wall to see if it sticks.

As for the image the link is in the view image info, but here is the link,
https://energyfarms.wordpress.com/2010/04/05/solar-greenhouses-chinese-style/
Here is another independent source,
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-CHJvbCsVM...-1l7AM/s1600/2011.06.03.coldframe.compact.jpg

That represents less than 1% of total solar irradiance, and is absorbed high in the atmosphere. Any energy transfer to CO2 would be (a) insignificant; (b) unlikely to make it to the surface; and (c) therefore an insignificant factor in DTR.

Actually the total energy imbalance for a doubling the CO2 level is 3.71 Wm-2,
According to the IPCC the total incoming Solar radiation is 342 Wm-2,
Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis
So if you want to say 1% of the total solar radiation is an insignificant factor, I tend to agree,
but that moves the entire concept of AGW into the noise region.
If the CO2 was in a state of population inversion during the sunlight hours, it would go a long way towards
explaining the stark contrast between the model predictions and the empirical data since 1998.

 

[Lord of Planar]

As for the image the link is in the view image info, but here is the link,
https://energyfarms.wordpress.com/2010/04/05/solar-greenhouses-chinese-style/
Here is another independent source,
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-CHJvbCsVM...-1l7AM/s1600/2011.06.03.coldframe.compact.jpg



Actually the total energy imbalance for a doubling the CO2 level is 3.71 Wm-2,
According to the IPCC the total incoming Solar radiation is 342 Wm-2,
Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis
So if you want to say 1% of the total solar radiation is an insignificant factor, I tend to agree,
but that moves the entire concept of AGW into the noise region.
If the CO2 was in a state of population inversion during the sunlight hours, it would go a long way towards
explaining the stark contrast between the model predictions and the empirical data since 1998.

And to make his argument even weaker, he affected UV that interacts with nitrogen, ozone, oxygen, etc. has a flux of something like seven times greater than the TSI flux. If the TSI changes by 0.1%, the UV flux changes by around 0.7%

 

[UtahBill]

But the Sun doesn't warm at all during the night. The only nighttime warming is greenhouse, while during the day, greenhouse provides only a small fraction of total warming. Thus if greenhouse is enhanced, its effects will be greater at night than during the day.


.

Isn't it always daytime on planet earth, somewhere?
or am I missing the point?