Cohenite
Quote
¨They still doesn't address the point that OLR is increasing.

Your point that increased OLR reflects a raised temperature may be true as this graph of OLR and temperature shows:¨

http://www.climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20CPC%20EquatorOutgoingLWradiationAnomalyMonthly%20and%20HadCRUT3%20since1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif

Actually it does not and I was wrong.
Now to address the reason that OLR has indeed increased since 2001. I made the rash assumption that because a higher surface temperature radiates more OLR than a cooler one, then it was a perfectly logical that this would also be true at the top of the atmosphere. Surprisingly this is almost the exact opposite of what happens. The reason is that convection alters the whole picture, when the surface is warmer convection causes both the clouds and the thermals to reach a higher altitude. Now a thermal when it rises expands and cools but this process is adiabatic, which simply means that no heat is being lost from the system. Because the clouds and thermals have now reached a higher altitude they are colder and therefore emit less radiation. So when we look at the graph in the link above we find that the higher surface temperatures equate to less OLR being and emitted and conversely lower surface temperatures lead to more OLR being emitted. This process amplifies the direction of the the temperature change. Now it is generally acknowledged that a doubling of CO2 will directly raise temperatures by about 1 Deg C but unfortunately raising the temperature appears to reduce outgoing OLR thus further amplifying the temperature increase.

warmair, I won't go through your answer about adiabatic effects caused by convection because broadly it is correct; but in that answer you ignore the FACT that satellite measurements for 30 years show INCREASED OLR.

That's a fact.

All the theory about atmospheric processes is secondary to that fact.

If you are interested look at Mike Hammer's analysis of this OLR data. Mike is a professional engineer with considerable experience in spectroscopy.

http://jennifermarohasy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/AGW_Falsified_Michael_Hammer.pdf

Mike notes:

"This strongly suggests that OLR is modulated both by temperature and emissivity, the latter probably due to season changes in water vapour levels."

Emissivity is determined by the type of surface, land, water, ice etc. which explains the variation in latitudinal emissivity and therefore OLR.

So the issue is not so much a product of vertical mixing factors but horizontal differences.

Regardless, the OLR is not DECREASING but INCREASING; as Mike says that is incompatible with AGW.

cohenite

I don't understand the importance of outgoing long-range radiation to warming. Simply I understand it means heat is going out of the atmosphere.
I understand the importance of surface temps, ice caps, Durinal Temp range and sea levels in climate change where does OLR, heat loss, sit in relation.

OLR is the key to AGW because the AGW hypothesis states that human CO2 will block radiation from leaving the Earth; according to AGW the effect of that blockage would see increased energy in the atmosphere [ie the Earth Energy Balance {EEB} will increase due to the blocked radiation] and that extra energy would be available to be not only converted into increased temperature but be an energy source for further extreme weather, storms, heatwaves, cyclones, droughts, dogs sleeping with cats, hell on Earth etc.

Faced with the fact that none of these 'effects' of radiation blockage are occurring the AGW think-tank came up with the solution to the 'missing heat', the ocean bottom.

There is direct evidence that the mechanisms [ie winds] for getting that radiation/heat to the ocean bottom are wrong and that the Ocean Heat Content [OHC] is not increasing [certainly at the surface and to 700 meters] but the real killer to OHC not increasing is OLR increasing and if OLR is increasing the EEB must be decreasing.

If the EEB is decreasing there is no energy to power AGW.

The OLR is a direct measurement, real data which is why it is such a contradiction to AGW.

Cohenite
I had a look at your link broadly he is on the right track but does not makes a couple of serious errors.
Quote
¨This strongly suggests that OLR is modulated both by temperature and emissivity,¨
Agreed but
Quote
¨the latter probably due to season changes in water vapour levels.¨

This is wrong the difference is not directly due to water vapour levels but is a consequence of convection.

Quote
¨The AGW theory claims the earth is warming because rising CO2 is like a blanket, reducing Earth’s energy loss to space¨

No that is a failure to understand the so called greenhouse effect. CO2 does not block or necessarily reduce OLR it simply absorbs and emits long wave radiation and transfers some of it as heat to the rest of the atmosphere and a portion of it back to the surface as radiation.

¨the NOAA data shows that at least for the last 30 years Earth’s energy loss to space has been rising.¨
Appears to be true.

¨The last 30 years of NOAA data is not compatible with the theory of AGW. It would appear that either 30 years of NOAA data is wrong or the theory of AGW is very severely flawed.¨

Rising or falling OLR is not tightly related to surface Temperatures as your link proved previously.
The important point is that GHGs and CFCs alter the temperature profile of the atmosphere. Temperatures in the stratospheric and above have fallen with dramatic falls at extremely high altitudes, whereas at the surface temperatures have risen. Therefore it is just as reasonable to argue that OLR should have increased to account for the temperature fall at altitude, especially as the temperature drop at altitude is greater than the rise at the surface.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/images/msu_1978-2010.png

http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/strato_cooling.asp

warmair, water plays a large part in convection, a wet lapse rate is different from a dry one, but I don't get the connection with emissivity. The spectrum clearly shows that water vapour absorption is more widespread than CO2 and when the 2 overlap WV will dominate; see Modtran:

http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Caryl_11.png

The graph shows that backradiation from CO2 is only present when WV is less than 1% humidity.

In respect of OLR Ramanathan has shown that the emissivity of WV is nearly 3 times greater than CO2 so the effect on OLR means that if WV is not absorbing OLR there is a 25% increase compared to a 9% increase if CO2 is not absorbing:

http://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/ramanathan-coakley-1978-role-of-co2.png

What I take from this is that the presence or not of WV is the main factor in determining what level of OLR there is.

Generally WV levels have been falling:

http://www.climate4you.com/ClimateAndClouds.htm#Clouds%20and%20atmospheric%20water%20vapour

So with less WV more OLR is occurring. This of course confirms what MIskolczi said in his 2010 paper [see page 243]:

http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/uploads/media/EE_21-4_paradigm_shift_output_limited_3_Mb.pdf