Bad News for Trenberth’s Missing Heat – New Study Finds the Deep Oceans Cooled from 1992 to 2011 and…

Posted: March 14, 2015 by tallbloke in solar system dynamics

.
.
Oh my. Kevin Trenberth’s ‘Missing heat’ isn’t in the deep oceans, which have cooled since 1992 according to this new paper.

Bob Tisdale - Climate Observations

…that some of the warming nearer to the surface came from the deep ocean.

The paper is Liang et al. (2015) Vertical Redistribution of Oceanic Heat Content.  The abstract reads (my boldface):

View original post 546 more words

Comments
  1. What can you say?

    Trenberth looked in the sky and ended up reprising Joni Mitchell in that we don’t understand clouds at all. Now, the oceans are much more complicated than Trenberth’s models of conveniently-stratified heat reservoirs.

  2. oldbrew says:

    Time to replace the fantasy of ‘missing heat’ with the reality of ‘non-existent heat’.

  3. Richard111 says:

    “…that some of the warming nearer to the surface came from the deep ocean.”

    This is what completely baffles me! The deep oceans are around 4C. Just how does that water warm up when it gets to the surface? ? ?

  4. ren says:

    Show of force of nature on the Pacific.
    http://www.sat24.com/homepage.aspx?page=oc

  5. Kon Dealer says:

    Nothing to see here. Move along now…
    I’m Kevin Trenberth, World famous Climate Psiactivist.

  6. oldbrew says:

    Richard 111 says:
    “…that some of the warming nearer to the surface came from the deep ocean.”

    This is what completely baffles me! The deep oceans are around 4C. Just how does that water warm up when it gets to the surface? ? ?

    That’s only half the problem. First this supposed warming has to arrive in the deep ocean without warming the upper levels on its way down. It’s ‘cli-magical’😉

  7. craigm350 says:

    Prompted by Bernd’s reference to Joni (above) and because this pops into my head every time Trenberth’s missing heat is mentioned…

    He seeks it here, he seeks it there,
    His claims are loud, but never R square.
    It will make or break him so he’s got to say the worst,
    ‘Cause he’s a dedicated follower of missing heat

    And when he does his little rounds,
    ‘Round the meetings of the IPCC,
    Eagerly pursuing all the latest fads to excuse the travesty,
    ‘Cause he’s a dedicated follower of missing heat.

    Oh yes he is (oh yes he is), oh yes he is (oh yes he is).
    He thinks the roving hotspot just needs looking at,
    And when he pulls the wool and makes it nice tight,
    He feels a dedicated follower of this missing heat.

    Oh yes he is (oh yes he is), oh yes he is (oh yes he is).
    There’s one thing that he loves and that is heat and flattery,
    One week he sees it in polka-dots, the next week he sees it in stripes.
    ‘Cause he’s a dedicated follower of missing heat.

    They seek it here, they seek it there,
    In Siberia or was it Tasmania?
    Everywhere the Catastrophic army marches on,
    Each one a dedicated follower of the missing heat.

    Oh yes he is (oh yes he is), oh yes he is (oh yes he is).
    His world is built ’round Climate Change jamborees and Climate Change parties.
    This heat-seeking individual always states the worst,
    ‘Cause he’s a dedicated follower of missing heat.

    Oh yes he is (oh yes he is), oh yes he is (oh yes he is).
    He flits from press release to junket just like a butterfly.
    In matters of the climate he is as fickle as can be,
    ‘Cause he’s a dedicated follower of missing heat.
    He’s a dedicated follower of missing heat.
    He’s a dedicated follower of missing heat.

    With massive apologies to the Kinks.
    😀

  8. craigm350 says:

    Changing the chorus from

    oh yes he is
    to
    oh missing heat

    works quite well too😉

  9. Why is Trenberth considered competent by anyone?

  10. tchannon says:

    Name a politician, celebrity, sportsman, newsperson, etc., same question can be asked.

    Probable answer is about talking and walking. Now I suppose you want show me.

  11. tchannon says: March 15, 2015 at 3:38 am

    “Name a politician, celebrity, sportsman, newsperson, etc., same question can be asked.
    Probable answer is about talking and walking. Now I suppose you want show me.”

    Naw! It would be interesting to find a few of the 3% 🙂

  12. ivan says:

    …that some of the warming nearer to the surface came from the deep ocean.

    I assume they are reffering to the deep ocean volcanoes that must add some heat and that heat mist rise to the surface.

  13. Richard111 says:

    No! No, no. The earth and the oceans are warmed by back radiation from greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The problem is the ‘warming’ can’t be found and is assumed to be hiding down in the ocean depths and will leap out one day in the future and scald us all to death.
    Nothing to do with volcanoes.

  14. ren says:

    I consider we do not appreciate the heat capacity of the oceans. It is a true solar energy battery.

  15. Chic Bowdrie says:

    A comment on Bob Tisdale’s site referred to the thermohaline circulation input temperature remaining fixed by the absolute temperature of sea ice. I commented that sea ice is s salt-free 0 degrees compared to the salty 4 degree ocean deep. Somewhere on the ocean’s temperature/depth profile, there must be some point on some time scale where the thermohaline circulation alters the profile. Is it so impossible to imagine that at some time in the past the ocean gradient was less steep than now? And wouldn’t this be a means by which heat was transferred to the surface?

  16. p.g.sharrow says:

    “Surface heating has been hidden in to the Oceans’ depths”

    This guy, Trenberths, must be a “Maroon”. He has NO idea of how water molecules behave.
    The only way that deep ocean waters can be warmed is at the bottom. Water molecules that are warmer, carry more energy, then their neighbors, RISE, they can not sink, as they take up more space, have more displacement, then their less energetic neighbors.

    The expansion of Sea Ice coverage in the Southern Oceans proves that the total energy content of the Southern Oceans has decreased. The Southern Oceans are well connected and are larger then the Northern Oceans, therefor, the total energy in the Hydrosphere that covers the Earth is Decreasing overall.

    Surface land temperatures are a VERY POOR way to attempt to measure the total energy content of Hydrosphere of the Earth.

    It would appear that the most important qualification for “Climate Scientist” is ignorance of scientific fact and a firm belief that Humans are to blame for any changes that might be perceived in the rather short attention span of these so-called scientists. pg

  17. michael hart says:

    “What can you say?

    Trenberth looked in the sky and ended up reprising Joni Mitchell….”

    And he didn’t know what he’d got ’till it was gone… 🙂

  18. KuhnKat says:

    The short explanation of how you warm the deep ocean is that the downwelling water is fractions of a degree warmer than it used to be. Stronger winds to drive the upwelling would also be able to help drive this. The vertical mixing could also change giving a flatter range top to bottom.

    I don’t think it happened, but I don’t know it didn’t either. We simply do not have the data to know. The data supporting this paper is doubtless not fit for the purpose as they really modeled it.

  19. Richard111 says:

    @ren

    I agree with your comment above: “we do not appreciate the heat capacity of the oceans”.

    This solar energy battery can indeed store a lot of energy. My understanding is all this stored energy, read ‘missing heat’, could help reduce the onset of the coming ice age. There is no way all that stored energy can RAISE the temperature of this planet at any future time.
    Please explain how and why if I am wrong.

  20. Ben Wouters says:

    p.g.sharrow says: March 16, 2015 at 1:51 am

    ““Surface heating has been hidden in to the Oceans’ depths”

    This guy, Trenberths, must be a “Maroon”. He has NO idea of how water molecules behave.
    The only way that deep ocean waters can be warmed is at the bottom. Water molecules that are warmer, carry more energy, then their neighbors, RISE, they can not sink, as they take up more space, have more displacement, then their less energetic neighbors.”

    The same line of thought is valid for the rising bottom warmed water when it approaches the thermocline. When it reaches a depth where the temperature is higher than the temperature of the rising water, the rising will stop. So the solar heated surface layer effectively prevents bottom heated water to reach the surface, except at (very) high latitudes where the surface water is cold.

    This is part of the mechanism that explains the very high temperatures on Earth (relative to the moon).
    Works the same as a thermos bottle. Takes a lot of energy to heat a fluid, but once the heated fluid is in a thermos bottle it takes just a little energy to MAINTAIN that temperature.
    See
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/10/14/ben-wouters-geothermal-flux-and-the-deep-oceans/

  21. Ben Wouters says:

    ren says: March 15, 2015 at 6:45 pm

    “I consider we do not appreciate the heat capacity of the oceans. It is a true solar energy battery”

    Only the surface layer and probably the thermocline store solar energy. The deep oceans (lets say below the thermocline) store geothermal energy.
    (Surface heated water does not sink into the cold, dense deep oceans. It floats on top)

  22. KuhnKat says:

    Ben Wouters, surface COOLED water very definitely does go down at the poles and other areas.

    The wind can also add to downwelling.

    http://oceanmotion.org/html/background/upwelling-and-downwelling.htm

  23. suricat says:

    Guys, can we please think a bit more about the ‘buoyancy’ effect of ‘density under a gravity’ here? Liquid water becomes ‘lighter/expands’ at ~4C! ‘Salinity’ is ‘another’ attractor, and the ‘forcing’ by ‘boundary windage’ is a ‘surface forcing’!

    These attractors need to be differentiated and assessed for their relevance to their activities. Furthermore, ‘LOD’ (Length Of Day) also affects ‘oceanic energy transport’ by way of a ‘sideways’ impulse into the mechanics of Earth’s system dynamics. UV absorption into ocean is just ‘another’ mechanism.

    TB. IMHO, we ‘need’ multiple ‘threads’ that can ‘interact’ to resolve this question.

    Best regards, Ray.

  24. kuhnkat says:

    Here is a very good short explanation from Jeff Id as to why a few hundredths of a degree of ocean warming is meaningless for us and climate change:

    https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2015/03/09/something-new-under-the-sun/#comment-213287

    you might want to read his full post if you haven’t already.

  25. Ben Wouters says:

    KuhnKat says: March 17, 2015 at 12:32 am

    “Ben Wouters, surface COOLED water very definitely does go down at the poles and other areas.”

    Correct. Surface cooled water sinks into the deep oceans, mostly around Antarctica, moves north and is warmed by geothermal. These bottom warmed waters rise ever so slowly, and form/join the thermohaline circulation southbound, to loose their energy again around Antarctica, closing the loop.

  26. Ben Wouters says:

    kuhnkat says: March 17, 2015 at 5:47 am

    Here is a very good short explanation from Jeff Id as to why a few hundredths of a degree of ocean warming is meaningless for us and climate change”
    Problem with his calculation is that he uses the total ocean volume.
    Whatever the heatsource, surface heating does not influence the temperature of the oceans below the thermocline. Otherwise he is correct of course.

    Here is an example how massive magma eruptions warmed the deep oceans, some ~18K and DID result in a warmer climate.
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/03/03/ben-wouters-influence-of-geothermal-heat-on-past-and-present-climate/

  27. Chic Bowdrie says:

    Ben Wouters,

    Is the circumpolar deep water and antarctic bottom water in the diagram above, in, or below the thermocline?

    I’ll summarize to see if I have it correct. There will be some geothermal heating from the ocean bottom that maintains the deep ocean at essentially constant temperature up to a point defined by the thermocline layer. Whatever fluctuation in the total energy stored in the oceans is balanced or fluctuates due to the competing effect of geothermal heating from below and the thermohaline circulation produced from the various surface influences above.

  28. KuhnKat says:

    Chic,

    since we don’t actually know the temps in the deep ocean except in a few locations, and definitely do not know the number and size of vents, volcanoes, and other geothermal sources, saying the temps are kept constant is a guess. Saying it averages pretty close may not be too bad of a statement.

  29. KuhnKat says:

    Ben Wouters,

    go argue with Jeff.

  30. Ben Wouters says:

    Chic Bowdrie says: March 17, 2015 at 5:35 pm

    “Is the circumpolar deep water and antarctic bottom water in the diagram above, in, or below the thermocline?”
    The AABW is formed during the creation of (surface) ice, has the highest density of all ocean water and drops from the continetal plateau into the deep oceans. Travelling north it will creep under the thermocline.
    The CDW is basically a mix of various flows, below the surface. When CDW water travels north, it will be below the thermocline.
    Googling for the various “codes” (AABW, NADW etc.) gives good information.

    “I’ll summarize to see if I have it correct. There will be some geothermal heating from the ocean bottom that maintains the deep ocean at essentially constant temperature up to a point defined by the thermocline layer”
    The temperature of the deep oceans is decided by the warming from geothermal heating minus the cooling by surface cooled water sinking into the deep oceans.
    Since their peek temperature some 84 million years ago the deep oceans have cooled down some 18K. This means that ALL geothermal energy that entered has to be lost as well, plus some more to account for the cooling.
    How much geothermal? Nobody really knows. One “given” is the ~100mW/m^2 geothermal flux, flowing from the bottom and warming the deep waters.

    Surface currents are mostly wind driven, and restricted to the solar heated surface layer.

    Nice overview of the Atlantic:

  31. Ben Wouters says:

    KuhnKat says: March 18, 2015 at 3:32 am

    “Ben Wouters,

    go argue with Jeff.”

    About what? The idea that the sun can warm the deep oceans (below the thermocline) is absurd already, the idea that some CO2 molecules extra in the atmosphere can do this is totally insane.

  32. tallbloke says:

    Hi Ben. How is the deep ocean oxygenated?

  33. Ben Wouters says:

    tallbloke says: March 18, 2015 at 3:26 pm

    “Hi Ben. How is the deep ocean oxygenated”

    Largest supplier of oxygen afaik is the Antarctic Bottom Water.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Bottom_Water.
    Interacts with magma and hot vents on its way north.

    See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aU0GhTmZhrs
    Whole documentary is well worth your time.
    Part about AABW and the forming of the brine starts around 32 minutes.
    Also interesting starting around 53 minutes.

  34. Chic Bowdrie says:

    Ben,

    If deep ocean temperatures aren’t well-known but have cooled 18K, are you suggesting the oceans could still be cooling down from the distant past? Or rather that they are oscillating around a minimum and this paper is reporting only a recent cooling period?

    BTW, your last overview complements the previous one nicely.

  35. Ben Wouters says:

    Chic Bowdrie says: March 18, 2015 at 7:16 pm

    Chic, the reconstruction I used has a resolution of ~ 2 million years or longer, and the error bars are pretty large, especially for the older temps.
    Can’t compare those with Argos readings etc.
    Earth possibly has been in a Snowball Earth situation, so it could be a lot colder still.
    Seeing the cooling rate for the last 3 million years, no levelling off in the cooling rate is visible.
    We’re experiencing deeper glacials, all the time.
    Only positve thing I see is the slighly warmer North Atlantic.
    If the geo activity around Iceland and further north is the cause, maybe the cooling is reversing.
    Will not result in a warmer world in our livetimes though😉

  36. ren says:

    Important is the large heat capacity of the oceans, which does not allow for a quick drop in temperature due to low solar activity.
    It can be seen that the absorption of solar energy is much greater in the oceans than on land.
    Specific heat capacity of wateris c = 4.18 kJ / kgK. This valuethe highest among all
    other substances. Who place on the seconditems ethyl alcohol is only 2.84 kJ / kgK. Ice and water vapor are c value of two times smaller than water,although for all other substances melting almost does not change the heat capacity. Exceptionally high heat capacity of water transforms the seas and oceans in giant heat storage, which soften daily fluctuations in air temperature. Proper heat capacity each receach substance increases with temperature. Water and here is the exception.
    A plot of the proper the heat capacity of the temperature of the water has a minimum at a temperature of
    about 37° C, ie. is responsible normal human body temperature. This means that the human body
    at this temperature is the most convenient energy state.

  37. Ben Wouters says:

    ren says: March 19, 2015 at 7:26 am

    “Important is the large heat capacity of the oceans, which does not allow for a quick drop in temperature due to low solar activity.” No argument here, question is how deep does the influence of solar heating reach.
    Below ~200 m no solar influence is noticeable.
    See. http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter06/chapter06_04.htm

    “It can be seen that the absorption of solar energy is much greater in the oceans than on land.”
    The absorption doesn’t change much between land or ocean.
    Point is the large heat capacity of water makes the temperature rise due to solar radiation very low.
    A full day of sunshine delivers max ~7 kw/h/ m^2.
    Assuming all this energy is absorbed, this can warm the upper 100m of water some 0,05K.
    Heating a rock gives a much larger temperature rise for the same energy.

  38. suricat says:

    Ben Wouters says: March 19, 2015 at 10:45 am

    “No argument here, question is how deep does the influence of solar heating reach.”

    Physics shows us that ‘UVa’ and ‘blue vis’ penetrates <700 metres before total extinction in 'clear water'. This begs two questions (perhaps three), how clear is the water and is the 'interaction' of the 'percentile extinction' 'exothermic' (what is the state of the current 'ozone blocking' to UV from insolation)?

    "Below ~200 m no solar influence is noticeable."

    IOW, its 'completely dark below this depth'?

    "The absorption doesn’t change much between land or ocean."

    Disagree. Changes in latitude greatly alter ocean surface 'reflectivity', but land surface 'reflectivity' is relatively only slightly altered. This phenomenon is also related to the 'time of day' and its source lays in the domain of 'azimuth' (overhead [in this case]).

    "Point is the large heat capacity of water makes the temperature rise due to solar radiation very low."

    Concur. This is because the energy is released in the 'z axis' (depth [3D]), rather than at 'the surface' (area [2D]) besides the 'specific heat' differences.

    "A full day of sunshine delivers max ~7 kw/h/ m^2."

    I must disagree. Please take account of 'reflectivity' in your energy budget 'assumption'.

    "Assuming all this energy is absorbed, this can warm the upper 100m of water some 0,05K."

    Please see my previous remark! The 'z' axis remark! The 'depth to extinction' remark!

    Assumptions require substantiation and I don't see this here. Your post may be better received if the parameters that you describe were better substantiated by science papers.

    Hah! That's a good one coming from me. An 'engineer' that is expected to perform miracles from sub-standard science. I 'need' better input and I would appreciate a frank response.

    "Heating a rock gives a much larger temperature rise for the same energy."

    A 'rock' is 'isolated', but the 'seas' aren't!

    Best regards, Ray.

  39. Ben Wouters says:

    suricat says: March 20, 2015 at 4:43 am

    “”Below ~200 m no solar influence is noticeable.”
    IOW, its ‘completely dark below this depth’?”

    Almost every where, yes:
    http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/light_travel.html

    See figure 6.7:
    http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter06/chapter06_04.htm
    A full year of sunshine near Bermuda gives no discernible temperature change below ~150-200m.

    “”A full day of sunshine delivers max ~7 kw/h/ m^2.”
    I must disagree. Please take account of ‘reflectivity’ in your energy budget ‘assumption’.”

    See http://www.pveducation.org/pvcdrom/properties-of-sunlight/average-solar-radiation
    Gives the AVAILABLE solar energy on a horizontal m^2.
    Reflectivity can only LOWER this number, and thus decrease the possible warming for the water column.

    “”Assuming all this energy is absorbed, this can warm the upper 100m of water some 0,05K.”

    Please see my previous remark! The ‘z’ axis remark! The ‘depth to extinction’ remark!”
    In the real world DIRECT solar warming is restricted to the upper 5-10 meters. So if all available solar energy is thermalized the upper 10 meters will warm ~0,5K during the day.

    see eg http://www.terrapub.co.jp/journals/JO/pdf/6305/63050721.pdf
    page 725

    “”Heating a rock gives a much larger temperature rise for the same energy.”
    A ‘rock’ is ‘isolated’, but the ‘seas’ aren’t!”
    Assuming the same reflectivity for rock and water, the rock warms much faster because solar doesn’t penetrate as deep into the rock as into the water plus the difference in heat capacity.
    For rock you can read soil, and this is the base for the sea breeze effect:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_breeze

  40. Ben Wouters says: March 19, 2015 at 10:45 am
    “Point is the large heat capacity of water makes the temperature rise due to solar radiation very low.
    A full day of sunshine delivers max ~7 kw/h/ m^2.”

    “a full day” can deliver no more than than an average of 2 kW/(h x m^2) At any latitude over any “full day”. Nowhere is the ocean surface limited to an average evaporation of even 4 gm/(h x m^2), 4 x insolation. Not anywhere, on the planetary surface need daily temperature ever increase.
    All depends on surface wind, throughout that day, at that location. Sensible heat of any mass, explains absolutely nothing! To explain that surface wind, may someday explain current failed meteorology.
    This may also explain the asininity of wind farms! Now, stupid earthlings may be able to affect weather, with no knowledge, and at great expense!🙂

  41. “A ‘rock’ is ‘isolated’, but the ‘seas’ aren’t!”

    Please consider a hydrogen liquid or solid ‘rock’ in the sun, and the specific heat of H2?. How much energy does our handy Sun actually have?

  42. suricat says: March 20, 2015 at 4:43 am
    Ben Wouters says: March 19, 2015 at 10:45 am

    (“No argument here, question is how deep does the influence of solar heating reach.”)

    “Physics shows us that ‘UVa’ and ‘blue vis’ penetrates <700 metres before total extinction in 'clear water'. This begs two questions (perhaps three), how clear is the water and is the 'interaction' of the 'percentile extinction' 'exothermic' (what is the state of the current 'ozone blocking' to UV from insolation)?"

    Ray,
    At 1000 meters the boomers receive data from satellites using modulated Ar-ion lasers. Talking back is like arguing with your mother. 🙂 -will-

  43. Ben Wouters says:

    @suricat

    You may find the following pdf interesting: http://www.geo.arizona.edu/geo4xx/geos412/OcSci07.PhysProps.pdf

    On page 6 some data on the penetration of solar energy in ocean water.
    45% of the energy reaches 1 meter
    16% of the energy reaches 10 meter
    1% of the energy reaches 100 meter

  44. tom0mason says:

    Bernd Felsche

    you reminded me of Tallblokes comment from some time ago. So I’ve gone back and surprisingly found it was 3 years ago! Still I’ll put it here as I have now found it again–

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    from Magic Turtle: On the wisdom of throwing stones at the greenhouse theory
    15 March 2012

    Tallbloke:
    Mydog, Good stuff. Could I also call your attention this this thread for your opinion:
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/11/14/alistairmcd-aerosols-cause-warming/
    Also this paper I linked in comments on that thread find a modeling error of some 30W/m^2 (!) in cloud absorption. It seems physics theory around the forward propogation of energy and mie scattering has some way to go.
    http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cms/wcollins/papers/cess.pdf[broken link – see below for new link]
    The paper refers to an experiment where aircraft flew simultaneously above and below a cloud deck taking measurements and found that the clouds were absorbing a lot more shortwave energy than theory supposed they would.
    The whole paper is worth a read, I can’t cut and paste any relevant stuff because the pdf is encoded in some weird way.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Was this the CESS paper you refer to –

    From
    JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 104, NO. D2, PAGES 2059-2066, JANUARY 27, 1999
    Absorption of solar radiation by the cloudy atmosphere: Further interpretations of collocated aircraft measurements
    Robert D. Cess, 1 Minghua Zhang, 1 Francisco P. J. Valero, 2 Shelly K. Pope, 2 Anthony Bucholtz, 2 Brett Bush, 2 Charles S. Zender, 3 and John Vitko Jr. 4
    Abstract. We have extended the interpretations made in two prior studies of the aircraft shortwave radiation measurements that were obtained as part of the Atmospheric Radiation Measurements (ARM) Enhanced Shortwave Experiment (ARESE). These extended interpretations use the 500 nm (10 nm bandwidth) measurements to minimize sampling errors in the broadband measurements. It is indicated that the clouds present during this experiment absorb more shortwave radiation than predicted by clear skies and thus by theoretical models, that at least some (_<20%) of this enhanced cloud absorption occurs at wavelengths <680 nm, and that the observed cloud absorption does not appear to be an artifact of sampling errors nor of instrument calibration errors.
    _.-_,-_.-_,-_.-_,-_.-_,-_.-_,-_.-_,-_.-_,-_.-_,-_.-_,-_.-_,-_.-_,-_.-_,-_
    5. Conclusions
    This investigation augments the conclusions made in the two prior ARESE studies [Valero et al., 1997b; Zender et al., 1997]. Specifically, it suggests that the rather large 500 nm column absorptance for clear skies (October 11, Figure 1) is caused by some temporally variable absorber, most likely aerosols. Likewise, aerosols are most plausibly the cause of the comparable 500 nm absorptances when clouds are present (Figure 1).
    Next, we have extended the prior investigation of sampling errors [Valero et al., 1997b] by employing the procedure of Marshak et al. [1997] to minimize sampling errors through use of the 500 nm measurements, and we conclude the enhanced cloud absorption is not likely an artifact of such errors, nor can it logically be explained by instrument calibration errors. We have empirically determined that at least some of the enhanced cloud absorption (_<20%) occurs at wavelengths <680nm, but the cause of this absorption, both at wavelengths <680nm and in the near infrared, remains unknown; we find no evidence for its existence at 500 nm.

    (If this is what you were referencing then it appears to use an old ASCII character set)

  45. tom0mason says:

    OB thank-you.
    And yes it is compressed and has unknown font sets (T3-127 ??) but protests that it is not encrypted. Hum, I will use some old pdf tools on it and see if I can not get it to render a better version.

    Otherwise, does anyone know if the issue of the anomalous IR energy from clouds was ever cleared-up? I’ve look over so many papers in Google Scholar with no good result.
    Thanks again OB.