http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/

The difference between low lat temp and ENSO index

Temp explodes mid 60s, 80s and 90s. What else in the climate system exploded early in those decades?Volcanoes

Contrary to the model results lower stratosphere temp increases after the initial drop, next page.Indicates that the cause of the drops is the large volcanic eruptions. Perhaps by ozone depletion.

Stable low or decreasing templead to increased heat content

Stable high give unchangedheat content

Data taken from AR4WG1 Tech. Summaryfig. TS.7andhttp://www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/1046907s1_large.jpeg

La Nina

Volcano and El Nino?

Curves taken from http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/projects/browse_fc.html

Willis calc Temp drops in the stratosphereso both upwelling and downwellingLW is reduced , only a minor net change (slide 8)

Observation Quite stable, seems to follow the ENSO variation and volcano impact.

Willis calc -2,8 W/m2 (+2,8 downwelling)Observation -2,5 W/m2

Willis calc 1,8 W/m2Observation 1,6 W/m2

The large drop from the end of 2001 is according to ISCCP not real, an artifact in the datasetSame for the LW up, slide 5.

Willis calc 1,5 W/m2Observation 1,3 W/m2

In addition:

Stratospheric temp decrease match observed,see slide 3.

Tropospheric temp increases less than surface temp, match MSU measurements showing only a minor temp increase in high troposphere. There’s a net loss of energy to the stratosphere and a net gain from the surface.

Albedo apparently does not match, but since clouds are a major factor it is hard to compare.

LW fluxes between surface and troposphere is driven by the weather which is chaotic and show hugh fluctuations, so it makes no sense comparing in this context.

CHANGE (∆) FROM COMPARISON SCENARIO (BELOW)          0,0  Sun 342,0 Check Tot. 342,0 W/m2

∆ Upwell. rad |

CLIMATE -0,20 -0,8 | 0,0 0,2 -1,1SENSITIVITY   |<----- ----| 12 92 131

| | /\ /\ /\V V | | | °C

TOA ∆DSW TOA ∆DLW TOA ∆ DR 0,0 -2,8 0,1 0,5 -2,1 0,0 0,1 -0,442,8 -1,1 1,8 17 10 27 216 263 2 8 Stratosphere -53,8

5,0% 2,8% 70,0% 70,0% 0,0%     0 0| /\ /\ | /\ /\

2,8 0,1 0,7 -1,1 0,0 0,1|<----- 315 0 39 308 131 0,0% 2 8| | /\ /\ | /\ /\V V | | V | | °C

Tropo. ∆DSWTropo. ∆DLW

Tropo. ∆ DR 0,5 0,5 1,1 1,5 -0,9 0,3 0,6 0,2

1,8 0,6 2,4 60 58 352 616 118 20 68 Troposphere -1,60,34 19,0% 18,5% 90,00% 0,0% 90,0% 90,0% 90,0% 0 0

| /\ | | /\ /\1,8 1,2 0,7 -0,1 0,3 0,6 0,96

|<----- 197 0 391 308 13 0,0% 22 76 2,1| | /\ | | /\ /\V V | V V | | °C

Surface ∆DSW Surf. ∆DLW Surf. ∆ DR 0,3 1,5 1,2 0,7 -0,1 0,3 0,6 0,22

1,5 0,6 2,1 30 167 391 308 13 22 76 Surface 15,015,0%   0,0%     22,0 W/m2 76,0 W/m2

Shortwave Longwave Total

Surface Troposphere Stratosphere Sensible Latent

Shortwave  Longwave Radiation   Non-Radiative

http://homepage.mac.com/williseschenbach/.Public/global_energy_budget.xlsMore on CA: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2581

Stratospheric SW absorption reduced from 2,82% to 2,0% for simulating the change from 80s to 90s

CHANGE (∆) FROM COMPARISON SCENARIO (BELOW)          0,0  Sun 342,0 Check Tot. 342,0 W/m2

∆ Upwell. rad |

CLIMATE 0,21 0,0 | -0,7 -0,4 1,1SENSITIVITY |<----- ----| 12 92 131

| | /\ /\ /\V V | | | °C

TOA ∆DSW

TOA ∆DLW TOA ∆ DR 0,0 0,0 -1,1 3,2 2,1 0,0 0,1 0,44

0,0 1,1 1,1 17 10 27 216 263 2 8 Stratosphere -53,85,0% 2,8% 70,0% 70,0% 0,0%     0 0

| /\ /\ | /\ /\0,0 -1,8 2,8 1,1 0,0 0,1

|<----- 315 0 39 308 1310,0% 2 8

| | /\ /\ | /\ /\V V | | V | | °C

Tropo. ∆DSW

Tropo. ∆DLW

Tropo. ∆ DR 0,0 0,0 3,1 5,6 1,6 0,3 0,6 0,62

0,0 2,2 2,2 60 58 352 616 118 20 68 Troposphere -1,60,10 19,0% 18,5% 90,00% 0,0% 90,0% 90,0% 90,0% 0 0

| /\ | | /\ /\0,0 1,2 2,8 -0,6 0,3 0,7 1,01

|<----- 197 0 391 308 130,0% 22 76 2,2

| | /\ | | /\ /\V V | V V | | °C

Surface ∆DSW

Surf. ∆DLW Surf. ∆ DR 0,0 0,0 1,2 2,8 -0,6 0,3 0,7 0,23

0,0 2,2 2,2 30 167 391 308 13 22 76 Surface 15,0

15,0%   0,0%    22,0

W/m2 76,0 W/m2Shortwave Longwave Total

Surface Troposphere Stratosphere Sensible Latent

Shortwave  Longwave Radiation   Non-Radiative

Tropospheric LW absorption increased from 90% to 90,5%

The only match with observations is increased surface temp