i.e. I know the year ranges. What about the actual values ?

Just have a question. I hope it’s not too ignorant, trying to get my mind around ththe different temp data.

I was reading above about cooling in the troposphere data compared with surface data. If the surface data is getting warmer then wouldn’t the troposphere be cooling faster ? i.e. a hotter cup of water will cool faster than a not so hot cup of water.

Wouldn’t that cause a divergence in temperatures readings between a higher altidtude and the surface ?

Is the UAH data supposed to calculate supposed temperatures at the surface ? Or is it more concerned with the trend and changes in anomalies ?

If the lower tropo data is supposed to reflect surface temps and people seem critical of surface temps because they are higher. Why is the mid tropo data not the same as the lower tropo once the anaomalies have been calculated ?

For a naive novice, the first assumption was that obviously surface temperatures are higher, they are lower, it’s much colder as you get higher. The fact that the mid tropo graph was lower still than the lower tropo seemed to support this. So what are the actual facts ? [thanks :)]

There were only a couple of days that were nice, not one scorcher, and we always tend to get some nice days in summer. Not this year.

But then I go to the UK Met office website, and they tell me that this August was warmer than average.

Seeing this has kind of made me lose all faith in data being recorded everywhere.

http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/goes/rt/viewdata.php?product=o3_us

It would seem that ozone is definitely not well mixed in the upper atmosphere. Sure can’t wait for that website related to CO2. Any word on when that will be ready for the public?

It is true AGW isn’t proven.
However, they are not always bad at predicting climate…
see for example Landscheidt:

http://www.john-daly.com/sun-enso/revisit.htm
http://www.john-daly.com/theodor/new-enso.htm

Is there a good summary of the predictors, that say
we are returning to pre-LIA temps ?

It is also true surface stations are biased for example
by urban head island effects etc.
But I compared several climate stations in Europe,
where I live and the differences between urban and
non-urban stations are only moderate.
Hohenpeissenberg, a station on a small mountain
in south Germany for instance it’s far from cities
up to today, and non-biased
(as far as I could examine the surroundings of the station)
and they record temperatures there since 1781 ! So for
quite some time.
I plotted the exponential moving average of a monthly updated
annual average temperature…and at least in Europe:
it really heats up since 1987.
http://stormmann.piranho.de/hohen1781.jpg

I hope your predictors are right and it cools soon..I would be happy.

[REPLY - Fixed according to your instructions ~ Evan]

John D.

Go with the Satellite data. UAH and RSS. That’s your best bet.

It’s lower troposphere rather than surface data, and there remain some small adjustment questions, but at least they are evenly gridded and weighted, and are not subject to the godawful surface station issues.

CRN surface data for the US may turn out to be okay, but we have to wait until the network is activated. We’ll see.

thanks,
Steve

http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes#baselines

His position is this: Current low solar magnetic flux allows the cosmic rays to come in that had been kept out 1970-2000 or so, this causes more cloud formation. Cloud albedo is the significant factor: brighter than land and oceans, it reflects solar energy out to space and causes temperature to fall over most of the planet. But it is less bright than icecaps, so Antarctica, the Greenland ice sheet, and to a lesser extent the polar sea ice would behave in the opposite way to the rest of the planet, both in cooling and in warming periods overall.

Also beware the effects of underwater vulcanism, now showing up on the satellite SST pictures.