UAH global temperature anomaly – up in April

As La Niña fades, this is not surprising. Dr. Roy Spencer is back at work and reports the new lower troposphere number. Note also the global sea surface temperature graph below, which is quite interesting. I’m sure Bob Tisdale will be interested. – Anthony

UAH Temperature Update for April, 2011: +0.12 deg. C

UAH_LT_1979_thru_Apr_2011

YR MON GLOBAL NH SH TROPICS
2010 01 0.542 0.675 0.410 0.635
2010 02 0.510 0.553 0.466 0.759
2010 03 0.554 0.665 0.443 0.721
2010 04 0.400 0.606 0.193 0.633
2010 05 0.454 0.642 0.265 0.706
2010 06 0.385 0.482 0.287 0.485
2010 07 0.419 0.558 0.280 0.370
2010 08 0.441 0.579 0.304 0.321
2010 09 0.477 0.410 0.545 0.237
2010 10 0.306 0.257 0.356 0.106
2010 11 0.273 0.372 0.173 -0.117
2010 12 0.181 0.217 0.145 -0.222
2011 01 -0.010 -0.055 0.036 -0.372
2011 02 -0.020 -0.042 0.002 -0.348
2011 03 -0.101 -0.073 -0.128 -0.342
2011 04 0.120 0.199 0.042 -0.229

NEW! Monthly UAH temperature reports and global images.

La Nina Fades
The global average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly for April 2011 jumped up to +0.12 deg. C, further evidence that La Nina is fading.

I have also updated the global sea surface temperature anomaly from AMSR-E through yesterday, May 9 (note that the base period is different, so the zero line is different than for the lower tropospheric temperature plot above):

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate data and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

52 Responses to UAH global temperature anomaly – up in April

  1. tokyoboy says:

    I expect this would not galvanize the AGW camp.

    OT, but exactly two months have passed since 3.11, and the current status is as follows:
    Killed by quake/tsunami: 14,949
    Still missing: 9,880
    Refugees: 70,689 (quake/tsunami) + 59,020 (evacuated from r = 20 km of nuke site)

  2. Josh says:

    The values I’ve been seeing so far in May have been pretty close to 0 also. Too bad it doesn’t look like it’s going as low as it did last time. But I still that with all this runaway warming we’ve supposedly had it’s amazing we could still go negative at all! :)

  3. Ranger Rick says:

    Finally got some warm weather in Minnesota 2 days ago. Longest damn March I’ve ever gone through!!!

  4. Tom t says:

    Oh My God .12 degrees too warm we are all going to die.

  5. Mike McMillan says:

    Sobering numbers, Tokyoboy. It tears at the heart to think what Japan is going through.

  6. Eric Anderson says:

    tokyoboy, are there any figures on deaths resulting from the nuclear facility accident(s)?

  7. Arizona CJ says:

    Interesting… but if we flip to el nino, temps go up and the AGW types will bang their drums about it. I’m hoping we don’t.

    As an aside, I spend much of today watching the snow; it came down hard: I had several inches. I live in Arizona and it’s mid May and I’m getting snow… ?!!?!?

  8. Werner Brozek says:

    Something puzzles me about these numbers. From February to March, both RSS and UAH went DOWN 0.08 C. However from March to April, RSS went UP 0.14, but UAH went UP 0.22. As we all know, a severe tornado hit Alabama at the end of April. Is it possible the missing days were interpolated wrongly?

  9. CRS, Dr.P.H. says:

    Record-high temperature in Chicago today (90ºF), the old record for this date – 89ºF – was set back in 1896. It was warmer in Chicago than Miami, FL.

    Guess we are all gonna die. Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.

  10. tokyoboy says:

    Eric Anderson says: May 10, 2011 at 8:13 pm
    “tokyoboy, are there any figures on deaths resulting from the nuclear facility accident(s)?”

    As of today, three workers were killed and two are missing (interior inspection is still hampered by the high level radioacticity).

  11. Werner Brozek says:

    September 2010 was the warmest UAH September. Yet this occurred five months after El Nino ended and we were well into La Nina territory. If a similar lag holds this time, I would expect future drops for several more months. That assumes other things are not happening to counteract this, which may well be the case.

  12. jorgekafkazar says:

    Ranger Rick says: “Finally got some warm weather in Minnesota 2 days ago. Longest damn March I’ve ever gone through!!!”

    Our furnace came on last night. First time ever for May, here.

  13. Travis says:

    Re: Josh May 10, 2011 at 6:34 pm

    “The values I’ve been seeing so far in May have been pretty close to 0 also. Too bad it doesn’t look like it’s going as low as it did last time. But I still that with all this runaway warming we’ve supposedly had it’s amazing we could still go negative at all! :)”

    Actually, had Dr. Spencer not gone to a new base period several months ago, it’s entirely possible we might NOT have gone negative this time around. I don’t know the exact difference between new and old because he added a couple adjustments into his calculations at the same time he made the switch.

  14. rushmike says:

    Interestingly we have just had the warmest La Nina on record.

  15. rbateman says:

    The drum is being pounded once again for an El Nino, but Joe Bastardi says “I don’t think so”. Joe is great listening, always informative…. and usually right in his predictions.
    The AMO to go cold soon?
    Downscope.

  16. dp says:

    Interesting that solar activity is also up in April. Coincidence?

  17. tallbloke says:

    Big thanks to Roy Spencer for getting this out despite the tornado aftermath near his home. I expect the SST to fall again over the next months as SH winter bites. 12 months ago I predicted -0.3C on Roy’s metric before the end of the 2011.

  18. Ken Stewart says:

    I use the SOI and UAH data (not Dr Spencer’s) to calculate 12 month running means 6 months ahead: I still reckon we’ll get another 6 months of falling temperatures with a turn around in October at about +0.01. See http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/global-temperature-page-may-2011/

    If not it’s back to the drawing board.

    I had wondered about the delay. Of course- the tornadoes.

  19. berniel says:

    Arizona CJ says:
    May 10, 2011 at 8:15 pm
    I live in Arizona and it’s mid May and I’m getting snow… ?!!?!?

    Yes, it’s is also a strange day downunder to see an up tick in the warming with pre-winter snow reported down around the 700m level:

    http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/coldest-may-day-in-more-than-a-decade-for-melbourne/17276

    http://ski.com.au/snowcams/australia/vic/index.html

  20. Eyal Porat says:

    It’s not the quantity, it is the quality.
    See you on the next 1001110001000 posts.

  21. icecover says:

    The sea surface temp is falling quite a bit currently take a look a at AMSU

  22. Jimbo says:

    Here is what Joe Bastardi has to say:

    “NOTES AND ASIDES: The forecasted ( I had rising to .10) jump in global temps did occur. This puts us at exactly normal for the year and still has me on target in the duel with the UKMET folks ( they are .25 warmer than I)
    The latest from Dr Roy Spencer”

    http://www.weatherbell.com/jb/?p=1739

  23. Sunspot says:

    The Australian Federal Government’s recent budget included money to control climate. It’s working already. It’s snowing here today two months ahead of normal.

  24. Robert of Ottawa says:

    Eric Anderson, yes the number is ZERO

  25. Brian H says:

    Could Joe B. have picked a weaker opponent in his duel? If there’s a betting pool, I want in!

  26. A. Patterson Moore says:

    I see ocean heat content discussed here and elsewhere from time to time, but I have never seen a discussion of what causes it to increase. The clear implication is that it is increasing because of warmer atmospheric surface temperatures, but that makes no sense to me. Surely the small increase in warming of the atmosphere to date could not transfer a significant amount of heat to the oceans. It seems obvious to me the only way that the oceans could accumulate much heat would be through direct heating from solar radiation. If that is occurring, wouldn’t that be direct evidence of a decrease in cloud cover, instead of evidence for AGW?

  27. TrueNorthist says:

    Eric Anderson says:
    May 10, 2011 at 8:13 pm

    tokyoboy, are there any figures on deaths resulting from the nuclear facility accident(s)?

    I have been following the situation at Fukushima Daiichi rather closely from the time it happened and can report that there have been zero fatalities that can be attributed to any sort of radiological event. There have been dramatically fewer casualties of any kind at the TEPCO site throughout the disaster. It is clear that the safest place one could have been during the Earthquake/Tsunami was at the Power Station. It is highly likely–I should say certain– that the number of deaths from this reactor incident will turn out to be zero. Not zero now, zero in fifty years.

    http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Deaths_confirmed_at_Fukushima_Daiichi_0304111.html

  28. Gras Albert says:

    Roy Spencer comments

    [i]I computed an April 2011 average from the Discover website after interpolating the missing days at the end of the month, and compared it to April 2010 (which is the best way to get an estimate of the official anomaly), and I get 0.13 deg C lower (-0.01) than our official number (+0.12) which had the missing data included.

    Even considering the slightly different global-averaging strategy and missing days, though, this seems to be a rather large discrepancy. I’ve asked John if he has any ideas why….I’ll let you know what we find.[/i]

    Think Of It As Settled Science In Action

  29. Mike M. says:

    I must say I find these numbers pretty hard to believe, considering how unusually cool it seemed in my area for most of the month. My electricity usage for the month was way down compared to previous Aprils.

  30. George E. Smith says:

    So I see three graphs there Dr. Roy; talking SST .

    There’s a solid gray line graph that is almost a horizontal straight line, then there is a dotted gray line that is almost a horizontal straight line; and then there is that bright blue graph that goes all over the place.

    So which is the SST, and what are the other two lines that clearly are unrelated to the blue graph in any conceivable way.

    Can somebody please explain why there are three graphs, and only one set of labels.

  31. richcar1225 says:

    The record SOI has finally gone down.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/

    http://stateoftheocean.osmc.noaa.gov/atm/soi.php

    I agree with Ken. Expect six more months of cool and likely a double dip Nino 3.4

  32. Steven Kopits says:

    Pretty quick rebound on the temps there.

  33. JP says:

    @ A. Patterson Morre:
    ” The clear implication is that it is increasing because of warmer atmospheric surface temperatures, but that makes no sense to me. ”

    Many people make the mistake in thinking that the atmosphere “warms” the earth’s surface. It is actually the opposite. The sun warms the earth’s surface, which in turn warm the atmopshere above it. Keeping that in mind. it is insolation (incoming solar radiation) that warms the oceans. The amount of insolation is primairily dependent upon how far one is from the equator. The angle of incidence determines how much sunlight hits any given location on the earth’s surface. At the equator, the sun is nearly perpindicular to the surface, which means that for any given surface area there is more heat energy as compared to locations in the higher latitudes. And since oceans can absorb this heat energy, the Pacific Ocean becomes very important, as it is not only the largest body of water, but much of it resides in the tropics and subtropics. Some scientists therefore call the Pacific the great atmopsheric thermostat.

    Again, the atmosphere doesn’t warm the oceans; the sun warms the oceans. But, the verdict is still out on why is the main controlling mechanism for ocean heat content. Obviously the ultimate controlling mechanism is the sun. However, we do not have the means or knowledge to accurately model the dynamics of the ocean. The person who can do that will surely deserve a Nobel.

  34. Wondering Aloud says:

    Dear Eric

    So far deaths due to the nuclear accident stand at 1. I believe a crane fell on him. Anticipated future repercussions? Bad press, panic, ongoing stupid energy policy and tens of thousands dead every year due to lack of affordable power. Other death rate increases due to mining and transportation of millions of tons of coal and other fossil fuels, and the occasional death as another stupid windmill self destructs.

    The difference between fears and reality would be funny if the consequences were not so tragic.

    46 nuclear plants were involved. How many would have died if the plants had been coal or natural gas fired?

  35. George E. Smith says:

    “”””” JP says:
    May 11, 2011 at 9:14 am
    @ A. Patterson Morre:
    ” The clear implication is that it is increasing because of warmer atmospheric surface temperatures, but that makes no sense to me. ”

    Many people make the mistake in thinking that the atmosphere “warms” the earth’s surface. It is actually the opposite. The sun warms the earth’s surface, which in turn warm the atmopshere above it. “””””

    Well JP, even that is not strictly correct. It is incontrovertible that the sun also warms the atmosphere, and also that the effect is greatly dependent on atmospheric “greenhouse” gases such as H2O, CO2, and O3; all of which are capable of absorbing various parts of the incoming solar spectrum energy. However this atmospheric warming must come at the expense of surface/ocean warming, since solar spectrum energy that is captured by the atmosphere, then does not reach the surface to get sequestered, mostly in the deep oceans. The release of that captured energy as LWIR from the atmosphere,is isotropic in distribution so only half of it reaches the ground, and the rest escapes to space. The result is a net loss of energy absorbed by the oceans due to atmospheric solar energy absorption.

    It would then be hard to sell the notion that the net flow of heat between the atmosphere and the earth surface, is in the direction of warming the surface. That would seem to be an elementary violation of the second law.

    An even sillier but widely held notion is that somehow the presence of clouds (cumulus) leads to an increase in the solar energy (sunlight) that reaches the earth surface. A simple stick in the sand drawing of the solar irradiation of the earth, say between an hour after sunrise, to an hour before sunset, would demonstrate to even a fifth grader; that removing such a cloud will let all of the sunbeam, reach the surface; whereas the cloud is bound to scatter some of that sunbeam back into space. The increase in earth albedo, with increased cloud cover, proves beyond any doubt, that clouds MUST reduce the solar energy that reaches the earth surface; they can NEVER increase it. The special case of grazing (near) incidence sunlight scattering towards earth, instead of a clean miss; merely proves the general case.

  36. JP says:

    @George Smith,

    I’m not sure what your point is. Are you saying that in fact it is the atmosphere that warms the land? That would be news to me.

  37. Moliterno says:

    Two plant workers bodies were found in one of the flooded reactor buildings after some of the water was finally pumped out, apparently drowned by the tsunami.

  38. PhilM says:

    Looking at the temp graph, does anyone *not* see that as a general rising trend with a slope of about 0.1C/decade?

  39. George E. Smith says:

    “”””” JP says:
    May 11, 2011 at 12:05 pm
    @George Smith,

    I’m not sure what your point is. Are you saying that in fact it is the atmosphere that warms the land? That would be news to me. “””””

    Well JP, how could I possibly have explained it more directly.

    YOU suggested that the LAND/OCEAN (SURFACE) warms the ATMOSPHERE and the ATMOSPHERE does NOT warm the SURFACE.

    I believe I said explicitly, that having the atmosphere warm the surface (i.e. a net transfer of heat from a generally colder atmosphere to a generally warmer surface, was a direct violation of the second law; thereby agreeing with you that it DOES NOT happen.

    All I added was that a significant part of the warming of the ATMOSPHERE comes, not from the SURFACE, via conduction/convection/evaporation/LWIR Radiation, but by direct solar warming of the atmosphere because of H2O/CO2/O3 absorption of energy in the solar spectrum (not LWIR).

    And I pointed out that that amount of solar spectrum energy was then NOT available to be stored in the deep oceans or other surface features; but that about half of that energy could be expected to ultimately reach the surface as LWIR emitted from the atmosphere. I did NOT suggest that would warm the surface; in fact I have on several occasions pointed out that atmospheric LWIR towards the surface, largely results in prompt surface evaporation from the ocean, because of the high absorption coefficient for LWIR wavelengths in water.

    So I’m puzzled that you could misconstrue that to mean I was suggesting the atmosphere warms the surface. NO !! Merely pointing out that other factors contribute to the atmosphere warming, and thereby directly lead to a LOWERING of the (solar spectrum) energy from the sun that reaches the surface.

  40. racookpe1978 says:

    George E. Smith says:
    May 11, 2011 at 2:30 pm
    (responding to)
    “”””” JP says:
    May 11, 2011 at 12:05 pm

    All I added was that a significant part of the warming of the ATMOSPHERE comes, not from the SURFACE, via conduction/convection/evaporation/LWIR Radiation, but by direct solar warming of the atmosphere because of H2O/CO2/O3 absorption of energy in the solar spectrum (not LWIR).

    OK. So, lettuce continue that thought trend for a moment. 8<)

    Case 0. At the equator (latitude 0.0), light (solar energy) penetrates straight through a narrow band of atmosphere (its gasses, solids, aerosols, dust and clouds) and strikes the ground at a 90 degree perpendicular angle. A portion – depending on day and season and regional environment – of that energy is absorbed in the atmosphere, and a portion strikes the ground. Of that hitting the ground, some is absorbed (right?) and some of that is re-emitted back "up."

    So, what are these proportions of the original solar energy – at the equator over land (I guess a "generic land" has to be assumed by the GCM'ers) and over the sea. (Again, I guess a generic sea has o be assumed by the modelers.)

    Case 45. (Or any other latitude band.) Further north and south, the solar energy must pass through a much thicker atmosphere before it can hit the earth. More distance = More absorption by gasses, aerosols, dust, more reflection by increasingly shallow angle cloud tops. Once it gets near the ground, it hits the ground (or sea!) at an ever decreasing angle of incidence, and is spread out much more over every sq meter of ground that it does hit. Both reduce energy/sq meter of ground or sea surface significantly, but emittance back "up" from the ground to space stays the same as it was near the equator. That is, each sq meter of surface will emit "straight up" from the ground and will re-emit up through a perpendicular "column of air" that is the same height as it is at the equator. (The atmosphere is a little thinner at the poles because it is colder, but let's ignore that for now.)

    Case 90. At the poles, between the equinoxes (and over the summer of each hemisphere), all of the light will be absorbed in the atmosphere: None can be absorbed on any given sq meter on the surface because the inbound energy is parallel to the curved top of the globe.
    Second, just as one can look at the sunset/sunrise directly even at the equator without being blinded because of atmospheric absorption through the thicker atmosphere, at the poles there is no energy left to be absorbed on the surface because of atmospheric absorption before the energy arrives at the surface.
    Third, the angle of incidence of the inbound rays just before the poles on ice and open water is less than 21 degrees, so the inbound energy is reflected off both surfaces and is not absorbed by the surface. (Any reflected energy is absorbed again by the rest of the atmosphere it must travel through. This is fine, but that energy is deposited back in the polar atmosphere, NOT the polar sea surface or land surface.)

    Given all this, why does the CAGW ice community insist on maintaining their melting sea ice albedo positive- feedback-into-oblivion hype for the (north) polar sea ice?

  41. racookpe1978 says:

    PhilM says:
    May 11, 2011 at 1:35 pm (Edit)

    Looking at the temp graph, does anyone *not* see that as a general rising trend with a slope of about 0.1C/decade?

    The real slope – assuming you believe anything in climate fields can actually be plotted as a straight line! – is in the graph.

    With a Negative slope. Yes, despite your apparent denial, globally measured actual world temperatures are declining for the past 14 years, or half of a 30 year “climate cycle”.

  42. Brian H says:

    racooke;
    Typo — I expect you meant “without being blinded”.

  43. Brian H says:

    My typo: “racookpe”. Sorry!

  44. John Finn says:

    racookpe1978 says:
    May 11, 2011 at 8:08 pm

    With a Negative slope. Yes, despite your apparent denial, globally measured actual world temperatures are declining for the past 14 years, or half of a 30 year “climate cycle”.

    You do, of course, have evidence for this?

  45. Ray of Adelaide says:

    negative slope over the past 14 years?!! If this data was the share market or the price of oil or your weight, you would conclude that there is variability, but overall, it is going up.

  46. Pamela Gray says:

    La Nina is such a divisive event. It makes coolish areas colder, and warmish areas warmer. It might seem odd, but natural events are by their nature unbalanced. The coolish areas might be colder, but not as much as the warmish areas are warmer. This means that a single temperature anomaly will seem very much at odds with the experiences of people in the coolish and warmish zones.

  47. Maxbert says:

    All I know is, April set a record for cold here in Washington state. Combine that with way-above average rainfall, and we’ve got fields that are too wet to plant and farmers praying for some global warming–soon!

  48. John Ballam says:

    OK, imagine for a minute that you didn’t know what the temperature graph represented, and therefore you didn’t have any particular desire for it to say one thing or another. Would you not say “looks like a noisy but unmistakeable upward trend over 20 years with a blip around 1997″. Agreed?

    I say stop denying the facts and you can start seriously debating the policies.

    IMHO.

  49. George E. Smith says:

    “”””” racookpe1978 says:
    May 11, 2011 at 8:01 pm
    George E. Smith says:
    May 11, 2011 at 2:30 pm
    (responding to)
    “”””” JP says:
    May 11, 2011 at 12:05 pm

    All I added was that a significant part of the warming of the ATMOSPHERE comes, not from the SURFACE, via conduction/convection/evaporation/LWIR Radiation, but by direct solar warming of the atmosphere because of H2O/CO2/O3 absorption of energy in the solar spectrum (not LWIR).

    OK. So, lettuce continue that thought trend for a moment. 8<)

    Case 0. At the equator (latitude 0.0), light (solar energy) penetrates straight through a narrow band of atmosphere (its gasses, solids, aerosols, dust and clouds) and strikes the ground at a 90 degree perpendicular angle. A portion – depending on day and season and regional environment – of that energy is absorbed in the atmosphere, and a portion strikes the ground. Of that hitting the ground, some is absorbed (right?) and some of that is re-emitted back "up."

    So, what are these proportions of the original solar energy – at the equator over land (I guess a "generic land" has to be assumed by the GCM'ers) and over the sea. (Again, I guess a generic sea has o be assumed by the modelers.)

    Case 45. (Or any other latitude band.) Further north and south, the solar energy must pass through a much thicker atmosphere before it can hit the earth. More distance = More absorption by gasses, aerosols, dust, more reflection by increasingly shallow angle cloud tops. Once it gets near the ground, it hits the ground (or sea!) at an ever decreasing angle of incidence, and is spread out much more over every sq meter of ground that it does hit. Both reduce energy/sq meter of ground or sea surface significantly, but emittance back "up" from the ground to space stays the same as it was near the equator. That is, each sq meter of surface will emit "straight up" from the ground and will re-emit up through a perpendicular "column of air" that is the same height as it is at the equator. """""

    Well racookpe1978 , let me take a totally wild arse guess here; lacking any peer reviewed factual evidence; that you are NOT and Optical Engineer. Am I close to being right ? Maybe half right ?

    If we assumed; and you know what that means, that the entire surface of the earth was optically smooth, like a camera lens surface. Well then it could reflect a portion of the incident sunlight, into an outgoing cone of about 0.25 degrees, half angles, same as the incoming sunlight is.

    But the real surface is anythin but optically smooth (down to submicron surface features), so in fat even the sea never reflects a vertical beam straight up, and most real surfaces would be highly scattering. Best guess would be that real surface would be partially Lambertian, meaning a cosine of angle intensity variation (from the surface normal), and could have some small specular (mirror like) directed reflectance component.

    As for LWIR emissions from the surface; they will be at least Lambertian (for calm ocean surface) up to isotropic for real world rough surfaces.

    So there simply isn't ever any directly vertical "up" path, that would be the same thickness all over the earth.

    And I'm not sure what the link is. I simply pointed out that under no circumstances, barring immediate near sunrise, or sunset, will any cloud placed anywhere in the sky, act to increase the amount of solar spectrum energy (incoming) that reaches the surface of the earth. They can only reduce it from the no cloud case.

  50. richard verney says:

    PhilM says:
    May 11, 2011 at 1:35 pm
    Looking at the temp graph, does anyone *not* see that as a general rising trend with a slope of about 0.1C/decade?
    ////////////////////////////////////////
    Phil, I see prior to the 98 El Nino a fairly flat line at about -0.15C and following the 98 El Nino a fairly flat line at about at about +0.2C. Accordingly, I do not see a generally rising trend of 0,1C per decade but instead a flat trend throughout the period save for the step change brought bout by the 98 El Nino.

  51. Roger Sowell says:

    @George E. Smith at May 12, 2011 at 2:18 pm

    “But the real surface is anythin but optically smooth (down to submicron surface features), so in fat even the sea never reflects a vertical beam straight up, and most real surfaces would be highly scattering.”

    George, I’ll always be grateful to you (and some others) for being so gracious in your comments to me when I first discovered WUWT a couple of years ago! Thanks again.

    I wonder about the quoted section above, though, since I’ve flown in many airplanes over the ocean and seen the sun’s reflection in the surface around the noon hour. Sometimes it is very, very bright. Also, I’ve seen the sun reflected almost each evening at sunset from the Pacific – I live in Los Angeles near the beach. The sun is reflected over a very wide part of the ocean, and again is sometimes very, very bright.

    It seems to me, based on those observations, that some of the sunlight is indeed reflected from the ocean, even when there are swells and waves.

    I do agree that the oceans absorb the non-reflected light, otherwise solar ponds could never work. http://www.solarponds.com/

  52. wcp2 says:

    I fail to see the significance of George Smith, rackopee, jp argument for the AGW case, it would all seem rather simplistic to me. Arguing in a world with no day and night, no seasons, no air currents, no sea currents, no temperature changes outside of global mean and “the anomaly”. only averages and many many broad assumptions. Arguing in the world of global warming.

Comments are closed.