A Different Perspective of Global Warming

I was preparing a few graphs for a chapter of my upcoming book (current working title An Illustrated Guide to Global Warming and Skepticism), and I thought readers here would find them interesting because they display global warming in a different light. The changes in temperature are minuscule when we look at the annual temperatures at all latitudes of the planet. I believe most of us are aware of that fact, and often times, because we’re looking at anomalies, we lose sight of the big picture. (Those warming signals would be even smaller if we were to consider the seasonal cycles and daily variations in temperatures…but those additional variations are beyond the scope of this post.)

In this post, we’re going to be looking at global temperature data and a reanalysis of global temperatures in absolute form, on a latitude-average (zonal-mean) basis, for two decade-long periods: 1979 to 1988 and 2003 to 2012. The purpose of the little exercise is simply to show how minute the rise in global temperatures has been when we compare the average temperatures for those two periods, while looking at the temperatures in 5-degree latitude bands from the South Pole to the North Pole. Then we’ll take a look at the climate model simulations of global land+ocean surface air temperatures for 2003 to 2012 and the final decade of the CMIP5 RCP8.5 (IPCC AR5) worst-case scenario, 2091 to 2100.

I’ve included the GHCN-CAMS land surface reanalysis because there are no land surface temperature datasets available in absolute form through the KNMI Climate Explorer. I’ve downloaded the data through to the current month and would have presented the latter period as 2004 to 2013, but the GHCN-CAMS reanalysis is missing temperature estimates at high latitudes in the Antarctic in 2013 and I did not want to bias the data there by a seasonal component.

First, a couple of preliminary graphs and discussions:

Figure 1 contains three graphs where the data and reanalysis are presented as anomalies…the form we’re used to seeing. Each dataset (and model output in the case of the GHCN-CAMS reanalysis) covers the period of January 1979 to December 2012, and also shown are the period-average temperature anomalies for periods of 1979 through 1988 and of 2003 through 2012. Looking at the top graph, we can see that global sea surfaces (HADISST) were about 0.17 deg C warmer in 2003 to 2012 than they were in 1979 to 1988. Lower troposphere temperatures (RSS), center graph, were about 0.30 deg C higher in 2003 to 2012 than they were in 1979 to 1988. And in the bottom graph, we can see that land surface air temperatures (GHCN-CAMS reanalysis) were about 0.74 deg C higher in 2003 to 2012 than they were in 1979 to 1988.

Figure 1

Figure 1

As a reference for the GHCN-CAMS reanalysis, GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) data with the oceans masked shows land surface air temperatures were about 0.64 deg C higher in 2003 to 2012 than they were in 1979 to 1988. See the graph here. The fact that the GHCN-CAMS reanalysis is biased warm is good for this presentation. Just keep that in mind, please.

Another preliminary graph: In Figure 2, the average temperatures (in absolute form) are presented on a zonal-mean (latitude-average) basis. They show the average temperatures for the period of 1979 to 2012 in 5-degree latitude bands. That is, the vertical axis (y-axis) is temperature in deg C. The horizontal axis (x-axis) is latitude. The South Pole is to the left, the North Pole to the right, and the equator is at 0-degree latitude in the center.

Figure 2

Figure 2

Looking at the dark-red curve, the land surface air temperatures are by far the coldest in the Antarctic, averaging almost 40 deg C below zero near the South Pole for the period of 1979 to 2012. The tropics are, of course, much warmer, reaching just over 27 deg C at 12.5 degrees north latitude. And, as one would expect, average land surface air temperatures for the period of 1979 to 2012 cool again gradually until they reach their coldest temperatures for the northern hemisphere near the North Pole. The sea surface temperature data in light blue are, logically, also warmest in the tropics and they cool toward the freezing temperature of sea water in the polar oceans. Sea surface temperatures are, for the most part, warmer than land surface air temperatures. Then across the latitudes sampled by RSS, the lower troposphere temperatures are consistently cooler than both sea surface temperatures and land surface air temperatures.

Figures 1 and 2 probably give you an idea of what you’re going to see…better said, not going to see…when we compare the average temperatures for the periods of 1979 to 1988 and 2003 to 2012.

As a reminder, the GHCN-CAMS curve is the output of a computer model, meaning it’s not data. See Fan, Y., and H. van den Dool (2008), A global monthly land surface air temperature analysis for 1948-present. But they use data as inputs to the reanalysis model and the model infills regions without data. One of the datasets used as input is GHCN, which is used by the three primary global temperature data suppliers for land surfaces. I would be happy to present data, not a reanalysis, if and when a land surface air temperature dataset in absolute form is available through the KNMI Climate Explorer.

Figure 3 includes the comparisons of global temperatures on a latitude-average basis, with the average temperatures for the period of 1979 to 1988 shown in blue and the average temperatures for 2003 to 2012 shown in red. Sea surface temperatures are in the top graph, lower troposphere temperatures in the center, and land surface temperatures in the bottom graph.

Figure 3

Figure 3

Looking at the land surface air temperatures in the bottom graph, there is about a 65 deg C temperature difference between the average temperatures at the South Pole and the equator, and the two curves overlap (by the breadth of the default line chosen by EXCEL) in the Southern Hemisphere, showing how insignificant the changes in temperature have been there. It’s only when we reach the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere that there is a noticeable difference between the two curves. At 82.5N, the period average temperature for 1979 to 1988 is about -17.2 deg C, and for 2003 to 2012 it’s -16 deg C…a whopping 1.2 degree rise in temperature between those two decade-long periods.

WHAT ABOUT THE CLIMATE MODELS USED BY THE IPCC?

We’ve already presented that CMIP5 (IPCC AR5) climate models are not capable of simulating surface temperatures over any timeframe. For examples, see the posts:

But as a reference…

We often see maps of future global surface temperatures, where the maps have been color-coded to show everything in red. Example: Refer to the maps in Figure 4. They’re from the BBC article IPCC climate report: humans ‘dominant cause’ of warming. The Arctic temperatures are forecasted to warm more than 11 deg C by the end of the century for the worst-case RCP8.5 scenario on the right.

Figure 4 bbc _70149764_climate_change_coloured_624

Figure 4

What they fail to tell us is that average annual temperatures (2091 to 2100) in the Arctic are still below freezing, as they are in Antarctica. See Figure 6, which illustrates the multi-model ensemble-member mean of the climate models stored in the CMIP5 (IPCC AR5) archive, for the worst-case (RCP8.5) scenario. Shown are the simulated annual temperatures on a latitudinal basis for the period of 2003 to 2012 and for 2091 to 2100.

Figure 5

Figure 5

Now consider that there are seasonal variations in temperature every year and daily variations in temperature every day.

CLOSING

As the title of the post read, this was simply a different perspective of global warming.

Many people hear that global temperatures have warmed a specific amount over a certain time period and realize they personally would never have been able to sense that change. The only reason they’re aware of it is the constant propaganda from talking heads. Maybe that’s why global warming falls so far down on people’s priorities on the UN’s recent poll. See the MyWorld2015.org poll The United Nations Global Survey for a Better World.

SOURCE

The data, the reanalysis and the climate model outputs are available through the KNMI Climate Explorer.

About these ads

59 thoughts on “A Different Perspective of Global Warming

  1. Bob, Why not “An illustrated Guide to Global Warming/Climate Change”.

  2. I notice that the plots are in degrees C. If the absolute temperatures were used (degrees K) the change would look even far less significant.

  3. The volume of “stuff” decreases to zero at the poles so the latitude scale should be non-linear. The divergence at the pole would seem even less important.

  4. Another great post, Mr. Tisdale. The key word is ‘perspective’, as in “putting things in perspective.”

  5. [Note: "pyromancer76" is "beckleybud" and "H Grouse". He is the same sockpuppet. Banned multiple times. ~mod.]

  6. Very good Bob. This is a more realistic presentation of what is really happening.

  7. Great post, now if someone has the skills to put predicted jules of energy (Hiroshma bombs would work) under each latitude numer, for that latitude, then we could see even further how far 6he observations are from the horriblle climate predictions.

  8. Carbon dioxide is not well mixed in the mid-troposphere (where weather is located). It is also the case that its greenhouse affect is a regional to localized event. It can heat up the area it is in, while being less capable of doing that to any measurable degree where it is thinned out, and it certainly can’t heat up an area that is far away from the regional area the globby concentration is currently in.

    This is the main reason it does not have an apparent or mechanized correlation with localized weather events, weather pattern variations, and oscillation in the short, medium, or long term time span (disregarding the seasonal correlation which is well observed but poorly modeled, and the correlation with large scale wind patterns moving it around, also well observed but poorly modeled, thanks to the AIRS project). While most CO2 globby and variable concentrations are in the Northern Hemisphere, the Southern Hemisphere has its own footprint complexity in terms of atmospheric CO2.

    Because of this complexity, it will be a challenge for catastrophic climate scientists to demonstrate though observations and correlated modeling of localized extreme weather events with a CO2 presence of globby abundance with enough staying power to cause such an event. Chances are just as great that a glob of CO2 was NOT in the regional vicinity when the extreme event happened. Add to that the little bit of extra CO2 that is put there anthropogenically, and you have no case for human-induced increased deleterious or even beneficial anthropogenic CO2 affects. This is why I also suspect that global warming has not been caused by increasing CO2 and turn instead to natural oceanic/atmospheric teleconnections on decadal time scales as the null hypothesis yet to be disproven.

    http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/data/about_airs_co2_data/

  9. Thanks, Bob. I think many will find this approach enlightening and eye opening. It’s SO obvious to those with the eyes to see. Your work is greatly appreciated.

  10. What is the name of that island at 60 deg. south latitude, where they got their “land” surface air Temperatures ??

    Oh I forgot; their computer just “modeled” what it would be if there was any land at 60 deg. south.

  11. 2 things that might be instructive – Instead of averages it would be nice to look at the total temperature variance to show the silliness of comparing a person having a 2 degree temperature to the earth changing 2 degrees (a human temperature only varies 3 degrees C over their life, the earth varies 70 degrees C

    Also to show the anomalies on a scale that includes all recorded earth temperatures. The change will be almost impossible to discern at full scale

  12. I did the same with 70N-90N and global temp many years ago. The global warming post 1970 s did not make sense. But then they changed the 70N-90N Data and nothing now makes sense.

  13. I forgot to add Bob (as if you really needed more work to do) , what does it look like, if they added or “modeled” what the average “annual maximum” and average “annual minimum” global temperatures are ??

    By “average” I mean over those years that are included in your plots, so that would likely not show the -94 deg. C for that cold plateau in Antarctica, or the + 57.8 deg. C record from north Africa.

    And yes, it is very valuable to have a mental picture of what earth’s Goldilocks habitat REALLY looks like, so we can see how easy it is to live on this planet.. Thanks Bob.

    g

  14. Thanks Bob….looking forward to your new book. I notice the projected computer sea temp in the tropics exceeded 30 degrees. I have the understanding gathered from several sources that evaporation and resulting cloud cover at that temp worked to get her to keep the temp from rising above a sustainable +30C. Am I incorrect in this belief?

  15. Perhaps “A sceptic’s illustrated guide to the catastrophic global warming scam.”?

  16. I notice from your plots of the temperature changes on the two periods that you chose, the temperature increases are in the Northern Hemisphere mostly above 60 degrees. The climate model showed temperature increases for the entire Earth. The climate model outputs, if they were adjusted for no warming in the Southern Hemisphere and the same adjustment was applied for the total output, would be much closer to reality. Other than the fact that models have problems of drift and accumulated error, there is something basically wrong in the model.

  17. Dear Bob,

    It works even better if you plot the before and after curves on an absolute temperature scale. Across the entire Holocene, even.

    rgb

  18. When I started to read this article I thought at last someone is going to show temperature variations on the proper absolute scale, but alas they did not.

    Where I live, in Rancho Mirage California, The seasonal variation is
    295K in winter to 315K in summer or ~ 7% whereas the global warming variation over 100 years has apparently been less than 1 deg K or 0.3%. Thus seasonal variation is ~ 21 times the 100 year climate change variation.

  19. Thanks Bob.
    _____________________

    Doug says:
    May 4, 2014 at 6:54 am
    “The volume of “stuff” decreases to zero at the poles so the latitude scale should be non-linear.”

    “stuff” being a technical term used by those in the know

    The distance along a Parallel of Latitude is a function of the angle of that latitude,
    specifically the Cosine function.
    Circumference at latitude L = circumference at Equator * cosine ( L )
    Using 40,075 km. for the Equator,
    Arctic Circle = 15,940 km
    89° = 699 km

    Thus, area and stuff will have to be scaled accordingly.

  20. Hi Bob. Good luck with the book. You should also look at the extreme ranges on a per day basis, TMax and TMin since they use those to get TAvg for each day, then get TAvg for the year, and average those averages per station to give a regional average. In all those averagings we lose what is physically going on.

    For example, using just summer Tmax for Canada stations we see that they are getting cooler since the 1930s. Winter TMin is warming more than TMax is cooling, so the TAvg for the years appears to be getting warmer. But the fact of the matter is the range of daily temps is narrowing since the 1930’s, and winters are getting less cold.

    http://cdnsurfacetemps.wordpress.com/2010/06/23/july-temperature-trends/

    The other aspect lost is the number of heatwave days. They have been dropping since the 1930’s. For any given day in July record temps fall in years before 1950, and were hotter than the few records set today.

  21. Not to mention that the way the NWS calculates average daily temperatures is flawed. Their way is to simply take the high temp for the day, add the low temp and divide by two. More accurate is all 24 hour temp readings divided by 24. Their way adds a bias of between 1-2 degrees per day.

  22. george e. smith says: “What is the name of that island at 60 deg. south latitude, where they got their “land” surface air Temperatures ??”

    The Antarctic Peninsula reaches into the latitude band of 65S-60S and data from Tierra del Fuego would be found in 60S-55S.

    Regards

  23. Back in early February you wrote:

    The following is something I wrote for my upcoming book with the working title The Oceans Ate My Global Warming (or another possible title CO2 is Not a Control Knob).

    I think that first title is a real grabber. Please keep it and use An Illustrated Guide to Global Warming and Skepticism) as a subtitle. (Unless the theme of the book has changed drastically.)

  24. Lindzen has a nice plot of daily average high and low temperatures in Boston. The daily record high and low is also displayed on the same plot. He then draws a red line that is the thickness of the predicted warming along the daily average temperature. It’s a joke.

  25. Bob Tisdale says: ” … The changes in temperature are miniscule when we look at the annual temperatures at all latitudes of the planet. I believe most of us are aware of that fact, and often times, because we’re looking at anomalies, we lose sight of the big picture. …”

    Damn Bob. I thought you knew that keeping everyone from looking at the big picture is the whole point of the scam in the first place. Looking only at “anomalies” is like only looking at temps from 1850 onward — serves a similar purpose.

  26. Thanks, Bob. Very good analysis.
    Yes, a better perspective, from a view point that lets a person see a wide picture with enough detail. Looking forward to your new book.

  27. Bob – a minor nit pick: Tierra del Fuego is in the range 50-55 south, not 55-60 south. Cape Horn at 56 south is 1-1/2 degrees south of the southernmost shore of Tierra del Fuego (Ushuaia).

  28. Bob,

    You want to sell books and educate at the same time? Title your book: The Illustrated Green Guide to Global Warming and Skepticism.

    Ronald Voisin
    Retired Engineer

  29. “””””…..Bob Tisdale says:

    May 4, 2014 at 11:09 am

    george e. smith says: “What is the name of that island at 60 deg. south latitude, where they got their “land” surface air Temperatures ??”

    The Antarctic Peninsula reaches into the latitude band of 65S-60S and data from Tierra del Fuego would be found in 60S-55S.

    Regards……””””””

    On my map of Antarctica and the southern ocean, I couldn’t find so much as a rock, at -60 deg. south Latitude; smack dab in the middle of the gap between the horn, and the Antarctic peninsula.

    South Sandwich, and South Orkneys, are both slightly south of that.

    Tip of Antarctic peninsula, is north of the Antarctic circle so never have NO sunrise there.

    I just thought their computer generated fictional model, would at least be geographically real for planet earth, and not show the Sea of Tranquility as being in the Southern Ocean. There’s about a nine degrees of latitude gap of basically nada solidus.

  30. Bob Tisdale – Neither the Antarctic Peninsula nor Tierra del Fuego reach 60S. But there is a largish rock (5km across) off Coronation Island whose northern edge is at 60 29S. I can’t see a weather station on it.

  31. george e. smith and Mike Jonas: Why are we arguing about trivialities? As discussed in the post, GHCN-CAMS is a reanalysis. Using a computer model, they’ve infilled areas without data or with missing data. As illustrated here…

    …with the 2.5 degree grids, the output of the reanalysis reaches into the latitudes discussed in my earlier comment.

    Regards

  32. We often see maps of future global surface temperatures, where the maps have been color-coded to show everything in red. Example: Refer to the maps in Figure 4. They’re from the BBC article IPCC climate report: humans ‘dominant cause’ of warming. The Arctic temperatures are forecasted to warm more than 11 deg C by the end of the century for the worst-case RCP8.5 scenario on the right.

    What they fail to tell us is that average annual temperatures (2091 to 2100) in the Arctic are still below freezing, as they are in Antarctica. See Figure 6, which illustrates the multi-model ensemble-member mean of the climate models stored in the CMIP5 (IPCC AR5) archive, for the worst-case (RCP8.5) scenario. Shown are the simulated annual temperatures on a latitudinal basis for the period of 2003 to 2012 and for 2091 to 2100.

    Now consider that there are seasonal variations in temperature every year and daily variations in temperature every day.

    So, if you were around at the Last Glacial Maximum to give us a report of what we had in store as we moved into the interglacial period, I suppose you could have made the same argument, since the change in temperatures for the RCP8.5 scenario is pretty close to what we saw between the LGM and the interglacial, i.e., roughly 5-6 C globally, with about double in the arctic and antarctic..

    From your perspective, were the climate changes and associated changes in sea level and what-not associated with that event pretty trivial?

  33. markstoval says: “Looking only at “anomalies” is like only looking at temps from 1850 onward….”

    With no data before 1850, what would you propose to present?

  34. Paul Linsay says: “Lindzen has a nice plot of daily average high and low temperatures in Boston. The daily record high and low is also displayed on the same plot. He then draws a red line that is the thickness of the predicted warming along the daily average temperature. It’s a joke.”

    Using Lindzen’s graph as a guide, I produced a similar graph using Central England temperature data:

    http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2010/04/10/a-different-perspective-of-the-rise-in-global-temperature/

    Regards

  35. Re Bob Tisdale and the overall review of temperature Variation.
    I have been making some graphs of communities in BC to look at the variation in temperature in the
    time of the record. I have some communities with 100 years of information downloaded from
    Environment Canada. I don’t know if this information has been adjusted in any way but “blanks” and
    gaps in the information are there. I can only access publicly available information. More details are
    available at a price.
    I started this because of a statement of a professional organization I belong to advised we needed to be
    concerned with a 4 to 5 degree C increase in temperatures in the next 50 years due to “modelled”
    climate change. I will with hold the reference for the time being.

    Link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/mumeba3ox98vdaj/TisdalePost.pdf

    No idea if this will work, it did when I tested it,

  36. (Waited for a response) The graphs over-emphasize the importance of the polar latitudes in the same way a Mercator projection makes Canada look bigger than it is.

  37. joeldshore says: “From your perspective, were the climate changes and associated changes in sea level and what-not associated with that event pretty trivial?”

    First, joeldshore, I don’t find climate models credible…or did you miss that in the post? Second, your attempted comparison is flawed unless you are expecting sea levels to rise 120 meters by the year 2100.

    Have a good day.

  38. Doug says: “(Waited for a response)””

    I didn’t know your statement required a response. Weighting on a latitudinal basis makes the graphs more complex and, in my opinion, would add confusion.

  39. First, joeldshore, I don’t find climate models credible…or did you miss that in the post?

    So, you tried to imply that a consequence predicted by them is no big deal…and then when you are called on it, you say in essence, “Well, I don’t believe them anyway.” Interesting method of argumentation.

    Second, your attempted comparison is flawed unless you are expecting sea levels to rise 120 meters by the year 2100.

    Well, you are the one who seemed to think that you could intuit that a change of 11 degC in Arctic temperatures is not such a big deal. So, perhaps it is worth investigating how well that intuition would have worked in the past? You know, test it against actual data….Isn’t that something people who call themselves skeptics claim to like to do?

    And, by the way, are we supposed to simply ignore what might happen to sea levels beyond 2100 if we raised Arctic temperatures by 11 C?

  40. jrwakefield says:
    May 4, 2014 at 10:55 am

    I see you did the same thing as I did only four years ago. I actually did that some time ago as well, but since it has become an issue with a professional association, I started looking at specific sites in more detail. Will leave a note on your site.

  41. 1) It is the 2.5 degree grids that concern me. Obviously these grids cover a smaller and smaller area as you get closer to the poles and a very large area close to the equator.
    I recently asked some actuaries who were working with similar grid based temperature data if they were adjusting for the different areas of the grid and if they weren’t what biases were being created by not adjusting for this. I didn’t get an answer. Bob do you know the answer to this?
    2) Bob, what would happen if the second and third graphs of figure 3 were standardized for either human population by latitude or inflation adjusted GDP? Could this be a way of approximately estimating the urban heat island effect?

  42. Look at the trend lines before and after the Great Dying of the Thermometers in about 1990.

  43. oeldshore says:
    May 4, 2014 at 7:22 pm
    First, joeldshore, I don’t find climate models credible…or did you miss that in the post?

    So, you tried to imply that a consequence predicted by them is no big deal…and then when you are called on it, you say in essence, “Well, I don’t believe them anyway.” Interesting method of argumentation.

    Second, your attempted comparison is flawed unless you are expecting sea levels to rise 120 meters by the year 2100.

    Well, you are the one who seemed to think that you could intuit that a change of 11 degC in Arctic temperatures is not such a big deal. So, perhaps it is worth investigating how well that intuition would have worked in the past? You know, test it against actual data….Isn’t that something people who call themselves skeptics claim to like to do
    Well, you are the one who seemed to think that you could intuit that a change of 11 degC in Arctic temperatures is not such a big deal. So, perhaps it is worth investigating how well that intuition would have worked in the past? You know, test it against actual data….Isn’t that something people who call themselves skeptics claim to like to do?

    “”And, by the way, are we supposed to simply ignore what might happen to sea levels beyond 2100 if we raised Arctic temperatures by 11 C?””
    …………………………………….

    Do not ever believe that the demons of your invention/dreams keep others awake!!

  44. Tyop–change to “minuscule” in:
    Bob Tisdale says: ” … The changes in temperature are miniscule

    Here’s another one of my old title suggestions:
    rogerknights says:
    March 27, 2014 at 3:41 am

    The new working title is Fundamentals and Failings of Human-Induced Global Warming.

    How about Warming or Worming? (That’ll pique browsers’ interest.) “Worming” is suggestive of book-worming (out of touch with the real world), with “wormy” (full of holes), and with “worming his way out of it” (twisting things to a deceptive end). It’s not perfect, but you could do worse–and HAVE with the one you’ve got!

  45. “What is the name of that island at 60 deg. south latitude, where they got their “land” surface air Temperatures ??”

    O c’mon. There are two islands within 60 miles of it..

  46. Brent Walker says: “I recently asked some actuaries who were working with similar grid based temperature data if they were adjusting for the different areas of the grid and if they weren’t what biases were being created by not adjusting for this. I didn’t get an answer. Bob do you know the answer to this?”

    The data suppliers who use latitude-longitude grids weight the data by latitude.

    Brent Walker says: “Bob, what would happen if the second and third graphs of figure 3 were standardized for either human population by latitude or inflation adjusted GDP? Could this be a way of approximately estimating the urban heat island effect?”

    You’d be making a lot of assumptions.

  47. rogerknights says: “Tyop–change to “minuscule” in…”

    Thanks, repaired. Curiously, it [miniscule] must be such a common misspelling that MS Word allows it…at least mine does.

  48. We should work all heat problems in Kelvin. This puts claims that a 2C rise in average temperature is dangerous in perspective, ie a rise from 288K to 290K is a rise of less than 1%.

  49. Thanks Bob.
    You said “The data suppliers who use latitude-longitude grids weight the data by latitude.” Could you supply more information? At face value weighting by latitude would increase the bias. A grid at a very high latitude would cover a tiny area compared to a grid at the equator.
    You are right about the amount of assumptions. But it is interesting that, except for the equatorial regions, the increase in temperature seems to be concentrated where population is greatest and urbanisation is growingand least where population is relatively sparse ( 25 deg south and below).

  50. ***
    Pamela Gray says:
    May 4, 2014 at 7:59 am

    Carbon dioxide is not well mixed in the mid-troposphere (where weather is located). It is also the case that its greenhouse affect is a regional to localized event. It can heat up the area it is in, while being less capable of doing that to any measurable degree where it is thinned out, and it certainly can’t heat up an area that is far away from the regional area the globby concentration is currently in.
    ***

    Pamela, I don’t think CO2 concentration is important as a GHG except in the upper troposphere — say 30 to 40 thousand feet. IOW, its concentration has no effect in lower levels (except that’s where the higher-altitude concentrations originate from).

  51. Brent Walker says: “But it is interesting that, except for the equatorial regions, the increase in temperature seems to be concentrated where population is greatest and urbanisation is growingand least where population is relatively sparse ( 25 deg south and below).”

    Population is greatest centered on about 30N:

    Regards

  52. “””””…..Bob Tisdale says:

    May 4, 2014 at 6:51 pm

    george e. smith and Mike Jonas: Why are we arguing about trivialities? As discussed in the post, GHCN-CAMS is a reanalysis. …..”””””

    Bob, my note was not any criticism of your presentation. My purpose was to point out, that many simulations, that people rely on, don’t actually simulate any real system.

    If it’s distracting; Mods have my permission to expunge my post in that regard.

Comments are closed.