Feb 2008 RSS global temperature anomaly near zero and in good agreement with UAH

Last week I posted the University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH) Microwave Sounder Unit (MSU) global temperature anomaly data for February 2008 with a note that it showed only a marginal increase from January 2008 data, and remained near zero.

The February 2008 global temperature anomaly data from RSS (Remote Sensing Systems of Santa Rosa, CA)  is out, and is in good agreement with that. You can see it the raw RSS data yourself here

First here is UAH satellite derived temperature anomaly. For February 2008, it shows a slight rebound from the -0.046°C value of January 2008 to 0.016°C for a slight change (∆T) of .062°C upwards.


click for a larger image

Next we have the RSS satellite derived temperature anomaly. It also shows a slight rebound from the -0.080°C value of January 2008 to 0.007°C for a slight change (∆T) of .0.073°C upwards. The anomaly remains near zero as does the UAH data.


click for a larger image

It appears the La Niña in the Pacific and the solar minimum are continuing to affect temperatures globally, resulting in this cooler period for the last 13 months starting in January 2007.


click for a larger image

Below: A plot of sunspots showing our current position in the solar minimum. Note the uncertainty for the two projections of the next cycle 24.


I’ll plot the other metrics (GISS, HadCRUT) as soon as they are available.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Patrick Hadley
March 10, 2008 4:19 pm

The GISSTEMP anomaly is available: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
Their figure is 0.26 for February. That is their lowest figure for February since 1994. The moving yearly average GISSTEMP anomaly is now 0.48, down from 0.57 at the end of 2007.

March 10, 2008 4:37 pm

The last graph is introduced with “…the two projections of the next cycle 25”. Of course, we’re still waiting for cycle 24 to take over, it just seems as though we’ve waited long enough for cycle 25 to be due.
REPLY: That was a typo, fixed.

March 10, 2008 5:16 pm

thanks patrick…
Anyway. prediction for 2008. 2008 according to giss will come in
at an anomaly of between .06 and .46…. so .26C +.2C

March 10, 2008 5:49 pm

Well, the SOI was 21.3 last month, the highest it’s been since late 2000. So I expect this La Nina to persist for a while still. Last time it was above 20 it was another 5 months before it went negative again, so I’ll predict we’ll have a La Nina pattern until the summer, at least.
This should be one of the coolest years out of the last 20.

March 10, 2008 5:52 pm

So, even money. 2008 might be dang close to 1994. Coldest year in last 10-15 years. Note: this is just the weather.

March 10, 2008 6:53 pm

Mr. Watts, here is a link to a more modern solar cycle graphic, one updated Feb. 29, 2008
REPLY: Thank you!

March 10, 2008 6:55 pm

2008 is certainly starting out in a hole. Looking at RSS data, by my very rough guesstimate, in order for 2008 to top 1998 as #1, the remaining 10 months are going to have to AVERAGE an anamoly of +.75C. That’s just not going to happen. In order for 2008 to even make the top 10, the remaining 10 months are going to have to average an anamoly of +.3C. That *could* happen, but it’s going to have to warm up quickly to do it, and the SOI data says this La Nina is going to hold for a while, so it would be a bad bet.
I say 2008 doesn’t make top 10. Mark it down.
Yeah, there’s no way natural forcings can overcome the almighty CO2 molecule…

March 10, 2008 7:15 pm

A “leading question” about how GISS handles pack ice. First, some background. I am *NOT* making any assumptions about how GISS handles this. I don’t know, which is why I’m asking. Correct me if I’m wrong; “land temperatures” are actually air temperature approx 4 feet above the land (e.g. Stevenson Screen). “Sea temperatures” are SST (Sea Surface Temperature). Those are two different animals. However, just like using a different base period for normals, it’s not necessarily a problem ***IF THE DIFFERENCES ARE CONSTANT***. We know that GISS estimates (“GISStimates”) temperatures in the polar regions, which the other data sets don’t do. Again, not necessarily a problem, ***IF THE BASIS IS KEPT CONSTANT***.
Now for the leading question… how does GISS treat solid pack ice in the Arctic Ocean?
Option 1) Estimate the SST of the water that the pack ice is riding on top of. In years when the pack ice melts, do the same. The accuracy of the estimate may be open to question, but at least you’re still comparing apples-to-apples.
Option 2) Treat pack ice as “pseudo land”, in which case the data gets skewed to Hell and back. Let me explain. Air temperature 4 feet above regular land can vary wildly. Air temperature 4 feet above solid pack ice temds to be strongly influenced by cooling due to contact with the ice which, by definition, is at or below freezing temperature. Open water, by definition again, has a SST at or above the freezing point (slightly below zero Celsius for salt water). During a year when ice pack retreats significantly (e.g. 2007), this treatment replaces millions of square km of “pseudo land” (air temperatures can easily get down to -10 or -20 C), with opean sea, which, by definition, *MUST* be at or above the melting point. And “global average temperature” shoots through the roof.
Hopefully, GISS is using option 1.

Kristen Byrnes
March 10, 2008 7:29 pm

Patrick Hadley, “That is their lowest figure for February since 1994.”
1994 was still a volcano year (Pinatubo). 1984 and 1985 were also volcano years (El Chichon). So it’s probably safe to go back to February 1982.
MattN “Well, the SOI was 21.3 last month, the highest it’s been since late 2000. So I expect this La Nina to persist for a while still.”
SOI was 21.3 in November 2000, but this is March. La Ninas usually weaken in March.
Using ONI (which is the only data that defines La Nina and El Nino) you can see the pattern.
Using MEI (which does not define La Nina) you can see the same pattern, although not as clear, MEI uses 2-month periods while ONI uses 3-month periods.
There is no definition of La Nina or El Nino using SOI. SOI is the difference in pressure over Tahiti and Darwin. SOI usually follows ENSO events but can throw you off if a low or high-pressure system stalls near one of those areas during an ENSO event. Both Darwin and Tahiti are south of the Nino regions.
This La Nina is starting to weaken. The high-pressure systems that bring cool water north along the South American coast (cooling the Nino 1+2 region) started weakening about 10 weeks ago and the Nino 1 + 2 region warmed in that time. The warm water in Nino 1 + 2 did not spread to the east much because 850 hPa winds in that area (MJO) were either slow or blowing to the East. That has changed over the last several weeks and the winds are now blowing warm surface water into the Nino 3 and 3.4 regions.
SST animation here:
Graph of Nino regions here:
Current 850 winds here:

Kristen Byrnes
March 10, 2008 7:33 pm

OOPS! Map that shows the Nino regions is here:

March 10, 2008 8:22 pm

has anybody calculated Feb temps from the RSS data here (daily) to check if its accurate?
I think it 4.4 km high
Looking at March it may going well below FEb ( I know Anthony does not like to rely on this graph but it would be nice to know how it stacked up)

March 10, 2008 9:29 pm

Given that northern hemisphere land snow cover when from positive anomolies in Jan and Feb to negative anomolies in March, I’m willing to guess that the globally averaged temperature anomoly will be warmer in March.
La Nina has been weakening during the last few weeks. That points to a warmer in March anomoly too.

March 10, 2008 10:09 pm

This may be due to Australia adopting Kyoto. We are saved!

Michael Ronayne
March 10, 2008 11:56 pm

As “crosspatch” noted the current solar cycle graphic is here http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/sunspot.gif. If you go into the “Wayback Machine” of Archive.org, a history of this graphic is available here http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.sec.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/sunspot.gif. If you look at the February 2007 prediction http://web.archive.org/web/20070210112845/http://www.sec.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/sunspot.gif, Solar Cycle 24 should have stated over 9 months ago! If you go back to the February 2006 prediction http://web.archive.org/web/20060216220801/http://www.sec.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/sunspot.gif, Solar Cycle 24 should have stated in early 2007. By NASA own data, Solar Cycle 24 is now over a year late now!

Bob B
March 11, 2008 3:13 am

The coldest DJF in 15yrs!

Stephen Richards
March 11, 2008 3:35 am

Is it the old cynic in me or are NASA/space weather .com inventing sunspots?
The last and only 2 spots in Jan and Feb have been invisible to me and yet have counted as sunspot no. 13 and 12. The latest appeared yesterday, they say and has disappeared today =12. I don’t care about the size of the number but I can’t see the spots!!!
REPLY: Are you looking at the magnified image, or are you actually lookimg for spots through your own telescope?

Michael Ronayne
March 11, 2008 4:15 am

Here is NASA unedited original prediction for Solar Cycle 24 which is more off the mark and includes the full history of Cycle 23 through March 2006.
Note the amplitude for Cycle 24 in the 2010-2011 time period, during the renegotiation of the Kyoto Protocol. Using this prediction Solar Cycle 24 is late by 1.5 years.
We should start archiving Solar Cycle 24 predictions in a safe place; data in the Wayback Machine can be deleted. We may need a good laugh on those cold summer nights.

March 11, 2008 5:20 am

The snow cover map seems misleading. It shows removal of snow off the coast of Labrador, which is very unlikely. Here in Quebec, we are breaking records for snow falls that go back to the 1930’s. Over the past ten years, there was usually very little snow left at this time of year in Montreal. This year, it seems like we’ll be stuck with it until July! I don’t know the global anomaly, but March is certainly colder this year than in a long time.

March 11, 2008 5:46 am

February is typically the warmest month of the year with a 30 year anomaly of +0.0993 compared to January, at number 2, with a 30 year anomaly of +0.0949 so the “adjusted” difference between the two is even less.
January 2008 was 0.1389 cooler then average and 0.6380 cooler then January 2007.
February 2008 was 0.0833 cooler then average and 0.4340 cooler then February 2007.
PS: My heat just kicked on (Georgia)

Stephen Richards
March 11, 2008 6:51 am

Anthony, whilst I do have a good scope, I am actually looking at the magnified images from spaceweather and solar24 which I think are the same source.
REPLY: Ok next time one of these blipspots happens, try the “sunspots” link on the far lower right side of my page, it will give you a medium size, then click that picture, and you’ll get supersize, straight from SOHO’s website. I think its a matter of the spots being so small thay can’t be seen easily at the sizes presented.
On the supersized image, I can see the fading remnants of spot 985.

Stephen Richards
March 11, 2008 6:53 am

Remember these are anomalies that you refer to not temperature. Anomalies are in themselves refered to particular periods/records.

Jeff Alberts (was Jeff in Seattle)
March 11, 2008 7:09 am

We should start archiving Solar Cycle 24 predictions in a safe place; data in the Wayback Machine can be deleted. We may need a good laugh on those cold summer nights.

FYI, I’ve got a dedicated server, and can provide an archive mirror for such things. Can’t be too safe.
REPLY: Go for it Jeff, I’ll be happy to dedicate a display page here.

March 11, 2008 7:12 am

I thought the monthly anomalies were reported relative to baselines calculated for that month. (So January is compared to the 30 year average for January, etc.)
Is this incorrect?
Also, can anyone tell me where to find monthly anomalies for NOAA? I want to add those to my hypothesis test analysis of the IPCC projections.

March 11, 2008 7:14 am

Why did my message not appear? Was it because it was alarmist in nature?
REPLY: No it’s because you apparently didn’t read the reply to your last post yesterday, you are welcome to post that theory on your own blog, then provide a link. I’ll be happy to post a one or two sentence intro to that link to your own blog.
here it is again:
My choice is that if you want to make points about things you believe in, you are more than welcome to do so. Unlike the majority of people here, you have you own blog. My advice is that you concentrate on that and exercise your ideas there, where you can expound to your heart’s content. If you wish to post simple RELEVANT comments here for example, something like this:
“I have a treatise on the role of man’s evolution as it relates to global warming that you may find interesting, see it here at this [URL]”
I’ll be happy to post simple things like that, so that people who choose to do so can visit your blog and discuss the issue there. But no more hijacking of the threads here, no more repetitive posts saying the same thing over and over again. But you’ll have the opportunity to suggest discussion on your forum. That’s not banishment, but the ability to suggest redirection as a courtesy.
Bear in mind that any more than a sentence or two with URL where it can be discussed on your blog is all that I will post. If you are unhappy with that decision, so be it, but you’ve been rude, condescending, repetitive, and disruptive, and all the while being completely unapologetic for doing so. My patience (and that of many others) is thus at an end for this boorish behaviour.

March 11, 2008 8:06 am

This is unbelievable and I hope some here will have the good sense to recognize it for what it is.
I have already presented my views on my blog. I am only trying to enlighten others. You are making that impossible.
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
REPLY: “You are making that impossible.” Actually, no. People that wish to be enlightened by your ideas will be able to visit your blog and soak it up all they wish. As I said, you can post links to your blog if you wish, (as your comment below does) along with a one or two line sentence, but since you have your own blog, I will not allow you to continue to hijack mine for your purposes.
If you want to be part of a larger community, where more people will find your views, may I suggest you transfer your content to a free wordpress blog. I’ll even add you to my blogroll if you want to do that.
Here is the free signup: http://wordpress.com/signup/

March 11, 2008 8:13 am

The link is my entire thread on GLOBAL WARMING at
There you will find my unqualified endorsement of Tim Flannery, which is all that I was trying to do in the message that Anthony Watts has twice refused to present.
REPLY: Well it’s presented now, on your blog. Readers, please visit Mr. Davison’s blog if you wish to comment on it.

March 11, 2008 8:41 am

You sir are the bottom of the barrel.

March 11, 2008 8:58 am

“Readers, please visit Mr. Davison’s blog if you wish to comment on it.”
Thanks Anthony. Read it. I have no comment, other than John appears to be a little on the crazy side.
Sunspots: I was floored when I saw the statement in January after the reversed sunspot that they cycle was going “as predicted”. Say WHA?!?!? Oh, you mean the *revised* prediction you made after the 1st one in ’06 didn’t pan out.
Revisionist history is right everytime…

Jeff Alberts (was Jeff in Seattle)
March 11, 2008 9:09 am

Go for it Jeff, I’ll be happy to dedicate a display page here.

Not sure how to setup a mirror, or which data to archive really.

Bob B
March 11, 2008 9:23 am

Anthony, I really appreciate the work you do and the kind of stuff you have to put up with as witnessed above.

March 11, 2008 10:18 am

I don’t buy the CRF argument to the extent that Shaviv purports. I’m pretty sure that it relies on the same spurious feedbacks and lags GHG warming does. But there’s comedy gold over at RealClimate.org.
These people, especially the commenters, have no shame.

March 11, 2008 10:37 am

Lucia, good question. I’ve always assumed the monthly analomaly was an anomaly from the monthly average of the base period. trying so see what difference it makes…

March 11, 2008 10:39 am

Lucia, do you have GISStemp monthly in a single vector from 1880 onwards? as opposed to the table they provide? I’m too lazy to write a conversion

John Finn
March 11, 2008 11:06 am

Re: earlier comments
March 2008 is shaping up to be considerably warmer than either Jan or Feb.
See: http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/map/images/rnl/sfctmpmer_07a.rnl.html
much of the large warm area over Russia and Asia was below average in Jan and early Feb.

March 11, 2008 11:24 am

Good idea, Anthony that blog (previous) has strengthened my skepticism.

March 11, 2008 11:44 am

John, I think Tim Blair has humiliated Flannery because of the incorrect predictions of drought in Australia.
REPLY: Cut Flannery some slack, he’s a zoologist, not a climatologist. That sort of predictive failure would be bound to happen when you go form forecasting populations to precipitation.

March 11, 2008 12:17 pm

Hi Francois,
I hear you about potential flaws in the reanalysis of snow cover over land areas. If there is a website that does a better job tracking snow cover over the northern hemisphere on a daily basis, then I’d like to see it.
It did pick up on the anomolously high snow cover in China this past winter. As you can see, it has disappeared. Therefore, it will not have an impact on March temperatures there.
FYI, Billings, Montana is 50 cm below normal in snowfall this past winter, so while you got dumped on, other places in North America keep getting missed. That is why I try to avoid local conditions when talking about changes in climate.
On the otherhand the NH ice extent to date is 500,000 sq km above what it was last year. March 2008 will be colder than March 2007.

March 11, 2008 12:28 pm

ok. raise your pitiful paw if you have been clicking on the monthly
anomaly sources the past few days, you climate porn dogs.
After a few days of watching nothing happen, I began to crave a boring cricket match.
RSS is in order

March 11, 2008 12:40 pm

‘March 2008 is shaping up to be considerably warmer than either Jan or Feb.’
I didn’t look at the link, but …. would that not be called ‘Spring’?

March 11, 2008 1:04 pm

Regarding the failure of the next solar cycle to start on time: A number of years ago I found an interesting relationship between the opposition and conjunction cycle of Saturn and Jupiter and the solar cycle. It seemed that the two cycles would run in phase for 7 to 9 half cycles and then the solar cycle would “stretch” for a couple of cycles until the phase was reestablished. From the data it appeared a stretch cycle might be coming. Additionally, In the most recent Science News, it was reported that a nearby star with a small orbit large planet appeared to be flipping the stars magnetic field. My very badly rendered chart can be viewed at:

March 11, 2008 1:09 pm

You got mad props at Reason magazine.
REPLY: Thanks for the note.

March 11, 2008 1:16 pm

Otter, that’s “anomaly wise”.
Interesting peice by Scafetta and West in Physics Today this month:
Aaron, me and my fellow Cosmoclimatologists will try not to be offended by that smear. 🙂

March 11, 2008 1:28 pm

Lucia, perhaps I’m wrong, but I thought the anomoly was using the same 1950-1980 or 1961-1990 base period GISS generally uses. If not, I’d think they’d be more clear about it. An average of all Januarys, Febs, etcs would be a very strange metric and I don’t see how it would be very useful (but then, perhaps that’s why they would supply it). The warm and cool parts of the year have some seasonality, but not much.
If they were to do such a thing, it would make much more sense to present a seperate trend analysis for each month seperately. And be much clearer in their description/methodology.

March 11, 2008 1:29 pm

“I didn’t look at the link, but …. would that not be called ‘Spring’?”
That would, in the northern hemisphere. In the southern, it would be called autumn or fall, depending on the roots of the speaker. Globally, it should be called March.
Please don’t fall for the same fallacy as alarmists often do, when they just talk about the NH and forget to mention that there’s more to the Earth than that half.

March 11, 2008 1:30 pm

Otter, it’s fall for the southern hemisphere.

Jeff Alberts (was Jeff in Seattle)
March 11, 2008 1:34 pm

Cut Flannery some slack, he’s a zoologist, not a climatologist. That sort of predictive failure would be bound to happen when you go form forecasting populations to precipitation.

But Flannery put himself in such a position, no one forced him there.
REPLY: Yes exactly

Ian Castles
March 11, 2008 2:20 pm

I believe that Lucia is correct in thinking that monthly anomalies are reported relative to baselines calculated for that month. This is explained at the foot of the GISS table, as follows:
“Best estimate for absolute global mean for 1951-1980 is 14C = 57.2F,
so add that to the temperature change if you want to use an absolute scale
(this note applies to global annual means only, J-D and D-N !)”

R John
March 11, 2008 2:25 pm

‘March 2008 is shaping up to be considerably warmer than either Jan or Feb.’
That’s a bold prediction with 20 days remaining in the month. For the record here in my part of the world (Illinois), we have had 11 days of below normal temperatures and are expecting a potential snowstorm (Ugh!) on Friday night into Saturday.

March 11, 2008 2:46 pm

I can’t tell from that map if March will be warmer or not. For one thing, it doesn’t have SST data, so it’s only half (or really, 2/3rds) of the picture.

March 11, 2008 2:50 pm

R John,
Given all of the adjustments that NOAA, GISS, and CRU do, you never know what they will spit out for March. 😉
To make it clear, I meant that the March 2008 ANOMOLY will be warmer than Jan and Feb. Feel free to make your own prediction and join the world of us Meteorologists.

March 11, 2008 2:51 pm

Ian, if that was the case, the baseline would be different for each month.

March 11, 2008 2:57 pm

Sorry, didn’t read that last parathetical. I’m more confused than ever.

Diatribical Idiot
March 11, 2008 2:58 pm

The GISS global anomaly was 31, which matched the January anomaly. Watts is smarter than I am, and his grpahs are prettier, but I’ve put a little trend analysis on the data here: http://digitaldiatribes.wordpress.com/2008/03/10/march-2008-update-on-global-temperature-trends/
My focus has been on the trend in the slope of rolling 120-month data. The latest 10-year trend line is positive, but continuing to decrease, which means warming is certainly not accelerating, but is decreasing. This doesn’t necessarily mean cooling quite yeat, but it’s at odds with a claim of accelerating warming.

March 11, 2008 3:33 pm

Aaron, Dodo, Andrew: Oh yes, I am quite aware of the Southern Hemisphere, I’ve been throwing the weather conditions down there at my Progressive best friend for the last year or so. I think I finally got through to him…
So Ok. They are calling for a much warmer anomaly. As R John says, they are pushing it. We just got two feet of snow in the Niagara Peninsula and -15 temps just about every night since. I think I’ll wait until this time next month and then see what we actually got. I tend to trust Anthony and the people posting info here rather than the john davidson types.

March 11, 2008 4:19 pm

“Monthly mean global temperatures are shown in Figure 8 for the present decade. These
monthly data are affected more by weather noise than the seasonal mean (Figure 7), but longer term
features such as the cooling after the Mount Pinatubo eruption of 1991 and the 1998 El Nino are still
apparent. Figure 8 also shows that the meteorological stations, despite their limited geographical
coverage, do a good job of reproducing the more truly global land-ocean temperature index. Figure
8 is updated each month on our web site
The global temperature in mid 1999 has fallen to a level typical of 1997. However, despite
the appearance of this graph, we suggest in section 9.2 that the underlying global temperature, i.e.,
the average over two or three years, moved to a significantly higher level in 1998. Simple comparison
of the mid 1997 and mid 1999 temperatures may be misleading regarding long-term change, because
the planet at those 2 times is in different phases of the tropical El Nino cycle. Also, simulations
with a global climate model using current SSTs as a boundary condition [Hansen et al., 1999] indicate
that the planet with mid-1999 ocean temperatures is out of radiation balance, with net energy inflow
to the planet. We infer that the mid-1999 temperature is a floor from which global temperature will
soon rise.”

I don’t see anything that makes it clear (whether the monthly anomaly is adjusted to remove seasonl trends, or if it is based on the entire base period). It just doesn’t seem right that they’d use just that month of every year, especially since they try to show “warm” season and “cool” season later. Removing the seasonal variation seems counter productive. Especially since Enso, volcano, etc. activity doesn’t happen according to our calander and adhere to seasonal patterns.
It may be something interesting to look at, but it a bad way to handle the data.

March 11, 2008 4:26 pm

Otter, yes expected Feb to be cooler than Jan for the same. February was far more brutal than Jan for us in Michigan (March has been bad, but not as bad as Feb). Aparently China and Russia warmed enough to make our contribution to the record null.

March 12, 2008 8:52 am

Dr. Shaviv has e-mailed me with a response to the RealClimate Slurs.

March 13, 2008 8:51 am

While I understand how volcano eruptions can effect global mean temperature, I am not so sure how El Nina or El Nino can. These weater events redistribute temperature accross the planet, so they should not effect the “Global Mean”. Is there a problem on how the mean is measured? How is it possible for an “El Nino” event to actualy raisethe Global Mean Temperature, like in 1998?

Dr. Gerhard Loebert
March 13, 2008 10:47 am

4. The extremely close correlation between the changes in the mean global temperature and the small changes in the rotational velocity of the Earth in the past 150 years (see Fig. 2.2 of http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/Y2787E/y2787e03.htm), which has been ignored by the mainstream climatologists, leaves little room for a human influence on climate. This close correlation results from the action of galactic vacuum density waves on the Sun and on the Earth (see Section II). Note that temperature lags rotation by 6 years.
5. From the steady decrease of the rotational velocity of the Earth that set in in Dec. 2003, it can reliably be concluded that the mean Earth temperature will decrease again in 2010 for the duration of three decades as it did from 1872 to 1913 and from 1942 to 1972.
6. The RSS AMSU satellite measurements show that the global temperature has not increased since 2001 despite the enormous worldwide CO2 emissions. Since 2006 it has been decreasing again.
II. Physical explanation for the strong correlation between fluctuations of the rotational velocity and changes of the mean surface temperature of the Earth
Despite its great successes, the gravitational theory of the great physicist Albert Einstein, General Relativity, (which is of a purely geometric nature and is totally incompatible with the highly successful quantum theory) must be discarded because this theory is completely irreconcilable with the extremely large energy density of the vacuum that has been accurately measured in the Casimir experiment.
Seaon Theory, a new theory of gravitation based on quantum mechanics that was developed eight decades after General Relativity, not only covers the well-known Einstein-effects but also shows up half a dozen post-Einstein effects that occur in nature. From a humanitarian standpoint, the most important super-Einsteinian physical phenomenon is the generation of small-amplitude longitudinal gravitational waves by the motion of the supermassive bodies located at the center of our galaxy, their transmission throughout the Galaxy, and the action of these waves on the Sun, the Earth and the other celestial bodies through which they pass. These vacuum density waves, which carry with them small changes in the electromagnetic properties of the vacuum, occur in an extremely large period range from minutes to millennia.
On the Sun, these vacuum waves modulate the intensity of the thermonuclear energy conversion process within the core, and this has its effect on all physical quantities of the Sun (this is called solar activity). This in turn has its influences on the Earth and the other planets. In particular, the solar wind and the solar magnetic field strength are modulated which results in large changes in the intensity of the cosmic radiation reaching the Earth. Cosmic rays produce condensation nuclei so that the cloud cover of the atmosphere and the Earth albedo also change.

March 13, 2008 11:36 am
March 13, 2008 12:39 pm

Gerhard Loebert:
You’re going to need a few citations for that, because it doesn’t even come close to passing the sniff test. Especially since you appear to have said this with a straight face:

The RSS AMSU satellite measurements show that the global temperature has not increased since 2001 despite the enormous worldwide CO2 emissions. Since 2006 it has been decreasing again.

Dr. Gerhard Loebert
March 15, 2008 6:36 am

Dear Mr. Atmoz. Here’s the rest of my story:
the Earth albedo also change.
On the Earth, the steady stream of vacuum density waves produces parts-per-billion changes in a large number of geophysical quantities. The most important quantities are the radius, circumference, rotational velocity, gravitational acceleration, VLBI baseline lengths, and axis orientation angles of the Earth, as well as the orbital elements of all low-earth-orbit satellites. All of these fluctuations have been measured.
Irrefutable evidence for the existence of this new, super-Einsteinian wave type is provided by the extremely close correlation between changes of the mean temperature and fluctuations of the mean rotational velocity of the Earth. (see the figure referred to in Section I.4). Einsteinian theory cannot explain this amazing correlation between two physical quantities that seem to be completely unrelated.
While the rotational velocity of the Earth and the thermonuclear energy conversion process on the Sun react simultaneously to the passage of a vacuum density wave, a time span of 6 years is needed for the energy to be transported from the core of the Sun to the Earth’s atmosphere and for the latter’s reaction time.
As can be seen, super-Einsteinian gravitation reveals the true cause of climate change.
2. There is no direct connection between CO2 emission and climate warming. This is shown by the fact that these two physical quantities have displayed an entirely different temporal behaviour in the past 150 years. Whereas the mean global temperature varied in a quasi-periodic manner, with a mean period of 70 years, the CO2 concentration has been increasing exponentially since the 1950’s. The sea level has been rising and the glaciers have been shortening practically linearly from 1850 onwards. Neither time trace showed any reaction to the sudden increase of hydrocarbon burning from the 1950’s onwards.
3. The hypothesis that the global warming of the past decades is man-made is based on the results of calculations with climate models in which the main influence on climate is not included. The most important climate driver (besides solar luminosity) comes from the interplay of solar activity, interplanetary magnetic field strength, cosmic radiation intensity, and cloud cover of the Earth atmosphere. As is shown in Section II, this phenomenon is generated by the action of galactic vacuum density waves on the core of the Sun.
In my opinion, those persons who cannot quantitatively explain the extremely close correlation between the mean global surface temperature and the small changes in the rotational velocity of the Earth should exercise restraint in criticising other peoples’ work.

Mike Bryant
March 18, 2008 12:24 pm

Dr. Loebert,
Mike Bryant

%d bloggers like this: