UAH Global Temperature Anomaly for June 09 ~ ZERO

Another question (for those living in the British Isles): do they still have commercial wineries there like they did in Chaucer’s times (the 1300’s)? Or is it too cold now?
A couple years ago I was going through my mother’s old Nat’l Geogrphics (1998 or 1999) and remember reading an article about life there 10,000 years ago. They talked about hippos swimming in the Thames near the present site of London.
I wonder, did man cause those periods of warming? Did man cause Greenland to be “green” the way it used to be?

“”” John Finn (16:54:07) :
I hate to be a party pooper but the low May-Jun-Jul satellite anomalies were expected. The lag between ENSO events and surface temperatures is less than that of the satellites. Earlier in the year, GISS and Hadley had much lower anomalies relative to RSS and UAH. GISS and Hadley are now refelecting the warmer SST. UAH and RSS should follow suit in the next month or two. “””
So what, if they were expected; the CO2 still went up didn’t it ? The values is what they is; whether they were expected or not.
On the otherhand, absolutely none of what Hansen predicted in 1988 has actually happened whether it was expected or not; oh I forgot it was a projection not a prediction. So are both projections and predictions expected; or just the projections.
By the way; weren’t we told back last month that they were expecting -113 Fat Vostok, or at that Aussie station; that’s about -80 deg C and the troops in Iraq are seeing +130 F, that’s about 54C, so we had a range of around 134 deg C last month, out of which the “mean” seems to have hanged by 0.001, or is it 0.003 deg C.
And people actually believe this is significant; whether it goes up or down.
The instrumentation is even that good.
And how many of Hansen’s owl boxes were affected by the summer barbecues last month, anyway.
Yeah this is real science alright; it’s not even 4-H club science; but hey, it IS peer reviewed.
George
PS what was the standard deviation on that latest anomaly reading ? And what about the trend; what would you say that is ?

“”” Ozzie John (06:09:12) :
Karl B. (15:15:05) :
I know this is a measurement of temperature, but where does the heat go?
Karl, I guess this is the question all non-AGW/ RC scientists are trying to answer. As an engineer (non-climate scientist) I can only ponder the same question.
Perhaps the earth’s radiation budget can be considered like this ?. The summer facing hemisphere gains more heat than it releases, thus it makes sense that more cloud will help cool this hemisphere, and less cloud means more heat. For the winter facing hemisphere more heat is being lost as IR into space than it receives from direct sunlight, thus less cloud means more loss of IR and more cooling and more cloud means more heat retention. If ENSO affects the cloud distribution in a seasonal manner then this could be a contributing factor ? Of course the system is more complex than this and the rate of heat transportation to the poles (eg: from hadley cell velocity) to a region of less water vapour where it can radiate more effectively back into space is probably another key factor in the ENSO mechanism. “””
Surely you jest Ozzie ? Heat is transported to the poles where it can radiate more effectively back into space ? Time to bone up on some black body radiation theory. Most people believe that thermal radiation emittance varies as the fourth power of temperature, and as a result the emittance in the hottest tropical deserts in the mid-day heat is over 12 times higher than at the coldest polar winter midnights. So much for the polar regions radiating more effectively.
Then there is that little matetr of the Wien Displacement Law. At the mean surface temperature of around +15 deg C, the IR emittance peaks at around 10.1 microns; whereas the CO2 absorption spectrum is centered at around 15 microns, so it is somewhat down on the long wavelength tail of the emission spectrum. In the hottest desert temperatures; up to +60 deg C (surfgace), the emission spectrum peak moves down to around 8.8 microns (Wien), so CO2 becomes even less effective in trapping the outgoing radiation.
On the other hand at those colder polar temperatures, where the emittance is pitifully low, the emission spectrum has now moved up to the 15 micron wavelength; right where CO2 does its best trapping. So much for your notion that radiative cooling loss is more efficient at the polar regions.
And if the surface emissivity at the poles is an order of magnitude smaller than at the tropical desert daytime highs, so m,ust be the radiative “forcing” (hate that word) due to CO2 green house effect. Don’t go looking for any 1.5 to 5 deg C “climate sensitivity” values in those cold polar regions; there simply isn’t enough emitted radiation to raise temperatures much at all, even if the CO2 grabbed it all.
George

With regard to UK vineyards, there are an increasing number and of course this is widely attributed to global warming, although also should be attributed to changes in the drinking behaviour of the British middle classes – I wonder how many of the vineyards are on sites where hops used to be grown. Most are in southern England although there is one just down the road from my sister (slightly north of Birmingham), and I understand the furthest north is in South Yorkshire.
Now, there is little doubt that the UK has tended to warmer summers and (more particularly) milder winters over the last 25 years, but it is a big stretch to prove that the climate of a fairly small island on the edge of a large ocean bears much relation to the rest of the world. The recent weather though has been more conducive to growing some varieties of grape, especially with the development of types that are more resistant to cold.
I understand (although am no expert on the issue) that the UK can produce some very good sparkling wines based on the same grape varieties as traditionally used in the Champagne region (which of course isn’t that far away from the south east of England).

Jason (10:04:07) :
Let’s address each of your (incorrect and misleading) comments in turn.
You: Great, the tropospheres temperature is not increasing… that is a good argument to spew more co2 in the air. Why is measuring one part of the atmosphere a clinical argument. There is more than one part to the atmosphere.
Reply: Surface temperatures have been corrupted by unexplained and unjustified and incorrect and biased “correction factors” by Hansen’s GISS and the NOAA such that more than 85% of the ENTIRE “global warming” temperature between 1900 and 2000 is “correction factors. Worse, the single most significant known “correction” that does actually INCREASE the apparent measured temperatures is NOT corrected in the NOAA/GISS plots – thus corrupting the evidence even more against your assumed AGW. Unbiased, un-corrupted raw data showing a decline in truly global temperatures uncorrupted by local heat islands, false measurement stations, and human influences IS the most reliable measurement possible.
Further, GISS, the IPCC, and the UK’s staff “climatologists” have been shown numerous times to have lied and propagandized their data, their studies, and their messages – so their claims need be checked by more reliable sources.
Local surface temperatures – in the “best measured” country in the world have been found to have fewer than 12% of the stations accurately sited and safe from local heat biases. The rest of the world is even worse. What measurements do you want to trust your 1.6 trillion dollar boondoggle to?
—
You: Dont worry about the stratosphere and the ice sheets, the troposphere graph will fix it. The ice (our ignorance parachute) is pretending to melt. Bring back CFCs.
Reply: AGW theory REQUIRES that the upper troposphere be warming much more rapidly than the surface temperatures, and even more rapidly than the oceans and arctic areas. It is not so warming – but is declining. This proves that Hansen’s and Gore’s THEORY of CO2 effects on temperature – with the constants they have ASSUMED and the math that they have APPROXIMATED in the computer ESTIMATES and PROJECTIONS is false. If the data prove your computer is false over a 30 year period, you CANNOT make your theory correct by lying about the effects prdicted
100 years, 200 years, or 400 years in the future.
Arctic sea ice extents were measured (not guessed, not assumed, not “corrected” or corrupted but actually measured this spring in 2009 at their record highest-ever extent. Antarctic ice mass is now also at its highest ever recorded value. What is melting, and where? Sea levels are NOT rising faster than ever before, but at the same consistent 2 to 3 mm/year rate they’ve always been rising since the last Ice Age.
—
You: Changing the structure of the air is a great idea. 10 million years to stabilize the air and we can change that is 50. Civilization at it best.
Reply: Yes, increasing CO2 has led to 12% to 27% MORE food, fuel, fodder, feed, and seeds as plants grow faster, stronger, and more drought resistant. Name ANY real world harm done by increasing CO2 from today’s levels to say 1000 ppm or 1500 ppm. Name ANY real danger from an increase in temperature by 2 degrees – while noting that right now, we are cooling off globally at a 2 degree per century rate..
The atmosphere has NEVER been “stable” and is part of a natural world that we can only marvel at. Destroying the world and increasing poverty RUINS more ecologies and KILLS more people than improving people’s economic conditions so THEY can live safer, more productive, healthier lives. Or do you really want more people to die? Colder winter weather kills 4 to 6 times more people per year than warmer, more productive, healthier and safer hot, more summer-like temperatures.

I’m sure evryone is looking at the same data here but interpreting it differently depending on your understanding of the whole picture. I see a slight but upward trend over many yrs, the latest dip is but a statistical ANOMALY. Anomaly hunting is not way to make an absolute statement and to make one is to show a clear lack of critical thinking.

can’t we just say the evidence is in….There is none.
The new report shows that the IPCC has failed to provide any empirical evidence that shows that dangerous human-caused global warming is occurring. In particular:
• The 20th century was not the warmest in the last 1,000 years;
• No evidence exists that any measurable amount of the rise in global temperature over the last 50 years is a result of human influence;
• Current rates of ice/glacier melt are not unusual;
• Current weather (including tropical storms, droughts and floods) is not unusual;
• Current sea-level change is occurring at rates typical of recent times;
• No correlation has been demonstrated between increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide and dangerous temperature rise.
The NIPCC report is available for purchase or free download, at http://www.nipccreport.org/