September 2009 Global Temperature Update for UAH and RSS

September 2009 UAH Global Temperature Update +0.42 deg. C

October 7th, 2009 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

YR MON GLOBE NH SH TROPICS

2009 1 +0.304 +0.443 +0.165 -0.036

2009 2 +0.347 +0.678 +0.016 +0.051

2009 3 +0.206 +0.310 +0.103 -0.149

2009 4 +0.090 +0.124 +0.056 -0.014

2009 5 +0.045 +0.046 +0.044 -0.166

2009 6 +0.003 +0.031 -0.025 -0.003

2009 7 +0.411 +0.212 +0.610 +0.427

2009 8 +0.229 +0.282 +0.177 +0.456

2009 9 +0.424 +0.554 +0.295 +0.516

UAH_LT_1979_thru_Sept_09

The global-average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly in September 2009 rebounded again, from +0.23 deg. C in August to +0.42 deg. C in September. The tropics and Northern Hemisphere continue to dominate the signal.

NOTE: For those who are monitoring the daily progress of global-average temperatures here, we are still working on switching from NOAA-15 to Aqua AMSU, which will provide more accurate tracking on a daily basis. We will be including both our lower troposphere (LT) and mid-tropospheric (MT) pre-processing of the data. We have added the global sea surface temperature anomalies from the AMSR-E instrument on board the NASA Aqua satellite, computed from files at Remote Sensing Systems, although we are still not done adjusting the display range of those data.

===

RSS: update

RSS  for September 2009 is: +0.48 °C

The rank is #2 out of 31 Septembers of data.

Source: RSS (Remote Sensing Systems, Santa Rosa)

RSS data here (RSS Data Version 3.2)

Share

202 thoughts on “September 2009 Global Temperature Update for UAH and RSS

  1. Could the weak El Nino have something to do with the spike?
    September certainly wasn’t unusually warm in South Africa, a day or too of 30-something degrees but still waiting for the summer heat to arrive… another cold front has just hit.

  2. So we have the warmest UHA September on record since that faithful 1998 when global cooling started. Heck, it’s the second warmest September per UAH since 1985… nice cherry I’d qualify this pick of mine 😀

  3. Fantastic work Dr Roy! The additional online data availability from the same source you are using for your monthly values will be very welcome. And SST’s too! WOOOOT!

  4. I’m surprised, judging from the temperatures we’ve had in this region for the year. I realize that this is completely anecdotal, but much of the Midwest experienced a record cold July, followed by an average August, and a slightly cooler-than-normal September. Presently, October is running much cooler than average. In central Ohio we’ve already had a hard frost–about two weeks ahead of the average. And the long-range forecast for the area is predicting increased cooling next week. I would have guessed that global temperatures flattened in September.

  5. Ah, awaiting moderation, well as with RSS, it is in fact the 2nd warmest September since 1979, which is as far back as UAH record goes. Just -0.012C anomaly less than 1998.
    Toasty.

  6. Relating to temperatures, I saw these stories today:
    http://www.ktvb.com/news/nearyou/woodriver/ktvbn-oct0509-wood_river_power.1e96b181a.html
    Idaho schoolkids enjoy earliest snow day, ever.
    http://www.denverpost.com/extremes/ci_13498572
    Loveland pass ski resort opened today, October 7. Arapahoe Basin opens October 9. (I’ve been skiing at Loveland before. Because of being 10,000 feet up the lack of oxygen is murder on your muscles if you aren’t used to it.)
    http://www.fox5vegas.com/news/21223890/detail.html
    Las Vegas ski resort opens. I always Vegas was hot …
    I am willing to bet money that once the cold sets in, it will really set in. Which will make me happy because it means more ski days.

  7. I predicted a slight fall for equatorial temps but after hindcasting my model I found that it also predicted a possible small rise.
    This shows the models outcomes remain both compelling and robust.

  8. Sekerob (10:10:38) : The long term history of the snow data may be of interest:
    ttp://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/images/anom_nhland.gif
    By the way, what looks like twenty years of stability is really a combination of some very curious seasonally of trends. BUT 87 did see a sudden decline in the smoothed series, with little change before and after. See:
    http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=1&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=8
    And check out the trends for different months. Most decline happens (surprise!) in spring and summer. Of course, these tend to show less high latitude warming than the winter months, but hey, that’s when it’s too cold to melt ice anyway!

  9. Why does Dr. Spencer use a 13 month moving average!? Won’t that automatically give a temperature rise in the NH during June-July-August and a fall in December-January-February (and vice versa for the SH)?
    Why wouldn’t you want to use a 12 month moving average so that you can eliminate the seasonal effects?
    Also, what happened in July 2009 that would make the global temp jump by over 0.4 degrees? (Yes, I know July is the summer.) If you can have a 1 month jump over 0.4, then why is a peak anomaly less than twice that (0.8 in early 1998) such a big deal?

  10. Isn’t it amazing .When there is A downward trend they start changing the way temps are recorded by closing rural sites or at least 80%.Then they move the monitors and place over ,asphalt, parking lots or on roof tops,i’m sure that won’t have any bearing wood it,or next to aic conditioning unit.Now that makes evering thing legal.You know there use to be A show that Bob Barker hosted back in the 70’s called truth or consaquinses , may be off on spelling,in which contestant wood do different events for money or prizes like walking across the floor then Bob wold say hold on and they may have to hold a foot up and about the time they wood start he would say it again hold on and he may blind fold them and tell them to walk A straight line well you get the picture.When temps show thier true colors they have to change to fit the global warming crap.
    Reply: The capital A’s in the middle of sentences is an interesting touch in an otherwise mesmerizing piece of writing. ~ ctm

  11. I noticed here in Kansas we had a surprisingly small amount of 90 degree days in September, it never got up to 90 like it can get to nearly every year during the days the Kansas State Fair was going and the only 90 degree day here in Wichita I can recall last month was close to the start of Fall. To get any days where you had mid 90’s or so on a day or two you had to go to the southwest corner of the state.
    Also, October is looking like the highs could be further below normal than last month, Intellicast is forecasting a high of 47 degrees next Sunday, which is about 25 degrees below the average high and I wouldn’t be surprised if it gets revised to 30 degrees or more below the average high.

  12. September in Colorado Springs was cooler than any time in the last ten years, at least. Pikes Peak became snow-covered in mid-September, and it hasn’t melted completely. We’ll get a fresh bout or three of snow later this week. The aspens turned at least two weeks ahead of normal in the high country. The rest of the world may have warmed, but we didn’t.

  13. For what it’s worth, Western Canada broke many records in September for warm weather; and broke many records for cold weather in July and August. It’s been a very strange year.

  14. ctm,
    I was as fascinated as you were by that literary composition. It is almost Chauceresque.
    Your comment had me laughing out loud!

  15. It was those amazingly hot Siberian temperatures, the residual heat of which is now retarding the growth of the ice off Siberia.

  16. After the NE Passage fiasco, the destroyed climate data and the misplaced sensors, can we really put any trust in reporting beyond what is happening outside our windows? A satellite sensor degrades, an airport sensor goes haywire, and they snap at the chance to feed like a pack of alligators.
    Irregardless of whether there is a return to another LIA or not, the means to report and drum beat an overheated world into the psyche is in full swing.
    The madness is Ice Crystal Clear.
    A shortened and troubled growing season in parts of the US & Canada will inevitably pancake over into Europe. A quick look at Cyrosphere Today shows why: the ice grows N. America’s way. The Media hungrily buys a seat on the bus that is to travel on the wrong side of the freeway.

  17. This is as I would have expected from the moderate El Nino this year. The SST temperatures are clearly warming the air up a little globally and have pushed the air circulation systems a little poleward. The effet in the air of such oceanic changes appears to be virtually immediate and clearly noticeable within a few weeks.
    However the past strong La Nina (2007) is still in the process of passing through the mid and upper latitude oceans hence the signs of cold in both hemispheres poleward of the mid latitudes.
    If this El Nino fades away and another modrate to strong La Nina follows in a couple of years then the overall cooling trend will continue.
    It is clear that the newly negative PDO phase has increased the power of La Nina events and reduced the power of El Nino events and will likely continue to do so until around 2035.
    In the meantime any El Ninos that do occur will do just as the current one has done, namely quickly transfer energy to the air causing some warming of the air globally and shifting the air circulation systems poleward.
    Nevertheless despite such temporary events the general downward drift of air temperatures will continue.
    That opinion could be falsified by stronger El Nino events and weaker La Nina events but even if that happens the effect on global air temperatures from oceanic behaviour will still have been well demonstrated.
    The importance of that would be that the series of powerful El Ninos in the late 20th century could well have been sufficient on their own to explain the observed modest warming of the air.
    The fact is that both CO2 AND solar effects (assuming Leif to be right) are inadequate to contribute significantly to multidecadal changes in global air temperatures.
    That just leaves us with the oceans and a plethora of other possible second level modulating effects (such as the Svensmark hypothesis) which as often as not work against one another and cancel out leaving the oceans in control.
    Solar changes would still be important on longer time scales but it is currently difficult to establish the time scale at which solar becomes a significant contributor in the face of what appears to be a huge oceanic influence.
    It makes no significant difference to my climate description as to the timescale at which solar influences become important or the precise mechanisms which control the rates at which oceanic energy release occurs at different times though I have made suggestions on both those issues previously.
    Once one accepts that the rate of energy release from oceans to air does vary and that it does so over long timescales (interannual, multidecadal and probably also millennial) and involves substantial quantities of energy then a great deal (if not all) of what we observe becomes accounted for.
    The best diagnostic indicator would seem to be the latitudinal position of the ITCZ which serves as a proxy for the latitudinal position of ALL the air circulation systems and those positions (subject to a degree of chaotic behaviour) are dictated directly by the rate of oceanic energy release.

  18. Old PI (11:04:50) :
    Ditto Iowa and North Dakota; never did get summer in central North Dakota, got 2″ of snow mid June. In Iowa, we only got a few hot days, and September was without a single hot day. Now October is off to a chilling start, may have flurries on Sunday.
    Screw getting rid of MWP, they’re going to need to cool down the entire 20th century if global warming is to remain. Are there any bristle cones in North America?

  19. Sept. 2009: 19th warmest month in the UAH record.
    9 of the 20 warmest months in the UAH record were in 1998.
    The linear regression since the oceans started to cool in 2003 still has a very negative slope.
    Next?

  20. AS a new born denier I will always believe UHA data over the likes of Giss or hadcrut (remember the warmistas never liked UHA now its there new found standard because its rocketing up and up hahah) BTW this is pretty extraordinary
    http://wxmaps.org/pix/clim.html
    click on NH temps (USA, Canada, South America) this picture has been pretty much constant fo 16 months now. In contrast parts of Asia/russia way above anomaly. On wonders if in reality Svensmark’s theory is not being proved In Vivo. BTW expect UHA to decline back to norm soon and then dive to Maunder type data by 1-2 years…. Cloudiness and rain/low temps in Southern South america has been a constant for years now wonder if increase in SH20% ice is flogging those cold fronts a bit further with more strenght?

  21. Had a warm Sept. here in NE Oregon,some records broke, but.We’ve had a bunch of low records too, and quite recently.Now we have a pattern set up that if it was January,
    we’d be below zero.As it is,my tomatoes have had it.If there be warming,it is now gone…

  22. “Midwest Mark (09:51:47) :
    I’m surprised, judging from the temperatures we’ve had in this region for the year. I realize that this is completely anecdotal, but much of the Midwest experienced a record cold July, followed by an average August, and a slightly cooler-than-normal September. Presently, October is running much cooler than average. In central Ohio we’ve already had a hard frost–about two weeks ahead of the average. And the long-range forecast for the area is predicting increased cooling next week. I would have guessed that global temperatures flattened in September.”
    Completely anecdotal, yes. But try selling AGW around the Chicago area and it won’t fly. This really was the year without summer !!!

  23. Interesting. NOAA predicts that the currently weak El Nino will strengthen. Joe Bastardi of Accuweather predicts it will weaken further. Place your bets.

  24. Andrew, I’m not a great fan of how Rutgers plots the anomalies, so here’s one by season, square km and miles, with just the straight numbers. Next update in December when the Sep/Oct/Nov period is complete. Got a bunch of them per region as well. Eurasia shows steepest decline. NA, less Greenland only the JJA period, hence the North Americans biggest in denial… all those extended snow off days not helping to keep the permafrost in order.
    As for melt in winter, well, certainly both February and March Extent means for 2009 were below 2008. Call that cooling ;>)

  25. mrpkw (11:38:24) :
    That’s what they’ve been saying about Ohio as well. It was a great relief for our air conditioning bill, but overall it was extremely odd. Most nights in July dipped into the 50s. That’s simply unheard of. And temperatures continue to run cooler than normal. I don’t care what they’re saying…I’m bracing for an extra cold winter this year.

  26. In New Zealand’s South Island we had a mainly warm and dry August and early September. However, last weekend saw a brief snowfall in the south. A number of roads were closed. Not unprecedented, but unusual.
    Parts of the North Island had a very large snow dump with, literally, hundreds of stranded motorists having to be rescued by the Army and billeted in church halls, marae and the like for up to a couple of days. Heavy snow in parts of the High Country has led to significant lamb losses in some areas. This is not usual, either, but it can happen; the amount of snow is certainly unusual.
    The forecast for this weekend is for more snow, caused again by a deep depression pulling very cold air up from the southern ice, which is at record levels.
    Winter started very early in May and many cold records were set. Now it seems to be back, well into Spring. Rev your engines – do it for the lambs.

  27. FWIW, it’s been quite a hot September here in Uzbekistan, (i’m here for my job), although its finally cooling off now. It doesn’t take too many large non-moving highs over asia to bump the temps up a bit.
    What I don’t get is how global average temps can vary for the whole world by so much in one month. That’s a lot of heat to dissapate or accrue…

  28. It’s just weather or it’s worse than we thought, depending on your bias.
    I’m hoping for a good ski season :).

  29. Also the artic temps are amazingly high at the moment
    – so the question is, how high does it need to get before people here get converted to AGW?

  30. Oh crud, miss spelled my email address. My comment, just in case, was:
    Bob Shapiro (10:46:13) : Even number moving averages can’t be properly centered.

  31. A little weather humor:
    Forecast for the Phillies at the Rockies…Saturday 7:30pm mountain time:
    Saturday, Oct 10
    High: 36 °F RealFeel®: 26 °F
    Windy and colder with a thick cloud cover
    Saturday Night, Oct 10
    Low: 22 °F RealFeel®: 14 °F
    A couple of flurries in the evening; otherwise, cloudy with record-tying temperatures
    http://www.accuweather.com/us/co/denver/80201/forecast.asp?partner=accuweather&traveler=1&metric=0
    Hmmm…”record-tying temperatures” I don’t think they mean record HIGH

  32. Purakanui,
    It snowed while I was in the outdoor hot pools at Hanmer this last weekend. Lots of fun for the kids.
    There seems to be slightly more than the ususal amount of snow (for this time of year) on the mountains west of the (Southern Alps) main divide. Not unprecidented but still worth noting.

  33. Regarding current El Nino trends…
    Some interesting things going on…
    Near the end of September there was a strong westerly wind burst in the central Pacific between 140E and 160E.
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/850u_tlon.shtml
    (Also note that trade winds across much of the central Pacific have weakened considerably since 01 October.)
    These types of bursts initiate Kelvin waves that propagate eastward along the equator and lead to net warming of subsurface temps which eventually reach the surface near South America. These “burst-induced” Kelvin waves are important for the initiation/intensification of El Nino.
    The subsurface warming from this recent burst is very clearly seen from the real time longitude-depths plots produced by the ECMWF.
    http://www.ecmwf.int/products/forecasts/d/charts/ocean/real_time/xzmaps
    (display earlier dates to see the eastward progression and expansion of the positive subsurface anomalies in the central Pacific.)
    So, based on the most recent trends, I think we can expect El Nino to crank up a bit in the next couple months. In addition, based on the absence of cool subsurface anomalies in the Pacific, a return to La Nina anytime soon is highly unlikely. Actually, one of the modeling systems used by NOAA maintains the El Nino past July 2010!
    http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfs_fcst/images/PDFcr_nino34SSTMon.gif
    An El Nino lasting that long wouldn’t be completely unprecedented (the late 1980s El Nino lasted two years), but those forecast lead times are well beyond the range that these models have any seasonal forecast skill.

  34. I look at the Arctic temps like what Phil pointed out and they haven’t gone down at all since the beginning of the month, though there is the chance the sensor(s) may have drifted too.
    I wouldn’t say this is proof of AGW, but if it keeps like this all month, the AGW aligned scientists can use that to make a massive hockeystick for October and tell us we’re all going to die in 10 years.

  35. The NAM is projecting record-breaking cold across the Central Plains this weekend and into next week. Looking at breaking old records by 4-10 degrees F.

  36. Adam (12:45:26):
    So, based on the most recent trends, I think we can expect El Nino to crank up a bit in the next couple months. In addition, based on the absence of cool subsurface anomalies in the Pacific, a return to La Nina anytime soon is highly unlikely. Actually, one of the modeling systems used by NOAA maintains the El Nino past July 2010!
    Hi Adam… At 25º 48´ North latitude and 100º 19′ West longitude, we are undergoing very normal El Niño effects: rainy and hot days. We are not expecting a cold winter, except for two to seven cold days during the season. The two last weeks we have had mild temperatures with maximum temperatures of 32 °C – 35 °C by the last week.

  37. Phil (12:29:25) : Also the artic temps are amazingly high at the moment – so the question is, how high does it need to get before people here get converted to AGW?
    I think it has a way to go as yet. First we have to reach the warmth of the MWP then the even warmer holocene “optimum”. The artic temps being “amazingly high” “at the moment” does not, even momentarily, the AGW make.
    Are you a convert? or one of the high priests? Do you recommend we all go and bask in those “amazingly high” temperatures cause its pretty cold here?

  38. It’s temporarily warmer than normal in the Arctic but the cold air thus displaced has moved out over the neighbouring continents to bring early snow and frost.
    At this time of year a rapid movement of mild air into the Arctic area actually accelerates energy loss to space.
    It is not a good sign for the rest of the winter.
    For a mild northern hemisphere winter one would ideally like to see the cold Arctic air staying in situ so that the nearby continents can retain what heat they have for as long as possible. Not this year I’m afraid.

  39. Not sure if this is the tight place to post, but a company I am affiliated with has asked me to sign the “hopehagen petition”. The link to a web site gives the facts on AGW http://assets.panda.org/downloads/wwf_climate_deal_1.pdf
    I was wondering if anyone would care to “Fisk” this advocacy with respect to the the science refered to – I’m skeptical of climate chnage myself, but I don’t have all the facts to hand to rebuff what I’m told is a dead certainty.
    Thanks
    We know greenhouse gases such as CO2 warm the air by trapping heat
    radiating from the Earth’s surface. That is 100-year-old science. The first calculations that doubling CO2 in the atmosphere would raise temperatures by 2-6ºC were done over a century ago by Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius. Today’s climate models broadly agree.
    We know the world is warming, on average by 0.74ºC during the past
    century, with most of that since 1970. Human-made CO2 is responsible for the vast majority of the warming. Concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere are now almost 40 per cent above those of 200 years ago and emissions to the atmosphere have been rising by more than 2 per cent a year since 2000. This extra greenhouse gas stems overwhelmingly from humans burning fossil fuels and destroying forests, both of which are made of carbon.
    It would contradict 100 years of physics if this CO2 were not warming the planet.
    Moreover, there is no alternative explanation for the observed warming.
    Solar cycles have contributed on average less than 10 per cent in the past decades whereas volcanic eruptions and other known natural influences on global climate have been having a cooling influence since 1970 – the period of greatest overall warming and of the largest increase in atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gas levels.
    he IPCC has reported regularly on climate change science for 20 years. Its
    last report was “unequivocal” that climate change is with us, and is set to
    get drastically worse unless we take urgent action. Nature, through both oceans and forests, currently absorbs about half the CO2 we put into the air. The rest of it stays in the atmosphere for centuries. However, the amount of carbon soaked up by natural ecosystems is declining steadily. So stabilizing emissions is not enough. Every tonne of CO2 we emit makes things
    worse. To stabilize temperatures at a sufficiently low level, we have to stop
    emitting as fast as we can.

  40. Phil (12:29:25) :
    Also the artic temps are amazingly high at the moment
    – so the question is, how high does it need to get before people here get converted to AGW?

    As long as the Agenda keeps pulling one shennanigan after another by cooking the sensor readings and playing games with media stunts, it’s credibility rating remains in the penalty box.
    At this late juncture, I’ll depend more on what I can see and whom I can talk to as far as the global climate goes. Trust is earned, and the AGW side burned thiers to a crisp a long while back.

  41. “Phil (12:29:25) : Also the artic temps are amazingly high at the moment – so the question is, how high does it need to get before people here get converted to AGW?”
    The Jet stream is highly amplified right now, pulling warm air from the Pacific into the Arctic. This is a very efficient heat dumping process which is effectively cooling the Earth off. The global models are showing a switch in the jet stream this week to a more zonal flow with some very low latitude progression of the jet stream for this time of year and the resulting cold outbreak that will ensue.

  42. The average temp anomaly so far comes to +0.23.
    The temp (averages Jan to Sept)
    2002 0.33
    2003 0.24
    2004 0.18
    2005 0.33
    2006 0.24
    2007 0.32
    2008 0.00
    2009 0.23
    That look like AGW to you Phil? If not how far do you reckon it should go?

  43. Midwest Mark (11:40:58) :
    Interesting. NOAA predicts that the currently weak El Nino will strengthen. Joe Bastardi of Accuweather predicts it will weaken further. Place your bets.

    Strengthen a little and sustain.

  44. Autumn’s over in the high country of Colorado above 9,000′. The Aspens began peaking 2-3 weeks ago and now they’re all bare.
    Loveland Ski Area opened today (10/7/09), and A-Basin opens this Friday—its earliest opening date ever. According to AGW theory ski areas were not supposed to open this early, because snow levels were supposed to keep rising year after year, right? Well since I moved to Colorado in 2005 ski areas have not been opening later or closing earlier, and snowpacks have been average to above average the past four seasons with numerous resorts setting records for snowfall. Furthermore, I know many areas that contain permanent snowfields, almost like proto-glaciers.
    The reservoirs, including Lake Dillon which is Denver’s water supply, were completely full this summer due to the deep snowpack last winter.
    We’ve had already had three snowstorms here in Breckenridge this “Fall” and the snow is not melting because the temperature is staying cold during the day. More snow is in the forecast for the next few days.
    Early season skiing should be fantastic in Summit County, CO!

  45. Warmer poles due to CLOUD COVER ect fits in exactly with Svensmark as CR are up dramatically and sun activity minimum continues way below anomaly now reaching 12-13 year cycle . However there seems to be increased cloud over South and North America as well. Its freezing in Australia at the moment. Where can we get cloud data for past 10-20 years please?

  46. Phil:
    “Also the arctic temps are amazingly high at the moment
    – so the question is, how high does it need to get before people here get converted to AGW?”
    Yep, you had just converted me to AGW by this very convincing argument of yours, but then I saw the Antarctic sea ice extent and I converted back to scepticism.

  47. It’s funny to see people associating oscillating temperature events such as El Nino and Arctic spikes with AGW. Buried in there somewhere is a tiny GHG warming signature, but who thinks they know where it is?
    Have these folks considered the troposphere warming during El Nino is actually heat leaving the oceans rather than an accumulation of heat due to GHG?
    After El Nino passes, we all know what happens after that, and then we’ll be reminded La Nina is natural variability and not to associate that with global cooling.
    Up, down. Up, down. That’s how it goes, where it will end nobody knows. Yet the bigger question is, what do the ARGO floats say?

  48. “”” Reply: The capital A’s in the middle of sentences is an interesting touch in an otherwise mesmerizing piece of writing. ~ ctm “””
    I was more intrigued by that exotic fruit; “consaquinses”.
    Well we used to spell it with a “c”, and I’m not familiar with the consa variety; come to think of it I haven’t see quinces in years.
    George

  49. So we have someone who says that AGW has been proven 100 years ago, then why is there a point is all the science done since then if the science was settled back then!? Oh wait, they didn’t know much about climate systems back then like they do today.
    And am I getting this right, the heat dumping process by mild air being pulled poleward may actually mean Winter getting even colder than if the pole was extremely cold right now? Intellicast is showing our first cold wave bottoming out at a high of 46 as of now and Weather Underground showing 43, may not be a good sign for those who hate cold winters, at least we tested our furnace today and found it was working.

  50. What I meant to say in the first part is not knowing too much about climate systems back then COMPARED to today, I’m sure they had some knowledge of climate back then.

  51. “”” Phil (14:20:55) :
    Not sure if this is the tight place to post, but a company I am affiliated with has asked me to sign the “hopehagen petition”. The link to a web site gives the facts on AGW “””
    Well Hagen was a total scoundrel anyhow, so I for one hope he gets what he deserves; well come to think of it he did; the Rhein Maidens dragged his sorry a*** into the river and drowned him.
    But how many Phils do we have here anyhow ?
    But then you wrote this:- “”” “We know greenhouse gases such as CO2 warm the air by trapping heat radiating from the Earth’s surface. That is 100-year-old science. “””
    So if that is 100 year old science, howcome there wasn’t any global warming 100 years ago when Arrhenius dreamed up this idea. Didn’t he know back then, that water vapor is much better at “trapping heat radiating from the Earth’s surface. ” ?
    Ever since, people have been trying to identify the warming caused by his CO2 and so far it doesn’t seem to show up; the CO2 goes up more or less steadily on an annual basis, with a clearly seasonal cyclic variation that puts the lie to his suggestion that the CO2 remains there for centuries; but somehow the temperature doesn’t seem to follow the CO2, but wanders up and down; quite naturally. Seems like old Svante bet on the wrong gas.

  52. ***************
    Phil (12:29:25) :
    Also the artic temps are amazingly high at the moment
    – so the question is, how high does it need to get before people here get converted to AGW?
    **********
    I looked back a few years at the Arctic temp charts. Yeah, the temp jumps around – so what – it does not look abnormal. Isn’t it up a bit due to the little El Nino? That’s an ocean thing, not an atmosphere thing.
    And let’s say there will be 4 C warming per century. So what? It will be cheaper to accommodate the changes than quite burning fossil fuels. What’s up with that, Phil?

  53. Not to be accused of AGW-speak but the current warming is cooling the planet! When the current burp of heat to space is over, ocean heat content will be the lowest its been since cooling began in 2003. Like someone alluded to earlier, the ARGO network is the best indicator of what’s really going on! Anyone now if there is a monthly record of overall OHC anywhere?
    Once this El nino fades over the next few months, expect temperature anomalies to resume their drop, likely heading to negative territory by late winter/early spring!

  54. Phil (12:29:25) :
    Also the artic temps are amazingly high at the moment
    – so the question is, how high does it need to get before people here get converted to AGW?

    I need four things to change my views about AGW: (1) Open rational debate without any attempts to suppress dissenting views; (2) A complete willingness to allow pro-AGW studies to be studied and dissected without resorting to stall tactics and name-calling — in other words, a complete willingness to release every last bit of data and work so that the study can be objectively verified; (3) A complete separation of science and politics; and (4) Verifiable and unassailable methodologies used to study AGW.
    So far, the pro AGW fails all four of my criteria. Look at the recent Yamal tree ring study. Did this pro-AGW scientist release his data to those who requested it? No. And the reason why was because when it did become available, it was clear the study was a scientific fraud. That discredited study failed two of my four criteria, #2 and #4.
    Science should be open. After all, there are very few laws of science. So far, the AGW wants to hide their methodologies and just say “because we said so”. That ain’t going to convince me of anything; it shouldn’t convince you of anything either.

  55. Nasif Nahle (13:54:42) : Hi Adam… At 25º 48´ North latitude and 100º 19′ West longitude, we are undergoing very normal El Niño effects: rainy and hot days. We are not expecting a cold winter, except for two to seven cold days during the season. The two last weeks we have had mild temperatures with maximum temperatures of 32 °C – 35 °C by the last week.
    Thats the meteorological station in Monterrey, Mexico? (I could have got it if I clicked your name, instead I did a google, silly me). I just read your “HEAT STORED BY GREENHOUSE GASES” – very interesting and informative. Beautiful simple analysis.
    From an engineering perspective/ analysis that pretty much destroys the AGW hypothesis. And the irony of it is that so called “climate scientists” fall back on the mantra of “the PHYSICS of the last 100 years” to defend their theory. As though the classical thermodynamics is somehow synonymous with Anthropogenic Global Warming!
    I wonder if half of them know exactly what they are talking about.

  56. TERRY46 (10:48:06) : “You know there use to be A show that Bob Barker hosted back in the 70’s called truth or consaquinses…”
    OT: Oh wow, that takes me back! Used to watch that show as a kid. Barker would ask contestants a joke question, then mete out the consequences when they failed to supply the punchline.
    Only once did I see a guest beat the buzzer with the correct answer. Barker waited for the laughter to die down, then continued with “And the second part of your question is…” This time the buzzer sounded almost instantly after he finished.
    I guess the consequences were “settled.” 🙂

  57. George E. Smith (16:16:40) : But how many Phils do we have here anyhow ?
    Thats a thought that occurred to me too. There is a Phil with a blank link to his name with short caustic comments. But this one (or two) seems to be an imposter, though he sometimes tries to emulate the original Phil’s style.
    Will the real Phil please stand up… and more importantly will the imposters please identify themselves – as “Phil the believer” and the warmist etc.

  58. Bob Shapiro: You asked, “Why does Dr. Spencer use a 13 month moving average!? Won’t that automatically give a temperature rise in the NH during June-July-August and a fall in December-January-February (and vice versa for the SH)?”
    I noticed that Andrew replied but I had to check again. The following is a graph of UAH MSU TLT anomalies for the Northern Hemisphere with 12- and 13-month running-average filters.
    http://i34.tinypic.com/n6ev5f.png
    If they weren’t plotted together, but were overlaid individually on top of the raw data on two separate graphs, it would be hard to tell the difference between the two.
    I use 13-, 37-, 121-month filters, and the like, simply because the averaging is symmetrical before and after the “object” month. That is, there are an equal number of months on opposite sides of the center month

  59. Well if this trend continues, there won’t be any global cooling celebration that’s for sure.

  60. Oceans continue to lose heat
    Compare::
    http://weather.unisys.com/archive/sst/sst_anom-090906.gif
    http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html
    NOAA’s AO index forecasts make it look like that cold air is not going to be bottled up in the Arctic for now (one run even puts the AO index off the bottom of their forecast chart and all show it going lower than last June)
    http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao_index_ensm.shtml

  61. Richard (17:11:26) :
    Nasif Nahle (13:54:42)
    I just read your “HEAT STORED BY GREENHOUSE GASES”

    Except that Nasif strenuously claims that Heat cannot be stored…

  62. Phil (12:29:25) :
    so the question is, how high does it need to get before people here get converted to AGW?
    I’m kind of with Wade on this one. Rising temperatures by themselves will never convince me. Honest science would. Haven’t seen it yet.
    I think the question you are really asking is what will it take for us to jump on the IPCC / Copenhagen bandwagon? My answer: nothing. The proposed solutions are exponentially worse than the problems they are purported to be solving. AGW is nothing but a political gambit. Like Dr. Pielke, Sr., I would be very surprised if human activity had no effect, so the issue for me is not so much whether AGW is occuring, rather does it justify the anti-progress, anti-human policies being so frantically pushed? The Copenhagen Treaty is pernicious evil.

  63. Leif Svalgaard (17:49:16) :
    “the deepest solar minimum in a century is showing its teeth…”
    OK, I’ll be the bunny this time…. that’s even more cryptic than usual and I was under the impression that you did not attribute fluctuating temperatures to changes or cycles in solar activity. Can you elaborate a little and correct my misapprehension? (And please be gentle…. I’m a sociologist, not a physicist. Knowing better is not part of my job description.)

  64. Adam from Kansas (17:38:09) :
    Oceans continue to lose heat
    NOAA’s AO index forecasts make it look like that cold air is not going to be bottled up in the Arctic for now (one run even puts the AO index off the bottom of their forecast chart and all show it going lower than last June)

    Wow that is cold weather for the US and canada (West and central) coming.
    Leif Svalgaard (17:49:16) : the deepest solar minimum in a century is showing its teeth…
    I thought you said it wouldnt make a difference?
    tHeCakeIzaLie (17:30:57) : Well if this trend continues, there won’t be any global cooling celebration that’s for sure.
    No because there is nothing to celebrate about if the Earth cools, except that it will expose the AGW lie.

  65. Robert E. Phelan (18:10:22) :
    Leif Svalgaard (17:49:16) :
    “the deepest solar minimum in a century is showing its teeth…”
    OK, I’ll be the bunny this time

    Richard (18:11:07) :
    I thought you said it wouldn’t make a difference?
    Being a little bit sarcastic here. I know that is out of character but I couldn’t resist. How many times have we not heard people proclaim that we are cooling because of the lack of sunspots. Now, they will, of course, say that a few months of heat is not climate, but then by the same token a few months of cooling ain’t climate either.

  66. I dunno, I’m simply not buying the numbers. It’s cold, we’re short GDU’s. Pretty much the entire U.S. and Canada are cold and short of GDU’s.
    The U.K. is cold.
    Where is all this warming?
    Oh, it’s in the Arctic and Siberia?
    Let’s see, air currents and ocean currents shift so that really, really, really cold air from the arctic slips southward, that gives us negative anomolies in most of the worlds growing regions, and negative anomolies in the Arctic.
    WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE LOOK AT WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON!
    This isn’t Global warming. This is a weather pattern shift, and it don’t look good.

  67. ****************
    Leif Svalgaard (17:59:21) :
    Except that Nasif strenuously claims that Heat cannot be stored…
    ****************
    Yep, that whole heat argument kind of gets under my skin. If we are going to call it internal energy when it is contained by a substance, should we call it internal energy flow when a hotter body is placed in contact with a colder body? It’s just more natural to call it heat.

  68. At this time of year a rapid movement of mild air into the Arctic area actually accelerates energy loss to space.
    It is not a good sign for the rest of the winter.
    When the current burp of heat to space is over, ocean heat content will be the lowest its been since cooling began in 2003. Like someone alluded to earlier, the ARGO network is the best indicator of what’s really going on!
    And am I getting this right, the heat dumping process by mild air being pulled poleward may actually mean Winter getting even colder than if the pole was extremely cold right now?

    This batch of comments is not giving me a warm fuzzy for the coming winter.

  69. Three weeks ago it hit 32 degrees C where I live in central Alberta, Canada. Many one day records were set. But for the last two weeks the daily high has been 10 degrees C below normal for this time of year, which is around 12 C. It got all the way up to 3 C today, briefly. It snowed most of the day and the ground is freezing. It may be ‘warmer’ in the arctic but there is a ton of arctic air here at the moment – the low for the next few days is expected to be around minus 12 C, and it may not get above freezing for three days. Normally we don’t get permanent snow until Halloween and hopefully we will get a few more days of warm weather in a week or so.
    Weather. It’s what we talk about up here to pass the time. Climate change … not so much. Warmer would be nice. But I won’t hold my breath.

  70. I’m not going to believe this until I have the modification and “correction” code in hand. Every bit of news I’ve seen is of surprising cold. There ought to have been a fair amount of “hot news” for this number to be valid.
    Does anyone have any idea:
    1) What they do to prevent reflected IR from cloud from causing a bogus higher reading.
    2) What is done to “correct” the data.
    3) What is done to “calibrate” the satellite and against what is it calibrated?
    Some how this just smells wrong. Maybe it’s the forensics guy in me, but when you see something that does not fit what is to be expected, you go digging. That is where the “issue” is.
    It would also be “nice” to see the actual maps of the temperature by region. Was someplace very very hot and everywhere else cooling off?

  71. Leif Svalgaard (17:59:21) :
    Nasif Nahle (13:54:42)
    I just read your “HEAT STORED BY GREENHOUSE GASES”
    “Except that Nasif strenuously claims that Heat cannot be stored…”

    You maybe being a little fussy over here. Its like the arguments people have over Electricity – Coulombs, KwH, Current (Amps) etc.
    He defines heat as the the energy that flows from a hot body to a cold one.
    I see what you mean. He defines it as such but then USES it as the “quantity of heat” or heat energy. Well his analysis is correct, if we assume that when he says “heat” he means “heat” as the quantity of “heat energy”. But his definition in his link contradicts that. I think that is what he needs to correct. When he says “Heat Stored” what he means is “thermal energy” stored, by his definition, or “latent heat” or latent heat of transformation as we engineers would call it.
    Leif Svalgaard (18:24:47) : “the deepest solar minimum in a century is showing its teeth…”
    Richard (18:11:07) : I thought you said it wouldn’t make a difference?
    “Being a little bit sarcastic here. ..”

    Maybe but if we have been slightly heated it will take time to slightly cool down. So your sarcasm maybe out of place if we do cool. Only time will tell.

  72. Pofarmer (18:37:03) :
    Interestingly, the “warming” is mostly in places with the fewest thermometers. Even for satellites, the poles are poorly covered (if I’m correct). But the sat temps are the best we have.
    I wouldn’t be bothered by the high frequency noise, which appears to be about 0.2C RMS. It was warmer a thousand years ago.

  73. George E. Smith @16:16:40
    the CO2 goes up more or less steadily on an annual basis, with a clearly seasonal cyclic variation that puts the lie to his suggestion that the CO2 remains there for centuries
    My point exactly

  74. Richard (17:11:26) :
    Nasif Nahle (13:54:42) : Hi Adam… At 25º 48´ North latitude and 100º 19′ West longitude, we are undergoing very normal El Niño effects: rainy and hot days. We are not expecting a cold winter, except for two to seven cold days during the season. The two last weeks we have had mild temperatures with maximum temperatures of 32 °C – 35 °C by the last week.
    Thats the meteorological station in Monterrey, Mexico? (I could have got it if I clicked your name, instead I did a google, silly me). I just read your “HEAT STORED BY GREENHOUSE GASES” – very interesting and informative. Beautiful simple analysis.

    Hi Richard… Yes, it is the meteorological station in Monterrey, Mexico.
    From an engineering perspective/ analysis that pretty much destroys the AGW hypothesis. And the irony of it is that so called “climate scientists” fall back on the mantra of “the PHYSICS of the last 100 years” to defend their theory. As though the classical thermodynamics is somehow synonymous with Anthropogenic Global Warming!
    Absolutely, I agree. Those are observational and experimental real data consigned in every book on heat transfer science and thermodynamics. I cannot find a way for justifying AGWers’ ideology because they understand the laws of thermodynamics in a way opposed to the real knowledge. For example, some months ago I read an AGW argument saying that the natural (for not using “spontaneous”) flow of energy was possible from low energy density systems to high energy density systems. Other AGWers create energy from nothing, and so on. 🙂

  75. For you guys who dont believe it. I think the numbers are ok. September was warm. October will be cold. Thats my hunch

  76. I added the next sentence at the begining of the article:
    The author recommends you to read his article “Heat” for disambiguation of the scientific concept.
    The link “Heat” takes us to the next article:
    http://www.biocab.org/Heat.html
    Where I make the distinction between heat (energy in transit) and thermal energy (energy stored).

  77. Can anybody here explain how natural events can cause the troposphere to be warming while the stratosphere is cooling? (Hint: increased greenhouse gases do this.)
    Phil,
    You will find few here that support you (I am one) but perhaps those that are silently reading these posts but not commenting will consider your thoughts. That is my hope. I realize that it is very unlikely I will convince the regulars here about AGW just as they know they will likely never convince me otherwise.

  78. Leif Svalgaard (18:24:47) :
    9 mos out of 12 is cooling, especially when the bulk of the records set are on the low end. 8-10 years of decline is a shift in climate. And that’s the fly in the ointment: The normal patterns get moved around. We both happen to be in one of those areas that are more inclined to be affected by changes (Baranyi http://fenyi.solarobs.unideb.hu/publ/Baranyi_et_al1998.pdf ).
    Keep an eye peeled on what’s going on outside.

  79. OceanTwo (13:38:22) :
    Why ‘79 to ‘98 as an average base line?
    The data begins in 79. The warmest year is 98.
    Can’t guess any further.

  80. The rank is #2 out of 31 Septembers of data.
    So much for the claim that satellite data shows that September 2009 is the hottest September since satellite data has been kept.
    p.s. I already know someone will come back with how 1998 has to be truncated. If 1998 must be truncated then please truncate all such cases from all temperature sets, not just 1998.

  81. Richard (19:48:48) :
    For you guys who dont believe it. I think the numbers are ok. September was warm. October will be cold. Thats my hunch
    The earth is in a cooling trend. This spike in Sep 2009 is ‘weather’.

  82. Scott Mandia (19:51:20) :
    Because the trust the MSM had in reporting unbiased events has been badly broken. It will take far more than a blog to convince me that what is going on outside is not happening. The Media has managed to repeatedly declare where I live to be warming faster than anyone had imagined, when I can experience directly that it is not so.
    Whatever they want to claim next as their AGW nugget is not going to erase my experience, nor my relations in various parts of the US who share the same direct experience.
    Too many here has poor gardening results brought on by a very late summer and an early fall frost. When it was summer, it was summer, but it wasn’t timely nor was it record breaking or extended.
    That’s just for starters, there were other things in nature that spelled not the normal. If this is warming, chain me to the wall.

  83. Scott Mandia (19:51:20) :
    Can anybody here explain how natural events can cause the troposphere to be warming while the stratosphere is cooling? (Hint: increased greenhouse gases do this.)
    Phil,
    You will find few here that support you (I am one) but perhaps those that are silently reading these posts but not commenting will consider your thoughts. That is my hope. I realize that it is very unlikely I will convince the regulars here about AGW just as they know they will likely never convince me otherwise.

    Read about the heat transfer mechanisms prevailing in the stratosphere and you’ll find the fallacy related with GHG and the real reason by which the stratosphere is cooling. 🙂

  84. Nasif Nahle (19:43:34) : ..I cannot find a way for justifying AGWers’ ideology because they understand the laws of thermodynamics in a way opposed to the real knowledge. For example, some months ago I read an AGW argument saying that the natural (for not using “spontaneous”) flow of energy was possible from low energy density systems to high energy density systems. Other AGWers create energy from nothing, and so on. 🙂
    That is amazing! and they claim to be scientific! I am astonished.

  85. Leif Svalgaard (18:24:47) :
    Robert E. Phelan (18:10:22) :
    Leif Svalgaard (17:49:16) :
    “the deepest solar minimum in a century is showing its teeth…”
    OK, I’ll be the bunny this time
    Richard (18:11:07) :
    I thought you said it wouldn’t make a difference?
    Being a little bit sarcastic here. I know that is out of character but I couldn’t resist. How many times have we not heard people proclaim that we are cooling because of the lack of sunspots. Now, they will, of course, say that a few months of heat is not climate, but then by the same token a few months of cooling ain’t climate either.

    Since July 2003, the UAH Lower Troposphere data exhibit 74 months of cooling at a rate of -0.1989 per decade… I tend to think of 74 being a bit larger than “a few.”
    UAH 74 Months of Cooling
    Since April 2000, the linear regression is flat, despite this September’s near-Venusian temp. anomaly…
    UAH 113 Months of No Warming
    The linear regression is also flat from Dec. 1978 to Dec. 1994…
    UAH 192 Months of No Warming
    Pretty much all of the “global” warming in the UAH LT series occurred between Jan. 1995 and March 2000…
    UAH 62 Months of Warming
    If there’s a “few months” of anything in the UAH record… It’s a “few months” of warming.
    192 months of no warming… Followed by 62 months of warming… Followed by 113 months of no warming (the last 74 of which were cooling). It looks to me as if there was a step-shift associated with the 1997-1998 ENSO.
    Btw – Your paper on the heliospheric magnetic field reconstruction was brilliant. Thank you for posting it.

  86. rbateman (20:12:01) : – That was rather a rash offer but on the plus side you are unlikely to be chained to the wall.
    PS temperatures in Copenhagen seem to be getting a bit chilly too. 10 C max and 5 min by Sunday – that is a bit nippy.
    Gene Nemetz (20:11:59) : That “spike” is not much of a spike.

  87. In Greece we had a cool summer and a colder than usual September. October is compensating being a bit higher than usual. It is as if the whole weather pattern of the region has moved forward two weeks ( October towards the end usually has what is called “the small summer”).
    Maybe winter will compensate by being warmer than usual, like last winter here.
    I wonder if the whole average rise is from the spike in the arctic going from 262 to 268 Kelvin (plot on the right panel), really balmy weather!

  88. rbateman (14:22:41) : “At this late juncture, I’ll depend more on what I can see and whom I can talk to as far as the global climate goes. Trust is earned, and the AGW side burned thiers to a crisp a long while back.”
    AYE!
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  89. Scott Mandia (19:51:20) :..I realize that it is very unlikely I will convince the regulars here about AGW just as they know they will likely never convince me otherwise.

    NEVER Scott Mandia? Not even if the winter snows didnt melt in summer despite rising CO2 levels? I dont say that is likely but if that happens, or even if it cools the next few years would you still not be convinced?

  90. ” Scott Mandia (19:51:20) : I realize that it is very unlikely I will convince the regulars here about AGW just as they know they will likely never convince me otherwise.”
    You are correct about you “convincing” me.
    Your arguments do not hold water (nor do they hold water vapor).
    Furthermore….we should convince you “otherwise” of WHAT, Scott?
    That daffodil production in The Netherlands is related to a certain formula of optimal Spring climate?
    That inflation of money supply leads to devaluing of currency?
    That my favorite color is blue, even though you think it is orange?
    That the possible existence of unicorns (sorry Leif to steal) might have an influence on CO2 levels?
    You introduce a fantastic theory…that defies science…then the burden of proof is on you to prove it.
    Prove it. Show forth the warming.
    Where is the hard and fast evidence??
    Show it.
    You don’t respond…because you can’t.
    You AGW guys are all the same.
    You make a few posts, then you fly like vampires before garlic when the pressure is on.
    Regardless….to reiterate…the BURDEN OF PROOF is on you…and your camp.
    For the rest of the scientific community….it is SCIENCE BUSINESS AS USUAL.
    Prove. Disprove. Evaluate. Save good stuff. Throw out bad stuff.
    And it truly IS a Darwinian struggle for survival.
    People like Leif Svalgaard keep all honest on that part!
    Grrrrr.
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  91. Not surprised to see it that high. The graph on Dr. Spencer’s site (channel 05) has been in record territory most of the month, and even continues to be. So unless there is a precipitous drop (which could happen), expect a similar higher anomaly next month. I’ll say it’ll be between 0.35 – 0.45 for October.

  92. “PS temperatures in Copenhagen seem to be getting a bit chilly too.”
    With a bit of luck the Swedes can walk across in december like they did in 1634.
    If that happens , there is a god.

  93. anna v (20:44:32) :
    I would like to see the circulation pattern that is blowing the cold out of the Arctic on onto N. America, Greenland and possibly Europe.
    I see that DMI, and I’m also watching the Cyrosphere Today site to see where the ice is building. It’s moving away from Siberia like it’s being blown that way.

  94. anna v (20:44:32) :
    In Greece we had a cool summer and a colder than usual September. October is compensating being a bit higher than usual. It is as if the whole weather pattern of the region has moved forward two weeks ( October towards the end usually has what is called “the small summer”).
    Maybe winter will compensate by being warmer than usual, like last winter here.
    I wonder if the whole average rise is from the spike in the arctic going from 262 to 268 Kelvin (plot on the right panel), really balmy weather!

    Hi Anna… Unfortunately, we are not expecting compensations in winter. Although here in Monterrey Mexico the weather is very similar to the weather in some regions of Greece, only a neutral SO would drive our region into a real cold winter.
    Contrary to our expectations, the Southeastern US, i.e. Texas, has enjoyed benign temperatures. For example, the maximum temperature in New Braunfels TX today was 86.00 °F, while here in Monterrey the maximum temperature was 96.80 °F (from BioCab’s thermometers).

  95. Ripper (21:16:07) : With a bit of luck the Swedes can walk across in december like they did in 1634. ..
    They can walk across now and so can the Danes for that matter. They now have a bridge.

  96. Bob Shapiro (10:46:13) : “Why does Dr. Spencer use a 13 month moving average!” … “Why wouldn’t you want to use a 12 month moving average so that you can eliminate the seasonal effects?”
    Although Bob Tisdale’s graphs shows the difference between a 12 month running average filter and a 13 month one isn’t all that great, I’d like to suggest an alternative that is conceptually simple and only a tiny bit more computation than a simple equally weighted running average.
    It’s nice to use 13 months because that centers the average in the center of each month. Using 13 months but using a weighting of 1/2 for the first and last months would minimize any stray seasonal effects. Even though the data from 13 months is being used, each of the 12 months of the year get equal weighting.

  97. I think that this whole concept of global average temperature and climate needs a strong spring cleaning.
    1) It s the T^4 dependence of radiation even if it is black body. This means that averaging between day and night does not represent the average radiation which is what really affects climate, nor averaging over seasons and the world over when there are such large differences and the dependence is T^4
    2) It is not black body,
    it is nota uniform sphere and has large varying heat capacities.
    It is not even a sphere: as we know from fractals the dimensions of the land are larger than the dimensions of the surface of the sphere, which means more radiation than a sphere model would expect ( cooler land).
    Temperature has a local very important meaning for humans and the biosphere.
    I think for a global map, we should have day temperatures, and night temperatures separately, and season’s temperatures, and whenever there is an average the T^4 weight should be applied to take into account what is our real interest, radiation.
    Otherwise we will see the poles with 20C higher temperatures in winter and the Thames icing over and be talking of global warming (all that heat gone to the poles:) ).

  98. Not knowing much about sunspots and Earth global temperatures, can someone explain why the anomali is still positive anf going up with we are in the lowest solar activity for a century? I thought that was supposed to give us a little ice age? Or is that starting in October as some people seem to think October will be a lot colder in the posts above.
    Thanks
    Andy

  99. I think my 7 year old daughter wrote that last paragraph, apologies, imagine it done in crayon to help you understand it 🙂
    Regards
    Oscar Wilde

  100. I posted under Phil at 14:20:55. Apologies to all for screwing up the thread, as it were.
    I’m a big fan of this site, so it’s first place I came to when confronted with this dilemma. Big companies are displaying their socially responsible credentials by signing up to the sustainability movement. If I’m going to resist this, I’d want to get my arguments straight. I’ve assimilated a lot of counter-facts, but how best to counter their points is what I’m asking. Like I said, this may not be the best place to ask these beginner type questions, if so perhaps someone could recommend another site.
    Link again for convenience http://assets.panda.org/downloads/wwf_climate_deal_1.pdf
    Thanks

  101. Hello neophyte climate realist Phil K. I don’t speak for anybody else here (nor they me), but IMHO warmer is better. More warmth means longer growing seasons, more rain, more bioproductivity, more abundance, more biodiversity, etc. The benefits far outweigh the drawbacks. If I had a vote, I would vote for warmer.
    Eventually another Ice Age glaciation is going to ensue, as they have 18 times over the last 1.8 million years. Neoglaciation could begin tomorrow. Some say it already has been happening for the last 6,000 years. If humanity can find a way to forestall the coming Cold, I’m supportive of that. I absolutely see no cause to reduce CO2 emissions. That would be counter productive in every way.
    But like I said, my opinion is my own, and not everyone shares it.

  102. [snip]
    The 0.42 C anomaly for September is above the IPCC globally averaged surface-warming prediction from the average of the models they used.

  103. i would like to see these number put into perspective:
    for example, an el nino / la nina correction could be subtracted or added and the result compared to climate science projections, such as this:
    http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/06/gret-moments-in.html
    and further extrapolated with the IPCC scenario.
    so,
    subtract 0.2° for el nino and you get a warming of meager
    0.25% of hansen’s scenario B
    and
    0.2% of hansen’s scenario A
    (and watch out for the big jump he expected in 2010)
    with the ipcc projected figure of 3.5° in 2100 without emission cuts, this would give an updated estimate of
    0.2*3.5 = 0.7° or 0.25*3.5 = 0.8°.
    I would still reduce these numbers, as recent months were lower and much of the current increase may be attributable to the shutdown of dirty, soot and aerosol producing industry after to the economic breakdown.

  104. An addendum to anna v (22:29:58) :
    I have not touched on convection too, ( ocean and atmospheric currents) which introduces other fractal dimensions for radiation computations by changing the topology of “hot” “cold”.
    rbateman (21:44:00) :
    I would like to see the circulation pattern that is blowing the cold out of the Arctic on onto N. America, Greenland and possibly Europe.
    I see that DMI, and I’m also watching the Cyrosphere Today site to see where the ice is building. It’s moving away from Siberia like it’s being blown that way.

    Yes.
    The arctic can only get 10C warmer while the sun is going nighty-night only by air currents, since it is mostly land locked . We send it our warmth and it sends us its cold. Then by this faulty averaging, that does not take weights of radiation into account, it gets warmer and raises the global temperature anomaly as it is computed now.

  105. AndyW
    It certainly LOOKS like the Oceans are giving off a burp of heat. If you think of the Oceans as a giant damper, then the whole thing makes sense. The Ocean is a huge storehouse of ehat and energy. It’s really not surprising that when the sun is in a quiet phase it would act to try to keep the temperature constant. It’s an elegant mechanism, and althogether overlooked by warmists.

  106. @ David Ball (20:26:40) :
    At least on this site we can discuss it. What say you about that Scott?

    I agree 100%. Anthony Watts and I certainly share a vastly different viewpoint on AGW but, as I have said before, I appreciate greatly that he allows me to post here. And, as I have said before, challenges to my statements have made me dig deeper into the reserach and I have learned from the exchanges.
    @ Richard (20:57:06) :
    The DATA could absolutely convince me as long as there is a valid hypothesis that shows why this natural cycle is the forcing mechanism and why record increased rates of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is insignificant. Scientists will flock to any new hypothesis that does so just like they flocked toward evolution and plate tectonics when more and more research showed the validity.

  107. Re: Mr. Alex (09:38:11) :
    “Could the weak El Nino have something to do with the spike?”

    Yes.
    Apparently a weak El Niño is enough to have global temperature go to near or total record highs; solar minimum cannot help anymore.
    Expect a year 2010 higher than 1998 or 2005.

  108. Dave Middleton (20:33:19) :
    Since July 2003, the UAH Lower Troposphere data exhibit 74 months of cooling at a rate of -0.1989 per decade… I tend to think of 74 being a bit larger than “a few.”
    I tend to think the timing of the 2007/08 La Nina has a bit to do with the negative trend since July 2003 (why July?? why 2003??).
    Incidentally what is the CI associated with this trend. Is it significant?
    You’re also missing the point. 12-18 months ago we were being told by a number of posters on WUWT that the sudden decline in global temepratures was related to the deep solar minimum. Remember that Jan ’08 was ~0.7 deg cooler than Jan ’07. We were supposedly heading for a maunder or dalton type minimum. There were a few of us, however, who advised caution and suggested that once the La Nina was over then temperatures were likely to recover. They have and, if the current El Nino persists (weak as it is) the “negative trend” since 2003 is likely to disappear pretty quickly.
    Gene Nemetz (20:09:02) :

    The rank is #2 out of 31 Septembers of data.


    So much for the claim that satellite data shows that September 2009 is the hottest September since satellite data has been kept.
    The anomaly for Sept 1998 was +0.432. The anomaly for Sept 2009 was +0.424. This is a difference of less than one-hundredth of a degree . We have seen later adjustments larger than this. It’s not completely out of the question that Sept 2009 was in fact warmer than Sept 1998. Statistically speaking, there’s probably no difference.

  109. A correction to this post: Dave Middleton (20:33:19) :
    The UAH LT data show…
    No global warming from Dec 1978 to Dec 1994… 193 months.
    Global warming from Jan 1995 to Feb 1998… 38 months.
    Global cooling from Mar 1998 to Sep 2009… 139 months.
    332 months of no global warming out of 370 months of satellite temperature anomaly data.

  110. By itself this report from a reputable sensor platform and an unbiased analyst at UAH isn’t surprising: In fact, I’ll predict the UAH 13 month average is going to be going up for a coonsiderable time.
    Plotted temperatures from RW Spenser’s satellite graphs (see link above) have been consistently ABOVE even the “20 year highs” for most of 2009 by 2/10 to 1/4 of one degree.
    His 1998 plot line on that same graph is no longer available – darn it!!! – but if the 20 year high is assumed to be 1998 (which seems reasonable given the widely admitted ENSO max peak in that year) then 2009 will bw recorded as being hotter than 1998. Unfortunately for propaganda purposes, and in apparent conflict with all reported stories about weather and animal movement and plant life this year, but that is what the graph shows.
    So …..
    By all accounts, we are told this is a “low ENSO” – or a small, weak ENSO that is ending even now as temp’s continue up. All incidental evidence tells us 2009 is cold, and will be getting colder this year. (Yes, sunspots are missing – I don’t for right now care – this is about temperatures actually changing from year to year – NOT about what might cause a primary cause that might change a secondary effect that might change temperatures globally.)
    We now see that the “weak and short ENSO” of 2009 is producing temperatures nearly as high as the “super ENSO” of 1998 – and that doesn’t make sense.
    …—…—…—…—
    The questions are: What other evidence is available that this satellite record is actually still valid for 2009?
    Have surface and atmospheric temperatures actually risen as much (more than!) than they did throughout 1998?
    Can RWS re-add (and keep) the 1998 plot to the UAH daily graph?
    Can we “re-calibrate” the satellite temperatures with balloon samples for that elevation to see if the reported temp’s/instrument sensors have drifted out of spec?

  111. John Finn (04:05:58) :
    Dave Middleton (20:33:19) :
    Since July 2003, the UAH Lower Troposphere data exhibit 74 months of cooling at a rate of -0.1989 per decade… I tend to think of 74 being a bit larger than “a few.”
    I tend to think the timing of the 2007/08 La Nina has a bit to do with the negative trend since July 2003 (why July?? why 2003??).
    Incidentally what is the CI associated with this trend. Is it significant?
    You’re also missing the point. 12-18 months ago we were being told by a number of posters on WUWT that the sudden decline in global temepratures was related to the deep solar minimum. Remember that Jan ‘08 was ~0.7 deg cooler than Jan ‘07. We were supposedly heading for a maunder or dalton type minimum. There were a few of us, however, who advised caution and suggested that once the La Nina was over then temperatures were likely to recover. They have and, if the current El Nino persists (weak as it is) the “negative trend” since 2003 is likely to disappear pretty quickly.

    I picked July 2003 because oceanic upwelling rates in the Eastern Pacific surged to their highest levels in decades that month, the UAH ocean series began a cooling trend in 2003 and NASA announced unexpected oceanic cooling in 2003 (a report they subsequently blamed on sensor problems).
    I prefer to not use linear regressions on oscillating functions; but I don’t have an easy-to-use Fourier Transform in Excel.
    Wood For Trees does have a Fourier Transform; which can extract the low frequency component…
    UAH Low Pass Filter
    I can also approximate the low pass filter in Excel by using a polynomial trend-line…
    UAH Polynomial
    We may very well be entering a Dalton- or even Maunder-type solar minimum; but we are still only about 150 years into the warming leg of the 1470-year climate cycle (Bond, Heinrich and Dansgaard-Oeschger events). The cooling we experience over the next 20 years, or so, will be more like what we experienced from 1943-1976 than the Little Ice Age. We will still have the ENSO cycle – It will just be dominated by La Niñas rather than El Niños.
    In my own opinion, the PDO is driven by changes in low cloud cover that are modulated by subtle changes in solar activity. The PDO has about a 60-year cycle that alternates between La Niña dominance (cooling) and El Niño dominance (warming).

  112. Jim (16:20:52) :
    I looked back a few years at the Arctic temp charts. Yeah, the temp jumps around – so what – it does not look abnormal. Isn’t it up a bit due to the little El Nino? That’s an ocean thing, not an atmosphere thing.
    – yes, it does look abnormal this year – it could be the little El Nino, causing the jet stream to funnel loads of hot air up to the arctic (I don’t know)
    – but it does seem unusual
    – also, I remember when it tipped below average a month or so ago, and a few people here took it as evidence of the continued ‘recovery’ in the arctic
    – so, I thought it was only ‘balanced’ to draw people attention to this abnormality….
    And let’s say there will be 4 C warming per century. So what? It will be cheaper to accommodate the changes than quite burning fossil fuels. What’s up with that, Phil?
    – I guess if AGW is real, then that means that we at least have an oppertunity to decide if we want to do something about it
    – I think 4C warming would imply fairly major changes to our way of life on our planet whether we choose to do something about it or not…
    – if it is not real, then we needn’t worry….

  113. Dave Middleton (04:53:45) :
    A correction to this post: Dave Middleton (20:33:19) :
    The UAH LT data show…
    No global warming from Dec 1978 to Dec 1994… 193 months.
    Global warming from Jan 1995 to Feb 1998… 38 months.
    Global cooling from Mar 1998 to Sep 2009… 139 months.
    332 months of no global warming out of 370 months of satellite temperature anomaly data.
    – this type of reasoning is pointless
    – you are just choosing your slice points so as to hide an actual increase in temperature
    – I think for most people on this site, the arguement is not whether or not there has been a temperature change over the last 30 years, but whether or not this temperature change is part of a natural cycle, or if it is man-made….
    – to make a facetious analogy – you could use the same technique to argue that a stair-case doesn’t go up (or down), or that a cliff has no effective height….

  114. Phil’s Dad (20:56:47) :
    Richard (17:23:46) : George E. Smith (16:16:40) :
    Which Phil?
    I can’t tell them apart!
    – can’t you recognise your own son!
    (It’s not me!)

  115. Robert E. Phelan (18:04:14) :
    I’m kind of with Wade on this one. Rising temperatures by themselves will never convince me. Honest science would. Haven’t seen it yet.
    – obviously, I was being deliberately provocative
    – I think continued rising temperature, following the IPCC predictions would be a good indicator that the IPCC was right
    – maybe….
    – it’s hard to take the Hockstick seriously, which means that the MWP was real, and probably had higher temperatures than now
    – but people here are predicting lower temperatures due to less solar activity…
    – so rising temperatures would need some sort of explanation, if not all down to CO2.
    I think the question you are really asking is what will it take for us to jump on the IPCC / Copenhagen bandwagon?
    My answer: nothing. The proposed solutions are exponentially worse than the problems they are purported to be solving. AGW is nothing but a political gambit.
    – that wasn’t the question I was asking
    – if AGW was real, then any solution would have to be balanced against the costs…
    Like Dr. Pielke, Sr., I would be very surprised if human activity had no effect, so the issue for me is not so much whether AGW is occuring, rather does it justify the anti-progress, anti-human policies being so frantically pushed? The Copenhagen Treaty is pernicious evil.
    – right
    – CO2 is, afterall, a greenhouse gas
    – there aren’t many people who disagree with that (even if many don’t like the term GHG)
    – the question is how much & how fast…

  116. RACookPE1978 wrote:
    We now see that the “weak and short ENSO” of 2009 is producing temperatures nearly as high as the “super ENSO” of 1998 – and that doesn’t make sense.
    yes, it does make sense. It is not ENSO, it is not the sun, it is… whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. You know it. Accept it and cut your CO2 emissions. It is simple.

  117. Global averages are much like Arctic sea ice averages. 5 out of 14 sea areas are below normal, which brings the average down to below normal because the other areas are sitting at normal. A single average number is misleading. I think that weather pattern variation and the Arctic Oscillation can explain this divergence from normal in some areas but not in others. If the entire area was below normal, than something else, or a convergence of factors, is affecting the entire area.
    Likewise, global average numbers, hemispheric numbers, or US averages are misleading. As in it will be colder “here”, normal “there” thus the average number will be negative. Or warmer “here”, normal “there” thus the average number will be positive. It isn’t positive everywhere and it isn’t negative everywhere. In otherwords, nothing can be deduced from this positive number in terms of its cause. That can only be investigated by looking at regional/zonal averages to determine where the heat is, where normal is, and where colder is.

  118. Re: RACookPE1978 (05:42:35) :
    “Can we “re-calibrate” the satellite temperatures with balloon samples for that elevation to see if the reported temp’s/instrument sensors have drifted out of spec?”

    That’s being done twice daily all over the world. So the balloons will have be recalibrated too. I suggest the scales on the thermometers be placed upside down.

  119. Phil K (23:02:10),
    I knew you were not Phil. (notice the period). He is an AGW advocate which is why so many folks got it confused.
    Tom P (23:42:38),
    Why didn’t you use June’s anomaly and tell us where it lies? You only make it bad for those who consider there is *some* truth to AGW.
    ———————–
    I happen to lean towards CO2 causing some warming. This warming kicks in planet wide mechanisms that balance the overall heat content. I tend to agree with most of what Stephen Wilde has stated many times. I can also see where additional clouds might mute this effect. However, I will add one thing. As the planet adjusts to dispersing the added heat, it will impact regional climates. The Arctic will most likely warm somewhat as it takes on the job to radiating additional heat. This will reduce the average temperature difference between polar and equatorial regions which should balance the effect caused by additional energy flow to the poles. The net impact on average weather is likely to be small. However, it will impact certain regions more than others, ie. there will be some climate change, though it won’t have a large impact on the overall temperature of the planet.

  120. September in Central MN was quite warm and exceptionally dry. October, not so much. Saturday we have snow forecast in inches.
    Unusual weather, trend not obvious.

  121. Charlie: You wrote, “It’s nice to use 13 months because that centers the average in the center of each month. Using 13 months but using a weighting of 1/2 for the first and last months would minimize any stray seasonal effects. Even though the data from 13 months is being used, each of the 12 months of the year get equal weighting.”
    I have to ask, what seasonal effects? Do you see a seasonal effect in the graph I posted above? Please plot any temperature data you wish with 13-month smoothing and with the smoothing you propose, and post it here so that we can see the benefit. Thanks.

  122. Scott Mandia (19:51:20) :”Can anybody here explain how natural events can cause the troposphere to be warming while the stratosphere is cooling? (Hint: increased greenhouse gases do this.)”
    So I understand the logic here…if 1. The Stratosphere cools and 2. The troposphere warms then 3. All, the entirety, every last bit of tropospheric warming is caused by what caused the stratospheric cooling. Yes? Okay then, if we are on the same page…Satellites have been measuring the temperatures in the lower stratosphere for about thirty years. So what do they show?
    http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Stratosphere1278-1204.gif
    Golly, what is going on with that? Well, it’s rather simple, actually-the vast majority of the “cooling” is due to stratospheric ozone depletion. So by your logic, that must be the cause of the tropospheric warming, right? Except, duh, it isn’t.
    Now, the thing with stratospheric temperatures is that yes, of course the upper stratosphere (for which there are few measurements) should cool as greenhouse gases increase-but that says next to nothing about what the related tropospheric warming would be. Stratospheric cooling is thus not very useful for figuring out the key question here which is not “is there greenhouse warming” but “how much greenhouse warming”.
    Incidentally, a natural “event” which cools the stratosphere and warms the atmosphere is the recovery from a volcanic eruption. While the lower atmosphere will warm back up to where it was before the volcanoes went off, the stratosphere must cooling back down after such an event, which warms it.

  123. Re: Phil M (06:18:23) :
    “Like Dr. Pielke, Sr., I would be very surprised if human activity had no effect, so the issue for me is not so much whether AGW is occuring, rather does it justify the anti-progress, anti-human policies being so frantically pushed? The Copenhagen Treaty is pernicious evil.
    – right
    – CO2 is, afterall, a greenhouse gas
    – there aren’t many people who disagree with that (even if many don’t like the term GHG)
    – the question is how much & how fast…”

    ‘Pernicious evil’, well I would know worse evil by far and some measures to reduce our dependency on fossil fuel couldn’t be called too evil.
    Apart from the phrase, though, you have summarized my stance on the issue as well.

  124. Dave Middleton (05:52:54) :
    Nice return to fundamentals.
    “Likewise, global average numbers, hemispheric numbers, or US averages are misleading.”
    Indeed, and misled we are. Some seem to prefer it that way.

  125. Scott A. Mandia:
    “Junkscience is your source? Do you have a real source and not a political lobbyist’s opinion?”
    Pure ad hominem. But that’s what the alarmist contingent lives on, since there is no real world evidence that CO2 causes measurable warming. So it’s all ad hom, all the time with the scaremongers.
    And how about your own source, which is so thoroughly biased that we see this alarming collage right at the top of the page: click.
    Maybe we need to use this on people who can’t refute facts, so they attack the messenger instead.

  126. Scott A. Mandia (08:58:17) : Come now, do you even bother to look at tbe chart? it’s sourced for god’s sake! So apparently I can’t be lazy and must create the graph myself and point you to the original data. Okay, fine, I’ll do the latter for you:
    http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t4/uahncdc.ls
    “Volcanoes cannot explain the cooling rate being measured in the stratosphere.”
    That’s because it was due to Ozone depletion. And it isn’t “being measured” it was measured, and then disappeared, because, wouldn’t ya know it, Ozone stopped declining.

  127. Scott A. Mandia (05:01:05) :
    @ Nasif Nahle (20:15:09) :
    Can you elaborate on your statement or point me to a source? I am unsure what to make of your comment.

    I’ll make some suggestions for you:
    1. Read about the composition of the troposphere.
    2. Read about the composition of the stratosphere.
    Make a comparison between the compositions.
    3. Read about the mechanisms of heat transfer in the troposphere.
    4. Read about the mechanisms of heat transfer in the stratosphere.
    Compare the mechanisms of heat transfer in the troposphere with the mechanisms in the stratosphere.
    Then answer for yourself the next question:
    What a hell! How the troposphere could cool the stratosphere?
    There is not a thermodynamically feasible mechanism of heat transfer from the stratosphere (colder) to the troposphere (warmer)… You know this, Scott.
    By the way, given that you are a physicist, do you know what the absorptivity of CO2 is, at its current atmospheric Pp? How is it possible that a gas with such very low absorptivity-emissivity, which is not a primary source of energy because it doesn’t burn in the air, could heat up the Earth? Impossible!

  128. While I appreciate the work Dr. Spencer is doing, this information proves why a “global temperature” is a worthless construct. First, there is no such thing as a global temperature. In the southern hemisphere it is early Spring, in the northern hemisphere it is early Autumn. North of Missouri, we are having cool weather while Texas is steaming, and in both poles it is still freezing.
    Taking the temperature of the Earth is bunk, just like AGW and catastrophic climate change.
    We should also note that Dr. Spencer’s temperature’s are atmospheric temperatures, not surface temperatures and climates are local, not global.

  129. Jim (18:51:23) :
    ****************
    Leif Svalgaard (17:59:21) :
    Except that Nasif strenuously claims that Heat cannot be stored…
    ****************
    Yep, that whole heat argument kind of gets under my skin. If we are going to call it internal energy when it is contained by a substance, should we call it internal energy flow when a hotter body is placed in contact with a colder body? It’s just more natural to call it heat.

    Dear Jim… No, you cannot say “internal energy flow …” As the internal energy crosses the boundary of the hotter system (body) towards the colder system (body), it stops being internal energy and becomes heat.
    I don’t wish to discuss this issue because it is elemental knowledge and WUWT is not the place to discuss it. Please, read my didactic article on Heat and Thermal Energy:
    http://www.biocab.org/Heat.html
    Regards,
    Nasif Nahle

  130. Phil M (06:04:29) :
    Dave Middleton (04:53:45) :
    A correction to this post: Dave Middleton (20:33:19) :
    The UAH LT data show…
    No global warming from Dec 1978 to Dec 1994… 193 months.
    Global warming from Jan 1995 to Feb 1998… 38 months.
    Global cooling from Mar 1998 to Sep 2009… 139 months.
    332 months of no global warming out of 370 months of satellite temperature anomaly data.

    – this type of reasoning is pointless
    – you are just choosing your slice points so as to hide an actual increase in temperature

    No. I highlighted exactly when the warming occurred. I didn’t hide it.

    – I think for most people on this site, the arguement is not whether or not there has been a temperature change over the last 30 years, but whether or not this temperature change is part of a natural cycle, or if it is man-made….
    Where did I say that the warming didn’t occur?

    – to make a facetious analogy – you could use the same technique to argue that a stair-case doesn’t go up (or down), or that a cliff has no effective height….

    Actually, the point I was making was that we are looking at something that looks more like a couple of cliffs with flatlands around the cliffs and not looking at something that looks like a staircase.
    Over the roughly 30-year satellite record, the entire warming trend can be fit into 38 months between Jan 1995 and Feb 1998.
    I don’t know about you, but to me, it is very relevant if all of the stairs in a staircase are crammed into the middle and not evenly distributed.
    Here’s another fun bit of “pointless” reasoning:
    Since 2003, the UAH LT has spiked to around +0.4C seven times counting the current spike. The six previous spikes (Jan 2003, December 2003, January 2005, February 2006, January 2007 and February 2009) were followed by cooling periods that averaged 7 months in duration and -0.48C of cooling. And all of the spikes before 2003 were also followed rather quickly with cooling periods as well.

  131. Ron de Haan (11:18:08) :
    http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usnews.com%2Fblogs%2Fwashington-whispers%2F2009%2F10%2F07%2Fscientist-carbon-dioxide-doesnt-cause-global-warming.html
    From your link:
    Worse, if CO2 levels are cut, he warns, food production will slow because plants grown at higher CO2 levels make larger fruit and vegetables and also use less water. He also said that higher CO2 levels are not harmful to humans.
    Some plants that we use for food are C4 plants (i.e. corn, millet, sorghum, sugarcane, amaranth, etc.), which take advantage of high levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide. However, legumes (pea pods, pinto beans), wheat and rice, which are also important for human nutrition, are C3 plants; these plants are lesser productive than C4 plants at high levels of carbon dioxide.
    On the other hand, C4 plants take advantage of high insolation in such form that they are most productive when the insolation index is around 0.9 and high levels of carbon dioxide, while C3 plants don’t.

  132. Food for thought…
    One cubic kilometre of humid atmosphere cools 1ºC, one cubic kilometre of arid atmosphere warms 1ºC…
    Mean temperature hasn’t changed!
    Energy content has!
    DaveE.

  133. John Finn (04:05:58)
    “The anomaly for Sept 1998 was +0.432. The anomaly for Sept 2009 was +0.424. This is a difference of less than one-hundredth of a degree.”
    During the 1970-2000 warming, each successive el Nino peak was significantly higher than the previous one. But now, el Nino peaks in 1998 and 2009 reach the same height.
    This is consistent with global climate going over the hill about half way between 1998 and 2009.

  134. @ Nasif Nahle (10:37:18) :
    From your comments I guess you are only considering conduction. I am talking about radiation which is emitted in all directions. You are mistaken about some basic physics and atmospheric temperature profiles. The upper troposphere is colder than anywhere in the stratosphere yet outgoing LW still moves toward this “hotter sphere”. Using your logic, do you realize that there would never be outgoing heat at the top of the atmosphere? Using your logic, the troposphere could never give heat to the regions above and we would all burn up!
    The stratosphere is cooling faster at higher altitudes than it is at lower altitudes. Yes, ozone depletion is partly responsible for the lower stratospheric cooling but a larger portion is due to less heat being absorbed from below in the troposphere. The CO2 in the stratosphere is still very good at emitting its LW upward. The incoming sunlight is not affected, meaning uv absorption by ozone (heat source) is unchanged.
    If the region is cooling over time then there is a radiation imbalance in the stratosphere. If heat is being trapped in the lower troposphere due to increasing greenhouse gases, there will be less incoming heat into the stratosphere. The rate of cooling is much greater at higher altitudes where there is little to no ozone but still CO2. That means that the stratosphere is cooling due to increased greenhouse gases in both the troposphere and in the stratosphere. Ozone depletion cannot account for these unequal rates of cooling.
    BTW, climate models predicted that this profile would occur under an increased greenhouse gas atmosphere.
    One other point to note is that because CO2 in the troposphere and in the upper stratosphere are causing cooling, there will be a negative side effect: more ozone loss which occurs under colder conditions.

  135. Phlogiston (15:23:27) :
    John Finn (04:05:58)
    “The anomaly for Sept 1998 was +0.432. The anomaly for Sept 2009 was +0.424. This is a difference of less than one-hundredth of a degree.”
    During the 1970-2000 warming, each successive el Nino peak was significantly higher than the previous one. But now, el Nino peaks in 1998 and 2009 reach the same height.
    This is consistent with global climate going over the hill about half way between 1998 and 2009.

    No comparsion for 2 reasons.
    1. This particular El Nino is a bit of a damp squib. It has nowhere near the intensity of the ’98 El Nino.
    2. Sept 2009 and Sept 1998 occur at completely different phases in the El Nino cycle. We are only a few months into the current El Nino whereas Sept ’98 was at the end of ’97/’98 El Nino, but because of the lag temperatures were still high. Sept ’97 (UAH anomaly: +0.09) is probably a more valid comparison in terms of the stage of development of the El Nino.

  136. Nasif Nahle (10:37:18) :
    By the way, given that you are a physicist, do you know what the absorptivity of CO2 is, at its current atmospheric Pp? How is it possible that a gas with such very low absorptivity-emissivity, which is not a primary source of energy because it doesn’t burn in the air, could heat up the Earth? Impossible!

    Low absorptivity, what are you talking about? Here’s the actual spectra for the 15 micron band of CO2.
    http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn107/Sprintstar400/CO2spectra.gif

  137. Why is it that globally averaged temperatures are so erratic from month to month? Is the variance in temperature really that high or is it more to do with error margins of the measurements?
    Still, if a large number of measurements is being “averaged” I would have thought there would be less moise in the series than there appears to be? What sort of confidence intervals are we talking with this data set?
    Forgive the sloppy terminology … it’s Friday morning >.>

  138. Phil. (17:57:09) :
    Nasif Nahle (10:37:18) :
    By the way, given that you are a physicist, do you know what the absorptivity of CO2 is, at its current atmospheric Pp? How is it possible that a gas with such very low absorptivity-emissivity, which is not a primary source of energy because it doesn’t burn in the air, could heat up the Earth? Impossible!
    Low absorptivity, what are you talking about? Here’s the actual spectra for the 15 micron band of CO2.

    Obviously, you don’t know even what thermal absorptivity is.

  139. Nasif Nahle (22:01:16) :
    Obviously, you don’t know even what thermal absorptivity is.
    Thank you for saying that Nasif Nahle. I don’t think he knows what his link even means.

  140. Jim (20:13:37) :
    ************************************
    Ron de Haan (08:45:19) :
    Anthony,
    Do you have any comments on the longest uninterrupted temp record published here:
    http://carbon-sense.com/2009/10/01/british-record/
    **************************************
    And yet, after the MET office “adjusts” it, it becomes warming …
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/hadcet.html

    The first link is the summer-only record while the second link is the annual record. The average summer temperature in the 18th century was +0.11 warmer than in the 20th century. However in the 20th century, aeverage temperatures for spring(+0.34), autumn(+0.45) and winter (+0.7) were warmer than the 18th century.
    Still I suppose it’s a case of just selecting the data which suits your argument.
    One interesting point to note. The beginning of the 18th century included the last decade or so of the Maunder Minimum (1645-1715). However this appeared to be little effect on CET summer temperatures.

  141. “However this appeared to be little effect on CET summer temperatures.”
    Good pickup john Finn.
    So with the sun going quiet we can expect longer colder winters and short hot summers.

  142. Re: Ripper (01:42:36) :
    So with the sun going quiet we can expect longer colder winters and short hot summers.

    I seem to remember a comparable quietness of the sun was registered at the start of the twentieth century. How were winters en and summers then?

  143. “RR Kampen (02:42:18) :”‘
    Appears to be the same thing in 1911. Negative anomaly for the year but hot summer

  144. Re: Ripper (03:13:30) :
    Appears to be the same thing in 1911. Negative anomaly for the year but hot summer.

    Can you post your source for European temperatures?
    In Holland summer 1911 was hot (2006 pressed it just out of the top ten since 1901) but the winter was fairly mild (40-percentile) and the year was in the 30-percentile warmest.
    But obviously Holland is not at all representative for Europe.

  145. Nasif Nahle (22:01:16) :
    Phil. (17:57:09) :
    Nasif Nahle (10:37:18) :
    “By the way, given that you are a physicist, do you know what the absorptivity of CO2 is, at its current atmospheric Pp? How is it possible that a gas with such very low absorptivity-emissivity, which is not a primary source of energy because it doesn’t burn in the air, could heat up the Earth? Impossible!”
    Low absorptivity, what are you talking about? Here’s the actual spectra for the 15 micron band of CO2.
    “Obviously, you don’t know even what thermal absorptivity is.”

    You obviously don’t know what you’re talking about, for a start where is the word ‘thermal’ in your post?
    In any case what is important for CO2 in the atmosphere is the spectral absorptivity, as shown in the spectra I linked to CO2 does not have a low absorptivity in the portion of the IR spectrum of relevance to the Earth’s energy balance.

  146. Phil. (18:24:59) :
    I think the point of the whole matter is do the models agree with their predictions? And the answer to that is – so far not. The heating predicted by the models is far more than actuals. There is way too much uncertainty in the models to state with such certainty that temperatures will rise as predicted by the IPCC.

  147. Phil. (18:24:59) :
    Nasif Nahle (22:01:16) :
    Phil. (17:57:09) :
    Nasif Nahle (10:37:18) :
    “By the way, given that you are a physicist, do you know what the absorptivity of CO2 is, at its current atmospheric Pp? How is it possible that a gas with such very low absorptivity-emissivity, which is not a primary source of energy because it doesn’t burn in the air, could heat up the Earth? Impossible!”
    Low absorptivity, what are you talking about? Here’s the actual spectra for the 15 micron band of CO2.
    “Obviously, you don’t know even what thermal absorptivity is.”
    You obviously don’t know what you’re talking about, for a start where is the word ‘thermal’ in your post?
    In any case what is important for CO2 in the atmosphere is the spectral absorptivity, as shown in the spectra I linked to CO2 does not have a low absorptivity in the portion of the IR spectrum of relevance to the Earth’s energy balance.

    Well… What the spectral absorptivity and the thermal absorptivity of carbon dioxide are?

  148. @ Phil.
    This issue deserves a better explanation (sorry for not transcribing the paragraphs from the quotes; I don’t like to do it and you must read them directly from the sources):
    Spectral absorptivity, thermal absorptivity and monochromatic absorptivity coefficients are the same. (Pitts and Sissom. 1998. Page 309).
    For spectral absorptivity of carbon dioxide, the maximum coefficient at its maximum
    Pp in the atmosphere (i.e. 1 atm = 100%) would be 0.3. How is it? The spectral absorptivity of any gas depends on the thickness of the gas layer, although it doesn’t happen linearly. (Modest. 2003. Page 24)
    For practical calculations, we iterate spectral absorptivity of any gas according to its Pp in the atmosphere.
    Given that the carbon dioxide doesn’t constitute a layer in the atmosphere, but it is mixed with other gases, and the Pp of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not 1 atm, but 0.0034 atm, its spectral absorptivity is not 0.3, but 0.001.
    For knowing how much thermal energy emitted by the surface the carbon dioxide absorbs, we invoque the next formula:
    q = α (σ) (A) [(Ts) ^4 – (Ta) ^4]
    Where α is the spectral absorptivity of the substance. We have to introduce the difference of temperature in Kelvin between the emitter system and the absorber system, the surface and the carbon dioxide respectively.
    Let’s see a simple example:
    Let’s suppose that the temperature of the soil is 40 °C (313.15 K) and the temperature of the carbon dioxide in the air is 27 °C (300.15 K). How much thermal energy in form of heat the carbon dioxide absorbs?
    Introducing magnitudes:
    q = 0.001 (5.6697 x 10^-8 W/m^2*K^4) (1 m^2) [(313.15 K) ^4 – (300.15 K) ^4]
    q = 0.001 (5.6697 x 10^-8 W/m^2*K^4) (1 m^2) (1500124615.1905 K^4) = 0.085 W = 0.085 J/s.
    How much thermal energy is transferred from the surface to the atmospheric carbon dioxide in, let’s say, 1 s?
    Q = 0.085 J/s (1 s) = 0.085 J
    That’s the reality about the spectral absorptivity of carbon dioxide in its current concentration in the atmosphere.
    Just remember four important issues (there are more than ten):
    1. The carbon dioxide is not a black body, so its emissivity-absorptivity cannot be 1.
    2. The carbon dioxide does not occupy the whole of the atmosphere, but a small fraction of it.
    3. There are limits for the spectral, thermal or monochromatic absorptivity (or emissivity) of any substance.
    4. The carbon dioxide’s vibration-rotational band does not permit the gas to absorb energy ad infinitum.

  149. Scott Mandia (15:54:40) :
    @ Nasif Nahle (10:37:18) :
    From your comments I guess you are only considering conduction. I am talking about radiation which is emitted in all directions. You are mistaken about some basic physics and atmospheric temperature profiles. The upper troposphere is colder than anywhere in the stratosphere yet outgoing LW still moves toward this “hotter sphere”. Using your logic, do you realize that there would never be outgoing heat at the top of the atmosphere? Using your logic, the troposphere could never give heat to the regions above and we would all burn up!

    No, emissivity and absorptivity refer to radiation, not to conduction, so you are the one who lost the basic concepts. You are thinking exactly in the opposite way with respect to my argument. What my logic is from your standpoint?
    The stratosphere is cooling faster at higher altitudes than it is at lower altitudes. Yes, ozone depletion is partly responsible for the lower stratospheric cooling but a larger portion is due to less heat being absorbed from below in the troposphere. The CO2 in the stratosphere is still very good at emitting its LW upward. The incoming sunlight is not affected, meaning uv absorption by ozone (heat source) is unchanged.
    The stratosphere is cooling faster than what? The CO2 is well mixed with the other gases in the troposphere, so it cannot act as a “blanket” which impedes the transfer of heat to the stratosphere. The heat transfer from the troposphere to the stratosphere and from the stratosphere to the space is quite natural, i.e. normal.
    If the region is cooling over time then there is a radiation imbalance in the stratosphere. If heat is being trapped in the lower troposphere due to increasing greenhouse gases, there will be less incoming heat into the stratosphere. The rate of cooling is much greater at higher altitudes where there is little to no ozone but still CO2. That means that the stratosphere is cooling due to increased greenhouse gases in both the troposphere and in the stratosphere. Ozone depletion cannot account for these unequal rates of cooling.
    Heat is not trapped anywhere. As a physicist you should know that the heat, as you are handling it here, is a process function. How could you “trap” a process function?
    BTW, climate models predicted that this profile would occur under an increased greenhouse gas atmosphere.
    Predictions A posteriori, yes. The reality is that the stratosphere is cooling due to a decrease of the incoming solar radiation to the Earth and a decrease of longwave infrarred radiation emitted from the surface to the air; logically, if the surface absorbs lesser solar energy, it would release lesser LW radiation. Lesser energy for being transferred to the stratosphere.
    One other point to note is that because CO2 in the troposphere and in the upper stratosphere are causing cooling, there will be a negative side effect: more ozone loss which occurs under colder conditions.
    Cooling or warming? I thought AGW idea was that the CO2 is a “strong” GHG.
    BTW, what’s the concentration of CO2 in the stratosphere?

  150. Answer to Nasif Nahle (09:13:21) from Nasif Nahle:
    The concentration of CO2 in the stratosphere is 88% from its concentration in the troposphere, that is, ~340 ppmV.
    Given that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the stratosphere increases proportionally to the increases of the concentration of carbon dioxide in the troposphere, i.e. 1.4 ppmV / year, it would be logical that, if carbon dioxide was the cause of any warming of the troposphere, the stratosphere would be warming up also.
    Nevertheless, the stratosphere temperature is not increasing, but decreasing, despite the fact that the content of carbon dioxide over there is increasing (remember that AGWers say the carbon dioxide is a “strong” GHG).
    It is absolutely nonsensical to think that the carbon dioxide is a “coureur de bois” hunting for “heat” in the lower-middle tropospheric layers (i.e. a radiator system) while it is supposed to operate in the opposite way from the upper troposphere to the upper stratosphere. Unless you assume the induced photon emission, which would disintegrate the whole idea of AGW.
    Thus, I do not find a physical reason by which the stratosphere could be cooling down instead of warming up; unless the GH effect by carbon dioxide is a myth or has been disproportionally exaggerated, which of course it what has happened.
    On the other hand, the homogeneity of the mixture of carbon dioxide with other gases from the middle troposphere to the upper stratosphere is not homogeneous. Some volumes of air as from the middle troposphere and upper layers have 386 ppmV of carbon dioxide and other volumes have by far lower concentrations of carbon dioxide than the lower troposphere. Thus, A Priori modeling of the temperatures in those atmospheric layers becomes impossible.

  151. The reality is that the stratosphere is cooling due to a decrease of the incoming solar radiation to the Earth and a decrease of longwave infrarred radiation emitted from the surface to the air; logically, if the surface absorbs lesser solar energy, it would release lesser LW radiation. Lesser energy for being transferred to the stratosphere.
    Not true, the stratosphere cools by radiational heat loss to space from the GHG molecules such as CO2 and O3. In the stratosphere, unlike in the troposphere, there are so few collisions that any excited molecules can emit a photon and the chance of the photon hitting another GHG molecule is exceptionally low. Yet again you don’t know what you’re talking about.
    See Clough and Iacono: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995JGR…10016519C

  152. Phil. (17:34:12) :
    The reality is that the stratosphere is cooling due to a decrease of the incoming solar radiation to the Earth and a decrease of longwave infrarred radiation emitted from the surface to the air; logically, if the surface absorbs lesser solar energy, it would release lesser LW radiation. Lesser energy for being transferred to the stratosphere.
    Not true, the stratosphere cools by radiational heat loss to space from the GHG molecules such as CO2 and O3. In the stratosphere, unlike in the troposphere, there are so few collisions that any excited molecules can emit a photon and the chance of the photon hitting another GHG molecule is exceptionally low. Yet again you don’t know what you’re talking about.
    See Clough and Iacono: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995JGR…10016519C

    I’m not saying there is not radiation to the cold, 3D, unbounded space. On the contrary, I’m assuring that process. That is what has been happening always in the stratosphere; however, we observe now a cooling of the stratosphere, which means the energy absorbed by the molecules of the stratosphere is lesser than usual.
    That’s the simpliest point you are constantly lossing, besides of disregarding the first law of thermodynamics and creating energy from the nothingness… As it is usual with AGWer arguments. 🙂

  153. Phil. – why dont you cut to the chase? Is it correct that as per the CO2 greenhouse warming hypothesis there should be a “hotspot” over the tropics in the stratosphere which doesn’t exist (the so called CO2 greenhouse warming signature)?
    More importantly is it not true that the temperatures are not rising as predicted by the IPCC according to the rise in CO2?
    When the experiment doesnt agree with the hypothesis the hypothesis is proved false. Why quibble over why this is so.

  154. Nasif Nahle (20:44:18) :
    Phil. (17:34:12) :
    “The reality is that the stratosphere is cooling due to a decrease of the incoming solar radiation to the Earth and a decrease of longwave infrarred radiation emitted from the surface to the air; logically, if the surface absorbs lesser solar energy, it would release lesser LW radiation. Lesser energy for being transferred to the stratosphere.”
    Not true, the stratosphere cools by radiational heat loss to space from the GHG molecules such as CO2 and O3. In the stratosphere, unlike in the troposphere, there are so few collisions that any excited molecules can emit a photon and the chance of the photon hitting another GHG molecule is exceptionally low. Yet again you don’t know what you’re talking about.
    See Clough and Iacono: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995JGR…10016519C

    I’m not saying there is not radiation to the cold, 3D, unbounded space. On the contrary, I’m assuring that process. That is what has been happening always in the stratosphere; however, we observe now a cooling of the stratosphere, which means the energy absorbed by the molecules of the stratosphere is lesser than usual.
    No you have it backwards, the cooling is due to increased concentration of the radiators (predominantly CO2).
    That’s the simpliest point you are constantly lossing, besides of disregarding the first law of thermodynamics and creating energy from the nothingness… As it is usual with AGWer arguments. 🙂
    More of your nonsense, you just don’t understand the physics.

  155. Nasif Nahle (21:16:56) :
    @Phil….
    Your link takes us nowhere.

    Sorry about that it works for me, try googling Clough and Iacono JGR vol 100

  156. Richard (23:29:49) :
    Phil. – why dont you cut to the chase? Is it correct that as per the CO2 greenhouse warming hypothesis there should be a “hotspot” over the tropics in the stratosphere which doesn’t exist (the so called CO2 greenhouse warming signature)?

    No that’s not true, the tropical tropospheric ‘hotspot’ is a result of the moist lapse rate, not GHG.
    More importantly is it not true that the temperatures are not rising as predicted by the IPCC according to the rise in CO2?
    No, for one thing IPCC doesn’t make predictions, secondly the temperatures are rising along with CO2 subject to perturbations due to volcanos and other fluctuations.
    When the experiment doesnt agree with the hypothesis the hypothesis is proved false. Why quibble over why this is so.
    Nothing to quibble over, do you apply that logic to cosmic ray and the ‘sun did it’ schools?

  157. Sorry the previous version of this didn’t turn out right.
    Phil. (06:22:05) :
    Nasif Nahle (20:44:18) :
    Phil. (17:34:12) :
    The reality is that the stratosphere is cooling due to a decrease of the incoming solar radiation to the Earth and a decrease of longwave infrarred radiation emitted from the surface to the air; logically, if the surface absorbs lesser solar energy, it would release lesser LW radiation. Lesser energy for being transferred to the stratosphere.
    “Not true, the stratosphere cools by radiational heat loss to space from the GHG molecules such as CO2 and O3. In the stratosphere, unlike in the troposphere, there are so few collisions that any excited molecules can emit a photon and the chance of the photon hitting another GHG molecule is exceptionally low. Yet again you don’t know what you’re talking about.
    See Clough and Iacono: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995JGR…10016519C
    I’m not saying there is not radiation to the cold, 3D, unbounded space. On the contrary, I’m assuring that process. That is what has been happening always in the stratosphere; however, we observe now a cooling of the stratosphere, which means the energy absorbed by the molecules of the stratosphere is lesser than usual.

    No you have it backwards, the cooling is due to increased concentration of the radiators (predominantly CO2).
    That’s the simpliest point you are constantly lossing, besides of disregarding the first law of thermodynamics and creating energy from the nothingness… As it is usual with AGWer arguments. 🙂
    More of your nonsense, you just don’t understand the physics.

  158. Phil. (06:40:27) :
    Sorry the previous version of this didn’t turn out right.
    See Clough and Iacono: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995JGR…10016519C”

    It’s a model, not the reality.
    Nasif: I’m not saying there is not radiation to the cold, 3D, unbounded space. On the contrary, I’m assuring that process. That is what has been happening always in the stratosphere; however, we observe now a cooling of the stratosphere, which means the energy absorbed by the molecules of the stratosphere is lesser than usual.
    No you have it backwards, the cooling is due to increased concentration of the radiators (predominantly CO2).
    You are who doesn’t know physics. The values for absorptivity are the same than the values for emissivity. You pretend that the “radiators” behave in a particular way in the troposphere and into another way in the stratosphere, which is pure pseudoscience
    That’s the simpliest point you are constantly lossing, besides of disregarding the first law of thermodynamics and creating energy from the nothingness… As it is usual with AGWer arguments. 🙂
    More of your nonsense, you just don’t understand the physics.

    I have demonstrated you are who don’t know the physics. You’re inventing your own “pseudophysics”.

  159. Phil. (06:36:37) :
    Richard (23:29:49) :
    Phil. – why dont you cut to the chase? Is it correct that as per the CO2 greenhouse warming hypothesis there should be a “hotspot” over the tropics in the stratosphere which doesn’t exist (the so called CO2 greenhouse warming signature)?
    No that’s not true, the tropical tropospheric ‘hotspot’ is a result of the moist lapse rate, not GHG.

    Sorry Phil., Richard is correct:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/11/spotting-the-agw-fingerprint/
    I’ll take you back to the basics. The next paragraph (I don’t like to do this, but it is neccessary now) is from the book Radiative Heat Transfer (2003), by Michael F. Modest, page 1 (bolds are mine:
    All materials continuously emit and absorb electromagnetic waves, or photons, by lowering or rising their molecular energy levels.”
    However, you say the molecules of the stratosphere only radiate energy towards de cold, 3D, unbounded space…
    The question for you, Phil., to answer is: What the mechanism is by which your “radiators” in the stratosphere radiate energy towards the cold, 3D, unbounded space if there is not a supplier of energy? Is there a creation of energy from the nothingness or something of the kind? 🙂
    From the same book, page 2:
    “Other applications include solar energy collection (Nasif’s note: not “trapping”, which is the mystical unreal process preferred by AGWers) and the greenhouse effect (both due to emission from our high temperature Sun)”
    From this quote you can see that the greenhouse effect depends absolutely on the emissions from the sun. Is it now clear to you?
    1. For emitting energy towards the cold, 3D, unbounded space, the gases compounding the stratosphere
    must to absorb energy from a source.
    2. The source of energy is the Sun. Once the incoming solar energy has been absorbed by the surface of the Earth and by the atmospheric water vapor, it is emitted towards de cold, 3D, unbounded space, but a portion of the emitted energy by the surface is absorbed along its way by the atmospheric gases, mainly by water vapor and methane, and exiguously by the carbon dioxide.
    3. The thermal radiative properties of the tropospheric carbon dioxide are the same than the thermal radiative properties of the stratospheric carbon dioxide.
    4. As the water vapor density dramatically falls in the stratosphere, the greenhouse effect in that layer of the atmosphere is utterly affected by the load of thermal energy released from the surface and the lower and middle troposphere towards the cold, 3D, unbounded space.
    5. No way in nature for energy transfer from a low energy density system to a high energy density system.
    6. There is not a single possibility that a molecule impulsively emits more thermal energy than the total of thermal energy it contains.

  160. Nasif Nahle (07:22:18) :
    Phil. (06:40:27) :
    Sorry the previous version of this didn’t turn out right.
    See Clough and Iacono: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995JGR…10016519C”
    It’s a model, not the reality.

    Which is supported by observation, it is reality.
    Nasif: I’m not saying there is not radiation to the cold, 3D, unbounded space. On the contrary, I’m assuring that process. That is what has been happening always in the stratosphere; however, we observe now a cooling of the stratosphere, which means the energy absorbed by the molecules of the stratosphere is lesser than usual.
    “No you have it backwards, the cooling is due to increased concentration of the radiators (predominantly CO2).”
    You are who doesn’t know physics. The values for absorptivity are the same than the values for emissivity. You pretend that the “radiators” behave in a particular way in the troposphere and into another way in the stratosphere, which is pure pseudoscience

    They do! You still don’t understand how the atmosphere works!
    Near the earth’s surface an excited state CO2 is constantly bombarded by collisions with its neighboring molecules (about 10 collisions/nsec mostly N2 and O2). The fluorescence lifetime of the CO2 is much longer than that so in general the excitation energy is lost to the surroundings as kinetic energy rather than re-radiating. This physics is well known being the basis of the CO2 laser.
    As the CO2 rises into the stratosphere the mean time between collisions increases greatly allowing progressively more re-radiation, hence in the upper stratosphere this is the predominant heat loss mechanism.
    “That’s the simpliest point you are constantly lossing, besides of disregarding the first law of thermodynamics and creating energy from the nothingness… As it is usual with AGWer arguments. 🙂
    “More of your nonsense, you just don’t understand the physics.”
    I have demonstrated you are who don’t know the physics. You’re inventing your own “pseudophysics”.”
    All you have demonstrated is your own ignorance of the subject, I strongly recommend that you read Clough & Iacono where you will find the physics described for you.

  161. Phil. (09:28:24) :
    All you have demonstrated is your own ignorance of the subject, I strongly recommend that you read Clough & Iacono where you will find the physics described for you.
    I’m not saying the gases in the troposphere don’t absorb energy, but only radiate it to the space… It’s you who is saying that. Heh!
    Read my post:
    Nasif Nahle (08:58:26) :
    🙂

  162. Nasif Nahle (08:58:26) :
    Phil. (06:36:37) :
    Richard (23:29:49) :
    “Phil. – why dont you cut to the chase? Is it correct that as per the CO2 greenhouse warming hypothesis there should be a “hotspot” over the tropics in the stratosphere which doesn’t exist (the so called CO2 greenhouse warming signature)?”
    Phil.: “No that’s not true, the tropical tropospheric ‘hotspot’ is a result of the moist lapse rate, not GHG.”
    Sorry Phil., Richard is correct:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/11/spotting-the-agw-fingerprint/

    No he isn’t, Spencer in the cited post agrees with me (my emphasis added)!
    But the hotspot is not a unique signature of manmade greenhouse gases. It simply reflects anomalous heating of the troposphere — no matter what its source. Anomalous heating gets spread throughout the depth of the troposphere by convection, and greater temperature rise in the upper troposphere than in the lower troposphere is because of latent heat release (rainfall formation) there.
    For instance, a natural decrease in cloud cover would have had the same effect. It would lead to increased solar warming of the ocean, followed by warming and humidifying of the global atmosphere and an acceleration of the hydrologic cycle.
    Thus, while possibly significant from the standpoint of indicating problems with feedbacks in climate models, the lack of a hotspot no more disproves manmade global warming than the existence of the hotspot would have proved manmade global warming. At most, it would be evidence that the warming influence of increasing GHGs in the models has been exaggerated, probably due to exaggerated positive feedback from water vapor.”
    I’ll take you back to the basics. The next paragraph (I don’t like to do this, but it is neccessary now) is from the book Radiative Heat Transfer (2003), by Michael F. Modest, page 1 (bolds are mine:
    “All materials continuously emit and absorb electromagnetic waves, or photons, by lowering or rising their molecular energy levels.”

    Should be ‘discretely’ but otherwise ok.
    However, you say the molecules of the stratosphere only radiate energy towards de cold, 3D, unbounded space…
    No I don’t, and in any case your quote says nothing about direction. However the downwardly emitted radiation is into a thicker atmosphere and therefore is more likely to be absorbed by other molecules unlike the photons emitted outwards.
    The question for you, Phil., to answer is: What the mechanism is by which your “radiators” in the stratosphere radiate energy towards the cold, 3D, unbounded space if there is not a supplier of energy? Is there a creation of energy from the nothingness or something of the kind? 🙂
    Where do you get the idea that there was no supplier of energy? Even if there wasn’t they would still cool until they were in the lowest vibrational state in the ground electronic state. See below.
    From the same book, page 2:
    “Other applications include solar energy collection (Nasif’s note: not “trapping”, which is the mystical unreal process preferred by AGWers) and the greenhouse effect (both due to emission from our high temperature Sun)”
    From this quote you can see that the greenhouse effect depends absolutely on the emissions from the sun. Is it now clear to you?

    Ultimately all emissions from the earth depend on emissions from the sun, so what?
    1. For emitting energy towards the cold, 3D, unbounded space, the gases compounding the stratosphere must to absorb energy from a source.
    To continuously emit they must absorb energy.
    2. The source of energy is the Sun. Once the incoming solar energy has been absorbed by the surface of the Earth and by the atmospheric water vapor, it is emitted towards de cold, 3D, unbounded space, but a portion of the emitted energy by the surface is absorbed along its way by the atmospheric gases, mainly by water vapor and methane, and exiguously by the carbon dioxide.
    Indirectly from the sun, either by absorbing IR from the surface (or lower parts of the atmosphere, clouds etc.) or via collisions from other high energy molecules (even though less frequently than in the troposphere).
    3. The thermal radiative properties of the tropospheric carbon dioxide are the same than the thermal radiative properties of the stratospheric carbon dioxide.
    Yes but their collisional environment isn’t which is what makes the difference, as I explained above.
    4. As the water vapor density dramatically falls in the stratosphere, the greenhouse effect in that layer of the atmosphere is utterly affected by the load of thermal energy released from the surface and the lower and middle troposphere towards the cold, 3D, unbounded space.
    I’ve no idea what this is supposed to mean, try again in English.
    5. No way in nature for energy transfer from a low energy density system to a high energy density system.
    Yes there is, it’s called radiation. Had you said ‘net energy transfer’ it would be more accurate. If you were right then thermocouple radiation shields in combustion chambers wouldn’t work.
    6. There is not a single possibility that a molecule impulsively emits more thermal energy than the total of thermal energy it contains.
    Which has nothing to do with this discussion.

  163. Phil. (13:01:39) :
    Sorry Phil., Richard is correct:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/11/spotting-the-agw-fingerprint/
    No he isn’t, Spencer in the cited post agrees with me (my emphasis added)!
    “But the hotspot is not a unique signature of manmade greenhouse gases. It simply reflects anomalous heating of the troposphere — no matter what its source. Anomalous heating gets spread throughout the depth of the troposphere by convection, and greater temperature rise in the upper troposphere than in the lower troposphere is because of latent heat release (rainfall formation) there.

    You didn’t read it well… 🙂 You lost the next sentence from Roy’s article:
    “For instance, the famous “hot spot” seen in the figure has become a hot topic in recent years since at least two satellite temperature datasets (including our UAH dataset), and most radiosonde data analyses suggest the tropical hotspot does not exist.”
    Bolds are mine… 🙂
    For instance, a natural decrease in cloud cover would have had the same effect. It would lead to increased solar warming of the ocean, followed by warming and humidifying of the global atmosphere and an acceleration of the hydrologic cycle.
    Phil. Why you snipped the last sentence in the above paragraph? 🙂
    “…and most radiosonde data analyses suggest the tropical hotspot does not exist.”
    It’s seems your pseudophysics is hastily progressing.
    I’ll take you back to the basics. The next paragraph (I don’t like to do this, but it is neccessary now) is from the book Radiative Heat Transfer (2003), by Michael F. Modest, page 1 (bolds are mine:
    “All materials continuously emit and absorb electromagnetic waves, or photons, by lowering or rising their molecular energy levels.”
    Should be ‘discretely’ but otherwise ok.

    Oh, no! Not discretely, but continuously. The energy radiated depends on the energy absorbed. Quite simple.
    However, you say the molecules of the stratosphere only radiate energy towards de cold, 3D, unbounded space…
    No I don’t, and in any case your quote says nothing about direction. However the downwardly emitted radiation is into a thicker atmosphere and therefore is more likely to be absorbed by other molecules unlike the photons emitted outwards.

    Another problem on thermodynamics knowledge. Now you are saying that the stratosphere radiates towards a hotter system instead a colder one.
    The question for you, Phil., to answer is: What the mechanism is by which your “radiators” in the stratosphere radiate energy towards the cold, 3D, unbounded space if there is not a supplier of energy? Is there a creation of energy from the nothingness or something of the kind? 🙂
    Where do you get the idea that there was no supplier of energy? Even if there wasn’t they would still cool until they were in the lowest vibrational state in the ground electronic state. See below.

    You said it.
    From the same book, page 2:
    “Other applications include solar energy collection (Nasif’s note: not “trapping”, which is the mystical unreal process preferred by AGWers) and the greenhouse effect (both due to emission from our high temperature Sun)”
    From this quote you can see that the greenhouse effect depends absolutely on the emissions from the sun. Is it now clear to you?
    Ultimately all emissions from the earth depend on emissions from the sun, so what?

    Good!!! You’re learning.
    1. For emitting energy towards the cold, 3D, unbounded space, the gases compounding the stratosphere must to absorb energy from a source.
    To continuously emit they must absorb energy.
    2. The source of energy is the Sun. Once the incoming solar energy has been absorbed by the surface of the Earth and by the atmospheric water vapor, it is emitted towards de cold, 3D, unbounded space, but a portion of the emitted energy by the surface is absorbed along its way by the atmospheric gases, mainly by water vapor and methane, and exiguously by the carbon dioxide.
    Phil. says: Indirectly from the sun, either by absorbing IR from the surface (or lower parts of the atmosphere, clouds etc.) or via collisions from other high energy molecules (even though less frequently than in the troposphere).

    And you will say you didn’t say it… There is no other primary source of energy than the Sun. If the solar energy doesn’t warm the surface, the atmosphere either would be warmed.
    3. The thermal radiative properties of the tropospheric carbon dioxide are the same than the thermal radiative properties of the stratospheric carbon dioxide.
    Phil. says: Yes but their collisional environment isn’t which is what makes the difference, as I explained above.

    Again, are the thermal properties of the carbon dioxide different in the stratosphere than in the troposphere? No, they are the same, and the same laws apply.
    4. As the water vapor density dramatically falls in the stratosphere, the greenhouse effect in that layer of the atmosphere is utterly affected by the load of thermal energy released from the surface and the lower and middle troposphere towards the cold, 3D, unbounded space.
    Phil. says: I’ve no idea what this is supposed to mean, try again in English.

    El vapor de agua está presente en exiguas cantidades en la estratósfera, es por eso que el efecto de calentamiento es mucho menor que en la troposfera. Aún cuando la concentración de bióxido de carbono es casi la misma en la estratósfera (340 ppmV) que en la troposfera (386 ppmV).
    Check?
    5. No way in nature for energy transfer from a low energy density system to a high energy density system.
    Yes there is, it’s called radiation. Had you said ‘net energy transfer’ it would be more accurate. If you were right then thermocouple radiation shields in combustion chambers wouldn’t work.

    Now you’re integrating a pseudothermodynamics to your pseudophysics. 🙂
    You’re changing the second law of thermodynamics. Please, don’t come with the myth that the second law can be violated by the carbon dioxide, or that the second law is different in your world; Ok?
    6. There is not a single possibility that a molecule impulsively emits more thermal energy than the total of thermal energy it contains.
    Which has nothing to do with this discussion.

    It’s the root of the discussion. You’re creating energy from the nothingness.

  164. A thought about the tropopause.
    I have previously suggested that the oceans introduce variations in the flow of (originally) solar energy through the Earth system which the air circulations then have to counter in order to ensure that energy leaving the Earth matches energy reaching the Earth.
    The variable speed of the hydro cycle moves energy at variable speeds from the surface to the top of the tropopause.
    Variations in the air circulations in the stratosphere would then control the rate of energy release to space.
    Both processes are always opposing each other and it is the ever changing balance between them that causes climate variability.
    It seems obvious that there would be a boundary between the predominance of the hydro cycle in the tropopause and the predominance of the other air circulations in the stratosphere. That would be the tropopause.
    Furthermore the height of the tropopause would vary depending on which process was ‘winning’ at any given moment.
    Warming should produce a higher tropopause and cooling a lower tropopause (on average globally in each case).
    The presence of a sharp discontinuity at the tropopause gives some weight to my general climate description.

  165. Nasif Nahle (13:57:18) :
    Phil. (13:01:39) :
    Sorry Phil., Richard is correct:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/11/spotting-the-agw-fingerprint/
    No he isn’t, Spencer in the cited post agrees with me (my emphasis added)!
    “But the hotspot is not a unique signature of manmade greenhouse gases. It simply reflects anomalous heating of the troposphere — no matter what its source. Anomalous heating gets spread throughout the depth of the troposphere by convection, and greater temperature rise in the upper troposphere than in the lower troposphere is because of latent heat release (rainfall formation) there.
    You didn’t read it well… 🙂

    I’m afraid it’s your comprehension of English that’s at fault, Spencer agrees with me that the ‘hotspot’ is not a consequence of the GHE.
    You lost the next sentence from Roy’s article:
    “For instance, the famous “hot spot” seen in the figure has become a hot topic in recent years since at least two satellite temperature datasets (including our UAH dataset), and most radiosonde data analyses suggest the tropical hotspot does not exist.”
    Bolds are mine… 🙂
    For instance, a natural decrease in cloud cover would have had the same effect. It would lead to increased solar warming of the ocean, followed by warming and humidifying of the global atmosphere and an acceleration of the hydrologic cycle.
    Phil. Why you snipped the last sentence in the above paragraph? 🙂
    “…and most radiosonde data analyses suggest the tropical hotspot does not exist.”

    Which has no impact on the GHE as Spencer says in that post!
    I’ll take you back to the basics. The next paragraph (I don’t like to do this, but it is neccessary now) is from the book Radiative Heat Transfer (2003), by Michael F. Modest, page 1 (bolds are mine:
    “All materials continuously emit and absorb electromagnetic waves, or photons, by lowering or rising their molecular energy levels.”
    “Should be ‘discretely’ but otherwise ok.”
    Oh, no! Not discretely, but continuously. The energy radiated depends on the energy absorbed. Quite simple.

    Actually it doesn’t, there’s the matter of quantum mechanics and collisional quenching to be considered.
    However, you say the molecules of the stratosphere only radiate energy towards de cold, 3D, unbounded space…
    “No I don’t, and in any case your quote says nothing about direction. However the downwardly emitted radiation is into a thicker atmosphere and therefore is more likely to be absorbed by other molecules unlike the photons emitted outwards.”
    Another problem on thermodynamics knowledge. Now you are saying that the stratosphere radiates towards a hotter system instead a colder one.

    Yes it radiates in all directions, the molecule emitting a photon doesn’t know anything about the temperature of distant objects, according to your physics a satellite passing between the sun and the earth wouldn’t be able to see the earth because all the molecules on earth would know not to emit in that direction!
    The question for you, Phil., to answer is: What the mechanism is by which your “radiators” in the stratosphere radiate energy towards the cold, 3D, unbounded space if there is not a supplier of energy? Is there a creation of energy from the nothingness or something of the kind? 🙂
    I’ve already told you, absorption of IR and collision with other energetic molecules.
    “Where do you get the idea that there was no supplier of energy? Even if there wasn’t they would still cool until they were in the lowest vibrational state in the ground electronic state. See below.”
    You said it.

    No you dreamt it up.
    From the same book, page 2:
    “Other applications include solar energy collection (Nasif’s note: not “trapping”, which is the mystical unreal process preferred by AGWers) and the greenhouse effect (both due to emission from our high temperature Sun)”
    From this quote you can see that the greenhouse effect depends absolutely on the emissions from the sun. Is it now clear to you?
    “Ultimately all emissions from the earth depend on emissions from the sun, so what?”
    Good!!! You’re learning.
    1. For emitting energy towards the cold, 3D, unbounded space, the gases compounding the stratosphere must to absorb energy from a source.
    “To continuously emit they must absorb energy.”
    2. The source of energy is the Sun. Once the incoming solar energy has been absorbed by the surface of the Earth and by the atmospheric water vapor, it is emitted towards de cold, 3D, unbounded space, but a portion of the emitted energy by the surface is absorbed along its way by the atmospheric gases, mainly by water vapor and methane, and exiguously by the carbon dioxide.
    Phil. says: Indirectly from the sun, either by absorbing IR from the surface (or lower parts of the atmosphere, clouds etc.) or via collisions from other high energy molecules (even though less frequently than in the troposphere).
    And you will say you didn’t say it… There is no other primary source of energy than the Sun. If the solar energy doesn’t warm the surface, the atmosphere either would be warmed.

    There appears to be something missing here.
    3. The thermal radiative properties of the tropospheric carbon dioxide are the same than the thermal radiative properties of the stratospheric carbon dioxide.
    Phil. says:” Yes but their collisional environment isn’t which is what makes the difference, as I explained above.”
    Again, are the thermal properties of the carbon dioxide different in the stratosphere than in the troposphere? No, they are the same, and the same laws apply.

    The same laws apply but the environments are different hence you have collisional quenching in the troposphere but not it the stratosphere.
    4. As the water vapor density dramatically falls in the stratosphere, the greenhouse effect in that layer of the atmosphere is utterly affected by the load of thermal energy released from the surface and the lower and middle troposphere towards the cold, 3D, unbounded space.
    Phil. says: I’ve no idea what this is supposed to mean, try again in English.
    El vapor de agua está presente en exiguas cantidades en la estratósfera, es por eso que el efecto de calentamiento es mucho menor que en la troposfera. Aún cuando la concentración de bióxido de carbono es casi la misma en la estratósfera (340 ppmV) que en la troposfera (386 ppmV).

    Funny sort of English. In Spanish it makes more sense but it’s still not right as far as the physics is concerned, ‘en la estratósfera no hay un efecto de calentamiento pero hay un efecto de enfriamiento’.
    5. No way in nature for energy transfer from a low energy density system to a high energy density system.
    “Yes there is, it’s called radiation. Had you said ‘net energy transfer’ it would be more accurate. If you were right then thermocouple radiation shields in combustion chambers wouldn’t work.”
    Now you’re integrating a pseudothermodynamics to your pseudophysics. 🙂
    You’re changing the second law of thermodynamics. Please, don’t come with the myth that the second law can be violated by the carbon dioxide, or that the second law is different in your world; Ok?

    Actually it’s you that is changing the second law, the one you apparently believe in doesn’t work in this universe!
    6. There is not a single possibility that a molecule impulsively emits more thermal energy than the total of thermal energy it contains.
    Which has nothing to do with this discussion.
    It’s the root of the discussion. You’re creating energy from the nothingness.

    Only in your head!

  166. Phil. (16:49:51) :
    “But the hotspot is not a unique signature of manmade greenhouse gases. It simply reflects anomalous heating of the troposphere — no matter what its source. Anomalous heating gets spread throughout the depth of the troposphere by convection, and greater temperature rise in the upper troposphere than in the lower troposphere is because of latent heat release (rainfall formation) there.
    You didn’t read it well… 🙂
    Phil. says: I’m afraid it’s your comprehension of English that’s at fault, Spencer agrees with me that the ‘hotspot’ is not a consequence of the GHE.

    And you don’t read English. What “hotspot”? Spencer is saying it clearly:
    “…and most radiosonde data analyses suggest the tropical hotspot does not exist.”
    Again… You lost and snipped that sentence from Roy’s article:
    For instance, a natural decrease in cloud cover would have had the same effect. It would lead to increased solar warming of the ocean, followed by warming and humidifying of the global atmosphere and an acceleration of the hydrologic cycle.
    Phil. Why you snipped the last sentence in the above paragraph? 🙂
    “…and most radiosonde data analyses suggest the tropical hotspot does not exist.”
    Phil. says: Which has no impact on the GHE as Spencer says in that post!

    No impact? The “hotspot” doesn’t exist but in your pseudoclimatology! 🙂
    “Should be ‘discretely’ but otherwise ok.”
    Oh, no! Not discretely, but continuously. The energy radiated depends on the energy absorbed. Quite simple.
    Actually it doesn’t, there’s the matter of quantum mechanics and collisional quenching to be considered.

    Someone here is confunding liquids and solids with gases and it’s not me… Heh! From the same Modest’s book, page 3:
    “Thermal radiative energy may be viewed as consisting of electromagnetic waves (as predicted by electromagnetic wave theory) or as consisting of massless energy parcels, called photons (as predicted by quantum mechanics).
    If you say that the energy radiated is not part of the energy absorbed,, as Modest and all physicists say, you are saying that energy is created from the nothingness or that molecules are changing their physical nature, which is plain pseudoscience.
    Another problem on thermodynamics knowledge. Now you are saying that the stratosphere radiates towards a hotter system instead a colder one.
    Phil. says: Yes it radiates in all directions, the molecule emitting a photon doesn’t know anything about the temperature of distant objects, according to your physics a satellite passing between the sun and the earth wouldn’t be able to see the earth because all the molecules on earth would know not to emit in that direction!

    You are trying to get rid of the second law of thermodynamics, uh? Your example of a satellite is similar to the question: Have you seen your brain? No? Then you cannot demonstrate you have brain.
    I’ve already told you, absorption of IR and collision with other energetic molecules.
    Pointless argument.
    There appears to be something missing here.
    Yes, you lost the second law of thermodynamics.
    Again, are the thermal properties of the carbon dioxide different in the stratosphere than in the troposphere? No, they are the same, and the same laws apply.
    The same laws apply but the environments are different hence you have collisional quenching in the troposphere but not it the stratosphere.

    The mechanisms of heat transfer are the same, everywhere, and the laws of thermodynamics governs all, everywhere.
    El vapor de agua está presente en exiguas cantidades en la estratósfera, es por eso que el efecto de calentamiento es mucho menor que en la troposfera. Aún cuando la concentración de bióxido de carbono es casi la misma en la estratósfera (340 ppmV) que en la troposfera (386 ppmV).
    Funny sort of English. In Spanish it makes more sense but it’s still not right as far as the physics is concerned, ‘en la estratósfera no hay un efecto de calentamiento pero hay un efecto de enfriamiento’.

    You see? I told you that yesterday, and I am right. The stratosphere is undergoing a cooling period despite the large concentration of carbon dioxide over there (340 ppmV and increasing day by day).
    BTW, the stratosphere receives energy from the Sun, through UVB collisions with ozone. The thermal energy is transferred from the upper layer to the lower layer of the stratosphere by conduction. The stratosphere also receives thermal energy in form of heat from below, through the troposphere, and the energy is transferred from the troposphere to the lower layer of the stratosphere by convection. The thermal energy absorbed by the gases in the stratosphere is transferred inside the stratosphere through horizontal convection, since there is not vertical mixing in the stratosphere.
    Graph on the cooling of the stratosphere:
    http://www.biocab.org/Temperature_Anomaly_Stratosphere.jpg
    5. No way in nature for energy transfer from a low energy density system to a high energy density system.
    “Yes there is, it’s called radiation. Had you said ‘net energy transfer’ it would be more accurate. If you were right then thermocouple radiation shields in combustion chambers wouldn’t work.”
    Now you’re integrating a pseudothermodynamics to your pseudophysics. 🙂
    You’re changing the second law of thermodynamics. Please, don’t come with the myth that the second law can be violated by the carbon dioxide, or that the second law is different in your world; Ok?
    Actually it’s you that is changing the second law, the one you apparently believe in doesn’t work in this universe!

    Are you suggesting the heat transfer occurs from cold systems to hot systems? Wow! Not new in AGW postmodernist ideology.
    6. There is not a single possibility that a molecule impulsively emits more thermal energy than the total of thermal energy it contains.
    Which has nothing to do with this discussion.
    It’s the root of the discussion. You’re creating energy from the nothingness.
    Only in your head!

    And in the head of all scientists on this world. No source of energy, no energy added to the system. You are arguing that the thermal energy is not transferred from the Sun and from the troposphere to the molecules in the stratosphere; consequently, you are suggesting the creation of energy from the nothingness; then, it is the most important thing to handle on this “discussion”.

  167. Nasif your lack of physical knowledge and inability to understand English is mind boggling, it’s a waste of everyone’s bandwidth trying to explain it to you (reminiscent of a similarly futile discussion between you and Leif)!
    An example:
    You say: “You are arguing that the thermal energy is not transferred from the Sun and from the troposphere to the molecules in the stratosphere;”
    Whereas I actually said referring to CO2 in the stratosphere: “Indirectly from the sun, either by absorbing IR from the surface (or lower parts of the atmosphere, clouds etc.) or via collisions from other high energy molecules (even though less frequently than in the troposphere).”

  168. Phil. (21:38:08) :
    Nasif your lack of physical knowledge and inability to understand English is mind boggling, it’s a waste of everyone’s bandwidth trying to explain it to you (reminiscent of a similarly futile discussion between you and Leif)!
    An example:
    You say: “You are arguing that the thermal energy is not transferred from the Sun and from the troposphere to the molecules in the stratosphere;”
    Whereas I actually said referring to CO2 in the stratosphere: “Indirectly from the sun, either by absorbing IR from the surface (or lower parts of the atmosphere, clouds etc.) or via collisions from other high energy molecules (even though less frequently than in the troposphere).”

    I don’t know a bit of your pseudophysics, if it is that what you are referring to. I have quoted what I have been sustained. You have not.
    Regarding the point you put as an example, you say the CO2 in the stratosphere absorbs energy “indirectly” from the Sun, while we know that the CO2 in the stratosphere absorbs “directly” UVB from the Sun.
    It’s not a matter of good or bad understanding of English, but of clean science. I do science without distorsions, i.e. clean science. You don’t. For example when you say that photons cannot distinguish the system in a high energy state from a system in a low energy state, which is senseless. I never said the photons were intelligent; however, there is a clear trajectory in the Universe for all thermal processes; it is from high to low. The law is quite clear: colder systems never will heat up to hotter systems.
    Show me a single book on heat transfer which says the opposite. I can show you many books on heat transfer which supports what I say.

    REPLY:
    Your “clean science” is ridiculous, and wrong, I’m with Phil on this one, even though I disagree with him on many occasions. I banned you once for getting into this “clean science” argument, but you kept coming back saying your right to free speech was threatened, blah blah etc. You won’t have another argument like that here. Your choice is this. 1) move on to another topic, or 2) get out. – Anthony

  169. Phil. (06:36:37) :
    Richard (23:29:49) :
    Phil. – why dont you cut to the chase? Is it correct that as per the CO2 greenhouse warming hypothesis there should be a “hotspot” over the tropics in the stratosphere which doesn’t exist (the so called CO2 greenhouse warming signature)?

    “No that’s not true, the tropical tropospheric ‘hotspot’ is a result of the moist lapse rate, not GHG.”
    Not so accoring to the IPCC AR4 report the tropical hotspot is the SPECIFIC signature of AGW
    More importantly is it not true that the temperatures are not rising as predicted by the IPCC according to the rise in CO2?
    “No, for one thing IPCC doesn’t make predictions, secondly the temperatures are rising along with CO2 subject to perturbations due to volcanos and other fluctuations.”
    Wrong on both counts. The IPCC temperature rise graph scenarios are specific predictions and they do not match with reality.
    When the experiment doesnt agree with the hypothesis the hypothesis is proved false. Why quibble over why this is so.
    “Nothing to quibble over, do you apply that logic to cosmic ray and the ’sun did it’ schools?”
    Look up the fallacy in your argument. During the Vikings times – Thor must cause thunder because we can think of no other explanation or the Flying spaghetti monster must have done it because we know that superman and batman didnt.

Comments are closed.