September 2009 Global Temperature Update for UAH and RSS

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 😀

NINO3.4 SST anomalies are still elevated, about the same level they’ve been at for the past few months, but Global SST anomalies have dropped (0.05 deg C for OI.v2 data & 0.07 deg C for ERSST.v3b data) from August to September. Will next month’s TLT anomalies reflect the significant drop in Global SST?
The monthly SST anomaly update is here:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/10/september-2009-sst-anomaly-update.html

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.

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.

Just in time for the October snows …

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

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.

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.

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

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.

Mount Washington New Hampshire.
Come talk to me about warming when it starts warming up there in January.
http://i38.tinypic.com/rvhsv8.jpg

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?

Yes definitely AGW is causing this, we is totally convinced now…

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

How do they get a world average?

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

Thank you Dr. Spencer for providing real data. Its a breath of fresh air in this whole mess.

Why ’79 to ’98 as an average base line?

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.

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.

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.

Adam from Kansas (13:41:36) :
Here it comes.

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?

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?

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.

“”” 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.

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!

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

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.

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.

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. 🙂

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).

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.

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.

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.

At least on this site we can discuss it. What say you about that Scott?

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.

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!

Richard (17:23:46) : George E. Smith (16:16:40) :
Which Phil?
I can’t tell them apart!

” 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

“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.

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).

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.

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

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

[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.

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.

@ 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.

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) :

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.

@ 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.

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).

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….

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…

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.

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.

Maybe it is warmer because it is dryer.

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.

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.

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.

@ Andrew (07:57:29) :
See my page here which shows the data:
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/greenhouse_gases.html#stratospheric_cooling
Junkscience is your source? Do you have a real source and not a political lobbyist’s opinion? How about a journal article?
Volcanoes cannot explain the cooling rate being measured in the stratosphere. Volcanic eruptions are easy to spot so we know when they influence the atmosphere. :))

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!

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.

Phil M (09:16:04) :
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/
– the problem is that the 18C century temps aren’t correctly corrected for UHI!”
Thanks Phil, is that the only problem?

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.

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.

@ 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.

************************************
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

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.

“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.

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

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.

@ 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.

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.

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. 🙂

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.

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) :
🙂

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.