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
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)
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
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.