By Andy May
It is common for the news media and consensus scientists to report global average surface temperatures without mentioning that both the warming rate and average temperatures vary a lot around the Earth over one year. For example, Earth’s global average surface temperature varies about 7° F every year. The rate also varies by hemisphere. Phil Jones and colleagues[1] show that the global average monthly temperature, from 1961-1990, was about 54° F in January and 61° F in July. In the Northern Hemisphere it varied from 46° F in January to 70° F in July, the respective average temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere are 61° F and 51° F.
As shown in Figure 1, the Hadley Climatic Research Unit HadCRUT5 temperature dataset suggests the Northern Hemisphere warmed 0.74°C (1.3° F) more than the Southern Hemisphere from 1979 through 2021. The UAH satellite temperature lower troposphere record is directionally similar but the difference between the hemispheres is much less, as shown in Figure 2. Both figures have identical vertical scales of 1.4°C. The UAH global satellite warming difference, from 1979 to 2021, between the hemispheres is about 0.2°C (0.4° F), less by more than a factor of 3.
The UAH and HadCRUT5 Southern Hemisphere warming rates are nearly identical, both are roughly 0.2 F per decade. But the Northern Hemisphere rates are very different, the HadCRUT5 rate is about 0.5 degrees F per decade and the UAH rate is 0.29 degrees F per decade. The HadCRUT5 Northern Hemisphere rate is a whopping 72% more than the UAH satellite rate. In the Southern Hemisphere the UAH warming rate is slightly larger than the HadCRUT5 rate, but the difference is very small, only 5%, and probably not significant. But 72% is certainly significant.
A difference in hemispheric warming rates is characteristic of solar and orbital forcing due to the tilt of Earth’s axis relative to the orbital plane combined with Earth’s rotation. It is not characteristic of forcing due to a well-mixed greenhouse gas, like CO2. The large Northern Hemisphere HadCRUT5 warming rate is suspicious.
About 68% of Earth’s land area is in the Northern Hemisphere, and the HadCRUT5 surface temperature record is a combination of two very different datasets. The HadSST4 sea surface temperature dataset measures the temperature at an ocean depth of about one foot and the CRUTEM5 land-surface dataset measures air temperature at an altitude of about six feet. The UAH satellite dataset is a lower troposphere dataset, and measures air temperature at about 10,000 feet, the measurements are all made using the same satellite data, as explained in my previous post.
It is possible that the urban heat island effect,[2] combined with the UK Hadley Centre “homogenization” algorithm has contaminated the land-only CRUTEM5 record and distorted it.[3] Because land surface temperatures are often highly variable over short distances there is a need to “homogenize” or smooth them to get mappable values. One of the large differences is between cities and rural weather stations, since cities are warmer than the surrounding countryside due to pavement, cars, air conditioners, etc. The difference is the urban heat island effect, and as Nicola Scafetta explains[3] the homogenization of the surface temperatures has the effect of spreading the extra warming in cities over large areas. He calls this “urban blending.”
If we look at the whole HadCRUT5 hemispheric record, the difference in rates shown in Figure 1 looks even more suspicious, as shown in Figure 3. The very large difference between the hemispheres is not seen in the earlier years of the HadCRUT5 record.
Conclusions
The UAH and HadCRUT5 records both show the Northern Hemisphere warming more rapidly than the Southern, but the amount of extra warming in the HadCRUT5 record is anomalous. While the Southern Hemisphere satellite and surface rates are similar, the Northern Hemisphere rates are very different.
The global UAH lower troposphere and HadSST4 warming rates are both 0.14°C/decade from 1979 to 2020, the same to two decimals, as shown in my previous post. The oceans cover 70% of Earth’s surface and the HadSST4 dataset is used in combination with the CRUTEM5 land-surface temperature record to produce the curves in Figure 1. Given this, the large difference in Northern Hemisphere warming rates between Figures 1 and 2 is very hard to explain. Frankly, it suggests there is a problem with CRUTEM5. Figure 3 suggests the problem is getting worse in recent years, not better. This topic is discussed in more detail in my latest book: The Great Climate Change Debate: Karoly v Happer.
The bibliography can be downloaded here.
This post was originally published at the CO2 Coalition.
-
(Jones, New, Parker, Martin, & Rigor, 1999) ↑
-
The Urban Heat Island effect is the result of humans paving over land and replacing transpiring trees and plants that have a natural cooling effect. Humans also have heat generating air conditioners, factories, and vehicles. Cities can be up to 7 degrees warmer than the surrounding countryside. ↑
-
(Scafetta, 2021) explains how the urban heat island corrupts the global surface temperature record. ↑
Clearly the Southern Hemisphere needs more urban stations reporting.
It seems the author didn’t consider that the Northern Hemisphere has more land mass than the southern hemisphere which could account for higher temperatures in the NH.
There is a slight difference between the UAH SH and NH records, but the difference is much more pronounced at the surface – hence the suggestion the problem is UHI effect. If the cause was global warming, that should have manifested as a stronger UAH NH trend.
The main reason for the slower surface warming in the SH is the fact that it is mostly ocean, which has greater thermal inertia than air.
How does UHI explain the fact that the fastest rate of land surface warming is occurring in the sparsly populated Arctic, instead of the heavily populated lower latitude regions?
TheFinalNail,
The UHI has no effect on the Arctic warming, but that is not the purpose of this post. I just wanted to highlight that the NH surface is warming faster than the lower to middle troposphere -or- there is a problem with CRUTEM. Either way the CMIP models fail. This is part of a series and this post explains some of your questions:
Comparing AR5 to AR6 – Andy May Petrophysicist
Andy
The rate of NH surface warming in HadCRUT5 since 1979 is +0.28C/dec. In GISS it’s also +0.28C/dec and in NOAA/NCDC it’s +0.25C/dec. The other widely cited source of lower tropospheric temperatures, RSS, shows a NH trend of +0.26C/dec since 1979. It seems that the ‘problem’ here might lie with UAH.
So – blame the ocean, blame the method of obtaining data, blame the researchers that compiled the data set but never, ever question the underlying hypothesis? Frickin’ hilarious!
Nail,
The makers of the RSS temperature record got “the faith” in 1999 when they started increasing their reported values. They have now artificially increased their data by about 0.16C since then. This accounts for all of the difference. See climate4you for the data. Also unexplained is the ever growing difference between the US Climate Reference Network data showing no change for 17 years, and the other surface temperature datasets. Yes it’s only the US which is not all the earth, but the Network is a set of triply redundant sensors covering all the lower 48 at locations remote from human structures or other influence. The network data is, I am told, unadjusted. As an American, I know that we are exceptional, but that exceptional?
My understanding is that the RSS team discovered serious flaws in the earliest version of UAH, forcing UAH to revise its method.
Interesting, I think the corrections go both ways. Roy Spencer claims that the RSS methodology is using a bad satellite: NOAA-14, from 2001 to 2004. There were clear problems with NOAA-14, which was running hot due to orbital decay and other problems but RSS included the bad data anyway. UAH did not use the bad data. Spencer and Christy also found an instrument body temperature effect problem that RSS had in their methodology. For a complete discussion of the differences and independent verification of the UAH record, see here:
UAH, RSS, NOAA, UW: Which Satellite Dataset Should We Believe? « Roy Spencer, PhD (drroyspencer.com)
There are outstanding problems with RSS that have not been fixed, although I think they fixed the instrument housing problem. Attached is a plot comparing both RSS and UAH to radiosonde data. Clearly UAH matches better.
For a very thorough and peer-reviewed discussion of radiosonde and satellite data, see here:
(PDF) Examination of space-based bulk atmospheric temperatures used in climate research (researchgate.net)
What does that have to do with current methodologies? Misdirection is a hallmark of an ideological shill.
Except the UAH data correlates with the Weather Balloon data.
What does that say about the other data sets? Are UAH and the Weather Balloons outliers, or is it the other data sets that are off the mark?
Keep seeing that claim, never seen it substantiated. What balloon data exactly are you referring to and where can it be obtained?
Here is the paper:
(PDF) Examination of space-based bulk atmospheric temperatures used in climate research (researchgate.net)
Bingo!
TheFinalNail, Fine. Let us assume the problem is with UAH, I don’t believe that, but for the sake of argument let’s say that is so. Then the surface is warming faster than the Lower Troposphere. If that is so all the CMIP models are wrong. Every one of them predicts the opposite. Like I said, given the data I plotted in this post the IPCC is wrong regardless of who is correct, although they are more wrong if HadCRUT5, GISS, NOAA, and RSS are correct. See the post in my previous comment or below for more details and peer-reviewed references, plus page numbers in AR6:
The problem with climate models – Andy May Petrophysicist
I would have to say that given the different amounts of land in each hemisphere (68% to 32%) this 1/3rd difference is not representative of the difference in temperatures. The numbers still don’t add up.
main reason for the slower surface warming in the SH is the fact that it is mostly ocean,
that might be plausible if the SST hadn’t warmed at the exact same rate as the lower troposphere
How does UHI explain the fact that the fastest rate of land surface warming is occurring in the sparsely populated Arctic
doesn’t take a whole city… as SurfaceStations found, UHI effects in remote areas can be as simple as new asphalt near the station
and because the number of stations is correlated to the population density, a much smaller Arctic siting problem can affect temperatures over a much wider area during the homogenization phase of modelling surface temperatures
Also, my understanding is that UHI effects are much, much more pronounced in cold climates than in warmer climates.
“The main reason for the slower surface warming in the SH is the fact that it is mostly ocean, which has greater thermal inertia than air.” This is not the reason that land warms faster than SST, the forcing is so small that the thermal inertia of the mixed layer does not dampen the warming as it had to be. In contrast the reason is the limited evaporation over land areas, which is not the case over the oceans. This issue is well known since 1996 or so.
One would need to dive down to Atlantis to get the data.
If it is supposed to be global climate change, hemispheric differences would show doubt of a single cause. Milankovich effects would seem more plausible than GHGs, or that the Northern Hemisphere has more UHI effects.
In my opinion the difference between the hemispheres is more likely to be caused by ocean oscillations that effect cloud cover. Most, or all, of the modern warming is due to a reduction of cloud. See, Radiative Energy Flux Variation from 2001–2020 Hans-Rolf Dübal, and Fritz Vahrenholt, published last year. In the HADCRUT data shown in Fig. 1 is probably smeared urban heat, as the author notes.
Exactly, the AMO in particular drives the changes in the Arctic which have a large impact on the northern hemisphere. This can be seen clearly in SST changes divided by hemisphere.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3nh/from:1997/to/plot/hadsst3sh/from:1997/to/plot/hadsst3sh/from:1997.5/to:2015/trend/plot/none
The effects of the 1997 AMO (and associated cloud changes) phase transition are very clear.
The 2014 PDO phase transition also shows up but not as significant.
NH temperatures are about what they were in the late 1940s… according to most un-adjusted data.
HC5 is arrant farce.
The explanation is specific heat capacity. The UAH dataset is measuring air only, two miles from the surface. Whereas, HadCRUT is mixing sea surface temperatures with air temperatures at the bottom of the troposphere. It takes a lot more energy to warm water a given amount than air and surficial materials. Thus, water impedes warming.
Clyde,
You make a good point and I’m sure that the higher thermal inertia of the ocean surface plays a role. But the key point of this series of posts is that the IPCC climate models have consistently overestimated the warming rate in the lower-middle troposphere, the so-called model “hot spot.” They predict that the surface should be warming slower than the UAH lower troposphere. Thus they are wrong or HadCRUT5 is wrong. See here:
Comparing AR5 to AR6 – Andy May Petrophysicist
I noted an even funnier example of the faux hemispheric differences in my ebook. A paper claimed the NH SLR was ~2mm/year, while the SH was ~1. This ignores children’s knowledge of bathtub effects. If this peer reviewed paper were true, there would be an awful lot of bathtub sloshing about.
Well it does kinda imply that the seafloor is fixed, like the bathtub. Now make a depression on a waterbed, put some water in it and see if it still works the same way!
Excellent paper. We clearly see the impact of Urban Heat Island AND bias in the selection, analysis and “correction” of the raw data.
Unsurprisingly, the warmists are creating the warming.
If temperatures of rural and urban stations are both converted to anomalies, homogenization should not be needed. Most of the difference in temperature is removed by the conversion process and so there will not be the large variations in warming across the local region. That in essence is why anomalies are used.
Climate Detective,
“Anomalies” in the climate sense are used because they show local trends more easily for comparison to each other.
However, in physics, where temperature is a factor, it is usually the Absolute that is required, not the anomaly temperature. One wonders why anomaly ever became popular, because there is more to life than trends – as this Andy May essay shows.
There is also a widespread misconception that uncertainty limits are lower when conversion is made to anomaly units. This is quite untrue. Uncertainties arise from processes that happen ion the chain of events, before anomalies are calculated. There is no way that they can reduce the inherent uncertainty.
People are forever optimistic about their uncertainty calculations. It seems that some equate a small uncertainty with a high personal scientific prowess. Something to boast about.
Realistically, there ought to be a 2 sigma envelope of about 0.5C around all the measurements in Andy’s graphs (assuming that normal statistics and terminology apply). Then, one should not draw inferences about temperature differences that are less than 0.5C apart, be they anomalies or actual temperatures.
It follows that models can do no better than this uncertainty limit. Thus there might not be any real difference between NH and SH temperature estimates.
As to land/sea differences, there is a large dynamic system forever at work, evaporating water from oceans, carrying it by winds and dumping it on land. These dynamics are powerful enough to cause differences between land and sea temperatures, the magnitude of which challenges modelling because of lack of measurements of the appropriate variables. They vary on hourly time scales, so a set of measurements is often no more than a snapshot of that particular time. Colleague Rick Willoughby has written some good work on the topics. Geoff S
Well stated, Geoff—and because the baseline also has its own uncertainty, subtracting a baseline actually increases uncertainty.
All good points by you and MC.
I would point out that if you are dealing with samples versus an entire population, the standard deviation of the sample is the SEM or as better known the Standard Error.
This not uncertainty, it is only the interval within which the estimated mean of the data will lay. Too many folks misinterpret this as uncertainty. As you said, uncertainty can not be averaged away, it needs to be assessed throughout and end up in the Standard Error as additional uncertainty.
Dividing by N or the √N is what you do with the population mean to calculate the SEM. If you are working with samples you multiply the SEM by the √N. Please note that in a recent thread, Nick Stokes even said temperature data should be considered samples.
Lastly, the conversion to anomalies absolutely destroys any relationship that might exist between temperature and enthalpy (heat) in favor of a dubious growth factor.
Wow, 3 whole down votes, I figured it would be more.
BTW, I lied about the mean and the SEM. You use the population Standard Deviation to calculate the SEM.
“Phil Jones and colleagues[1] show that the global average monthly temperature, from 1961-1990, was about 54° F in January and 61° F in July.”
Why would we care about a completely meaningless number?
Because we’re climate geeks. 🤣
I get that, but it tells you nothing about any climate.
Those are just reference values used to compare the temperature changes against. If you are measuring climate change you need to measure the temperature change. That means you need a reference point. And seasonal differences mean you need a different reference temperature for each month. Which period you choose for your reference period is largely irrelevant. That just changes the zero-point on your graph. But ideally you want your reference period to satisfy three criteria for accuracy:
1) To be as long as possible (i.e. 30 years).
2) To include as many active stations as possible (so it needs to be fairly recent).
3) For the temperature to be as stable as possible over the reference period (so ideally before 1980).
Sorry, but temperature is an intensive property of the point in space that is measured. Averaging that with measurements from other points doesn’t give you anything meaningful.
I’ll remember that next time I have a fever.
It is like the average height of a herd of Clydesdales and Shetland ponies. Do you think a saddle made for the average will be worth the money?
Will the average anomaly tell you the temperature growth on the Artic? How about Sub-Sahara Africa?
“Why would we care about a completely meaningless number?”
We don’t. It is anomaly averages that are meaningful.
For everything in the real world, it is actual temperatures that are meaningful, not anomalies.
No they’re not – I agree with the posters above, the numbers have been so abstracted as to be utterly meaningless. Basically a number of climate geeks have found a way of playing ‘climate top trumps’ – it might be fun for them to play, but it adds absolutely nothing to our knowledge, gives a false sense of having meaningful data and detracts from actual research into climate conditions.
I’ll ask you the same questions as above. What does a global average anomaly tell you about temp growth in the Arctic? How about temp growth in sub-Sahara Africa? How about temp growth in each of the oceans?
“Why would we care about a completely meaningless number?”
And why would we believe anything Phil Jones says, anyway?
“Given this, the large difference in Northern Hemisphere warming rates between Figures 1 and 2 is very hard to explain.”
It is very easy to explain, and this post dances around it. The land is warming much faster than the ocean, and the NH has much more land. The reason is clear – the ocean is a heat sink, and SST is right on top of it, while solid land can absorb heat only very slowly. So the extra heat must be transported down a temperature gradient to the sea.
UAH TLT is measuring at an altitude where there has already been a lot of mixing.
Hi Nick. Clyde, and others, mentioned that too. But it doesn’t explain why the phenomenon starts so dramatically in 1980. Fig. 1 shows the NH is a bit warmer than the SH going back to 1850, but suddenly in 1980 the NH gets a lot warmer. Isn’t that around the time when the number of reporting stations also dramatically declined? If so, urban smear is probably the reason for most of the difference.
There was a similar divergence pre-1940. 1950-1975 were the years of heavy aerosol pollution in the NH.
You been to China recently?
You read about the Pause?
Have ever seen the Skeptical Science escalator?
Are you saying Chinese aerosols caused the 18+year pause in global warming, Nick?
That’s what it sounds like Nick is saying.
Rud says be careful about what you claim about aerosols. It’s not as cut-and-dried as alarmists make it out to be.
Nick,
There is no difference in rate from 1930 to 1940, they are almost the same. There is from 1920 to 1930, but it is much smaller than from 1980 to today.
No, Nick, there wasn’t a similar divergence. That’s a lie.
All the evidence from raw temperature data is that there was no significant temperature increase before 1980. See my blog posts including
https://climatescienceinvestigations.blogspot.com/2021/04/64-southern-hemisphere-temperature.html
Temperature data before 1980 needs to be treated with caution. It differs too much from the raw data, even in the SH. There are too many adjustments, and these adjustments keep getting adjusted. Just look at NSW data here in Fig. 18.11 and Fig. 18.12.
https://climatescienceinvestigations.blogspot.com/2020/07/18-new-south-wales-temperature-trends.html
But it doesn’t explain why the phenomenon starts so dramatically in 1980.
___________________________________________________
If yer talken GISTEMP it’s after 1980 when the boys over Tom’s Restaurant bump the numbers up. Most of the earlier values are reduced. They do this every month. In 1997 rate for 1950-1997 was 0.75°/century by 2020 the 1950-1997 rate increased to 1.0°/century.
“But it doesn’t explain why the phenomenon starts so dramatically in 1980. “
That is when the AGW “adjusters” wanted the warming to begin in earnest.
Thomas:
“in 1980 the NH gets a lot warmer”
This was because of global “Clean Air” efforts that began removing dimming industrial SO2 aerosol emissions from the atmosphere.
Since the NH was much more industrialized than the SH, more cleansing there resulted in increased warming
Pure speculation about aerosols.
What caused the similar warming from 1910 to 1940? It wasn’t the Clean Air Act.
Tom Abbott:
Apart from some possible warming due to decreased albedo, the ONLY reason for increasing temperatures is a reduction in the amount of SO2 aerosols circulating in the atmosphere.
For the period 1910 to 1940, reductions occurred because of intervals of more than 24 months between eruptions (4), and decreased industrial activity during American business recessions (8)
To obtain a true picture of the warming that actually occurred,it would be necessary to examine a temperature plot which excluded all TEMPORARY temperature increases due to reduced SO2 aerosol levels (both volcanic droughts and industrial recessions)
This is the stuff of fairies.
Land (or precisely the atmosphere above land) ALWAYS absorbs heat from the oceans. That is why there is ALWAYS freshwater runoff or calving from the global land masses to oceans as the water is returned.
Oceans surface temperature variation is very small. Most of the heat uptake goes into evaporating water and about 10% of the evaporated water from oceans ends up on land – warming land in the process of precipitating.
The attached table shows the monthly net radiative heat uptake for both land and oceans over an annual cycle.
You are screwed if you think the land is warming oceans on a global basis. And to be very clear, the negative sign in the net heat means that more radiated heat is released than absorbed. The only way that can occur is via latent heat transfer from oceans to the atmosphere then released to space over land. The loss of heat from altitude over land slows the radiative loss of heat from land.
And if you think that land can always release more radiated heat than it absorbs then you are away with the fairies even more.
“Land (or precisely the atmosphere above land) ALWAYS absorbs heat from the oceans.”
Land can’t absorb significant heat on decadal time scales. It is a very poor conductor, and anyway, the thermal gradient is the wrong way. Temperature rises as you go down; the gradient is maintained because, although the geothermal flux is very small, so is the thermal conductivity.
The only place that can absorb heat at a rate comparable to GHG forcing is the ocean. That is why OHC is monitored. Sure, sensible heat is generated by condensation in the air above land, but it can only escape by radiation to space or transport to the sea.
Ocean heat content has ZERO to do with radiation heat uptake into oceans through the surface. It is a function of net evaporation, which has been slowing down for 500 years resulting in more heat being retained in the oceans.
Look at the table I posted above and you will sea ocean surface temperature is inverse to ocean heat input. Higher net heat uptake, the cooler the ocean surface.
There is a long-term trend for ocean thermal expansion that started a long time before atmospheric CO2 started to increase at current rate.
“Ocean heat content has ZERO to do with radiation heat uptake into oceans through the surface. It is a function of net evaporation”
Evaporation means heat loss. So why doesn’t the ocean freeze?
Land isn’t warming faster (see graphs elsewhere), and only total novice in heat transfer would think that the land warms the oceans.
Particularly as warning in the surface data fabrications is only from urban heat effects and adjustments.
Even your graphs of UAH (which is very much up in the air) show warming of 0.18C/decade over land, 0.12 over ocean.
Nick,
This is very true. The land warming rate is faster than the ocean, the attached graph shows the differences Nick mentions.
However, this is not the issue. The question is: if the surface is warming faster than the lower troposphere? If so, the models are wrong, their mythical “hot spot” does not exist. The other possibility is that CRUTEM is very badly corrupted. See the first post of this series:
Comparing AR5 to AR6 – Andy May Petrophysicist
Or simply compare the NH trends in Figures 1 and 2.
“Land can’t absorb significant heat on decadal time scales. It is a very poor conductor, and anyway, the thermal gradient is the wrong way. Temperature rises as you go down; the gradient is maintained because, although the geothermal flux is very small, so is the thermal conductivity.”
Not true with respect to the gradient for “near” surface, i.e. down to several meters, at temperate latitudes. You can dig down several meters, and it gets cooler. That’s what makes “root cellars” possible. Dug into soil that is cold-soaked for a significant percentage of the year, they maintain a very stable temperature well below the spring/summer/fall atmospheric average. One has to dig considerably deeper to start encountering higher temperatures.
Using soil temperature versus depth profiles to reconstruct past temperatures depends on this kind of distribution. Though the Fourier heat equation is wrong (it violates relativity, and thus can’t be run backward in time), the Heaviside telegraph equation modification permits accurate back calculation of the surface boundary condition versus time that will produce the measured temperature versus depth profile of a given bore hole. When the warmunists learned of this, they were delighted, and lobbied its discoverer to use it to make the Medieval Warming Period go away. He was appalled.
That top few metres can’t possibly absorb enough to be a climate heat sink. The ocean can absorb to some km down, where the temperature is about 4C. Very different as a heat sink to land.
Are you crazy? How deep is the freeze line in the Dakota’s versus Austin, Texas? Do you really think the soil is not a heat sink? It may not have the specific heat of H2O but it does store heat. Soil is ~0.2 Cal/g versus ~1 Cal/g for water.
https://open.library.okstate.edu/rainorshine/chapter/13-4-sub-surface-soil-temperatures/
Do you garden? Why do you not plant seeds as soon as the soil reaches germination temperature?
Sorry, Nick. There is no such thing as “GHG forcing”. All of the warming we have seen is the result of oceans releasing heat to the atmosphere. This is why UAH tracks HadSST so closely but with a lag.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/to/plot/uah6/from:1979/to/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/to/offset:-0.35/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/to/offset:-0.35/trend
The ocean warming can be explained by cloud changes tied to natural ocean oscillations (mainly AMO and PDO). The cloud changes permitted more solar energy to warm the oceans.
Almost all the warming we have seen is explained. Your “GHG forcing” is not even measurable.
Heat does in fact exchange between the land and ocean. In the winter, the land (and air) near the ocean stays warmer than the land removed from the ocean by even a few miles. It’s the opposite in the summer, the land near the ocean stays cooler than it does farther inland. I live on a small peninsula surrounded by ocean on three sides. One sister lives inland about 20 miles, the other inland about 300 miles. It varies from day to day, but on most days in the winter, I’m about 6 deg F warmer than one and about 20 F warmer than the other. In the summer it’s just the opposite, I’m 6 deg and 20 degrees cooler. It’s not just the air temps either – they will have snow sticking on the ground long after all my snow has melted.
We live in totally different plant hardiness zones, despite being relatively close to each other. Take a look at the plant hardiness map for the U.S.. The ocean influences temperatures for many hundred of miles inland – 500 to 1000. Those zones have changed based on the (small) change in winter and summer temperatures, at least theoretically. In reality, I lost all my bromeliads that were successful for 20 years in this winter’s record cold.
By the way, Nick, try calculating the difference in Stefan-Boltzmann emission based on those delta Ts. That’s why absolute temperatures are absolutely necessary. You can’t calculate the change in equilibrium surface temperature from the GH effect using average temperatures or temperature anomalies.
Oh, and don’t think that you can bullshit me, Nick. I taught thermodynamics at a major university for years.
Land and oceans were warming at the same rate until 1980 then diverge.
Which they did ONLY by adjustments
Reality is different
Nick wrote “The land is warming much faster than the ocean, and the NH has much more land. “
One way the land temperature is affected is by water taken from near the sea surface by evaporation, transported over land by winds, then dumped as rain or snow.
Why do you assume that, for this process, ” … solid land can absorb heat only very slowly”?
There are several ways that one can imagine the land to gain heat. They do not all work at the same rate.
Nick, do you have a table of ways to heat the land mass surface, with estimates of the relative energy contribution of each, with some dynamic data on how long each effect takes?
If so, would you like to share? Geoff S
Land surface , sans H2O, can gain heat much faster during the day, but it also loses it much faster during the night. It balances out pretty quickly.
The oceans are just one huge buffer that takes heck of a lot of solar energy to budge. (like we had in the latter half of last century).
It will also take a long time to drop back down now the sun is less active.
“There are several ways that one can imagine the land to gain heat.”
C’mon Geoff, you must have been down a mine. Does it get colder as you go down, or hotter?
That thermal gradient is maintained by a tiny geothermal upward flux of generally less than 0.1 W/m2. If the land were gaining heat, the gradient would go the other way.
Nick,
And that effect would render useless attempts to estimate historic temperatures by measuring down existing drill holes. Geoff S
The surface data is all “mixing’ and homogenising.. It is meaningless.
““The land is warming much faster than the ocean, and the NH has much more land. “”
Nope, very little difference
“The land is warming much faster than the ocean, and the NH has much more land. “
The surface data adjustments have just gone manic, is all.
Even in UAH, lower troposphere, according to their measure, the trend is 0.12 C/decade for ocean, 0.18 for land.
But what is the difference between the hemispheres and why?
All is easily explained by the AMO induced loss of sea ice in the Arctic releasing ocean heat which then warms the NH land which surrounds the Arctic.
Hi Nick,
This is an obvious statement, both the UAH and HadCRUT5 records agree that the land surface and lower troposphere(LT) over land are warming faster than the ocean surface and LT. No news here.
But it cleverly does not address my point. I said the UAH and HadCRUT5 NH warming rates were different. Do you admit that the land and ocean surface is warming much faster than the lower troposphere? You realize that this means the IPCC climate models are invalid.
Comparing AR5 to AR6 – Andy May Petrophysicist
“Do you admit that the land and ocean surface is warming much faster than the lower troposphere?”
Well, UAH t6ells me that TLT is warming at 0.134C/decade since 1980. RSS says 0.213. I can only think that satellite measures of TLT are uncertain, as the big version changes reinforce. Hadcrut 5 says 0.19; GISS says 0.188.
Welcome to UNCERTAINTY in measurements!
If there was ever any indication of science not being settled this is it.
Aren’t time varying, cyclic behaviors fun to analyze with linear math.
Hmmm. We have TLT 0.14 to 0.21 and surface 0.19 to 0.19. Probably no extra warming in the TLT. Not looking good for the models.
Another clue to look at surface energy budget.
After all, it’s the surface that’s different between hemispheres.
Surface heat flux vs net radiation.
Don’t forget about the impact of air pollution in the Northern VS Southern Hemispheres vis-à-vis global cooling.
I am at 42 degrees South and everyday is clear of smog and haze…
The main variation in annual ToA insolation is due to orbital eccentricity. The axis tilt sets the seasons.
Earth receives and absorbs most energy during the boreal winter when the sun’s view is predominantly the Southern Hemisphere and it is at its closest; currently early January. It is more than interesting that the Earth’s surface is coolest when the net energy uptake is peaking.
The net energy uptake is predominantly absorbed in latent heat uptake in the oceans resulting in the entire mass of atmospheric water being transferred from ocean to land in December alone. That transfer of heat keeps the northern land masses warmer than they otherwise would be.
When the land heats up during the boreal summer, the net evaporation is low. So both land and ocean surfaces warm up as the evaporative cooling of the oceans slows down.
Perihelion last occurred before the austral summer solstice 500 years ago. Since then, the Southern Hemisphere has been getting less sunshine but the NH more. It is to be expected that the NH is warming more than the SH because it has a large proportion of the land mass and the land takes heat from the oceans. So as the land warms in the boreal summer, the net evaporation is lower and more of the ocean surface is regulating at the 30C limit.
It is explained in detail here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/11/14/global-water-cycle/
I guess there are alternative concepts such as thermal inertia of the oceans and oceans being able to absorb heat at depth through the surface or different ECSs for different hemisphere’s but they are as ridiculous as the GHE having something to do with Earth’s energy balance.
Or then you have Nick Stoke’s crazy idea that radiated heat on land can percolate down through the land and warm the oceans. What about the molten magma that is sitting just below the oceans. Even it is not doing much ocean warming.
That is one kooky idea, that is for sure. Pure and utter fantasy !
You should read my essay. See previous comment. How to explain the results in table 2?
The Milankovitch cycle explains this well. Carbon dioxide isn’t the thermostat for planetary temperature and for that matter carbon dioxide has nothing to do with anything than all life on Earth.
Andy.. As I said. The problems become even bigger when you look at minima and maxima as well. I have identified 2 distinctive reasons for the difference between the hemispheres.
https://breadonthewater.co.za/2022/03/08/who-or-what-turned-up-the-heat/
Graphs in C, text in F then towards the end of this excellent article revert to C.
Andy, while variation of warming is to be expected on land – after all, ‘land’ is a term that covers sand, soil, grass, trees, concrete etc – – one would expect the warming rates over large bodies of water to be more-or-less similar.
This turns out not to be the case.
Compare Roy Spencer’s average warming rate for global ocean with lakes
Michigan
Superior
Baikal
Tanganyika
Etc
And seas
Baltic
North
Red
Mediterranean
Black
Etc
Enclosed seas are – unless I am allowing my enthusiasm for my oil/surfactant /lipid guess to run away with me (always possible) – warming unusually rapidly.
The poster child for this idea is the Sea of Marmara which is not only warming rapidly, it gives us a clue as to a mechanism. I will now reveal the system of the world*.
Light oil and surfactant from drains etc smooth the surface, lowering albedo, reducing evaporation and on large bodies suppresses wave breaking… There’s more to it.. Diatoms fed by sewage will be releasing lipids and in the extreme case of Marmara the sea snot.
The effect will be the same over large bodies of water but less obvious. DMS reduction a factor there and reduced salt aerosol production.
There’s a recent paper about ocean plastic pollution which means the authors know where the ocean smooths are likely to be, and there’s old data from SeaWifs about amount of oil pollution. I have seen a major fractured smooth between Porto and Madeira which extended over ten thousand square miles or more which suppressed wave breaking at about Force 4.
Three quarters of the Earth’s surface is covered with water. There is the clue.
Feynman teaches that anyone is allowed to guess. This is my guess.
JF
*Newton
JF Newton
In my essay I report the result of a test with oil.
Julian
I don’t see a link which I think there should be> *Newton?
Sorry, this should have been in quotes . ‘I will now reveat the system of the world ‘ was what Isaac Newton wrote when he’d got his ducks in a row and was about to explain his overarching theory..
JF
Who doesn’t really compare himself with Newton.
During prolonged periods of low solar activity, a meridional circulation prevails, which also means that the zonal circulation slows down. Blocking zonal circulation means that lows persist over the oceans and highs persist over land. This results in extreme temperatures over land, which warms strongly in summer and cools strongly in winter.
Love that graph! Thanks.
You can see in the graphic that the difference between the northern and southern hemispheres has been intensifying since 2000, coinciding with a decline in solar activity.
http://solarcyclescience.com/bin/PolarField.png
Ireneusz,
Thank you for bringing up meridional thermal energy transport or MT! It was really needed in this discussion. Thermal energy collects in the tropics because the high absolute humidity there does not allow all the energy to be radiated away. As Rick tells us, the ocean surface is temperature limited to roughly 27-33 degrees, due to evaporation carrying excess energy to the atmosphere. Eventually the buildup causes an El Nino which transports the excess energy to the poles, especially the North Pole which is not as well protected by its vortex as the South Pole. But both poles are net emitters of radiation, especially during their respective winters. MT and variations in the equator to pole temperature gradient control climate changes, but the details (like in your graphic) are very complex, and poorly understood.
The graphic below shows the zonal circulation between the 50th and 80th parallels. You can see that the wind speed increases as the solar activity increases.
Andy, look at what’s happening now with the circulation in Europe. An extremely strong high is forming, where pressure will rise as high as 1050 hPa. This is a very stable high that will remain over the continent for many days. The low will remain in the Atlantic. In Eastern Europe at night the temperature will drop well below 0 C, due to the snow cover which reflects some of the radiation. In summer, such a high will bring extreme heat.
“This is a very stable high that will remain over the continent for many days.”
That doesn’t sound like it’s going to be very good for the windmill industry.
Europe needs to restart its mothballed coal and nuclear powerplants. The windmills are not going to do them much good under a persistent high pressure system.
The meridional course of a jetstream is not only the direction of air inflow, but also stationary highs and lows, i.e., blocking zonal circulation.
Didn’t Bob Tisdale show that it is La Ninas that pump heat from the tropical Pacific poleward? That La Ninas pump heat into the Pacific Warm Pool (PWP) that had been previously partially distributed eastward by El Ninos? That the recharged PWP pumps heat north and south toward the poles? Additionally, there is no role for CO2 to play in ENSO processes.
I’m not familiar with that concept. My understanding is that La Ninas alternate with Neutral. Once sufficient heat is collected from the Sun, then an El Nino is generated to send the heat toward the poles. This is first done by western ocean currents that spill into the atmosphere, and work their way eastward, then north. The whole process is too complicate to detail here. Some papers/blog posts will be published soon that provide the details.
Andy, one needs to read Bob Tisdale’s ENSO work at his blog “Climate Observations.” I don’t want to misquote him on a complex topic.
If we look at the distribution of SST anomalies in the Pacific, it is true that La Niña brings warmer water to certain high latitude regions. There is a large correspondence between the ocean current circulation and the atmospheric circulation.
Andy May provides one good article after another.
Along with Willis Eschenbach., David Middleton,
Eric Worrall, Kip Hansen and Anthony Watts.
The “Guest Blogger” and Charles Rotten articles
are ho hum mediocre
The comments are where much of the gold can be found.
Tom,
Very true. The free-wheeling discussion in the comments can be very clarifying.
Andy, part of the hemispheric difference is due to the Arctic and how it is measured.
If you want to see it, compare HadCRUT 4 and 5. The main difference is that HC5 inferres the Arctic temperature by kringing station data, while HC4 does not infill Arctic data. HC5 shows more warming and a higher hemisphere difference just from that. Danish Meteorological Institute data shows that Arctic warming occurs during the cold season, not in summer.
UAH does not have a good coverage of the Arctic. It reaches only c. 85º.
The problem with the Arctic, particularly during winter is that you can record changes of 15ºC that involve very little enthalpy change, so in terms of energy, a small energy transport change, that implies no change in the energy of the climate system, results in a significant change in the global average temperature.
This also explains in part why the hemispheric difference got higher since the 1976 warming. There are very few Arctic temperature measurements prior. We know the Arctic warmed a lot in the 1940s, but we don’t have the data.
Hallo Javier
Nice to hear from you. no. It is not that either. I my essay I also give the minima. There is also a drop of minima in the SH and it seems it is significant. . How about that?
The appearance of so much heat in the Arctic mysterious. I think it is because of underseas volcanic activity / &
Eddy cycle?
Very good points Javier, thanks.
We always need to consider enthalpy. Strictly speaking large Arctic and Antarctic temperature changes mean much less than in the lower latitudes, especially during their respective winter seasons. Averaging more polar data with the lower latitude data is misstating the change vis-a-vis climate. Very good point. Further, as you say, in the pre-satellite era we have very little data.
Figure 3 may be an artifact of merging in more polar data and distorting reality, at least in part. Interesting, I had not thought of that.
Just say the obvious. Climate scientists are frauds and doctor the data to arrive at a predetermined outcome. They have so corrupted the raw data that there is no way an auditor could determine the real figures and hence make recommendations. If these scammers were engineers the bridge would collapse and the plane would crash.
*Some* climate scientists.
There are some climate scientists who are honorable. They are called skeptics today.
An important point is that the pattern of hemispheric and regional global warming fits the pattern of solar warming.
Figure 12 from J Lean 2017 “Sun-Climate Connections.” If you bother to check figure 9 you will see that at the surface the increase of solar activity during the solar cycle causes a whooping +0.4ºC at 60ºN.
So, high solar activity during the 20th Century is part of the reason why the NH warms more than the SH. Low solar activity has the opposite effect, which is why the LIA was worse at 60ºN, and barely noticeable at the tropics.
Nobody can explain why solar activity has such a heterogeneous warming pattern with big regional differences, but everybody agrees that it is due to solar dynamical effects on the climate system, not the paltry TSI difference.
So it is the Sun that it is causing that too. Of course, if you disregard the Sun, then you don’t understand anything.
“…but everybody agrees that it is due to solar dynamical effects on the climate system, not the paltry TSI difference.”
TSI effects accumulate in the ocean for decades. If you disregard this you don’t understand anything about solar forcing.
You should read:
White, W.B., Dettinger, M.D. and Cayan, D.R., 2003. Sources of global warming of the upper ocean on decadal period scales. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 108 (C8).
The response of the climate system to solar changes is an order of magnitude larger than the change in solar forcing. It is not the solar energy change, it is the dynamic response of the climate system to the UV change effect in the stratosphere.
More very good points!
Nearly everything in Figure 12 is related to land surface moisture changes
Aridity 🡹
Evapotranspiration 🡻
Blocking highs 🡹
Cloud condensation 🡻
These changes most certainly would appear regionalized.
The boreal zone, scraped to bedrock by glaciation, has little soil moisture buffer.
.
Solar dynamics coupled with land surface properties.
Existing deserts, areas with deep organic rich soils (sponge), and self-reinforcing cloud forests would appear to have the least surface moisture variability, and thus the least local climate sensitivity.
The boreal confiners are not cloud forests because they do not transpire cloud nucleating microbes (precipitation nuclei or hygroscopic bacteria emitted from deciduous stomata).
Additionally, much of the mid-latitude NH has been desertified by removing temperate forest and draining / eroding the surface “sponge”. This must only reinforce net SW changes + surface heat flux dynamics.
Andy May, thank you for another good article. It seems to me that there is a crucial issue emerging. It is the preservation of original records of all land station instrument readings, and transparent public access to those records. And furthermore, a traceable, auditable trail from instrument readings must be maintained all the way through to a finalized published climate record. A good example in the U.S. is the difference between the USHCN records and the newer ClimDiv records from which NOAA derives its public graphs and monthly updates. ClimDiv seems impenetrably resistant to connecting the output back to the source instruments. USHCN, still maintained, is more transparent. The source records of daily readings from individual stations is readily found and analyzed for comparison to the finalized records.
Yes. This why changing measured and recorded DATA with new calculated information is a scientific disallowed practice. It is too easy to ‘lose’ the original real data.
Temperatures vary significantly in short distances. After reading several studies I finally realized that thermometers read the microclimate surrounding them. Things like enclosures, windbreaks, grass, maintenance, buildings, etc. make each one unique, NOT WRONG.
If someone feels data is wrong, declare it unfit and trash it. At the least, stop the record and deal with a new one. Changing data just to maintain a long record is close if not over the line of being unethical science.
I have asked several times where this is allowed in any other scientific or measurement environment and no one has ever named any. Makes one wonder.
ah, well you see the polarity of the CO2 molecule causes most of the warming to occur in the north
basic physics predicted by every model
Very funny!
What do you think of my essay?
(click on my name)
Carbon dioxide, which has the chemical formula CO2, is non-polar.
https://byjus.com/questions/why-is-carbon-dioxide-a-non-polar-molecule-even-though-the-c-o-bonds-are-polar/
“Consensus scientist” is an oxymoron. I suggest the more accurate “conscientist”.
Andy, Temperature records of the two hemispheres allows analysis of seasonal fluxes and positive or negative accumulations. Some time ago, Chiefio made an intriguing statement:
“Solstice is the time when the sun stops the apparent drift in the sky toward one pole, reverses, and heads toward the other. For about 2 more months, temperatures lag this change of trend. That is the total heat storage capacity of the planet. Heat is not stored beyond that point and there can not be any persistent warming as long as winter brings a return to cold.
I’d actually assert that there are only two measurements needed to show the existence or absence of global warming. Highs in the hottest month must get hotter and lows in the coldest month must get warmer. BOTH must happen, and no other months matter as they are just transitional.”
Testing that assertion involves using BEST land only records, whereby Tmin and Tmax fluxes between summer and winter can be seen separately between NH and SH.
That analysis confirms that:
NH summer months are cooler than average overall and since 1950. Warming does appear since 1998 with a large anomaly in June and also warming in August. SH shows no strong pattern of Tmax warming in summer months. A hot December trend since 1998 is offset by a cold February. Overall SH summers are just above average, and since 1950 have been slightly cooler.
NH winter Tmin warming is stronger than SH Tmin trends, but shows quite strong cooling since 1998. An anomalously warm February is the exception in the period 1979-1998.Both NH and SH show higher Tmin warming in winter months, with some irregularities. Most of the SH Tmin warming was before 1979, with strong cooling since 1998. June was anomalously warming in the period 1979 to 1998.
Conclusion: I find no convincing pattern of summer Tmax warming carrying over into winter Tmin warming. In other words, summers are not adding warming more than other seasons. There is no support for concerns over summer heat waves increasing as a pattern.
https://rclutz.com/2015/06/22/when-is-it-warming-the-real-reason-for-the-pause/
Glad to someone dealing with “seasons”. Splitting NH winter and SH winter across years makes no climate science sense. It is more what computer programmers/mathematicians would do so calendar dates can be easily used?
Thanks Ron and thanks for the link. Sounds valid.
Ron. Congrats. I have always said that Tmax and Tmin are more important than Tmean to figure out the warming. Tmax is going down from 1997….
Tmax is a proxy for energy coming in.
So where does the extra heat from UAH come from?
There are 2 other sources….
“I have always said that Tmax and Tmin are more important than Tmean to figure out the warming.”
Me, too. If you want to know how hot it is, now, and in the past, you go with the Tmax. That’s what should be compared if we are talking about human-caused global warming/climate change.
I don’t know why there are no complete data sets on minima and maxima. Obviously it is because they reveal so much…
You can look at mine,
Who or what turned up the heat? | Bread on the water
One thing happening here is multidecadal oscillations. When they favor warming, they generally favor warming more in the northern hemisphere than in the southern hemisphere (that happened in the 1940s warm period) and more at the surface than in the satellite-measured lower troposphere. The converse is also true, with multidecadal oscillation favorability to cooling (or to bucking the trend of warming by increase of greenhouse gases) also happening more in the northern hemisphere than in the southern hemisphere, and I expect the same will happen for difference between the surface and the satellite-measured lower troposphere once we get satellite monitoring of a multidecadal oscillation downturn.
As for HadCRUT5: I see part of the great post-1979 (or post-1976) NH warming in HadCRUT5 being erroneous, from HadCRUT5 overconsidering the extra warming the Arctic has been having after 1976-1979. HadCRUT5 indicates more warming after 1979 than ERA5 and JRA55 do. Previous versions of HadCRUT err in the opposite direction, although I consider HadCRUT4 doing that only a little.
It would be helpful to compare the unadjusted or unhomogenized surface temperature data versus UAH. If the unadjusted, unhomogenized surface temperature averages more closely match the UAH data, it would be a good indicator of those surface temperature adjustment processes are illegitimate, something many of us have suspected for a number of years.
As Tony Heller’s comparison’s of US adjusted versus unadjusted data have shown, the adjustments suspiciously decrease temperatures prior to 1960 and increase temperatures after 1990, artificially creating a hockey stick that isn’t in the raw data. The “But it’s only US data” argument has some validity, except that data from the rest of the world is much sparser pre-1960 and the US has excellent records nationwide going back to 1900 if not earlier. And post 1960, there are still huge gaps in the surface temperature data from parts of the world which seems to be rather arbitrarily assigned values using questionable homogenization methods, extending their methodological error and increasing its impact to create a rising temperature narrative.
Ironically, even with this surface temperature manipulation, temperatures fall short nearly all of the IPCC’s models predictions.
Russia and the Artic region dominate the Northern Hemisphere. I was surprised to learn recently that Russia collects the data from the arctic weather stations. It would be interesting to see an analysis of Russian/Arctic surface warming rate vs the rest of the Northern Hemisphere. If someone wanted to manipulate public opinion among the political left in the west, no one would have a greater motive, means and opportunity than Putin.
Solar activity also affects circulation in the equatorial Pacific. Why might a triple peak of La Niña occur? If the solar wind had been increasing strongly since the beginning of the solar cycle a strong La Niña would likely occur, followed by an El Niño. However, the solar wind has been weak since the beginning of the cycle, hence a strong La Niña could not form. At the same time, as the strength of the solar wind increases the easterly winds in the equatorial Pacific will persist.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/oceanography/wrap_ocean_analysis.pl?id=IDYOC007&year=2022&month=03
It is sooo trivial! The warming is linked to the WHERE and WHEN of air traffic. It became a quantitative factor since the 1970s and stayed mainly in the NH.
https://www.flightradar24.com
There is a beautiful video of a GoPro sent into the stratosphere (over Germany). Pay attention to the 10 minutes when it crosses flight level from 01:05:00 to 01:15:00. At 01:11:26 you can even see an aircraft passing by.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnxvS9XFJnE
There is a dense haze layer just there, doubtlessly caused by air traffic. And what it does is to reflect only little sun light, as these ice crystals are far less reflective than water dropplets. On the other side this layer is extremely cold (~215K), only emitting ~120W/m2. So for every percentage of the sky it effectively covers, you get a forcing of 1.2W/m2, which is huge.
You are observing haze microdrops. The approximately 0.2 micron dust clay particle micronuclei accumulate in layers of low turbulence over USA and other eroding landscapes.
Absorbing about 60 watts m-2 incoming solar, this increasing humid haze is associated with global dimming.
The aridifying landscape below, now devoid of trees and wetlands, allows vast quantities of this clay dust to be eroded.
Water vapour collecting on these dust microdrops is not available to adequately condense into reflective cloud or precipitate. Very little latent heat is delivered aloft.
C’mon, man! Under either solar or infrared forcing, land will warm faster than ocean. The seasonal cycle of temperature demonstrates this clearly.
This is the case when the pavement is not covered with snow and the wind in winter does not blow from around the polar circle.
Roy,
Who is this meant for? If it is me, I agree with you. All the datasets show land warming faster than ocean, Plus, it is logical. I never said otherwise, did I?
The questions I pose are:
You are all missing the obvious.
Note that the arctic ocean is or was warming faster than the surrounding land there….
The extra CO2 is making the earth greener. This changes albedo. There is also heat coming free at night from the growing process of the vegetation.
Click on my name to read my essay.
Roy,
Below is an exchange with Nick Stokes from earlier in the comments on the same subject. I did not discuss land versus ocean in the post, except to point out 68% of the land is in the NH. My main point is that the total surface is warming 70% faster, according to HadCRUT5, than the LT, according to UAH. This is not consistent with the models and seems too large to be explained by a difference in land/ocean warming rates. This may clarify my thinking and the issue for you and any readers still reading the comments.
Nick Stokes
“Given this, the large difference in Northern Hemisphere warming rates between Figures 1 and 2 is very hard to explain.”
It is very easy to explain, and this post dances around it. The land is warming much faster than the ocean, and the NH has much more land. The reason is clear – the ocean is a heat sink, and SST is right on top of it, while solid land can absorb heat only very slowly. So, the extra heat must be transported down a temperature gradient to the sea.
UAH TLT is measuring at an altitude where there has already been a lot of mixing.
Andy May
Hi Nick,
The land is warming much faster than the ocean, and the NH has much more land. The reason is clear – the ocean is a heat sink, and SST is right on top of it, while solid land can absorb heat only very slowly.
This is an obvious statement, both the UAH and HadCRUT5 records agree that the land surface and lower troposphere(LT) over land are warming faster than the ocean surface and LT. No news here.
But it cleverly does not address my point. I said the UAH and HadCRUT5 NH warming rates were different. Do you admit that the land and ocean surface is warming much faster than the lower troposphere? You realize that this means the IPCC climate models are invalid.
Comparing AR5 to AR6 – Andy May Petrophysicist
Nick Stokes
“Do you admit that the land and ocean surface is warming much faster than the lower troposphere?”
Well, UAH tells me that TLT is warming at 0.134C/decade since 1980. RSS says 0.213. I can only think that satellite measures of TLT are uncertain, as the big version changes reinforce. Hadcrut 5 says 0.19; GISS says 0.188.
Andy May
Hmmm. We have TLT 0.14 to 0.21 and surface 0.19 to 0.19. Probably no extra warming in the TLT. Not looking good for the models.