Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Short post. Here are the satellite-determined temperature trends of the various area of the lower troposphere, the lowest layer of the atmosphere.
Figure 1. Temperature trends, UAH MSU lower troposphere. NoPol—North Polar Region; NoExt—Northern ExtraTropics; NHem—Northern Hemisphere; Trpcs—Tropics; SHem—Southern Hemisphere; SoExt—Southern Extratropics; SoPol—South Polar Region.
And here’s how it maps out around the globe:
Figures 2. Pacific and Greenwich centered views of the trends of the lower tropospheric temperatures.
Short conclusion, to match the short post. The warming may be many things, but it’s not global …
Once Again: When you comment, please quote the exact words you are discussing. I can defend my words. I can’t defend your interpretation of my words. Thanks.
Maybe, for AGW, “Polar Amplification” means something different for the Antarctic.
Southern Polar deflation?
The popular term of art is disinflation. I don’t know why. Probably something to do with balloon anti-violence.
The term might be “polar attenuation”. When the temperature signal is attenuated, it is reduced.
it’s because the magnetic field is reversed
All warming is equal (but some warming is more equal than other).
The warming that counts is propagated with the loudest trumpet
Or, for the COP crowd, the loudest strumpet.
I thought I had previously read on WUWT that increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere actually resulted in an INCREASE of LWIR being radiated out into space over Antarctica. (Since the same properties that make CO2 a good absorber also make it a good radiator.)
I could not find that old link. Below is a link to an article in Science, but it is not as good as the article I vaguely remember.
That’s true during certain conditions, as when the air temp rises slightly as elevation increases over the surface (a temperature inversion).
Dependence of Earth’s Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse GasesW. A. van Wijngaarden, W. Happer
They get the same numerical answers as everyone else. The difference is not the result but what they claim the result means.
In fact, their estimates of climate sensitivity to doubling of CO2 agree with the work of Manabe, of Hunt, and of Kluft. These give a climate sensitivity with fixed relative humidity and a pseudoadiabatic lapse rate of 2.2°C per doubling of CO2.
However, this is only three other studies, and it is far below e.g. the results of the CMIP 6 experiments.
Finally, your claim that “everyone else” gets the “same numerical answers” is a joke. Here are the estimates of ECS from a variety of sources:
“Same numerical answers”? It is to laugh. You’re free to claim that the science is settled. The data begs to differ.
Thanks Willis. Ja. Ja. Is what I have been telling you. Whatever it is that causes warming, mostly by earth and the extra greening, it not the extra CO2 in the air that is doing it. Unlike water vapor, CO2 is a diffuse gas. It divides equally over the whole of the NH and SH.
Obviously: CO2 rises up, North is up, the North Pole gets warmer than the South Pole. QED.
It rises up in the Nh. And it rises up in the Sh. The rate of increase is the same. Both in the Nh and the Sh.
It does not coagulate at certain places, like water vapor does.
No “/sarc” was needed, Scarecrow. Your sarcasm was blindingly obvious.
Extra CO2 causes cooling of most of Antarctica, not warming.
CO2 does not cause anything, except some minor noise in the overall picture
I took Scarecrows comment as sarc…..
Sorry. I caught that a bit later.
That was hilarious! As funny as blaming cold weather and blizzards on global warming.
Oh no, much more “realistic”
Extra CO2 always causes warming
Local climate changes re the net result of all local, regional and global causes of climate change.
Global climate change is not the result of CO2 alone.
Your conclusion is wrong.
There has been more C02 in the atmosphere over the past seven years, but no warming. And all the long term proxy measurements show CO2 lagging temperature increase. No idea what constitutes extra C02, more than is needed for plant life to continue?
Water has a triple point of 273.2K. It is altered a little by contamination such as ocean salinity and drops to about 271,5K for sea ice formation.
Formation of sea ice regulates heat loss from the oceans at a precise temperature. It is a very powerful negative feedback to retain heat in the climate system.
Below 15C SST, there is no convective instability. The heat engine shuts down because there can be no level of free convection. That means the atmosphere can saturate and condensing cloud works to retain heat. Easily observable over the mid latitudes in the SH when the solar zenith moves to the NH.
Ice forms in the atmosphere at temperature 273.2K and below. Once ocean surface reaches 22C, deep convection drive water high into the atmosphere where it solidifies to form reflective cloud. The process is self regulating at a SST of 30C where there is just enough surface heat to drive the convection engine – typically there is overshoot by a degree or or so before the monsoon sets in. CO2 has no role in this energy input limiting process. Albedo over tropical ocean warm pools exceeds 50%.
CO2 cannot alter the temperature controlled processes that regulate Earth’s energy balance.
Climate models show the absurd characteristic of open ocean surface sustaining temperatures above 30C over an annual cycle. That is physically impossible in Earth’s current atmosphere due to the total mass and the buoyancy of water vapour. Trace amounts of CO2 have no measurable impact on that process so cannot increase the energy intake.
Water/ice driven processes currently favour heat retention over heat rejection but they have immense power to swing either way. We are currently witnessing the beginning of a long period where there will be positive feedback that will be recognised when the ice begins accumulating on all the northern land masses again. Once Ice is retained over an annual cycle, it is not easy to get rid of. It tends to accumulate until the glaciers and ice shelves are calving enough to cool the oceans. Current ice accumulation only evident on Greenland and Iceland. But snow records are already a feature of modern weather reporting and that will be a trend for the next 9000 years. The NH ocean warming has only just begun. Much of the North Atlantic along the East coast of North America will reach 30C before the snowline is advancing rapidly southward.
When do you reckon, Rick? 4000 years from next Thursday? 30c water in the Gulf of Maine. Now that’s worth the wait.
Not in March but certainly July and August. It gets there now in August and will be even more area at 30C in 4000 years.
The ToA EMR threshold to get to 30C is 420W/m^2. This is the trend from 1000 years back to 4000 years from J2000 (0.0000) for June at 25N.
So by 4000 years the ToA power flux will be up by 15W/m^2 from what it is now. June sunlight drives the peak surface temp in most of the NH.
May sunlight drives July surface temperature. May is about 15W/m^2 lower than June. There is likelihood of early June temperature reaching 30C on the coast of in the Gulf within 4000 years. Right now that does not happen till later in June.
You are confusing energy with heat. CO2 will gather energy from the lower atmosphere and use it to promote evaporation. The net effect is more rain, not warming.
”Extra CO2 always causes warming”
Prove it. And what does ”causes warming” mean? Are you another programmed rob’t?
He never proves it. When asked for any evidence he doesn’t respond.
What is your definition of “extra” in relation to the concentration of CO2 in this planets atmosphere?
CO2 ppm is at a 100 MILLION YEAR LOW
100% correct, Mr. Pool. No ifs, ands, or buts. Any warming absolutely CANNOT be coming from CO2 because it spreads itself uniformly throughout the globe but the warming doesn’t.
CO2 dosen´t cause warming over antarctica because it shouldn´t. The surface temperature in antarctica are in winter below and in summer above the upper troposphere/stratosphere temperatures. Over the year this sums up to net zero or slightly cooling. Same temperature, same amount of radiation lost to space. At the north pole surface temperatures don´t get that low, so CO2 still means warming.
The huge difference in both trends is better explained by ocean currents.
Warm water from the tropics can enter the arctic ocean, but it can´t enter the southern ocean, antarctic circumpolar current prevents this.
Yet CO2 IS global
WR: in 1994 Mauna Loa CO2 level was about 358 ppm. Over the Antarctic, a lot of ice-cold air descends, probably coming from the stratosphere. Might be that the stratospheric CO2 level has a time lag of some years: all levels in the graph above go upward. So there should be ‘an anthropogenic response’ in and around the Antarctic as well. Which there isn’t.
Mauna Loa data:
And all the windmills, and solar panels, and every other thing the west is doing to destroy their economies has not put a dent in the rise.
Agree. The ‘Greens’ are good at destroying landscapes and they do their best in ensuring that Earth cannot become totally green by CO2. Earth becomes greener by more CO2. More vegetation results in better soils resulting in more soil moisture over semi- desserts. The whole process is greening large areas, and stabilizing weather patterns and climate. (see satellite pictures ‘Leaf Area’)
‘Weather’ develops because of differences between air columns. When we would find high moisture everywhere, ‘Weather’ becomes less variable and so does climate. In the Amazone, there are no tornados or hurricanes. Greening the Earth is good for Climate and the best way to green the Earth is by adding CO2.
Ugly windmill parks and ugly ‘solar farms’ don’t do anything good to Climate and only destroy the Earth. ‘Paradise’ was never filled with windmills and solar panels. Instead, fossil fuels were put in the bottom to make use of as long as we wouldn’t have enough safe, cheap, and stable nuclear energy.
Fearful people do weird things. ‘Consensus Scientists’ helped and help to destroy not only landscapes but also Western Economies. From the first steam machine, all our wealth and all we know as ‘western prosperous societies’ has been based on the profit of largely available cheap and stable energy. All could become available for everyone, UN should guarantee…..
The first thing we need is a fully independent Science and honest, integer, and rational scientists. Engineers will help to create a green and prosperous society for all of us.
This link shows Cape Grim CO2. It as close to 40S:
Same trend but not as noisy as high latitudes in the NH.
This chart is (not totally) hiding the lows in the NH. During NH summer CO2 levels are actually lower in the NH than in the SH. On average the difference is really small, only about 2-3ppm. Nothing to explain the one sided warming.
The chart appears to be from Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii at about 19.5 N Lat.
If it is a global chart — where from?
A reason to refer to Mauna Loa is the elevation of the measuring station, 3400 meters. The air passing the station is reasonably well-mixed and not representing very local/regional situations.
WR: Exactly. And the warming is not human-caused, but natural: the pattern shows. CO2 is a well-mixed greenhouse gas. We find about the same quantity of CO2 everywhere.
If present warming would be caused by extra radiation by CO2, warming should have been equally dispersed over the globe. It is not.
And the warming is not human-caused, but natural:
That’s true for the most part Richard. It’s cooled since 2015. The ongoing La Niña had the same strength as in 2017/2018 but we are lower now than in 2017/2018.
The warming matches a NH warming cause. As Jim Steele has been pointing out, a movement of the ITCZ can direct more or less energy towards the Arctic. More energy melts more ice and lowers the planet’s albedo. More solar energy absorbed, mainly high in the NH, causes the warming. Now the graphs make perfect sense.
Throw in some Chinese soot.
Please don’t – no telling what is in that crap
And especially Indian, etc., soot
The albedo change is not the whole story, especially at the North pole where there is a low angle sun in summer and no sun half the year.
But heat is radiated and convected away from the Arctic Ocean year round, and less ice exposes more water (warmer than ice) so more evaporation and radiation than with ice coverage.
‘The warming may be many things, but it’s not global …’
to which I would add “and it may not be caused by man’s emissions of CO2”.
Indirectly, it could. More CO2 = more green, also in the oceans, = more black = lower albedo…..
John Christy et al figured this out a long time ago, doing investigations in California.
Even in the longer this appears to be so..
..and aerosols will not help in explaining this problem. Rather it does the opposite.
Anyway, you don’t get such a pattern from GHGs, which remain for a long time and thus spread more or less globally. Rather you get this from some source located predominatly in the NH. Contrails, or aviation induced cirrus, DO fit this pattern.
The word “contrails” occurs once in that post, with little context.
You’ll find more if you look around, just did not post all the links…
Using questionable 1880 to 1899 temperatures, which were not accurate global averages, makes this chart worthless. In the 1800s, there was a VERY rough estimate of the average Northern Hemisphere temperatures. Nothing resembling a reasonably accurate global average, such as in the 1979 to 2023 period with UAH satellite data.
You haven’t given a time period, but I presume it is 1979-2023. I have a gadget here which produces maps of surface temperature trend for various periods. Here is 1980-2020. It has some warming on land for that period, but agrees with cooling of the Southern Pacific.
But what about going back a bit further? There isn’t any land data for Antarctica before the IGY in 1957, but let’s look at 1960-2020. A rather similar pattern, but now the trend everywhere is mostly positive.
There has always been natural variation, and the global warming trend is added to it. For even quite long periods you can find time intervals and regions where the trend goes negative. That doesn’t mean AGW isn’t happening.
“That doesn’t mean AGW isn’t happening.” Nor does it mean it is happening.
If you look at Willis’ map, he has drawn the contours of zero trend in white. Dark blue looks very cool, but in fact it is a trend of just -0.1C/decade. Most of the world is on the warm side of zero. That is warming.
That pattern of pretty colours is affected by the choice of dates for the baseline period that is subtracted to show “anomaly” temperatures.
Then, if you put realistic uncertainty values on the data, you should get a mix of wobbly shades of brown. Remember those separate colours of plasticine we had as children? Mix them up and you get that brown.
The point is that uncertainty of temperature observations is not adequately considered in making such maps. Even the UAH numbers are likely to have greater overall, real uncertainty than the theoretical mathematics results that Roy occasionally quotes. It is difficult to quantify full uncertainty and most new work does not even include experiments to improve it, like duplication of instruments.
Just look at the frightful mess and avoidance of uncertainty among satellites used for calculating the TOA radiation balance. People looking for changes of 0.1 W/m2 when the between platform differences are 13 W/m2 before ADJUSTMENT.
Much of the global warming scare comes from improper use of cherry picked uncertainty and adjustment. Geoff S
“That pattern of pretty colours is affected by the choice of dates for the baseline period that is subtracted to show “anomaly” temperatures.”
It is not. In fact I don’t use a baseline. But baselines don’t affect trends.
But you could take your objection up with Willis. His plot has uncertainties and baseline too.
I use unadjusted GHCN V4. Adjusted makes little difference.
OK, there’s mostly warming. So? That’s a benefit for the living earth — people too.
Greenhouse gas emissions are happening
Air pollution is happening
Land use changes are happening
Urban heat island effect is happening
Measurement errors and questionable ‘adjustments” are happening
All are included in AGW
AGW is happening.
Be there or be square !
Maybe some AGW is happening. But you have identified the wrong cause. ….it is not the extra CO2 in the air that is doing it.
I’m am actually interested to hear what you want. More or less warming? More or less greening?
I want more warming and more greening.
They want it to go back to when it was perfect- a few centuries ago. /sarc
June 6, 1850 at 3:06pm
The climate was perfect during that minute
Any change, in either direction, is a climate emergency.
Scientists say so
This comment is serious,
More warming and more greening! Remove the cold from the poles and high mountains and less storming weather – global tropical conditions – everywhere with more water from melted ice and increased carbon dioxide is released for greening the planet = more flora food for fauna and more fauna for omnivores and carnivores. As we live in the shortest glacial period in comparison to those in the past, this interglacial will with high probability return to Icehouse conditions in the future, with a lower probability to go to a Hothouse condition. Throughout history earth has lost carbon to fossils that only mankind has returned a small amount of that sequestered carbon back into the environment for the benefits of new flora and fauna. If earth returns to the Icehouse condition extinctions will sequester more carbon in bones and dead flora, leaving even less carbon for the following interglacial or Hothouse condition.
Of course extra CO2 always causes warming
May not be much warming but it happens.
You are a science denier !
But the ratio of extra warming divided by extra CO2 gets smaller and smaller for each ppm added
I looked at the science.
After looking at it from every angle and doing an unbelievable number of calculations, I found that the amount of energy of SW deflected by the CO2 is just as much as the amount of energy of LW trapped on earth.
But I am open to anyone who says that I am wrong. But he must show me where I am wrong.
Indirectly, adding more CO2 does give a small change in albedo, due to greening, which is a cause of some warming. But I do not think it is the major force for the modern warming. Just look at the warming of the oceans. It looks just like Willis’ graph. But even worse:
90 degrees: 0.7K/decade
50 degrees: 0.5K/decade
30 degrees: 0.3K/decade
90-0 degrees (average): 0.2K/decade
0 to -90 degrees (average): 0.1K/decade
-90 degrees – estimate based on observed trend: 0.05K/decade
see Table 2,
Who or what turned up the heat? | Bread on the water
in my previous comment @7h41 am
degrees latitude (n)
WR: Indeed, there has always been natural variation. I also can agree with a pattern of warming over most of the globe over the recent period. But one should first have studied natural variation plus its mechanisms before even assuming there is something like AGW, which means “Anthropogenic Global Warming”. Was the cooling over the Little Ice Age (LIA) “Anthropogenic Global Cooling” (AGC)? Some centuries ago there was a lot of anthropogenic deforestation in Europe which could have resulted in a change in weather patterns plus additional effects on movements in the oceans resulting in cooling. Still, nobody talks about AGC, Anthropogenic Global Cooling.
I neither disagree with initial warming by CO2 nor with initial warming by the main greenhouse gas water vapor. But so far no one has explained to me how this surface warming could last longer than a fraction of a second, the time the cooling processes at the surface need to respond to warming back radiation by extra surface cooling by evaporation, by cooling by extra convection, and by extra tropical-cloud cooling. If the cooling following warming is equal to the warming, only natural variation remains.
Clausius-Clapeyron: one degree of warming results in [nearly] 7% more water vapor (IPCC: 7%). Total actual yearly evaporation: 544,000 Gigatons (Source IPCC AR6 Fig. 8.1). That means that one degree of initial CO2 warming would result in 38,080 Gigatons more evaporation, which is quite a lot of extra surface cooling. To add cooling by convection and tropical-cloud cooling.
IEA: “Energy-related CO2 emissions grew to 36.3 Gt in 2021”. Before natural sink. Not so much, 36 Gt.
Quite correct, Wm.
Natural changes can produce all (badly) observed warming, with no need to invoke GHG. Proof, it has happened before.
It has become fashionable to speak of natural change as modulating GHG warming. That is current natural change is almost always taken as cooling, offsetting even more serious GHG warming. Cart before horse.
We desperately need more dedicated, designed experiments to quantify the ACTUAL change in temperature per change in GHG. We need to go beyond quoting Arrhenius then closing the shop. Geoff S
I agree. This time Nick the Stroker got it right.
Nick, thanks for the link on your website to Hot Whopper.
I’d forgotten about “Climate Caterwauler” Sou’s demented rants about “deniers”, which were always good for an uproarious laugh.
Is this why you visit her site too, Nick?
Nick you are right, there is AGW. But more and more evidence shows that it is a minor role in the warming since 1980.
Is that supposed to be a convincing argument? AGW could be happening, therefore we must reengineer our entire society to stop it?
From the time if Arrhenius (1896) scientists have said that if you put a whole lot of CO2 in the air, it will cause warming. We did it, and the air warmed. If we keep doing it, the air will warm further.
Links needed to provide quantitative relationship between GHG and T, or their inverse.
Nobody tries very hard after quoting Arrhenius. Geoff S
That’s nonsensical. Arrhenius’ experiments took place in closed systems where he increased the CO2 volumes. The closed systems prevented convection. The atmosphere is an open system that operates through convection. In his later years, even Arrhenius admitted his claims were inflated and CO2’s effect was much lower than he had initially believed.
None of that is true. Arrhenius did no such experiments, nor did he make any such admission.
Nick, I wonder whether you can see the problem when you comment. Any time you assert something it makes people believe the opposite. You could call it negative credibility.
People may believe the opposite. Some people can believe anything. But the test here is, can anyone produce a link to these supposed experiments? Or to the supposed admission? Can you?
If you don’t see the problem with uncritically accepting un-sourced (and completely incorrect) information from users like spren, who has apparently just whole-cloth made up stories about verifiable historical fact, while rejected Stokes’ skepticism just ’cause you want the false info to be true, you probably ought to do some self-reflection. Arrhenius did not perform experiments on the absorptivity of carbon dioxide in a laboratory setting, he performed numerical calculations using data gathered by other researchers:
Wow Nick. That’s flaky logic. Did you get that from a chatbot?
“If we keep doing it, the air will warm further”. – Models?
Correlated to population growth. Increases in food production. Increases in rainfall across Australia, at least. Global increases in vegetation.
Also a trivial amount of sea level increase by human lifetime standards.
So what’s not to like?
I am happier and happier every day, lately. Thanks to Willis, to WUWT, and to you all .
Now , after looking at the coloured maps, and reading all the comments, I have stopped feeling guilty of keeping my house warm , ant taking hot baths ,( old grannies are always cold ). I know that the ¿global? warming is not my fault , and that it not even global.
That is why we are here!!!
Climate Change has been happening as far back in time as we can find data.
The climate has always changed, with or without data
Yeah, but grifters haven’t exploited natural temperature variations until the 1980s. Now, it’s big business.
soon to be worth countless trillions
The GHG theory relies on “all else remaining equal”. This only happens in very simple systems with limited degrees of freedom.
For all anyone knows the north south seesaw in temperature has nothing to do with CO2.
What is a warmunist to do? They proclaimed Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global a warming (CAGW). But
There have been none of the proclaimed catastrophes:
Any warming isn’t mostly anthropogenic.
Any warming isn’t global.
And there isn’t much warming.
Hansen is a god to the CAGW grifters.
There have been none of the proclaimed catastrophes:
Humans can’t predict catastrophes.
Any warming isn’t mostly anthropogenic.
Speculation not based on data
Any warming isn’t global.
True, and never was
And there isn’t much warming.
Not true from 1975 to 2015.
Most of the warming is UHI being spread around via homogenization and infilling.
UHI spreading out over the oceans?
Who knows? Even the ARGO buoys are so spread out that most of the ocean is not covered leading to widespread use of homogenization and infilling. If even a few buoys are located in “hot spots” that will get spread around to every place.
The ocean is no different than the land in that both have micro-climates. And we know that homogenization and infilling on land leads to spreading uncertainties around. That’s why the Hubbard and Lin study back in the early 2000’s found that regional adjustments to measuring stations were simply wrong, adjustments had to be on a station-by-station basis because of the variation in micro-climates at each station.
Willis E once calculated that each Argo float was representing an area the size of Portugal. Would we take one land temperature in Portugal and say it represented the temperature of the whole country?
The fallacy here is that ARGO floats are not relied on for SST. There is a much larger population of drifter buoys.
Not sure what you mean by “relied upon”.
See e.g. Generation and Assessment of ARGO Sea Surface Temperature Climatology for the Indian Ocean Region, where SST climatology is calculated based entirely on ARGO.
As for the numbers, as of 27 Feb 2023, there were 1,018 drifter buoys in operation and ~ 3,800 ARGO floats.
But hey, other than getting everything wrong, you were mostly right … now feel free to tell us that you don’t own a dog.
Not sure why the font size went nuts there, and it doesn’t want to allow me to fix it. Go figure.
It seems I was wrong about the relative numbers. But on reliance, ERSST before Version 5 used drifters but not ARGO. The paper you linked on the Indian Ocean was about climatology, but if you want to monitor SST, the disadvantage is that they only come to the surface once every 10 days.
Here is the Huang et al ERSST 5 paper ruminating on the pros and cons of including ARGO:
“A criticism leveled at ERSSTv4 was that it did not utilize the available data from Argo profilers. In going from ERSSTv3b to ERSSTv4 substantial upgrades and updates were incorporated, and our primary interest was the centennial time scale changes. As such, we did not consider Argo measurements at that time because Argo data only exist since the late 1990s, and their role in near-surface monitoring was less well advanced. Following Karl et al. (2015) there is interest in the recent period data that, together with an ever-lengthening record and the high measurement system quality, led to revisiting the question of inclusion of Argo data within ERSSTv5. The question is vexed. On the one hand retaining Argo as an independent estimate would permit strong independent validation. On the other hand these data are some of the best data available, and, unlike drifting buoys, they tend not to coalesce around ocean surface current convergence zones and hence sample many regions infrequently visited by drifting buoys. Noting that there is no right answer on the issue; we eventually decided to include these data on the grounds of improved resilience and data constraint availability for informing monitoring activities.”
Thanks, Nick. A most interesting quote.
Further to that, HADSST, including the latest V4, do not use ARGO at all for monitoring, only for later validation. Here is their paper explaining why:
“On the other hand, there is much to be gained from using the Argo measurements as independent validation. The latter approach is common in the satellite SST community (see, e.g., Merchant et al., 2012, Berry et al., 2018), where drifting buoy data are often used for calibration and thus cannot be used for validation. We adopt the same approach and reserve Argo for validation of the final product. The relatively infrequent sampling provided by Argo—one profile every ten days— when compared to say drifting buoys, which provide one measurement every hour, or even ships, which usually measure once every six hours, means that including Argo in our analysis would have a relatively small impact on the gridded anomalies. “
A good idea—use one for the data and the other for validation.
So what? Coverage of the oceans is *still* very poor. Meaning any errors in those few stations (buoys or whatever) get spread around over huge areas of oceans through homogenization and infilling.
You can run but you can’t hide. Pick four land stations, one per time zone, and use them to homogenize and infill the entire US and see what you get.
Better yet, what is the expanded uncertainty associated with the mean!
The effect of the solar cycle on the surface is not global either.
Lean, J.L., 2017. Sun-climate connections. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science.
It used to be open. Not anymore.
I am pretty sure the GB cycle is. But it takes 87 years, on average. People cannot see it because many don’t even live that long….
I’m pretty sure most people don’t have that long an attention span either.
AMO anomalies shift in and out of phase with solar cycles, and the AMO is warmer during centennial solar minima.
Nice, very informative. The only surprise was the higher temperature in Eastern Europe. Please explain or comment.
They are cutting a lot of trees there. Mostly for burning furnaces in the EU. Many people there think this is ‘green energy’ …..
Cutting trees means higher temperatures in the day but lower temperatures at night ….
Isn’t the tree cutting a mostly quite recent response to the destruction of more modern energy supplies?
There is a lot of latitudinally constrained water bodies in Eastern Europe. They have been getting increasing peak solar intensity for over 1000 years and have been warming for at least 300 years.
The image show the sea surface temperature for the region 35N to 50N, 10E to 40E. As you can see it is rising strongly in summer and retaining increasing temperature through winter. The end result is the land is warming in both summer in winter despite the lower winter sunlight.
Peak solar intensity is the prime driver of peak summer temperature and oceans retain the heat longer.
The Mediterranean is getting close to reaching 30C and is large enough to support monsoonal storms. So summer flooding will be an increasing feature of the region.
You can look at how sunlight is changing over long periods using the IMCCE insolation calculator:
You will find spring sunlight is rising strongly at 40N and peak summer sunlight in June bottomed about 1500 years ago. Heat that goes into the Mediterranean takes a long time to warm up the deep water but it does not readily cool by any circulation to the poles like most of the ocean water.
Everything except the South Polar Oceans has warmed, thankfully. Maybe not enough.
Globally, it has warmed, just not absolutely every where and not exactly evenly.
I’m not sure that supports the title or the short-form conclusion: Non-global warming or “The warming may be many things, but it’s not global…”
The images only show anomalies. Even so, the spatial changes are proof that warming is not “global”. However temporal resolution would add more to the story.
The warming is not occurring at the same rate throughout an annual cycle everywhere as the claimed CO2 impact requires and climate models produce.
Arctic land masses are warming most in winter, which can only occur through advection. That requires more snowfall, which is being observed. Something climate models still get wrong but they have recognised this failure so I figure it is being worked on.
Eventually the modellers will realise humans, as we now are, are observing our first termination of out modern interglacial.
They are already tuning the models to get snowfall to match observations and as the NH oceans warm more, there has to be more winter snowfall while the window to melt that snow narrows. Eventually it accumulates again. By my calculation still 200 years from permafrost advancing southward again. So far only Greenland and Iceland are gaining permanent ice extent due to being surrounded by open ocean water.
Budgets for removing snow are increasing due to higher costs and more snow. The snow piles in some northern cities are hanging around to the very end of summer and will eventually need spreading to induce more rapid melting. Snowfall records will be a feature of weather reporting for the next 9000 years. This year it was Japan that hit new records.
Rick ==> “Even so, the spatial changes are proof that warming is not “global”” That’s a distinction without a difference. (or something like that.)
To be global, it is only necessary that the “globe” has warmed overall, even if some places cooled and other places warmed.
Personally, I think that is a trivial, invalid argument.
That the IPCC consensus is mostly, if not entirely wrong, is another topic.
More CO2 is good, warmer is better tab colder.
It is imprecise to state the “global” temperature has increased.
The Global Average Surface Temperature has increased.
This is a very important distinction because it invalidates CO2 as the cause. And climate models are proof that it is invalid. They show warming trend everywhere for every year.
I did the attached comparison for model prediction versus measured for the Nino34 a while back to highlight how silly the CO2 driven temperature idea really is.
I pointed out the absurdity of this prediction to CSIRO and they responded by stating that they no longer predict beyond 2100. They did not even attempt to explain why it is so wrong or even try to justify the nonsense their models produce. You will find their models always cool the past from the time of the model prediction to get their warming trend. And they have done a good job of rewriting history to lower past temperature.
Anyone who thinks that open ocean water can sustain a temperature above 30C has NO clue how Earth’s atmosphere works. And it is quite eveident that the CISRO modellers have no clue.
Rick ==> Agenda driven definitions is what the alarmists use to make their competing case.
Global means global or it doesn’t….willis uses a graphic that includes a global value. That value has risen. So either that graphic is nonsense or your point is invalid — or both, I guess.
You say “The Global Average Surface Temperature has increased.” — which is true (and I am thankful for that).
I am also thankful that the lower troposphere temperature, averaged across all areas, has risen.
But just allowing that the “global average Lower Trop MSU” to be called global doesn’t hurt anything — not even your agenda.
If you don’t think that the willis-supplied graphic is right, then say that. But don’t complain when I use the common-English terms for the items used in the graphics.
Maybe eveyone else should change their terminology to match your preferences? Nah….I think we’ll just call those averages “Global” — even when we don’t think it is possible to calculate even an approximately correct numerical solution.
Our South polar oceans are huge, important for study and poorly understood.
But, if you feel as I do, study to advance knowledge is OK, but study to promote GHG theory is an invalid extension of political motivation. And we are incapable of safely changing long term climate patterns, so why even try? Geoff S
Find the correct reason for the warming – and admit that clearly the warming is not global. It is slowly spreading from north to south. See my previous comments on this thread. Mostly via the seas/oceans.
Just look at Central Europe, headed right down to Ukraine/Black Sea – roasted red hot.
Exactly the place that now lurches from high temps to drought to low river flows and THEN , they find themselves one lunchtime up to their necks in a tsunami of muddy water. aka a Flash Flood.
Exactly what I was taught in my O-level Geography classes 50years ago to be ‘A Desert Climate’
What an odd thing, bang next door to the place (Western Europe) where they’re running out of food because of ‘Bad Weather’. Blamed on cold weather this time. And it must have been really cold, the affected crops were in glasshouses to try keep them warm.
So why is Central and Eastern Europe now behaving like a desert – with Western Europe coming up fast from behind?
How did carbon oxide, sunspots, manklovitch, cosmic anythings do that.
Why did they pick on Europe?
A warming atmosphere is a cooling earth/Earth – this entire climate thing could not be any more wrong if it tried.
Oceans are boiling, the planet is superheated by the ‘empty space’ of the alarmist’s absence of credible and verifiable science.
Richard Feynman: “one teacup of empty space contains enough energy to boil all the world’s oceans.”
Well I’m a bit color blind, so as far as I’m concerned, everything feels just as it’s been for these past 75 years I’ve been an inhabitant of this planet.
These maps also raise the question of discrimination against People Of Diminished Color Detection (PODCDs).
Anyone know if there’s a law firm that handles PODCD discrimination lawsuits?
(Preferably a disreputable outfit, in the Saul Goodman genre).
> The warming may be many things, but it’s not global …
“Global” may not mean what you make it mean, Willis.
The first chart is useful but there was a better Willie E. chart in 2019 that showed UAH and HadCRUT by latitude.
Such a good chart that I feature it on my climate and energy blog about every six months since then. I don’t know how to post it from my flash drive to this comment, so I just posted it on my blog again:
Honest Climate Science and Energy: A Monday climate rap, inspired by a chart showing warming by latitude from January 1979 to February 2019
The chart at the link above above and the first chart in this article can bring “climate change is caused by everything but CO2” nutters out of the woodwork.
We Climate Realists seem to have some members who suffer from that delusion — the manmade global warming deniers.
Of course CO2 emissions are not the only manmade cause of climate change, but those pesky CO2 emissions get about 99% of the attention.
So let me straighten out the CO2 does nothing science deniers, and perhaps start the Second World War of CO2.
Even the Climate Howlers understand that manmade CO2 emissions are a climate change cause, in spite of being confused about much of climate science. Mainly not able to differentiate between always wrong predictions of climate doom and actual science.
Manmade CO2 is one of many causes of climate change.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
More greenhouse gases in the troposphere impede Earth’s ability to cool itself.
Therefore, more CO2 causes some amount of near-global warming, except in most of Antarctica and at times in the Arctic during the winter — both times when there is a temperature inversion. And also affected by the high altitudes of much of Antarctica
So the effect of CO2 warming starts out not quite global.
But that does not matter because CO2 is just one of many climate change variables, which are both manmade and natural.
The actual climate change in any location is the net result of all local, regional and global causes of climate change.
Sometimes the global average temperature net change will positively correlate with CO2 (1975 to 2015), and sometimes negatively correlate (1940 to 1975, before radical “revisions” to the data) and sometimes there is almost no correlation at all (2015 to 2023, with UAH date)
What does this tell us?
It tells us CO2 is not a global average temperature control knob.
That’s almost all we learn from the observations.
From lab spectroscopy experiments we learn CO2 above 400 ppm is a weak greenhouse gas and is likely to behave like a weak greenhouse gas in the atmosphere too.
The bottom line is still what I predicted in 1997: The climate will get warmer, unless it gets colder.
I failed to predict that politicians would use climate change scaremongering to gain political power and control.
Which they have done effectively.
They have turned the staff of almost all life on this planet, CO2, into a satanic gas.
And used the false fear of CO2 to promote a huge boondoggle called Nut Zero.
This effective climate change propaganda is hard to believe, but most people believe it.
In a libertarian poll last year, 59% of scientists beiieved in CAGW (catastrophic manmade global warming predictions), That’s shocking = 59 percentage points too many.
After 40 years of mild, harmless global warming, from 1975 to 2015, people who lived with and usually enjoyed that warming (I did) continue to fear the future climate.
Even after every prediction of climate doom since 1979 was wrong.
Climate change is a new secular anti-CO2 religion, almost unrelated to science and observations, with beliefs that can’t be refuted by facts, data and logic, because they were not created by facts, data and logic in the first place.
Only though its impact on the biosphere., which we are observing to be positive and significant.
Open ocean temperature cannot sustain more than 30C – physically impossible with the current atmospheric mass and properties of water. That alone eliminates CO2 direct involvement in Earth’s energy balance.
Look at how CAPE dominates the tropical oceans to regulate heat input per attached. The idea that CO2 has any influence over these immensely powerful processes is plain nuts. People who believe that CO2 can influence the energy balance directly are away with the fairies. It is nonsense.
”Manmade CO2 is one of many causes of climate change.”
Where is the proof. Hint… Just coz lots of people say it does not mean anything.
You are not interested in proof
The proof existed in the late 1800s.
You are not interested in accuracy. I asked for proof the co2 has caused the climate to change. You have not provided it. Perhaps you can show me your claimed co2 caused climate change in the late 1800s.
Hint…. Proof of radiative properties is not proof of climate change. Try again.
Another stratospheric intrusion on the West Coast and a heavy snowstorm in the Sierra Nevada. Roads will be impassable.
One thing that might be interesting is to use a model other than LT = 1.538*MT – 0.548*TP + 0.010 * LS [Spencer et al. 2017] and see how it affects the various regional warming rates. One interesting aspect with the UAH method is that the global trend is very sensitive to the averaging kernel parameters. I wonder how this sensitivity shows up in the gridded data. I’ve been meaning to do the analysis, but haven’t had the time yet (though I do have most the code ready). Since you already have the code in place to process the grids perhaps you could combine the MT, TP, and LS grids with different models and see what happens.
Will La Niña end quickly? I highly doubt it.
The upcoming El Niño next year will produce anomalies similar to Feb 2020, and hopefully after that we will finally be back to old pause. El Ninos have shown to have a cooling effect after their endings.
Say I burn a cord* of wood in a wood stove:
Does the CO2 produced warm the atmosphere more than the
combustion of the wood?
*See: wiki/Cord_(unit) for a photo
It’s net warming global, it’s just not uniform in time or space.
A question for Willis E:
If we put to the side temperature changes in the Arctic, what are the temperature trends for the rest of the Earth over the same interval (ie, since 1979).
A slightly longer view of instrumental temperature anomalies.
During the current La Niña, little heat has accumulated in the western Pacific. This is a far cry from El Niño.
The SOI does not drop below zero.
Galactic radiation is extremely sensitive to the Sun’s magnetic activity. Take a fresh look at the increase in GCR since the previous solar cycle.
You can see it better in the chart below.
Let’s look at the surface temperature anomalies of the South Pacific. Is it possible that La Niña will rebound during the winter in the southern hemisphere?
The Humboldt Current is a surface current.
During the summer months the only time that has gotten warmer at my central Indiana home is at night! It generally does not cool off at night,. A result of more moisture in the air. Otherwise it has been generally cooler for years now! Have not hit the century mark on the thermometer for several years now and we have fewer 90 degree days too!
Winters have been milder than they were back in the 70’s. Absolutely no doubt about it, though this winter we had our first white Christmas in some time, even though the 60 mph winds and sub zero temps ruined the ambiance.
My own personal experience and observations agree with what Tony Heller has been saying:
Over fish the Krill and the whole food chain collapses.
Dr. Roy Spencer is looking at the UHI adjustment contribution to UAH warming. Definitely interested to see what he finds…
The Artic warming is likely just the warm phase of the AMO. If so, we should observe cooling in the attic over the next 30 years or so.
Since you like using CEEMDAN, I wonder why you didn’t use it here?
Below is the derivative of the CEEMDAN residuals to get the current warming rate for all the locations you’ve mentioned.
I don’t really know what to make of it all, but there was a massive bump in warming rate in the Tropics in the late 80’s, which seems to have impacted on other zones, and rippled in time in Northern Hemisphere locations.
The North Pole seems to hold on to all warming.
Most interesting, Stephen, thanks. The bump in tropical warming is most interesting, and I have no clue what it might be from.
Best to you and yours,
Another stratospheric intrusion on the West Coast of North America.
Still heavy frost in the Midwest.
Western circulation completely blocked in the Atlantic. Europe remains in northern air mass.
In a few days d Europe will receive air from as far away as the North Pole.