Latest Global Average Tropospheric Temperatures
Posted by jennifer, July 9th, 2009 - under News.
Tags: Climate & Climate Change
“SINCE 1979, NOAA satellites have been carrying instruments which measure the natural microwave thermal emissions from oxygen in the atmosphere. The signals that these microwave radiometers measure at different microwave frequencies are directly proportional to the temperature of different, deep layers of the atmosphere.
“Every month, John Christy and I update global temperature datasets that represent the piecing together of the temperature data from a total of eleven instruments flying on eleven different satellites over the years. As of 2008, our most stable instrument for this monitoring is the Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (AMSU-A) flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite.
“The graph above represents the latest update; updates are usually made within the first week of every month.”
Roy Spencer
July 3, 2009
************************
Notes and Links
Commentary from
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
Chart from
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/uah_jun09.png
The paper is in review, how about a comment? Anyway, here is my take on it; in Australia there is no discernible AGW effect on temperature trend during the 20thC; the 1978 step up generates the temperature difference; prior to the break-point the temperature is flat because there was a -ve and +ve PDO which in effect nullified each PDO’s effect on temperature; the 1978 step-up is the entirety of the new +ve PDO; this is not a stored or accumulated heat build up but, imo, a product of the oceanographic effects which occurred in 1976; on this basis the contrary oceanographic effect in 1998 should produce a gradual decline in trend from the plateaued trend from 1998.
The global temperature history is more complex; there is a gradual trend from 1910 to 1976 of about 0.3C; the trend after the step-up in 1976 is about 0.2C until the 1997 break; after 1997 the trend declines. For what its worth my take on that is the pre-1976 trend is solar; the trend between 1976 and 1997 cannot be natural variation because the PDO effect is in the break so the problem for CO2, which is monotonically increasing, is, if the CO2 post 1976 caused the trend to 1997, after 1997 with the PDO effect also at 1997 there cannot be a Keenlyside type masking of AGW to explain the flat to slightly declining post 1997 trend because the masking effect stopped at 1997; so there is no amplification of AGW between 1976 and 1997 and no depression of AGW post 1997. My best bet for the 1976 to 1997 trend is UHI with some measurement hiccups thrown in and for post 1997 a declining sun.
“CO2 science is a completely unscientific source. CO2 science does neither provide a link to the articles, nor the original abstract. instead, they do their own summary, which is most often in contradiction to what the article really says. they then combine those false informations into rubbish statistics and graphics like this one. just a fake.
The MWP was warmer.
the MWP was NOT globally warmer than current temperature is. even Loehle s revised paper had to admit this.
You see all of this is a lie without exception.
“CO2 science is a completely unscientific source…….
A filthy lie
” CO2 science does neither provide a link to the articles…………”
Thats ridiculous. Did you get this idiocy from Coby Beck? Not all articles are available online for free so obviously they are not in a position to provide the full study. This is worse than a lie. You are just filth mate.”
“….nor the original abstract……….”
What is cut and pasting to google for you dirty stinking socialist?
“.. instead, they do their own summary….. ”
Thats a good thing. They are great summaries. What is wrong with providing a summary? If they didn’t provide a summary how could you know what the study was about? How can providing a summary be a bad thing you idiot?
“… which is most often in contradiction to what the article really says. …..”
They don’t contradict what the article really sez you are lying. Since the only important thing in the article is the concrete facts. The politically correct wording and the veiled pleas for more funding are just not important. What IS important is the interpretation of the concrete fact revealed in the study, which the rest of us can sometimes access for free and sometimes not.
“….they then combine those false informations.,…..” Another filthy lie on your part…
” ….into rubbish statistics …..”
Another lie on your part there is nothing wrong with their statistics. THEY ARE ENTIRELY TRANSPARENT WITH THEIR DATA AND METHODOLOGY IN ALL CASES. This
is makes them virtually unique is this shameful poxy area.
‘
I’d break your nose if you lied like this to my face. No question about that at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This idiot is lying about the MWP. As the evidence shows the MWP was warmer. He’s got no evidence to the contrary. Nothing that has emerged since the global warming fraud started suggests that the MWP was colder. He’s just lying.
Now everything knows why these people are lying about this. Because a warmer MWP means no tipping point is credible. Means this filth doesn’t have the justification for a cap-and-kill or a global tax or to ration energy in the same way they dealt with the fight against malaria.
CO2 science is the best site on the internet for this sort of information. Since it is so comprehensive and so transparent. For context you come to this site.
Interesting point raised by Lazlo and Louis. If Wong is now claiming that atmospheric temperatures are no longer important then what the f@#& have all these climate cretins been doing with their Global Climate Models for the past two decades?
Luke, Sod & SJT should refrain from any further comment until they explain this inconsistency.
Do the GCMs primarily model atmospheric temperature or don’t they?
Is Minister Wong a moron or not?
Has she directly contradicted the past two decades of IPCC sanctioned modelling or not?
Oh Luuuukkkeeeey?
“If Wong is now claiming that atmospheric temperatures are no longer important then”
Point out to me where they said atmospheric temperatures are no longer important.
Mottsa – what are you on about – Phil has gotten me out of a warm bed with a hot lady to answer Motty in a cold room. Phil all excited as he thinks you may have a point – so I pulled the power on his wheel chair.
Motty – Wongsy is a bit of stylish chick with some smarts – but do you really think any of the govt hierarchy know what’s really going on. They’re pollies for heavens sake and despite what you think I don’t shill for them.
I know you’ll just roll you eyes – but here’s how it goes. Periods of statis are evident in the temperature record since 1850 despite a background trend of up up up.
Why – IPO, AMO, solar, volcanoes, etc
The IPCC report means of models. The individual models are composed of ensembles (numbers of runs with slightly different starting conditions to sample the chaos space).
AND individual models means and individual ensemble members can wander around for periods without growth in temperatures. The monotonically up up up is just not so.
Furthermore Hadley are investing big bucks in understanding decadal influences. (Which is the subject of my ongoing sideline discussion with Coho).
Clearly an increase in long term temperatures in both the atmosphere and oceans IS INDEED what AGW is on about. However – a decade of little action isn’t “abnormal” say the models and the real world.
Folland says:
1. Large scale natural modes of interdecadal variability exist. Likely to have substantial regional effects on climate even remotely.
2. Regional effects of natural modes can produce regional climate trends.
3. Regional climate variations/change must be increasingly understood as a combined consequence of natural variability and anthropogenic forcing.
Which means it will get complex !
We’ll just have to wait to see who get tarred and feathered.
Wongsy is probably on the hooch.
No thats not right Luke. The models were taken totally by surprise as usual.
Ian Mott “Thats 268 gigatonnes of CO2 all dressed up with nowhere to go”.
In an atmosphere with a mass of nearly 5 quadrillion metric tonnes, what’s a gigatonne here or there? A quadrillion is 1000 million million, or 5,000,000,000,000,000 (5e+15). A giga is 1,000,000,000 (1e+9).
ALL CO2 makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere and ACO2 0.04% of ALL CO2, making it 0.0016% of the atmosphere. Some people are impressed by gigatonnes, not having a clue just how incredibly large is the mass of the universe.
Even taking your figures, 268,000,000,000/5,000,000,000,000,000 = 0.0000536 x 100 = 0.0056%. Even though 268 gigatonnes of CO2 sounds like a whole lot, it’s only 0.0056% of the atmosphere. In words, that’s 5.36 one-thousands of 1 percent.
Roy Spencer’s analogy is even better. 380 ppmv means 380 molecules of CO2 per 1 million molecules of air, or 38 molecules of CO2 per 100,000 molecules of air. Since CO2 accumulates at 0.6% per year, that is 0.006 x 38 molecules = 0.228 molecules of CO2 per year. To get an even molecule, we multiply by 5 years, to get about 1 molecule added by humans to 100,000 molecules of air every five years. Many AGWers don’t get it that 98.5% of ALL CO2 is reabsorbed by the oceans and land.
Some blanket that is for trapping IR.
“No thats not right Luke. The models were taken totally by surprise as usual.” – gee Birdy – how long have you been a pig ignorant now. Dazzling rebuttal mate.
Gordon’s back to the teesnsy weensy ruse. Give it away you clown. Hey Gordon do you know hey there are earthquakes.
Mate – Spencer defends the greenhouse effect exists – you dispute its existence – so boofhead – do you agree with Spencer or not? As usual – denialist scum have more positions than the Karma Sutra.
Spencer urinates all over your stupid 2nd Law of Thermodynamics ruse.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/04/in-defense-of-the-greenhouse-effect/
“Roy Spencer’s analogy is even better. 380 ppmv means 380 molecules of CO2 per 1 million molecules of air, or 38 molecules of CO2 per 100,000 molecules of air. Since CO2 accumulates at 0.6% per year, that is 0.006 x 38 molecules = 0.228 molecules of CO2 per year. To get an even molecule, we multiply by 5 years, to get about 1 molecule added by humans to 100,000 molecules of air every five years. Many AGWers don’t get it that 98.5% of ALL CO2 is reabsorbed by the oceans and land.”
You sound like the overweight person justifying their meal to themselves. The simple fact is we are well on the way to doubling the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
No no Luke. There is no use lying about it. All alarmist models have been taken totally by surprise. Lying doesn’t count department of Luke. No model using CO2 as a driving force can work but if it did its nickname would by now be a household word.
SJT – we are well on the way of doubling CO2 in the atmosphere? Given that the human contribution of total CO2 is about 3%, that’s an interesting extrapolation. Must be something to do with the Enid Blyton science the IPCC reports are based on.
Birdy – I would give Louis more credibility than yourself. The ultimate level of denial is thinking one might attract a fair share of results in a national poll. I rest my case as to the demonstrated result of a test of your powers of judgement.
Well the department of Luke is just full of morons isn’t it? Yes it is. Imagine falling for this embarrassing and transparent science fraud. What a stupid stupid department. Should be axed, the building torn down and removed, and salt poured on the ground.
Neat sidestep Luke. Wong says the atmosphere doesn’t count so best tell that to the climate muddlers who obviously think it does. Indeed, the whole theory of CO2 forcing is based on the impact of CO2 in the atmoshpere, isn’t it?
Now if Wong is not wrong, and it is all about the oceans, then we would need to start looking at what changes oceanic albedo in a way that increases retained insolation and raises surface temperatures. Gosh, boy wonder, do you think variations in cloud cover could be raising ocean temperatures independently of all those minor agents like CO2 and methane?
Smells an awful lot like the ground work for a climate bail out to me.
Re: CO2ppm, Gordon.
I agree, CO2 is sweet FA. I only mentioned the volume to remind the climate cretins how much it has increased for no result.
Maybe Penny W got the idea from that wonderful series on Youtube called ‘Climate Denial Crock of the Week’.
Check out ‘Party like it’s 1998′ which says that the story of global warming is really the story of ocean warming (or some such crock).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y15UGhhRd6M
But the good Prof Barry Brook endorses this series so it must be right.