If planet earth is suffering from the greenhouse effect shouldn’t the troposphere heat up faster than the surface of the earth? And shouldn’t troposphere temperatures be increasing with the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels?
Alan Siddons, of Massachusetts in the USA, took the NASA graphic for the lower troposphere (green line) middle troposphere (blue line) and stratosphere (red line) and superimposed it over the Hadley Centre’s record of surface temperatures (thin line with dots) for the last few years.
What is the relationship between the temperature series and why isn’t the troposphere warming?
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Another blogger on the web. Hey, Jennifer, I have a radical theory about insects. Like to publish it? The best part of it is that it shows how current theories are actually a communist plot. Do you really believe all the current theories about ants and bees?
Send me your theory SJT, with graphics, and I will post it as a new thread.
Now what do you think abou the above graph?
I thought I gave a possible answer here:
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002643.html
SJT is just being silly again – eyes closed, hands over ears, la la la!
I have a theory. It involves the word hogwash and IPCC.
Where’s the greenhouse? I’ve been trying to tell you all. I measured a high co2 content atmosphere for the greenhouse effect. It doesn’t happen on the micro scale. Now here you are showing it doesn’t work on the macro scale either.
1. The troposphere isn’t warming because as a gas it can’t store heat by itself. Brownian motion simply dissipates any energy into space as quickly as it is appears from the surface. What does stop the heat from going into space is a physical boundary like clouds (not the least of which Roy Spencer et al have uncovered a veritable can of worms concerning feedback issues and reported today on http://www.antigreen.blogspot.com).
2. As these are measurements and not modelled results, these data falsifies the theory that increased CO2 must warm the troposphere.
The scientifically trained among us would be compelled by the data to conclude that AGW theory is false.
Those who assume from consensus that something must be true, will reject the data and come up with some ad hoc explanation of why the lack of warming in the troposphere is caused by something else, etc. etc. etc.
But let’s see what the usual suspects will come up with to deny physical reality.
The topic is that of an amateur blogger on the internet saying “I have no analytical skills, therefore AGW is not real”. I thought this blog was supposed to be about science.
fwiw, imho, the orginal graphs seem to indicate global warming, as predicted. I would defer to NASA however, as the scientific experts, who also say there is global warming.
Well Jen it’s 2008 and you aren’t doing any better. You’ve done “a Durkin” for the 2008 opener.
Publish the whole graph and don’t be so sneaky.
I suppose you didn’t notice the stratosphere trend at all?
Louis – you’re a nong – the tropsophere has warmed old son – back in your box and stop gibbering metaphysical drivel.
Luke,
any nong looking at the above graphs could easily conclude that you, in particular, need the urgent services of an opthalmologist.
Any nong can see the temperature has been declining since 2002. And globally it’s been static since 1998 but the temperature of your outbursts here seem definitely on the increase judged by your continued use of ad hominems.
Fortunately for us, that isn’t a globally pervasive temperature rise, just a Lukian phenomenon.
Why haven’t you and SJT and et al started your own blog countering the evility of we contrarians, or have you realised that no one
will bother with it, hence the need for your lamprey-like existence here.
Louis as I have told you many times you are statistically challenged – look the full series and ask how many times has the graph dropped only to rise again. What desperate rot you go on with. Wiggle worm watcher.
One warmer point and you guys are toast on your argument. It will come. Personally I hope it doesn’t rise for a few years so you dig yourselves a very deep hole.
You guys aren’t contrarians as that requires an intelligent argument – it’s simply right wing religious level denialism of the worst kind with eccentric kooky psuedo-science to match. You’re still not pushing that abiogenic oil elixir are you?
BTW – how is your OWN BLOG on Thornton – would that be almost ZERO comments. Perhaps you’re here as you’re lonely Louis.
Luke,
I don’t have a blog on Thornton,and whether readers wish to comment or not is another manner – Henry does moderate them I believe. I just write and submit and whether it gets posted or not is up to Henry, not me.
So once again Luke you have your facts quite wrong, again.
I sometimes wonder whether you are an alter-ego of Tim Lambert – but no, Tim couldn’t be that hard up to invent something like you to advertise the intolerance of the climate Charlatans like yourself.
“You guys…simply right wing religious level denialism of the worst kind…….”etc. which follows “One warmer point and you guys are toast on your argument. It will come. Personally I hope it doesn’t rise for a few years so you dig yourselves a very deep hole”
He’s actually looking forward to the ‘impending climate catastrophe’.
For further background on Millenarianism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millenarianism
There is an excellent sound effect in The Goon Show’s “The case of the Batter Pudding” in which the wailing and gnashing of teeth is accompanied by appropriate deathly music – what a pity this priceless sound effect can’t be coded here to play everytime Luke and his merry band of “End Timers” post a comment here.
That would be a hoot!
Mind you the Lukian obsession with future catastrophe, little different to the other cults, was quite deftly analysed by a group of scientists in “Mankind in Amnesia”. Out of print and I lent my copy to a colleague, but it seems that the expectation of ending times is based on some ancient prior catastrophe and embedded into our subconscious.
So the hypothesis states.
So the Lukian Madness may well have some physical origin that religions seem to profit from.
Please don’t quote non-objective sources like RC -they will now be deleted – just like my posts over at RC!
You think that’s bad Paul?
The climate change blog at my local newspaper has directed me to post any challenges that I have regarding climate change to RealClimate for discussion.
http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/hothouse/archives/009774.html
I suppose it’s a little better then telling me to shut up and shove off. lol
Luke saidris
“ask how many times has the graph dropped only to rise again.”
or we could say
‘ask how many times has the graph risen only to drop again.’
Also I note that he is still waiting for that ONE warm point.
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2008/01/01/important-new-paper-using-limited-time-period-trends-as-a-means-to-determine-attribution-of-discrepancies-in-microwave-sounding-unit-derived-tropospheric-temperature-time-by-rmrandall-and-bm-herman
“While both UAH and RSS are outstanding research groups, with respect to the assessment of multi-decadal tropospheric temperature trends, the independent comparison reported in Randall and Herman indicates that the trend values of the UAH group are more accurate.”
Color me shocked to find out that NOAA is screwing the numbers toward the hot side with there ultra fancy satellite corrections.
Never the cool side, always the hot.
After a couple decades isn’t fair to call it deliberate?
And if some of those pesky civilians are still cold despite NOAA’s annual proclamation of the new warmist year ever, we have scientists working on a pharmacutical remedy.
http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSN1852640720071218?sp=true
“CHICAGO (Reuters) – Nerves that sense the icy slap of an arctic wind or just a cool breeze take their orders from a single protein, U.S. researchers said on Monday, shedding new light on how we experience cold…
…Researchers study cold-sensing neurons to grasp the molecular mechanisms of sensation, an understanding that may lead to better drugs for pain relief.”
Don’t mind those snowdrifts, here take a pill.
James
for a couple of decades there, UAH was skewing there’s cooler. Isn’t it fair to call that deliberate? Christy et al weren’t found out by Climate Audit, either.
Yawn! UAH was corrected by 0.035C, which was within the 0.05C margin of error.
Paul – “”While both UAH and RSS are outstanding research groups, with respect to the assessment of multi-decadal tropospheric temperature trends, the independent comparison reported in Randall and Herman indicates that the trend values of the UAH group are more accurate.””
You should not be posting links to non-authorative sites like Prometheus. This is the brave new world of this blog isn’t it?
Louis is reliable:
“Brownian motion simply dissipates any energy into space”
The only way of conveying energy to space (which is empty Louis) is by radiation. Brownian motion requires molecules to Brownian move.
The BoM has just come out with it’s annual climate summary, and you’ve guessed it… “Parts of Australia have recorded their warmest year on record”, but….overall the country has “only experienced it’s sixth hottest year on record”.
They claim that NSW has experienced it’s hottest year on record, in 2007.
Well, well, not here….No where near the hottest on record. Must be the BoM’s ‘supercharged’ thermometers at ‘selected sites’.
Will be interesting to hear from Warwick Hughes on the matter!
“Brownian motion simply dissipates any energy into space”
Thanks, Eli, I could tell it was utterly wrong, just waited for someone to put it better than I could.
Louis, do you think you should tell your friends at Thornton and here that they should give you the boot since you have no idea of even basic physics.
Ender, Paul’s link is not to Prometheus. Maybe an apology is in order?
BTW, when was it wrong to link to a report of a peer-reviewed paper currently in press. I mean, the IPCC includes a paper that has been ‘in press’ for over a year in its latest report.
Is it so painfully to find an independent review that determines the UAH team’s data to be more reliable then that of the RSS team?
Paul, maybe you should have ignored it if only to avoid offending Ender’s feelings.
Ender is getting his ‘Pielkes’ mixed up – the link was to Pielke Sr’s post about an independent peer reviewed article comparing RSS to UAH.
The only reason UAH is attacked is because it doesn’t produce climate alarmist results. Shame.
Anyway, as a blog administrator, 2008 will see the end of me being Mr Nice Guy. Comments with inapproriate language or links to ‘serial inconvenient comment deleters’ and ‘serial attackers of inconvenient science’ – RC, will be deleted.
Look at the comparison between RSS and UAH.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/GlobalWarmingQandA/Images/uah_rss_lt_trends.gif
from
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/GlobalWarmingQandA/
Now what was the problem, again? The only serious error is the UAH data.
Paul your new policy is quite lamentable.
Effectively you have decided to adopt a censor position of the worst kind by deciding to axe RC references. Who are the marxists now?
So the blog is not the libertarian place for discussion that Jen has frequently espoused.
You guys recently promised to improve the quality of debate and get stuck into the ad homs but it’s as bad as ever. And you’ve have to admit the debate is pretty dreadful if we’re debating trivia such as does any greenhouse effect exist at all. How utterly tedious.
So this blog is now not to air the controversial aspects or novel aspects of environmental science.
You are descending into a propaganda publishing outlet for what ever the latest Morano attack point is from mission control.
No independent analysis or novelty. No radical blog here – just Time Magazine.
You will soon have a nice collection of people who agree with everything you say. Well you’re almost there.
So indeed it’s the end of no more Mr Nice Guy but also the end of pretence of any interest in any debate.
Good luck !
Back to topic – it would be better to see the tropospheric data plotted against Mark’s temperature series adjusted for El Chichon and Pinatubo. The official record is nothing more than a sequence of anecdotes while the adjusted record tells a similar story to the tropospheric.
Luke, Buddy, Boobalah, Son?
I want to discuss that stratospheric graph with you, except I have no idea what you think it means.
So pretty please, write up a post for Jen on the stratosphere. Then we can all get some quality learnin.
Be a man, James, and just say what you think it means.
SJT – I have provided 2 indpendent confirmations of the accuracy of the much criticised UAH data above.
Luke – there are plenty of people here who are true believers in AGW – and they are more than welcome – there is no intention to turn this blog into an ‘echo chamber’ – that would be pointless.
However, we do need tackle inappropriate personal comments, but we don’t hold up comments for approval -so we have to spot bad comments when we can.
RC have been particularly bad of late – hence my annoyance – Douglass et al, Thames Barrier nonsense, a goof-up over whether or not Courtillot used Jones’s data:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2531
“In the same RC thread, NASA employee and spokesman Gavin Schmidt published a defamatory statement by Eli Rabett, in which Rabett simply invented an account of the original submission by M&M to Nature and then censored my reply to the defamatory statement,”
“If you’re going to permit adverse comments on people on a blog, then simple fairness requires that you permit them to respond. On the few occasions that Schmidt posted here, I haven’t touched a comma of his posting.
Schmidt’s dishonest application of his posting policy probably does his cause more harm than good.”
Link to RC if you must, but don’t pretend RC are fair or objective.
SJT “Look at the comparison between RSS and UAH.”
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/GlobalWarmingQandA/Images/uah_rss_lt_trends.gif
Of course in 2023, when the 25 year trend is strongly downward, the alarmists will cry foul because the impact of the super El Nino in 1998 and the eruption of Mt. Kowabunga in 2019 are not accounted for!
Not all of NASA has its head in the sand!
http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html
Mark
that graph shows the revised UAH and RSS are largely in agreement, the trend is up. The old UAH is flatline, and is wrong. Nice to see UAH got with the program. How many research dollars do you think that cost?
“that graph shows the revised UAH and RSS are largely in agreement, the trend is up. The old UAH is flatline, and is wrong. Nice to see UAH got with the program. How many research dollars do you think that cost?”
Not disputing the alignment, just the alarmism on the trending when it is distorted by volcanic impacts at one end and a super El Nino at the other.
The adjustments made to UAH show how science is supposed to work. Debate the merits of the results and make changes where appropriate instead of saying “The debate is over”, “The science is settled”, Ad nauseum, Ad nauseum.