UAH for March 2018

[Old Rocks]

UAH Global Temperature Update for March, 2018: +0.24 deg. C « Roy Spencer, PhD

So we had a La Nina, and never got below 0.2. Wonder what the next El Nino will bring? Bet if it is a strong one, it will peak out above 1.2.

 

[skookerasbil]

Yet another inconsequential thread that will get about 50 views and fall into the memory hole

 

[Sunsettommy]

UAH Global Temperature Update for March, 2018: +0.24 deg. C « Roy Spencer, PhD

So we had a La Nina, and never got below 0.2. Wonder what the next El Nino will bring? Bet if it is a strong one, it will peak out above 1.2.

Then you admit it is Ocean warming the Atmosphere that causes the measured warming, NOT the bogeyman CO2 molecule floating around absorbing a small part of the Outgoing Terrestrial IR.

Since we have had a lot of big El-Nino's the last 35+ years, the Ocean waters will eventually lose that excess warm pool, the planet will cool down longer and more deeply.

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[skookerasbil]

SUNSETTOMMY again dishing out bumpy cucumber after bumpy cucumber.

Whos not winning?

 

[Old Rocks]

UAH Global Temperature Update for March, 2018: +0.24 deg. C « Roy Spencer, PhD

So we had a La Nina, and never got below 0.2. Wonder what the next El Nino will bring? Bet if it is a strong one, it will peak out above 1.2.

Then you admit it is Ocean warming the Atmosphere that causes the measured warming, NOT the bogeyman CO2 molecule floating around absorbing a small part of the Outgoing Terrestrial IR.

Since we have had a lot of big El-Nino's the last 35+ years, the Ocean waters will eventually lose that excess warm pool, the planet will cool down longer and more deeply.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Good God, why don't you just wear a big sign saying how stupid you are? Has the sun had a higher TSI in the last 20 years? No, it has been a bit lower. So the ocean would be absorbing less heat from the sun, since there is less heat to absorb. Yet, we are warming. However, we have a lot more, a whole lot more, CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere than we have had for millions of years. That traps outgoing heat. And then the atmosphere warms the oceans.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I hate to burst Old frauds bubble, but Dr Christy's graphs are about to take a -0.2 deg C correction....

IT appears Satellite Error is going to kill of all the potential temp rise that was being attributed to CO2.

“We were looking at 39 years of a temperature trend, and this stray satellite affected the trend by about 0.05 degrees Celsius (about 0.09° F) per decade,” said Christy said. “Over 39 years, that would be a total warming of about 0.2 C, or more than one-third of a degree Fahrenheit. And this problem occurred, almost all of it, in the 1990s and the early 2000s.

“An important piece of evidence pointing to a problem with the NOAA-14 satellite was its warming relative to the new NOAA-15 satellite that came in at the end of the 1990s,” Christy said.

Sorry to burst your bubble Old Fraud but any warming shown after the correction is implemented will wipe out all traces of CAGW.

UAH finds a warming error in satellite data, lowers “tropical hotspot” temperature trend, contradicts IPCC models

 

[Billy_Bob]

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01431161.2018.1444293

Here is the work by John R. Christy,Roy W. Spencer,William D. Braswell &Robert Junod explaining the error and correction...

 

[Billy_Bob]

The actual rise has now been lowered from 0.4 - 0.6 Deg C. down to 0.0 - 0.1 deg C. in the tropic regions. The so called hot spot is now totally gone and shown an artifact of satellite trajectory error. This is huge...

This brings into question seal level rise as well.

Source

 

[Sunsettommy]

UAH Global Temperature Update for March, 2018: +0.24 deg. C « Roy Spencer, PhD

So we had a La Nina, and never got below 0.2. Wonder what the next El Nino will bring? Bet if it is a strong one, it will peak out above 1.2.

Then you admit it is Ocean warming the Atmosphere that causes the measured warming, NOT the bogeyman CO2 molecule floating around absorbing a small part of the Outgoing Terrestrial IR.

Since we have had a lot of big El-Nino's the last 35+ years, the Ocean waters will eventually lose that excess warm pool, the planet will cool down longer and more deeply.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Good God, why don't you just wear a big sign saying how stupid you are? Has the sun had a higher TSI in the last 20 years? No, it has been a bit lower. So the ocean would be absorbing less heat from the sun, since there is less heat to absorb. Yet, we are warming. However, we have a lot more, a whole lot more, CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere than we have had for millions of years. That traps outgoing heat. And then the atmosphere warms the oceans.

You failed to notice that the chart YOU posted destroys your AGW conjecture. The warming trend is waaaay below what modeling scenarios predicted it would. warm. The IPCC made predictions/projection in every report of at least a .30C per decade warming rate, It has NEVER been .20C in any decade since 1990.

Thank you once again.

You also failed to realize that Ocean waters has a long term lag in the system due to its HIGH thermal capacity, but it is losing energy now which is why the big El-Nino's of the last 30 years have been more common than usual. It is why we get rapid warming spikes in the atmosphere for a reason you have absolutely NO clue about.

CO2 doesn't warm up the Ocean waters, the SUN does that with over 99% of the total energy flow into it. "backradiation" doesn't get past the water surface and that so little of it exist anyway. It is very hard to warm up the water with its massive heat capacity.

CO2 absorb a small amount of outgoing Terrestrial IR because most of the CO2 IR band is mostly OUTSIDE the big Terrestrial outflow

 

[Billy_Bob]

By showing the "sensitivity" of CO2 dropping from 0.6 to 0.1 indicates that there is a negative forcing which is killing CO2's LOG warming expected. ie: A tenth of a degree per decade at the hot spot when six tenths was expected strongly suggests a negative feedback is in play.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Old Rocks writes,

"However, we have a lot more, a whole lot more, CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere than we have had for millions of years. That traps outgoing heat. And then the atmosphere warms the ocean"

They are STILL trace gases with a very small IR absorption range as the chart in my previous post clearly shows.

MODTRAN shows that CH4 is a negligible player in the so called "heat budget" plus it doesn't last long in the atmosphere anyway.

 

[Sunsettommy]

The actual rise has now been lowered from 0.4 - 0.6 Deg C. down to 0.0 - 0.1 deg C. in the tropic regions. The so called hot spot is now totally gone and shown an artifact of satellite trajectory error. This is huge...

This brings into question seal level rise as well.

Source

The 'hot spot" was never there as part of it was COOLING slightly and the other part warming at third of the projected rate:

LINK

 

[Billy_Bob]

The actual rise has now been lowered from 0.4 - 0.6 Deg C. down to 0.0 - 0.1 deg C. in the tropic regions. The so called hot spot is now totally gone and shown an artifact of satellite trajectory error. This is huge...

This brings into question seal level rise as well.

Source

The 'hot spot" was never there as part of it was COOLING slightly and the other part warming at third of the projected rate:

View attachment 186764

LINK

I agree.

But the hypothiosis of the IPCC is now falling apart..

For instance:
GHE warming is due to radiative heat transfer by SB law:
j = e o T^4

The derivative of flux:
dj/dT = 4 e o T^3

The higher the temperature, the more energy is needed for differential increase in temperature. Conversely, the lower the temperature, the less energy is needed. The mid-troposphere is cooler than the lower troposphere. According to the IPCC it should warm faster but that’s not what satellite data shows.

This is in direct conflict with the IPCC's hypothesis and its cause-effect process.

Just more fire wood for the bonfire that was CAGW..

 

[Sunsettommy]

The actual rise has now been lowered from 0.4 - 0.6 Deg C. down to 0.0 - 0.1 deg C. in the tropic regions. The so called hot spot is now totally gone and shown an artifact of satellite trajectory error. This is huge...

This brings into question seal level rise as well.

Source

The 'hot spot" was never there as part of it was COOLING slightly and the other part warming at third of the projected rate:

View attachment 186764

LINK

I agree.

But the hypothiosis of the IPCC is now falling apart..

For instance:
GHE warming is due to radiative heat transfer by SB law:
j = e o T^4

The derivative of flux:
dj/dT = 4 e o T^3

The higher the temperature, the more energy is needed for differential increase in temperature. Conversely, the lower the temperature, the less energy is needed. The mid-troposphere is cooler than the lower troposphere. According to the IPCC it should warm faster but that’s not what satellite data shows.

This is in direct conflict with the IPCC's hypothesis and its cause-effect process.

Just more fire wood for the bonfire that was CAGW..

CO2 can't stop the increasing outflow the planet when it warms up:

From the Inconvenient Skeptic

The Science of why the Theory of Global Warming is Incorrect!

Excerpt:

"If the Earth were to warm by 1.1 °C, the amount of energy lost would be almost 4 W/m2 greater than what it lost in 1984. If the Earth were to warm by 3.0 °C which is what is predicted by a doubling of CO2, then the amount of energy lost would be > 10 W/m2 the energy loss that existed in 1984.

The science of this is very clear. The rate at which the Earth loses energy will increase at more than twice the rate that the theoretical CO2 forcing is capable of causing warming to take place. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere cannot stop the Earth from losing more energy if it warms up. The reasons behind this are the wavelengths of energy that are transmitted by the Earth, but it can simply be shown by looking at the energy loss increase that has taken place over the past 25 years."

 

[Old Rocks]

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01431161.2018.1444293

Here is the work by John R. Christy,Roy W. Spencer,William D. Braswell &Robert Junod explaining the error and correction...

They had better be right. Once before they spouted this same kind of bullshit, and claimed everyone else was faking their figures, then it was discovered that they had reversed a sign on the data. And they had major egg on their face. One more like that, and they will have the same credibility as 'Lord Monckton'. LOL

 

[Old Rocks]

Old Rocks writes,

"However, we have a lot more, a whole lot more, CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere than we have had for millions of years. That traps outgoing heat. And then the atmosphere warms the ocean"

They are STILL trace gases with a very small IR absorption range as the chart in my previous post clearly shows.

MODTRAN shows that CH4 is a negligible player in the so called "heat budget" plus it doesn't last long in the atmosphere anyway.

You stupid fuck. Look up the concentration of Chlorine gas it takes to kill you. It is dangerous, can be fatal at 0.5 ppm. There are many things that have very large effects at very small concentrations. Take one gram of Potasium Cynide if you do not believe me.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Old Rocks writes,

"However, we have a lot more, a whole lot more, CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere than we have had for millions of years. That traps outgoing heat. And then the atmosphere warms the ocean"

They are STILL trace gases with a very small IR absorption range as the chart in my previous post clearly shows.

MODTRAN shows that CH4 is a negligible player in the so called "heat budget" plus it doesn't last long in the atmosphere anyway.

You stupid fuck. Look up the concentration of Chlorine gas it takes to kill you. It is dangerous, can be fatal at 0.5 ppm. There are many things that have very large effects at very small concentrations. Take one gram of Potasium Cynide if you do not believe me.

Ha ha ha..., you didn't address anything I wrote in a rational manner. I am talking about SPECTRAL impact of absorbing energy which you never will understand, since I never see anything from your postings that you do.

What you tried to do is create a deflection with your irrelevant poison level claims.

Face it kid, you have no cogent rebuttal to offer.

 

[Old Rocks]

What you said was that a very small amount of a substance could not affect a complex system. And I gave you two examples that demonstrate that is not true. You are simply another lying denier that knows nothing at all of science.

 

[Sunsettommy]

What you said was that a very small amount of a substance could not affect a complex system. And I gave you two examples that demonstrate that is not true. You are simply another lying denier that knows nothing at all of science.

From Wikipedia:

Chlorine Gas,

Dose toxicity

"...Concentrations of about 400 ppm and beyond are generally fatal over 30 minutes, and at 1,000 ppm and above, fatality ensues within only a few minutes."

CO2,

Toxicity

"CO2 is an asphyxiant gas and not classified as toxic or harmful in accordance with Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals standards of United Nations Economic Commission for Europe by using the OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals. In concentrations up to 1% (10,000 ppm), it will make some people feel drowsy and give the lungs a stuffy feeling.[109] Concentrations of 7% to 10% (70,000 to 100,000 ppm) may cause suffocation, even in the presence of sufficient oxygen, manifesting as dizziness, headache, visual and hearing dysfunction, and unconsciousness within a few minutes to an hour."

 

[ChesBayJJ]

Since this appears to be a warming thread, perhaps this is relevant

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag