• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Latest Global Temps

CletusWilbury

CletusWilbury

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Messages
932
Reaction score
292
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
UAH_LT_1979_thru_September_2017_v6-550x317.jpg

Latest Global Average Tropospheric Temperatures

Since 1979, NOAA satellites have been carrying instruments which measure the natural microwave thermal emissions from oxygen in the atmosphere. The intensity of the signals these microwave radiometers measure at different microwave frequencies is 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 fourteen instruments flying on different satellites over the years. A discussion of the latest version (6.0) of the dataset is located here.

The graph above represents the latest update; updates are usually made within the first week of every month. Contrary to some reports, the satellite measurements are not calibrated in any way with the global surface-based thermometer records of temperature. They instead use their own on-board precision redundant platinum resistance thermometers (PRTs) calibrated to a laboratory reference standard before launch.
Click to expand...

Y'all have seen this. I try to check it each month.

It is interesting that the head of the project is Roy Spencer, who isn't sure the warming is caused by CO2. Here's what he has on the site on Global Warming

...
The case for natural climate change I also present an analysis of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation which shows that most climate change might well be the result of….the climate system itself!
...
Click to expand...

Spencer has also written about Evolution: Testing Truth with an Open Mind

...
The possibility then presented itself that, despite all I had previously thought, Genesis, the first book of the Bible, might actually be true!
...
Click to expand...

Most scientists think that question is fundamentally outside the realm of science. I'm sure he also realizes that.
 
CletusWilbury said:
View attachment 67223579

Latest Global Average Tropospheric Temperatures



Y'all have seen this. I try to check it each month.

It is interesting that the head of the project is Roy Spencer, who isn't sure the warming is caused by CO2. Here's what he has on the site on Global Warming



Spencer has also written about Evolution: Testing Truth with an Open Mind



Most scientists think that question is fundamentally outside the realm of science. I'm sure he also realizes that.
Click to expand...

I suspect that folks might say they need a longer data set to interpret the statistics in any significant climatic way.
 
joG said:
I suspect that folks might say they need a longer data set to interpret the statistics in any significant climatic way.
Click to expand...

And don't forget to include the 30's.
 
CletusWilbury said:
View attachment 67223579

Latest Global Average Tropospheric Temperatures



Y'all have seen this. I try to check it each month.

It is interesting that the head of the project is Roy Spencer, who isn't sure the warming is caused by CO2. Here's what he has on the site on Global Warming



Spencer has also written about Evolution: Testing Truth with an Open Mind



Most scientists think that question is fundamentally outside the realm of science. I'm sure he also realizes that.
Click to expand...

It's also worth looking at the CO2 monthly measurement, which was up from 406.69 PPM to 406.94 PPM. To put this in perspective, it has steadily been rising. In March of 2005, it was at 379.63 PPM.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/
 
Media_Truth said:
It's also worth looking at the CO2 monthly measurement, which was up from 406.69 PPM to 406.94 PPM. To put this in perspective, it has steadily been rising. In March of 2005, it was at 379.63 PPM.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/
Click to expand...

I am not sure why you insist on misrepresenting the data.
The month to month CO2 levels are published, is table form.
ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt
The numbers you are showing are the seasonally corrected trend, not the actual monthly measurements.
CO2 level peaked this year in May at 409.65, and are now down to 403.38 in September.
This is part of the annual cycle, and levels will start raising again.
 
longview said:
I am not sure why you insist on misrepresenting the data.
The month to month CO2 levels are published, is table form.
ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt
The numbers you are showing are the seasonally corrected trend, not the actual monthly measurements.
CO2 level peaked this year in May at 409.65, and are now down to 403.38 in September.
This is part of the annual cycle, and levels will start raising again.
Click to expand...

You are comparing apples to oranges. Look at your dataset, and you'll see that every year, the data peaks around May, and goes down in September. It's an average of a number of sites. The NASA data is from the Mauna Loa readings, which are not affected by outside monthly factors (summer greening, etc). Nothing wrong with your data, but you would need to compare the same month, year-after-year, to get an overal CO2 trend. Notice, from your data, that May of 2005 is 382.45 PPM and May of 2017 is 409.65 PPM. Very similar to the rise that I reported.
 
Media_Truth said:
You are comparing apples to oranges. Look at your dataset, and you'll see that every year, the data peaks around May, and goes down in September. It's an average of a number of sites. The NASA data is from the Mauna Loa readings, which are not affected by outside monthly factors (summer greening, etc). Nothing wrong with your data, but you would need to compare the same month, year-after-year, to get an overal CO2 trend. Notice, from your data, that May of 2005 is 382.45 PPM and May of 2017 is 409.65 PPM. Very similar to the rise that I reported.
Click to expand...
Similar, but not the same, you used the seasonally adjusted annual numbers as if they were monthly measurements, they were not.
The roughly 6 ppm annual cycle is driven by those outside factors, and is greater than the annual increase.
What is interesting is that you can see the annual cycle of CO2 in the CERES net flux measurements.
CERES_to_CO2.png
The question remains, is it cause or effect?
Does the CO2 increase because the flux increased, or does the flux increase because the CO2 increased.
 
longview said:
Similar, but not the same, you used the seasonally adjusted annual numbers as if they were monthly measurements, they were not.
The roughly 6 ppm annual cycle is driven by those outside factors, and is greater than the annual increase.
What is interesting is that you can see the annual cycle of CO2 in the CERES net flux measurements.
View attachment 67223700
The question remains, is it cause or effect?
Does the CO2 increase because the flux increased, or does the flux increase because the CO2 increased.
Click to expand...

CO2 flux is a non-issue in the big picture. Your chart even proves that. Seasonal flux variation, does not change the fact that CO2 is on the rise overall.
 
Media_Truth said:
CO2 flux is a non-issue in the big picture. Your chart even proves that. Seasonal flux variation, does not change the fact that CO2 is on the rise overall.
Click to expand...

The energy imbalance from the added CO2 is almost the entirety of the big picture of AGW.
If the Flux (energy imbalance) of energy entering and leaving the atmosphere per unit increase of CO2
is low, then catastrophic AGW predictions do not have merit.
FYI it is not that CO2 is raising (it is) but how the flux responds to the added CO2.
As the chart shows CO2 is increasing at a steady rate, but the flux is barely changing.
 
Lord of Planar said:
And don't forget to include the 30's.
Click to expand...

I think I'd want to look at a couple of hundred millions of years for that analysis. It doesn't mean that one cannot find structure in shorter segments or even that the longer data row will disclose for us the hidden snark.
 
joG said:
I think I'd want to look at a couple of hundred millions of years for that analysis. It doesn't mean that one cannot find structure in shorter segments or even that the longer data row will disclose for us the hidden snark.
Click to expand...

I'm just worried about this current interglacial times. If we could time travel back 8 to 12 thousand years and have modern records of past times, I think that would be all we need.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I'm just worried about this current interglacial times. If we could time travel back 8 to 12 thousand years and have modern records of past times, I think that would be all we need.
Click to expand...

I won't argue that point but have found that one usually needs much longer data rows than one believes to identify structures and context.
 
joG said:
I won't argue that point but have found that one usually needs much longer data rows than one believes to identify structures and context.
Click to expand...

If we could measure the past several thousand years like we do today, that would clear up so many things.
 
Lord of Planar said:
If we could measure the past several thousand years like we do today, that would clear up so many things.
Click to expand...

I agree. It would silence the Deniers into a valid submission. Or maybe not, the fossil fuel industry would probably convince them of some other tobacco-like conspiracy.
 
Climate News
[h=1]In Australia, faulty BoM temperature sensors contribute to “hottest year ever”[/h]More hot days — or “purpose-designed” temperature sensors at play? Guest essay by Dr. Jennifer Marohasy, republished from the Australian Spectator with permission from the author. I don’t believe in conspiracies of silence except when it comes to Harvey Weinstein and the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. For some time, weather enthusiasts have been noticing rapid…
 
Jack Hays said:
Climate News
[h=1]In Australia, faulty BoM temperature sensors contribute to “hottest year ever”[/h]More hot days — or “purpose-designed” temperature sensors at play? Guest essay by Dr. Jennifer Marohasy, republished from the Australian Spectator with permission from the author. I don’t believe in conspiracies of silence except when it comes to Harvey Weinstein and the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. For some time, weather enthusiasts have been noticing rapid…
Click to expand...

By the chart, it looks as if someone opened the box to direct sunlight, then closed it.
 
Lord of Planar said:
By the chart, it looks as if someone opened the box to direct sunlight, then closed it.
Click to expand...
The picture looks like the shutters are upside down, so that at some time during the day the sunlight hits the sensor.
If you have partially closed blinds with the up tilt facing out, at sometime during the day, the angle of the sun
is right to come in.
That looks like what may be going on here.
station_box.jpg
The shutter blades are facing up towards the outside.
 
I was thinking about something, the sept GISS temperature just came out, but
anomaly are really only compared to that same month per year,
so the August to September has little meaning.
When we think about the temperature only relating to that months other temperatures,
GISS global temps have been falling for the last 12 months.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
So Oct 2016 was lower than Oct 2015, on through to Sept 2017 was lower than Sept 2016.
 
CletusWilbury said:
October 2017, uptick
View attachment 67224612
Click to expand...

Yup. Called out by WUWT three days ago.



[h=1]While global surface temperature cools, the lower troposphere has record warmest October[/h]Yesterday, we noted the drop in global surface temperature from HadCRUT data. Today, we have this report from the UAH dataset that points out the heat has not left the lower troposphere (about 14,000 feet altitude) based on this report from the University on Huntsville’s Dr. John Christy. Lower troposphere dataset has warmest October in satellite…

3 days ago November 2, 2017 in Climate data.
 
Greatest 2-Year Cooling Event Just Occurred - Aaron Brown, RCMkts

Would it surprise you to learn the greatest global two-year cooling event of the last century just occurred? From February 2016 to February 2018 (the latest month available) global average temperatures dropped 0.56°C. You have to go back to 1982-84 for the next biggest two-year drop, 0.47°C—also during the global warming era. All the data in this essay come from GISTEMP Team, 2018: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP). NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (dataset accessed 2018-04-11 at https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/). This is the standard source used in most journalistic reporting of global average temperatures.
The 2016-18 Big Chill was composed of two Little Chills, the biggest five month drop ever (February to June 2016) and the fourth biggest (February to June 2017). A similar event from February to June 2018 would bring global average temperatures below the 1980s average. February 2018 was colder than February 1998. If someone is tempted to argue that the reason for recent record cooling periods is that global temperatures are getting more volatile, it's not true. The volatility of monthly global average temperatures since 2000 is only two-thirds what it was from 1880 to 1999. . . .
 
CletusWilbury said:
View attachment 67233807
Click to expand...

Seems to be a general cooling in progress since 2016.

Perhaps, in the future, the election of Donald J. Trump will be viewed as "...the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."

I'm sorry. I couldn't "resist".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom