Leaking Siberian Methane

[BethesdaWX]

If ISCCP data SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR LONG TERM TRENDS, then you can't "CORRELATE" the trend in ISCCP data to ANYTHING.

Classic case of denial. I am done with you.. you are making a fool of yourself.

You'd know denial from experience.....

So what? Who gives a sh*t, literally?

I said the trend being progged, right or wrong, correlates with UAH.....so?

"Not being used to calculate Long Term trends" doesn;t mean a basic depiction cannot be made.

flunk

[skierinvermont]

I'd like to get back on topic of Data Calibration error... which is what I've been arguing against the whole time.

If the data was calibrated correctly, it could be used for long term trends. The head of the ISCCP says it CANNOT be used for long-term trends, ergo the calibration between changing satellites is clearly at fault.

[skierinvermont]

So what?

I said the trend being progged, right or wrong, correlates with UAH.....so?

You have also said that the decreasing GCC explains the warming.

The fact is GCC HAS NOT BEEN DECREASING. You based your claim of falling GCC on ISCCP which CANNOT be used for long-term trends.

[BethesdaWX]

You have also said that the decreasing GCC explains the warming.

The fact is GCC HAS NOT BEEN DECREASING.

Depends what timeframe you use. Lets get back on topic of data calibration error...which you have yet to admit your mistake on.

This really does not change my argument. What causes GCC change, and how would that impact global temps?

[salbers]

Apparently cloud cover changes aren't precisely known. It's possible that aerosols from pollutants can affect cloud cover and the radiation balance more directly. The IPCC thinks any forcing from clouds/aerosols has been negative though. At any rate, this would be superimposed on what is going on from GHG effect, and (of course) doesn't prevent the GHG effect from having an increasing role as CO2 levels inexorably rise.

[Clifford]

Ok...

I'm a little new to this forum.

I thought I'd start with a comment here.

Wasn't this topic about Methane?

While the Methane concentrations did seem to level off a bit around 2005, it has started going up again.

I'm still not quite sure what the meaning of this is as it is still a trace amount, but it has had very significant growth over the last few years.

Methane is converted to CO2 with a halflife of about 10 years, so if the release decreases, the atmospheric concentration will also decrease with a relatively rapid response.

[Clifford]

Yeah, I noticed that. Your median bar for 1998 to present seems a bit high, but "reasonable". I've whipped up similar graphs based on the RSS MSU Dataset for land, sea, and combined.

It is true about almost all of the satellite temperature records. A huge shift at about 1998. It also happens to be the year that they changed from MSU satellites to AMSU satellites, although I believe that at least one MSU satellite did continue to broadcast for several years after that. Perhaps it is possible to track down all the original MSU data.

The AMSU data was supposed to be calibrated to both ground data, MSU satellite data, and balloon data. However, it is possible that there is interdependence of values that could cause an error to propagate.

NOAA tries to make their numbers sound impressive. However...

A line drawn at about 0.58 °C Anomaly crosses through the error bars for: 1998, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, and 2010.

1999, 200, 2001, and 2008 fall below the line.

So much for the last decade.

It is still early, but I'm anticipating that 2011 will fall somewhat below the mean due to the continuing weak solar cycle, although we've been in the new solar cycle for at least a year now.

[Clifford]

So, the notion that our warming is Co2 based does NOT FIT! There is no derivation from Co2 directly, other than an end result of more powerful forcings, such as solar, oceans, & GCC.

Ahhh...

Thanks,

Now I understand the multi-colored plots by RSS, and others.

Those plots, of course, were based on altitude. The one below is based on time.

So. El Niño years are those that are HOT in the middle of the Pacific.

1998 and 2010 were strong El Niño years, and there is a big red blotch in the middle of the chart.

Fall of 2010, spring 2011 is a La Niña year, and it has a blue spot in the middle as the Pacific ocean influences the global climate, and thus a blue spot in the tropical regions.

So, in response to your chart above.

We've always had non-Uniform warming of the earth.

However, we end up with a balance between La Niña and El Niño years. The two peak temperatures (led by peaks in the tropical regions) were caused by strong El Niño years.

The rest of the period from about 2002 to 2007 were also dominated by weak El Niño years.

Hopefully the "modelers" aren't Naive enough to make only El Niño based climates, without interdispersing La Niña periods with relatively cooler tropics.

As far as shifting of heat from the Stratosphere to heat in the Troposphere... I don't know. The argument makes some sense. But, you would see a similar "greenhouse" effect with water or near-surface ozone, although it should be easy enough to at least pick out the blanketing effects of clouds.

Now.. that's a bit odd.

Looking at Troposphere Ozone vs Troposphere CO₂.

So, for Troposphere Ozone, it is MUCH higher in the North Pole than the South pole, and has over a 50% difference between the lowest and highest concentrations.

For Troposphere CO₂, it tends to follow the Tropic of Cancer and Tropic of Capricorn, with a somewhat lower concentration at both poles.