2011 Global Temperatures

[BethesdaWX]

Wow...sounds like a family of giants!

BTW.... I went to Walt Whitman High School; are you familiar with that are? I grew up in Sumner which is on the left side of outbound Mass. Ave. about a mile and a half from the D.C. state line. Do you know the Mass. Ave. area? How about Goldsboro Road or River Road?

When I was a kid, lower Montgomery County was mostly heavily-wooded rural with just a few neighborhoods (I was 13 when the Beltway opened - with 2 lanes each side - and very little traffic, lol.) Extreme lower MoCo (Mass. Ave. extended area) had D.C. addresses even though we were physically in Maryland. We were served by the Friendship Heights Post Office aka "Washington 16, D.C." - before zip codes came into being. With the advent of zip codes we became "Washington, D.C. 20016".....which finally became "Bethesda, Md. 20816."

People used to ask me: "If you live in Maryland, how come your address is Washington, D.C.?" I had to explain, over and over and over....lol.

Have a great week.

I graduated from Walt Whitman HS last yr I live over in the Glen Echo/Cabin John Area near Bannockburn.

Heck yeah, I know whatyou mean about the addresses being "technincally" MD but written as DC. I get alot of mail that's delivered to the wrong address!

[BethesdaWX]

During the last cold PDO phase global temps didn't plunge; they only stopped rising (in what a chart technician would call a "period of consolidation of the previous gain." If I were an odds-maker, I'd make the same scenario the odds on favorite for the next couple of decades. (Every aberration along the way will of course result in hoops and hollers from one side or the other.)

I'll probably go to my grave never finding the ultimate answer, lol.

I have my doubts about the surface data...and the extreme difference between UAH & GISS/HAD. I prefer not to use RSS due to lack of coverage in some areas.

UAH had no warming from 1979-1996. GISS has a huge warming trend. UAH has been a "step up" pattern that one would expect with PDO/AMO changes, GISS is a stacked warming trend that makes little sense.

[skierinvermont]

I prefer not to use RSS due to lack of coverage in some areas.

Lol this isn't why you don't like using it. You don't like using it because over the areas they both cover RSS shows much more warming. And why don't you like STAR which uses SNO to calibrate better than UAH and RSS?

[BethesdaWX]

Lol this isn't why you don't like using it. You don't like using it because over the areas they both cover RSS shows much more warming. And why don't you like STAR which uses SNO to calibrate better than UAH and RSS?

You Fail

I said I don't like RSS for the GLOBAL anomaly.

1) For the Global Anomaly, its better to use UAH than RSS because UAH has better coverage. If we're discussing the US anomaly, Tropics, AKA, regions they both cover, then I'll weight them equally.

2) And Who said I don't Like STAR either? Anyway I think you know why STAR cannot be compared to UAH/RSS.

Read more, post less...thats my advice for you.

[skierinvermont]

You Fail

I said I don't like RSS for the GLOBAL anomaly.

1) For the Global Anomaly, its better to use UAH than RSS because UAH has better coverage. If we're discussing the US anomaly, Tropics, AKA, regions they both cover, then I'll weight them equally.

2) And Who said I don't Like STAR either? Anyway I think you know why STAR cannot be compared to UAH/RSS.

Read more, post less...thats my advice for you.

Oh really why can't STAR be compared to UAH and RSS? Please enlighten us.

Not using RSS for the globe is an excuse. IF RSS extended its coverage globally, it would show much more warming than UAH. RSS excludes the arctic which we know has warmed rapidly, and yet it still shows more warming than UAH.

[BethesdaWX]

Oh really why can't STAR be compared to UAH and RSS? Please enlighten us.

Not using RSS for the globe is an excuse. IF RSS extended its coverage globally, it would show much more warming than UAH. RSS excludes the arctic which we know has warmed rapidly, and yet it still shows more warming than UAH.

This has nothing to do with what shows more warming! Its about data quality. What don't you understand about this? UAH has a much smaller window of error than STAR (demonstrated by Roy Spencer) of +/- 0.05C for the globe. Its my first choice for that very reason. We went over Roy Spencer's report on the error window last week, do you want me to re-post the arcticle that you flat-out skimmed through, and thus f**Ked up in reading?

STAR and UAH are Calibrated completely different....how can you compare them?

RSS has a large window for error as well, which is why I tend not to use it, not to mention the lack of data. Forget about what shows more warming, this is UNRELATED.

[skierinvermont]

This has nothing to do with what shows more warming! Its about data quality. What don't you understand about this? UAH has a much smaller window of error than STAR (demonstrated by Roy Spencer) of +/- 0.05C for the globe. Its my first choice for that very reason. We went over Roy Spencer's report on the error window last week, do you want me to re-post the arcticle that you flat-out skimmed through, and thus f**Ked up in reading?

STAR and UAH are Calibrated completely different....how can you compare them?

RSS has a large window for error as well, which is why I tend not to use it, not to mention the lack of data. Forget about what shows more warming, this is UNRELATED.

STAR has a smaller window of error than UAH.

Over the oceans UAH has an error of +/-.11C/decade, while STAR has an error of +/-.06C/decade.

I have posted the citations for this multiple times. Logically this makes sense, since STAR uses SNO calibration to reduce error.

[BethesdaWX]

STAR has a smaller window of error than UAH.

Over the oceans UAH has an error of +/-.11C/decade, while STAR has an error of +/-.06C/decade.

UAH has an error of +/- 0.05C/decade over the globe, demonstrated by Roy Spencer. Do you need me to go grab the post? We went over this last week dude, have you already forgot what you learned?!?

STAR is calibrated completely different regardless and cannot be compared.

Don't cherry pick oceans, FYI, "potential error" is not actual "error". This it cannot be used to derride a dataset, period.

[skierinvermont]

UAH has an error of +/- 0.05C/decade over the globe, demonstrated by Roy Spencer. Do you need me to go grab the post? We went over this last week dude, have you already forgot what you learned?!?

STAR is calibrated completely different regardless and cannot be compared.

Don't cherry pick oceans, FYI, "potential error" is not actual "error". This it cannot be used to derride a dataset, period.

And over the whole globe, STAR has an even smaller error than UAH.

I can compare them. STAR shows .2C/decade over the oceans, UAH shows .13C/decade. STAR uses a better calibration technique. Therefore I concluded UAH is probably wrong, and reality is more closely approximated by STAR.

[BethesdaWX]

And over the whole globe, STAR has an even smaller error than UAH.

I can compare them. STAR shows .2C/decade over the oceans, UAH shows .13C/decade. STAR uses a better calibration technique. Therefore I concluded UAH is probably wrong, and reality is more closely approximated by STAR.

Evidence?

UAH is +/- 0.05C over the Globe as demonstrated by Roy Spencer, I will get that for you if you wish.

Now lets see STAR...waiting on your post. What is it with you and the negative attitude towards UAH, its only a +/- 0.05C POTENTIAL error, very minor. You actually perfer GISS, support Jim Hansen....wtf?

[Snow_Miser]

Global Temp has cooled to -.24 Deg C

And if you take a look at the full loop, NZ gets rid of their heat wave when W Russia still holds their cold wave.

http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/extre...c.html#picture

[nzucker]

Channel 5 UAH AMSU temps have been dropping a lot again...2/22 was .51C colder than last year and well below the long-term average. Unlike January, February has not intersected the Channel 5 average at any point in the month.

[skierinvermont]

Unlike January, February has not intersected the Channel 5 average at any point in the month.

Or in other words, the Ch5 anomaly in February is the exact same as January's was thus far.

And your prediction that UAH would be colder than 2008 for the next few months doesn't look to be doing too well so far. Feb will be much warmer than 2008, and 2008 took a big dive in March.

[Clifford]

Channel 5 UAH AMSU temps have been dropping a lot again...2/22 was .51C colder than last year and well below the long-term average. Unlike January, February has not intersected the Channel 5 average at any point in the month.

I graphed the UAH AMSU Daily Temperature Anomalies,

Channel 5, 14,000 ft.

Jan 2010 to present (Feb 22, 2011).

I think we likely hit the minimum in late January, at least for a while.

The downward slope of the temperature trend on February 22 seems to be decreasing slightly which would indicate to me that it is likely to reverse soon, although at times it will level off then drop again.

Fitting a linear trend to the changes from late January to present would likely indicate a decreasing anomaly through February, and hitting zero around April 1. However, a linear trendline is likely an over simplification, even in the short-term.

Solar activity has hit a lull, but appears as if it will pick up again for the next few weeks.

[skierinvermont]

I graphed the UAH AMSU Daily Temperature Anomalies,

Channel 5, 14,000 ft.

Jan 2010 to present (Feb 22, 2011).

I think we likely hit the minimum in late January, at least for a while.

The downward slope of the temperature trend on February 22 seems to be decreasing slightly which would indicate to me that it is likely to reverse soon, although at times it will level off then drop again.

Fitting a linear trend to the changes from late January to present would likely indicate a decreasing anomaly through February, and hitting zero around April 1. However, a linear trendline is likely an over simplification, even in the short-term.

Solar activity has hit a lull, but appears as if it will pick up again for the next few weeks.

Thank you for doing that .. it's a much more objective way of doing things than suggesting each and every blip down will continue spiraling downwards. As you said, the trend from late Jan has been upwards. Even that doesn't hold much predictive power, but it is certainly better than focusing on each and every little blip as Zucker has been doing. Notice how the anomalies have risen since Feb 12 when he suggested the coldest anomalies were coming up...

Graphing the anomalies like that makes everything much easier to see as opposed to the AMSU graph of raw temperature, or the RealClimate graph which only shows one month of anomalies.

It's still hard to say where we go from here but my guess is we have stabilized given the increase the last month and the fact that this is when most other Ninas peaked.

[Mencken_Fan]

I graduated from Walt Whitman HS last yr I live over in the Glen Echo/Cabin John Area near Bannockburn.

Heck yeah, I know whatyou mean about the addresses being "technincally" MD but written as DC. I get alot of mail that's delivered to the wrong address!

That's pretty cool we went to the same high school; what a hoot. I never saw the inside of the new building but from the outside it looks most impressive. The original school was "early '60s modern" but with no air conditioning was at times stifling hot. Fortunately, A/C was installed before I graduated.

I assume you know my old neighborhood of Sumner. I know Glen Echo, Cabin John, and Bannockburn very well! My best friend lived in Bannockburn and I spent much time there. After I "left the nest", Mom moved to a nice little house in Glen Echo where I often visited.

After serving in the USAF I worked at DTNSRDC on MacArthur Blvd. in Carderock which of course is right next to Cabin John.

That whole area of extreme lower Montgomery County is "home" for me.

A peculiarity of that area was how distinct each neighborhood was. Sumner, the highest in elevation was also the highest socioeconomically. At the other end was Cabin John - poor and redneck. Glen Echo was a very small, quiet neighborhood with few children. Bannockburn was middle class but exceptionally liberal; at complete odds with nearby Cabin John!

I know some of those areas have changed over the years; especially with "yuppies" taking over some of the lower priced homes a few decades ago. I hope lower Bethesda is as nice now as it was long ago but from what I've heard, "Bethesda" has gained some notoriety for having too much "attitude." (I have to put quotes around Bethesda because it encompasses so many neighborhood today - and none of the aforementioned ones were originally thought of as being part of Bethesda (which to me was the Wisconsin Ave. area.))

Cheers!

[nzucker]

Thank you for doing that .. it's a much more objective way of doing things than suggesting each and every blip down will continue spiraling downwards. As you said, the trend from late Jan has been upwards. Even that doesn't hold much predictive power, but it is certainly better than focusing on each and every little blip as Zucker has been doing. Notice how the anomalies have risen since Feb 12 when he suggested the coldest anomalies were coming up...

Graphing the anomalies like that makes everything much easier to see as opposed to the AMSU graph of raw temperature, or the RealClimate graph which only shows one month of anomalies.

It's still hard to say where we go from here but my guess is we have stabilized given the increase the last month and the fact that this is when most other Ninas peaked.

Actually we're well below 2008 right now. It might be hard to retain given the tendency for 2008 to have lower SSTs, but we'll see. 2008 also had a massive spike in April even as it dropped in March. Long ways to go on this one buddy.

[Snow_Miser]

Now the Global Temp is -.35 Deg C. Dang, why does that Global Temperature always fall when the oceans cool off?

[skierinvermont]

Actually we're well below 2008 right now. It might be hard to retain given the tendency for 2008 to have lower SSTs, but we'll see. 2008 also had a massive spike in April even as it dropped in March. Long ways to go on this one buddy.

I know we are below at the moment.. where did I suggest otherwise?

As I've said before I don't care about each and every little blip... at the moment we are on a blip down 2008 is on a blip up, and yet January and February will both be significantly warmer than 2008. And I anticipate that March will be as well.. contrary to your suggestion back at the start of Feb that the next few months would be colder than 2008. I didn't say it's over yet, but we're nearly done with Month 1 and it will almost certainly be significantly warmer than 2008.

[nzucker]

I know we are below at the moment.. where did I suggest otherwise?

As I've said before I don't care about each and every little blip... at the moment we are on a blip down 2008 is on a blip up, and yet January and February will both be significantly warmer than 2008. And I anticipate that March will be as well.. contrary to your suggestion back at the start of Feb that the next few months would be colder than 2008. I didn't say it's over yet, but we're nearly done with Month 1 and it will almost certainly be significantly warmer than 2008.

It might be hard for this year to come in colder than 2008 due to the warm Atlantic, but my prediction of -.1C on UAH (new baseline) doesn't look terrible right now. Latest NOAA SST maps show the Niña is holding its own with cooling towards Indonesia and a break-up of the warm anomalies in the far eastern ENSO regions. If we can stay in weak-moderate territory for the summer and then move back towards strong in the fall, we may have a chance to beat 2008. I'm pretty impressed with the Niñas tenacity against the long period of MJO action in Phase 7/8 during January that led to a +ENSO type pattern. Subsurface warmth has made it to 160W which does increase the chances of an El Niño for next year, but that should be thwarted by the stronger trades coming up. A lot will depend on where ENSO goes in the summer, which we should have some idea about in the next month or two.

Current SST Anomalies:

2008 at this time, a bit more impressive, though land temperatures may have been colder this winter in some places due to the -AO blocking pattern:

Trade winds:

You can see that the subsurface has warmed dramatically on the TAO map:

[WeatherRusty]

Now the Global Temp is -.35 Deg C. Dang, why does that Global Temperature always fall when the oceans cool off?

No one ever said global temp wouldn't cool off when the top layers of ocean cool. The point being made with regard to AGW is that over time the averaged SST will rise and as a consequence so will the averaged atmospheric temperature.

[BethesdaWX]

nzucker, your above post demonstrates quite a bit on what the effect of the solar cycle.

-Look at the differences in the 2008 La Nina and the 2011 La Nina.

-Look at the differences in the Global Oceans anomaly

-Look at the difference in the AMO

2008 should be significantly colder than this year, case closed.

Why is it not? Answer: The Sun.

1) We just came out of a raging El Nino, yet we're comparable with 2008

2) The 2008 La Nina was more impressive, yet we're comparible with 2008

3) We have a huge +AMO right now, yet we're comparible with 2008

4) Global oceans are much warmer right now, yet we're comparible with 2008.

What has changed? The Solar Cycle's effect on the climate has increased, as expected. This is just the beginning. Once we get out of intracycle cooling, (which will be very soon) and into the weak Solar Max and the cooling that will result from that massive energy loss, we'll really see things spiral down.

Count on it. Save this post.

[Clifford]

Here are the Daily Temperature Anomalies from 2010 to 2011.

Just so you can see where we are at.

I can pull in additional years if you need...

But, perhaps the monthly anomalies are better when contrasting years.

The Maue set has 2 week averaging for 2010 (not shown)

2 day averaging for January

1 day averaging for February

It is interesting the similarities between the three sets, as well as the subtle differences.

For example, the Global Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly seemed to start dropping in May, whereas the troposphere anomaly didn't start dropping until September.

Note, the UAH datasets are plotted on the Left Axis.

Maue is on the right Axis (less cluttered that way). Scale is the same.

Ryan Maue seems to post his 30 day smoothed graph every week or so (last update at this time, February 16).

http://www.coaps.fsu...e_anomalies.jpg

It appears as if the trend for his data will continue to be slightly negative.

His forecasts tend to be colder, but I chose not to enter in the data as they should be updated periodically.

[tacoman25]

I know we are below at the moment.. where did I suggest otherwise?

As I've said before I don't care about each and every little blip... at the moment we are on a blip down 2008 is on a blip up, and yet January and February will both be significantly warmer than 2008. And I anticipate that March will be as well.. contrary to your suggestion back at the start of Feb that the next few months would be colder than 2008. I didn't say it's over yet, but we're nearly done with Month 1 and it will almost certainly be significantly warmer than 2008.

March 2008 was significantly warmer than Jan/Feb 2008, which were by far the coldest months of that event for UAH. And it looks to me like Fe 2011 will be easily closer to Feb 2008 than Jan 2011 was to Jan 2008.

[WeatherRusty]

nzucker, your above post demonstrates quite a bit on what the effect of the solar cycle.

-Look at the differences in the 2008 La Nina and the 2011 La Nina.

-Look at the differences in the Global Oceans anomaly

-Look at the difference in the AMO

2008 should be significantly colder than this year, case closed.

Why is it not? Answer: The Sun.

1) We just came out of a raging El Nino, yet we're comparable with 2008

2) The 2008 La Nina was more impressive, yet we're comparible with 2008

3) We have a huge +AMO right now, yet we're comparible with 2008

4) Global oceans are much warmer right now, yet we're comparible with 2008.

What has changed? The Solar Cycle's effect on the climate has increased, as expected. This is just the beginning. Once we get out of intracycle cooling, (which will be very soon) and into the weak Solar Max and the cooling that will result from that massive energy loss, we'll really see things spiral down.

Count on it. Save this post.

2008 should be significantly colder than this year, case closed.

Why is it not? Answer: The Sun.

Your pronouncements would be much more acceptable if you would back them up with some numbers. We know what your opinions are, can you show some numbers which substantiate your claims.

We were in the depths of solar minimum in 2008. The radiative effect of solar variance is immediate. The system begins to respond to more or less solar energy in just the same way a pot of water warms or cools on a gas stove as you play with the burner. The total response takes time....this is the lag in full temperature response of the water to reach equilibrium with the heat source (heat in the pipeline)....but the warming or cooling begins immediately with the change in energy source.

Here is a number for you..The total change in solar forcing due to solar variance since ~1750 is estimated at 0.12W/m^2 and very likely not to be greater than 0.30W/m^2. Do you think things have changed much in that regard between 2008 and 2011?

[BethesdaWX]

Your pronouncements would be much more acceptable if you would back them up with some numbers. We know what your opinions are, can you show some numbers which substantiate your claims.

We were in the depths of solar minimum in 2008. The radiative effect of solar variance is immediate. The system begins to respond to more or less solar energy in just the same way a pot of water warms or cools on a gas stove as you play with the burner. The total response takes time....this is the lag in full temperature response of the water to reach equilibrium with the heat source (heat in the pipeline)....but the warming or cooling begins immediately with the change in energy source.

Here is a number for you..The total change in solar forcing due to solar variance since ~1750 is estimated at 0.12W/m^2 and very likely not to be greater than 0.30W/m^2. Do you think things have changed much in that regard between 2008 and 2011?

1) Your formula is incorrect. The LIA was a very cold period globally, we've risen over 1C since the peak of the LIA, more on the order of 1.2C. The Difference between the MWP & the LIA is also over 1C. Thus if your formula was correct, these would not exist to any significant extent.... dude

2) Eh, you know the difference between intracycle cooling and the more significant cooling from a weak solar max...right? Intra cycle Temp changes (max to min) in the same cycle...are Very Minor.....its when we head into a weak solar max....thats ALOT of energy loss, the longer we remain below avg in solar activity, the cooler earths temps get, especially during a weak solar max.

Regardless, The effect is not Immediate, I have no clue what the heck you are saying. I posted a study on this, TSI is a vague method not conductive to find an overall lag time, since there are "certain" factors that contribute to the global temperaure, and others that don't really do much.

[WeatherRusty]

1) Your formula is incorrect. The LIA was a very cold period globally, we've risen over 1C since the peak of the LIA, more on the order of 1.2C. The Difference between the MWP & the LIA is also over 1C. Thus if your formula was correct, these would not exist to any significant extent.... dude

2) Eh, you know the difference between intracycle cooling and the more significant cooling from a weak solar max...right? Intra cycle Temp changes (max to min) in the same cycle...are Very Minor.....its when we head into a weak solar max....thats ALOT of energy loss, the longer we remain below avg in solar activity, the cooler earths temps get, especially during a weak solar max.

Regardless, The effect is not Immediate, I have no clue what the heck you are saying. I posted a study on this, TSI is a vague method not conductive to find an overall lag time, since there are "certain" factors that contribute to the global temperaure, and others that don't really do much.

Like I said, solar radiative forcing since 1750 is estimated between 0.9W and 0.30W/m^2 and most likely 0.12/W^2. That forcing and positive feedback accounts for most of the change you refer to. Exhume Max Planck and tell him he was wrong and so must all of modern science which depends on this simple physics also be wrong.

The Earth must be warming because the top of atmosphere radiative imbalance absolutely demands it.The upper atmosphere must be cooling if the troposphere and oceans are warming. Thermodynamics absolutely demands it. There is no way around these truths and that is why this aspect of global warming is settled science.

[BethesdaWX]

Like I said, solar radiative forcing since 1750 is estimated between 0.9W and 0.30W/m^2 and most likely 0.12/W^2. That forcing and positive feedback accounts for most of the change you refer to. Exhume Max Planck and tell him he was wrong and so must all of modern science which depends on this simple physics also be wrong.

The Earth's must be warming because the top of atmosphere radiative imbalance absolutely demands it.

Again, oversimplifying things. Your formulas address the forcings applied to the atmosphere...that doesn't mean we know how the atmosphere will react to the forcings...and to what extent.

Do you think Max Planck knew the PDO, AMO, GCC, GCR, Magnetic Field Decrease, Solar, and CO2 formulas, and then was somehow able to determine how the atmosphere's Temperature responded to each of their forcings? Temperature is another story completely, and a forcing applied to the atmosphere doesn't mean we know how the atmosphere will respond to our terms.

AKA............Warming in the Past 30yrs was also significantly boosted by the +PDO/+AMO and the resulting El Nino dominance.

[WeatherRusty]

Again, oversimplifying things. Your formulas address the forcings applied to the atmosphere...that doesn't mean we know how the atmosphere will react to the forcings...and to what extent.

Do you think Max Planck knew the PDO, AMO, GCC, GCR, Magnetic Field Decrease, Solar, and CO2 formulas, and then was somehow able to determine how the atmosphere's Temperature responded to each of their forcings? Temperature is another story completely, and a forcing applied to the atmosphere doesn't mean we know how the atmosphere will respond to our terms.

AKA............Warming in the Past 30yrs was also significantly boosted by the +PDO/+AMO and the resulting El Nino dominance.

The formulas do not apply to the atmosphere. They apply to the entire land surface, ocean surface and atmosphere. The Earth radiates to space at a total, integrated temperature of 255K and peak energy in the infrared at near 10 micrometers in wavelength. Greenhouse gases absorb some of the energy out on the wings of the radiation curve described by Planck's relationship between wavelength and temperature. The planet is in positive energy imbalance which means it is warming and the wavelength of emission is shifting to shorter, higher energy wavelength as dictated by the Planck function.

This has nothing to due with CO2, PDO or anything. It applies to any body with a temperature. The Earth exists at a temperature dictated by solar irradiance and albedo. That's it. This gives a temperature of 255K for the current situation. The surface temperature is 288K or 33K warmer due to the greenhouse effect. We can apply the Planck function to derive +1.2C of warming influence for a 3.7W/m^2 forcing, be that from the Sun or greenhouse enhancement. We get 1.2C regardless of the source providing the forcing.

[BethesdaWX]

The formulas do not apply to the atmosphere. They apply to the entire land surface, ocean surface and atmosphere. The Earth radiates to space at a total, integrated temperature of 255K and peak energy in the infrared at near 10 micrometers in wavelength. Greenhouse gases absorb some of the energy out on the wings of the radiation curve described by Planck's relationship between wavelength and temperature. The planet is in positive energy imbalance which means it is warming and the wavelength of emission is shifting to shorter, higher energy wavelength as dictated by the Planck function.

This has nothing to due with CO2, PDO or anything. It applies to any body with a temperature. The Earth exists at a temperature dictated by solar irradiance and albedo. That's it. This gives a temperature of 255K for the current situation. The surface temperature is 288K or 33K warmer due to the greenhouse effect. We can apply the Planck function to derive +1.2C of warming influence for a 3.7W/m^2 forcing, be that from the Sun or greenhouse enhancement. We get 1.2C regardless of the source providing the forcing.

The oceans are not a body with a temperature? The globe as a whole is not a body with a temperature?

You're arguing something completely different Mr. Rusty. My argument has never been against the GHE, or how CO2/Water Vapor contribute.

Even if what is below is BS in your mind.....that doesn't change the argument at hand in regards to significance.

Incoming energy is what causes the warming

The greenhouse effect (GHE) only works when there is sufficient energy of the appropriate frequency, AND

sufficient GHGs such as CO2 and water vapor.

In the case of the Earth, the energy is limited by what comes in and goes out and the Stefan-Boltzmann Law (SBL).

In the air there is excess CO2, above what is used for the GHE, because whenever the temperature cools down some

of the CO2 thatwa s being used to transport energy to space (& to produce the GHE), is no longer needed at the

cooler temperatures and with the smaller amounts of transportable energy. Thus there is always, and MUST

BE, excess CO2 in the air. It must be available to handle the daily global warming when the sun comes up and the

available energy increases, or else the GHE will not function each morning.

The Hansen/NASA/GISS Model E & IPCC conclusion, (or the Global Computer Models-GCMs) that adding extra

CO2 automatically causes added warming is a misapplication of the Arrhenius greenhouse effect. The GHE

requires BOTH excess GHG AND added energy to create an increased GHE. The energy passing through the Earth

dictates the allowed amount of GHE. When the Earth is at equilibrium, and the energy in equals the energy out, then

the GHE is limited and can NOT cause any more warming since there is no extra energy available for the GHE to

process to cause warming. As long as there is excess GHG then the amount of excess is irrelevant to the GHE. In the

case of the Earth, the CO2 is extra, there is no extra energy.

What actually happens is that the extra added CO2 becomes excess in the air, available to increase the GHE,

WHEN the added energy comes into the Earth (as it does every morning) BUT the energy also decreases every

evening, freeing up excess CO2.

Since, by computer model and IPCC assumptions, the solar insolation/sunlight is (erroneously) the sole source of

energy coming in and going out (gravity, which is not addressed in the GCMs, causes tides and friction in the ocean

and in the liquid Earth core among other things), then any increase of the GHE is limited by an increase in the

energy in, which according to scientific measurements and IPCC has not changed significantly since about 1960.

This means several things:

First since global warming has increased from 1970 through 1998, then the computer models are not correct.

Second, added CO2 does NOT cause warming. and

third, there MUST be an additional source of kinetic energy coming into the Earth in addition to solar insolation.

Finally, since there is excess CO2 in the air, then removing CO2 by Cap & Trade, underground storage etc. will only

remove the excess CO2, and cost a fortune. It will not result in lower temperatures. The Kyoto Treaty is

scientifically unsound, not to mention costly, foolish, harmful to GDP and mankind, and an outright fraud. The very

idea that mankind by adding a few extra CO2 molecules to the air, could actually change the global temperature,

(without adding any extra energy) is scientifically impossible.

http://www.scribd.co...ss-CO2-Scenario

Then

http://www.geocraft....house_data.html

And even if THAT were untrue in yourmind, that still doesn't change the argument at hand in regards to manifesting temperature, & then how the heat energy is stored and recycled!

My argument has always been in the realm of atmospheric response in temperature, from increasing a trace gas at 0.038% with a Logorithmic WP. My main argument...we are over-estimating the impact of CO2 increase The thing you always seem to miss, 75% of the warming "predicted" is achieved through feedbacks within the atmosphere. And due to our lack of understanding, enough negative feedbacks, and the factors we don't even know about such as GCR, the warming cannot commence.

THEN, we get into the issue of the atmospheres response to CO2 alone...forcings applied are almost unrelated. The GHE in general, and how the effect will be altered through changes in the GHG's involved, are again, 2 completely different things.