What would happen if solar radiation was the cause? Me thinks that if clouds are involved there might be similar stratification of heating and cooling. I wish these sources would publish how these data points shoot down other theories and not just support the status quo. That's hardly science-that's publishing of data with a weak "Discussion" tacked on.

I sure am glad that NASA and the NOAA have the technology to measure these things. The cooling of the stratosphere is a sign that global warming isn't due to the very slight increase in solar activity. If it were, then one would expect to see the stratosphere warming up as well as the troposphere.

If anybody wishes to understand the science of global warming check out the scientific report at:

http://www.ipcc.ch/

If you happen to be distrustful of the World Meteorology Organization (WMO) and UN or have some type of personality disorder that leads to constant conspiracy theories, then view the Union of Concerned Scientist website. They know there stuff too:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

Hi Guys,

Seams to me its been cool down the last five years or so. Makes you wonder why they stopped at 2005.

The last five years (sorted by cooling, descending):

RSS MT -3.2
UAH MT -2.5
RSS LT -1.4
CRU Ocean -0.8
CRU Land Ocean -0.6
UAH LT +0.2
GISS Land/Ocean +0.8

http://www.remss.com/data/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TMT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_0.txt http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2/uahncdc.mt http://www.remss.com/data/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_0.txt http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadsst2gl.txt http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

oooopps!!!! did I put a NASA site on there well gosh darn

lets all take off our hats and commend NASA for determining that the sun warms the atmosphere...in addition, now lets all prepare for the AGW twist that manmade co2 is the catalyst, nevermind they dont understand co2 is 400 parts in a million and water is 900000 parts in a million of the heat trapping atmospheric gas...

"For a time, these measurements caused some people to question the validity of global climate models and greenhouse gas warming. Scientists discovered, however, that the satellites carrying the microwave instruments had drifted in their orbits over time, so that more recent measurements were taken at a different time of day than older measurements. Once scientists accounted for this bias and other differences between the individual instruments, the measurements showed a warming trend in the troposphere, consistent with surface observations of rising global temperature."

When one fails to secure information supporting one's position, one needs to recalibrate and "account for the bias" until the measurements are consistent with one's position. Amazing how uniform the "trends" worked out following the recalibration. This work should net NOAA another decent revenue stream for the foreseeable future.

Yes, this is exactly what I was alluding to earlier. If the sun was driving the warming, we'd see the entire column of air getting warm. Instead, the lower levels are warming and the upper levels are cooling.

This is consistent with an increase in GHG concentrations. This is NOT consistent with the solar theory.

I haven't heard any deniers address this significant discrepancy. I suspect they'll be scouring through their "bipartisan" think-tanks and ideologically-driven websites and paste another link to a graph of sunspots or something.

I'd would like to see the references that solar warming warms the entire atmosphere. When the earth cools due to dust in the atmosphere from an eruption, etc., the lower level is cooler the upper is warmer. I would think that if heat is being trapped due to solar radiation, the inverse would occur. In other words, any warming of the earth that humans feel will always be also "felt" by the lower levels of atmosphere while the upper levels will be cooler. IF this wasn't true then the upper levels would heat the lower levels even more until equilbrium is reached, but unfortunately the sun would still be shining and warming the outer layer and we would never cool off-in other words I wonder if our multilayered atmosphere is inherently thermally unstable and gradients give us here on terra firma a relatively stable hot or cold temperature.

Also, thanks for the links above, but the IPCC stuff has basic science with "ASSUMPTIONS" smeared all over it. Quite frankly, it's a pain in the rear to have to try and glean useful stuff out of there.

According to the IPCC, invisible water vapor and clouds account for the vast majority of the greenhouse effect.

As ocean temperatures warm up (at least partly due to the extended period of high solar output we are experiencing) more water vapor concentrates in the lower atmosphere.

This in turn causes temperatures in the lower atmosphere to warm up, just as the NASA analysis shows.

CO2 panic and other obsessive-compulsive disorders can be treated medically these days. Please see your doctor if you feel a CO2 panic attack coming on. AKA the Gore Syndrome

"When one fails to secure information supporting one's position, one needs to recalibrate and "account for the bias" until the measurements are consistent with one's position."

Ahhh, here we go again with the conspiracy theories. Buzz, please show us some proof that NASA rigged these satellites. Otherwise, your comments are an insult to anyone who works for NASA.

"This work should net NOAA another decent revenue stream for the foreseeable future."

Yet another silly argument, considering that Republicans had dominated Congress since 1994. Democrats control it today, but Bush still has to sign the budget. Why would Republicans pressure scientists to agree with AGW?

When facts don't go your way, then surely, it must be a conspiracy. Puh-leeze.

Bad data -

These two NASA maps (from Hansen's group) show another example how temperature data is being misrepresented. Both are identical plots of June anomalies. The only difference being the resolution. The first map is at 250 km resolution (raw data) and shows that at least half of the weather stations in Greenland reported average or below average temperatures in June.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2007&month_last=06&sat=4&sst=0&type=anoms&mean_gen=06&year1=2007&year2=2007&base1=1920&base2=2007&radius=250&pol=reg

The second (scary) map is smoothed at 1200 km resolution and shows all of Greenland above normal for June. This is the one which you always see publicized.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2007&month_last=06&sat=4&sst=0&type=anoms&mean_gen=06&year1=2007&year2=2007&base1=1920&base2=2007&radius=1200&pol=reg

Same misrepresentation for Antarctica. Apparently their smoothing algorithm "smooths up" rather dramatically.

Additionally, note in the graphs below the maps, global temperatures were pretty close to normal in June at most latitudes - despite the pronouncements from the AGW camp that June was "hot."

Well, I must admit, it is a pretty chart of the earth with lots of colors. Funny thing though, no scale is listed. Or for that matter, a initial state or ending state. This leads me to wonder if the highest number is really not all that great, and likewise, the lowest number may not be all that great either. But, if you scale it right, it seems to show lots of changes. Reminds me of a picture in the IPCC where they show a bunch of red colors over the planet. Looks scary. Then you look at the numbers and the difference between red and yellow and green is .2 degrees celsius. Not all that big of a deal in the scheme of things.

Beyond that, I really have to question early satellite data. I guess that the ability to measure microwave in space layers seem challenging and open to interpretation. To this point, I note how the numbers were "corrected" for bias to produce these results. Strange how as the models need bolstering, a bias is uncovered to correct the measurements to show the models are "right".

"The first map is at 250 km resolution (raw data) and shows that at least half of the weather stations in Greenland reported average or below average temperatures in June."

Greenland is covered with gray on that map. Gray means no data.

"Additionally, note in the graphs below the maps, global temperatures were pretty close to normal in June at most latitudes - despite the pronouncements from the AGW camp that June was "hot.""

I took a look at the text file dump in the first graph. 80% of the latitudes were above normal, Patrick. And the average anomaly for all of the latitudes was 0.616. This is from the RAW data that you were talking about.

Nice try at misleading, Patrick.

Mark,

No one rigged the satellites. No one disputes the greenhouse effect. The temperature on earth would be unbearably cold without it. Please don't misrepresent the debate.

The dispute is over the impact of CO2 on temperature, and particularly the impact of the small percentage of CO2 emissions which are generated by burning fossil fuels(less than 3% according to the IPCC.)

Water vapor concentration is normally about 50-100x CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, and is also a more potent greenhouse gas. Places which lack atmospheric water vapor tend to have extremely cold temperatures - such as Antarctica which is close to -100F today. All the man made CO2 we could ever produce will not help those poor Penguins stay warm.

This is a 26 year period, which coincides with the timing of 1976 Climate Shift. That is, they've taken a time slice that they know ahead of time will be warm. And, not stratospheric cooling and lower tropesheric warming is only indicative of general warming and not GHG induced warming particularly.

What wasn't included was the trend of the last 7 years -which is different from the overall trend.

Mark,

Yes, this is exactly what I was alluding to earlier. If the sun was driving the warming, we'd see the entire column of air getting warm. Instead, the lower levels are warming and the upper levels are cooling.
This is consistent with an increase in GHG concentrations. This is NOT consistent with the solar theory.

Oh, is that what you were alluding to? Well allude on. Tell us how? Let me guess you have no clue as usual. A nice follow-up would be to explain how C-14 not being in fossil fuels means anything. I'll save you the time. Isotopes are almost always chemically the same since they have the same charge as the normal element so it does not make any difference whether a fossil fuel has C-14 in it, although it would be strange because C-14 decays fairly quickly. BTW - there is very little C-14, about 1 part per trillion. So were you simply lying when you said that "the properties of emitted CO2 was different than "natural" CO2" or did you read that in one of your crackpot websites? I found it strange that you mocked my use of books to derive a thought until it occurred to me that you may not be able to think for yourself. How sad :(

BTW - There is very little water in the Stratosphere, almost all water exists in the troposphere. Water has five times the ability to store energy as CO2. How strange it is that a region of our atmosphere that contains very little matter to absorb heat is cooler than one that has enormous amounts of matter to absorb heat. Is it just me or does there seem to be very few thinkers in the AGW world. People are publishing BS and more people read it as gospel. This is sad too.

Regards,

Steve

Buzz/Darren,

That is also known as: First, draw your line. Then, and only, then, plot your data.

Mark,
I hate to admit i have the same name as you. You are so dead wrong on all your statements. There is not a even warming across all levels of the atmosphere and there never has been. The solar radiation warming is mostly driven by water vapor and can vary greatly in different levels of the atmosphere.. The data they are showing for warming does not even show a cooling over the last 2 years. This group has everything to gain by alarming people with bogus data. This has become such a money game that science does not even matter any more.. It is a shame that accuweather even posts this garbage..

Mark:

I sincerely doubt anyone thinks that NASA rigged the satellites. How do you rig a satellite after it has been up for a while anyway?

What is a question is how the data is interpreted and massaged. This interpretation debate revolves around the entire GW issue. Is the data being interpreted in a manner to present a certain point of view?

Additional funding would certainly be and has been sent NOAA's way if there is truly a perceived problem. If NOAA came back and said, oh you know what, we forgot to carry a decimal point, there is no warming whatsoever and humans do not contribute anything to the global climate, the funding would be slashed so fast their heads would spinning.

Tell me, how does the control of congress affect this in any way? And why did you even mention it?

Mark,

If you are arguing that most of Greenland should be gray, why aren't you critical of the fact that the smoothed graph shows all of Greenland above normal?

The entire region north of Canada is shown to be warming in the smoothed graph, despite the fact that there is not a single data point.

The Antarctic Peninsula is shown to be entirely above normal, despite the fact that two of four data points are below normal. One of the data points is 4-8 degrees below normal.

South Africa is shown to be entirely above normal, despite the fact that most of South Africa was normal or below.

It would be easy to come to the conclusion that this tendency to "average up" is probably not accidental.

And I said that most latitudes were "near normal" not "below normal."

All you are doing is further convincing me that the AGW story is largely based on misinformation, misinterpretation, and bullying.

>> Why would Republicans pressure scientists to agree with AGW?

You seem to believe that science is a political issue. It isn't. GW is not a democrat vs republican issue. Money is the mother's milk of politics, not truth. As such, almost everyone, including govt agencies, universities, scientists, software engineers (remember Y2k?), will say what they need to say to increase or sustain funding.

Even more so, so called "experts" who owe their job to this scientific issue would be extremely hard pressed to admit the issue is overblown. That would mean that they would be out of a job.

I didn't have time to challenge you on the idea that solar heating would warm the whole column of air evenly before, but since you believe this, you must have performed a thermodynamic differential equation analysis, or you can point me to one. I'm waiting... I guess your logic is:

premise: all atmospheric layers have equal thermodynamic properties (false)

premise: water has no effect or does not exist (false)

Mark's invalid conclusion: solar heating would heat all layers evenly

Let's try this alternate theory:

p: solar activity is at the highest level in millenia (confirmed by solar experts)

p: increased energy from the sun would heat the oceans (undeniable)

p: by Henry's law, hotter oceans would outgas C02 (Henry is past the hypothesis stage, it is truly "settled" science)

p: hotter oceans would cause more evaporation

p: water vapor is a greenhouse gas

tentative conclusion: more water vapor in the atmosphere would cause the cooling of the stratosphere

"No one rigged the satellites. No one disputes the greenhouse effect. The temperature on earth would be unbearably cold without it. Please don't misrepresent the debate."

Those graphs from NASA represent anomalies. In other words, the troposphere is warmer than average; the stratosphere is cooler than average. Translation: We are seeing an INCREASED greenhouse effect.

"Isotopes are almost always chemically the same since they have the same charge as the normal element so it does not make any difference whether a fossil fuel has C-14 in it"

Wrong yet again, Steve. A decrease in C-14 concentrations -- all the while CO2 concentrations are increasing -- is proof of fossil fuel CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere. Unfortunately, nuclear testing has corrupted these types of measurements so they can't be done today.

I suggest you sell that physics book of yours, and use the money to erect that monument so future generations can laugh at your method of 'science'.

Mark,

"We are seeing an INCREASED greenhouse effect."

Exactly. Increased water vapor from warmer oceans is leading to an increased greenhouse effect.

Your base assumption that the dominant climatic factor is CO2 coming from car's exhaust pipes, is skewing your ability to debate rationally.

Gunnar:

Well put. I appreciate your analysis and premises and conclusion. Makes sense.

Boy, think of the hassle in trying to complete a thermodynamic differential equation on the atmosphere. That would have to stink.

But it does bring up a valid point, the calcs would be extrordinary tough and full of approximations. Much simpler to just blame modern society and make far-reaching changes to absolve the apparent guilt of being a member of society.

>> A decrease in C-14 concentrations -- all the while CO2 concentrations are increasing -- is proof of fossil fuel CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere

Except that reality doesn't support this myth.

Segalstad analysis:

Ratios between the carbon-13 and carbon-12 stable isotopes are commonly expressed in permil by a so-called delta-13-C notation being the standard-normalized difference from the standard, multiplied by 1000. The international standard for stable carbon isotopes is the Pee Dee Belemnite (PDB) calcium carbonate.

CO2 from combustion of fossil fuel and from biospheric materials have delta-13-C values near -26 permil. "Natu