If planet earth is suffering from the greenhouse effect shouldn’t the troposphere heat up faster than the surface of the earth? And shouldn’t troposphere temperatures be increasing with the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels?
Alan Siddons, of Massachusetts in the USA, took the NASA graphic for the lower troposphere (green line) middle troposphere (blue line) and stratosphere (red line) and superimposed it over the Hadley Centre’s record of surface temperatures (thin line with dots) for the last few years.
What is the relationship between the temperature series and why isn't the troposphere warming?
"that graph shows the revised UAH and RSS are largely in agreement, the trend is up. The old UAH is flatline, and is wrong. Nice to see UAH got with the program. How many research dollars do you think that cost?"
Not disputing the alignment, just the alarmism on the trending when it is distorted by volcanic impacts at one end and a super El Nino at the other.
The adjustments made to UAH show how science is supposed to work. Debate the merits of the results and make changes where appropriate instead of saying "The debate is over", "The science is settled", Ad nauseum, Ad nauseum.
Mark
that graph shows the revised UAH and RSS are largely in agreement, the trend is up. The old UAH is flatline, and is wrong. Nice to see UAH got with the program. How many research dollars do you think that cost?
Not all of NASA has its head in the sand!
http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html
SJT "Look at the comparison between RSS and UAH."
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/GlobalWarmingQandA/Images/uah_rss_lt_trends.gif
Of course in 2023, when the 25 year trend is strongly downward, the alarmists will cry foul because the impact of the super El Nino in 1998 and the eruption of Mt. Kowabunga in 2019 are not accounted for!
Luke - there are plenty of people here who are true believers in AGW - and they are more than welcome - there is no intention to turn this blog into an 'echo chamber' - that would be pointless.
However, we do need tackle inappropriate personal comments, but we don't hold up comments for approval -so we have to spot bad comments when we can.
RC have been particularly bad of late - hence my annoyance - Douglass et al, Thames Barrier nonsense, a goof-up over whether or not Courtillot used Jones's data:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2531
"In the same RC thread, NASA employee and spokesman Gavin Schmidt published a defamatory statement by Eli Rabett, in which Rabett simply invented an account of the original submission by M&M to Nature and then censored my reply to the defamatory statement,"
"If you’re going to permit adverse comments on people on a blog, then simple fairness requires that you permit them to respond. On the few occasions that Schmidt posted here, I haven’t touched a comma of his posting.
Schmidt’s dishonest application of his posting policy probably does his cause more harm than good."
Link to RC if you must, but don't pretend RC are fair or objective.
SJT - I have provided 2 indpendent confirmations of the accuracy of the much criticised UAH data above.
Be a man, James, and just say what you think it means.