Variations in max temp suggest Sun Caused Global Warming
We showed before about the variations between minimum temperature and that at 3am and 6am. But what about the differences between maximum temperature anomalies and temperatures at say, Noon, 3pm and 6pm? What would we expect?
Well if the CO2 blanket was the major cause of global warming then we would see increased temperature, relatively constant throughout the day. Unfortunately this, as we have shown doesn't occur in Australia at night. However we have shown that maximum temperatures, just like temperatures at 9am, Noonand 3pm all have shown a significant increase in temperature. 6pm and 9pm failed to record a significant increase.
Has the maximum temperature increased at the same rate as temperatures at these times? Well if the sun was the major source of global warming, then unless the maximum occurred all the time at say, 3pm, then maximum temperatures should have increased at a greater rate than those at recorded specific times.
Shown below is the difference in monthly temperature anomalies of maximum temperature and 9am. As one can see, there doesn't seem to be much of a linear trend. A possible cyclic trend might exist, but there is not enough data t prove either way.
However as shown below the difference in monthly temperature anomalies of maximum temperature and Noon is starting to shape form. Whilst in more recent years (since around 1992) there has been no major difference, beforehand there was a significant increasing trend indicating that temperature anomalies at he maximum were increasing at a greater rate than temperatures at Noon.
Shown below are the differences in monthly temperature anomalies of maximum temperature and 3pm and 6pm.
The pattern is obvious. In fact maximum temperatures anomalies have been increasing with respect to 3pm temperatures at a rate of 0.0054 degrees per year or 0.34 degrees since 1943. And the increase compared to 6pm is at a rate of 0.0131 degrees per year or 0.83 degrees since 1943.
The graph of the different between maximum temperature and 9pm is shown below which shows a gradual but not not as significant trend.
So this tells us a few things. Firstly, the maximum temperature anomalies are increasing at a greater rate than temperatures at strict consistent times. Hence we are of more recent times getting more "spikes" around the maximum temperature during the day.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics would no doubt agree with this conclusion as they show that their amount of Warm Days has remained relatively steady bar an increase in the last 5 years.
It also means that using the variable maximum temperature over exaggerates the amount of warming that Australia has actually seen. A more accurate measure would be an average of all increases at each of the 8 constant times of the day/night.
But it also means something else, that temperatures are not increasing constantly throughout the day and night. We have shown earlier that temperatures at night are not increasing and have also suggested here that maximums are increasing at a greater rate over the years that constant times at Noon, 3pm and 6pm. Hence it seems that either the sun is a larger contributer to global warming, or that the CO2 greenhouse blanket is ineffective at night, and is only effective as the sun has a greater influence during the day.
Hence still, the reliance on the sun. But is there more evidence of sun caused global warming in the time based temperature anomalies? You bet. Next we will prove to you about the rate of change of temperature anomalies as we approach the heat of the day and move from it, and it is devastating evidence indeed.
great work as per normal. looking forward to your next post about temp changes.
Have you thought how greenhouse works.
"Well if the CO2 blanket was the major cause of global warming then we would see increased temperature, relatively constant throughout the day. " - errr WHY?
CO2 is only recycling longwave radiation.
If the Sun was the cause of the warming the straosphere would not be cooling.
I wonder how Philipona manages to calculate the greenhouse flux measured with radiometers very close to modelled values?
Wat happens to the changes in spectral windows observed by Harries - energy just "disappears" does it?
Come on - really....
Tell me if you get them all right!
http://www.met.tamu.edu/class/ATMO151/tut/rad/actdicyl.html
Luke, don't allude to arguments without presenting the argument or providing a working reference. Every link of yours I tried to follow has been bad. These are the tactics of someone who is just indulging in hand waving.
If Philipona has directly measured the effect of GHGs, then thats really interesting. Provide a link. I'd like to know how it relates to Jonathan's analysis. If it contradicts it then so be it, but lets see the data.
Oh well I assumed if you guys are making a big ruckus on this you'd be up with and need little help. Or perhaps dismissive and not even wish to look further. What you normally get with cocksure amateurs. I was unaware my url was truncated.
http://www.met.tamu.edu/class
/ATMO151/tut/rad/actdicyl.html
If you have done your radiation balance at different times of the day why would you know anything?
Pick your hypothesis
http://www.met.tamu.edu
/class/ATMO151/tut/rad
/posexpla.html
Radiative forcing - measured at Earth's surface - corroborate the
increasing greenhouse effect
Rolf Philipona,1 Bruno Du¨rr,1 Christoph Marty,1 Atsumu Ohmura,2 and Martin Wild2
Received 3 October 2003; revised 3 December 2003; accepted 23 December 2003; published 6 February 2004.
[1] The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change
(IPCC) confirmed concentrations of atmospheric
greenhouse gases and radiative forcing to increase as a
result of human activities. Nevertheless, changes in
radiative forcing related to increasing greenhouse gas
concentrations could not be experimentally detected at
Earth's surface so far. Here we show that atmospheric
longwave downward radiation significantly increased
(+5.2(2.2) Wm2) partly due to increased cloud amount
(+1.0(2.8) Wm2) over eight years of measurements at eight
radiation stations distributed over the central Alps. Model
calculations show the cloud-free longwave flux increase
(+4.2(1.9) Wm2) to be in due proportion with temperature
(+0.82(0.41) C) and absolute humidity (+0.21(0.10) g m3)
increases, but three times larger than expected from
anthropogenic greenhouse gases. However, after
subtracting for two thirds of temperature and humidity
rises, the increase of cloud-free longwave downward
radiation (+1.8(0.8) Wm2) remains statistically
significant and demonstrates radiative forcing due to an
enhanced greenhouse effect. INDEX TERMS: 0325
Atmospheric Composition and Structure: Evolution of the
atmosphere; 1610 Global Change: Atmosphere (0315, 0325);
1620 Global Change: Climate dynamics (3309); 1640 Global
Change: Remote sensing; 3359 Meteorology and Atmospheric
Dynamics: Radiative processes. Citation: Philipona, R., B. Du¨rr,
C. Marty, A. Ohmura, and M. Wild (2004), Radiative forcing -
measured at Earth's surface - corroborate the increasing
greenhouse effect, Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L03202, doi:10.1029/
2003GL018765.
Greenhouse forcing outweighs decreasing solar radiation driving rapid
temperature rise over land
Rolf Philipona and Bruno Du¨rr
Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos, World Radiation Center, Davos Dorf, Switzerland
Received 6 July 2004; revised 1 September 2004; accepted 25 October 2004; published 25 November 2004.
[1] Since 1988, surface temperature over land in Europe
increased three times faster than the northern hemisphere
average. Here we contrast surface climatic and radiative
parameters measured in central Europe over different time
periods, including the extreme summer 2003, to pinpoint
the role of individual radiative forcings in temperature
increases. Interestingly, surface solar radiation rather
decreases since 1981. Also, on an annual basis no net
radiative cooling or warming is observed under changing
cloud amounts. However, high correlation (rT = 0.86) to
increasing temperature is found with total heating radiation
at the surface, and very high correlation (rT = 0.98) with
cloud-free longwave downward radiation. Preponderance of
longwave downward radiative forcing suggests rapidly
increasing greenhouse warming, which outweighs the
decreasing solar radiation measured at the surface and
drives rapid temperature increases over land. INDEX
TERMS: 0325 Atmospheric Composition and Structure:
Evolution of the atmosphere; 1610 Global Change: Atmosphere
(0315, 0325); 1620 Global Change: Climate dynamics (3309);
1640 Global Change: Remote sensing. Citation: Philipona, R.,
and B. Du¨rr (2004), Greenhouse forcing outweighs decreasing
solar radiation driving rapid temperature rise over land, Geophys.
Res. Lett., 31, L22208, doi:10.1029/2004GL020937.
Anthropogenic greenhouse forcing and strong water vapor feedback
increase temperature in Europe
Rolf Philipona,1 Bruno Du¨rr,2 Atsumu Ohmura,3 and Christian Ruckstuhl3
Received 25 May 2005; revised 8 July 2005; accepted 17 August 2005; published 8 October 2005.
[1] Europe's temperature increases considerably faster
than the northern hemisphere average. Detailed month-bymonth
analyses show temperature and humidity changes for
individual months that are similar for all Europe, indicating
large-scale weather patterns uniformly influencing
temperature. However, superimposed to these changes a
strong west-east gradient is observed for all months. The
gradual temperature and humidity increases from west to
east are not related to circulation but must be due to
non-uniform water vapour feedback. Surface radiation
measurements in central Europe manifest anthropogenic
greenhouse forcing and strong water vapor feedback,
enhancing the forcing and temperature rise by about a
factor of three. Solar radiation decreases and changing cloud
amounts show small net radiative effects. However, high
correlation of increasing cloud-free longwave downward
radiation with temperature (r = 0.99) and absolute humidity
(r = 0.89), and high correlation between ERA-40 integrated
water vapor and CRU surface temperature changes (r =
0.84), demonstrates greenhouse forcing with strong water
vapor feedback. Citation: Philipona, R., B. Durr, A. Ohmura,
and C. Ruckstuhl (2005), Anthropogenic greenhouse forcing and
strong water vapor feedback increase temperature in Europe,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L19809, doi:10.1029/2005GL023624.
http://www.realclimate.org
/index.php/archives/2005/11
/busy-week-for-water-vapor/
Compare stratosphere and troposphere
http://www.remss.com/msu
/msu_data_description.html
http://www.nature.com/nature
/journal/v410/n6826/abs
/410355a0.html
Increases in greenhouse forcing
inferred from the outgoing longwave
radiation spectra of the Earth in
John E. Harries, Helen E. Brindley, Pretty J. Sagoo & Richard J. Bantges
Space and Atmospheric Physics Group, Blackett Laboratory, Imperial College,
London SW7 2BW, UK
The evolution of the Earth's climate has been extensively
studied1,2, and a strong link between increases in surface temperatures
and greenhouse gases has been established3,4. But this
relationship is complicated by several feedback processesÐmost
importantly the hydrological cycleÐthat are not well understood5
±7. Changes in the Earth's greenhouse effect can be detected
from variations in the spectrum of outgoing longwave radiation8
±10, which is a measure of how the Earth cools to space and
carries the imprint of the gases that are responsible for the
greenhouse effect11±13. Here we analyse the difference between
the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth as
measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We ®nd
differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in
atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12.
Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant
increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with
concerns over radiative forcing of climate.
Luke, I followed the first 3 of your links.
Link1 is about diurnal temperature changes at one location on one day. Irrelevant to the topic at hand. Although it does give support for Jonathan's finding that increased daytime warming is causing increases in minimum temperatures
Links 2 and 3 show increasing incoming longwave radiation without a diurnal breakdown. Jonathan's analysis shows increasing daytime incoming radiation and increasing outgoing nighttime radiation. There is nothing in these links to contradict this finding.
As I suspected you are a time waster pretending to know something about the topic.
Phillip - well it srikes me that you're not very smart.
(1) Jonathon has a microscopically small data set that is not representative of the nation. Have a look at his dat set size and distribution. I mean really !
(2) It is confounded by daylight saving time problems and problems of moving from post offices to airports. I note he's told us all about the adjustments he's made for such.
(3) Jonathon has ZERO information on radiation - all supposition?
What's cloud cover doing?
(4) BOM are just laughing at this amateurish attempt. The analysis is deeply flawed.
Anyway we'll see about a proper analysis done in a few weeks if the data are even worth analysing.
The greenhouse papers show the flux is real and your problem is to work out where all the energy is going ??
So in terms of a time waster - you're the time waster - wasting your time on nonsense.
1) you are wrong there.
2) yes that is a very small issue. But I have looked at certain states with respect to when in and out of daylight savings time.
3) Nope you are wrong again
4) no, you are wrong once more
5) with regards to Melbourne weather station - you are wrong again.