RSS Satellite Temperature Lower Troposphere Australia

=========================
UPDATE 10 March 2017: I got the longitude wrong by 180 degrees. Explanation here:

http://planetaryvision.blogspot.com.au/2017/03/rss-temp-anomaly-for-australia.html

Graph should look like this:



It was still close enough though. There is no warming in Australia during satellite period.

END UPDATE.
=========================

Now that I can open NetCDF files in Matlab I can look at various climate-related data files and reveal data by longitude and latitude, kind of like Steven Goddard does only not as good.

You can get the data for RSS TLT here:

http://www.remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temperature
↳
ftp://ftp.remss.com/msu/data/netcdf

Using the file:
"uat4_tb_v03r03_anom_chtlt_197812_201509.nc3.nc" I can dial in any latitude and longitude or area.

First, for comparison sake here's what I get averaging the whole earth:

Difference in longwave radiation between top and bottom of atmosphere

I downloaded data from 1979 to today of NCEP reanalysis-2 of upward longwave radiation from this page. Look for the files that are about 30MB in size.

Slightly updated OLR graph

At first these NetCDF files with extensions like .nc and .cdf were a bit of a mystery to me. These files won't open in everyday programs I'm used to like Excel or text editors.  But I'm making progress manipulating them in Matlab.

A website I often refer to for OLR graphs is Ole Humlum's Climate4You.com's temperature page here (excerpt with just the OLR graphs here).

But I guess that page needs to be manually updated and was last updated 2011; the data stops around 2010. Here's the first OLR graph from that page with global coverage using NOAA satellites that started measuring in June 1974:

Outgoing longwave radiation basically follows air temperature

Just tinkering with a few climate-related files concerning outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) for an upcoming post.

Supposedly this OLR portion of earth's outgoing spectrum is curtailed by greenhouse gas "heat trapping" and should go down. Instead the opposite is found.

Basically OLR follows earth's average air temps as you'd expect and there is no CO2-related "heat trapping" evident.

The very existence of the tropospheric vertical temperature gradient nullifies the possibility of a greenhouse effect

Scientists such as Luboš Motl believe a greenhouse effect exists in the atmosphere because of the existence of a negative vertical temperature gradient, which averages -6.5C per kilometer of altitude (adiabatic lapse).

Tropospheric negative vertical temperature gradient (right)

Why David Evans' greenhouse effect definition can't work

On the Jo Nova website is a recent attempt to portray a greenhouse effect:

Source: New Science 6: How the Greenhouse Effect Works and “four pipes” to space

Upper troposphere warming slower than lower

In AGW theory higher layers of the troposphere are supposed to warm faster than lower ones. But the hotspot is missing: as you move up in the troposphere RSS satellite shows the warming rate is less.

At the lowest level, TLT, the warming rate is 0.121K/decade and gets less as you move up:

Tail wags dog: bogus claim air temps can speed up glacier

At the RockyRex blog the debunked claim that a slight rise in air temperature can speed a glacier up is trotted out:

There's a New York Times graphic with a dodgy caption claiming that the ice is moving faster than can be replaced by falling snow.

Stratosphere not cooling as predicted

A supposed fingerprint of carbon dioxide-induced Anthropogenic Global Warming is a warming of the troposphere and a cooling of the stratosphere. But this alleged fingerprint's been missing in action the last few years.

I superimposed two horizontal red lines on the below graph of lower stratosphere temperature (via the SkS website) which shows a flatlining for about a decade, before the graph conveniently stops in 2005:

Julia Slingo: claims temps 'rapidly rising' on Sky News UK

No wonder no-one trusts climate scientists anymore.  Julia Slingo of the British Met Office manages to contradict herself in the same breath, at once claiming that it's rapidly warming, then admitting that 2014, 2015 & 2016 are only among the hottest on record and may or not indeed be the hottest.



Is global average temperature rapidly warming as claimed? There's been no warming for 18 1/2 years according to the satellite record and only minimal warming in the surface record.

If global warming is CO2-induced why is there so much more in the northern hemisphere?

Both satellite and surface-based temperature records show warming at almost twice the rate in the northern hemisphere as the southern:

Source: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

GisTemp up-tweaking started around 2003 during Hansen era

Global Warming arch-architect James Hansen implemented a policy of deliberate up-tweaking to satisfy his government paymaster's desire to hype the global warming crisis.

Remember Hansen was the guy who testified in front of Congress in a room with the air conditioning switched off for added effect to scare the masses about 'atmospheric heat build-up'.

By the time current NASA GISS director Gavin Schmidt took over from Hansen a couple years ago the up-tweaking had well and truly begun.

I took the Gistemp data and overlayed the UAH v6 data and produced this graph:

Then I took the GISS data and subtracted the UAH v6 data and made this graph:

Blog format upgraded

I'm by no means an IT expert, but I like to tinker with html code now and then, and after years of tweaking I have finally upgraded this blog to a format I'm happy with.

I only just figured out how to truncate the posts on the home page to an excerpt and a link to more.

I thought the white background was too bright so I made it grey.

The main feature is a navigation bar at the top of the page I pilfered from some site.

Blogspot is the best and most tweakable free blog platform of the few I have tried, including wordpress.com.

Brazilian deforestation proceeds apace: creates 'dreaded' CO2

One of the assumptions of AGW theory is that human direct emissions from fossil fuel combustion causes the atmospheric CO2 rise.

But sceptics needn't be bound by such convention and are free to consider other possibilities.