UAH satellite data with more robust calculation method along with correction for orbital decay (diurnal drift adjustment).
This thing again? While you didn't say specifically why you posted it most people post this by itself to show that the climate just isn't changing much. Ok. Let's take a look and see if this one piece of data can be interpreted that way. Let's start by comparing it to the ground stations.
The argument presented is "Climate models failed".
They haven't... if we look at surface station data.
The real argument should be which temperature record should be trusted?
Because if the surface station data is allowed to stand, then we have a real problem.
Thank you for linking that Jasklas. For you let's try and answer whether either of those temperature records shouldn't be trusted.
From the above:
The Lower Troposphere is slowly heating, the surface atmosphere is heating faster.
Let see what the ocean is doing.
Since the atmospheric values are temperatures and the ocean values are energy lets convert each to the change in energy per cubic meter since 1980.
For the ocean, 0-2000m is about 55% of the depth of the ocean and we'll assume 55% of the total volume.
Dividing 24x10^22joules by ~723 million cubic kilometers and converting to cubic meters gives an ocean heat content change since 1980 of:
333,721J/M^3
For the surface stations it looks like about a .5C change since 1980 from J's chart above. If we approximate, 1 m^3 of dry air at the surface has gained since 1980:
604J/m^3
Now for the lower troposphere. From Docs UAH/RSS plot it looks like a change of .1C since 1980. Again if we approximate using dry air 1 m^3 has increased by:
120.7 J/m^3
So by altitude we have:
- 121 J/m^3 Lower Troposphere
- 604 J/m^3 Surface
- 333,700 J/m^3 ocean
Or the
surface atmosphere is warming 5 times faster than the lower troposphere as measured by UAH.
The
ocean is warming 2750 times faster than the lower troposphere.
Add in the fact that over 90% of the retained energy is stored in the ocean and what the troposphere is doing doesn't seem to amount to a hill of beans by comparison.
Arguing that the UAH LT data shows a "pause" while ignoring the surface temperature and ocean is like arguing your spending is under control because your $8000 credit card bill was the same this month as last month while ignoring the $45000 Lexus you just leased and the 90,000 you lost to Guido betting on the Jets.
For Jasklas's question I actually don't think there's an overwhelming discrepancy between the UAH data, the ocean data, and the surface temperatures.
What they show us is an energy gradient. More energy retained at lower altitudes in denser fluids, (air and water ) with less energy retained at higher altitudes.
So does this make sense physically?
If we look at the distribution of insulating greenhouse gases I think it does.
If we look at the height that the UAH/RSS TLT data comes from:
We can see that it overlaps with the significant drop off in water vapor. With decreasing concentrations of greenhouse gases we would expect the amount of energy stored at a given altitude to decrease. Since 1980, with increasing amounts of CO2 and methane warming the atmosphere driving increasing amounts of water vapor we would expect to as increasing rates of energy storage. Which is what we see.
So while I think the UAH data is biased low I don't think it's necessarily completely incorrect.
(Interestingly there are only 3 actual microwave sensors on the satellites and TLT is not one of them. TLT is strictly a calculated value which tries to remove the cooling bias from the stratospheric part of TMT with varying degrees of success)
So to Doc what do you think the UAH LT data shows us? I think it gives us an idea at what altitude the atmosphere approaches equilibrium, agree, disagree?
To Jasklas, I think all three sets of data work with the current models of the atmosphere. What do you think?
All the while there are hybrids and source after source of clean manufacturing and energy production. 
Facebook
Twitter