It's an interesting explanation. I hope the link leads directly to the
blog, but on this particular site, that sometimes doesn't happen. It's
under home/blog on the main menu.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

Roy Spencer is a well known and very vociferous sceptic. This is his
take on the warm January:

"Some Thoughts on the Warm January, 2010 (February 8th, 2010).

I continue to get lots of e-mails asking how global average
tropospheric temperatures for January, 2010 could be at a record high
(for January, anyway, in the 32 year satellite record) when it seems
like it was such a cold January where people actually live.

I followed up with a short sea surface temperature analysis from AMSR-
E data which ended up being consistent with the AMSU tropospheric
temperatures.

I’m sure part of the reason is warm El Nino conditions in the Pacific.
Less certain is my guess that when the Northern Hemisphere continents
are unusually cold in winter, then ocean surface temperatures, at
least in the Northern Hemisphere, should be unusually warm. But this
is just speculation on my part, based on the idea that cold
continental air masses can intensify when they get land-locked, with
less flow of maritime air masses over the continents, and less flow of
cold air masses over the ocean. Maybe the Arctic Oscillation is an
index of this, as a few of you have suggested, but I really don’t
know.

Also, remember that there are always quasi-monthly oscillations in the
amount of heat flux from the ocean to the atmosphere, primarily in the
tropics, which is why a monthly up-tick in tropospheric temperatures
is usually followed by a down-tick the next month, and vice-versa.

So, it could be that all factors simply conspired to give an unusually
warm spike in January…only time will tell."

Dr. Spencer appears to be conveniently forgetting that his own
satellite series has been showing close to record-breaking monthly
temperatures since last June (and well above average temperatures for
many, many months before that) and he describes the record-breaking
January temperatures as an "unusually warm spike". Well that's one way
of putting it! He also says; ".........which is why a monthly up-tick
in tropospheric temperatures is usually followed by a down-tick the
next month, and vice-versa."

Looking at his (excellent and informative) daily updated graph of near-
surface temperatures, I wonder what he'll say when February's
temperatures come out?

http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutem...?amsutemps+001

*))

On 24/02/10 15:36, Dawlish wrote:
Looking at his (excellent and informative) daily updated graph of near-
surface temperatures, I wonder what he'll say when February's
temperatures come out?

http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutem...?amsutemps+001

Looks like a more-or-less steady warming from July 2008. That was about
the time when the earlier La Nina was dying a death to be followed
during the autumn by some fitful attempts at an El Nino.

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. E-mail: newsman not newsboy
"I wear the cheese. It does not wear me."

|"Dawlish" wrote in message
...
|It's an interesting explanation. I hope the link leads directly to the
|blog, but on this particular site, that sometimes doesn't happen. It's
|under home/blog on the main menu.
|
|http://www.drroyspencer.com/
|
|Roy Spencer is a well known and very vociferous sceptic. This is his
|take on the warm January:
|
|"Some Thoughts on the Warm January, 2010 (February 8th, 2010).
|
|I continue to get lots of e-mails asking how global average
|tropospheric temperatures for January, 2010 could be at a record high
|(for January, anyway, in the 32 year satellite record) when it seems
|like it was such a cold January where people actually live.
|
|...
|
|

We had a similar discussion on here a couple of weeks ago. As I pointed out
then, people seem to forget that the earth is a sphere and the commonly used
Mercator's Projection used on maps grossly overstates the area of land close
to the poles. So Europe and the United States ("where people actually live"
in this context) appear on many maps to be much larger in proportion to the
surface area of the globe than they actually are.

If you do the geometry, 50% of the earth's surface lies within 30 degrees of
the equator*. Only 29% lies within 45 degrees of the pole. So this cold
weather "where people actually live" could actually only be affecting about
10% of the earth's surface (Northern hemisphere only affected). The rest
could be warm as toast, pushing up those global average temperatures.

School geometry seems a much easier explanation of how what we are observing
could be true, rather than trotting out the funny theories which seem to
abound.


* The proportion of the earth's surface lying between the equator and
latitudes A degrees north or south is (sine)A. Half this if you only want
the hemisphere.
sine 30 degrees = 0.500 and sine 45 degrees = 0.707
--
- Yokel -

"Yokel" posts via a spam-trap account which is not read.

In article ,
Yokel writes:
snip
If you do the geometry, 50% of the earth's surface lies within 30 degrees of
the equator*. Only 29% lies within 45 degrees of the pole. So this cold
weather "where people actually live" could actually only be affecting about
10% of the earth's surface (Northern hemisphere only affected). The rest
could be warm as toast, pushing up those global average temperatures.

True. OTOH, it would be a considerably larger proportion of the *land*
surface, and you could argue that temperatures over the oceans are much
less important (except perhaps as they affect ice cover), as they are
only experienced by sailors. Also if one really wanted to do it in terms
of "where people actually live", it would be interesting to not simply
consider area but take population density into account.
--
John Hall
"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
from coughing."
Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

"John Hall" wrote in message
...
| In article ,
| Yokel writes:
| snip
| If you do the geometry, 50% of the earth's surface lies within 30 degrees
of
| the equator*. Only 29% lies within 45 degrees of the pole. So this cold
| weather "where people actually live" could actually only be affecting
about
| 10% of the earth's surface (Northern hemisphere only affected). The rest
| could be warm as toast, pushing up those global average temperatures.
|
| True. OTOH, it would be a considerably larger proportion of the *land*
| surface, and you could argue that temperatures over the oceans are much
| less important (except perhaps as they affect ice cover), as they are
| only experienced by sailors. Also if one really wanted to do it in terms
| of "where people actually live", it would be interesting to not simply
| consider area but take population density into account.

Unless I've missed something, didn't this start up as a discussion about
some places having unusually cold conditions while globally it was warmer
than normal?

Perhaps this is going to be the way the "Global Warmers" and the "sceptics"
are going to "prove" their arguments - just take data from the bits of the
earth which support their views! And don't forget that the oceans hold a
very great store of heat which, together with moisture, is passed to the
atmosphere. The patterns of sea surface temperature are known to influence
what goes on over the land areas "where people live".
--
- Yokel -

"Yokel" posts via a spam-trap account which is not read.

In article ,
Yokel writes:
"John Hall" wrote in message
.. .
| In article ,
| Yokel writes:
| snip
| If you do the geometry, 50% of the earth's surface lies within 30 degrees
of
| the equator*. Only 29% lies within 45 degrees of the pole. So this cold
| weather "where people actually live" could actually only be affecting
about
| 10% of the earth's surface (Northern hemisphere only affected). The rest
| could be warm as toast, pushing up those global average temperatures.
|
| True. OTOH, it would be a considerably larger proportion of the *land*
| surface, and you could argue that temperatures over the oceans are much
| less important (except perhaps as they affect ice cover), as they are
| only experienced by sailors. Also if one really wanted to do it in terms
| of "where people actually live", it would be interesting to not simply
| consider area but take population density into account.

Unless I've missed something, didn't this start up as a discussion about
some places having unusually cold conditions while globally it was warmer
than normal?

Perhaps this is going to be the way the "Global Warmers" and the "sceptics"
are going to "prove" their arguments - just take data from the bits of the
earth which support their views! And don't forget that the oceans hold a
very great store of heat which, together with moisture, is passed to the
atmosphere. The patterns of sea surface temperature are known to influence
what goes on over the land areas "where people live".

I'm a believer in AGW, not a sceptic. But I'm interested in looking at
the data in alternative ways, and perhaps getting some insights as to
why people's perceptions may differ from the reality of what is going
on.
--
John Hall
"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
from coughing."
Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)