The warming form the bottom up.

[nickbat]

Thanks for adding some science to this debate, Stephen.

I agree that with oceans covering 70% of the planet and having markedly different heat absorption/radiation properties from land, it would be fair to say that the oceans have the upper hand. Also, the mixing of the the air masses to which you rightly refer has, I think, quite a lot to do with jet stream behaviour, too. Although, the ocean temperatures may well have a hand in driving the jet streams. I always have difficulty in working out that chicken-and-egg relationship!

It is also interesting to consider how the workings of these major factors can be identified in driving day-to-day weather. The current pressure maps and forecasts for western Europe give starkly different scenarios to that which we have seen over the past few years.

BTW Merry Christmas to everyone on this forum.

[Mike Davis]

Nickbat:
Nights are not getting warmer they are sometimes just not getting as cold! If climate is a regional phenomenom. How can any one determine a global mean? Even if they can what does it mean? I had the opportunity to move anywhere that I wanted when I retired. What was the deciding factor? The ability to observe a hundred year climate history of various regions. Seeing the frequency and severity of severe events. Using these things allowed me to make a decission. I was aware of the discrepency of reporting methods and how some people arive at their opinions. So I also had to look through smoke and mirrors to find a balance towards the truth.
Stephen:
I give a little more credit to land than it appears you do. I feels that it is the Sun,Ocean, Land, and Atmosphere interaction that gives us our weather/ regional climate. Any one of the four removed from the equation and we would not be here to ponder the relationship.

[Stephen Wilde]

Mike,

I'm happy to acknowledge the influence of land especially on the local and regional scale.

Also the land is important in providing the mechanism whereby oceanic warmth is lost rapidly to space in order to help us reach the current approximate (but still variable) equilibrium. It would be a very different world with no land at all.

However, the driver and limiting factor for global temperature change is all that water acted upon by the sun.

[Mike Davis]

Stephen:
It is no fun arguing with someone you agree with!
As a matter af fact it makes it difficult to find a point of contintion.

[sunsettommy]

From GUST OF HOT AIR.Here he posted a few times in the month of September 2007.About the Maximum and minimum temperature changes over time.Worth a good look.I remember reading it then and now the reason why I post it here tonight.

http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com/2007_0 ... chive.html

Example,

Here is the september 20 2007 post,

Australia: Only hot during the day

EXCERPT:

We showed earlier that Australian temperatures at Midnight, 3am and 6am have not significantly increased, however as soon as the sun rose, temperatures at 9am and Noon showed significant increases. Whats more, surprisingly maximum and minimum temperatures have increased since the second world war.

So what happens at 3pm, 6pm and 9pm? The results below show is.

Temperature at 3pm showed a significant increase. (t = 3.8, p < 0.01)at a rate of 0.85 degrees Celsius per 100 years. The graph shown below of this, despite a bit of variability is strong, significant and obvious.

[The Engineer]

Can we start again !

In a recent Danish article on how 2008 was the 10 (th) coldest year since reliable measurements began, it
was noted that warming (in denmark) was mainly during the night (the lowest temperature is higher), and during the winter months (dec,jan,feb).
Can anyone confirm this ? Shouldn't global warming theory be adjusted to fit these facts. I.e. Shouldn't CO2 forcing
be the same both day and night ?

I noticed on many of the graphs from WUWT that global warming seemed to be acheived by raising the lows (nighttime temperatures), not the daytime temperatures. As far as I am aware land temperatures are measured by taking the highest temperature (day) and the lowest temperature (night), adding them together and dividing by 2.

Also as far as I can see, neither nighttime warming nor winter warming are compatible with AGW - unless AGW is causing the changes in "mobility" steve mentioned. There is no sun at night and little sun during the winter months (dec, jan, feb) here in the northern hemisphere. Urbanisation might account for nighttime warming, and the sea might account for winter warming - but what might account for both these changes ??

[Mike Davis]

Engineer:
If CO2 were a GHG then it would account for both phenomenom and not incresing temp durimg warm periods. Altho UHI would override any GHG forcing during night and especially during winter as excess heat escapes from all buildjngs. The question I would have regarding this article is: What do they consider Reliable?
I would agree with you that it would be logical that if CO2 were affecting our climate it would be all the time. But the CO2 as a GHG promoters advised me of my error. Who would have thunk that GCM's over rule logic!

[Mike Davis]

Also: Depending on how the ITCZ/JET is tracking. This would determine the winds from the south (warm) or north. I think that NAO has a lot to do with that probably controlled by the gulf stream or vice/versa.

[Stephen Wilde]

My (novel) suggestion is that the first step in the process is the state of the global energy budget. Everything follows from that.

The net energy budget at a particular moment dictates the positions of the jetstreams by setting the relative sizes and intensities of the high pressure systems on each side of the jet streams in each hemisphere.

As the budget shifts for whatever reason (mainly sun and oceans in my opinion) the relative sizes and intensities of those high pressure systems change in tune with the energy budget changes and the jet streams move poleward or equatorward in response.

Inevitable weather changes follow and over time climate shifts occur.

Even if anthro CO2 were a factor it would only be a tiny factor such as to influence the average position of the jet streams a few miles either way and the temperature budget effect of that human influenced jet stream shift would itself neutralise the anthro CO2 effect.

[Mike Davis]

Stephen:
I belive that you are suggesting that the Thermohalene circulation ( I think I spelled that right) IOW the global oceanic circulation patterns control the high and low preassure areas that control wind and the location of the jet. Of course this is due to the reaction of the oceans to incoming solar energy's (such as putting up clouds to act as an umbrella et cetra). I prefer to work from smallest effect to final cause step by step. I feel that is where IPCC has but the cart before the horse. Also they are seeing a problem where there is only natural variation.