Fascinating that the Southern Hemisphere continues this habit of not warming as much as the north.
Does anybody know of comment out there casting light on the reason for this growing divergence in recent months ?
Fascinating that the Southern Hemisphere continues this habit of not warming as much as the north.
Does anybody know of comment out there casting light on the reason for this growing divergence in recent months ?
Because it has more water.
More land use change in the Northern Hemisphere.
Ender has it right
To two figures, the earth’s Land/Ocean ratio = 29/71, with NH’s Land/Ocean ratio = 39/61, and SH’s Land/Ocean ratio = 19/81. It would appear that Dr Hoyt’s explanation has the best chance of being correct. As to the question of whether Mr Ender and Mr Hissink are correct, well (forgive my slight modification of more famous testimony), “that depends on what their definition of it, is.” — “NH,” “SH” or “NASA UAH satellite data?”
I should have specified that my graphic is for the UAH lower troposphere data.
Is this an all time record with Ender and Louis in agreement ?
Have to say I favour a land based reason for the NH to warm more as it does.
In this talk by Spencer & Christy on April 17 2006 see p 6, they say warming is more consistent with land use changes, I do not see them talking about oceanic areas causing the overall warming in their data. www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/415.pdf
Quite simple, the means of the temperatures being debated over are just numbers. not a mean temperature of a definite physical object.
As for Ender he is right becuase the SH has less land because it has more water and therefore has less land use, and thus Doug Hoyt is correct too.
Got it ?
And one has to just add that it certainly cannot be called global warming either, especially when a large portion of the globe isn’t.
That explains it.
As to what it “cannot be called,” that partly explains the blatantly unfalsifiable rename to “global climate change!”
In addition to more land use changes, from a gross areal density perspective, the NH has more average anthropogenic thermal dissipation per square Km / m^3 than the SH does. The sheer numbers of motors, electronics, lighting systems, heating and cooling systems, current carrying conductors, etc in the NH are greater. Integrated over the boundary layer atmopheric volume and surface, more W/Km or W/m^3 = more temp rise. Something I learned both via school (geophysics) and subsequent 25 years of work (electronics).
Put another way, assume a very large room, say a typical sports gymnasium and measure its ambient temperature.
Then put in one human being. Measure temperature.
Then half fill it with human beings, standing of course. Measure temperature.
Then fill it to 85% with humans, standing again, and measure the temperature.
Surprise, surprise, CO2 increases and so does the temperature.
Why? Because rising CO2 and the temperature simply means an active living system is present.
Probably why Mars with 95% CO2 in its atmosphere but low temperatures is the result of nothing living on its surface, so heaps of CO2 does not necessarily mean the presence of life, but when it does it means the presence of a vibrant, healthy organism.