https://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp/gistemp/NMAPS/tmp_GHCNv4_ERSSTv5_1200km_Anom_9_2023_2023_1951_1980_100_180_90_0_2_/amaps.png

Oops. The highest ever temperature is due to anomalous warmth in Antarctica, which was still way below zero. ::)

Or another view -

https://i0.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/GISS-figure2B-Screenshot-2023-10-17-1.png

Remember anomalies again, not temperature.  ;)

Excuse my stupidity on this Lee.
But can you clarify it a bit more?

https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/151/742/227/original/c209fe82d98ef3c5.jpeg

LOL, lee posts a globe showing high and very high temperatures all over the globe except for a slightly cooler area near South America and makes Antarctica the culprit   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Of course, lees does not give any evidence for his attribution.

Even UAH6 gives September a big spike up in temperature:

---

WAY hotter than the last El Nino year, 2016.

The El Nino is tipped to grow stronger and last until the NH spring.

Wonder what Perth and Adelaide will experience? 46°C in Adelaide in 2016, 48°C possible this summer.

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 6^th, 2023 at 1:54pm:

WAY hotter than the last El Nino year, 2016.

Why don't you use REMSS anymore? You used to tell us it was so much better. ;)

Perhaps it is because they don't show it.

https://images.remss.com/msu/graphics/TLT_v40/plots/RSS_TS_channel_TLT_Global_Land_And_Sea_v04_0.png

Edit: El Nino aspect of NASA.

"By October 1997 and 2015, large areas of the central and eastern Pacific had sea levels more than 7 inches (18 centimeters) higher than normal. This year, sea levels are about 2 or 3 inches (5 to 8 centimeters) higher than average and over a smaller area compared to the 1997 and 2015 events. Both of the past El Niños reached peak strength in late November or early December, so this year’s event may still intensify.

“Every El Niño is a little bit different,” said Josh Willis, Sentinel-6 Michael Freilich project scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Southern California. “This one seems modest compared to the big events, but it could still give us a wet winter here in the Southwest U.S. if conditions are right.”

https://www.nasa.gov/missions/jason-cs-sentinel-6/sentinel-6-michael-freilich/international-ocean-satellite-monitors-how-el-nino-is-shaping-up/

But perhaps you can tell us why a natural event is the only one where temperature rises? ;)

Edit two: The data is from GISS and then graphed.

"Zonal annual means, 2002-present, updated through most recent complete year: TXT, CSV"

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

Poor petal. Can't even do his own research.  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

If you look at your pretty graph you will see that temperatures fluctuate around a warming trend. El Ninos produce temperature spikes, volcanic eruptions and La Nina temperature drops but all over there is an unmistakable warming trend.

It is CO2 that drives temperature, not El Ninos.

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 7^th, 2023 at 4:14pm:

If you look at your pretty graph you will see that temperatures fluctuate around a warming trend. El Ninos produce temperature spikes, volcanic eruptions and La Nina temperature drops but all over there is an unmistakable warming trend.

And nothing to do with CO2. ;) It has been warming since BEFORE the Industrial Revolution. How do you explain that?


Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 7^th, 2023 at 4:14pm:

It is CO2 that drives temperature, not El Ninos.

Temperature drives CO2 at all time scales. ::)

So tell us why you don't like REMSS any more? ;D ;D ;D ;D

LOL, the Milankovitch Cycle started turning down 5000+ years ago causing cooling.

Wherefrom is this strange warming you babble about, lees?

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 7^th, 2023 at 4:58pm:

Wherefrom is this strange warming you babble about, lees?

Coming out of the LIA, but I repeat myself. ;)

You said:

Quote:

It has been warming since BEFORE the Industrial Revolution.

I showed that that is untrue.

Warming since the IR due to CO2 etc emissions, yes.

Do you still maintain there was warming before the IR?

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 7^th, 2023 at 5:38pm:

I showed that that is untrue.

Nope. You have shown nothing.  Provide a link.

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 7^th, 2023 at 5:38pm:

Warming since the IR due to CO2 etc emissions, yes.

So tell me about this fabled Greenhouse that doesn't have any winds, oceans etc. ;D ;D ;D ;D


Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 7^th, 2023 at 5:38pm:

Do you still maintain there was warming before the IR?

Yes I do.

There wasn’t.

When the Milankovitch Cycle started turning down temperatures turned down with it.

Can you point out the warming pre IR?

---

That's too bloody funny. The flawed Marcott et al and 2000 years per inch. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binaries/content/gallery/metofficegovuk/images/research/climate/cet_mean_temp_graph.jpg/cet_mean_temp_graph.jpg

CET shows warming after the LIA.

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 8^th, 2023 at 5:52am:

CET shows warming after the LIA.

Yes it does, it started before the IR.

The graph is centred at 1961-1990. See all those bumps above the 1960 level?

Some fluctuations is all.

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 8^th, 2023 at 12:33pm:

Some fluctuations is all.

yes, showing the planet heating slowly. You expected a monotonic rise? ::)

Just fluctuations, not real systematic warming.

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 8^th, 2023 at 2:51pm:

Just fluctuations, not real systematic warming.

Just like the global cooling scare from the 40's to the 70's, ay? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

one 30 year climate period. ;)

No, AGW did stop for about 40 years, masked by sulphate emissions.

CET is just fluctuations, no trend.

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 8^th, 2023 at 4:38pm:

No, AGW did stop for about 40 years, masked by sulphate emissions. CET is just fluctuations, no trend.

;D ;D ;D

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 8^th, 2023 at 4:38pm:

No, AGW did stop for about 40 years, masked by sulphate emissions.

That's one possible explanation. Of course it could be completely bogus. Like AGW is a result of the various Clean Air Acts. ;)


Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 8^th, 2023 at 4:38pm:

CET is just fluctuations, no trend.

You really are in denial, you denier you. So tell us why the Downwelling Longwave Radiation has been going down, when according to theory it should be going up. Remember Feldman et al was was models all the way down. ;)

And then of course 35 years Vs 10. ;)

Do you think that paper was about measuring down welling infrared radiation? The abstract defines what the paper is about.

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 8^th, 2023 at 5:33pm:

Do you think that paper was about measuring down welling infrared radiation?

So you can't read a graph. Who knew? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

You didn’t read the abstract let alone the whole paper, did you, lees?

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 8^th, 2023 at 7:40pm:

You didn’t read the abstract let alone the whole paper, did you, lees?

Poor JM. Can't read a graph. It doesn't matter what they wanted to show. It does matter what it shows. ;)

No, lees read the crap introduction but not the actual paper.

As the earth warms, does the surface emit more or less IR, lees?

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 8^th, 2023 at 9:48pm:

As the earth warms, does the surface emit more or less IR, lees?

According to CO2 THEORY not physical evidence.  ;)


“It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.”
― Richard P. Feynman

As the Earth warms does the surface emit more or less IR, lees?

This is nothing to do with CO2 you silly twit.

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 9^th, 2023 at 2:45pm:

As the Earth warms does the surface emit more or less IR, lees?

Yes. And when it cools it emits less. So there is no one figure that can be applied to the earth. Even though Climate Seance ^TM says there is.

The Antarctic is cooling. The +6C shown for September shows why you shouldn't use anomalies. I know you believe in AGW, but why can't you tell us why we have cooling in the Antarctic. ::)

That is correct: as the Earth warms the surface emits more IR.

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 9^th, 2023 at 3:11pm:

That is correct: as the Earth warms the surface emits more IR.

But it is not warming evenly. And in parts it is cooling. So one model does not fit all.  ::)

Is the surface warming, lees?

Is the surface therefore emitting more IR, lees?

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 9^th, 2023 at 4:29pm:

Is the surface warming, lees? Is the surface therefore emitting more IR, lees?

Is the sun shining? Will the earth continue to emit IR after the sun goes dark? ::)

I accept your surrender.

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 9^th, 2023 at 4:51pm:

I accept your surrender.

I answered your question. No surrender involved. ;D ;D ;D ;D


lee wrote on Nov 9^th, 2023 at 4:26pm:

But it is not warming evenly.

You have an attribution problem where only anomalies count and the w/m² is the same globally. ::)

You did not answer my question.

Have you desperately started reading the paper you cited?

Have you worked out why DLR has been going down?

That is not what the paper was about, as I have told you before.

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 10^th, 2023 at 12:12pm:

That is not what the paper was about, as I have told you before.

And I told you, have a look at the results. Results (experiments) count. The results show your theory at least partially wrong. ::)

That is not what the paper was about, as I have told you before.

You will have to read the actual paper, lees.

Hotter surface temperature so more IR, CO2 continuing to rise so what you think the paper shows is impossible.

READ the actual paper, lees.

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 10^th, 2023 at 3:54pm:

That is not what the paper was about, as I have told you before.

But that was a conclusion Yes? ::)
Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 10^th, 2023 at 3:54pm:

Hotter surface temperature so more IR, CO2 continuing to rise so what you think the paper shows is impossible.

No. according to CO2 theory it should go up. Why is it not. Earth's temperature has increased minimally. Do you expect a big jump in temperature? Can it be sorted from the noise? ::)

It is not “CO₂ theory” but quantum mechanics.

So back radiation can’t be decreasing.

Read the paper, lees.

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 10^th, 2023 at 5:46pm:

So back radiation can’t be decreasing.

And yet that's what the graph shows.

PS. I didn't know you were an expert on Quantum Mechanics as well. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I did do two years of physics at Uni.

I have also discussed how molecules that absorb IR behave—with a photon with wavelength equal to the distance of two atoms in a molecule—the C—O bond in CO₂ the atom vibrates and various possible ways.

This is analogous with an electron absorbing a photon jumping to a higher orbit.

Quantum mechanics, read up on it, lees.

So you tell me you have read the paper and still haven't been able to overturn the graph. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Poor lees, thought he had something. He doesn’t.

Read the paper, lees!

I have. And you can't say that it says otherwise than what I posted. Cry me a river. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

You haven’t read the paper, liar!

Poor JM. Back to his standard response. Can't debunk what was written, so resorts to ad homs. :'( :'(

You CLEARLY have not read the paper, not even read the abstract.

Wrong. It was the clouds that done it. ;)

You know the clouds that the models don't do well. ;)