Medieval Warm period due to NAO

[nigelfr]

Guys, I said it was a simple view of things: you can pick holes in it if you like, but that isn't difficult. The fact remains that:
a) lower layers and therefore the surface get warmer
b) convection is not a limiting factor on heat transfer between "layers" of the atmosphere
c) And this will surely get some comments... the interactions between the various "layers" of the atmosphere are so complicated, that as the surface warms, really high and thin layers cool. The Ionosphere that JAJ mentioned is expected to show up to 50 K cooling due to AGW.

It's obvious when you think about it... as more heat is trapped at the lower levels and the surface, less is available to heat the outermost layers. You can use this fact, if you like, to also show how my simple view is too simple.

Now I would like to put up some facts...
Global lower troposphere heating


Color coded map of decadal trends in MSU channel TLT (1979 - 2008). Data poleward of 82.5° North and 70° South, as well as areas with land or ice elevations above 3000 meters, are not available and are shown in white.
Mid troposphere heating
Color coded map of decadal trends in MSU/AMSU channel TMT (1979 - 2008). Data poleward of 82.5° are not available and are shown in white.
Troposphere/stratosphere heating/cooling (heating from troposphere, cooling from stratosphere)
Color coded map of decadal trends in MSU/AMSU channel TTS (1987 - 2008). Data poleward of 82.5° are not available and are shown in white. This channel is affected by both tropospheric warming, and stratospheric cooling.
Expected stratospheric cooling
Color coded map of decadal trends in MSU/AMSU channel TLS (1979 - 2008). Data poleward of 82.5° are not available and are shown in white. This channel is dominated by stratospheric cooling.

All taken from here...http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#msu_amsu_time_series

Globally averaged trends computed over latitudes from 82.5S to 82.5N (70S to 82.5N for channel TLT) are shown in the table below, and include data through March, 2009:


Start Time Stop Time # Years Global Trend
Channel TLT 1979 2009-03 30+ 0.155 K/decade

Channel TMT 1979 2009-03 30+ 0.090 K/decade

Channel TTS 1987 2009-03 22+ -0.029 K/decade

Channel TLS 1979 2009-03 30+ -0.335 K/decade

[nigelfr]

Guam said:

Because Nige cant be arsed to google for himself he prefers TB Me or anybody else to do the work then he can gallop over to an internet temple of AGW get them to critique the science then tappy lappy back here and post a response like he just thought it UP

Cheers

So that's your response is it? A baseless accusation?
You think that I'm going to pro-AGW sites and copying stuff from there? You are sooo wrong. In fact I'm deliberately staying away from such sites for explanations so that I don't make the mistake of writing anything that I don't understand clearly. In fact, by questioning my simple explanations, you are doing me a favour, as it forces me to look at the issue from a different perspective.

Ah, I've just worked out where you're coming from: you're upset because I posted that list of common sceptical arguments. I admit that that came from a web site, but that's just a case of copying a list, not the arguments.

Check out who posted these from sceptic/denier sites: http://climatechangeskeptic.files.wordpress.com/20...
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/06...
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/TRENDAPRIL.jpg

[nigelfr]

Guam said:

nigelfr said:

Guam said:

Because Nige cant be arsed to google for himself he prefers TB Me or anybody else to do the work then he can gallop over to an internet temple of AGW get them to critique the science then tappy lappy back here and post a response like he just thought it UP

Cheers

So that's your response is it? A baseless accusation?
You think that I'm going to pro-AGW sites and copying stuff from there? You are sooo wrong. In fact I'm deliberately staying away from such sites for explanations so that I don't make the mistake of writing anything that I don't understand clearly. In fact, by questioning my simple explanations, you are doing me a favour, as it forces me to look at the issue from a different perspective.

Ah, I've just worked out where you're coming from: you're upset because I posted that list of common sceptical arguments. I admit that that came from a web site, but that's just a case of copying a list, not the arguments.

Check out who posted these from sceptic/denier sites: http://climatechangeskeptic.files.wordpress.com/20...
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/06...
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/TRENDAPRIL.jpg

LOL

Youre not usually that easy to wind up Nige, are you sure someone isnt using your Log in, is NigelFR a Village login then

Hi Tom, not wound up, but I think you were being a bit unfair... I gave you respect for the research that you carried out on TOPEX, the least you could do is show the same courtesy to your opponents in the debate.

Whatever... it's a holiday weekend and the guests are getting restless, so I'll wish all of you the best for now.
Cheers,
Nigel

[turbobloke]

Climate models predict stratosphere AGC alongside troposphere AGW but with a proviso as explained by NASA GISS that climate models reproduce the temperature trends only when stratospheric water vapour also increases.

There was a paper back in the 70s which showed some water vapour increase in the decade to 1974 - a global cooling period - but recently HALOE satellite data shows a reduction over the last decade or so as per Randel at. al.



Ozone depletion (solar UV and temperature driven, so again solar) will also cause stratospheric cooling, however, stratosphere cooling stopped 14 years ago while emissions and levels of carbon dioxide have increased significantly in that period.