Part 1 of Data Compilation: UAH Atmospheric Data

Here’s UAH atmospheric data as part of the project I have started to compile all atmospheric and galactic data relevant the the global warming debate.  I extracted it and graphed it from here:  I have also calculated temperature trends for each graph.  I have taken Lower Tropospheric, Middle Tropospheric, and Lower Stratospheric temperature trends and presented them as global, NH, SH, Tropics, Ocean, Land, Arctic, & Antarctic trends.

There are a few things I’d like to point out.

1) The lower stratospheric data shows a strong cooling trend.  Yet, there has been no cooling in the past decade, and it seems that the only cooling that occurs is directly after major volcanic eruptions, as if the aerosols spewed by the volcanoes remains temporarily in the atmosphere.  Maybe this is just a coincidence, though it would be valuable to find out.

2) Lower stratospheric tropics data varies much more widely than NH or SH lower stratospheric data.

3) Mid-tropospheric temperatures have remained relatively stable.

4) Lower tropospheric temperatures are relatively stable, aside from a strong warming signal in the high lattitudes of the NH, especially the Arctic.

5)  Mid-tropospheric temperatures in the Arctic seem to possibly be cyclical with a period of around 20 years.  If it is cyclical, it may be interesting to look into any connection with the 22 year solar Hale (?) cycle.


2 Responses to “Part 1 of Data Compilation: UAH Atmospheric Data”

  1. Andrew Says:

    If I may offer some comments-
    Stratospheric cooling-at least at the lower levels, which you are looking at-is cuased by Ozone depletion-so that’s why it has stopped 😉

    The mid-troposphere should warming the most, especially in the tropics-at least, that’s what standard Greenhouse climate models suggest. So it is a big deal that, as you observe, there is little warming there at all.

    There is some interesting volcano data here:
    And a paper on the climatic effect of Pinatubo that may be of interest:

    If I had to guess, the NH/SH difference is a soot effect (I can’t prove it, but I would bet the reason).

    I’d like to help with the solar cycles stuff, but it isn’t quite my specialty (though I have quite enjoyed reading some of the work on it) so I don’t have much input.

  2. carlwolk Says:

    Thanks for a great response. I’m glad to see others pursuing the science. Right now, I’m trying to stay away from indentifying the causes of the trends. Though, I do think you’re right on most of your points. The one I might take issue with is the attribution of less warming in the SH. While I’m not going to act like I’m an expert on the issue. I’d guess that the NH has been warming more because of high degrees of warming in the high lattitudes around the Arctic and moderate warming , which seem to be driven by changes in oceanic variation.
    Also, as you pointed out, atmospheric temperatures have not followed greenhouse models (see Douglas 2007), and instead seem to be consistent with Miskolczi’s paper that redefines with greenhouse equations as to imply boundry conditions on the greenhouse effect. There have been some great posts about Miskolczi’s paper and its implications and relationship with the Douglas paper at

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: