P
- Status
P
phaster
Guest
phaster:
Okay, I am game.
How about we discuss how using temperature anomalies
AND seems a rehash of
sigh,… ever consider elevated levels of CO2 in a closed container (beer or pop) is a function of pressure and temp,… this is taught in middle school
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/SeemaMeraj.shtml
NOTE
…actually hiatus might be a text book case of global dimming (the decrease in the amounts of solar radiation reaching the surface of the Earth. The by-product of fossil fuels is tiny particles or pollutants which attenuate solar energy)
www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3310_sun.html
Last edited:
T
Theo520
Guest
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
The “observations” are only the satellite measurements. All surface measurements have been omitted.
Also, even the satellite measurements are increasing, and are very close to some of the models.
Also, even the satellite measurements are increasing, and are very close to some of the models.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Perhaps we might ask how much of that temperature record at Penrith is possibly due to the fire activity near the city warming the air?
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Some would argue that surface temperatures are unreliable as comparables because of changes in locations, urban growth (UHS), placement/interpolation of recording thermometers, etc. The satellite data ought to show definitive changes in the troposphere if the physics of GHG in current modelling is correct.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Some would also argue that satellites do not measure temperature directly. They measure radiances in various wavelength bands, which must then be mathematically inverted to obtain indirect inferences of temperature. The process of constructing a temperature record from a radiance record is difficult. The satellite temperature record comes from a succession of different satellites and problems with inter-calibration between the satellites are important, especially NOAA-9, which accounts for most of the difference between various analyses. NOAA-11 played a significant role in a 2005 study by Mears et al. identifying an error in the diurnal correction that leads to the 40% jump in Spencer and Christy’s trend from version 5.1 to 5.2. There are ongoing efforts to resolve differences in satellite temperature datasets.
A new paper published in the Journal of Climate reveals that the lower part of the Earth’s atmosphere has warmed much faster since 1979 than scientists relying on satellite data had previously thought.
Researchers from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), based in California, have released a substantially revised version of their lower tropospheric temperature record.
After correcting for problems caused by the decaying orbit of satellites, as well as other factors, they have produced a new record showing 36% faster warming since 1979 and nearly 140% faster (i.e. 2.4 times larger) warming since 1998. This is in comparison to the previous version 3 of the lower tropospheric temperature (TLT) data published in 2009.
Climate sceptics have long claimed that satellite data shows global warming to be less pronounced than observational data collected on the Earth’s surface. This new correction to the RSS data substantially undermines that argument. The new data actually shows more warming than has been observed on the surface, though still slightly less than projected in most climate models.
T
Theo520
Guest
Looks like they ignore the temperature record before 1910
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
D
Dan123
Guest
Correct. For most of the 19th century Australia didn’t do a great job of setting up monitoring stations according to standards. Specifically as lot of thermometers were left in the open air instead of inside a screen. That means you got additional heat radiating off nearby surfaces causing readings to be higher than normal. That’s been known about for a long time.
It was omitted because it was inaccurate, it’s not inaccurate because it was omitted. I wonder why your link doesn’t mention that? I mean even if they want to say it’s not true why wouldn’t they include the explanation as to why the data isn’t relied on?
H
HarryStotle
Guest
The findings are very tentative. I wouldn’t cite them as if they demonstrate what you claim.
T
Theo520
Guest
Right, much smarter to refer to tree rings
F
Freddy
Guest
Brilliant. I just admire your logic. It’s undeniable. We are experiencing some of the worst bush fires in living memory because of the record high temperatures and the worst drought ever. And your response is…it’s bound to be hot and dry with all those fires burning.Freddy:
Perhaps we might ask how much of that temperature record at Penrith is possibly due to the fire activity near the city warming the air?
I take my hat off to you for seeing the problem so clearly. It’s not the conditions that are causing the fires. It’s all the fires that are causing the conditions!
With hundreds of thousands of animals killed and areas burnt that cover more than twice the size of Belgium, and your suggestion that more CO2 will help, think how much more of the stuff we’re going to need to repair all this damage! The word must go out to the world: We need help and you need to burn more coal. Every little helps. Please do your bit to help regrow our scorched county!
I know our prime minister is keen on helping. He is due to fly to India some time soon to try to persuade them to buy more of our coal. Maybe he thinks we can spend all that extra money on more fire fighting equipment. That’s like selling drugs to the local kids so you can afford more home protection insurance.
God help us. But we vote these morons into power. And we will be voting them out at the first opportunity. The tide has changed.
N
new-kirishitan
Guest
The climate is definitely changing in a bad direction, but I wonder how much of that is due to human influence. Because the world has been bouncing between ice age and greenhouse periods. I think it’s too hard to tell whether if it’s purely natural, purely man-made or a combination of both. I personally think it’s probably a combination though.
D
Dan123
Guest
Scientists feel it’s a combination too. Imagine a scale teetering but roughly in balance, each side carrying hundreds of pounds. Now suppose someone drops just a bit of weight on one side. Affects the whole system.
Likewise there are systems which seem to regulate co2, but they exist in a rough balance. Tossing lots of co2 in the air as we do isn’t something it can just absorb.
Likewise there are systems which seem to regulate co2, but they exist in a rough balance. Tossing lots of co2 in the air as we do isn’t something it can just absorb.
D
Dan123
Guest
Also useful for discussion.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
No, more like its bound to be hotter and drier with all those fires burning. Ergo, to claim the hotter and drier air is the cause of the fires, when at least some is the result of the fires does make sense.HarryStotle:
Brilliant. I just admire your logic. It’s undeniable. We are experiencing some of the worst bush fires in living memory because of the record high temperatures and the worst drought ever. And your response is…it’s bound to be hot and dry with all those fires burning.Freddy:
Perhaps we might ask how much of that temperature record at Penrith is possibly due to the fire activity near the city warming the air?
There is also some evidence that perhaps a third or more of the fires have been the result of arson or human interference. Perhaps, at least, some of those “morons” you speak of might be the ones responsible for igniting fires under those conditions. Hopefully, none are so moronic as to be climate alarmists attempting to demonstrate the devastating effects of climate change.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
As is…
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
F
Freddy
Guest
As I said, your logic is inescapable. All those fires burning wetlands is causing the drought! All those flames are causing record temperatures! Brilliant!
Don’t forget to do your bit as well. Get out in the backyard and burn something tonight. Throw a party to Save Australia. Ask some friends over. Don’t bring food or a few beers. Just a couple of lumps of coal each. Every little counts.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Now you are being disingenuous. You do understand that drought is not merely dry air? And you do understand that fires could move the ambient air temperatures up several degrees that might tip them over the standing records?HarryStotle:
As I said, your logic is inescapable. All those fires burning wetlands is causing the drought! All those flames are causing record temperatures! Brilliant!
But no, let’s entertain the least sympathetic reading and attribute the most disingenuous claim to someone who happens to disagree with your take.
Last edited:
E
Ender
Guest
You may well be experiencing the worst fires in living memory, but it isn’t because of droughts, those have been decreasing world wide for the last 30 years, a fact that applies to Australia as well.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
If CO2 is causing a problem it’s because it promotes plant growth resulting in greater amounts of fuel…which come to think of it wouldn’t be a problem if greens weren’t so adamantly opposed to clearing it out. California and Australia have the same problem and for the same reason, and that reason has nothing whatever to do with climate change.
- Status