Re: OT: Global warming strikes again.
Martin Riddle
"Ian Field" <gangprob...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:ecbIo.136247$qB6....@newsfe16.ams2...
>
>
> http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Snow-Parts-Of-Britain-See-Earliest-Snowfall-For-17-Years-With-More-Predicted-In-The-Next-Few-Days/Article/201011415829484?lpos=UK_News_Top_Stories_Header_4&lid=ARTICLE_15829484_Snow%3A_Parts_Of_Britain_See_Earliest_Snowfall_For_17_Years_With_More_Predicted_In_The_Next_Few_Days
>
Sharpen up those skates!!!
<http://www.youtube.com/user/ijszeilen#p/u/41/0BNlTPdmsRI>
Cheers
Bill Sloman
> "Ian Field" <gangprobing.al...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ecbIo.136247$qB6....@newsfe16.ams2...
>
> >http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Snow-Parts-Of-Britain-See-Ea...
>
> Sharpen up those skates!!!
It happens every winter, and will keep on happening for at least
another few decades if anthropogenic global warming continues at it's
current pace.
Anthropogenic global warming could even lead to local cooling in some
areas. If all the melting ice in the Arctic and on top of Greenland
manages to swamp the thermo-haline
circulation that is currently driving the Gulf Stream it could get
quite a lot colder in the U.K. for a few centuries.
The Younger Dryas cold snap between 12,800 and 11,500 years ago is
blamed on a similar effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas
It is suspected that this was caused by the draining of Lake Assagiz
(which - roughly speaking - covered what are now the Great Lakes in
Canada) which would have dumped a lot of fresh water in the North
Atlantic.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
John Larkin
We had record lows up here in the Sierras this week, -8F sort of
temps, and 8 feet of fresh snow on the peaks from a single storm.
Sugar Bowl was glorious the last few days, perfect snow and temps in
the mid-20s during the day. The tourists don't reserve for
Thanksgiving, because the snow isn't dependable this early; skiing
this weekend is unusual. Empty chairs!
The AGW people have been predicting drought for the West Coast, and
the rain/snow have, if anything, been above average the last 10 years.
There was snow on the ground here in July. More official studies show
no long-term trend in Sierra snowfall since 1916. Much of the central
valley and the coast gets is water supply from Sierra snow.
John
Rich Grise
>
> Anthropogenic global warming could even lead to local cooling in some
> areas.
Ah, now I get it! Warming causes cooling!
Why has it taken me so long to reach enlightenment?
Thanks!!
Rich
Glenn Gundlach
Because we're dumb Americans rather than enlightened Europeans.
G²
Michael A. Terrell
The propblem is that they all burnt out, long ago. Like cheap
Chinese CFLs.
--
For the last time: I am not a mad scientist, I'm just a very ticked off
scientist!!!
Bill Sloman
> BillSlomanwrote:
>
> > Anthropogenic global warming could even lead to local cooling in some
> > areas.
>
> Ah, now I get it! Warming causes cooling!
>
> Why has it taken me so long to reach enlightenment?
Stupidity provides a necessary and sufficinet explanation.
Somebody less stupid might have carried over the relevant information
that *global* warming could cause *local* cooling, but Rich's life-
long enthusiasm for recreational chemicals hasn't left him enough
functioning brain cells to grasp such subtle distinctions.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 12:48:08 -0500, "Martin Riddle"
>
>
>
>
> >"Ian Field" <gangprobing.al...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> >news:ecbIo.136247$qB6....@newsfe16.ams2...
>
> >>http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Snow-Parts-Of-Britain-See-Ea...
>
> >Sharpen up those skates!!!
>
> ><http://www.youtube.com/user/ijszeilen#p/u/41/0BNlTPdmsRI>
>
> >Cheers
>
> We had record lows up here in the Sierras this week, -8F sort of
> temps, and 8 feet of fresh snow on the peaks from a single storm.
> Sugar Bowl was glorious the last few days, perfect snow and temps in
> the mid-20s during the day. The tourists don't reserve for
> Thanksgiving, because the snow isn't dependable this early; skiing
> this weekend is unusual. Empty chairs!
>
> The AGW people have been predicting drought for the West Coast, and
> the rain/snow have, if anything, been above average the last 10 years.
> There was snow on the ground here in July. More official studies show
> no long-term trend in Sierra snowfall since 1916. Much of the central
> valley and the coast gets is water supply from Sierra snow.
Anthropogenic global warming people have indeed been predicting
drought for the West Coast for some time now, but not for a few
decades yet.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=forecast-us-southwest-drought
John presumably doesn't read Scientific American - I've given up on it
myself - and is relying on careless second hand reports by denialist
reporters in the right-wing media that he does seem to read.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
John Larkin
How convenient. After a couple of hundred years of CO2 rise, the
effects are still a few decades in the future.
>
>John presumably doesn't read Scientific American - I've given up on it
>myself - and is relying on careless second hand reports by denialist
>reporters in the right-wing media that he does seem to read.
I gave up SciAm a long time ago, when they gave up hard science for
preachy semipolitical trash.
The cool thing about snow depth is that it's been measured in the same
places in pretty much the same ways since the early 1900s. No heat
island effects, no moving weather stations, no data culling. And the
measurements are NOT tracking AGW predictions so far. So good skiing
and long, hot showers are still in my plans.
We have maybe a dozen reporting weather stations close by here, plus
my private RTD thing. It's not unusual for there to be a 10C spread at
any instant. The most extreme temps are at the "official" weather
station at the airport. -8F Friday morning, when it was +8 here. The
station at the airport is a fairly recent installation.
At this instant, reported temps in F are 9 (official, airport), 13,
14, 15, 16, 17, 17.1 (me), 19, and 21 in a pretty small region.
So what IS the temperature in Truckee?
John
Raveninghorde
Easy. All of the above.
Unfortunately the ground based temperature indices are useless.
The Met Office is aboutto upwardly correct sea surface temperatures
for the last 10 years. IT is strange how all current corrections are
upwards and historic corrections are downwards. It is almost as if
they are trying to make the data proove AGW.
Note the last sentence in the quotes below. Which year was warmest
depends on "temperatures in parts of the world where there are no
monitoring stations. "
/quote
�It�s currently the second-warmest year on record,� Pope said, noting
that 1998 had a �strong� El Nino phenomenon, a cyclical warming of the
Pacific Ocean that typically raises the global average temperature.
/end quote
/quote
The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration publish two other widely
used global average temperature series. They have 2005 as the warmest
year due to differences in the way they account for temperatures in
parts of the world where there are no monitoring stations.
/end quote
Bill Sloman
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 05:53:46 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
>
>
> How convenient. After a couple of hundred years of CO2 rise, the
> effects are still a few decades in the future.
The CO2 levels didn't rise much in the first few hundred years
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg
The pre-industrial CO2 levels seem to have been around 280ppm, and
started creeping up around 1750.
In the 210 years between then and the beginning of the Mauna Loa
observations in 1958 the level went up to 315 ppm, 12.5%. Since then
it has gone up to 37.5% above the pre-industrial level. The rate of
increase is increasing, and the projections for 2100 lie between 541
and 970 ppm.
Your observation is comparable with that of the guy who jumped of the
top of the Empire State Building, and announced that everything was
fine as he passed the 50th floor ...
> >John presumably doesn't read Scientific American - I've given up on it
> >myself - and is relying on careless second hand reports by denialist
> >reporters in the right-wing media that he does seem to read.
>
> I gave up SciAm a long time ago, when they gave up hard science for
> preachy semipolitical trash.
>
> The cool thing about snow depth is that it's been measured in the same
> places in pretty much the same ways since the early 1900s. No heat
> island effects, no moving weather stations, no data culling. And the
> measurements are NOT tracking AGW predictions so far. So good skiing
> and long, hot showers are still in my plans.
Whose AGW predictions? Snow depth isn't so much a reflection of colder
winters as wetter autumns.
> We have maybe a dozen reporting weather stations close by here, plus
> my private RTD thing. It's not unusual for there to be a 10C spread at
> any instant. The most extreme temps are at the "official" weather
> station at the airport. -8F Friday morning, when it was +8 here. The
> station at the airport is a fairly recent installation.
But fully automated. The weather service went to the trouble of
automating all the airport weather stations around 2004, and put in a
few extra automated stations in useful locations - apparently there is
one in Central Park. The other reporting weather stations are
maintained more out of historical interest than for the instrinsic
value of the data they record.
> At this instant, reported temps in F are 9 (official, airport), 13,
> 14, 15, 16, 17, 17.1 (me), 19, and 21 in a pretty small region.
>
> So what IS the temperature in Truckee?
A weighed average, with the airport getting most of the weight.
Anthropogenic global warming refers to a weighed average of
temperatures spread right around the entire globe - 71% of which is
covered with water.
Anthony Watts gets excited because the Stevenson screens around the
non-automated thermomenters aren't being painted with the right kind
of white paint. The whole area of the USA is 9,629.091 square km, 6.5%
of the land area of the earth, and about 1.9% of the whole area of the
globe, so the measurements that he is getting excited about don't
represent a significant proportion of the data used to compute whether
global warming is going on at the moment. That doesn't stop the
denialist press from giving his quixotic opinions loads of column
inches.
A recent issue of the journal of the Royal Australian Chemical
Institute - of which I'm still a member - included nearly a page of
his rubbish which some denialist propagandist had managed to sneak in
after flying the nitwit out to Australia to sell some more doubt about
anthropogenic global warming.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
> On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 08:28:04 -0800, John Larkin
>
>
> >How convenient. After a couple of hundred years of CO2 rise, the
> >effects are still a few decades in the future.
>
> >>John presumably doesn't read Scientific American - I've given up on it
> >>myself - and is relying on careless second hand reports by denialist
> >>reporters in the right-wing media that he does seem to read.
>
> >I gave up SciAm a long time ago, when they gave up hard science for
> >preachy semipolitical trash.
>
> >The cool thing about snow depth is that it's been measured in the same
> >places in pretty much the same ways since the early 1900s. No heat
> >island effects, no moving weather stations, no data culling. And the
> >measurements are NOT tracking AGW predictions so far. So good skiing
> >and long, hot showers are still in my plans.
>
> >We have maybe a dozen reporting weather stations close by here, plus
> >my private RTD thing. It's not unusual for there to be a 10C spread at
> >any instant. The most extreme temps are at the "official" weather
> >station at the airport. -8F Friday morning, when it was +8 here. The
> >station at the airport is a fairly recent installation.
>
> >At this instant, reported temps in F are 9 (official, airport), 13,
> >14, 15, 16, 17, 17.1 (me), 19, and 21 in a pretty small region.
>
> >So what IS the temperature in Truckee?
>
> >John
>
> Easy. All of the above.
>
> Unfortunately the ground based temperature indices are useless.
Not strictly true. They have to be used with care. Not a concept that
Ravinghorde has the wit - let alone the motivation - to appreciate.
> The Met Office is about to upwardly correct sea surface temperatures
> for the last 10 years. It is strange how all current corrections are
> upwards and historic corrections are downwards. It is almost as if
> they are trying to make the data proove AGW.
There are other hypotheses, but Ravinghorde isn't going to entertain
any of them.
> Note the last sentence in the quotes below. Which year was warmest
> depends on "temperatures in parts of the world where there are no
> monitoring stations. "
>
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-26/world-may-record-warmest-yea...
>
> /quote
>
> It s currently the second-warmest year on record, Pope said, noting
> that 1998 had a strong El Nino phenomenon, a cyclical warming of the
> Pacific Ocean that typically raises the global average temperature.
>
> /end quote
>
> /quote
>
> The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the
> National Aeronautics and Space Administration publish two other widely
> used global average temperature series. They have 2005 as the warmest
> year due to differences in the way they account for temperatures in
> parts of the world where there are no monitoring stations.
>
> /end quote
Though Ravinghorde hasn't yet heard about it, there are now satellites
in orbit that can measure surface temperature in places where there
aren't any monitoring stations.
Their measurements of the surface of the ocean do monitor the actual
surface, where water is evaporating and cooling the top fraction of a
millimetre. None of the contact measurement techniques are influenced
by this effect.
No doubt he will remain ignorant as long as his ignorance leaves him
free to accuse the NASA and the British Met Office of cooking their
books.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
John Larkin
Cool, we'll give most of the weight to the obvious (official!)
outlier. Located in a place that is an absolute anomoly around here, a
bare airport runway in a rare meadow flat, surrounded by mountain
forests.
Why don't you get out and examine some of your local reporting weather
stations, and see how they are sited?
>
>Anthropogenic global warming refers to a weighed average of
>temperatures spread right around the entire globe - 71% of which is
>covered with water.
>
>Anthony Watts gets excited because the Stevenson screens around the
>non-automated thermomenters aren't being painted with the right kind
>of white paint. The whole area of the USA is 9,629.091 square km, 6.5%
>of the land area of the earth, and about 1.9% of the whole area of the
>globe, so the measurements that he is getting excited about don't
>represent a significant proportion of the data used to compute whether
>global warming is going on at the moment. That doesn't stop the
>denialist press from giving his quixotic opinions loads of column
>inches.
>
>A recent issue of the journal of the Royal Australian Chemical
>Institute - of which I'm still a member - included nearly a page of
>his rubbish which some denialist propagandist had managed to sneak in
>after flying the nitwit out to Australia to sell some more doubt about
>anthropogenic global warming.
Most of the surface area of the planet had zero weather stations until
recent years, and some huge area still have none. And modern weather
stations can't be usefully compared to historical measurements. The
only "fair" data is satellite measurement, which is too recent to
discern longterm trends.
John
Bill Sloman
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 11:18:57 -0800 (PST),BillSloman
So what. Has it ever struck you the global warming is averaged over
the entire globe, not just the various micro-environments around your
holiday home. Professional meteorologists - as opposed to Anthony
Watts who was a weather announcer on TV who may have gone to Purdue
but never graduated - did look into the heat island question, and
worked out that there weren't enough of them to make any significant
difference to the global average.
> Why don't you get out and examine some of your local reporting weather
> stations, and see how they are sited?
The nearest weather stations to Nijmegen for which once can find
tabulated data on the web are in Twente and Eindhoven. Both are about
an hour's drive away. What exactly is my examining them going to do
for me?
> >Anthropogenic global warming refers to a weighed average of
> >temperatures spread right around the entire globe - 71% of which is
> >covered with water.
>
> >Anthony Watts gets excited because the Stevenson screens around the
> >non-automated thermomenters aren't being painted with the right kind
> >of white paint. The whole area of the USA is 9,629.091 square km, 6.5%
> >of the land area of the earth, and about 1.9% of the whole area of the
> >globe, so the measurements that he is getting excited about don't
> >represent a significant proportion of the data used to compute whether
> >global warming is going on at the moment. That doesn't stop the
> >denialist press from giving his quixotic opinions loads of column
> >inches.
>
> >A recent issue of the journal of the Royal Australian Chemical
> >Institute - of which I'm still a member - included nearly a page of
> >his rubbish which some denialist propagandist had managed to sneak in
> >after flying the nitwit out to Australia to sell some more doubt about
> >anthropogenic global warming.
>
> Most of the surface area of the planet had zero weather stations until
> recent years,
But ships logs have been recording weather data on the oceans since
the 16th century. The data recorded was one of the first things
standardised by the International Meteorological Organization when it
was set up in 1873. That's 71% of the planet's surface.
Callender in the late 1930's was able to put together enough data to
show that world was in fact warming - though, as it turned out - not
due to the small rise in CO2 level that had taken place since the
start of the industrial revolution.
> and some huge area still have none. And modern weather
> stations can't be usefully compared to historical measurements. The
> only "fair" data is satellite measurement, which is too recent to
> discern longterm trends.
I'm sure that the world's meteorologists will be glad that you have
your opinion on the subject. It doesn't seem to be one that they
share, and since they did the undergraduate courses that you seem to
have skipped, and went on to graduate school to learn a little more,
their opinions do carry a little more weight.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
John Larkin
Averaging bad data makes it good data? Graphing trends acquired over
100 years, by different instruments in different places, is good
enough to overturn the world's economy? I'm sure glad you don't design
electronics.
>
>> Why don't you get out and examine some of your local reporting weather
>> stations, and see how they are sited?
>
>The nearest weather stations to Nijmegen for which once can find
>tabulated data on the web are in Twente and Eindhoven. Both are about
>an hour's drive away. What exactly is my examining them going to do
>for me?
Help you think?
John
Jamie
You're a prize package!
Bill Sloman
<jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1l...@charter.net> wrote:
> BillSlomanwrote:
Says Jamie, whose performance in various threads over the past few
days has been rather less than stellar, not that he's likely to be
able to remember the finer points of his several pratfalls.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 16:55:51 -0800 (PST),BillSloman
Two points - the first that the data isn't bad data, merely local
data, and second that the evidence from that kind of temperature
measurement isn't the whole case for anthropogenic global warming, or
anything like it. You have fallen the "merchants of doubt" tactic of
casting doubt on a small portion (urban areas) of a minor part (the
land area of the United States) of a minor line of evidence (the
global historical records of weather observations), and allowed them
to fool you into neglecting the bulk of the scientific evidence.
The problem with your head-in-the-sand scepticism is that
anthropogenic global warming will - if allowed to proceed unchecked,
overturn the world economy in a century or so. The "overturning" of
the economy required to slow down CO2 emissions would be a planned and
gradual process, and is unlikely to to be accompanied by any
population crashes. The consequences of continueing global warming are
less predictable - we don't know which particular bit of shit is going
to hit the fan first - and won't be under anybody's control. There's
an increasing amount of geological evidence (from the end of the last
ice age) that suggests that ice caps tend break up suddenly, rather
than sedately melting in situ, and some rather older evidence that
that methane hydrates deposits - when provoked - tend to release a lot
of methane in geologically brief periods - less than a thousand years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum
None of this is an obvious smoking gun, but it's more than enough to
suggest that we shouldn't fool around with a system that we don't
understand well enough to let us make precise predictions.
> >> Why don't you get out and examine some of your local reporting weather
> >> stations, and see how they are sited?
>
> >The nearest weather stations to Nijmegen for which once can find
> >tabulated data on the web are in Twente and Eindhoven. Both are about
> >an hour's drive away. What exactly is my examining them going to do
> >for me?
>
> Help you think?
Not a subject where your advice is all that persuasive.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Raveninghorde
<jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 16:55:51 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
><bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>
SNIP
>>So what. Has it ever struck you the global warming is averaged over
>>the entire globe, not just the various micro-environments around your
>>holiday home. Professional meteorologists - as opposed to Anthony
>>Watts who was a weather announcer on TV who may have gone to Purdue
>>but never graduated - did look into the heat island question, and
>>worked out that there weren't enough of them to make any significant
>>difference to the global average.
>
>Averaging bad data makes it good data? Graphing trends acquired over
>100 years, by different instruments in different places, is good
>enough to overturn the world's economy? I'm sure glad you don't design
>electronics.
>
Exactly.
A common mistake I see in new engineers is using a DC meter and
noticing a small error. They puzzle over the circuit until they give
up unable to find the cause. I then put a scope on the signal and
show them the oscillation. The meter's average reading had too little
information to see what was going on.
It seems to me a lot of the AGW case is based on using a DC meter to
examine the climate. Trying to reduce the globe to a single annual
measurement is absurd.
What alarmists miss is that good engineers know how to measure things.
In the end it doesn't matter if it is volts and amps, or feet and
inches or temeprature and humidity.
SNIP
Bill Sloman
> On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 17:09:07 -0800, John Larkin
>
> >On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 16:55:51 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
> ><bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
> >>So what. Has it ever struck you the global warming is averaged over
> >>the entire globe, not just the various micro-environments around your
> >>holiday home. Professional meteorologists - as opposed to Anthony
> >>Watts who was a weather announcer on TV who may have gone to Purdue
> >>but never graduated - did look into the heat island question, and
> >>worked out that there weren't enough of them to make any significant
> >>difference to the global average.
>
> >Averaging bad data makes it good data? Graphing trends acquired over
> >100 years, by different instruments in different places, is good
> >enough to overturn the world's economy? I'm sure glad you don't design
> >electronics.
>
> Exactly.
>
> A common mistake I see in new engineers is using a DC meter and
> noticing a small error. They puzzle over the circuit until they give
> up unable to find the cause. I then put a scope on the signal and
> show them the oscillation. The meter's average reading had too little
> information to see what was going on.
If you are worried about global temperature changes you are committed
to averaging individual temperature measurements right around the
globe.
The detailed modelling of of the heat transfer from the sun to the
surface of the earth and then back again to outer space is more
sophisticated, and does allow for non-linearities - and worse. Clouds
colder than zero Celcius can either consist of droplets of super-
cooled water - if there aren't many dust particles around to act as
nuclei for ice crystals - or ice particles, and these two different
sorts of clouds absorb and retransmit infra-red radiation in subtly
different ways. The models can now handle this - we do know which bits
of the atmosphere are dusty, and whch aren't.
Because the earth has a rather extensive surface, the individual cells
in the models are still quite a lot bigger than individual clouds, so
the cloud behaviour in each cell is modelled as a mix of cloud and
clear sky, which isn't ideal, but engineers are working on a special
purpose super-computer that can handle a lot more cells.
The data about the vertical temperature distribution within the
oceans, and the heat trasnfer by ocean currents at various depths
within the oceans is still coming in from the Argo project, so the
models are getting progressively betters they interate this -
relatively new - data.
If you actually knew anyhting about what you are talking about, you
wouldn't make the implicit claim that meteorologist can't handle non-
linear processes.
> It seems to me a lot of the AGW case is based on using a DC meter to
> examine the climate. Trying to reduce the globe to a single annual
> measurement is absurd.
It seems to me - not for the first time - that you haven't got a clue
about the details of the case for anthropogenic global warming.
Reducing the temperature of the earth to a single annual measurment is
indeed an over-simplification, but it does make the point that
anthropogenic global warming is a global phenomena. Any detailed
discussion of the subject will point out that global warming is
currently affecting the arctic regions much more dramatically than the
rest of the globe - one of the well-known positive feedbacks that
amplifiy the relatively small direct greenhouse warming we get from
rising CO2 levels is the decrease in the albedo of previously snow-
and ice-covered regions as the snow and ice melt.
The albedo of the Arctic Ocean only matters in summer, when there is
some sun falling on it, and in summer the area of the Arctic Ocean
covered by sea ice falls to a new low every year or so nowadays.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/sea_ice.php
Non-ice-covered ocean absorbs about 94% of the incoming solar
radiation. Sea ice absorbs about 40% and snow-covered sea ice can
absorb as little as 10%
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/sea_ice.php
One of the more worrying potential positive feedbacks is methane
release from methane hydrates as the local temperature around methane
hydrate deposits builds up. There's a lot of methane tied up in
hydrates in the Siberian permafrost around the Arctic Circle, and as
that area warms up, some of that methane is already being released.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_release
> What alarmists miss is that good engineers know how to measure things.
> In the end it doesn't matter if it is volts and amps, or feet and
> inches or temeprature and humidity.
Oddly enough, the meteorologists interested in global warming do know
how to measure meteorological data. It isn't particularly surprising
that certain elderly electronic engineers don't know much about what
they measure and how they measure it, but it is a bit surprising that
you are silly enough to think that because you don't know what they
are doing, they don't either.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Nial Stewart
> non-automated thermomenters aren't being painted with the right kind
> of white paint.
Jesus Bill you're full of it.
Here's an example of what Watts is highlighting....
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=831
Note from here...
http://www.surfacestations.org/
..that only 10% of the stations surveyed have an error rating of
< 1 Deg C according to the guidlines for siting stations. 61% have
an error rating of >= 2 Deg C.
BTW, Watts frequently publishes posts from warmists, have you ever actually
visited the site?
> The whole area of the USA is 9,629.091 square km, 6.5%
> of the land area of the earth, and about 1.9% of the whole area of the
> globe, so the measurements that he is getting excited about don't
> represent a significant proportion of the data used to compute whether
> global warming is going on at the moment.
No, but if this is the quality of the records from the USA, which you
would probably expect to be some of the highest quality in the world,
what does it imply about other sources?
What's your motivation in this un-swerving support of the warmist agenda?
Nial
Ian Bell
> On Nov 27, 6:48 pm, "Martin Riddle"<martin_...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> "Ian Field"<gangprobing.al...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:ecbIo.136247$qB6....@newsfe16.ams2...
>>
>>> http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Snow-Parts-Of-Britain-See-Ea...
>>
>> Sharpen up those skates!!!
>
> It happens every winter, and will keep on happening for at least
> another few decades if anthropogenic global warming continues at it's
> current pace.
>
> Anthropogenic global warming could even lead to local cooling in some
> areas. If all the melting ice in the Arctic and on top of Greenland
> manages to swamp the thermo-haline
> circulation that is currently driving the Gulf Stream it could get
> quite a lot colder in the U.K. for a few centuries.
>
> The Younger Dryas cold snap between 12,800 and 11,500 years ago is
> blamed on a similar effect
>
Really, and just how many people were contributing to this AGW 11 or 12 thousand
years ago??
Cheers
ian
Raveninghorde
<bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
SNIP
>Any detailed
>discussion of the subject will point out that global warming is
>currently affecting the arctic regions much more dramatically than the
>rest of the globe
And which areas of the planet are estimated not measured either on the
ground or by satellite?
1. The Arctic?
2. The tropics?
Ring BILL SLOWMAN, calls will cost $1 per minute
SNIP
Bill Sloman
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 03:49:39 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
>
>
> SNIP
>
> >Any detailed
> >discussion of the subject will point out that global warming is
> >currently affecting the arctic regions much more dramatically than the
> >rest of the globe
>
> And which areas of the planet are estimated not measured either on the
> ground or by satellite?
>
> 1. The Arctic?
>
> 2. The tropics?
The satellites doing the measurements seem to be in polar orbits, and
survey the entire planet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements
You could have found that out for yourself, rather than going to the
trouble of reminding the rest of us that you really don't know what
you are talking about.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
<nial*REMOVE_TH...@nialstewartdevelopments.co.uk> wrote:
> > Anthony Watts gets excited because the Stevenson screens around the
> > non-automated thermomenters aren't being painted with the right kind
> > of white paint.
>
> Jesus Bill you're full of it.
>
> Here's an example of what Watts is highlighting....
>
> http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=831
The surface area of the United States is some nine million square
kilometres. You presumably pulled out the worst example of a n urban
weather station that you could find. How many square kilometres worth
of the temperature record is it contaminating?
> Note from here...
>
> http://www.surfacestations.org/
>
> ..that only 10% of the stations surveyed have an error rating of
> < 1 Deg C according to the guidlines for siting stations. 61% have
> an error rating of >= 2 Deg C.
When Anthony Watts is estinating the errors.
> BTW, Watts frequently publishes posts from warmists, have you ever actually
> visited the site?
Not recently. It is a typical "merchants of doubt" web site, strong on
horrible examples, and weak on their (neglible) quantitative
significance.
> > The whole area of the USA is 9,629.091 square km, 6.5%
> > of the land area of the earth, and about 1.9% of the whole area of the
> > globe, so the measurements that he is getting excited about don't
> > represent a significant proportion of the data used to compute whether
> > global warming is going on at the moment.
>
> No, but if this is the quality of the records from the USA, which you
> would probably expect to be some of the highest quality in the world,
> what does it imply about other sources?
Why would you expect US weather records - from the manual stations
that Anthony Watts concentrates his attention on - to be of
particularly high quality? The US doesn't have a public service
tradition, and one would expect the traditional weather stations to be
serviced by people who were cheap rather than good.
The US Meteorlogical Service got into bed with commercial aviation
very early in the history of commercial aviation, and the airport
weather monitoring stations delivered more frequent, more up-to-date,
and more detailed data than the traditional observation stations from
very early on. The airport observatories were eventually automated in
2004, and I would expect those records be as good as anything you
could get from ground observers
> What's your motivation in this un-swerving support of the warmist agenda?
An appreciation, based on a fairly thorough education in the relevant
physics, that the evidence for anthropogenic global warming is
comprehensive and convincing, and that the denialist propaganda
against it is misleading and superficial.
Anthony Watt s is a depressing example of the sort of pseudo-authority
used by the denialist propaganda machine to sow fear, doubt and
uncertainy about the remarkably solid scientific envidence for
anthropogenic global warming.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Anthony_Watts
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
Do pay attention. The Younger Dryas event was part of the end of the
last ice age - as the ice sheet over northern Canada melted, a big
lake of fresh water formed over what is now the Great Lakes, and this
eventually drained into the North Atlantic, killing the thermohaline
circulation - and thus the Gulf Stream - for the next 1300 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas
The Greenland ice sheet is unlikely to dump as much fresh water into
the northern atlantic in a single catastrophic event, but the
thermohaline circulation is already being slowed down by the extra
fresh water being injected by the current melting of ice on and around
Greenland.
Life could get more interesting if large chunks of the Greenland ice
cap slid off into the ocean - the geological evidence from the end of
the last ice age is suggesting that this happened quite often when the
atmosphere was warming up - and melted close to Greenland.
This is one of the hard-to-model effects of global warming that the
IPCC doesn't emphasise for fear of being called alarmist, but it is a
real - if not all that easily quantified - risk.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Mark
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum
>
> None of this is an obvious smoking gun, but it's more than enough to
> suggest that we shouldn't fool around with a system that we don't
> understand well enough to let us make precise predictions.
>
Exactly....
yet based on similar "predictions" you want to enact taxes and laws
that will have major economic impacts.
Mark
Raveninghorde
The ground based measurements are almost completely missing in the
polar areas.
The RSS satellite measurements don't have data near the poles:
http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html
/quote
We do not provide monthly means poleward of 82.5 degrees due to
difficulties in merging measurements in these regions, and because
these regions are not sampled by all central fields of view.
/end quote
Don Klipstein
Bill Sloman wrote:
The satellite coverage has a 7.5 degree radius "pole hole" at each pole.
In addition, the RSS lower troposphere index (one of the "big 5" global
temperature trend indices) excludes everything within 20 degrees of the
south pole and land areas having elevation above 3,000 meters. This
excludes most of the Plateau of Tibet, nearly all of Antarctica, some
glacier-harboring mountain ranges, and apparently to me a bit of
Greenland.
In polar icy areas and polar areas during winter, there tends to be a
lack of local convection, so correlation between surface temperature and
temperature of the lower troposphere (at least 1/3 of the atmosphere by
mass) is not as good as it is worldwide. Satellite measurements of lower
troposphere temperature are not as good an indication of surface
temperature in radiation-cooled polar areas in comparison to "world
average".
Meanwhile, what is being worried about is surface temperature,
best-measured on land as temperature of the air 2 meters above the
surface. Surface temperature is what changes the most when change in
greenhouse gases changes radiation balance - at tropopause level, the
temperature changes in the opposite direction, though to a reduced extent
if albedo feedbacks are major positive ones, and according to some not
b