Global Warming & Earth’s Global Temperature Measurement

[rambot]

uhmmm...water is not part of weather...
duh...

 

[RickG]

The residence time of water vapor in the atmosphere is only a few weeks. It can't drive long term climate change.

I don't think he understands the difference between a feedback and a forcing.

 

[eclipsenow]

uhmmm...water is not part of weather...
duh...

Um, we're not even talking weather but climate, and uhmmm, yes, sea temperatures are a very big part of both weather and climate! (Water temperatures influence everything from El Nino droughts in Australia through to La Nina floods, and hurricanes in the Americas).

 

[Heissonear]

I don't think he understands the difference between a feedback and a forcing.

Put the water vapor integral effects in atmospheric temperature into your "science jargon". It's incalculable feedback ruins your stated CO2 GHG forcing.

What is, to the second decimal place, today's Earth's atmospheric temperature of the region between 10N and 10S on planet Earth?

That's what I thought, impossible to know exactly. Clouds ruin your calculation just a bit.

You can bash scientists but you cannot bash how Mother Nature works. The later has been what I observe and learn from, since a child. A calling from the One who watches us all every moment.

 

[RickG]

Put the water vapor integral effects in atmospheric temperature into your "science jargon". It's incalculable feedback ruins your stated CO2 GHG forcing.

Okay, I understand. It's not that you don't know the difference between a feedback and forcing, you don't even know what they are.

You can bash scientists but you cannot bash how Mother Nature works.

No one is bashing scientists but you chief. More than 97% of climate scientists have the data that show not only CO2 is the major forcing currently in effect, but it is due to anthropogenic sources.

 

[Greatcloud]

We are on the crest of a hill temperature wise we went up this hill in the 90's we will be going down this hill soon. According to many scientists we should expect global cooling in the near future.

 

[rambot]

Um, we're not even talking weather but climate, and uhmmm, yes, sea temperatures are a very big part of both weather and climate! (Water temperatures influence everything from El Nino droughts in Australia through to La Nina floods, and hurricanes in the Americas).

[sorry....sarcasm]

 

[rambot]

We are on the crest of a hill temperature wise we went up this hill in the 90's we will be going down this hill soon. According to many scientists we should expect global cooling in the near future.

Many scientists whose names we never ever ever hear.

 

[eclipsenow]

Many scientists whose names we never ever ever hear.

Too right! Phew, sorry, too many forums and too many contributors. I forgot you were on the side of science and reason, but should have realised you were just being sarcastic by your Political affiliation!

 

[RickG]

We are on the crest of a hill temperature wise we went up this hill in the 90's we will be going down this hill soon. According to many scientists we should expect global cooling in the near future.

Citation please.

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't think he understands the difference between a feedback and a forcing.

True enough. It gets even more confusing when they try to understand why carbon dioxide used to be a feedback, but is now a forcer.

 

[Loudmouth]

We are on the crest of a hill temperature wise we went up this hill in the 90's we will be going down this hill soon. According to many scientists we should expect global cooling in the near future.

Really? By scientists do you mean random people who don't have a degree in climatology? Or do you mean a completely skewed list of papers from the 1970's?

Let's say we took a survey of climatologists who are real authors on real climatology papers. Let's send them a survey with some really straightforward questions, like "Is it getting warmer" and "Is man the main cause". Guess what you find? The vast majority of real climatologists agree that warming is happening and that we are the main driver.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es501998e

 

[[serious]]

You did not read Prof RGB statements a few posts earlier: the "anomaly" data and measurement in 1890 verses 1990.

Read RGB again.

I see you forgot again, absolute global average temperature =/= average temperature anomaly.

That's why I said:

"That is why no one but you, and apparently some random reporter from WaPo, talks about or uses such a figure. They use temperature anomaly."​

If I say everyone uses temperature anomaly, and you say, "Ha! but this guy uses temperature anomaly!" you aren't exactly refuting my point.

 

[[serious]]

Citation please.

I'm guessing it's going to be the sunspot activity thing, but one of the mass media reports on an article on a press release.

 

[RickG]

I'm guessing it's going to be the sunspot activity thing, but one of the mass media reports on an article on a press release.

This from skeptical science names the origin of the story:

"The stories stemmed from a presentation at the Royal Astronomical Society’s National Astronomy Meeting in Wales by mathematician Valentina Zharkova. Her research (not yet published) suggests the sun could be headed for a quiet phase like the one that coincided with a period known as the “Little Ice Age,” but doesn’t say anything about how this solar minimum would impact the Earth’s climate." (source: http://www.skepticalscience.com/no-sun-isnt-going-to-save-us-from-global-warming.html)​

What the proponents of this coming ice age are ignoring is the fact that during all the warming over the past 60 years, TSI has
been declining all along.

(source: SKS)

 

[Heissonear]

I see you forgot again, absolute global average temperature =/= average temperature anomaly.

That's why I said:

"That is why no one but you, and apparently some random reporter from WaPo, talks about or uses such a figure. They use temperature anomaly."​

If I say everyone uses temperature anomaly, and you say, "Ha! but this guy uses temperature anomaly!" you aren't exactly refuting my point.

Anomaly data has its own problems.

Haven't you recognized all of the database "adjustments" in 2015 alone by NOAA and others?

Anomaly data is a cope out to no ability to measure the absolute.

Do you like to defend the wind?

Of the few measurements made today in Antarctica do you see anything unusual?

But the anamoly data for today will be to the second decimal.

As far as the real world RGB states it well. Who tries to hide our weakness in such measurements? Scientists or debators?

 

[Heissonear]

This from skeptical science names the origin of the story:

"The stories stemmed from a presentation at the Royal Astronomical Society’s National Astronomy Meeting in Wales by mathematician Valentina Zharkova. Her research (not yet published) suggests the sun could be headed for a quiet phase like the one that coincided with a period known as the “Little Ice Age,” but doesn’t say anything about how this solar minimum would impact the Earth’s climate." (source: http://www.skepticalscience.com/no-sun-isnt-going-to-save-us-from-global-warming.html)​

What the proponents of this coming ice age are ignoring is the fact that during all the warming over the past 60 years, TSI has
been declining all along.

(source: SKS)

Miscued data. Grand Solar Maximum occurred in the 1900's, with inertia effects to ocean bodies.

But you would like to ignore or hide such?

Again, CO2 Alarmists have bias science.

For two decades where has been the "increase heat" during the continuous increase in CO2 emissions in the atmosphere?

Where is the heat? The satalite data show no evidence of atmospheric heat increase for two decades. Look at the chart below.

And can you say severe global cooling will not occur if Earth experiences a Dalton Minimum? That a magnetically quiet sun does not influence earths temperature? Look at the past.

While some continue to promote Alarmism about Catastrophic Global Warming it would show ignorance and bias science if severe cooling is coming by several Mother Nature indicators?

 

[RickG]

For two decades where has been the "increase heat" during the continuous increase in CO2 emissions in the atmosphere?

Where is the heat? The satalite data show no evidence of atmospheric heat increase for two decades. Look at the chart below.

Well, to begin with, the satellite data is from the lower troposphere, not land/ocean surface temperatures, which means you are not providing the most important temperatures to our environment. Second, your UAH graph is a misrepresentation of the actual graph provided by UAH, of which I provide a link below. Third, why is it always that contrarians, when they show a graph of temperatures, begin with a point at a high point and end it on a low point, thus misrepresenting the actual trend?

http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2015/may2015/2015-graph.jpg

 

[Heissonear]

More data from extreme downunder.

Imagine the "average earth temp" for the year 1924 that is void of data points from many of these locales and their geographic representation!

Measuring Earth's atmospheric temperature to produce one "averaged" temperature for an entire year period of time is a joke.

 

[RickG]

Measuring Earth's atmospheric temperature to produce one "averaged" temperature for an entire year period of time is a joke.

So the UAH temperature graph you previously posted is a joke. Yes, we know, because it is a misrepresentation of data. Furthermore, the UAH temperature is just that, the lower atmosphere, not surface temperature which is the true problem.

As for your comment on one averaged temperature, do you understand what the word "average" means? Do you not understand that it is derived from hundreds of thousands of temperature readings throughout the year from tens of thousands of monitored stations world-wide?

Perhaps you can provide a better annual global average temperature method?