and one for the "adjustment" amount entered to skew the data.

that's the one I got... thanks for clarifying

 

So does the US national weather service. 1 to 3°C peak temp and as much as 12°C in the evenings as cities cool much more slowly than non-concreted areas.

I guess that's where satellites come in ... but maybe open seas would be a much better place to measure atmospheric temperatures?

 

I guess that's where satellites come in ... but maybe open seas would be a much better place to measure atmospheric temperatures?

I have a theory. But, well have to wait for another day.

 

How many probes (weather stations) do we have covering this 501 million square kilometer surface? Not nearly enough.

Here are the weather bouys currently commissioned according to the National Data Bouy Center



Interesting to see the number of bouys that form N and S of the equator in the Pacific. Isn't that the normal path for El Nino?

 

Considering the enormous size of the atmosphere, I chuckle every time I hear some "scientist" claim that he has measured a change of 1/2 a degree in global temperature.

Seems that they never say anything about how having more warmer days in a year in the cold seasons affects the mean numbers though.

Is having a warmer late fall or a warmer than average early spring really negatively affecting anything?
As in daily highs/365 = X and there were simply more 50+ degree F days in the early spring and late fall than normal but the overall summer maximums were nowhere near their record peaks like having only five 100+ F days Vs they normal seasonal 10+?

Or having a winter where only a few days were below 0 F Vs the normal avarge where the is over a month of below zero daytime temps? That pushes the annual average temperature value yet does nothing to the actual daily or seasonal extremes values.

That's the part of their math I don't get. WhreI live another +20 F could be added to every single day of the year which statistically would give us a massive annual mean temp value number rise yet have zero actual negative effect on anything in reality being all it would do is make our winters more tolerable and our growing season longer which for us would be a good thing!

 

I'm never a believer of atmospheric temperature being a driver of sea level changes (thought melting ice).

To me, the difference in thermal mass (plus ices latent heat) is huge, and even more so in volume.

To me it is much more likely that the atmospheric temperature changes, as well as ice melting, are driven by the changes in ocean temperature.

Unfortunately, those changes are impacted by far more factors that are poorly understood, and are not very well measured, historically and even now.

I think those climate guys are missing the boat on that one.

 

how to trust someone telling you that temperature increased by 0.25deg over a century when same guys cant tell if it it is going to rain on Tuesday.

It is far easier to forecast climatebthan it is to forecast weather: because the climate is highly repetitive on the long run. A thousand years from now, the temperature is far more likely to be materially the same as it is today than otherwise.

For example, you don't know what you will be thinking about a hour from now. But you know with very good confidence that at 6pm a year from now you would be thinking about dinner.....

 

I was thinking a while back about how you might define such a thing as a "global" average temperature. Without a satellite, you'd need a mesh network of sensors. Lots of them. Maybe one every 50 miles or so, in carefully chosen sites away from humans. You'd establish a sampling protocol for how often the mesh is polled. Then you'd worry about whether they should be above, on, or below the surface. Especially in the oceans.

Thinking like an engineer, I'm more interested in the heat than the temperature. How much is stored in the top 20 feet or so of land? And what do we do with all that moving water?

In short, I think it would be nearly impossible. Any data are better than none, but we'll never have enough.

Measuring emitted radiation with satellites seems to make good sense for getting more of an "average" view but there are another set of issues with that.

 

fresh off the press:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...lar-physicist-the-alarmists-tried-to-silence/

Interesting to see how scientific consensus on global warming is manufacturered.

 

fresh off the press:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...lar-physicist-the-alarmists-tried-to-silence/

Interesting to see how scientific consensus on global warming is manufacturered.

Censorship of AGW skeptics occurs constantly and everywhere -- even here.

The first reply to this thread that I started was this:

A popular site for climate crackpots

Notice he made no effort to address the content. He just tried to shut down discussion by impugning the reputation of the site.

Business as usual for that crackpot climatistas.

 

Censorship of AGW skeptics occurs constantly and everywhere -- even here.

The first reply to this thread that I started was this:



Notice he made no effort to address the content. He just tried to shut down discussion by impugning the reputation of the site.

Business as usual for that crackpot climatistas.

I'm open minded on global warming but not so much my brain falls out. Saying that some sites have a bias in their readership is not censorship. WUWT is a mixture of the good, the bad and the ugly on the subject. I have a skeptical view of most climate change projections and models but to me that doesn't mean the basic science of a trend is wrong, it means all sides are exaggerating on predictions of what will happen.

 

I have learned a real life example of climate change. I just took a tour of a local water treatment plant. One of the speakers commented that they were having to adjust to the earlier spring runoff. This effects the when, where and how they store water. This is all complicated by the legal issues of water rights here in the American west (Denver, CO).

Some background: Denver's water is taken from the west slope of the Rocky Mountains even though Denver is on the eastern slope. The water is melting snow in the spring and very little at other times. Water rights are based on the first to claim the water. Even water that flows through your property is _not_ yours unless you have a prior claim on the water than others having access to the water. An extreme example is that the rainwater that flows off my roof is _not_ mine. I can not legally collect it in a 55 gallon drum to water my garden!

Note, even if "global warming" is not real, what the Denver Water Board is seeing is real and they have to adjust to what is happening right now.

 

I have learned a real life example of climate change. I just took a tour of a local water treatment plant. One of the speakers commented that they were having to adjust to the earlier spring runoff. This effects the when, where and how they store water. This is all complicated by the legal issues of water rights here in the American west (Denver, CO).

Some background: Denver's water is taken from the west slope of the Rocky Mountains even though Denver is on the eastern slope. The water is melting snow in the spring and very little at other times. Water rights are based on the first to claim the water. Even water that flows through your property is _not_ yours unless you have a prior claim on the water than others having access to the water. An extreme example is that the rainwater that flows off my roof is _not_ mine. I can not legally collect it in a 55 gallon drum to water my garden!

Note, even if "global warming" is not real, what the Denver Water Board is seeing is real and they have to adjust to what is happening right now.

Climate changes. No one ever claimed it doesn't. The question is anthropomorphic or not, and whether impoverishing ourselves will make a difference.

 

I have learned a real life example of climate change.

I think you would be scolded by the climate scientists for confusing weather with climate: you will have to have a life span of hundreds of thousands of years to experience climate change personally.

Having said that, actually (nearly) everyone is in agreement that the climate is changing. I think that fact is beyond "scientific consensus". and the ship has sailed on that, long long time ago.

 

Climate changes. No one ever claimed it doesn't. The question is anthropomorphic or not, and whether impoverishing ourselves will make a difference.

Typo: Anthropogenic, sorry.

 

I think you would be scolded by the climate scientists for confusing weather with climate: you will have to have a life span of hundreds of thousands of years to experience climate change personally.

Agreed. I was sloppy in what I said. My example was of changes that are happening -- be it weather or climate. Either way, it shows what can happen now and in the future. Note that some projections show this area of the US actually getting wetter, not dryer.

 

Agreed. I was sloppy in what I said. My example was of changes that are happening -- be it weather or climate. Either way, it shows what can happen now and in the future. Note that some projections show this area of the US actually getting wetter, not dryer.

And actual data showing many more areas getting greener.

 

Either way, it shows what can happen now and in the future.

that part is not in dispute at all, unless you are some climate scientists;

Note that some projections show this area of the US actually getting wetter, not dryer.

hopefully they didn't rely on the same climate models for those projections,

What it shows is "model risk": the fact that models are definitively wrong should be disclosed and factored in any decision making process built-on the recommendations from those models.

Models are useful only because they are wrong. (some) Climate scientists would force you to think otherwise. To them, their models require your absolute faith in them to be useful. That's why I often call them "climate religion".

 

And actual data showing many more areas getting greener.

They don't count and neither do the places that stayed the same even if they represent the majority of the system as a whole.

 

I think the climate change activists (not the climate scientists who failed for other reasons) are failing because of doom, doom, doom. People are just sick and tired of it, it's a downer. It's become something like death and taxes, we will really worry about it when it's near to the time of reckoning. For others it's the feeling that if you have the slightest difference of option about the climate you're a change denialist in league with the devil.

The climate scientists are failing because for good reason people don't take the word of science as gospel today. Too many products labeled safe have turned out to be deadly or harmful after the 'prestige of good' science assured it was great. Other media hyped scientific wonders have turned out to be hoaxes like Cold Fusion and others were valid science but operational flops that wasted billions. Both sides believe in science, just not it's findings depending on the subject like GMO foods or vaccination.

If you want more people to support any cause then make it in their interest to do so in the near term. How can it be in someones interest to possibility lose their jobs or reduce their standard of living today by telling them bad things will happen in 2100 when we all see that scientific predictions of complex events involving the actions of people are a at best questionable when we see 'shocking' results like the Brexit making the prognosticators dumbfounded on short term predictions.

IMO the climate change movement is right about not using the planet as a waste dump and the atmosphere as a sewer but the Doom and Gloom drum pounding is not working to change minds.