US weathermen start to doubt AGW

[kT]

Surveying those NASA data (started just before the 1883 Krakatoa
eruption), it goes from -20 hundredths of a degreeC up to +70
hundredths, about a 7/10 rise, or just over 1 defree F.. about what I
calculate on the basis of consumption of fuels worldwide. If we stop
using those fuels, the temperature would drop right down again.

Think again, genius. Or better yet, look it up on the internet.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=134

 

[Don Klipstein]

And other assorted moronic activities.

It has been clear for some months or a year or two (decades for me)
that any warming trend is at most puny and likely nil. The swings of
common (all the time I have been alive) weather patterns are not
outreached. The reality is that persons have a remarkably poor memory
for the bad times and bad weather (except for their own exaggerations).
The TV crews score high in this regard.

My calculations and analysis of the modern discharge of fossil energy
and CO2 is that at most the surface air is raised by maybe 1/2 to 1
degree fahrenheit, and that increment would disappear over a few days if
we stopped burning fuels. This is on the basis of our fuel burn vs the
more or less steady solar energy input to planet earth, and the
temperature increase that energy would engender vis-a-vis the
Stephan-Boltzmann Law.

As far as CO2 air concentration affecting the air (global) temperature,
remember the Krakatoa eruption over a century ago actually brought earth
air cooling for a year. That suggests that adding contaminants to the
air increases heat loss, rather than retaining heat.

Contaminants other than CO2 and other "greenhouse gases".

Also, see how little a blip that was in HadCRUT-3 and HadCRUT-3v. El
Ninos and La Ninas matter more.

<SNIP from here mainly to erdit for space>

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])

 

[z]

Yes of course I know this is not a new idea..

The "essay" takes many many words to say that the heat island effect
is not significant.  This does not agree with common sense nor my
personal experience.  On many hot summer nights or days, there is
often a LARGE temperature difference between the city and the
surrounding rural areas.  This is a common fact that we have all
experienced first hand.  If the results of the long winded analysis
cannot see this obvious fact, then the analysis is suspect.

In other words, if one of the conclusions of the anaysis is that the
heat island effect is not significant, then that brings into question
all the other conclusions.  If the anlysis cannot detect the common 10
degree F or more difference between city and rural,  then how can we
trust the conclusion regarding fractional degree heat rises over time.

Mark- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

has it escaped your notice that the question is not the relative
absolute temperatures of town and country, but the trend over time of
the temperatures? i know it's cooler on the north side of my house on
a sunny day than on the south side, but i also can say with some
certainty that the climate is nevertheless colder in the winter than
in the summer.

 

[Angelo Campanella]

Think again, genius. Or better yet, look it up on the internet.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=134

You are confusing apples for oranges!


The 1 degree F uptick compuation is based on energy (heat) releases due
to burning stuff on the surface (and in the air if you count aircraft).
That same 1F computation does NOT consider CO2 presence in the air
thereafter. My staement of "disappearing quickly" is based on the
analogy that when the sun goes down, the air cools overnight, whence why
not combustion heat likewise?

The lingering CO2 is another matter. Using the the thought experiment
method, the Krakatoa event (spring, 1883) resultrd in some anectdotal
evidence that the year following was somewhat cooler. Admittedly more
investigation is due on this. The climatological temperature data
offered in the NASA file hints at this. But then there were years
following when similar temperature variations occurred. I'm trying to
imagine how those NASA data of the late 19th century were accumulated.
Was it a few fixed earth-based meterorological stations? That would be a
biased sample. Was it accumulated from the then vigorous American or
British merchant trade fleets 'round the world?

My main point is that the rate of combustion of fuels can acount for a
degree F rise while the combustion progresses, but not a day or week
longer, while the jury is still out whether the lingering CO2 will cause
a rise or a fall of earth average air temeperture.

Im not speniding apenny on speculation that my ambient temperature will
drastically increase. Though I did three years ago put in a high
efficency furnace to counter the increased fuel price effects due to the
moronic GW hysteria and 'carbon credit' taxes. The Tulip panic all over
again, IMHO. Or maybe the Salem witch trials. Superstition is still
alive and well.

Angelo Campanella

 

[[email protected]]

has it escaped your notice that the question is not the relative
absolute temperatures of town and country, but the trend over time of
the temperatures? i know it's cooler on the north side of my house on
a sunny day than on the south side, but i also can say with some
certainty that the climate is nevertheless colder in the winter than
in the  summer.- Hide quoted text -

-

....also notice that many places that were rural in the past are now
urban.

so the ratio of urban to rural is also changing over time..

How much of your observed temperature increase over time is due to the
increase in urbanization over time?

Mark

 

[Angelo Campanella]

...also notice that many places that were rural in the past are now
urban. so the ratio of urban to rural is also changing over time..
How much of your observed temperature increase over time is due to the
increase in urbanization over time?

I agree with that noton. There is no certification of temerature data
that verifies that their tesing stations are free from man-made
activities nearby.

The wholw GW+CO2 panic is suspect.. Not that a slight increase of these
constiuents may be occurring, but that he consequeces are to be
devastating to mankind. The wrong persons voted into the congress and e
White House will have more of an effect on our fortunes than the
gtrivial weather changes will ever have.

We all MUST get our priorities straight. I place GW and ++CO2 outcomes
down along with shining my shoes... and haraasing the democrat in the room.

Angelo Campanella

 

[Don Klipstein]

I agree with that noton. There is no certification of temerature data
that verifies that their tesing stations are free from man-made
activities nearby.

We do have monitoring of the temperature of the lower troposphere over
the world as a whole by satellite. The RSS figures (remss.com) exclude
only where the surface is over 3 km above sea level and within 7.5 degrees
of the poles (and within 20 degrees of the South Pole, most of which is
near or over 3 km above sea level anyway).

This is a determination of the temperature trend for nearly all of the
atmosphere within 4 km of sea level and as little as possible of
atmosphere more than 4 km above sea level.

There is a similar determination from the same satellite data by UAH.

(The raw satellite data is amount of thermal radiation present in various
portions of a short-microwave atmospheric absorption/emission band, where
atmospheric transparency is greater towards the center and less towards
the edges of the band. Computer algorhythms work out temperature of
various levels of the atmosphere as a result.)

Both indicate a warming trend from 1979 to now - but they disagree as to
how much. RSS indicates the lower troposphere warming more than HadCRUT-3
and HadCRUT-3v (using weather station and ocean buoy data) indicates the
surface (or surface level atmosphere) warming.

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])