Get Yourself Informed on Temperature Anomalies
| February 17, 2007 | Posted by Dave S. under Global Warming, Off Topic, Science |
Satellites have been accurately measuring the temperature of the troposphere all over the face of the earth since 1979. You can view a map of the globe with all temperatures above and below average mapped out in red (above) and blue (below) month by month for over 25 years. Anyone can plainly see that global warming is regional. Near the equator, both above and below it, is almost always uncolored or blue. South America, Central America, and the lower U.S. are experiencing cooling. Most of Africa is cooling. Austrailia is cooling. Southern Europe and Southern Asia are cooling. The air over almost all the Pacific and Mid, and South Atlantic is cooling. Greenland is heating up. Northern Asia and Northern Europe are heating up. Northern Canada and Alaska are heating up. Antarctica has been about the same and the interior has actually cooled off some in the last 10 years. Global warming IS REGIONAL! Everyone needs to know this but no one is being told. If you’re unbiased about this and willing to be swayed by the facts then go to the link below and click through the time series of the global map showing where it is warming, where it is cooling, and how much. Get yourself informed.
http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/temperature/
Pay attention to the lower graph too. It represents the average across the globe. Note it spends about as much time above as below zero point indicating that, at least since 1979, the earth hasn’t been heating or cooling on average, some places are heating and some are cooling.
You have been lied to. Big time.
Once you see how information has been withheld from you so you don’t question the politically driven “scientific” consensus in regard to global warming you’ll understand how the wool is being over everyone’s eyes about the politically driven “scientific” consensus in regard to evolution too.
38 Responses to Get Yourself Informed on Temperature Anomalies
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Jennifer
I’m a student at UAH and have heard a good bit about this from Dr. Christy and other scientists at NASA (Dr. Christy spoke to one of my classes last year). The data error was significant and the models at UAH now match up more closely with most other models
I quoted the published study by Dr. Christy. Regardless of what you think you heard on campus I used what was meticulously written by Dr. Christy and disseminated to the scientific community. Yes, the errors were significant but in 2 of 3 cases the radiosondes were at fault not the satellites and in the case where the satellite data is wrong it’s significant for only about a year and the maximum error is 0.2F lower reading than it should have been. While that is “significant” one year of error hardly changes the 25 year history of satellite temperature measurements.
Jennifer
Here’s a quote by Dr. Christy from the UAH website. He said this just last year:
http://www.uah.edu/News/newsread.php?newsID=291
I encourage you to provide more recent quotes where he has something different to say but I think I’ve demonstrated that the data I used is reliable and I have not contradicted a single thing that Dr. Christy has said on the subject.
However, I do think Dr. Christy is wrong about Arctic heating being either natural or misunderstood. The cause is manmade, it’s black carbon (soot) turning arctic snow darker, and there are a number of scientists I’ve found who do indeed understand it including James Hansen (see here for Hansen’s research).
From Hansen 2003:
Jacobson referenced above has this to say in Nature
Peanut gallery contributor Zach posts a link to an article by Hansen which concludes the earth is absorbing 0.85 +- 0.15w/m^2 more energy than it is radiating back out into space. I guess the implication Zach makes is that this must raise the temperature of the earth.
First of all, Zach needs to read up a bit on what this energy budget stuff really means and how the term greenhouse is misused. I recommend:
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
Next Zach needs to be reminded that even if the earth is temporarily absorbing more energy than it is radiating this doesn’t necessarily translate to a higher surface or air temperature nor is it necessarily due to greenhouse gases. In fact the energy is not heating the earth very much and the excess absorption is not due to greenhouse gases to a large extent.
Zach surely must be forgetting that energy may be stored as potential energy in various forms; chemical, kinetic, gravitational, elastic, and so forth.
Some of the excess energy is being locked up in chemical energy by living things. That’s what oil is – excess energy from the sun stored as potential chemical energy. There’s all kinds of chemical energy storage.
But the real energy hog right now is water and it stores a LOT of energy in kinetic form when it transitions from solid to liquid and liquid to gas. 1 gram of ice at 0 degrees C will absorb 80 calories of heat energy to become 1 gram of water at 0 degrees C. It doesn’t get any warmer in the transition, all the energy is stored as kinetic energy. Turning it into water vapor is an even better storage mechanism. It takes 540 calories to turn 1 gram of water into 1 gram of water vapor without raising its temperature. The atmosphere can hold a lot more water vapor than it holds right now and there’s plenty of liquid water available to evaporate.
Now, while a higher concentration of gases that absorb infrared radiated from the earth’s surface will be able to soak up more energy for a while (eventually they reach a limit imposed by the solar flux density; think of this limit as the same one that keeps a potato from getting hotter than the oven its in) the real bandit in all this is dark soots and dusts that accumulate on snow and ice making them darker and better at absorbing solar energy. So where is all that excess 0.85w/m^2 going? It’s going to turn ice at 0 degrees C into water at 0 degrees C and after that it can drive evaporation turning warm water into warm water vapor, all the while not driving up the temperature of the earth as a whole because the energy is simply being stored as chemical and kinetic energy.
If this was where all that excess energy was being stored what would the symptoms look like, Zach? Give yourself a gold star for saying thinning/retreating ice sheets, permafrost melting, and things of that nature.
realclimate.org failed to approve my comment about Hansen’s 0.8 black carbon forcing data being ignored in the IPCC report or even Jacobson’s 0.5 figure and instead only showed the range as 0.0 – 0.2. I guess they (realclimate) either don’t have a canned answer ready to hand out or are going to see if they can find an answer before they allow the question to see the light of day so they appear to not be taken by surprise.
Given that I can’t respond there (one comment is the quickest I’ve been banned anywhere and it certainly wasn’t for being rude or anything) I guess I’ll have to respond to raypierre’s lame polar amplication response here which didn’t say anything except acknowledge the Arctic is heating faster than anywhere else without giving the cause. I already knew the Arctic was heating way faster than anywhere else without raypierre telling me. I was asking why.
They should at least call it North Polar Amplification because the South Pole isn’t amplifying jack diddly squat and in fact has cooled off a bit in the last 10 years.
Antarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictionsFebruary 15, 2007
Bummer. Polar Amplification is Polar De/i<>amplification in the Antarctic. One can only hope raypierre lurks here so he can keep up with what’s really going on.
Of course the black soot theory explains this perfectly. The Antarctic snowpack, unlike the Arctic snowpack, doesn’t have any soot on it. It’s pristine. It’s been measured. It’s too far from the manmade sources of black carbon and soot which are concentrated in the northern hemisphere. [shrug]
And here Mark Frank told me they knew what they were talking about at realclimate? Yeah, right. Nothing but hot air at realclimate and I do mean that metaphorically.
Dave Scot: Please check out the latest issue of EOS (Transactions, American Geophysical Union), Vol 88, Number 5. The “FORUM” article is entitled “A Perspective on Global Warming, Dimming, and Brightening”, and includes not only some interesting graphs showing the change in solar irradiation over the last 50 years, but some juicy quotes. You might like to post it as a new thread.
Here is a sample quote from the above-referenced EOS article:
“The omission of reference to changes in Eg↓in the IPCC assessments brings into question
the confidence that can be placed in a topdown, ‘consensus’ science system that ignores such a major and significant element of climate change.
A separate and more fundamental question is whether scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficient to produce a useful consensus view. Is climate change a science or is it a trans-science, asking questions that can be stated in the language of science but that are currently beyond its ability to answer?
The cautionary note global dimming and brightening sounds for climate change scientists is not a new one; rather it strikingly vindicates the two rules of climate change set out by Peter Wright 30 years ago [Wright, 1971]. The first rule states that some feature of the atmosphere can always be found that will oscillate in accordance with your hypothesis; the second states that shortly after its discovery, the oscillation will disappear.”
Gerald Stanhill, Institute of Soil, Water and Environmental Sciences, Volcani Center, Bet Dagan, Israel.
Scheesman,
Someone was asking about something you said last night. Go to the Michael Egnor thread and search for your name.
Toxy-proxy
We’ve heard of short-cut, alarmist, alarmist reaction to global warming — using nuclear fire-extinguishers (nuclear-winter technology) to thwart the onslaught of intense 0.76 degree C flames.
Well, here is another short-cut: a greener world by toxy-proxy?
Check out “Barren Hill Made Green With Paint” at…
http://english.cri.cn/2906/200.....195972.htm
Quick cover-ups often uncover more long-lasting deception.
After reading of about the insignificance of UHI effects in basic global temperature data, I’m wondering if we will soon read that UHIs are compensated with PII (polar ice islands) or RRI(rural radiative islands).
“Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.”