I've heard that originally they weren't in tune with data from ground thermometers. But when new calculations taking into account of time and altitude they were.
Yes, no, maybe?
One piece of information that I'd like some verification on is the correct interpretation of data obtained by satellites.
I've heard that originally they weren't in tune with data from ground thermometers. But when new calculations taking into account of time and altitude they were.
Yes, no, maybe?
I've heard that originally they weren't in tune with data from ground thermometers. But when new calculations taking into account of time and altitude they were.
Yes, no, maybe?
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+Jan 16 2011, 06:13 PM)
One piece of information that I'd like some verification on is the correct interpretation of data obtained by satellites.
I've heard that originally they weren't in tune with data from ground thermometers. But when new calculations taking into account of time and altitude they were.
Yes, no, maybe?
They have had to go through a lot of adjustments to account for how/what they measure, but the good news is that as they figure out all these adjustments they can actually go back and correct their interpretation of the data.
Secondly, they measure multiple layers of the atmosphere, with their lower troposhere the one that one would expect to most closely match the surface record (contrary to common belief, one would not expect them to be identical as they aren't measuring the exact seme thing)
Third there are two different groups that interpret the same satellite data, but come to different conclusions, so you pays your money, you take your pick.
The various surface measurements (US and UK) over the same timeframe (30 years) that the satellites have been in orbit has a warming trend of ~+0.17 °C/decade
Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) with their Version 3.2 algorithms says we are warming at +0.16 °C/decade, while the original group to do this, the Univ of Alabama group at Huntsville (UAH) using their 5.4 algorithms finds a slightly cooler trend of +0.14°C/decade.
NOAA hasn't seemed to decide on which is the better interpretation yet and publishes both results.
Arthur
I've heard that originally they weren't in tune with data from ground thermometers. But when new calculations taking into account of time and altitude they were.
Yes, no, maybe?
They have had to go through a lot of adjustments to account for how/what they measure, but the good news is that as they figure out all these adjustments they can actually go back and correct their interpretation of the data.
Secondly, they measure multiple layers of the atmosphere, with their lower troposhere the one that one would expect to most closely match the surface record (contrary to common belief, one would not expect them to be identical as they aren't measuring the exact seme thing)
Third there are two different groups that interpret the same satellite data, but come to different conclusions, so you pays your money, you take your pick.
The various surface measurements (US and UK) over the same timeframe (30 years) that the satellites have been in orbit has a warming trend of ~+0.17 °C/decade
Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) with their Version 3.2 algorithms says we are warming at +0.16 °C/decade, while the original group to do this, the Univ of Alabama group at Huntsville (UAH) using their 5.4 algorithms finds a slightly cooler trend of +0.14°C/decade.
NOAA hasn't seemed to decide on which is the better interpretation yet and publishes both results.
Arthur
Do you have a link?
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+Jan 16 2011, 09:57 PM)
Do you have a link?
Not handy, but the general purpose link I use is:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-monitoring/index.php
You can also get to UAH's site or RSS's site via links from the NOAA site.
NOAA updates their reports usually on the 15th of the month.
Arthur
Not handy, but the general purpose link I use is:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-monitoring/index.php
You can also get to UAH's site or RSS's site via links from the NOAA site.
NOAA updates their reports usually on the 15th of the month.
Arthur
A site which has all the global temperature data sets arranged neatly and which is updated frequently can be found at:
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.html
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.html
Here's the one I watch.
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
The interface is at the bottom left corner.
I found it through Dr. Roy Spencer's skeptical blog, way back, and figured it would be a decent source, since he was using it (back then) to augment his skepticism.
The main metric I like is the frost line. We can talk about thermometers near cities all we want, but the frost line seems to speak for itself.
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
The interface is at the bottom left corner.
I found it through Dr. Roy Spencer's skeptical blog, way back, and figured it would be a decent source, since he was using it (back then) to augment his skepticism.
The main metric I like is the frost line. We can talk about thermometers near cities all we want, but the frost line seems to speak for itself.
New solution to stop global warming via periodic regional conflict.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/...ar-climate.html
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/...ar-climate.html
The last link was very good...
Very nice information...
thanks.
[Moderator: Off-topic link deleted.]
Very nice information...
thanks.
[Moderator: Off-topic link deleted.]
QUOTE (MagentoC+Mar 9 2011, 10:05 AM)
The last link was very good...
Very nice information...
thanks.
Magento themes
I think you meant Magnetosphere themes
Very nice information...
thanks.
Magento themes
I think you meant Magnetosphere themes
Source IPCC TAR WG1
Consider just the East Antarctic ice sheet:
Thresholds for disintegration of the East Antarctic ice sheet by surface melting involve warmings above 20°C, a situation that has not occurred for at least the last 15 million years (Barker et al., 1999), and which is far more than thought possible under any scenario of climatic change currently under consideration. In that case, the ice sheet would decay over a period of at least 10,000 years
Arthur
Consider just the East Antarctic ice sheet:
Thresholds for disintegration of the East Antarctic ice sheet by surface melting involve warmings above 20°C, a situation that has not occurred for at least the last 15 million years (Barker et al., 1999), and which is far more than thought possible under any scenario of climatic change currently under consideration. In that case, the ice sheet would decay over a period of at least 10,000 years
Arthur
QUOTE
Current estimates of tropical cyclone intensity are highly dependent on a satellite imagery interpretation technique, known as the Dvorak technique (Velden et al, 2006). Consistent with this, a step-function change in methodologies for determination of satellite intensity around the globe occurred with the introduction of geosynchronous satellites in the mid to late 1970’s.
Further changes in methodologies occurred through the 1980’s as satellite
instrumentation changed and as the technique evolved. Klotzbach (2006) restricted his analysis to the last 20 years when there were consistent satellite imagery and found no significant change in global net tropical cyclone activity
Further changes in methodologies occurred through the 1980’s as satellite
instrumentation changed and as the technique evolved. Klotzbach (2006) restricted his analysis to the last 20 years when there were consistent satellite imagery and found no significant change in global net tropical cyclone activity
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Current estimates of tropical cyclone intensity are highly dependent on a satellite imagery interpretation technique, known as the Dvorak technique (Velden et al, 2006). Consistent with this, a step-function change in methodologies for determination of satellite intensity around the globe occurred with the introduction of geosynchronous satellites in the mid to late 1970’s. Further changes in methodologies occurred through the 1980’s as satellite instrumentation changed and as the technique evolved. Klotzbach (2006) restricted his analysis to the last 20 years when there were consistent satellite imagery and found no significant change in global net tropical cyclone activity |
Kamahori et al. (2006) – using the Japanese Meteorological Agency (JMA) typhoon database – found that there was a substantial drop in the amount of category 4 and 5 typhoon activity between the periods 1977-1990 and 1991-2004
QUOTE
Currently there is large overall uncertainty in future changes in tropical cyclone frequency as projected by climate models with future greenhouse gases. The most recent results obtained from medium and high resolution GCM indicate a consistent signal of fewer tropical cyclones globally in a warmer climate (Sugi et al., 2002; McDonald et al., 2005; Bengtsson et al., 2006; Oouchi et al., 2006) , with some regions showing increases in some simulations, though these findings are still not conclusive. Based on the model simulations, the broad geographic regions of cyclogenesis and therefore also the regions affected by tropical cyclones are not expected to change significantly.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Currently there is large overall uncertainty in future changes in tropical cyclone frequency as projected by climate models with future greenhouse gases. The most recent results obtained from medium and high resolution GCM indicate a consistent signal of fewer tropical cyclones globally in a warmer climate (Sugi et al., 2002; McDonald et al., 2005; Bengtsson et al., 2006; Oouchi et al., 2006) , with some regions showing increases in some simulations, though these findings are still not conclusive. Based on the model simulations, the broad geographic regions of cyclogenesis and therefore also the regions affected by tropical cyclones are not expected to change significantly. |
The only observational study addressing tropical cyclone -rainfall variations is that by Groisman et al. (2004) for the United States, which showed substantial multidecadal variability but no long-term trend in total tropical cyclone-related rainfall, a metric which they stated was primarily related to the frequency of tropical cycloness.
More:
http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/tmrp/do...c_statement.pdf
2010 update:
QUOTE
In terms of global tropical cyclone frequency, ref 25 concluded that there was no significant change in global tropical storm or hurricane numbers from 1970 to 2004, nor any significant change in hurricane numbers for any individual basin over that period, except for the Atlantic (discussed above). Landfall in various regions of East Asia during the last 60 years and those in the Philippines during the last century also do not exhibit significant trends.
Thus, considering available observational studies, and after accounting for potential errors arising from past changes in observing capabilities, it remains uncertain whether past changes in tropical cyclone frequency have exceeded the variability expected through natural causes.
Thus, considering available observational studies, and after accounting for potential errors arising from past changes in observing capabilities, it remains uncertain whether past changes in tropical cyclone frequency have exceeded the variability expected through natural causes.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In terms of global tropical cyclone frequency, ref 25 concluded that there was no significant change in global tropical storm or hurricane numbers from 1970 to 2004, nor any significant change in hurricane numbers for any individual basin over that period, except for the Atlantic (discussed above). Landfall in various regions of East Asia during the last 60 years and those in the Philippines during the last century also do not exhibit significant trends. Thus, considering available observational studies, and after accounting for potential errors arising from past changes in observing capabilities, it remains uncertain whether past changes in tropical cyclone frequency have exceeded the variability expected through natural causes. |
Based on existing modeling studies (Table S1) and limited existing observations, we judge that it is likely that global mean tropical cyclone frequency will either decrease or remain essentially unchanged due to greenhouse warming. Late 21st century model projections indicate decreases ranging from -6% to -34% globally, with a comparatively more robust decrease for the Southern Hemisphere (SH) mean than for the NH mean counts.
dspace.mit.edu/openaccess-disseminate/1721.1/62558
emphasis mine
Arthur
I wonder if the Kock brothers will ask for their money back?
A skeptical physicist ends up confirming climate data
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-k...viC1L_blog.html
A skeptical physicist ends up confirming climate data
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-k...viC1L_blog.html
QUOTE (Capracus+Oct 22 2011, 09:28 PM)
I wonder if the Kock brothers will ask for their money back?
A skeptical physicist ends up confirming climate data
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-k...viC1L_blog.html
Over 1300 views and only 12 replies suggests to me we need to liven the debate somehow!
Suggests to me people want to know about the topic and have no answers.
A skeptical physicist ends up confirming climate data
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-k...viC1L_blog.html
Over 1300 views and only 12 replies suggests to me we need to liven the debate somehow!
Suggests to me people want to know about the topic and have no answers.
QUOTE (Capracus+Oct 22 2011, 09:28 PM)
I wonder if the Kock brothers will ask for their money back?
A skeptical physicist ends up confirming climate data
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-k...viC1L_blog.html
Good one. The real problem, for Americans, is a huge percentage of those educated in America don't know how to access the scientific literature and for the most part don't even know what it is. How brilliant is it to subject our children to 12 years of minimal exposure [like zero] to the scientific method and the literature [the fruit it bears]. Everybody should have been able to read the literature, on GW, and understand what's at stake. Instead they think it was Al Gore's idea supported by a bunch of socialist liberals. That's not surprising since they don't even know what those words mean. Usually I'm not in favor of making such generalizations but in this case I am.
A skeptical physicist ends up confirming climate data
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-k...viC1L_blog.html
Good one. The real problem, for Americans, is a huge percentage of those educated in America don't know how to access the scientific literature and for the most part don't even know what it is. How brilliant is it to subject our children to 12 years of minimal exposure [like zero] to the scientific method and the literature [the fruit it bears]. Everybody should have been able to read the literature, on GW, and understand what's at stake. Instead they think it was Al Gore's idea supported by a bunch of socialist liberals. That's not surprising since they don't even know what those words mean. Usually I'm not in favor of making such generalizations but in this case I am.
That specific report hasn't passed peer review yet, iirc, so it's probably gauche to discuss it.
Deniers not happy with BEST.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmen...ed-of-deception
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmen...ed-of-deception
QUOTE (Jacob+Nov 23 2011, 04:46 AM)
we cannot stop global warming until governments of developed countries would not aware of that , if developed countries like USA is not agreed and serious about global warming and sustain its carbon emission and denied to sign in Kyoto protocol , then how could we expect to third world countries, actually this is a global problem and all countries must be consider it seriously , climatic conditions are going to unstable now ,only strict rules against carbon emission is a real remedy , however it is impossible to stop all emission but we can slow our emission rate if we are united globally toward dangers of global warming .
It is good that you have a view on the topic. Most have put this in the too hard basket. Others are not interested if it is going to put the costs up and profits down.
Maybe Mother Nature will always have more say than the human population. You need to look for a replacement to carbon as an energy source then people will listen.
It is good that you have a view on the topic. Most have put this in the too hard basket. Others are not interested if it is going to put the costs up and profits down.
Maybe Mother Nature will always have more say than the human population. You need to look for a replacement to carbon as an energy source then people will listen.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Nov 23 2011, 05:16 AM)
It is good that you have a view on the topic. Most have put this in the too hard basket. Others are not interested if it is going to put the costs up and profits down.
Maybe Mother Nature will always have more say than the human population. You need to look for a replacement to carbon as an energy source then people will listen.
It's in the 'to hard basket'? For a dumbshit illiterate such as yourself.
Maybe Mother Nature will always have more say than the human population. You need to look for a replacement to carbon as an energy source then people will listen.
It's in the 'to hard basket'? For a dumbshit illiterate such as yourself.
QUOTE (brucep+Nov 23 2011, 07:05 AM)
It's in the 'to hard basket'? For a dumbshit illiterate such as yourself.
The only dumbshit illiterate is you Bruce, for I did not give my view on it. So where did you get your FU'd view of me?
I think the problem is being solved with energy pricing and alternative energy substitution, Wind power , solar power, photovoltaics.
But what progress has been made to re-power trucks , tractors and ships to get them from being powered by oil.
There are hardly any life left in this forum and you waste it's dying breaths with wasted attacks on fellow forumites! You are a very sick and bitter dumbshit!
The only dumbshit illiterate is you Bruce, for I did not give my view on it. So where did you get your FU'd view of me?
I think the problem is being solved with energy pricing and alternative energy substitution, Wind power , solar power, photovoltaics.
But what progress has been made to re-power trucks , tractors and ships to get them from being powered by oil.
There are hardly any life left in this forum and you waste it's dying breaths with wasted attacks on fellow forumites! You are a very sick and bitter dumbshit!
:Hi stop fighting and listen carefully for a change. ask question. give only correct answers.
Global warming theory, or bull crap theory if you will depends on a trigger.
what is that trigger?
its not co2 as a clue....
I know what they say, but is that correct when they say what is said? no way..
ok the trigger is said to be, a certain amount of solar electric charge reaching 65 degree in latitude.
First off this is entirely bs, second they are clearly depending on the solar energy to cause a change in glacier regime. not mankind.
How the piss can solar rays hitting latitude 65. trigger any f---ing thing?
Clearly it cant, clearly not a f--ing trigger
answer, and agree who is correct.
what is the trigger?
Global warming theory, or bull crap theory if you will depends on a trigger.
what is that trigger?
its not co2 as a clue....
I know what they say, but is that correct when they say what is said? no way..
ok the trigger is said to be, a certain amount of solar electric charge reaching 65 degree in latitude.
First off this is entirely bs, second they are clearly depending on the solar energy to cause a change in glacier regime. not mankind.
How the piss can solar rays hitting latitude 65. trigger any f---ing thing?
Clearly it cant, clearly not a f--ing trigger
answer, and agree who is correct.
what is the trigger?
Oh, the other nutcase has checked back in.
Joy.
Joy.
In Entropy's jaws.
Once upon a time.....
Once upon a time.....
Even though it's likely that anthropomorphic warming is a reality, does it deserve priority when it comes to mitigating the adverse impact of human activity on the planet?
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+Jan 16 2011, 11:13 PM)
One piece of information that I'd like some verification on is the correct interpretation of data obtained by satellites.
I've heard that originally they weren't in tune with data from ground thermometers. But when new calculations taking into account of time and altitude they were.
Yes, no, maybe?
you can find a lot of Global Warming related material on google and easily get these material there are many sites have the data related with global warming.
__________________________
redroses
seopower
I've heard that originally they weren't in tune with data from ground thermometers. But when new calculations taking into account of time and altitude they were.
Yes, no, maybe?
you can find a lot of Global Warming related material on google and easily get these material there are many sites have the data related with global warming.
__________________________
redroses
seopower
im a new,so i don't know the forum rule 
My conclusions from observing global warming from the mid 90's are as such:
The temperature lows and highs might tend to balance int averages.
However the extremes are very obvious: Hotter summers colder winters with a much bigger turn over in volumes of water transforming from ice to water to vapor to rain and falling mainly in the plane.
Spain and Portugal are having big droughts asis the amazon drying up.
But the speed and volumes of ocean evaporating up then persistently coming down Khyber mountainous regions around the world shall increase
The temperature lows and highs might tend to balance int averages.
However the extremes are very obvious: Hotter summers colder winters with a much bigger turn over in volumes of water transforming from ice to water to vapor to rain and falling mainly in the plane.
Spain and Portugal are having big droughts asis the amazon drying up.
But the speed and volumes of ocean evaporating up then persistently coming down Khyber mountainous regions around the world shall increase
Hey don't leave me out I'm illiterate 2!
The earth has been warming up and cooling down for millions of years and guess what we have only been a species for about a million years and have only been polluting the atmosphere for about one hundred years.
So what does that tell you.
I would have to say its the sun causing wild fluctuations in climate.
Does any one know what ever happened to that big hole in the ozone layer? Lol
The earth has been warming up and cooling down for millions of years and guess what we have only been a species for about a million years and have only been polluting the atmosphere for about one hundred years.
So what does that tell you.
I would have to say its the sun causing wild fluctuations in climate.
Does any one know what ever happened to that big hole in the ozone layer? Lol
We will have to start writing biblical story's about our selves. 
As a matter of fact we my owe our existence as the only technological species on the planet to global warming and and cooling.
We needed and edge on creatures like squirrels and birds.
We really f--ked them we grew a brain.
Evaluation is quite comical at times like watching a crazy cartoon.
We needed and edge on creatures like squirrels and birds.
We really f--ked them we grew a brain.
Evaluation is quite comical at times like watching a crazy cartoon.
QUOTE (Arlyn+Jun 1 2012, 11:53 AM)
First, you have to understand what glaobl warming is and what it is not.
Some people just don't have a sense of humor.
Some people just don't have a sense of humor.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jun 1 2012, 06:46 PM)
Some people just don't have a sense of humor.
OK so we have stopped laughing so what is a "glaobl"? Looks like you need some sleep young lad!
OK so we have stopped laughing so what is a "glaobl"? Looks like you need some sleep young lad!
QUOTE (Arlyn+Jun 1 2012, 03:53 PM)
The most important greenhouse gas is water vapour, not carbon dioxide. Here's a little nasty thought: many of the so-called solutions to stop generating carbon-based pollution (carbon dioxide, methane, etc.) are about getting water as the output, especially the so-called "green" solutions. If we increase the amount of water in the atmosphere, then we are more likely to hold heat in the atmosphere. So, maybe many of the "green" solutions are likely to cause greater problems than increasing the carbon content .
While water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas, it’s not the most significant in regards to current warming trends. Water vapor cycles in and out of the atmosphere in a matter of days, and under conditions of constant temperature its global atmospheric content remains relatively unchanged. On the other hand, the lesser greenhouse gases such as CO2 can remain in the atmosphere for decades and centuries, and when production of these gasses exceeds their rate of removal, their quantity and associated warming effects increase.
While water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas, it’s not the most significant in regards to current warming trends. Water vapor cycles in and out of the atmosphere in a matter of days, and under conditions of constant temperature its global atmospheric content remains relatively unchanged. On the other hand, the lesser greenhouse gases such as CO2 can remain in the atmosphere for decades and centuries, and when production of these gasses exceeds their rate of removal, their quantity and associated warming effects increase.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Jun 1 2012, 04:31 PM)
OK so we have stopped laughing so what is a "glaobl"? Looks like you need some sleep young lad!
Your reading comprehension is pitiful. Read the post by Arlyn.
Your reading comprehension is pitiful. Read the post by Arlyn.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jun 1 2012, 09:17 PM)
Your reading comprehension is pitiful. Read the post by Arlyn.
Who is lacking the sense of humour now?
Who is lacking the sense of humour now?
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.