Thanks for a link to the Goddard paper. I had only read the NYTimes article, as I have read the article on the Mauna Loa measurements, about which you do not speak. All the temperature plots in the Goddard article are rising in time, as all the CO2 measurements. I feel there is a link between the two sets of measurements. But I have seen with my eyes the Alpine glaciers which I have climbed with my feet shrinking and disappearing. I do nor need to read some papers to learn there is a global warming. I have seen it with my eyes.
Tullio.
Thanks for a link to the Goddard paper. I had only read the NYTimes article, as I have read the article on the Mauna Loa measurements, about which you do not speak. All the temperature plots in the Goddard article are rising in time, as all the CO2 measurements. I feel there is a link between the two sets of measurements. But I have seen with my eyes the Alpine glaciers which I have climbed with my feet shrinking and disappearing. I do nor need to read some papers to learn there is a global warming. I have seen it with my eyes.
Tullio.
Oh I thought you were referring to the guy being a Republican as one of the facts to link! :-) :-)
Do you have a reference/link to the Mauna Loa piece?
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
Oh I thought you were referring to the guy being a Republican as one of the facts to link! :-) :-)
Do you have a reference/link to the Mauna Loa piece?
Cheers, Mike.
Sorry, I should have made myself more clear. The 21 December issue of NYTimes had an article "A scientist, his work and a climate reckoning", by Justin Gillis. I could not find a link. Cheers.
Tullio
But I have seen with my eyes the Alpine glaciers which I have climbed with my feet shrinking and disappearing. I do nor need to read some papers to learn there is a global warming. I have seen it with my eyes.
Okay, but seeing one glacier region melting is nowhere near 'global'.
Gruß,
Gundolf
Computer sind nicht alles im Leben. (Kleiner Scherz)
Okay, but seeing one glacier region melting is nowhere near 'global'.
Gruß,
Gundolf
The same is happening in the Andes. Bolivia did not want to sign the Cancun meeting conclusions because they were too weak. The only water of Bolivia comes from its glaciers, which are also disappearing.
Tullio
Accord to NASA 2010 will be the warmest year on record ...
I assume you are talking of this paper, from NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, which I hope you will all read. The closer the better. This is why one needs to go to source, rather than swallow some press line than suits individual comforts. ...
Of especial interest is their analysis of the weakness and errors in their methods ( section 9 ), that their data is publicly available, and also the computer program code. Section 2 describes their method in detail and is quite revealing in what it throws out as well as retains. This is the sort of transparency I like.
But beware of some deeply embedded disclaimers ( speaking against the validity of their main conclusions ) like :
- ( paragraph 6 ) 'One consequence of working only with temperature change is that our analysis does not produce estimates of absolute temperature. ... global mean surface air temperature as ... with uncertainty several tenths of a degree Celsius' ... 0.8 degree in the last century ) this is a huge problem with their baseline period ] ...
Very good there for highlighting a HUGE problem...
For the sake of trying to give a 'number' to the 'global warming problem', everyone is focusing attention on "how hot is it". In reality, the global average temperature, whatever it may be or however it might vary to the last 0.001 deg C, IS NOT DIRECTLY OF IMPORTANCE.
There is also great confusion inherent in a 'global average' in that the vertical temperature profile of the oceans and of the atmosphere will complicate what it is that is averaged. I just wonder if the focus on 'global average temperature' is a triumph of G W Bush to confuse everyone with infinitesimally small change and the euphemism of 'Global Warming'. Hey! We all want it nicely warm, Watt so!!
The DIRECT measures to be considered are power in (from the sun, and to a smaller extent from the Earth and from the activities of Man) and power out (heat radiated out to space). Is that in balance or is there an imbalance?
The output from the sun is fairly constant. The output from the Earth (natural nuclear, core cooling, tidal) is pretty much constant.
The measurements from Mauna Loa show that we are creating an ever increasing and significant imbalance starting from about 200 years ago.
Additionally, our ever increasing industrialised change of land use (change of albedo) is also adding to an imbalance.
We are forcing ever greater and ever more rapid change, along with all the consequences of that.
200 years ago was the start of our Industrial Revolution...
The continuing measurements from Mauna Loa show that our influence upon our atmosphere and the planet is significant.
... so bad even Muscovites have complained about the cold.
So my question is where in the hell are they getting the data to say the average annual temperature is still increasing?
Again, I know the statistical games. ...
I know that you play silly word games just to goad and troll and to deliberately confuse... So I'll just keep it simple enough for you:
I do not see there is a call for a personal attack.
Quote:
The significant effect of Global Warming is that it is changing the weather patterns for the world.
Fine with me. Where do I find a presentation of the old pattern versus the present pattern which shows the difference? More clearly where did you do find such a comparison as you would not simply be reciting what you have read without confirmation.
Quote:
To spell it out even more clearly for you:
That means a particular area on the planet is likely to get different weather to what is considered 'normal' for that area.
In that case where do I find the calculations of the previous and the present likelihoods so I can see the differences? Where are these past vs present description of normalcy? One cannot honestly say a thing unless there is evidence for a thing.
Quote:
There's lots of well understood physics to explain how our weather patterns can be expected to get more extreme and more erratic until a new (and very different) stability is reached. Unless that is we can all agree and act to stop dumping GIGA-TONS of fossil CO2 into our very finite atmosphere.
Having a degree in physics I have only found gross simplifications which cannot address weather patterns which are chaotic in the mathematical sense. Nor can I imagine how addressing even the turbulent nature can be accomplished on a planet-wide scale when wind tunnels are still preferred to computers for the fact that computers cannot get the right answers for either aircraft or cars. Given this limitation I do not see how to add chaos to the computation and then get an answer to the very much harder problem.
Quote:
The recent weather seen in various parts of the world is certainly different to what we've seen 'recently'. Even the Muscovites will tell you that.
As a matter of fact I have seen no evidence of any such difference. What I have experienced is that weather is always different from what is remembered. In the 1950s the strange weather was attributed to both sonic booms and nuclear weapons testing.
What I have seen all my life is record breaking. Lets see, Atlanta Georgia had its first snow on Christmas ever and Charleston, SC had its first since 1887 or something like that. It makes me ask where all the CO2 and global warming came from in 1887 to have caused snow in Charleston back then.
The story has always been global warming. The recent attempt to call it climate change is on the level of discovering witchcraft. All extreme events are due to witches and all extreme weather is due to and evidence of global warming now called climate change in an attempt to avoid being easy targets for embarrassment.
It is equally legitimate to claim CO2 is causing changes in sports as more records are being broken these days than ever in the past.
Quote:
And your next goal-post shifting retort into FUD will be?
After the above I will instead return it to my original question. We have had at least three extreme winters over the majority of the northern temperate landmasses. Where are the extremely warm summers occurring which allow the claim that the previous years have been warmer on average?
Returning to the question is not being distracted by non-answers to the question as posed.
Martin : Well the huge problem I refer to is the level of inaccuracy in their baseline from which one presumes a rise ie. it weakens the warming hypothesis. Do you just read into things whatever you want that suits a view? If so then make them your own words, not mine thanks. I keep emphasising the science aspect ( comparison of hypothesis with measured data ) but you seem impelled to advocate a view regardless of the primary findings and the researcher's own doubts regarding that. From this I deduce that, yet again, you have not read the source articles and possibly deduce that you're not keen to do that due to the risk of having to rethink the firmness of your assessment. I refer you to paragraph 119 ( ie. it's a work in progress ):
Quote:
Given this situation, the best hope may be repeated clear description of the science and passage of sufficient time to confirm validity of the description
Having said that, the especially interesting thing is that temperature is really a 'proxy' also, meaning the key issue is really energy flows. An example :
- say I have X Joules of energy to spend. If I put that into some mass of material with a low specific heat then it's temperature will rise by say Y degrees. If I put it into the same mass of water, which has a high specific heat, then I'll barely nudge it up. The difference is the detail of how groups of atoms or molecules respond to energy input. We define the temperature, in this instance, as the average kinetic energy of the constituents ie. energy of motion. But by pumping energy in I can separate the components more and push them 'uphill' with regard to their mutual energy wells ( electromagnetic ). This is like an Earth satellite if I boost it to a higher orbit it actually moves slower but I have separated it more from the central body ie. potential energy is increased at the expense of kinetic.
This explains why there is so much focus on ocean temperatures and other large water bodies of water that, rather fortunately for life on Earth actually, will soak up and release vast amounts of heat energy. Compare that with dry desert sands where there is a huge variation b/w day and night temperatures. Earth weather systems are dominated by water behaviour ( 3/5 covering the surface ). The problem for any research is getting a true handle on such an 'energy budget'. Alas I've seen some ridiculous arguments and models. A chap called Barton Paul Levenson ( a science fiction writer ) comes to mind, his comments and indeed his entire website is riddled with an almost total lack of understanding of thermodynamics. The Earth can't be modelled, even closely, as a 'black body' as it is very far from equilibrium. Even applying the Stefan-Boltzman Law isn't appropriate ( as you would approximate the surface of a star perhaps ). He beautifully demonstrates the problem as outlined in paragraph 117.
As for Mauna Loa ( tracking from the NYT article to NOAA ): a Mr Steven Ryan is a vulcanologist that studies the outgassing of CO2 from the volcano, he has discovered it is burping a lot of CO2 in recent times. Why this is quoted as relevant to either the measurement of global CO2 or as a contribution :
Quote:
How does this program fit into the big picture?
What is it's role in global climate change?
Mauna Loa volcanic CO2 was used as a tracer to constrain the flow of air around the mountain (1997 paper). The MLO CO2 emissions record (1995 and 2001 papers) is an important component in the "geophysical picture" of how Mauna Loa volcano works. The lack of significant methane emissions from Mauna Loa volcano (2006 paper) helps our understanding of the "life on Mars picture" by suggesting that Martian volcanoes are unlikely to be the source of methane in the atmosphere of Mars.
CO2 emissions from Mauna Loa volcano are an insignificantly small part of the global carbon cycle and do not play a role in climate change.
- is quite unclear. This is like attempting to assess global CO2 with a sensor up your fireplace chimney, which Mr Ryan himself is not claiming. Yet another case of quoting what sounds good without the bother of tracking a report to source. I know I keep sounding harsh, but we really shouldn't trivialise such an important topic with such flaky off-the-cuff comments.
If anyone has primary sources to point out and discuss I'd be delighted, for not the least reason that one has bothered to do homework .... :-)
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
Accord to NASA 2010 will be the warmest year on record, surpassing the record of 2005. There was an article on the NYTimes about the rising CO2 percentage recorded at Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii by Charles David Keeling starting in the Fifties and now continued by his son.Incidentally, Dr. Keeling was a registered Republican, according to the NYTimes. Whether the two facts are related depends on what you think. Using Ockham's Razor I think they are.
Tullio
I am merely asking where these exceptionally warm summers are occurring such that they more than make up for the exceptionally harsh winters.
And if there have been no equivalent areas of warmer than normal temperatures or for more days at the same temperatures then it is reasonable to ask how these "warmest" years are being calculated.
As a sidebar, I have always found it odd that a volcano was chosen as a place to measure CO2.
As to the politics, I find it an incredible coincidence that the back to the earth hippies of the 60s have discovered the same things they disliked in the 60s are now the problem even though they have learned to bathe, shave and are old enough to be running things. Truly incredible this coincidence. Pot creates insights no doubt.
So you see, introducing politics is a three edged sword.
Thanks for a link to the
Thanks for a link to the Goddard paper. I had only read the NYTimes article, as I have read the article on the Mauna Loa measurements, about which you do not speak. All the temperature plots in the Goddard article are rising in time, as all the CO2 measurements. I feel there is a link between the two sets of measurements. But I have seen with my eyes the Alpine glaciers which I have climbed with my feet shrinking and disappearing. I do nor need to read some papers to learn there is a global warming. I have seen it with my eyes.
Tullio.
RE: Thanks for a link to
Oh I thought you were referring to the guy being a Republican as one of the facts to link! :-) :-)
Do you have a reference/link to the Mauna Loa piece?
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
RE: Oh I thought you were
Sorry, I should have made myself more clear. The 21 December issue of NYTimes had an article "A scientist, his work and a climate reckoning", by Justin Gillis. I could not find a link. Cheers.
Tullio
RE: But I have seen with my
Okay, but seeing one glacier region melting is nowhere near 'global'.
Gruß,
Gundolf
Computer sind nicht alles im Leben. (Kleiner Scherz)
RE: Okay, but seeing one
The same is happening in the Andes. Bolivia did not want to sign the Cancun meeting conclusions because they were too weak. The only water of Bolivia comes from its glaciers, which are also disappearing.
Tullio
RE: RE: Accord to NASA
Very good there for highlighting a HUGE problem...
For the sake of trying to give a 'number' to the 'global warming problem', everyone is focusing attention on "how hot is it". In reality, the global average temperature, whatever it may be or however it might vary to the last 0.001 deg C, IS NOT DIRECTLY OF IMPORTANCE.
There is also great confusion inherent in a 'global average' in that the vertical temperature profile of the oceans and of the atmosphere will complicate what it is that is averaged. I just wonder if the focus on 'global average temperature' is a triumph of G W Bush to confuse everyone with infinitesimally small change and the euphemism of 'Global Warming'. Hey! We all want it nicely warm, Watt so!!
The DIRECT measures to be considered are power in (from the sun, and to a smaller extent from the Earth and from the activities of Man) and power out (heat radiated out to space). Is that in balance or is there an imbalance?
The output from the sun is fairly constant. The output from the Earth (natural nuclear, core cooling, tidal) is pretty much constant.
The measurements from Mauna Loa show that we are creating an ever increasing and significant imbalance starting from about 200 years ago.
Additionally, our ever increasing industrialised change of land use (change of albedo) is also adding to an imbalance.
We are forcing ever greater and ever more rapid change, along with all the consequences of that.
200 years ago was the start of our Industrial Revolution...
The continuing measurements from Mauna Loa show that our influence upon our atmosphere and the planet is significant.
So...?
It's our only planet.
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
Found a link to the NYTimes
Found a link to the NYTimes article on Mauna Loa:
Mauna Loa
Tullio
RE: RE: ... so bad even
I do not see there is a call for a personal attack.
Fine with me. Where do I find a presentation of the old pattern versus the present pattern which shows the difference? More clearly where did you do find such a comparison as you would not simply be reciting what you have read without confirmation.
In that case where do I find the calculations of the previous and the present likelihoods so I can see the differences? Where are these past vs present description of normalcy? One cannot honestly say a thing unless there is evidence for a thing.
Having a degree in physics I have only found gross simplifications which cannot address weather patterns which are chaotic in the mathematical sense. Nor can I imagine how addressing even the turbulent nature can be accomplished on a planet-wide scale when wind tunnels are still preferred to computers for the fact that computers cannot get the right answers for either aircraft or cars. Given this limitation I do not see how to add chaos to the computation and then get an answer to the very much harder problem.
As a matter of fact I have seen no evidence of any such difference. What I have experienced is that weather is always different from what is remembered. In the 1950s the strange weather was attributed to both sonic booms and nuclear weapons testing.
What I have seen all my life is record breaking. Lets see, Atlanta Georgia had its first snow on Christmas ever and Charleston, SC had its first since 1887 or something like that. It makes me ask where all the CO2 and global warming came from in 1887 to have caused snow in Charleston back then.
The story has always been global warming. The recent attempt to call it climate change is on the level of discovering witchcraft. All extreme events are due to witches and all extreme weather is due to and evidence of global warming now called climate change in an attempt to avoid being easy targets for embarrassment.
It is equally legitimate to claim CO2 is causing changes in sports as more records are being broken these days than ever in the past.
After the above I will instead return it to my original question. We have had at least three extreme winters over the majority of the northern temperate landmasses. Where are the extremely warm summers occurring which allow the claim that the previous years have been warmer on average?
Returning to the question is not being distracted by non-answers to the question as posed.
Perhaps it is your only planet.
Martin : Well the huge
Martin : Well the huge problem I refer to is the level of inaccuracy in their baseline from which one presumes a rise ie. it weakens the warming hypothesis. Do you just read into things whatever you want that suits a view? If so then make them your own words, not mine thanks. I keep emphasising the science aspect ( comparison of hypothesis with measured data ) but you seem impelled to advocate a view regardless of the primary findings and the researcher's own doubts regarding that. From this I deduce that, yet again, you have not read the source articles and possibly deduce that you're not keen to do that due to the risk of having to rethink the firmness of your assessment. I refer you to paragraph 119 ( ie. it's a work in progress ):
Having said that, the especially interesting thing is that temperature is really a 'proxy' also, meaning the key issue is really energy flows. An example :
- say I have X Joules of energy to spend. If I put that into some mass of material with a low specific heat then it's temperature will rise by say Y degrees. If I put it into the same mass of water, which has a high specific heat, then I'll barely nudge it up. The difference is the detail of how groups of atoms or molecules respond to energy input. We define the temperature, in this instance, as the average kinetic energy of the constituents ie. energy of motion. But by pumping energy in I can separate the components more and push them 'uphill' with regard to their mutual energy wells ( electromagnetic ). This is like an Earth satellite if I boost it to a higher orbit it actually moves slower but I have separated it more from the central body ie. potential energy is increased at the expense of kinetic.
This explains why there is so much focus on ocean temperatures and other large water bodies of water that, rather fortunately for life on Earth actually, will soak up and release vast amounts of heat energy. Compare that with dry desert sands where there is a huge variation b/w day and night temperatures. Earth weather systems are dominated by water behaviour ( 3/5 covering the surface ). The problem for any research is getting a true handle on such an 'energy budget'. Alas I've seen some ridiculous arguments and models. A chap called Barton Paul Levenson ( a science fiction writer ) comes to mind, his comments and indeed his entire website is riddled with an almost total lack of understanding of thermodynamics. The Earth can't be modelled, even closely, as a 'black body' as it is very far from equilibrium. Even applying the Stefan-Boltzman Law isn't appropriate ( as you would approximate the surface of a star perhaps ). He beautifully demonstrates the problem as outlined in paragraph 117.
As for Mauna Loa ( tracking from the NYT article to NOAA ): a Mr Steven Ryan is a vulcanologist that studies the outgassing of CO2 from the volcano, he has discovered it is burping a lot of CO2 in recent times. Why this is quoted as relevant to either the measurement of global CO2 or as a contribution :
- is quite unclear. This is like attempting to assess global CO2 with a sensor up your fireplace chimney, which Mr Ryan himself is not claiming. Yet another case of quoting what sounds good without the bother of tracking a report to source. I know I keep sounding harsh, but we really shouldn't trivialise such an important topic with such flaky off-the-cuff comments.
If anyone has primary sources to point out and discuss I'd be delighted, for not the least reason that one has bothered to do homework .... :-)
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
RE: Accord to NASA 2010
I am merely asking where these exceptionally warm summers are occurring such that they more than make up for the exceptionally harsh winters.
And if there have been no equivalent areas of warmer than normal temperatures or for more days at the same temperatures then it is reasonable to ask how these "warmest" years are being calculated.
As a sidebar, I have always found it odd that a volcano was chosen as a place to measure CO2.
As to the politics, I find it an incredible coincidence that the back to the earth hippies of the 60s have discovered the same things they disliked in the 60s are now the problem even though they have learned to bathe, shave and are old enough to be running things. Truly incredible this coincidence. Pot creates insights no doubt.
So you see, introducing politics is a three edged sword.