“24,000 locations on the Earth? Has anybody else ever done this?”
yes every month since 2012 we use 43000 stations.
oh and you did it wrong
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Steven Mosher
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Hans Erren
So the above graph is essentially for an “RCP3.7” scenario, for other scenarios simply multiply with F/3.7.
https://klimaathype.wordpress.com/2018/03/24/localised-instant-climate-sensitivity-for-2xco2/
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by sheldonjwalker
Steven Mosher,
You said, “24,000 locations on the Earth? Has anybody else ever done this? yes every month since 2012 we use 43000 stations.”
You might get 43,000 “raw” temperature readings per month. But for each location, I have:
– the yearly average temperature
– the 12 monthly average temperatures
– the yearly average high temperature
– the 12 monthly average high temperatures
– the yearly average low temperature
– the 12 monthly average low temperatures
and for many locations:
– the highest recorded temperature
– the lowest recorded temperature
Your data is “raw”, mine is “refined”.
You said, “oh and you did it wrong”
Making a claim, that I did it wrong, with no explanation or evidence, is a complete waste of time. Please show everybody that you are not just making up this accusation.
You have been doing it wrong, for the past 20 years!
↧
Comment on Sea levels, atmospheric pressure and land temperature during glacial maxima by Alan Cannell
Robert
This is a different point that I have seen raised before in relation the ideas of Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller. They claim that surface temperature is basically a function of pressure. Given the physical characteristics of an atmosphere: composition, water vapour, CO2, methane, etc. and the energy applied (from the sun), surface temperature is a function of pressure: heat being an expression of the extra energy released through constraining the gas.
When you go down the mountain it gets warmer by about 6 C per 1000 m.
If patm on Earth were increased so that we lived (on the beach) at -1000 m, the surface temp would be about 6 C warmer. Nothing else has changed. The snow line, of course would be 1000m higher and a lot of ice would melt. There is very little change in the thermodynamics.
Alan
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by ristvan
I debunked PIG and Thwaites SLR alarm (first raised by Rignot, not Condor) years ago here at. Limate Etc in guest post Tipping Points.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by cerescokid
The Zanna, Gebbie and Hausfather papers all interrelate. I look forward to the post.
Some of the assumptions and inferences from the 19th century are a little hard to take. What ever circulation and heat transport dynamics that were going on then don’t necessarily set up a laboratory for replication in the 21st Century.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jeff Norman
I still do not understand how enthalpy collected by greenhouse gases in the troposphere is transported into the oceans.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Ragnaar
“The path to the front page was through covering climate politics, not climate science. I think one reason the issue was covered so often through the lens of politics is that doing so made the solution seem easier. After all, the only thing missing was political will, campaigners insisted. Stories that had villains and heroes, the empowered and the powerless—those were (often appropriately) news.” – Revkin, a different story
Framing. They need villians. They want to get elected. What an awful thing politics has done to science. Do climate scientists do anything about it? I don’t think so.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Curious George
I liked “he’d fly into a blind rage if she interrupted him while he was working or playing his bongos.” Apparently he would have tolerated an interruption by a male.
↧
↧
Comment on Sea levels, atmospheric pressure and land temperature during glacial maxima by Robert Clark
Heat is transfered three ways, Conduction, Convection, and radiant. Radient is the only one that goes thru a vacuum. The earth gains radient heat from the sun, and looses radient heat to outer space, black sky, 24 hours a day. The reflected radient heat also goes to the black Sky.
↧
Comment on Sea levels, atmospheric pressure and land temperature during glacial maxima by Robert I. Ellison
Heat is a measure of the kinetic energy of molecules. The zeroth law of thermodynamics applies.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by co2islife
I’m not a climate scientist, but I have an extensive science background. One thing I noticed is that in the field of climate science they don’t speak the language of an engineer, which is what they should. Energy is a flux, with rates and thresholds. Yes, CO2 provides a marginal amount of extra energy to the system, but that amount is like adding a garden hose to the Alaskan Pipeline. Opening that pipeline for a single second can wipe out all the energy provided by CO2 in a second, and then the system resets from a lower level. Here is an example:
It only takes the sun 1.16 hours to warm the oceans as much as Anthropogenic CO2 does in 1,250 hours.
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2019/01/12/an-einstein-thought-experiment-on-climate-change/
If people in the field of climate science would focus on the natural cycles that occur in the system and measure the energy flux in relative terms, I’m pretty sure better models and conclusions will be reached regarding the climate. Right now, everything is simply directed at proving CO2 is the cause, and by doing so, are completely ignoring how the real system truly works. The Climate system isn’t like blowing up a tire, it is like blowing up a tire with a hole in it. That is why temperatures step instead of trend (See Satellite Data)
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Tony Banton
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Tony Banton
Short answer ….
It isn’t.
Same as the GHE in the atmosphere.
It’s a reduction in cooling.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by sheldonjwalker
.
❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶
❶①❶①
❶①❶① . . . Solving Global Warming is easy . . .
❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶
.
Dave Fair,
if you enjoyed my article called “The Comb of Death”, and my “lame” sense of humour, then you might enjoy my article called “Solving Global Warming is easy”.
Many people who read “Solving Global Warming is easy”, will claim that my solution for global warming, isn’t a solution at all.
My comment to them would be, perhaps global warming isn’t the problem that you think it is.
https://agree-to-disagree.com/solving-global-warming-is-easy
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
It is nonetheless a very interesting study on Sahelian dust and orbital precession. However we can drill down to Sahelian dust on an interannual scale driven largely by ENSO.
e.g. https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/2008JCLI2450.1
ENSO on the Holocene scale has some interesting features – despite the hydrological nonlinearities in this record. The mid-Holocene transition from La Nina to EL Nino dominance coincident with the drying of the Sahel and the global insolation transition from low to high intensity.
Earth may have a wobble on but there is no one cause for climate variability – or for abrupt system change.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by JCH
The explanation has been out there for years and years. Widespread incredulity is not an argument. I personally think Minnett’s theory is obviously correct.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by aaron
No reply.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by angech
I thought that in the interests of balancing the energy budget in the past records that Zeke or others had made the oceans pre 1950’s cooler just because?
Leads to making comments about how if it hadn’t all gone into the oceans we would be so much warmer now etc.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Dave Fair
5,000 years!?! But I thought our ruination started in 1950, Robert.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
