UAH has been rising at .64C per decade: 24 months and counting, and no end in sight.
<a href="http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/oceanography/wrap_ocean_analysis.pl?id=IDYOC007&year=2014&month=02"Though this looks a lot more like La Nina than it did just a few weeks ago.
You must be just messing with me, Gates. There’s no way someone who’s been around this debate as long as you could not by now understand that the surface radiation of 390W/m2 in the Trenberth energy budget cartoon
http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter05/Images/Fig5-6.htm
is the radiant emission of a 288K surface which is ostensibly the average surface temperature of the earth. And that furthermore you aren’t perfectly capable of using an online blackbody calculator to find the radiant emission for any other surface temperture.
http://www.spectralcalc.com/blackbody_calculator/blackbody.php
Ha ha. Very funny. You got me good.
@ lolwot
99% figure… Where?
You should read things more carefully aside from desperate attempts to play “gotcha” with Dr. Curry.
Mi Cro | February 5, 2014 at 4:41 pm |
” Something I’ve wondered about that cartoon, the average value can’t be that high can it?”
If the average surface temperature of the earth is really 288K (15C) then the radiant emission must be 390W/m2. That’s law not theory. The Stefan-Boltzman law specifically. Going from temperature or radiant emission to a specific peak frequency for a continuous spectrum is called Wien’s law. It’s also calculated on the blackbody calculator I linked.
Textbook physics discussions here:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/wien.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html
This just in from Werner on WUWT
“By the way, RSS for January just came out and it shows no warming at all for 17 years and 5 months since September 1996.”
JCH
UAH has been rising at .64C per decade: 24 months and counting, and no end in sight.
Huh?
It has been flat or cooling slightly since 2005 = 108 months and counting.
And you’re right: there’s “no end in sight”
Max
PS And it is being validated, as we speak, by 4 other global temperature records, which all show an even longer period of slight cooling.
Climate scientists call it the “hiatus” or “pause”
Get up-to-date, JCH
Human impacts on ground cover not only show up in UHI but also when monoculture like corn or wheat replace forests or the tall grass prairie. Again, hat tip Pielke Sr in Human Impacts on Climate and Weather where he shows that the direct and indirect of rural land cover changes modify the weather above. Still lots of controversy in the settled science.
Scott
Geordie:
This is much more to do with assuaging the guilt of many in the environmental movement for human existence, though not of course their own.
Absolutely. Yet another crock to try and make humanity guilty for it’s very existence and perhaps an excuse for yet more factory farming. Not obsessive here, but we do have a responsibility not to mistreat animals in our care. I like to see them out in the field where they belong. The idea of more and more factory farming of animals is not something I want to see. Just the opposite in fact…
The other tonyb
I have been writing srticles on climate change for many years and regularly blog under the name tonyb. Do you think might be less confusing to people if you used another name on climate blogs?
I think we fundamentally disagree on certain aspects of climate change and we are sending people mixed messages. Thanks for your cooperation
Tonyb
Forbs. A new word today. A good one. Thanks!
Since this thread has developed so many iterations I may as well add one. Having spent an inordinate amount of time thinking about the details of the evolution of man’s diet towards more meat consumption I’d like to expose you to the concept of “Natural Tools.” or “Naturools.” My theory is that some proto-humanoid was injured by falling on a skree slope, suffering a deep slice from a rock shard. It gave them the “Eureka” moment that sharp stones can cut flesh.
Soon they realized it wasn’t necessary to drive hyenas or lions away from a carcass to enjoy its protein, but merely to have a minute to cut a chunk of meat off with a naturally sharp rock, then run to safety. Needless to say, the first adopter of this technique greatly improved their dating life, as well as the survival of their offspring. Tool-making and all its refinements came much later. Cutting edge (ow!) primate research has recently shown this process still occurs amongst groups of chimpanzees, in regards to the cultural dispersion of newly acquired tool-using techniques. One for the ladies in this case, as it was a female chimp joining a new tribe that spread the knowledge. Here’s what a “Naturool,” might look like: http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnvonderlin/11022532335/in/set-72157637146829373
Enjoy.
Darn, I wish I could remember the source I am thinking of!
David Springer, the “fact sheet” you linked to is typical of the BS. Unlike the article in the head post, it claims the figure (as you point out) is 15,000 litres per pound. It’s twice as bad as we thought, folks! But 15,000 is the magical figure.
It claims to take into account water the animal drinks, pasture irrigation, water to grow crops to feed the animal, plus water used in processing. Well, our cattle do not live on irrigated pastures, they are drought resistant and don’t drink much, and some (not all) of them get a brief spell in a feedlot before slaughter. Water used in processing? It would be negligible on a per pound, or even kilo, basis.
Also, the implication seems to be that if the cattle were not drinking the water (and peeing a lot of it out again, BTW) it would be used for some higher purpose. What this is in the middle of nowhere is unclear. In typical cattle country here, it would either evaporate or run out to sea.
They smell like dead chickens of the sea.
Johanna
Here’s confirmation of the beef figure together with others
http://www.ifad.org/english/water/key.htm
It does say ‘grain fed’ beef take 15000 litres of water for the kilo of meat. this sounds ludicrous.
As for the take down of the figures, Yes, I’m sure I’ve read of a report that ridiculed that figure. I suspect it was in a newspaper report
Tonyb
The popularity of global warming alarmism is in part due to the modern religion of what Nigel Lawson called eco-fundamentalism that according to Lawson, presents a danger to humanity on many levels–e.g., “governments of Europe, fired in many cases by anti- Americanism [fueled in part by George Bush's principled stand against the global warming movement]… may get so carried away by their rhetoric as to impose measures which do serious harm to their economies. That is a particular danger at the present time in this country. No doubt, when the people come to suffer the results they will insist on a change of policy, or else vote the offending government out of office. But it would be better to avoid the damage in the first place… [and a] more fundamental, danger is that the global salvationist movement is profoundly hostile to capitalism and the market economy. There are already increasing calls for green protectionism – for the imposition of trade restrictions.”
Modern Agricultural systems aside, the ecological success of the most common type of phytoplankton, diatoms, is directly related to the availability of silicic acid, of which the primary source is excrement from grazing animals (fermented grass) which washes into the streams, rivers, and the ocean.
Therefore, natural grazing systems play a key role in sustaining the aquatic food web (just in case your a fan of fish).
