Reply With Quote
Obviously, you need to gfy.
Fox Wrong Again On The Global Temperature Record
GUTFELD: Can I address something, Bob? You always bring up this streak, the last ten years was about one and a half degrees warmer than the climate of the 70's. So that means - and actually, they also say that it hasn't been this warm since 1910. So that means we're still not back up to the 1910 levels of heat.
We are far above the "1910 levels of heat" as can easily be seen from the global temperature record, which dates back to 1850. This chart shows how the global surface temperature each year differs from the 1961-1990 average:
As this chart from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration makes clear, the last decade was the warmest on record:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2011081...County+Fair%29
=========
Obviously, Fox is where you right-wingers do your climate research.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 08-10-2011 at 09:48 PM.
Obviously, you need to gfy.
Another excellent contribution from TeyshaBlue.
See post #2, bot.
TB's great hits just keep coming.
Look at the vertical scale of your first graph.
Oooh, scary stuff.
Like a growing number of people not named Al Gore, color me unalarmed.
Boutons...
Look up the difference between temperature and heat. When you understand the difference, we can talk.
Attempting to project climatology trends from a chart with only 150 years of "data" is beyond asinine.
On top of that, temperature does not measure latent heat.
What are the ordinante units B?
Not sure what you're getting at here. Are you saying that Boutons' articles don't account for latent heat? If so, you're shooting yourself in the foot WC......think about it.
Yes, temperature and heat are not equal when state changes are involved. Look at the surface area we have covered over where natural ground moisture cannot cool the surrounding air, because it's capped in concrete, asphalt, etc.
Most temperature measuring sites are surrounded by changing terrain over the years. The albedo and emissivity has changed over the years with these changes.
Heat increases and vaporizes moisture from the ground with less effect on temperature as more ground moisture is available. Only when moisture is no longer being absorbed does the immediate temperature rises linear with heat. Temperatures not only rise quicker in the morning when heat doesn't put as much moisture through state change, but the change in materials like concrete and asphalt increase the surrounding temperatures too. Both are excellent black body radiators compared to plants, and don't utilize incoming energy as stored chemical changes.
Have you read any of the controversy over measuring global temperatures? Nearby all measuring sites have undergone nearby landscape changes over the years, and the remote ones are being removed. Probably for convenience. maybe because they don't provide the increasing results of the agenda.
Ya ya.....state changes store thermal energy as potential (vibrational) vs kinetic (translational, rotational), etcetera, etcetera. I know that potential energy states don't influence temp.
What I was getting at is that there's necessarily more thermal energy in the system if you account for those phase changes than if you don't. I don't know if his article actually did account for it or not. I was just asking.
Honestly though I think the article simply "misspoke" heat vs temp. But you're correct in your assertions here, it has to be spelled out clearly.
I can't say that I'm up to speed on temperature mesauring standards. I know the thermodynamics of the situation though (asphalt as a blackbody, etc.). What you say sounds valid. The location of measurement must be consistent in it's conditions as well.
At what point does warming get concerning and what are you basing it off of?
Based on what? You can project climatology trends with FAR under that but it depends on the context. Using 150 years for climate trends with temperature is fine, TB.
When they go beyond noise level.
But it looks much scarier that way.
Whats the noise level for global temperatures and what are you basing it off of?
It helps when you use proper data to make your graphs. You can make the graph time line be a million years and it doesn't mean anything if you use bad data.But it looks much scarier that way.
If you want to argue that its not scary, then you're more than welcome to (AGW theory generally doesn't disagree that current warming is too big of a deal TBH - its future warming which is the issue) but at least use proper data. The anomaly is much higher than your graph shows.
You want the actual measured temperatures from 2000 years ago?
What are you looking at? The measured anomaly is within the margin of error of the reconstructed temps illustrated in the graph.
Looking at the graph again does it stop circa 1950?
Of course not - I want accurate temperature figures for more recent years.
The mean for your graph there shows a whopping anamoly of 0.1 degrees Celsius. The mean accepted by the scientific community from the 3 main temperature records is 4 to 5 times higher.
Now, if the graph doesn't come as far as 2000 - and it appears as it doesn't - then its more accurate. But then you have to wonder why they stopped it short.
In any event, the only point to showing current warming is to show that the sensitivity to C02 and not to show that current warming is "scary".
I'll give you an imperfect analogy. If you stood 200 yards down from an accelerating vehicle and the speed at the 10 yard mark was only 5 mph you wouldn't say its only going 5mph so there's no need to worry because the point is that its accelerating and its going to be going much faster by the time it actually reaches you.
Like I said, imperfect but I think it gets the point across.
What do you think of the period from 1940 to early 1970's?
Yes. Quite imperfect.
A better analogy might be a vehicle that is a mile away from you and has been alternating between moving toward you and moving away from you for the past 4½ billion years. But in the last century, it has moved a few feet closer to you.
We've discussed the period before Darrin. Several times. Either you have some of the weirdest Alzheimers I've ever seen or you selectively refuse to remember it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
