Global Warming

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

This post has been edited by adoucette on Jan 17 2011, 02:49 AM

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

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

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.

New solution to stop global warming via periodic regional conflict.
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.]

This post has been edited by rpenner on Mar 9 2011, 03:56 PM

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

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-rapid-...mate-years.html

More:

http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/tmrp/do...c_statement.pdf

2010 update:

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

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.

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.

This post has been edited by brucep on Oct 23 2011, 12:00 AM