There's a lot of variance in temperature measurements depending on local geography. That's why the meteorogists are so careful about their official stations.
range. Mountains and sea ?
We gather data from vehicles and there it's easy to see the effect of cities and local geography to the local temperature measurements.
Finland).
At least the meteorologists around here know that there are local variations and are quite careful on how to balance changes between models and observations.
-- mikko
Nope, but you can check their publications and challenge them.
-- mikko
Do you have records from those same vehicles, for the past few hundred years?
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing precision measurement jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
southern
Don't need it, if you have records from other local sites, and tree rings m ight qualify. That's because you can calibrate those against modern weather pa tterns using an appropriate model, supported by today's large data sets.
Why do you always ask about formal records? You never pay any attention t o them, never have any criticism other than 'no' (which requires neither thou ght nor insight). Didn't tree ring data occur to you before I mentioned it?
Ok, we'll calibrate the vehicle-collected data against tree rings. Get back to me in 500 years or so.
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing precision measurement jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
h map.
office or other
t follow
?) are
f-atmosphere
ng.
ap. The weather survey
use
ficial', but
official weather station'.
elementary school.
dinates (and elevation)
features.
It actually makes sense that the city temperature measurements would be sho wing warming. Cities are warmer than the surrounding areas by several degr ees. So why shouldn't these be factored into the global data? It seems a bit crazy to exclude such data.
It's hard to find an area in a big city that isn't hotter than the surround ing areas. That doesn't mean the temperature data should be tossed or fake d so cities appear to be the same temperature as other areas.
In many cities people would leave in the summer to cooler surrounding areas . This has been happening pretty much since the dawn of the industrial rev olution... which by coincidence is about the start of the hockey stick up r amp. Surprise!
-- Rick C. - Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging - Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
map. The weather survey
cause
howing warming. Cities are warmer than the surrounding areas by several de grees. So why shouldn't these be factored into the global data? It seems a bit crazy to exclude such data.
No one suggested excluding such data, except you. So-called 'official weather stations' are sited far from shade (buildings) which means they are AROUND cities, but not inside the big ones. There's usually going to be a monitoring site downwind from any 'hot spot', nothing is likely to be missed.
Fuel use by humans doesn't amount to a tenth of a percent of the energy fr om sunlight, it's not critically important to the climate, even though it does warm my toes h ere, in December.
t (southern
s might
patterns
n to
hought
?Why? You'd ignore the data anyhow, why not just do that NOW? The proposal that 500 years has to pass before examining the data is just... fatuous. Once there's enough data to fit a few parameters, a model is accurate enough to use.
John Larkin takes this seriously, but thinks that Anthony Watts is an "expert".
That makes John Larkin a gullible twit, but he's much too vain to accept the idea, no matter how overwhelming the supporting evidence is.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
John Larkin wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
It is like this folks. We do not know because this was before color photography.
Tree trunks used to be green. The industrial age changed them.
That was our sign. That was a LONG time ago.
You are like a lifelong tobacco smoker. Always in denial that what took decades to damage their lungs can be fixed by going on an Oxygen tank to make up for the degraded respiratory function. While they still smoke.
The things we are doing will have greater impact and be harder to back out of. The only thing that matters is what we DO now and in the future to manage it to whatever degree we are able.
My reservoir suggestion is great. Build a college town over them.
No cars. No trucks. Everything heavy halts at the edge of town. No riff raff either.
MTWGA Make The World Great Again.
Then Yellowstone will blow again and we can all stick our heads between our legs and kiss our asses goodbye.
Nope. They won't give you the original data nor the simulator that got the answer they were looking for.
Sometimes, they WILL give you the original data. As for 'the simulator', get your own computer, cheapskate. Seriously, the agencies that fund research of this sort (not immediately remunerative) will entertain any competent group's plan for data analysis, you just have to apply. And have something more interesting to offer than 'I want to get this result regardless of what the data shows'.
Not always true. Quite a lot of journals now require you to make your original data accessible over the web.
The simulator is a bit trickier. National meteorology labs run simulations on huge computers. If you had a comparable powerful computer it might be worth their while giving you access to the code that they ran, but mostly it's going to a waste of time.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Not always true. Quite a lot of journals now require you to make your original data accessible over the web.
The simulator is a bit trickier. National meteorology labs run simulations on huge computers. If you had a comparable powerful computer it might be worth their while giving you access to the code that they ran, but mostly it's going to a waste of time.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Even though we've got really old car population, the data does not extend that far. And the LTE network was really bad in the 90s, so we lost a lot of data ;-)
The thing about dense data collection is that it's relatively easy to check them against weather model predictions and thus find out if moving a weather station would have an effect.
We already check against road weather stations, but those are different from climate/weather road stations, since they're typically placed at known risky places.
-- mikko
I have never smoked. Have you?
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing precision measurement jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
Which was my point -- the overheated crowd constantly tout 'global' temperature to supposedly account for all sorts of things they can't possibly know. It's next to meaningless. Plus the propounders are dishonest & unscrupulous, which doesn't help.
I think we need a lot more -- the fact that one doesn't even dare call it 'global warming' says that it's already pretty silly.
Cheers, James Arthur
One of the objections raised has been that nearly all of the historically lower-reading stations have been decommissioned, and their data has been replaced with interpolated / estimated values that are systematically higher.
Another is that undue weight has been given to stations that were in formally unpopulated areas, which are now warmer as a result of paving, parking lots, dense human populations, etc.
A further observation has been that ex post facto 'adjustments' to the actual temperature measurements account for virtually all of the excess warming.
There was a bit of a scandal not terribly far back when it was discovered that certain researchers destroyed their raw data and left only the unverifiable 'corrected' figures.
And so forth. There are lots more objections and concerns but I've not followed it terribly closely.
A look at two global climate models' source code many years back was more than enough to fully illustrate that the 'models' are not accurate models of known physical processes. They're just automated presenters of the researchers' prejudices, and poorly correlated to observable empirical data.
Cheers, James Arthur
Not meaningless, of course; all our habitation is at Earth's surface, the core temperature is just as irrelevant to the environment of living beings as is the Sun.
That just means you have to understand the temperature of our climate to be a weighted average, with the statistical weight on the surface of Earth's crust.
That weighted average has gone dangerously warm. Climate change is considered more accurate than 'global warming' because it certainly IS the more correct phrase.
Oooh, the Sun's temperature is pretty important though...? Certainly will be here, tomorrow - heatwave coming...
Thermonuclear heating in the Earth's core is estimated to account for roughly 1% of all the Earth's net thermal flow (which amounts to roughly
400W/m^2 averaged across the entire surface). That's about the same as the error with which we are able to measure the net thermal flow.ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.