Earth Gets a Warm Feeling All Over

[zavvy]

<b>Earth Gets a Warm Feeling All Over</b><br /><br />LINK<br /><br />Last year was the fourth warmest year on average for our planet since the late 1800s, according to NASA scientists. <br /><br />To determine if the Earth is warming or cooling, scientists look at average temperatures. To get an "average" temperature, scientists take the warmest and the coolest temperatures in a day, and calculate the temperature that is exactly in the middle of those high and low values. This provides an average temperature for a day. These average temperatures are then calculated for spots all over the Earth, over an entire year. <br /><br />Scientists use temperatures taken on land and on surfaces of the oceans. Weather stations provide land measurements, and satellites provide sea surface temperature measurements over the ocean. These data are computed by NASA. The end result recreates and calculates global temperatures, and helps scientists study climate change. Makiko Sato of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), New York, converted all the data into readable global temperature maps that provided the means to see the warming.<br /><br />James Hansen of NASA GISS analyzed the data and said that the 2004 average temperature at Earth's surface around the world was 0.48 degrees Celsius or 0.86 Fahrenheit above the average temperature from 1951 to 1980.<br /><br />Global temperatures vary from year to year and place to place, but weather stations and satellite data provide accurate records. By recording them over time, scientists develop a record of the climate, and have been able to see how it's been changing. <br /><br />Some of the changes in climate are due to short-term factors like large volcanic eruptions that launched tiny particles of sulfuric acid into the upper atmosphere (stratosphere) in 1963, 1982, and 1991. These natural events can change climate for periods of time ranging fro

 

[pizzaguy]

Ahhhh, more non-science!<br /><br />First, we have this:<br /><font color="yellow"><br />To get an "average" temperature, scientists take the warmest and the coolest temperatures in a day, and calculate the temperature that is exactly in the middle of those high and low values. This provides an average temperature for a day. These average temperatures are then calculated for spots all over the Earth, over an entire year.<br /><br />Last year was the fourth warmest year on average for our planet since the late 1800s, according to NASA scientists.</font><br /><br />Then we learn:<font color="yellow"><br />Scientists use temperatures taken on land and on surfaces of the oceans. Weather stations provide land measurements, and satellites provide sea surface temperature measurements over the ocean. These data are computed by NASA. The end result recreates and calculates global temperatures, and helps scientists study climate change.</font><br /><br />They continue:<br /><font color="yellow">Global temperatures vary from year to year and place to place, but weather stations and satellite data provide accurate records. By recording them over time, scientists develop a record of the climate, and have been able to see how it's been changing.</font><br /><br />Some questions:<br /><br />Why did they leave out the cooling that was observed from 1940 to 1970?<br />What did they use for satellite data before they had satellite data?<br />We take readings all over the place now, but in the late 1800s many areas went unmeasured - how do you calculate 100 year trends without 100 years of data?<br /><br />More non-science results in my own "infinite disinterest." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1"><em>Note to Dr. Henry:  The testosterone shots are working!</em></font> </div>

 

[najab]

><i>Why did they leave out the cooling that was observed from 1940 to 1970?</i><p>I don't see any mention of this period being left out.<p>><i>What did they use for satellite data before they had satellite data?</i><p>Obviously the pre-satellite ocean temperatures were extrapolated from land and ship based readings. They have been making ship-based observations for many, many years. While you can't make accurate wide area conclusions from dispersed local samples, you can get a general idea of trends in the data.<p>><i>We take readings all over the place now, but in the late 1800s many areas went unmeasured - how do you calculate 100 year trends without 100 years of data?</i><p>By the late 1800's-early 1900's there were weather readings being taken through most of Europe and North America and large parts of Asia, South America and Oceana.</p></p></p></p></p>

 

[zavvy]

Aliens Cause Global Warming<br /><br /><i>(A lecture by Michael Crichton)</i><br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[najab]

For the most part I can see the point he's making, until he says:<blockquote>"In 1960, Paul Ehrlich said, "The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergoe famines-hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." Ten years later, he predicted four billion people would die during the 1980s, including 65 million Americans. The mass starvation that was predicted never occurred, and it now seems it isn't ever going to happen. Nor is the population explosion going to reach the numbers predicted even ten years ago. In 1990, climate modelers anticipated a world population of 11 billion by 2100. Today, some people think the correct number will be 7 billion and falling. But nobody knows for sure. "</blockquote>Surely he realises that it is precisely because of those predictions, and the actions that were taken as a result, that we aren't in the situation we were warned about. If I am playing catch with a bottle of nitroglycerine and someone says "Stop that or you'll get blown up" and I put it down, do I later turn around and say "See, you were wrong, it didn't blow up."?

 

[meteo]

You can see the 1940-1970 slight cooling quite well. It's not really that significant. Here's some more on the 1940-1970.<br /><br />http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/053.htm#tab22 <br /><br />http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig2-9.htm<br />In areas where there has been sea traffic there are measurements. So over the last century the coverage is pretty good. The missing areas can be just shown as missing which adds to the uncertainty of the temperature. Your still able to see the warming of the last century which is much greater than the uncertainty. <br /><br /><font color="yellow">The global trend from 1861 to 2000 can be cautiously interpreted as an equivalent linear warming of 0.61°C over the 140-year period, with a 95% confidence level uncertainty of ± 0.16°C. From 1901 an equivalent warming of 0.57°C has occurred, with an uncertainty of ± 0.17°C.</font><br /><br />The uncertainty of 0.16C factors in the missing data and observational bias from urban heat islands, and measurement changes for SST's.<br />http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/056.htm

 

[pizzaguy]

<font color="yellow">>Why did they leave out the cooling that was observed from 1940 to 1970?<br /><br />I don't see any mention of this period being left out.</font><br /><br />My point is that 'warming' has not been happening since 1900. But they leave that out, as it weakens the argument.<br /><br />There is no crisis, and "chicken littles" continue to be wrong.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1"><em>Note to Dr. Henry:  The testosterone shots are working!</em></font> </div>

 

[zavvy]

Thanks for the kind words, Steve!<br /><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[nexium]

Some mistakes were made. Some people exagerated big time. We are likely in a gradual warming trend which has lasted 10,000 years with, brief interuptions I agree there is no crsis, but there may be next year or next decade. We should continue to do studies. Try for greater objectivity and do some pilot programs to deal with future contingencies which may arise. Kyoto Accord is serious over action for the USA

 

[nexium]

From perhaps 1800 to 1950, many ships at sea and in harbors, had one of the seamen, throw a bucket with a rope overboard, haul the water to the deck, insert a thermometer and record the reading. Likely the reading was correct plus or minus 1 degree most of the time. In a heavy rainstorm, some rain water entered the bucket, and the seaman likely carried the bucket to a shelterd location before reading the thermometer. This bucket carrying was normal at night during war time, when ships were kept dark to reduce the chance of being seen though the periscope of an enemy. Depending on the captain, the task was done carefully, or sometimes just wrote down a believable reading. Around 1950 various remote temperature means were tried, with experiments still in progress. Needless to say some variations have occured depending on the system and the interest. Air temperature readings aboard ship also suffered small variations. Weather stations on land did better, but lots of new stations have been built with only guestmates of the temperature before constuction. Also cities and towns have often grown up around the old weather stations skewing the readings upward.<br /> If you have several thermometers in your yard, you have likely knowest that they read different. Part of the difference is in how they respond to radient heat = infrared photons. Research is on going on the best approach and how to compensate for reading from thermometers with different technology. A person with an adgenda may make significantly different adjustments from a person trying to be objective. I do however think that some global warming has occured in my 72 years. Neil

 

[najab]

><i>My point is that 'warming' has not been happening since 1900. But they leave that out, as it weakens the argument. </i><p>It's warmer now than it was in 1900 - that's pretty obvious just looking at the data. The fact that they don't mention the cooling between 1940 and 1970 isn't important - 1970 was warmer than 1900 and 2000 was warmer than 1970.<p>><i>There is no crisis, and "chicken littles" continue to be wrong. </i><p>There is as much proof of a crisis as there is of there not being one. I'm totally convinced that the climate is changing. I'm not totally convinced that it is due to man's action. I don't want to wait and find out.</p></p></p>

 

[najab]

><i>There is no crisis, and "chicken littles" continue to be wrong.</i><p>What do you gain by not reducing your energy usage? How do you benefit the Earth by not consuming less? How is mankind better off because you drive when you could walk?</p>

 

[pizzaguy]

NajaB,<br /><br />Those are three very fun questions. But they don't apply to America - I have no intention of reducing my energy consumption just so that teenagers can drive their cars past the school bus on the way to school.<br /><br />Or so someone can drive their 4 mpg, 30,000 pound motorhome to the lake this weekend.<br /><br />Or so someone can sprint around the lake on their jetski. (Ah, jetskis. One more thing that should NOT have been invented.)<br /><br />Or so someone can fly off to Cancun this fall.<br /><br />Or so cars full of kids can drive to Florida every spring.<br /><br />Get the idea? It doesn't wash here. We are not interested in reducing our energy consumption - and that includes damn near every eco-wacko that posts here. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1"><em>Note to Dr. Henry:  The testosterone shots are working!</em></font> </div>

 

[alpha_taur1]

I think there is little doubt that industrialisation has contributed to global warning. Antarctic ice cores show increasing levels of carbon dioxide, and there has been extensive loss of rainforests which sequester this carbon dioxide. This research is backed up by atmospheric CO2 levels measured at Mauna Loa since 1957.<br /><br />The results for the last 50 years are statistically significant, even over thousands of years, and show an increase in global CO2 of 35% from 1860 to 2003, and a tripling in methane readings for the same period. <br /><br />With the Kyoto protocol, the whole subject has become a political football, and the practical application of carbon trading is more about commerical acumen than actual environmental benefit. Kyoto has become largely a European initiative, but if we look at the fact that it was only ever going to control about 20% of Greenhouse Gas emissions globally, it was always going to be ineffective. <br /><br />The Chinese and the developing world see reducing GHG emissions as having a direct impact on GDP.<br /><br />However, sooner or later the world is going to have to do something about the problem. The effects in the next 100 years is going to be a lot more obvious. Whole Pacific Island communities will be lost for one. <br /><br />Carbon dioxide is the biggest contributor to global warming now, but methane has a 100 year global warming potential of 56, compared to 1 for CO2, and methane is increasing faster. <br /><br />(Incidentally HFC23 has a GWP of around 11,700.)

 

[alpha_taur1]

"Ehrlich wrote "the Population Bomb", which was a sensationalistic book about the coming population crisis of humans outrunning the food supply. He made a bet with a person, whose name I can't yet recall, that massive crises of starvation, which would destabilitize governments and societies would occur."<br /><br />One of the major reasons that it didn't was the introduction of genetically modified and monoculture crops. If we took away GM crops and grew everything organically, the world could support only a fraction of the world's current population. <br /><br />It's a sad fact, but in the west, people still buy off season strawberries that are flown from Switzerland on the basis that they are organically grown, thinking they are doing their bit for the environment. Never mind the greenhouse gas emissions needed to fly them to your supermarket shelf.<br /><br />Here in Australia, if you want to maximise cotton production per kilolitre of water used, you need to use two applications of pesticides per season, chemical fertilisers and GM modified strains. <br /><br />Maybe I'm getting slightly OT here <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />