| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Tech |
| Is Earth's Temperature Up or Down or Both? |
| 2005-02-14 |
| Thermometers on the ground, measuring the near-surface air temperature, demonstrate a marked increase in globally-averaged temperature over the past two decades. Computer models of global warming predict that the temperature trend in the Earth's thick lower atmosphere, called the lower troposphere, should be experiencing an even more pronounced warming that increases smoothly with altitude. And yet, satellite observations of the temperature of the Earth's lower troposphere do not reveal any overall warming trend. Facing comment to appease the global warming mob cut. These results will be presented today (February 6) at the 77th meeting of the American Metorological Society in Long Beach, California in a special session dedicated to the scientific study of global warming. Dr. Roy Spencer, a scientist at NASA/Marshall and principal author on the paper, has been monitoring the temperature of layers in the Earth's atmosphere from space. Along with Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, Spencer has produced a temperature record spanning 18 years. Acquired from Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) instruments flying aboard the TIROS series of weather satellites. Their data show temperature variations in the lower troposphere, a region from the surface to about 5 miles into the atmosphere. "The temperatures we measure from space are actually on a very slight downward trend since 1979 in the lower troposphere. We see major excursions due to volcanic eruptions like Pinatubo, and ocean current phenomena like El Nino, but overall the trend is about 0.05 degrees Celsius per decade cooling," Spencer remarked. The interesting thing about this data is it is hard and not open to question. The earth's atomosphere is definitely cooling. Combine this with rural temperature records from co2science.com that show a clear cooling trend in most locations and the evidence I have posted that the southern oceans (most of the world's oceans) seem to be cooling and it seems the day of reckoning for the Kyoto sky-is-falling industry is not far off. |
| Posted by:phil_b |
| #20 Crichton's "State of Fear" is pretty good, with heavy (nonfiction) footnotes. He's in the "more science" camp. ACRIM seems to have some pretty good information on solar activity, which seems to account for a large percentage of short-term (less than 1000 years) variation. Longer term (glaciation cycles, ~120,000 years) seem to relate more to variations in the Earth's orbit (it's not a Newtonian 2-body problem). TGA, no palm trees, but at least your home is not being scraped by a glacier. |
| Posted by: Dishman 2005-02-14 9:00:00 PM |
| #19 Sobiesky, that would be "luck." ;-p |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2005-02-14 8:05:44 PM |
| #18 Barb, whatsa GFL? I think I can figure the first 2 out, but the L eludes me. |
| Posted by: Sobiesky 2005-02-14 6:33:39 PM |
#17 I would appreciate some NON-POLITICIZED informationGFL, Mom. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2005-02-14 5:58:16 PM |
| #16 TGA - LOL. I think I did see some in a conservatory once. Guess that'll have to do. ;-p |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2005-02-14 5:56:36 PM |
| #15 I just came across this piece of info in Rooters report - some Kyoto signatories such as Spain and Portugal have increased greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent over 1990 levels. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-02-14 5:12:29 PM |
| #14 Ken Lay of Enron (remember him?)was one of Kyoto's most enthusiatic supporters. Enron stood to make even more boodle by "facilitating" the exchange of empty promises. For that reason alone I can deduce that Kyoto was not about the environment but solely about ca$h. |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2005-02-14 4:59:51 PM |
| #13 Mom, CO2 is not a pollutant. Like water vapour (the main greenhouse gas) its necessary for life on earth. If by emissions you mean genuinely harmfull things like lead and various nitrogen compounds, then the air in all western countries continues to steadyly improves and as someone has pointed out, more could be done by buying up old cars and junking them. Otherwise the MSM avoids the cost of Kyoto, but it is almost certainly the most expensive exercise ever undertaken except the 2 world wars. Something that only now seems to be dawning on countries like the UK and Japan |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-02-14 4:47:22 PM |
| #12 Bzzzzzzzzt BrerRabbit wins the pot and is allowed to share with his many friends and relatives. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-02-14 4:42:09 PM |
| #11 The whole reason for the Kyoto Agreement was to create CO2 pollution credits which the US would have been forced to purchase from the third world. Nothing more than a global socialist money grab. |
| Posted by: BrerRabbit 2005-02-14 1:42:57 PM |
| #10 "No palmtrees in Germany yet... dang" And no toucans in the UW-Madison Arboretum. |
| Posted by: Korora 2005-02-14 1:03:59 PM |
| #9 however the greenhouse hypothesis also predicts cooling in the upper troposhere (near the stratosphere)-- the stratosphere is not at the same height each day and at each latitude -- there are seasonal and geographic differences but it averages about 15 miles or so up; see http://www.metoffice.com/research/stratosphere/ |
| Posted by: mhw 2005-02-14 12:01:01 PM |
| #8 "Both" for me too, dependent on how much government funding is up for grabs. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2005-02-14 10:37:55 AM |
| #7 I'll choose "both" for $50, Alex... |
| Posted by: mojo 2005-02-14 10:33:35 AM |
| #6 Oil at $50 a barrel will also do a lot to reduce pollution. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-02-14 9:30:31 AM |
| #5 The problem here is that Kyoto focuses on CO2, which is harmless (unless you believe in the whole global warming hoax). The money spent to reduce CO2 would be much better spent getting old junkers off the roads (buy the people a brand new Prius; it would be cheaper than Kyoto), cleaning up massively polluted areas (under old military bases, for example), and stuff like that. I used to live in southern California. I like the idea of reducing harmful pollution, even at a cost. I hate that we're spending money on CO2 reduction which would be much better used to get rid of real pollution. |
| Posted by: jackal 2005-02-14 9:26:58 AM |
| #4 The climate has more variables than we understand as yet; and Tom's point about the location of thermometers is interesting. Cutting emissions is still a good idea, for the sake of cleaner air in general. It's unfortunate that in the political football game over "global warming" the plain good sense of cutting emissions gets lost. I would be very interested to hear what progress we're making in cutting emissions based on good science. This is not my field of expertise, and I would appreciate some NON-POLITICIZED information. |
| Posted by: mom 2005-02-14 9:17:38 AM |
| #3 Tom, that's exactly it. Many, many ground stations are in the middle of cities, or better still, at airports. Nothing like a bunch of jet engines running nearby to warp your readings. The late John L Daly ran a site that talked about this a lot. His family keeps it up, and one of the features are a "Ground Station of the Week" showing records for various sites going back years, decades in most cases. |
| Posted by: Laurence of the Rats 2005-02-14 8:54:55 AM |
| #2 A child of 7 can plainly see that it runs 5F warmer in the concrete/asplalt neighborhoods of Philadelphia than out here in the suburbs. Could it just be that that ground thermometer data is being interpreted poorly, the satellite data looking at the bigger picture is correct, and those climate models are nonsense? I have never trusted climate models from the folks who can't tell me what the weather will be three days from now. |
| Posted by: Tom 2005-02-14 8:37:59 AM |
| #1 No palmtrees in Germany yet... dang |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2005-02-14 8:23:38 AM |