Article

2005-02-14 Home Front: Tech

Is Earth's Temperature Up or Down or Both?

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by phil_b 2005-02-14 4:19:50 AM|| || Front Page|| [11132 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 No palmtrees in Germany yet... dang

Posted by True German Ally 2005-02-14 8:23:38 AM|| 2005-02-14 8:23:38 AM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2005-02-14 8:37:59 AM|| Front Page Top

#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|| [http://htttp://www.punictreachery.com/] 2005-02-14 8:54:55 AM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2005-02-14 9:17:38 AM|| Front Page Top

#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|| [http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html] 2005-02-14 9:26:58 AM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2005-02-14 9:30:31 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 I'll choose "both" for $50, Alex...

Posted by mojo 2005-02-14 10:33:35 AM|| 2005-02-14 10:33:35 AM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2005-02-14 10:37:55 AM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2005-02-14 12:01:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#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|| [http://basementburrow.blogspot.com] 2005-02-14 1:03:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2005-02-14 1:42:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2005-02-14 4:42:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2005-02-14 4:47:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2005-02-14 4:59:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2005-02-14 5:12:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2005-02-14 5:56:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#17

I would appreciate some NON-POLITICIZED information

GFL, Mom.

Posted by Barbara Skolaut 2005-02-14 5:58:16 PM|| 2005-02-14 5:58:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2005-02-14 6:33:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Sobiesky, that would be "luck." ;-p

Posted by Barbara Skolaut 2005-02-14 8:05:44 PM|| 2005-02-14 8:05:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2005-02-14 9:00:00 PM|| Front Page Top

18:47 3dc
18:47 3dc
23:55 Phil Fraering
23:41 .com
23:38 Aris Katsaris
23:31 AzCat
23:16 Sobiesky
23:15 Penguin
23:04 Sobiesky
22:50 Jame Retief
22:49 Mrs. Davis
22:47 Jame Retief
22:47 Sobiesky
22:42 Alaska Paul
22:41 tu3031
22:40 Sock Puppet of Doom
22:40 Alaska Paul
22:40 Snump Huperesing6112
22:36 Alaska Paul
22:25 Cheaderhead
22:23 Chase Unineger3873 aka Jarhead
22:22 Sock Puppet of Doom
22:19 Cheaderhead
22:19 Sock Puppet of Doom