Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Peer reviewed in Nature. IPCC scientists among authors. New estimates for global warming lower

Threaded View

  1. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    10,290

    Default Re: Peer reviewed in Nature. IPCC scientists among authors. New estimates for global warming lower

    This whole 'Santa's workshop is under water' crap is yet another example of the shameless tactics used to push an agenda. Lump this in with the photoshopped polar bear pics, the photoshopped electricity plant stacks venting steam, the New York/San Francisco under water doomporn, and so forth.

    As I've posted numerous times before, an ice-free or ice-lite Arctic has happened multiple times just in the 20th century.

    Furthermore the science today is clearly pointing to non-temperature effects causing low ice Arctic summers - it appears to be primarily a function of how much ice is blown into the Atlantic by wind.

    Edit: I should also note that higher temperatures in the Arctic - and elsewhere - are not a function of the daily high temperatures increasing, but a function of daily low temperatures increasing. As the average temperature is the average of the daily high and daily low, the result is a higher temperature in the records.

    Why does this matter?

    Well, for one thing, if CO2 greenhouse effects are indeed so dramatic, there should be at least some increase in the daily high temperatures. It does not need to be identical to daily low, but there should be some effect.

    For another thing, there is more than a little evidence that daily low temperatures are directly affected by urban heat islands - i.e. siting:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/2...he-laboratory/

    WUWT readers may recall that I wrote about this experiment being performed at Oak Ridge national Laboratory to test the issues related to station siting that I have long written about.


    NOAA’s ‘Janus moment’ – while claiming ‘The American public can be confident in NOAA’s long-standing surface temperature record’, they fund an experiment to investigate the effects of station siting and heat sinks/sources on temperature data
    This effort promises to be greatly useful to understanding climate quality temperature measurements and how they can be influenced by the station site environment.

    From the USCRN Annual Report: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/u...ual_Report.pdf

    Texas State Climatologist John Nielsen-Gammon writes about the the first results of this experiment presented at the recent AMS meeting in Austin, TX. The early results confirm what we have learned from the Surface Stations project. Nighttime temperatures are affected the most.
    Two talks that caught my eye were on the land surface temperature record. They attacked the problem of land surface temperature accuracy in two completely different, but complementary ways.

    One, by John Kochendorfer of NOAA at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, is a direct test of the importance of siting. They’ve installed four temperature sensors at varying distances across a field from the laboratory complex. The experiment has only been running since October, but already they’ve found out a couple of interesting things. First, the nighttime temperatures are indeed higher closer to the laboratory. Second, this is true whether the wind is blowing toward or away from the laboratory.

    It’ll take a lot more data to sort out the various temperature effects. One way the buildings might affect the nighttime temperature even when the sensor is upwind of the buildings is infrared radiation: the heated buildings emit radiation that’s stronger than what would be emitted by the open sky or nearby hills.
    More here: http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2...-temperatures/

    Biases Associated with Air Temperature Measurements near Roadways and Buildings

    Wednesday, 9 January 2013: 9:15 AM Room 15 (Austin Convention Center)
    John Kochendorfer, NOAA, Oak Ridge, TN; and C. B. Baker, E. J. Dumas Jr., D. L. Senn, M. Heuer, M. E. Hall, and T. P. Meyers

    Abstract


    Proximity to buildings and paved surfaces can affect the measured air temperature. When buildings and roadways are constructed near an existing meteorological site, this can affect the long-term temperature trend. Homogenization of the national temperature records is required to account for the effects of urbanization and changes in sensor technology. Homogenization is largely based on statistical techniques, however, and contributes to uncertainty in the measured U.S. surface-temperature record. To provide some physical basis for the ongoing controversy focused on the U.S. surface temperature record, an experiment is being performed to evaluate the effects of artificial heat sources such as buildings and parking lots on air temperature. Air temperature measurements within a grassy field, located at varying distances from artificial heat sources at the edge of the field, are being recorded using both the NOAA US Climate Reference Network methodology and the National Weather Service Maximum Minimum Temperature Sensor system. The effects of the roadways and buildings are quantified by comparing the air temperature measured close to the artificial heat sources to the air temperature measured well-within the grassy field, over 200 m downwind of the artificial heat sources.
    Note that this isn't some skeptic, it is the NOAA performing the study, and they note that preliminary results show that nighttime low temperatures increase directly as a function of proximity to a building. If nighttime low temperatures are due primarily due to greenhouse effect - i.e. the IPCC position - then the siting should not make a significant difference.
    Last edited by c1ue; 08-03-13 at 11:20 PM.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-23-12, 11:28 AM
  2. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 12-14-11, 07:43 PM
  3. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-27-11, 01:54 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-18-10, 02:19 PM
  5. Replies: 23
    Last Post: 10-16-09, 12:48 AM

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Opinions expressed herein are those of the posters, not those of iTulip, Inc., its owners, or management. All material posted on this board becomes the intellectual property of the poster and iTulip, Inc., and may not be reposted in full on another website without the express written permission of iTulip, Inc. By exception, the original registered iTulip member who authored a post may repost his or her own material on other sites. Permission is hereby granted to repost brief excerpts of material from this forum on other websites provided that attribution and a link to the source is included with the reposted material.

Nothing on this website is intended or should be construed as investment advice. It is intended to be used for informational and entertainment purposes only. We reserve the right to make changes, including change in price, content, description, terms, etc. at any time without notice. By using this board you agree that you understand the risks of trading, and are solely responsible for your own investment and trading decisions. Read full legal disclaimer.

Journalists are not permitted to contact iTulip members through this forum's email and personal messaging services without written permission from iTulip, Inc. Requests for permission may be made via Contact Us.

Objectionable posts may be reported to the board administrators via Contact Us.

-->