I actually said the mean is going up. We've had this discussion before. But the mean going up doesn't necessarily correspond with the earth turning into a cinder from higher temps. I uploaded my own data current through yesterday into my database. Here's what I have for entries over 100degF by year. 2012 161 2013 41 2014 37 2015 13 2016 27 2017 5 We are almost through the high temp season so I don't expect the 2017 data to change much. Here is the data for entries over 95degF 2012 488 2013 340 2014 286 2015 138 2016 314 2017 113 2016 was certainly very warm as both counts show. But 2017 seems to be falling right into the declining high temperature pattern. And yet the mean for all of my data continues to go up. And for the doubters, my temperatures track with the measurement devices at Forbes Air Force base, Topeka, KS. It's not until you get down to a lower bound of 60degF that an increasing trend in the number of entries begins to really show up. And since I don't have full years for 2012 and 2017 that only leaves a sequence of 2013-2016 to look at. When 2017 is finished I'll have a better handle on the trend. I don't make my claims lightly. I have downloaded a number of papers on global warming holes. They *do* exist. And they are *not* well explained as far as cause is concerned. But they are being recognized more and more. I especially liked the paper that did the statistical analysis that showed trying to use the average of the highest and lowest reading in a day to define the mean for the day is not very accurate yet that is what much of the land/sea measurements consist of.
Nah. China's response is more tied to demographic changes than to global warming! More people need more water - period! But there *is* sufficient water except during times of drought. Ask those living in CA about it! Really? Then why so much hullabaloo over Trump withdrawing from the Paris accord? Reducing warming is only a seriously important objective if it is being caused by increasing maximum temperatures. There are large areas of the globe where we are *not* seeing increasing maximum temperatures, quite the opposite in fact! As Freeman Dyson has pointed out, the earth *must* be studied as an environmental whole. The green area of the earth has expanded somewhere around 13% since 1980. That is a *good* thing. If that is being accompanied by a moderation of maximum temperatures in many places it means the earth is getting *more* hospitable, not less hospitable. And it *still* means the global mean temperature can be going up -- just not because of higher maximum temps but because of more warm days producing longer growing seasons! Again, a *good* thing! I look forward to getting two crops of green beans instead of one![/quote][/quote]
Except it is *not* warming. It is moderation in maximum temps being seen. I don't expect you to understand what that means. Trolls never do.
I'll give you one. The mean given by the models tells you nothing about the slope of the the curves associated with the actual temperatures themselves. As I keep pointing out, more warm days with fewer maximum temp days will still raise the mean - but it also represents a moderation of the climate. Yet the models don't tell us if this is happening or if we are having more max temp days. The AGW religionists always take the alarmist view that the mean is going up because the earth is going to turn into a cinder from ever higher temps -- because it generates more money for them. A second is that taking the max temp and the low temp and calculating a "mean" temperature for the day is not very supportable statistically. Yet much of the data the models used is based on just such data. There are papers that have been published recently that show that hourly data is far more supportable statistically because it captures the heating and cooling cycles far more accurately.
That's true. Many alarmist do take that view. Most reputable scientists don't though. The only thing we ever hear about is the alarmism because that's what makes for the best click bait. It also makes Al Gore richer.
You said "Like most AGW proponents, you truly do not understand thermodynamics at all. The lower atmospheric temperature is *certainly* dependent on the temperature of the earth. Pure conduction will increase the lower atmosphere temp as will convection and IR radiation absorbed by any particles in the lower atmosphere that can absorb them, e.g. CO2 and H2O. " And, I pointed out that what you are saying is NOT supported by the laws of thermodynamics, because those laws hold for a closed system, and this system absolutely is NOT closed. As I pointed out heat can move to other locations. Suggesting that is a "straw dog" is nonsense. It's physics.
Building a model to show earth's current temperature absolutely is NOT a simple task. The data sources are many and varied, and the number of datapoints is large. For example, it is NOT good enough to measure lower atmospheric temperature. Also, we need to know where the heat from the sun went. For the purpose of understanding climate change it is important to know where heat from the sun is actually going. For example, by determining behavior of our oceans as a heat sink and as a heat transport mechanism we can improve forecasting.
That's certainly not what data collected by NASA, NOAA and other climatological efforts around the world are showing. If you bother to look at their sites, you will find that climatologists point to how heat is distributed across our planet. They suggest, for example, that not all regions of the US are going to heat at the same rate. Your idea that climatologists are overly focused on temperature extremes is not supported by ANY of their data collection models.
[/quote][/QUOTE] CA is not the world. Ask Syria about it. Ask Somalia about it. Ask Bangladesh about it. Ask South America about it. Ask China about it. Withdrawing from the Paris accord is a move that discourages the world (especially the USA) from working on this problem. It is a global problem. If the worst offender by far (per capita) ignores the problem, it is politically harder for the rest of the world to work to bail us out. No, the problem absolutely is NOT limited to concern about maximum temperatures. It is about ALL agricultural change, especially including water. It is about the increased confrontation over land and right of way in the Arctic. It is about sea rise, as world coastlines are disproportionately populated. It is about anything that causes people movement - we can't even handle the trivial number of millions who have been leaving Syria. And, agricultural change is a major factor in driving people to move.
I totally agree. This is an incredibly daunting task. For those that are curious about the details I recommend googling "atmospheric reanalysis", "numerical weather prediction data assimilation", "3dvar", and "4dvar". The complexity of the techniques and the amount of data assimilated is mind blowing.
And as I tried to educate you a thermodynamic closed system is one where mass cannot cross the system boundary but energy can. The earth *IS* a closed thermodynamic system. Go look at *any* textbook on thermodynamics! From my 1968 "Fundamentals Of Classical Thermodynamics" by Van Wylen and Sonntag, Page 17: "It should be noted that the terms closed system and open system are sometimes used as the equivalent of the terms system (fixed mass) and control volume (involving a flow of mass).". And the whole point is that YES, HEAT CAN MOVE TO OTHER LOCATIONS. From the dirt on the ground to the air in the lower atmosphere. Since these two parts of the closed system known as the earth are in intimate contact with each other they will seek a common temperature, with heat (i.e. energy) flowing from the warmer to the cooler. That is what is meant by "entropy increases"! The same thing applies to the ocean. In order for heat (energy) to appear in the deep ocean it first has to appear at the surface of the ocean. There is no mysterious "transport" of heat into the deep ocean without first transiting all of the ocean above it! It gets even more complicated when you add in radiation (i.e. IR longwave radiation) to the process. Some of the IR energy leaves the system and some stays in. The term is "strawman", not "straw dog". Google is your friend!
The problem is that the models *still* have to reflect reality and they are not doing that. I don't care how complex you make the models, if they don't reflect reality then the models are useless. And as the graph I provided you shows, the outputs of the models are diverging further and further from reality every year! If it is good enough to read a thermometer at the earths surface then it is good enough to read the temperature of the lower atmosphere that is in intimate contact with the surface of the earth. That *is* thermodynamics. You are trying to use the complexity of the models as something to hide behind. There is *NO* hiding from reality! Real temperatures are *not* determined by the models.
You don't even know what the data actually *is*, do you? The data all these places present are DIFFERENTIALS, not actual temperature data. And now you are echoing what I started off trying to tell you! If not every place on the globe is warming then it isn't global warming. It might be *regional* warming but it certainly isn't global warming! Something is causing the mean to go up. Are you now agreeing with me that it could be from longer growing seasons rather then higher max temperatures? That also is what I started off saying on here! So which is it? Longer growing seasons or higher max temperatures. The impacts of each are quite different. Which is it? What do the models show?
But it *is* representative of much of the world! Again, the ME has suffered from prolonged droughts since almost forever! That's why much of the ME is classed as DESERT! It's historical. Trying to say that current droughts are caused by global warming instead of natural variability is a non sequitur argument! In 2012 the magazine Nature had a article stating "More realistic calculations, based on the underlying physical principles that take into account changes in available energy, humidity and wind speed, suggest that there has been little change in drought over the past 60 years. The results have implications for how we interpret the impact of global warming on the hydrological cycle and its extremes, and may help to explain why palaeoclimate drought reconstructions based on tree-ring data diverge from the PDSI-based drought record in recent years" If it is all voluntary then SO WHAT? Nothing prevents anyone from working on the problem. Only if the accord was going to *force* compliance did it mean anything! And we are *not* the worst offender by far, China is. But longer growing seasons HELP agriculture! You don't have to plant crops that use a lot of water because of short growing seasons. And, if the coasts are going to be under water anyway then we need to start tomorrow in relocating people, not in spending money on actions that are useless in the long run! The Sahara Desert is retreating. Meaning more agriculture in that area. Why is that bad?
Of course it tells you something. It doesn't tell you everyone, but saying it tells "nothing" is very wrong. And we keep pointing out it's not happening. The number record highs compared to the number of record lows keeps growing. The climate is not moderating. It's getting more extreme, and your frantic and desperate cherrypicking can't cover that up. Seriously, stop cherrypicking. It's not fooling anyone. It's all old fraud technique, and not a very good one. You're quite very confused. Models have nothing to do with temperature records. Models predict the future, and they've been very good at doing that, your cherrypicking aside. Temperature averages tell us what the past was, according to the measured data. Don't project your fanatical religious extremism on to normal people. Don't assume we're like you, only capable of chanting religious mantras. And remember, the whole planet says you're wrong and we're right, because the evidence backs us up. That makes you the cultist. Follow the money. All of the bribes are going to the denier side. That's why deniers are so corrupt, why they always fake everything. They're being paid to be frauds. In contrast, the rational and ethical side turns down the denier bribe money. Any reputable scientist could double their salary by choosing to lie for the deniers. They don't. The good scientists take a pay cut rather than lie, which gives them added credibility. Well then, good thing that's not done. Who told you it was, and why did you believe them? Your cult fails to tell you a lot of things. It's as if you cult leaders are deliberately trying to keep you ignorant. That's because they are. Again, temperature average calculations aren't models. Actually, that's been known since, like forever.
Well, yes. It has to be done that way, or you get bogus results. If you have any familiarity with the topic, you should be able to explain why anomalies are used instead of raw temps. That's basic stuff. If you don't know it, you shouldn't be in the conversation. So, explain it now, to demonstrate that you should be taken seriously.
No, it can't. The heat output of anything short of a supervolcano is totally irrelevant in terms of climate. Particulate emissions from a volcanic eruption can affect climate, but the heat output is meaningless.
Yoh just aren't thinking. Agricultural disruption is a major national secutity concern. We saw this in Syria, where their multi-year drought was an important factor in destabilization. It caused people to abandon their failed farms and move into the cities, where the influx could not be handled. When that blew up, we had millions of people trying to leave Syria and numerous openings for terrorist action tnat can spread. CO2 does not fix that. Period. I am happy for redidents of the Sahara, but that didn't help Syria or Somalia or Bangladesh, or any other place. As a rule, nations that can not feed themselves are in deep trouble. And, agriculture requires consistent, dependable amounts of a number of factors - basic biology.
You are failing biology 101 as well as physics now. "Longer growing season" means nothing if there isn't an adequate supply of other requirements, such as water. And, as climatologists point out, climate change is not going to cause the same change in all places. And, the impact on agriculture will not be limited to temperature change or CO2. Global warming is a nonscientific term made for popular consumption. Climatologists use climate change. And, while the average temp of earth is shown to be increasing, regional effects are not going to be identical.
No, measurement of the temperature of the earth is most definitely accomplished through significant modeling. That is just a fact.
