2009: Second warmest year on record; end of warmest decade
in [Physics]
|
Prev: NASA to Earth: Global Warming Is for Real, Folks!
Next: Second warmest year on record; end of warmest decade
From: Rich on 26 Feb 2010 22:28 Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote in news:wrSdnQAO_q2lhhrWnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d(a)mchsi.com: > 2009: Second warmest year on record; end of warmest decade > http://climate.nasa.gov/news/index.cfm?NewsID=249 Click, whirrr. "You will disregard all data that does not support AGW."
From: TUKA on 27 Feb 2010 00:45 On 2010-02-26, Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 2009: Second warmest year on record; end of warmest decade > http://climate.nasa.gov/news/index.cfm?NewsID=249 > > By Adam Voiland, > NASA�s Earth Science News Team > > "2009 was tied for the second warmest year in the modern record, a new > NASA analysis of global surface temperature shows. The analysis, > conducted by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New > York City, also shows that in the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the > warmest year since modern records began in 1880. All you have to do is believe GISS. Something fewer and fewer people are willing to do. When the NCDC data gets audited and redone by someone who is impartial, then we will see what we see. -- Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing. -- Wernher Von Braun
From: JohnM on 27 Feb 2010 01:46 On Feb 27, 7:45 am, TUKA <t...(a)tuka.valuemedia.com> wrote: > On 2010-02-26, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > 2009: Second warmest year on record; end of warmest decade > > http://climate.nasa.gov/news/index.cfm?NewsID=249 > > > By Adam Voiland, > > NASA s Earth Science News Team > > > "2009 was tied for the second warmest year in the modern record, a new > > NASA analysis of global surface temperature shows. The analysis, > > conducted by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New > > York City, also shows that in the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the > > warmest year since modern records began in 1880. > > All you have to do is believe GISS. Something fewer and fewer people > are willing to do. > > When the NCDC data gets audited and redone by someone who is impartial, > then we will see what we see. No. One side will claim the audit was partial. Until the results of the audit are in, we won't know which side that will be.
From: Earl Evleth on 27 Feb 2010 04:40 On 26/02/10 19:39, in article hm94gt$uo2$1(a)news.eternal-september.org, "Cat_in_awe" <rl3166pls(a)excite.com> wrote: > By what standard? To much less that a 1�C degree. And measured globally. The data obviously gets better towards the end of the 19th century and very good by now. It is like measure times in Track and Field. Watches use to report to within 0.1 seconds, but electronic watches can expand that a another decimal point. Isotope proxies are used for older measurments. The accuracy of isotope concentrations has gone up with refinement of mass spectrometry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_(climate) to the point--- Taking into account that the precipitation forms above the inversion layer, we are left with a linear relation: ? 18O = aT + b which is empirically calibrated from measurements of temperature and ? as a = 0.67 �/oC for Greenland and 0.76 �/oC for East Antarctica. The calibration was initially done on the basis of spatial variations in temperature and it was assumed that this corresponded to temporal variations (Jouzel and Merlivat, 1984). More recently, borehole thermometry has shown that for glacial-interglacial variations, a = 0.33 �/oC (Cuffey et al., 1995), implying that glacial-interglacial temperature changes were twice as large as previously believed. *** Having not fully studied this problem and based on past reading the oxygen isotope temperature proxy estimates could have a standard deviation error the order of several 0.1 of a degree �C, Used in paloclimate estimates one can judge what periods were "warm" "hot" "cold", "cool". I invite other comments from people who probably have studied this more. But you can see from the spread in temperature estimates is large. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png Look at 1300, The span of values is between -0.2 and -0.6 but the majority of the proxies vary by 0.2�C. But now we are much more accurate. I have worked with electronic temperature measurements used in calorimetry, we can measure a temperature increase of 1�C to within 0.001 degree. Even hand held digital thermometers are accurate of 0.005�C. But for calorimetry l part in 1000 is good enough.
From: Earl Evleth on 27 Feb 2010 04:50
On 27/02/10 4:28, in article WNKdnZi1Fcj2DBXWnZ2dnUVZ_s8AAAAA(a)giganews.com, "Rich" <none(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > "You will disregard all data that does not support AGW." cite |