Author Topic: Alternative perspective on NASA-NOAA global temperature report.  (Read 2247 times)

elagache

  • Global Moderator
  • Storm
  • *****
  • Posts: 6494
    • DW3835
    • KCAORIND10
    • Canebas Weather
  • Station Details: Davis Vantage Pro-2, Mac mini (2018), macOS 10.14.3, WeatherCat 3
Alternative perspective on NASA-NOAA global temperature report.
« on: January 19, 2015, 09:16:23 PM »
Dear WeatherCat climate watchers,

The Register has continued it counter-attack against the assertion that human-caused CO2 emissions are causing climate change through global warming:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/01/19/no_scientific_consensus_on_2014_hottest_year_on_record_claims/

Now these guys have an ax to grind so "caveat emptor."  Even so they make some points that are scientifically accurate and raise some questions worth pondering.  One point that surprised me is that 2014 is the hottest year since 1880, but over 1/3 of the CO2 emissions have occurred since about 1880.  The effect of CO2 as an atmospheric blanket is most certainly non-linear; nonetheless, it is surprising that so much additional CO2 in the past 134 years would have such a minor effect of global temperature.

So I'm left scratching my head . . . . .

Cheers, Edouard  [cheers1]

LesCimes

  • Strong Breeze
  • ***
  • Posts: 223
    • CW9832
    • KGAGRACE1
    • Weather Underground
  • Station Details: Vantage Pro 2 on a MacMini (2009) Mac OS 10.11.6
Re: Alternative perspective on NASA-NOAA global temperature report.
« Reply #1 on: January 20, 2015, 02:44:58 PM »
Very interesting! Glad I read that. Appreciate your bringing the report to our attention.

Bull Winkus

  • Storm
  • *****
  • Posts: 782
    • EW0095
    • KARHORSE2
    • WU for Horseshoe Bend, Arkansas
  • Station Details: Davis Wireless Vantage Pro 2, iMac 24"
Re: Alternative perspective on NASA-NOAA global temperature report.
« Reply #2 on: January 20, 2015, 08:46:10 PM »
Perhaps a more accurate reading of the thermal effect of industrialization would be to calculate thermal loading of mass. That would have to include ice and ocean mass, which would be fairly complex, but certainly more doable than trying to extrapolate a trend from massive amounts of wide distributed and highly variable temperature measurement in air.

As many have noticed when on a camping trip or other similar outing, when the ice is all gone the beer gets warm.

 [thermo]
Herb

elagache

  • Global Moderator
  • Storm
  • *****
  • Posts: 6494
    • DW3835
    • KCAORIND10
    • Canebas Weather
  • Station Details: Davis Vantage Pro-2, Mac mini (2018), macOS 10.14.3, WeatherCat 3
Climate models should do that. (Re: NASA-NOAA global temperature report.)
« Reply #3 on: January 20, 2015, 11:16:26 PM »
Howdy Herb and WeatherCat "man in the street" climate watchers,

Perhaps a more accurate reading of the thermal effect of industrialization would be to calculate thermal loading of mass. That would have to include ice and ocean mass, which would be fairly complex, but certainly more doable than trying to extrapolate a trend from massive amounts of wide distributed and highly variable temperature measurement in air.

As many have noticed when on a camping trip or other similar outing, when the ice is all gone the beer gets warm.

Honestly, I thought these climate models were including things like thermal loading of mass.  I certainly thought they factored in things like the current state of volcanic eruptions.  However, recently I read a headline that claimed that by adding volcanic eruptions they would finally explain an anomaly in their climate models.

So we really aren't getting a clear explanation of what exactly is being modeled by the current generation of climate predication models.  It would certainly help if the general public could get a idea of what is the state of climate prediction science in layman's terms.

Cheers, Edouard  [cheers1]