|Dec7-08, 04:04 PM||#1|
No Global warming by NOAA
Officially there is no global warming
(NOAA ,October 8, 2008, National Weather Service
JetStream - Online School for Weather)
It has been thought that an increase in carbon dioxide will lead to global warming. While carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing over the past 100 years, there is no evidence that it is causing an increase in global temperatures.
In 1997, NASA reported global temperature measurements of the Earth's lower atmosphere obtained from satellites revealed no definitive warming trend over the past two decades. In fact, the trend appeared to be a decrease in actual temperature. In 2007, NASA data showed that one-half of the ten warmest years occurred in the 1930's with 1934 (tied with 2006) as the warmest years on record. (NASA data October 23, 2007 from http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt)
The 1930s through the 1950s were clearly warmer than the 1960s and 1970s. If carbon dioxide had been the cause then the warmest years would have understandably been in the most recent years. But that is not the case.
The largest differences in the satellite temperature data were not from any man-made activity, but from natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions from Mt. Pinatubo, and from El Niño.
The behavior of the atmosphere is extremely complex. Therefore, discovering the validity of global warming is complex as well. How much effect will the increase in carbon dioxide will have is unclear or even if we recognize the effects of any increase.
El Niño is a consequence, not a cause, and in that web page the reference to Venus is absolutely inappropriate and misleading.
Yes, the clime is always changing, as always.
Lets talk about other models?
|Dec7-08, 05:51 PM||#2|
Do you remember the dinosaurs?
HUGE, requiring an habitat RICH in LIVE, rich in CO2 and warmer weather?
Nowadays the live is little (Lilliputian), CO2 starving.
Today, if we want bigger vegetable life we have to administer artificially CO2, as we really do.
The global trend from distant past to the present day is the opposite of Global Warming.
The future will be colder with CO2 famine.
Oh don’t claim about the theory of the past ‘Frozen Earth’. This model is not supported by evidence.
Geologists and geologic evidence are stronger against the theoretical model of ‘Frozen Earth’.
The glaciations are just variations on the details.
|Dec7-08, 08:05 PM||#3|
Second, why talk about the trend until 1997 when we are in 2008? Could it be because the UAH analysis in 1997 is now known to have errors in it that have since been corrected? Currently, the UAH analysis of the lower troposheric temperature record from 1978 to 2008 shows a warming trend of +0.13C/decade.
Source: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt (trends at page bottom)
Now, if you do look at Global temperatures, then NASA data shows this:
Why compare the 30s and 40s with the 60s and 70s, instead of with the most recent decade? The 70s are clearly not "in the most recent years."
Could it be because 1940 lies near the peak of a multi-decadal oscillation, while 1970 lies near the bottom of that oscillation? Well, they most certainly do. So, it is hardly surprising that the 40s could be warmer than the 70s. The next peak in the oscillation is near 2000, and the 40s were certainly not warmer than the 90s or the 2000s.
Here's a picture showing the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation over the last 150 years:
Image created from NOAA data.
|Dec7-08, 09:13 PM||#4|
No Global warming by NOAA
The web page I’ve pointed http://www.srh.noaa.gov/srh/jetstream/atmos/ll_gas.htm is a TURN in the official trend.
It was revised on October 8, 2008, and its contents are a notorious patch over the previous contents.
A page for OFFICIAL education revised so recently is more pertinent than years of documents that anyone can advocate to the opposite cause.
They cannot simply erase all the millions of pages already written.
They have to start by changing some OFFICIAL page.
And we have to get used to this shift in the direction.
Science is not a static issue (it never was) and nowadays it is politically biased. If you are shocked with the contents is not my problem.
You can confirm with the authorities that are responsible for the site.
The actual contents of that page, in my perspective, are somewhat incorrect, but I do not comment that.
What I stress, according to the OFFICIAL source, is that now we are allowed to speak in other terms.
Let’s do it here.
You use NOAA data, but if you search the net you will easily find a lot of issues that concerns the validity and credibility of those data.
This post is to talk about ‘NO Global Warming’. Can we?
Why the word ‘SUN’ is not present in the whole page we are reading?
The tricky SUN gave us a much colder 2008 then anyone was expecting.
Just find the official USA site about SUN and read about.
|Dec7-08, 11:52 PM||#5|
If it's not a discussion about the validity of GW, then what is it about? What "other models" did you want to talk about?
|Dec8-08, 01:57 AM||#6|
I think the statements on the page linked in the OP warrant for a verification. In the mean time, I lock this thread.
(as heldervelez proposed, we are checking with NOAA)
|Dec8-08, 09:59 AM||#7|
Ok, I re-opened the thread. I didn't get any reply, but at least the page can be reached from the official NOAA site:
On http://www.noaa.gov you go to:
Then on National weather service
Down under, on Jetstream (in the column Education/Outreach)
Then on (left band) "Lesson plan overview"
and there in "the atmosphere", number 10: "it's a gas, man"
So the page seems not to be a hoax.
|Dec8-08, 01:00 PM||#8|
Also, I'm curious how you happened to find this page.
|Dec8-08, 04:52 PM||#9|
here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/1...asa-satellite/ I found a review of recent issues about NOAA data.
Also here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/1...asa-satellite/
I found that web page by chance.
I am not a climatologist. Instead of talking about data records with problems I’d like to hear about new models.
Look for the SUN factor, the long past record climate data (dinosaurs era, for ex.).
Look for the geological evidence on the past hot earth against the theoretical model of ‘Frozen Earth’.
|Dec9-08, 01:46 AM||#10|
This article may be interesting too,
|Dec9-08, 01:53 AM||#11|
I have to say that I find the "educative experience" on that page totally strange. In as much as it even does something (after all, the heat capacity of the gas is minuscule as compared to that of the bottle and the water and everything), it would only demonstrate some spectral properties of CO2. There would be no "greenhouse" effect in the bottle due to the CO2. You could just as well add some black ink to the water, and that would work much better.
|Dec9-08, 02:22 AM||#12|
Concerning the lower stratospheric cooling, this is usually seen as a proof for CO2-induced global warming. The simple explanation is that as more IR radiation is withhelt by the lower troposphere, less of it reaches the stratosphere so this one cools.
Now, the problem is that there is indeed a cooling trend of the lower stratosphere since there are reliable satellite observations of this (1979), but that the overall "linear fit" which gives a downward slope is not a continuous trend, but actually comes about because of a few dramatic steps, and that in between there is rather a small "rise" (recovery ?).
Another element which plays a role in the lower stratosphere is that it is influenced by the ozone concentration: less there is ozone, less radiation is absorbed in the ozone bands. As we know that there has been an ozone depletion, this also influences the tendency.
When we look at the data http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html
(look at the TLS plot 3/4 down the page), then we see indeed that there is an overall "cooling" trend of -0.33 K per decade, but that this comes about in steps related to volcanic eruptions which give first a rise, and then a dramatic fall in lower stratospheric temperatures.
However, when one looks at the "pieces of data" in between these steps, there is no discernable continuous "cooling" tendency (it rather looks flat, or even slightly rising).
So the "stratospheric cooling" is quite a complicated phenomenon, and the overall "straight line fit" is a bit a cheap argument.
People are still investigating what is the exact dynamics of that temperature:
|Dec9-08, 08:37 AM||#13|
In the post #9 I've intended to make a link to this revue
As I'm not an expert in clime it's hard to me to discuss data reliability, credibility of sources and so on.
I saw that web page when I was looking for other subject. I am only reporting what is there.
Of course I have an opinion as anyone is entitled to have, more or less an informed one.
I read in the past the report made by a young girl that is called Ponder the Maunder http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunder/index.html that poses a lot of questions.
The SUN this year of 2008 gave us too little power compared with the expected in previsions.
The Artic and Antarctic cores are in fact growing in ice content (recent sattelit mesures)
I think that also ice cores have shown that CO2 grow up only after temperature grow up.
But the more important is that we must look back to ancient weather to find the real global trend. I'm convinced that in the past the Earth was hotter.
Of course the air polution is not good to clime stabylity.
Of course there is a need to save natural resources to use in the future.
The fact that USA did not signed Kyoto protocol and the fact that the White House as a new guy and the need to redirect funds from some issue to other more important issues could be the cause for the change in the contents of that web page.
We have to broaden our perspective and listenning in a lot of directions, not only the 'official' or 'funded' currents of research.
If we dont do that we can miss a lot of important ideas or evidence.
We can not be blind. It costs money to everyone.
But I have to leave the discussion of this issue to others with more expertise.
|Dec9-08, 08:00 PM||#14|
For instance, where did you get this - see quote below - information from?
Source: M. C. Serreze et al, Science, v315, p1533 (2007) [abstract]
|Dec10-08, 10:22 AM||#15|
In fact in this moment I can’t find the web page were is shown the actual positive net mass balance of ice over Antarctic and Greenland (not the all Arctic as I've written in the post). There exists a positive overall net mass balance with thickening in the interior and thinning in the periphery.
But this recent dissertation about Ice Sheets
ASSESSMENT OF GLACIER MASS BALANCES FROM SMALL TROPICAL GLACIERS TO THE LARGE ICE SHEET OF GREENLAND By TODD H. ALBERT
is clear in relation to Greenland :
pag 58 (70 pdf) Map of GreenLand and enlarged detail of the positions of measuring stations
pag 66 (78 pdf) Mass balance between 1995 to 2005 by station
pag. 67 (79 pdf) Graph of Mass balance with accumulation and ablation detail
it clearly shows a net mass balance largely positive on West Greenland
pag 112 (124 pdf) Conclusions on MODELING MASS BALANCE ON ICE SHEETS
models PDD and SNTHERM were put to test against real data
pag 114 (126 pdf) SUMMARY AND FUTURE WORK
Finally, this dissertation takes a critical look at melt modeling on the Greenland Ice Sheet.Several models were assessed, including the statistical Positive Degree-Day (PDD) model, a numerical model called SNTHERM, and a new analytical model, SOSIM, developed as part of this research. The assumptions of the PDD model were tested and found to be tenuous at best, despite the popularity of the model and its overall performance in the study area. SNTHERM was unable to adequately model snow melt over a cold ice surface, so a third model was developed. The new model, SOSIM, performed better than the other models tested, but its heavier data requirements limit its utility and in many cases the simpler PDD model would suffice
beeing so, when I compare these results with data and graphs from http://www.eoearth.org/article/Glaci..._in_the_Arctic
section Projected changes
As they do not fit, makes me wonder about the model capability to project changes
|Dec10-08, 10:28 AM||#16|
We are talking about two different things ‘Arctic sea ice cover’ and ‘Net mass balance of ice over Arctic and Antarctic ice cores’
|Dec10-08, 10:53 AM||#17|
in another way
The Ice Caps are Growing By David J. Ameling
This means since 1999 to the present the Earth's rate of rotation has increased. There are two possible (but not mutually exclusive) causes for this. 1. Some of the Earth's mass has moved closer to the Earth's axis of rotation similar to a spinning skater bringing his arms closer to his sides, and thus spinning faster.
(the other possible cause is only a small EMF effect)
|Similar Threads for: No Global warming by NOAA|
|Can Global Warming Cause ...||Earth||88|
|global warming||Introductory Physics Homework||4|