tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6168620747792092240.post173745545032681504..comments2024-03-27T15:09:59.039-06:00Comments on Wasatch Weather Weenies: Satellite vs. Thermometer Temperature TrendsJim Shttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15799757451626876963noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6168620747792092240.post-76949573353354408872019-05-20T03:59:14.282-06:002019-05-20T03:59:14.282-06:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.BIMETAL THERMOMETERhttp://www.jyinstruments.com/21.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6168620747792092240.post-58015384634050155242015-12-12T14:52:57.461-07:002015-12-12T14:52:57.461-07:00That is a good quote to remember, but you seem to ...That is a good quote to remember, but you seem to have swept data streams that you don't like under the rug, and scientists don't need to consider that satellite data sets don't show global warming over the past 17 years because that isn't true. There has been unabated global warming for the past 17+ years because the oceans have continued warming and constitute >90% of climate warming. No data set shows no global climate warming over the past 17+ years. If you consider the lower troposphere alone, to have no satellite observed warming in the last 17+ years, you need to disingenuously start your time series in 1998 (https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/msu/time-series/global/lt/oct/ytd), which is by no means an average year because of the massive El Nino. That is akin to starting the time series in 1992 when the Pinatubo eruption cooled global temperatures.Adam Varblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14991968453822376063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6168620747792092240.post-37357061035228230222015-12-12T08:36:54.006-07:002015-12-12T08:36:54.006-07:00A good quote to remember from the article is "...A good quote to remember from the article is "The key takeaway here is that multiple data streams should be considered for complex climate problems". Rather than sweeping it under the rug all climate scientists need to consider that some satellite data sets show no global warming for 17+ years now.Scot Chipmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17650190017905455606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6168620747792092240.post-85117443335089808922015-12-11T12:16:15.079-07:002015-12-11T12:16:15.079-07:00Thanks, I will have to look at that link. You pro...Thanks, I will have to look at that link. You probably posted something like that at one time and I forgot about it.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02814313368731066590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6168620747792092240.post-40909287288350556382015-12-10T19:57:38.353-07:002015-12-10T19:57:38.353-07:00An entire chapter of IPCC-AR5 is dedicated to this...An entire chapter of IPCC-AR5 is dedicated to this: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf.<br /><br />There are also feedbacks, however, which can amplify or weaken these forcings (in most cases, it appears the amplify positive forcings). It's snowing, so that's a discussion for the future...<br /><br />JimJim Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15799757451626876963noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6168620747792092240.post-77245125206708710862015-12-10T19:27:42.232-07:002015-12-10T19:27:42.232-07:00One thing that seems to me to be somewhat lacking ...One thing that seems to me to be somewhat lacking from the discussion as a whole is direct insight from the field of chemistry. Is there a fairly simple mathematical function that describes the absorption of outgoing radiation by concentration of a particular gas such as CO2? I know it is non-linear but it would be interesting to see what the approximate mathematical function looks like. What is the relative effect of doubling CO2 from 400 to 800ppm vs doubling from 200 to 400ppm, etc?Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02814313368731066590noreply@blogger.com