tablet
-
Posts
160 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Learn About Weather and Meteorology
Community guides
Posts posted by tablet
-
-
On 07/02/2020 at 14:02, Gray-Wolf said:
New record for Antarctic continent reported
PUBLIC.WMO.INTThe Argentine research base, Esperanza, on the northern tip of the Antarctic peninsula, set a new record temperature of 18.3°C on 6 February, beating the former...Esperanza is 2000 miles away from the south pole , that would be the north pole equivalent to Oslo , which has an average summer temperature of 17.5°C (64°F) ,but have been known to climb above 80 degrees Fahrenheit (27 degrees Celsius), as for the Esperanza temperature , a higher temperature of 19.8 Celsius ( 67.6 Fahrenheit) was recorded at Signy research station on January 30th 1982
if you look at the difference ( which is very easy using Ventusky.com ) you will see the temperature difference between the peninsula and the main body of the continent , even in summer is vast .
-
2
-
1
-
-
Urban heat island effect photographed in June's heat wave by NASA's ECOSTRESS Maps , the heat sink properties of concrete , tarmac , and urbanization can be clearly seen early in the day
Using any temperature readings from these area's would almost certainly skew recorded temperature records warmer than the true temperature of the surrounding areas , which can be clearly seen to be much cooler , and well below the half a degree correction used for the UHIE ( urban heat island effect ) at the present time ( note the airports are marked , as temperature recording equipment is present at most )
source - https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=7445&fbclid=IwAR06X9kqUS6NWWaGRqvCQcMisTjI54eXun1BhyL3TdAmrOkMYWEHacZIrZs
-
.. and we all know how really good the climate models have been in the last 20 years ,, don't we
-
pictures "DO" paint a thousand words , here are 2 heat maps from December 2016 , one is the " Modelled " temperature of our planet , the other is where NASA has Actual temperature reading equipment , from realclimatescience.com , but if you check with NASA , it's very true
-
This study aims to estimate the affect of urbanisation on daily maximum and minimum temperatures in the United Kingdom. Urban fractions were calculated for 10 km × 10 km areas surrounding meteorological weather stations. Using robust regression a linear relationship between urban fraction and temperature difference between station measurements and ERA‐Interim reanalysis temperatures was estimated. For an urban fraction of 1.0, the daily minimum 2‐m temperature was estimated to increase by 1.90 ± 0.88 K while the daily maximum temperature was not significantly affected by urbanisation. This result was then applied to the whole United Kingdom with a maximum T min urban heat island intensity (UHII) of about 1.7K in London and with many UK cities having T min UHIIs above one degree.
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/asl.896
-
1
-
-
Royal Meteorological Society Confirms Urban Heat Island Effect… “Significantly Increased” Daily Minimum UK Temperature By Up To 1.70 K!
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/asl.896
-
I'm thinking that they can't , after this time Devonian ,,,, but I can provide move evidence if you want
-
On 14/05/2018 at 08:55, knocker said:
Powerful hurricanes strengthen faster now than 30 years ago
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-05/dnnl-phs050818.php
where is that happening then Knocker ?
source - Ryan Moue
source of charts - Klotzbach et al 2018
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0184.1
-
Anomalously high geothermal flux near the South Pole
Published: 14 November 2018
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-35182-0#Fig1
-
On 16/11/2018 at 12:15, Ed Stone said:
There are a few questions about the 'lag' I'd like to ask the Solar Cyclists: just how long is said lag meant to go on for? It's been a good fifteen years since the argument was first used, and still the Earth is warming...So, does their theory not indicate any kind of timeline? Whether it does or it doesn't, fifteen years and counting (without a shred of any detectable cooling, not even a slow down!) seems a tad excessive, to me?
no noticeable cooling , is that right ?
Western Pacific , He et al., 2018
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0959683618810399?journalCode=hola
Together with the weakening upwelling condition observed from the same core, we believe that the temperature decreasing trend in the studied region since the end of the LIA [(the recent ~100 years)] is probably caused by changes in current strength instead of coastal upwelling. Less warm water from the south area was transported to the region, probably because of the changes in the weakening KC overturning the increasing global temperature signal in the YS and ECS regions since the end of the LIA (He et al., 2014). In fact, this decreasing SST trend was also observed in many UK’37-SST records among sites located in the mid-latitude western Pacific region since the end of the LIA (Figure 3, Kim et al., 2004; Li et al., 2009; Nakanishi et al., 2012b; Ruan et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2011). In addition, three ~400-year UK’37-SST records from sediment cores collected in the Mirs Bay, northeastern Hong Kong also show cooling trends in this period
Subpolar north Atlantic , Orme et al., 2018
https://folk.uib.no/abo007/publications/orme_miettinen18.qsr.pdf
The diatom-based reconstruction shows warmer reconstructed temperatures than the dinocyst-based reconstruction and the modern measured summer SST (June-August) of 10.9°C. … The overall long-term cooling trend in the diatom-based SST reconstruction for the last 6.1 ka fits with the widely established cooling in the subpolar North Atlantic since the Holocene Thermal Maximum, resulting from decreasing Northern Hemisphere summer insolation (e.g. Calvo et al., 2002; Marchal et al., 2002; Andersen et al., 2004a, 2004b; Andersson et al., 2010; Jiang et al., 2015; Sejrup et al., 2016). … The earliest warm period at ~6.1-4 ka BP had average reconstructed SSTs of 12-13.3°C, with the warmest temperatures in the record occurring at ~6.1-5.5 ka BP (c. 13°C). The cooler period ~4-2 ka BP had reconstructed SST that varied around 11.5°C, with minima at 3.2 and 2.4 ka BP interrupted by a short warming at 2.7 ka BP. In the most recent period after 2 ka BP the SSTs again increased peaking at 1.8 ka BP, yet SSTs did not attain values as high as those reconstructed for 6.1-4 ka BP. … In the diatom-based record the mean reconstructed temperature between 4 and 2 ka BP is 11.5°C compared with 12.5 and 12.1°C in the periods before 4 ka BP and after 2 ka BP respectively, showing a reconstructed cooling of 0.6-1°C. In the dinocyst-based record the mean reconstructed temperature between 4 and 2 ka BP is 10.3°C compared with 11.3 and 11.6°C in the periods before 4 ka BP and after 2 ka BP respectively, showing a cooling of 1-1.3°C
...so " It's been a good fifteen years since the argument was first used, and still the Earth is warming " ,, it would seem not all of the world
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, BornFromTheVoid said:
It's not doing fine. But he was sacked for misconduct anyway.
Among the allegations, the university says Ridd had “perpetuated a view that you were not allowed to talk to your wife about the disciplinary process, when in fact this was contrary to what you were told by verbally, and in writing … ”. He had denigrated a colleague, disclosed confidential information and “failed to take reasonable steps to avoid or manage a conflict of interest between your own interests and the interests of the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) and the interests of the university
well I guess we will find out who's lying , it was due in court on Monday 5th November 2018 , but the court has postponed it , after Ridd and his supporters turned up
-
1 hour ago, Ed Stone said:
I do believe that, in all honesty, it was your good self who claimed that the data presented by NASA and NOAA were bogus...'added', 'altered'?
I claimed only that in the course of time , the data had been altered , which it clearly has
-
My apologies JeffC , but it was the best audio version I could currently find , I am waiting for a write up , which shouldn't be long in appearing
-
1
-
-
have a look here , Carles Pelejero Paper from 2005
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/309/5744/2204
it's pay walled but worth a read
The oceans are becoming more acidic due to absorption of anthropogenic carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The impact of ocean acidification on marine ecosystems is unclear, but it will likely depend on species adaptability and the rate of change of seawater pH relative to its natural variability. To constrain the natural variability in reef-water pH, we measured boron isotopic compositions in a ∼300-year-old massive Porites coral from the southwestern Pacific. Large variations in pH are found over ∼50-year cycles that covary with the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation of ocean-atmosphere anomalies, suggesting that natural pH cycles can modulate the impact of ocean acidification on coral reef ecosystems.
" suggesting that natural pH cycles can modulate the impact of ocean acidification on coral reef ecosystems "
-
14 minutes ago, BornFromTheVoid said:
So improving methods and updating data doesn't make sense, but a global conspiracy of scientists that spent decades becoming experts only to give it all up to corrupt the temperature record for some unknown nefarious purpose whilst providing all the data and methods on their corruption does make sense...
Mods, this thread needs to be nuked from orbit!again , I would give you the example of Dr Peter Ridd , he spoke out about the the great barrier reef , he said it was " doing just fine " , James Cook University sacked him for not going along with the AGW narrative
-
1
-
-
funny though , you calling graphs from NASA and NOAA ( from different time frames ) bogus data ?
-
8 minutes ago, BornFromTheVoid said:
So improving methods and updating data doesn't make sense, but a global conspiracy of scientists that spent decades becoming experts only to give it all up to corrupt the temperature record for some unknown nefarious purpose whilst providing all the data and methods on their corruption does make sense...
Mods, this thread needs to be nuked from orbit!this needs to be openly talked about , as they say " the truth will out " if there is something going on that's underhand , on either side , it needs to be discussed
-
Just now, Ed Stone said:
Forgive me for seeming so obtuse, but how can locations 'that have no temperature-recording equipment', have real recorded data?
that is the question , why do the publish temperature data for places on the planet that have no recording equipment
-
NOAA also give out temperature readings for places on this planet that have no temperature recording equipment , they use models , the same models that have been proved to be wrong on many occasions
the real recorded data
-
1
-
-
Just now, Mapantz said:
There's no need for personal jibes & insults. I understand that these types of threads can generate heat between users, but insults and sniping are not tolerated.
Keep it friendly. Thank you.to what are referring ?
-
8 minutes ago, BornFromTheVoid said:
The data updates are all explained and published by NASA and other groups that monitor station data. They even provide a web page where you can view the changes to the temperature record using graphs and such.
For a group with billions in funding and employing thousands of the brightest minds on the planet, they sure are terrible at covering up their corruption /s
Even the UAH satellite temperature data, ran by 2 creationist AGW disbelievers, gets regular updates which alters past data. It's a completely normal thing to do, across the board.
If we never learned, changed and improved how we do things, we wouldn't be human!I find it difficult to believe you can alter temperature records like these :
same graph 18 years later
and come up with a good response for the alterations , and saying " oh , we're human , we make mistakes " just isn't convincing , as you say the number of people these organisation's have and the hardware at their disposal makes me question these adjustments
-
1
-
-
it should have read Altered , not added ,my mistake
-
1
-
-
22 minutes ago, Ed Stone said:
But that would make the current warming curve appear less steep than it actually is. Why would they do that, if they were in the business of exaggerating global warming?
Oh, sorry tablet - they've (allegedly) subtracted one degree. Even more bizarre.
All we ask is that you provide proper peer-reviewed evidence that backs-up your claims. That's all.
if you make it appear colder in the past , the present will come out warmer.
-
if Valentina Zharkova is right , and it's not going to take hundreds of years to see , or even 10 years , then we are at the start of a very bad period for food production
Antarctic Ice Discussion
in Climate Change
Posted
but it is incredible what they are now finding at the south pole , very interesting read
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2018/02/ross-ice-shelf-bore-antarctica-freezing/?fbclid=IwAR0LR0jOG4HmMc1VW_zATPYn9mRRgcMNBkvbh8-RMEKP8h1s6O0PKSLIDPs