0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
bc saysWell, there is more CO2 and there is warming but there is no cooling henry sayswho says it is warming? you have simply not been paying attention to me in the thread of this post?earlier on this thread we noted that it has been cooling for at least one whole solar cycle[link snipped because it messes up the formatting of the page]Note that this result from various data sets is confirmed by my own results which JP says I may not quote...here? JP and your team has some peculiar rules when it comes to global warming.... If you want to go nit picking you could also ask: how long has is not been warming? That leaves those poor souls whose miserable lives depend on this global warming scam some stay of execution. e.g.: this post contains graphs of running trends in global surface temperature anomalies for periods of 12+ and 16 years. They indicate that we have not seen a warming hiatus this long since the 1970s.http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/21/may-2013-global-surface-landocean-temperature-anomaly-update/However, my own results for the drop in global maxima will show you that the current cooling trend will continue, until at least 2040....or there about.So, there is no warming trend, and there has not been any, for at least 16 years. You, get on with that. I ask you: why do you keep referring back to it as if it (i.e. the "global" warming) were truly still happening?
bc saysHere's the real datahenry saysthis is the problem.people like Cook who have an agenda to "save" their jobsin this respect I can only trust my own data(I know that I have no ulterior motive but finding the truth)which I took from www.tutiempo.netparticularly the drop in maximum temps. (that nobody is looking at)see herehttp://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=47181.0Don't forget: automatic recording with thermo couples only began since the seventiesso how are you going to compare older data with automatically recorded data?
The only graph here showing a decline in maximum temperatures seems to come from just 1 site, not 47 sites. The measurements from 47 sites show no such downturn.
"I asked: from what time onward in history did we start re-calibrating thermometers at regular intervals?"You also haven't explained why you think thermometers need to be recalibrated- I asked (and you ignored it) whether you think it's the glass that changes or the mercury.Well, which is it?
"I remember that even in my time, a mercury thermometer with one degree C divided in ten portions, with an accuracy of 0.05 was quite rare and expensive."So what?Before the times you are speaking of, they had thermometers that could read to a thousandth of a degree, albeit that you wouldn't use one for measuring the weather.
It's also true that good records of temperature only exist for populated areas, but don't forget that, those are the only areas where we have a direct interest in knowing what the climate is doing.
And the current rate of change means that over the last 30 years the temperature has risen by about half a degree.
In my sample of 47 weather stations I balanced the sample by latitude and by 70%/30% @sea/on land. Longitude does not matter as I was looking at the average yearly data at the specific station.
QuoteIt's also true that good records of temperature only exist for populated areas, but don't forget that, those are the only areas where we have a direct interest in knowing what the climate is doing.Very, very wrong!Professional scaremongers are interested in the melting of unpopulated Greenland and Arctic ice. Hurricanes begin their lives as depressions over unpopulated oceans. It's these temperatures that determine our lives! QuoteAnd the current rate of change means that over the last 30 years the temperature has risen by about half a degree.The temperature of what? The 1 sq km average over the entire Pacific and Atlantic oceans? Or just Heathrow Airport?
Namely, in a period of warming the differential between zero and  latitude causes more clouds at higher latitude and somewhat less at lower latitudes. In a period of cooling, such as now, the differential temp. increases, causing more clouds and rain at lower latitudes and less clouds and rain at higher latitudes.
A good rule of thumb in metrology, if not meteorology, is to use an instrument at least one order of magnitude more accurate than the effect you are trying to measure, hence my suggestion of +/- 0.01 deg as the acceptable specification for examining climate change, and for the figures to be meaningful you need to average each location over a year.
Let's face it, the important thing about graphs of global temperature.....It doesn't matter where it's measured or by whom
Not sure why you are so hung up on airfields since we have data like thishttp://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/ but...How fortunate then that, as I have said repeatedly, the average (which would include Stansted and Wrexham) would give a better result than either of them.
but I am intrigued to know as to why you did not respond to my question to you raised in my earlier post, specifically addressed to you?(which seems to confirm some kind of bias from you which I have noted before)