Axios: global warming study
- Thread starter tlwwake
- Start date
No, if you are truly curious about that, one of us is going to have to stop being lazy and dig into this. It is not going to be me.
I looked it up before I asked you. I just wanted to watch what you are currently doing.
That can't be right. There was a snow and ice storm across much of the country last week.
- 21:06 PM on 20 December, 2007 The United States shows no warming trend but that doesn't matter because it's only 2% of the surface area of the Earth, correct?
While this is true, the concern here is that the US surface temperature records are regarded as the best in the world. If they show no warming trend, how reliable are the records of countries such as China where there has been massive urbanisation (thus increased heat from cities)? This is an open question. And a legitimate one.
It should also be pointed out that the land surface records we have don't show warming trends in South America or Africa or Antarctica.
I suppose the only thing we can get out of this is to consider that global warming is perhaps more regional and local in nature and impact than the term would have us assume. Or perhaps we should focus on other temperature measures as the land surface record may not be particularly accurate in and of itself. - 00:15 AM on 21 December, 2007
A further observation: The seasonal Arctic ice melt is significant (based at least on the short observational records that we have) and it's been argued that it is strong evidence in support of global warming. Yet this area covers only 3% of the planet.
Could you please clarify why the 2% land mass of the United States has only an 'infinitesimal effect on global trends' yet the 3% land area of the Arctic is apparently significant 'concrete' proof? Wouldn't the way such information is selectively used or ignored, indicative of certain biases?
This information is from Will Nitschke (www.capitaloffice.com.au) which I haven't had time to look at, but his arguments are interesting. Actually the whole back and forth discussion in the comments section is interesting.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/1934-hottest-year-on-record.htm link to the article
Last edited:
Just remember that it's the
- According to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), global temperatures in 2018 were 1.5°F (0.83°C) warmer than the 1951–1980 mean.
- Analyses from the U.K. Met Office and the World Meteorological Organization also ranked 2018 among the top 4 warmest years on record.
- Each group relies on similar surface temperature data but uses different methods and baselines to fill in gaps between observing stations.
- According to NOAA, the annual global land and ocean temperature has increased at an average rate of 0.13°F (0.07°C) per decade since 1880. However, this rate has more than doubled, to 0.31°F (0.17°C) per decade, since 1981.
He is one of the problems in all of this. Data gathering stations in colder areas break down and are not fixed as often or at all than the ones in warmer areas. This significantly skews the data to the hotter side. There are no incentives to fix this problem
Similar threads
