It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: neo96
Although apollo 13 is a rather fitting analogy to the whole 'climate change' HOAX.
originally posted by: Greven
That's only a partial representation of humanity's estimated emissions for the year, since the biosphere is still acting as a net sink. An increase in CO2 concentrations has been observed in real life conditions to reradiate thermal energy back to the surface:
The result is two time-series from two very different locations. Each series spans from 2000 to the end of 2010, and includes 3300 measurements from Alaska and 8300 measurements from Oklahoma obtained on a near-daily basis.
Both series showed the same trend: atmospheric CO2 emitted an increasing amount of infrared energy, to the tune of 0.2 Watts per square meter per decade. This increase is about ten percent of the trend from all sources of infrared energy such as clouds and water vapor.
originally posted by: Greven
You'll note two things there:
1) +0.2 W/m^2 increase per decade directly attributable to CO2
2) 10% of the overall trend is directly attributable to CO2 (ie: +2.0 W/m^2 total over a decade)
Oh, by the way, an increase of 1ºC is estimated to require an increase of 3.7 W/m^2.
Historical annual averages for atmospheric CO2 from start to end:
2000 - 368.2 ppm
2010 - 388.26 ppm
Which adjustment would that be?
BTW, I also notice the lastest adjustment of the temperature record that removed a great deal of variability from the mid-century temperature record. This latest adjustment is the sole reason why our "scientists" are able to declare 2016 as the "HOTTEST YEAR, EVAH."
One of the most significant improvements involves corrections to account for the rapid increase in the number of ocean buoys in the mid-1970s. Prior to that, ships took most sea surface temperature observations. Several studies have examined the differences between buoy- and ship-based data, noting that buoy measurements are systematically cooler than ship measurements of sea surface temperature. This is particularly important because both observing systems now sample much of the sea surface, and surface-drifting and moored buoys have increased the overall global coverage of observations by up to 15%. In ERSST v4, a new correction accounts for ship-buoy differences thereby compensating for the cool bias to make them compatible with historical ship observations.
So. Getting warmer.
The discussions says no change to the trendline.
Because it was found that the buoy instrumentation has a tendency to read low. But they still show the trend. Right? They don't show cooling, right?
Now - why would anyone do that? Maybe the ship temperatures should have been adjusted "cooler' so that they matched the buoy temperatures?
It is unbelievable how many studies make statements in the abstract that are not supported by the data in the study.
They know that most people never get to examining the actual data.
It might shift it down, but so what? It still shows an increasing trend.
If the buoy temperature is right...then it would cool the trend line, would it not?
Why do direct read of sst's read low?