THE IDEA THAT, NASA, able to get a spacecraft to Jupiter and have it arrive within 1 second of the predicted arrival time after teavelling 5 years through the solar system,
DONT HAVE ACCURATE DATA FROM GROUND STATIONS ON EARTH, BECAUSE, WAIT FOR IT, the stations are close to buildings and central-air heat pumps!?
Do you really, and I mean really, believe they have not worked around this?
For a start,
NASA, DONT USE RAW DATA:
Temperature measurements made with different instruments and methods over time must necessarily be adjusted to ensure high-quality records of temperature that reliably represent changes. The adjustments needed for land stations in the United States often increase the apparent long-term warming, but overall, adjustments actually reduce the global warming trend.
NASA GISS corrects for urban heat islands. This is the reason why they don't use raw data.
If you need a more common sense dismissal of the urban bias "zombie theory,"
simply look at the regions of the planet experiencing the most rapid growth: regions of the Arctic. The greatest difference in temperatures for the long term averages where across Russia, Alaska, far north Canada and Greenland and not where major urbanisation has occurred.
The last time I checked, there are not many large cities or buildings or central-air heat pumps to bias results there.
Figure 2. Using source data from NASA/GISS, this illustration shows the amount of change in global surface temperatures in 2006 from 1885.
Explainer: How do scientists measure global temperature? | Carbon Brief
Compo et al (2013) confirmed global surface air warming without using the instrumental surface temperature record, meaning the warming is real, not just confounding factors like UHI.
Hausfather et al. (2016) compared station records before and after homogenization to a more reliable network of stations which don’t need adjustment.
The results were extremely encouraging, showing that the adjustment procedure for USHCN brought it much more closely into alignment with USCRN. This is strong evidence that the adjustments are doing exactly what they were intended to do: remove the influences that don’t really tell us about temperature change, so what remains really does tell us about temperature change, not irrelevant change....... But it does show, unambiguously, that critics of the entire adjustment process have absolutely no scientific basis for their complaints."
Berkeley’s analysis focused on the question of whether this effect biases the global land average. Our UHI paper analyzing this indicates that the urban heat island effect on our global estimate of land temperatures is indistinguishable from zero."
HOW MANY cities or central-air heat pumps ARE THERE IN THE OCEANS AND UP IN THE TROPOSPHERE?
Two long-term ocean-only temp series (with 95% conf. intervals) shows the same trend as weather stations and satellite data:
Not many building in the oceans are there?
Isolated satellite data shows same trend as weather stations and ocean data:
RSS: This is from their home page:
Not many building up in the air is it?
UAH SATELLITE DATA:
For a long time the UAH satellite data showed less warming than all the other data, but this was due to a bug in the system. When this calibration error was fixed, the data showed the same warming as the other data.
Satellite measurements of the troposphere confirm warming trend, data shows | Carbon Brief
Major correction to satellite data shows 140% faster warming since 1998
What trend do the UAH data show now? Lets go to the UAH home page:
The University of Alabama in Huntsville
Their trend is 0.13 C per decade. Very much in tune with all the other data.
Berkeley Earth has examined 16 million monthly average temperature observations from 43,000 weather stations...The weather station data is combined with sea surface temperature data from the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre (HadSST). This ocean data is based on 355 million measurements collected by ships and buoys, including 12 million observations obtained in 2017.
"The effect of urban heating on estimates of global average land surface temperature is studied by applying an urban-rural classification based on MODIS satellite data to the Berkeley Earth temperature dataset compilation of 36,869 sites from 15 different publicly available sources.
We compare the distribution of linear temperature trends for these sites to the distribution for a rural subset of 15,594 sites chosen to be distant from all MODISidentified urban areas. While the trend distributions are broad, with one-third of the stations in the US and worldwide having a negative trend, both distributions show significant warming. Time series of the Earth’s average land temperature are estimated using the Berkeley Earth methodology applied to the full dataset and the rural subset; the difference of these is consistent with no urban heating effect over the period 1950 to 2010, with a slope of -0.10 ± 0.24/100yr (95% confidence)."
While urban areas are undoubtedly warmer than surrounding rural areas, this has had little to no impact on warming trends.
The warming trend is the same in rural and urban areas, measured by thermometers and satellites, and by natural thermometers.
Links:
Compo et al (2013) confirmed global surface air warming without using the instrumental surface temperature record, meaning the warming is real, not just confounding factors like UHI.
If you need a more common sense dismissal of the urban bias "zombie theory,"
simply look at the regions of the planet experiencing the most rapid growth: regions of the Arctic
The last time I checked, there are not many large cities to bias results there. Like the USHCN,
there is also a Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN), which according to NOAA's website:
The Urban Heat Island Effect
"The simple take-away is that while UHI and other urban-correlated biases are real (and can have a big effect), current methods of detecting and correcting localized breakpoints are generally effective in removing that bias. Blog claims that UHI explains any substantial fraction of the recent warming in the US are just not supported by the data."
________________________________________________________
La meg få opplyse deg om at NASA GISS bruker ikke rådata. Selvfølgelig har de tatt høyde for dette.
Temperaturmålinger utført med forskjellige instrumenter og metoder over tid må nødvendigvis justeres for å sikre høykvalitetsregistre av temperatur som pålitelig representerer endringer.
F.eks må ens tasjon som står på et fjell justeres hvis den flyttes ned ved foten av fjellet.Justeringene som trengs for landstasjoner i USA øker ofte den tilsynelatende langsiktige oppvarmingen, men samlet sett reduserer justeringer faktisk den globale oppvarmingstrenden.
______________________________________________________________________________
Polar amplification is the phenomenon that any change in the greenhouse intensification tends to produce a larger change in temperature near the poles than in the planetary average.
There are no cities on the North Pole right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_amplification
https://climate.nasa.gov/
Data from oceans shows the same warming trend as ground data and satellites - there are no cities in the oceans right?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/revisiting-historical-ocean-surface-temperatures/
data from satellites shows the same warming trend as ground data and oceans - there are no cities up in the troposphere right?
http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html
Polar amplification is the phenomenon that any change in the greenhouse intensification tends to produce a larger change in temperature near the poles than in the planetary average.
There are no cities on the North Pole right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_amplification
https://climate.nasa.gov/
Data from oceans shows the same warming trend as ground data and satellites - there are no cities in the oceans right?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/revisiting-historical-ocean-surface-temperatures/
data from satellites shows the same warming trend as ground data and oceans - there are no cities up in the troposphere right?
http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html
Ingen kommentarer:
Legg inn en kommentar