|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 25, 2012 1:26:30 GMT
It seems almost useless to look at average global temperature without looking at trends in high temperatures versus trends in low temperatures.
If backradiation is real it should be manifesting itself as an equal increase in daily average highs and daily average lows (so would other means of warming the planet)
But it seems to me the one thing that can clearly be attributed to the greenhouse effect is a moderation of temperatures. Lower highs and higher lows. Something seldom mentioned probably because it might hint at the idea more GHG would be a good thing.
WUWT discovered such trends exaggerated in the "poor" sites; suggesting some of the fingerprint of AGW is from poor sampling or biases.
Does anybody know of any resources where one could get a global data set extending back over time on this for some ad hoc analysis?
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 26, 2012 23:56:19 GMT
If you are going to do that then you should obtain the humidity readings as well.
The enthalpy of air changes considerably with the presence of water vapor. So to use an example I have used several times:
A Louisiana bayou in the afternoon just after a thundershower the air temperature is 25C (~77F) the humidity is 100% with mist slowly burning off in the sun. At the same time over in the Arizona desert the temperature is 38C (~100F) and almost zero humidity. The energy content of the air in the bayou at 25C is ~76.8 kJ/Kg but the energy of the Arizona air at 38C is ~38.2 kJ/Kg only half that of the cooler Louisiana air.
The AGW hypothesis is that HEAT is trapped by carbon dioxide. Atmospheric heat content cannot be measured by temperature alone. It is necessary to know the enthalpy of the atmosphere which is largely dependent on water vapor.
It is perfectly possible that at dawn in the mist that the air at a low temperature and high humidity has more energy content than the warmer dry air later in the day. Averaging these temperatures is a waste of time - it is literally meaningless.
All these arguments on the accuracy of measuring the incorrect metric are a waste of time - and possibly a deliberate ploy.
Reports now are that atmospheric humidity has been dropping. It may well be that the rise in temperatures that is getting every one so excited is actually due to the drop in atmospheric enthalpy and nothing to do with more heat being 'trapped'.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 27, 2012 21:35:50 GMT
If you are going to do that then you should obtain the humidity readings as well.
Yes!
AGW seems to depend upon looking at the effects of CO2 from a single perspective (and even then needing to multiply it by 3).
Lets face it. Radiant/Iceskater, whoever he is, posts stuff pointing out that on mountain tops and dry plains daily highs almost routinely in the absence of air movement gets to 130 to 150 degrees. Yet every instance of high water vapor reported and temperatures are stunted at high 90's.
That leaves a 35 to 55 deg F attenuation of incoming sunlight in the presence of GHG or at least water vapor.
One needs to merely be outside to notice that sunlight is more intense at noon than near dawn or dusk. I have a book somewhere in storage of maximum wattage you can get out of a solar panel, properly oriented at the sun over the course of a cloudless day. It starts well short of the 1365 watts at noon and drops as you are displaced from noon towards dawn or dusk as the sun has to shine through greater lengths through the atmosphere.
Evaporation no doubt drops realized temperatures even lower.
Yet climate science waves their arms at this attenuation in favor of an Enron like accounting approach of recording winners while hiding losers and the taxpayer is left with footing the bill for this colossal neglect in modeling the atmosphere.
Spencer points out that some models may include modeling of incoming radiation but nobody seems willing to mention what the sensitivity rates are implied in such models in order to force CO2 to do all the work of warming. 3 to 1? 9 to 1? Is it here we find those sensitivity rates being implied as possible and applied broadly as in it could be a lot worse?
Somebody needs to get to the bottom of this issue. A congressional investigation might be the only route to slicing through the code of silence being enforced by the Universities.
|
|
