Every once in awhile something comes along that lets you know you made a difference while generating a laugh at the same time.
Cartoon Credit: Steve Hunter http://www.stevehunterillustrations.com.au/
h/t to Viv Forbes of the Carbon Sense Coalition
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Anthony,
Get in touch with Mary K. Hamm of http://www.hotair.com news/blog and work with her on a post/story/news item on Obama’s new lie / power grab of the EPA/CO2 climate change fraud.
Reason being his lie based health care .con is wrecking the U.S. health care system. Now he goes for the full monte of the entire operation via the EPA wrecking the base industries that keeps the worlds and U.S.A.’s food and energy going.
Plus she seems to be a very nice and smart lady.
You forgot the parking lot.
I have a temperature gauge in my truck. As I drive across the USA I find that almost all the temperature displays on the side of the road deviate from my own temperature gauge by +/- 2, 3 some even 4 degrees.
I find it hard to believe that they have accurate temperature information. How often do they check or calibrate their equipment? Is there a temperature equivalent of the atomic clock. Super precise, accurate and stable over long periods of time?
I mean, if a few degrees make such a huge difference in the climate of the earth, wouldn’t ½° temperature change cause undeniable and self-evident climate change?
Wouldn’t even one tenth of a degree change cause some severe weather?
If my car engine melts jus two degrees above normal operating temperature, a ½ degree change in temperature would mean a pretty hot engine!
There once was a climate scientist from Nantucket
Who carried this data to work in a bucket
Though his models showed warming
he was caught misinforming
and was last seen wearing a straightjacket.
Philip Fink
See
http://www.fofweb.com/History/MainPrintPage.asp?iPin=HTCNE0294&DataType=WorldHistory&WinType=Free
for a more detailed description of the hurricane of 1780. It may be the one you’re thinking of.
The thing is, if they actually did change tack and rely on satellites to measure temperature, we’d discover that the satellites were redirected to orbit the sun.
Great cartoon and worth framing. The Australian CSIRO that has produced great inventions (e.g. Wi-Fi) has become a laughing stock when it comes to climate change and sea level rise. Someone really needs to pull the CSIRO climate dingbats back into line.
You’ve made quite a difference – and don’t need a cartoon as evidence!!!
@ur momisugly Gail Combs – THANKS FOR SHARING. Yes, super funny (esp. #2). “… Talk about an inconvenient truth.” lol
***********************************
Dear Philip Finck,
Some Possible Sources for You:
1. http://www.hurricanescience.org/history/storms/pre1900s/1780/
2. http://worldhistoryproject.org/1780/10/10/great-hurricane-of-1780
WUWT Threads (be sure to look in the Comments, too):
1. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/05/did-global-warming-reduce-the-impacts-of-sandy/
2. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/17/if-storms-are-worse-now-why-did-they-need-a-sea-wall-150-years-ago/
3. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/30/ipcc-sea-level-exaggeration/
4. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/29/the-great-labor-day-hurricane-of-1935/
(See comment at 4:13pm 8/29/13)
5. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/19/from-the-scientific-urban-legend-department-agw-sea-level-rise-made-sandy-more-destructive/
Was that helpful? If you can find anything in the above that helps you successfully counter the economy-damaging AGW l1es, the time I spent looking for these cites will have been worth it.
Your American ally for truth and freedom,
Janice
Bill: “Pablum” is a trademarked baby food; you are thinking of “pabulum”.
yeah…can anybody please explain precisely how they measure temps from satellites
You go Janice!!! After reading your cites I feel sure they will help Mr. Finck. I enjoyed them because they expanded my knowledge.
Speaking of fun, the sunspot number is 272 currently.
Philip Finck says:
November 15, 2013 at 3:43 am
I don’t remember the post off hand, but I found the account you want to use, see http://www.thebermudian.com/past-issues/143 which says in part:
Wikipedia offers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Hurricane_of_1780
A more general look at that year is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1780_Atlantic_hurricane_season :
@ur momisugly Stan Stendera — Thanks! Hope all is well in the studio and with your little birds on the railing and with dear Libby. I wish you posted more often. Your shining star personality brightens this place up. We NEED that around here!
Boy, after Hawkins and Werme and I went to all that effort….. IF MR. FINCK DOES NOT REPORT BACK HERE, HE WILL BE A FINK. (grrr)
Robert Clemenzi says November 15, 2013 at 1:22 am
The truth is that satellites CAN NOT measure land temperatures. It has been tried – it does not work!
Nor do the “land temperatures”. They are supposed to measure air temps at around 4 foot off the ground. To measure the ground temp, you need to put a thermometer in the ground.
Satellites measure air temps in different layers, one being closest to the ground.
Robert of Ottawa says:
The idea that satellites can determine the temperature of different layers is an area of recent research, but the results are very speculative and, so far, of little use.
Satellites measure radiation. Various algorithms are used to determine the temperature that produces that radiation. Because IR radiation does not penetrate clouds, microwave radiation is used to determine the *surface* temperature. If you assume that the atmosphere is opaque, the rest of the spectra can be used to determine the radiation temperature of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The problem is that because the upper atmosphere is not opaque, there is no way to determine how thick the emission layer is or how much radiation, if any, is coming from the surface. As a result, there are multiple possible scenarios that will give the same spectra. Also, once a specific temperature profile is selected, there is no way to determine how high above the surface a specific temperature occurs.
In addition, because the 4-foot air temperature is frequently colder than the air a few hundred meters above it, there is no way to determine what it might be.
Over the oceans, satellites are capable of determining the temperature of the upper 2 millimeters of water. Research indicates that this is a good approximation of the atmosphere temperature 4 feet above the surface. However, over land, ground based thermometers have shown that the *surface* temperature is +60F to -20F of what is measured in a Stevenson screen, perhaps more.
There are additional problems with satellites – orbital drift, a lack of needed detectors, a lack of adequate calibration, and so forth.
In my opinion, the only temperature that “might” apply to climate is one from 6″ to 1′ below the surface. I like this because all peaks are integrated out. Transient phenomena, like air conditioners and jet airplanes, will have no effect.