No. Andre posted a graph showing there is a slight local (human made?) cooling; a small local warming; a very slight regional warming; and a huge (man made --they built a fast growing city) warming in Tokyo. It proves that variations are natural (cooling was not man-made), so why the other rural ones must be man-made? What it shows quite clearly is that Tokyo suffers from a tremendous UHI disease! BTW: Our nearby mountains in Córdoba, (32ºS --corresponds to the north hemisphere latitude of Tobruk, Africa, or Forth Worth, Texas) had this morning a small but really beautiful SNOWFALL. BTW --We are presently 4 days away from SUMMER! Global Warming? Not down here --and we are part of the globe.
I think you're missing the point about global warming. Global warming is the MEAN average ACROSS the globe. So this means each and every single community that has such a thing as a thermometer and somebody to put the readings into a database, averaged off across the entire globe over the duration of a year. Ocean temperatures have been shown to be on the slight increase as well, so this is in no way limited to land mass.. Even if the earth is hotting up, this does not mean that certain parts of the globe could possibly not experience COLDER than average weather .In fact New Zealand is much colder these days than it used to be.The weather systems are changing now (rather rapidly, as opposed to over the course of a few thousand years), in different parts of the world. The reasonings can be logical- if one area becomes much hotter, it can lead to the colder air from the polar regions getting sucked further in to the hotter areas. This colder air is circulating further than it normally would when there is higher extremes in air pressure over the different latitudes. Or perhaps a warm ocean current does not move as far as it normally would have, thus slowing the distrubution of heat energy. Just because there are now snow storms in regions that normally would never have such extreme weather does not mean that the planet is getting colder; on average it is retaining more of the suns energies than ever measured before (due to buildup of greenhouse gases) and thus creating more ENERGY in the weather systems. Who knows maybe this could trigger an ice age in some parts of the globe.... But what's clear is that what's going on is chaos and every man and his dog should get himself a watertank and stop relying off the cities & McDonalds to feed themselves Honestly; don't get it wrong : global warming does not necessarily mean that your town will have warmer winters and thus there's not an issue ; )
It shows you are missing the point about climatology. First, there is not such thing as a “global climate”; only regional climates (several thousand squares kilometers in area) that can be decomposed in many “local” climates, much smaller areas that show variations in temperature, precipitation, barometric pressure, etc, fairly similar in an area of few hundreds square kilometers. A very gross image would be your home: presuming you have not heating or air conditioning running, your cellar is cooler than the ground floor, and your attic is the warmest floor. Some rooms would be cooler than others (smaller rooms warmer, rooms with high ceilings cooler, etc). Your kitchen will be the warmest room in the house. If you speak about your home’s average temperature, what would you be referring to? The sum of your cellar, garage, living room, kitchen, upper stairs bedrooms and the attic divided by the number of measurements taken? What about your home’s roof? Or your home’s foundations? They are also part of the house. And how would every room influence the average temperature result? Which room has more weight in the result? You could have an extremely cool basement and a terribly hot cellar, but you average will say: a nice home to live. If you don’t happen to sleep in the attic or the basement. The global average or media does not give the right idea of what’s going on in the planet. Then, how would you measure temperature? How many thermometers would you use for getting an accurate reading of your house? –or the planet. As there are infinite points where you can measure temperature, you would need infinite thermometers. How much thermometers would you say are enough to give an accurate idea of the average temperature in your house –or the planet? Then, how will you calculate the average? By the linear sum of temperature readings and dividing by the number of readings is one method. But as temperature is more related to kinetic energy, the best way to calculate it is by using the kinetic energy rule: sum the squares of temperatures and divide by the number of readings and take the square root. It can render totally different results. Don’t you believe? Let’s see. Take four reading inside a room during winter, when the heating is on. We may have 17º C near one window, 19.9º C near the door to the hallway; 20.3º C near the kitchen door, and 22º6º C near the fireplace. The “average” is 19.95º C. Then, when the spring arrives we open the window and the air invades the room, giving a uniform reading of 20º C in all four thermometers. Would you say the room has warmed or cooled? Apparently, it has warmed by 0.5º C according to the lineal sum divided by four. But if you use the kinetic energy rule mentioned above, your result would be -0.5º C, which indicates that the room has cooled by 0.5º C. Both ways are correct. Which one would you choose? Which one would give an accurate idea of the real world? Physics are strange, sometimes hard to understand, and climatology is full of physics. So there is no use in talking about global temperatures. There is no such thing (yes, lay people don’t understand other way, so they must accept what’s being fed to them –they become easy prey of unethical behaviors from some less ethical people). Lastly, Ice Ages are not local. They are really global –worse on the Northern Hemisphere of course, but the South cools a lot following the variation in planetary temperatures. It has happened before many, many times and will keep doing it. We have just to wait, some cooling have happened in the short span of one or two decades, so beware! Merry Christmas and a not so freezing New Year!
Edufer, We normally have snow in Flagstaff this time of year, usually from November till February. Could you deliver some of this for us? We'd like to see a white Christmas again.
How curious! Usually we have not snow in summer in Córdoba (subtropical climate), but last week (December 20th) we had two inches of snow in our nearby mountains -in a first time ever (since 1573) event in our history. Alas, it lasted just 12 hours, so we cannot send you any. But don't despair, by next week you'll have snow for the championship! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Valich, I know where you could ask for some snow: Europe. They have plenty now. Of course, it is caused by warming. Glacial Warm. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
That is a ridiculous statement, to say that it is missing the point about climatology..... That just sounds like opening cans of worms to me. We are looking at statistical information, not what the point of climatology is or isn't.. If you wanted to, you could measure the average temperature of your home, but what would you be wanting to prove by taking those particular measurements ? Those measurements woulnd't be particularly interesting either since they would all follow each other in a rather predictable manner.. eg. attic stays slightly cooler all year round when you leave the door closed all summer. So what... LOL. The media and the weather beaurau of each country are vastly different organisations. To compare the two to one another is like saying a car salesman behave much like movie directors do - it just isn't right. Let me ask you this, if you had a globe , and you wanted to measure the average temperature of the globe, how would you do this? You may not use guages to measure the temperatures in many tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of 'random' locations to do this in this assignment...... Going off-course here from the argument -- of course it is not a 100% precise measurement but it is good enough for us to tell what sort of graph we're looking at --- wherever there is a thermometer, we can look at what sort of measurements have been guaged, and what this information feed tells us.. Not sure where you get this 'temperature related to kinetic energy rule'. Where did you get this from ?? Sounds like a completely different equation to me.... Do you know what kinetic energy is exactly ? I'm totally flabberghasted that nobody else has something to say about this --- this is supposed to be a forum for 'intelligent' conversation, yet I see a lot of bug-eyed pin-the-donkey's-tail going on on this forum.... Sorry , but your argument is nonsense... Anybody care to back me up? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! BTW, new calculations, from the past year and such have revealed : "Last year was the hottest since records began in Australia in the 1860s and, globally, the last decade has included eight of the hottest years on record." That's EIGHT of the hottest years on record. Is this by chance ? Or is there a rhythym somewhere there in the numbers........... http://www.couriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,17716451%5E3102,00.html
2005 Hottest Year on Record "2005 will end up just above or below 1998 as the hottest year on record. Most significant, climate scientists say, is that this year's readings occurred without the help of a major El Niño event. "In just seven years, the background global temperature has increased to a level equal to the peak in the 1997–98 El Niño," says James Hansen, a researcher at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City. That record-breaking El Niño slathered the tropical Pacific with anomalously warm sea water. There was no such event this year, but many other regions were notably warm — including the North Atlantic, where an unprecedented number of tropical cyclones formed. Hansen says that NASA is likely to dub 2005 as the warmest year on record. This year's heat was not a total surprise — NASA predicted early in 2005 that it would be one of the warmest years on record. Over the past century, says NASA, Earth's average surface temperature has risen 0.8 °C, with three-quarters of that occurring since the 1970s. Nine of the ten warmest years on record have occurred since 1995. Hansen, who compiles the annual rankings for NASA, says the recent warming is consistent with the increase in heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. "Climate change is real and should begin to be noticed by real people," he says." http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051219/full/4381062a.html
Yeah, right, snow... we haven't seen any snow worth talking about this year at all in Latvia (Eastern Europe)! There was one for a few days, but that's it. Usually at this time of the year the snow is to knees and blizzards used to be quite frequent. Before xmas I went to my lectures with an umbrella, because it fucking rained instead of snow! I like snow, want winter... The climate may be isn't warming up globally, but the weather patterns sure enough aren't normal - as they used to be But I don't expect the weather to stay the same too, our climate is a dynamic process
Of course, global warming can be seen from two totally different perspectives: from the climatological perspective, and from the statistic perspective. Climatology deals with observed physical facts, historic records, mostly related with the interaction between the atmosphere, the oceans, and other things as volcanoes, reaction from the emerged land, etc. and the solar activity. Statistics deal with numbers and averages. Climatology sometimes uses statistics, but statistics are not the climate. People tend to confuse lots of things in this issue, as you seem to do: somehow many people believe that the official global temperature statistic is the same thing as the “climate”. Nothing could be further from the truth. No one is really worried that the temperature might rise by a few degrees, even if it is only “on average”. People see every spring and summer temperature rising from winter and going down later in fall. What people are actually worried about isare glaciers changing length, the sea level rising, the frequency and severity of storms changing and changes in rainfall patterns, etc. People are worried about change in all of the properties of the climate, most of which hare physical aspects that have little to do with temperature, and certainly much less to do with some official (and easily manipulated) global temperature statistic. The fact is that, even if all flaws in the way how official temperature is calculated, and everything were fixed, all those things that worry people so much will still be happening. On the other hand, if statistic did change, nothing guarantees that something awful needs to happen. There simply is a lot more going on in the atmosphere and oceans than temperature. If you want to talk about climate in scientific terms, you should forget statistics for a while. You should start talking using terms used in climatology –a totally different science than statistics! You should start looking into three basic laws that rules the Universe, that is, thermodynamics. And my impression is that you have very little understanding of any of these three terrible laws.
You were misled by an involuntary typo in my comment: it appeared as “The global average or [color=red[b]]media[/b][/color] does not give the right idea of what’s going on in the planet.” And it should read “… or median …”, another synonym of “average”. A thinking person would have spotted the error, but you couldn’t resist the temptation of making fun out of an evident typo. We are not talking here about a small globe the size of a soccer ball. We are talking about a planet. The sheer inaccuracy found in managing weather stations, their records, instrumentation, operator’s skill, etc, has led thousands of scientists to doubt about the validity of the “global average” temperature, and many of those scientists believe that the process of obtaining the global average has been “doctored”; that the official data (GISS, NASA, NOAA, BoM, Hadley Center, MET, etc) is not showing what would be the real global temperature, mainly because the official way of dealing with Urban Heat Island effect has not been clearly explained for every station. For many urban stations they have even added temperature to the already abnormally high temperature, and most of the times, they subtract a mere 0.2º C for the UHI, when the observed fact is medium to large size cities are from 3 to 6º C warmer than the surrounding country area. So, if you satisfy yourself with non accurate data for an “average” composed by an increasingly smaller number of stations, and a manifest unethical handling of data, then it’s your privilege.
You are right. This is supposed to be a forum for scientifically prepared and knowledgeable people. Then, what are you doing here? If you cannot relate “kinetic energy” with “temperature” then you should go and play cards or rugby, because physics is not your game. Of course, the kinetic energy rule comes out of any physics textbook dealing in depth with temperature. And yes, I know what the definition of kinetic energy is, and what kinetic energy is all about –but I doubt that someone in the world knows “exactly” what kinetic energy is, in the same way as no one knows “exactly” what electricity is. You could say electricity is a flow of electrons, and that would be just a tiny part of the question. You could say that kinetic energy is the energy contained in a body in motion, and the kinetic energy rule applies (among many other things) to molecular movement in gases. You would enter into the kinetic theory of gases, that explains the macroscopic behavior of gases studying the conjunct of molecules, each one of them obeying separately to the many laws of mechanics. The theory allows describing theoretically Boyle-Mariotte's and Gay-Lussac's laws, and the hypothesis has been derived from Dalton’s atomic theory and Avogadro’s hypothesis by assuming the discontinuity of matter. The kinetic theory of gases establishes that 1) any gas is formed by molecules in motion (kino=motion), 2) the pressure of any gas is the consequence of the impacts of molecules against the walls of the container, 3) Molecule impacts are elastic, 4) The heat (or temperature) depends on the kinetic energy of molecules, 5) The free median path (distance between two impacts) decreases as the gas pressure is increased, 6) In polyatomic molecules we must consider the molecule’s spin and the vibration of the atoms, and 7) Among molecules there are attraction forces that drives them away from the ideal behavior, forces that increases with pressure. For the time being, I think it would be useless providing here mathematical formulas defining the behavior of gases, but if needed, just ask for them. Now, what you understanding is about “kinetic energy”?
