Comments on: Land vs. Space http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/06/land-vs-space.html Fri, 10 Feb 2012 00:05:32 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.3 By: An Inquirer http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/06/land-vs-space.html/comment-page-1#comment-5273 An Inquirer Tue, 30 Jun 2009 17:10:04 +0000 http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=1147#comment-5273 I understand the reasons for discussing land-versus-space. But I also feel that the topic of land-versus-ocean is also a rich area of discussion. Look at http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt Ocean temperatures as measured by satellites are back to where they were in 1980. Land temperatures are up, and that would not be surprising given land use changes and UHI. It is not quickly obvious to me how this divergence supports the CO2 theory of global warming. I understand the reasons for discussing land-versus-space.
But I also feel that the topic of land-versus-ocean is also a rich area of discussion. Look at http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
Ocean temperatures as measured by satellites are back to where they were in 1980. Land temperatures are up, and that would not be surprising given land use changes and UHI. It is not quickly obvious to me how this divergence supports the CO2 theory of global warming.

]]> By: ACommentator http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/06/land-vs-space.html/comment-page-1#comment-5250 ACommentator Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:46:59 +0000 http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=1147#comment-5250 This leads one to suspect there could be some relationship between rigor and error level, too. In the Arctic and Antarctic, one might well want to locate measurement equipment rather closer to living spaces as one might well want to minimize exposure to an unpleasant environment...hence increasing the chances of exposure of those instruments to heat from those sources themselves. The same could possibly apply to African stations, for a variety of different types of environmental reasons. It's speculative, but suggestive and plausible, at any rate. This leads one to suspect there could be some relationship between rigor and error level, too. In the Arctic and Antarctic, one might well want to locate measurement equipment rather closer to living spaces as one might well want to minimize exposure to an unpleasant environment…hence increasing the chances of exposure of those instruments to heat from those sources themselves. The same could possibly apply to African stations, for a variety of different types of environmental reasons. It’s speculative, but suggestive and plausible, at any rate.

]]> By: brazil84 http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/06/land-vs-space.html/comment-page-1#comment-5249 brazil84 Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:18:07 +0000 http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=1147#comment-5249 The impression I get is that GISS uses some sort of interpolation/extrapolation model to fill in the gaps. And then calculates a global average using all of the data. Intuitively, it seems like they are trying to get something for nothing. In any event, I'm sure that the gap-filling algorithm gives lots of opportunities for mischief. The impression I get is that GISS uses some sort of interpolation/extrapolation model to fill in the gaps. And then calculates a global average using all of the data. Intuitively, it seems like they are trying to get something for nothing.

In any event, I’m sure that the gap-filling algorithm gives lots of opportunities for mischief.

]]>