On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 11:08:45 +0100, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:

"I M @ good guy" wrote:

On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 19:57:00 +0100, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:

JohnGr wrote:

On Feb 20, 12:00Â*pm, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:
JohnGr wrote:
On Feb 19, 2:20 pm, Maggsy wrote:

http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutem...mps-Hidequoted text -

This links seems to be broken.

http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/

Am I wrong or is the temperature scale at the left and right side the wrong
way up?

At some point I must research what these temperatures
actually refer to and how they relate to the 14'C figures.
Maybe the bit that confused you was that all
layers apart from the surface layer are NEGATIVE 'C.

No, I think those dashes relate to the y-axis units.
But it is astonishing, that summer temperatures are lower than winter
temperatures.

Anyway, the differences between all temps are about +/- .5 C.
The variation compared to 0 K, respectively blackbody temperature is hilarious
and within normal natural fluctuations.

Yes-but that is enough to potentially cause problems. The IPCC
is only claiming around 0.15C/decade. The point is if it keeps
going in the same direction (as it has now for 4 decades) it
eventually goes outside natural fluctuations
(on human-historical timescales).

Where "eventually" is no scientific term.
If it would do, it had the chance plenty of times before, at least since
beginning of the holocene.

http://sceptics.umweltluege.de/vostok/vtrendz.png

Relating to blackbody temperature, the variation is about +/- 0.75 percent.
this is far within a statistical error range of 5%.
So since there doesn't occur a variation of more than +/- 2.5 percent, there
is no reason to worry.
Even IPCC's claims lie within this error range.


"Within this error range" could have been
left off, couldn't it?

All from IPCC could be left off as for me.

As they themselves claim, their models are insufficient and can't predict
anything, not even the amount of **** of a fly surrounding the fluorescent
energy saving lamp at the ceiling of their toilet.


What surprised me yesterday is that ocean
temperatures are way different than land
temperatures, that makes it possible for wind
to play an even bigger part in the average
than I imagined.

I think it was a NOAA site that showed
a difference of 7 degrees C, but I can't find
anything like that now, all sites say the sea
is nearing the boiling point.

Must be true since our local AGW lie-spreading TV showed the documentation on
hypercanes for the ...uhm... was ist 309th or 310th... time.

Their MODEL(!) showed the development of a huge hypercane when ocean
temperatures reach 50°C.
The maximum temperature ever measured of about 32°C is really, really,
really + 128 nines, pretty close.

So fear and panic is appropriate now! ... not.


I stir up one of those hypercanes every
time I get in the shower.