Climate change: Carbon dioxide emissions reach record high
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
Transpiration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A full grow tree releases 300 gallons of water a day into the atmosphere.
Vapour from the Amazon...
A fully grown tree may lose several hundred gallons of water through its leaves on a hot, dry day. About 90% of the water that enters a plant's roots is used for this process. The transpiration ratio is the ratio of the mass of water transpired to the mass of dry matter produced; the transpiration ratio of crops tends to fall between 200 and 1000 (i.e., crop plants transpire 200 to 1000 kg of water for every kg of dry matter produced).[3]
A full grow tree releases 300 gallons of water a day into the atmosphere.
Vapour from the Amazon...
A fully grown tree may lose several hundred gallons of water through its leaves on a hot, dry day. About 90% of the water that enters a plant's roots is used for this process. The transpiration ratio is the ratio of the mass of water transpired to the mass of dry matter produced; the transpiration ratio of crops tends to fall between 200 and 1000 (i.e., crop plants transpire 200 to 1000 kg of water for every kg of dry matter produced).[3]
Oh man...they're blaming tornadoes on global warming now.
Remember the year of Katrina when they blamed all the hurricanes on GW... then the next year they blamed the decrease in hurricanes on GW?
If you put a frog in a pot of water and turn on the heat, it will not try to get out. It will not even notice the water is heating up until it is too late.Boiling frogs is causing global warming.
I think I read it on here. Actually, I don't remember the source. I'll look it up.
OK: snopes.com: Slow Boiled Frog
appears this old folk tale is incorrect.
OK, cool. Just was curious how you knew that fact. Was wondering
how someone would discover that one, is all.
how someone would discover that one, is all.
I know, but I do have a twisted mind so it is understandable that someone would ask. We did nasty things to frogs in our youth but I didn't know that folk tale then or would have tried to prove it.
Similar to what happens when we elect cons and they start chewing apart the country from within? (nothing to do with the OP, but it's fun)
Look Ron, if you want to join the frog boiling club, stop asking so many relevant questions.8O
I know an idiot that tried it once.........(not me)..........and as soon as that water got uncomfortable, froggie was outa there. So once doesn't disprove a theory, but the RSPCA frowns on animal torture................except in the cases of testing beauty products on rabbits.
go figure.
The UAH and RSS temperature time series are indirect surface temperature measurements. The satellites are NOAA polar orbiting satellites with microwave sounding units. What they measure is microwave emissions from oxygen, which correlates with temperature. They measure these emissions in 4 thick bands. For the surface temperature series, they use the Tropical Lower Troposphere (TLT) band, which is actually a 10 km band that extends up from the surface. You can see the coverage of that band in this image:
The weighting function removes almost all of the stratospheric influence. Not all of it, but almost. That's important to account for because the stratosphere is actually cooling. The farther up you go, the lower the temperature trend, due to the radiative cooling impact of all that retained infra-red in the troposphere. The data undergoes a large amount of processing, to produce the channels, to weight the channels for altitude, to correct for satellite drift, and to merge two satellite instrument data streams together (with different instruments, and thus different calibration protocols). Compound that with the fact that there are more than 12 satellites being used for this temperature product.
The calibration is what the recent work from the University of Washington was investigating. For as yet undetermined reasons, the calibration of those satellites changes between the laboratory calibration and when the satellites are finally launched into space. The satellites actually use their own on-board temperature to determine the temperature on Earth. Over the life of the satellite, it's temperature will increase. Using radiosonde weather ballon data, the researchers found that the UAH observation of temperature was going down in comparison to those radiosondes. The radiosondes are direct temperature measurements, and are independent of the satellite temperature which will change depending on the angle of the sunlight hitting the satellite. Basically the processing at UAH is insufficient, and introduces a spurious cooling bias to the entire 30 year record.
Stupid scientists at UAH with the alphabet behind their names; no wonder they don't do things right. Who should we believe if not the scientists? Won't someone please think of the children. Tell me what to do, some scientists say the temp is warming and some say it's cooling and some sasy it's natural and others say that man is all powerful when it comes to climate. I'm so confused. Let's give them more money; that will solve the problem.The UAH and RSS temperature time series are indirect surface temperature measurements. The satellites are NOAA polar orbiting satellites with microwave sounding units. What they measure is microwave emissions from oxygen, which correlates with temperature. They measure these emissions in 4 thick bands. For the surface temperature series, they use the Tropical Lower Troposphere (TLT) band, which is actually a 10 km band that extends up from the surface. You can see the coverage of that band in this image:
The weighting function removes almost all of the stratospheric influence. Not all of it, but almost. That's important to account for because the stratosphere is actually cooling. The farther up you go, the lower the temperature trend, due to the radiative cooling impact of all that retained infra-red in the troposphere. The data undergoes a large amount of processing, to produce the channels, to weight the channels for altitude, to correct for satellite drift, and to merge two satellite instrument data streams together (with different instruments, and thus different calibration protocols). Compound that with the fact that there are more than 12 satellites being used for this temperature product.
The calibration is what the recent work from the University of Washington was investigating. For as yet undetermined reasons, the calibration of those satellites changes between the laboratory calibration and when the satellites are finally launched into space. The satellites actually use their own on-board temperature to determine the temperature on Earth. Over the life of the satellite, it's temperature will increase. Using radiosonde weather ballon data, the researchers found that the UAH observation of temperature was going down in comparison to those radiosondes. The radiosondes are direct temperature measurements, and are independent of the satellite temperature which will change depending on the angle of the sunlight hitting the satellite. Basically the processing at UAH is insufficient, and introduces a spurious cooling bias to the entire 30 year record.
Doesn't work that way. I didn't get any IPCC money, don't see why you would need it to understand some basic science.
Yeah, good point..... Tornadoes, hurricanes or even above average levels of rain in a season never, ever (not even once) occurred in this planet prior to the arrival of man.
Ya really got me on that uber-astute observation
Last edited:
Whose science, yours or these guys:
Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [8]
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[9][10][11]
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former Chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003), and author of books supporting the validity of dowsing[12]
Garth Paltridge, retired Chief Research Scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired Director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, Visiting Fellow ANU[13]
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[14]
Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute said in a 2009 essay: "The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate 'realistic' simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic."[15] ?
Just askin.