Comments on: Parker and Fresno Airport

By: Phil Jones and the China Network: Part 2 « Climate Audit

Phil Jones and the China Network: Part 2 « Climate Audit — Thu, 04 Nov 2010 23:16:36 +0000

[...] proved that UHI was unimportant , with several posts on Peterson 2003 here and Parker 2006 here here here, also concluding that this analysis didn’t prove anything. Whatever the true contribution of [...]

By: Nasif Nahle

Nasif Nahle — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 17:02:49 +0000

# 27

GMF,

The anomalies in the Tropospheric Temperature (TT) are the resultant of Climate Changes, not vice versa. I know that most people think the opposite, but the TT is a factor of climate; the climate is not a factor of TT. I also know that many people would say that the TT can change the climate, but they have to demonstrate it with evidence. The climate is delineated by many factors; Pluvial Precipitation, water beds, RH, TT and biomass are significant components of climate. If we alter the topography or destroy the biomes in a given zone, the climate could change on that particular zone and that change could be accompanied by anomalies in the TT, but not necessarily because it could be the opposite.

By: Nasif Nahle

Nasif Nahle — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 16:29:29 +0000

# 27

I’ve made a comparison between interstellar cosmic radiation and the trend of tropospheric temperatures. When I was looking for information about an anomaly in the incoming cosmic rays I found that the Voyagers 1 and 2 had meet the anomaly in the bow shock.

When I graphed the intensity of the radiation and nucleons that overcome the solar wind, I found a coincidence with the annual tendency of the anomaly of the Earth’s tropospheric temperature. Right in opposition to which Dr. Nir Shaviv of the Hebrew University discovered some years ago. This could be explained if we take into account that Dr. Shaviv referred to particles, that is, nucleons of Helium and Hydrogen.

I also looked in the information related to climate changes in the Solar System and I found information about warming and climate change in almost all the planets of the Solar System and in some moons around those planets. This is more than a simple coincidence with Mars’ Global Warming. It is interesting to see that all the planetary and satellite climate changes started 30 years ago, at the same time than on Earth.

I concluded that the global warming is the resultant from the climate change, and that GW and CC are phenomena related with the Cosmic Radiation incoming from the Sun and from the Interstellar Medium. There are cosmic clouds and bubbles of high density Radiation in the galactic vicinity. ESA, NASA and JAXA have confirmed that our Solar System is now immersed in one of those huge interstellar cosmic clouds.

By: Sam

Sam — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 19:50:09 +0000

Just for information, I flew out of Fresno in August of 2003. A new terminal building had been added fairly recently. The facilities were very nice although on the small side. However, it is a good place to be leaving.

By: Steve Sadlov

Steve Sadlov — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 17:39:58 +0000

http://winjack3.com/1960s_12.html

Typical mid to late 1960s airport scene.

By: GMF

GMF — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 17:19:05 +0000

Re #21 I saw someone mention this as a rebuttal to the claim that Mars GW is a big problem for the AGW crowd. The way they described it was that the winds on Mars had blown away the sand covering the darker rocks and so changed the albedo. But that seems a bit er – convenient – doesn’t it? The wind only manages to blow light colored sand away from the dark rocks, it doesn’t blow sand over the dark rocks (reversing the process). So the process has to work in a very specific (and unrealistic way) in order to produce the natural, endogenous warming on Mars. This allows us to, conveniently, discard the possibility of an exogenous source of GW in the solar system.

By the way, if the planet’s albedo changed that much, it should be easy to determine from photographs.

This looks like another piece of “greenhouse science” – a hypothesis with no empirical support generated for singular purpose of denying evidence that casts doubt on the Holy Gospel of AGW.

Despite what they say about skeptics, it seems to me they’ve got a pretty good line in denial going themselves…

By: Steve Sadlov

Steve Sadlov — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 16:10:53 +0000

RE: 25 – “the” should have been “to” – one of my repeated dyslexic goofs ….

By: Steve Sadlov

Steve Sadlov — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 16:09:24 +0000

RE: #22 – The area around 99 is definitely to most attractive area to live in. You’re starting to see the orographic up slope effect, there is surface water from the Sierra and artesian wells, and the towns have an established look and feel (well, except the sprawls of Sacto, Fresno and Bakersfield). Sort of scary though, to think of a continuous strip city from Marysville down the Fresno.

RE: #23 – The area where the Yosemite station is located is a de facto strip mall environment, with a major maintenance yard adjacent to it. It was already somewhat in place during the 70s, but definitely has expanded and densified since then.

By: Steve McIntyre

Steve McIntyre — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 15:28:44 +0000

http://www.globe.org.uk/activities/atmos/weatherp.doc

There should be plants and soil beneath the Stevenson Screen, not concrete. Concrete would reflect heat back up to the shelter.

By: Steven mosher

Steven mosher — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 07:15:28 +0000

RE 19.

TMax stable and Tmin rising. i saw the same thing in Yosemite data ( eyeball analysis)
Would it be safe to assume that this is an “accepted” signal of ubanization?

Related question, ( too lazy to look) are urbanizaton adjustments, therefore, only made to
Tmin?

Are the CIMIS sites worth looking at, to contrast with The airport?

http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/WEATHER/SITES/fresno.html