Have a bizzare question on global warming?

Question

Does anyone by any small, miniscule chance listen to the Neal Boortz show?

Cause I dont.

Anyways, he once mentioned that sensors for recording the earths temperature have to be placed 50 miles (or was it feet?) from civilization or anything man made that gives off heat, such as asphalt.

Does anyone know by chance where he got this information, be it book, internet whatever?

Also,

I am writing a paper on what is/isn't true about global warming, and if you know of any books that drag on about this topic in simple English (you know how they can get) Id appreciate if you would tell me. Preferably something that can be easily found and that I wont have to drive all the way to Jamaica to find.

k' luv ya byby

Answer 1

He has an archive on his web site. Not my favorite radio host, and you better verify what he says.

http://www.boortz.com

Answer 2

'Not by fire but by ice' easy to understand, not full of science jargon and you can get it at http://www.iceagenow.com i've read quite a few books on the subject and this was by far the easiest to understand

Answer 3

Check the National Weather Service or US Geological Survey.  Those are their standars for locating their recording equipment because what he mentioned can give false high readings

Answer 4

I occasionally 'catch' Bortz along with many others (including reactionary leftists).

Bortz has some good ideas - like eliminating the Infernal Revenuers (IRS).

The 'Urban Heat Islands' can be found at this Government web site.:

http://eetd.lbl.gov/heatisland/LEARN/

Expounded on here:

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/



If you want a very complete research about GW:

1. Temperature Stations:

http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaun...

2. Index:

http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaun...

3. Climate events of the Last 1,000 Years

http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaun...

Answer 5

Edit:  this is from Dana, and i think you'll like it:

http://greenhome.huddler.com/wiki/global...    

there are books, papers, sites, etc that both support and deny global warming.

some simple sites that deny global warming are junkscience and co2science.

there's a book,  "State of Fear"  that's often quoted by deniers -- although not as much lately, i note.  maybe because it has attracted enough attention that many of it's inaccurate points have been refuted so often.

as for support for AGW, there are a few posters here that are very good.  Bob, Ken, Dana, are but a few.  most don't allow email, to protect them from harassment.  some have made their Q&As private also to protect themselves.  it's unfortunate they have to do that.  following are some of the sites that i've used and posted.

<<Greenland lost roughly 164 cubic miles of ice from April 2004 to

April 2006 (more than the volume of water in Lake Erie), while the loss

between 2002 to 2004 was of 57 cubic miles.>>

Lake Erie volume: 116 cubic miles

the energy that caused that ice melt is enough to raise the temperature

of lake Erie from freezing, to boiling.

AND IN ADDITION, COMPLETELY BOIL AWAY ABOUT 9 CUBIC MILES OF IT.

That's warming, on a global scale.

when that much ice melts, the temperature doesn't change.

0 degree ice, and 0 degree water, are the same temperature.

but what too many people don't realize is the implication of all the

energy that the earth is absorbing, and storing.

which will, in the fairly near future, become far more obvious, when

there is insufficient ice remaining to absorb all that energy.

then you'll see heating.

http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/I...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4783...

http://www.livescience.com/environment/a...

http://www.physorg.com/news77978603.html

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Greenland...

support for the science.  thanks Ken.

http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2007/12...

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record...

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/...

http://www.ucar.edu/news/features/climat...

debunking deniers arguments.  thanks again, Ken.

http://scholarsandrogues.wordpress.com/2...

http://environment.newscientist.com/chan...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

http://www.philipclarkson.blogspot.com/ <= i don't like blogs but this is very well written.

Answer 6

I havent heard of his show, but I am willing to bet its 50 miles.  We generate  LOTS of heat, just think about it.

Answer 7

You can call or email Boortz and ask yourself.  Here is an article to counter some of those cited:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story...

Where is all the heat?

Answer 8

I don't listen to him, and I'm only passingly familiar with his show. But I imagine if he's talking about the UHI effect, and claiming that it contaminates the instrumental surface record, he's getting his information second hand from people who got it from Anthony Watt's "Surface Stations" project. The home site of the project is here:

http://surfacestations.org/

And Watt's personal Blog is here:

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/

As to your second question, I think I might just have the very book you're looking for. It's called, "The Discovery of Global Warming" by physicist and science historian Spencer Weart. The book has a great deal of information about the subject (it drags on), and is written in simple English.  If you're lucky, you can find it at your local library, or new or used bookseller. If not, you can get it from Amazon.com, and if even that fails, you can read most of it online for free here:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/

Have fun!

Answer 9

I don't know where he got the 50 from, but yes--there is a thing called urban heat sink, which means that cities get hotter because of all their blacktop.

Answer 10

Look for a bookd by al gore,or do some research

on the internet.

Look around because things you ask people on

here might not always be as true as you hoped they would.

Answer 11

Boortz is wrong if he's making this argument.

It's a commonly held misunderstanding actually.  It's true that heat from urban sources (i.e. buildings, asphalt, etc.) can contaminate temperature sensors.  However, scientists know how to correct for this effect.  One way they do this is to compare the urban station data to nearby rural station data.

It's easy to see if they've done a good job correcting for urban heat effects.  Just compare the "good" stations (far from urban heat sources) to "bad" stations (close to heat sources).  Here's what it looks like - red are "good" and green are "bad":

http://www.inturnsoftware.com/downloads/...

As you can see, there is no significant difference.  On top of that, we can compare satellite data (which obviously has no urban heat contamination) to the surface data.  Here's what it looks like - GISS and HadCRU are surface, UAH and RSS are satellites:

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2008/0...

Here's are some useful discussions of surface stations and how they correct for urban heat effects:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/07/30/s...

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/05/11/b...

Answer 12

Sensors don't have to be that far away.  Many studies have shown the data is NOT contaminated by that factor.  Example:

David E. Parker, Climate:  Large-scale warming is not urban, Nature 432, 290 (18 November 2004) | doi:10.1038/432290a

Things that are not true ("26 myths about global warming")

http://environment.newscientist.com/chan...

Answer 13

Try here.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd...