• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Perspectives on Temperature

Quaestio said:
You copied and pasted from a conspiracy blog with a well known history of lying and cherry picking to misinform lazy gullible people who won't bother to check facts? The delusions are strong in you.

But whats new. Same **** different day.
Click to expand...

More cowardice, running from the data that refute your claim. But what's new? SSDD.
 
Quaestio said:
Did you do any research on this subject before you posted your reply, or are you just parroting what others tell you?

You linked to a science denier blog by the Idso family. Well known fossil fuel funded science misinformers. LOL! It's a pretty 'professional' looking blog isn't it? Fools a lot of lazy gullible people who are just looking to confirm their own bias and won't bother to 'research' further to check the facts.
Tell me, did you actually read those papers?

From their science denying 'position statement'

"there is no compelling reason to believe that the rise in temperature was caused by the rise in CO2. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that future increases in the air's CO2 content will produce any global warming."


Try reading reputable sources like the major reports that summarize ALL the science, or do a search of all the published literature yourself. Not just mindlessly parrot dishonest cherry picking from a science denier blog.
Click to expand...

Here is one of the papers on New Zealand: http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/envirophilo/cookpalmer.pdf
 
Quaestio said:
Did you do any research on this subject before you posted your reply, or are you just parroting what others tell you?

You linked to a science denier blog by the Idso family. Well known fossil fuel funded science misinformers. LOL! It's a pretty 'professional' looking blog isn't it? Fools a lot of lazy gullible people who are just looking to confirm their own bias and won't bother to 'research' further to check the facts.
Tell me, did you actually read those papers?

From their science denying 'position statement'

"there is no compelling reason to believe that the rise in temperature was caused by the rise in CO2. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that future increases in the air's CO2 content will produce any global warming."


Try reading reputable sources like the major reports that summarize ALL the science, or do a search of all the published literature yourself. Not just mindlessly parrot dishonest cherry picking from a science denier blog.
Click to expand...

I'm really curious, do you understand the dynamics of CO2 in the Earths atmosphere, or do you believe that it is the boogyman that AGW alarmist have put out there. Have you read any "real" scientific papers on this subject?
CO2 makes up about .04% of the Earths atmosphere, CO2 levels in the Earths atmosphere have been higher in the past than they are today. A number of scientific papers show a lag between warming and CO2 increase, this suggest that CO2 is a product of warming and not a cause of warming. Do you understand that the Earth has been warming for the last 11,000 years? Do you understand that the number 1 contributor to warming is "water vapor" and not CO2?

It might benefit you to really do some reading about this subject from both sides and not just from the sources that support your views.
 
Terryj said:
I'm really curious, do you understand the dynamics of CO2 in the Earths atmosphere, or do you believe that it is the boogyman that AGW alarmist have put out there. Have you read any "real" scientific papers on this subject?
CO2 makes up about .04% of the Earths atmosphere, CO2 levels in the Earths atmosphere have been higher in the past than they are today. A number of scientific papers show a lag between warming and CO2 increase, this suggest that CO2 is a product of warming and not a cause of warming. Do you understand that the Earth has been warming for the last 11,000 years? Do you understand that the number 1 contributor to warming is "water vapor" and not CO2?

It might benefit you to really do some reading about this subject from both sides and not just from the sources that support your views.
Click to expand...

CO2 is not the boogyman, but you are wrong about it's levels being from temperature. Without our help, CO2 does indeed lag temperature. This however is a slow process.

The warming is not enough to produce the CO2 levels we have today. We are sourcing more CO2 than the biosphere balance can accommodate. Natural sinking and sourcing is far slower than our addition.

Yes, the warming will change the equilibrium, but not by much. The SST changes are not enough to account for the changes we see. If you do the math, you'll see somewhere around 290 ppm is about the max we would see if our atmospheric levels didn't have our help.

The current science claim CO2 accounts for around 31 W/m^2 of the warming, and H2O almost 200. What they don't properly account for is the negative feedbacks involved also. They hype the positive and downplay the negative feedback.

Solar is in fact the only significant source of energy heating the earth. Its two primary effects are the changes in solar radiance, and the amount that makes it to the surface. The changes in the atmospheres optical depth is the primary modulator of the earths heating. The optical depth is almost exclusively modulated by aerosols, both solid and liquid, which includes clouds. The IPCCC et. al. accounts for these changes when volcanoes erupt, but not for the changes in man made pollution, or the cloud cover increasing and decreasing. They treat this static. Maybe someone can show me a paper that show otherwise, as I have not seen one.

When we industrialized extensively in WWII, we started dimming the suns energy striking the surface. We started clearing the skies in the late 70's again. The greenhouse effect changes are near linear to the solar energy striking the surface. More or less sun on the surface means more or less upward IR. More or less upward IR means a stronger or weaker greenhouse effect.

Until the scientists have a high level of understanding of all variables involved and appropriately apply them, the science is polluted by politics, money, and confirmation bias.

I'll leave that much for thought for now.
 
Last edited:
[h=2]Fabricating A Warming: NASA Now Altering ‘Unadjusted” Data To Create New, Warmer ‘Unadjusted’ Data[/h]By P Gosselin on 31. March 2019
[h=3]By Kirye[/h]and Pierre Gosselin
One fellow climate blogger recently wrote on how he’s been been looking at GHCN ‘unadjusted’ data and noticed that scientists at NASA appear to have been altering them: “This is a fairly disturbing development,” he wrote.
Heating up Reykjavik and Nuuk
Cited as an example is Reykyavik, Iceland. According to Tony Heller here, “The current version V4 has massively cooled the past, to make it look like Iceland is warming.”
Heller then posted a chart showing the difference between v2 unadjusted and the new v4 ‘unadjusted’ for the Reykjavik station:

Heller also found here that the same appears to be the case for Nuuk, Greenland as well. . . .
 

New paper: Urbanization has increased minimum temperatures 1.7K in the UK

From the Royal Meteorological Society. (h/t to reader NJSnowFan) How much has urbanisation affected United Kingdom temperatures? Ian L. M. Goddard, Simon F. B. Tett Abstract This study aims to estimate the affect of urbanisation on daily maximum and minimum temperatures in the United Kingdom. Urban fractions were calculated for 10 km × 10 km areas surrounding…
Continue reading →

https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/asl.896

 
Jack Hays said:
[FONT=&][/FONT]
New paper: Urbanization has increased minimum temperatures 1.7K in the UK

[FONT=&]From the Royal Meteorological Society. (h/t to reader NJSnowFan) How much has urbanisation affected United Kingdom temperatures? Ian L. M. Goddard, Simon F. B. Tett Abstract This study aims to estimate the affect of urbanisation on daily maximum and minimum temperatures in the United Kingdom. Urban fractions were calculated for 10 km × 10 km areas surrounding…
Continue reading →

[/FONT]https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/asl.896[FONT=&]

[/FONT]
Click to expand...

LOL...

What have I been saying, when you start losing evaporation cooling...
 
Jack Hays said:
[FONT=&][/FONT]
New paper: Urbanization has increased minimum temperatures 1.7K in the UK

[FONT=&]From the Royal Meteorological Society. (h/t to reader NJSnowFan) How much has urbanisation affected United Kingdom temperatures? Ian L. M. Goddard, Simon F. B. Tett Abstract This study aims to estimate the affect of urbanisation on daily maximum and minimum temperatures in the United Kingdom. Urban fractions were calculated for 10 km × 10 km areas surrounding…
Continue reading →

[/FONT]https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/asl.896[FONT=&]

[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Yes, climate scientists are fully aware of the urban heat island effect and take it into account when determining global temperature change. Improved quantification of the effect, as exemplified by this paper, will help improve the accuracy of the UHI adjustments.
 
Surface Detail said:
Yes, climate scientists are fully aware of the urban heat island effect and take it into account when determining global temperature change. Improved quantification of the effect, as exemplified by this paper, will help improve the accuracy of the UHI adjustments.
Click to expand...

Sure they do.
 
Surface Detail said:
Yes, climate scientists are fully aware of the urban heat island effect and take it into account when determining global temperature change. Improved quantification of the effect, as exemplified by this paper, will help improve the accuracy of the UHI adjustments.
Click to expand...

But if you actually read the material, they say the same thing I have been saying.

The heat effecvt goes a long ways outside the city. Therefore, all monitoring stations nearby are affected, more than accounted for.
 
Last edited:
Lord of Planar said:
But if you actually read the material, they say the same thing I have been saying.

The heat effecvt goes a long ways outside the city. Therefore, all monitoring stations nearby are affected, more than accounted for.
Click to expand...

Where does it say that? Could you cite the relevant passage.
 
Surface Detail said:
Where does it say that? Could you cite the relevant passage.
Click to expand...
It was in one of the newer links cited as a source. I should have listed which one, but I didn't. Not going to go back and read them again. At least I read them. You obvious didn't follow up on the source links.
 
Surface Detail said:
Yes, climate scientists are fully aware of the urban heat island effect and take it into account when determining global temperature change. Improved quantification of the effect, as exemplified by this paper, will help improve the accuracy of the UHI adjustments.
Click to expand...

In urban areas.

This paper discuses the effect of being 20km away from the city. The effect of being 70km away from a city.
 
Surface Detail said:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-chapter3-1.pdf

See page 243, 3.2.2.2 Urban Heat Islands and Land Use Effects
Click to expand...

[FONT=&quot]". . . Previous studies have generally concluded that urban warming has had a negligible effect on global scale temperature series (Peterson [/FONT]et al.,[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]1999[FONT=&quot]; Parker, [/FONT]2004[FONT=&quot]). For example, Jones [/FONT]et al.[FONT=&quot]([/FONT]1990[FONT=&quot]) showed that the urban warming effect corresponds to no more than 0.1 K over the last century. However on regional scales, the affect of urbanisation on temperature may be significant. . . . "

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]The full paper: (open access)[/FONT]
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/asl.896[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
 
Jack Hays said:
[FONT=&quot]". . . Previous studies have generally concluded that urban warming has had a negligible effect on global scale temperature series (Peterson [/FONT]et al.,[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]1999[FONT=&quot]; Parker, [/FONT]2004[FONT=&quot]). For example, Jones [/FONT]et al.[FONT=&quot]([/FONT]1990[FONT=&quot]) showed that the urban warming effect corresponds to no more than 0.1 K over the last century. However on regional scales, the affect of urbanisation on temperature may be significant. . . . "

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]The full paper: (open access)[/FONT]
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/asl.896[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Thank you, Jack.
 

Darwin Temperatures; What is going on?

By Bob Irvine Darwin Australia is one of only two temperature stations in an entire NASA grid and, therefore, has a disproportionate influence on the NASA-GISS global temperature reconstruction. The other station used by NASA in this grid is Gove (Stn. # 014508). Gove only goes back to 1985 which leaves Darwin as the only…
Continue reading →

[FONT=&quot]. . . It is clear from their Fig, 4.1 that they have artificially cooled temperatures significantly before 1960. This report was done in 2015 and comments on Acorn-Sat version 1 from 2012. Acorn-Sat 2 has doubled this artificial cooling of historical temperatures.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The “Forum” commentary does not attempt to discuss this artificial historical cooling and focuses entirely on the post 1960 period that matches reasonably well. This appears to be a little disingenuous. It is also clear that the measured temperature since 1980 has been artificially warmed slightly. The overall affect of these adjustments is exaggerated 20thcentury warming that suspiciously gives support to the global warming meme.[/FONT]

 
[h=2]CBC Claims Canada Warming Twice As Fast As Globe, Yet Data Tell A Different Story: No Warming In 25 Years![/h]By P Gosselin on 3. April 2019
By Kirye (Tokyo)
Canada’s CBC here recently cited “a leaked report” which claimed Canada is “warming at twice the global rate.”
According to the “leaked report”, Canada’s annual average temperature over land has warmed 1.7 C when looking at the data since 1948. But that claim is misleading when recent data is considered.
Over the past 25 years, since scientists began to warn that the planet was warming in earnest, there has not been any warming when one looks at the untampered data provided by the Japan meteorology Agency (JMA) that were measured by 9 different stations across Canada. These 9 stations have the data dating back to around 1983 or 1986, so I used their datasats.
Looking at the JMA database and plotting the stations with longer term recording, we have the following chart:

Data source: JMA.​
Though temperatures over Canada no doubt have risen over the past century, there has not been any real warming in over 25 years. Rather, there’s been slight cooling, though not statistically significant. Clearly there hasn’t been any Canadian warming recently.
So it is misleading — to say the least — to give the impression that Canada warming has been accelerating.
 
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]DARWIN TEMPERATURES: UNSCRAMBLING THE ACORN SAT 2 SERIES[/h][FONT=&quot]DARWIN TEMPERATURES: UNSCRAMBLING THE ACORN SAT 2 SERIES By Bob Irvine There have been a number of adjustments made to the Darwin temperature record in recent years that have significantly increased its trend from 1910 to 2016. This trend increase is largely due to the lowering of historical temperatures. The BOM has achieved this significant…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]
 
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]2019 ENSO forecast[/h][FONT=&quot]Reposted from Climate Etc. by Judith Curry and Jim Johnstone CFAN’s 2019 ENSO forecast is for a transition away from El Niño conditions as the summer progresses. The forecast for Sept-Oct-Nov 2019 calls for 60% probability of ENSO neutral conditions, with 40% probability of weak El Niño conditions. – Forecast issued 3/25/19 Introduction CFAN’s early…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]
 
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]El Niño Conditions Persist in the Pacific Ocean[/h][FONT=&quot]An El Niño that began to form last fall has matured and is now fully entrenched across the Pacific Ocean. Changes in sea surface temperatures (SSTs) brought about by an El Niño affect the atmosphere, resulting in distinctive changes in the rainfall pattern across the Pacific Basin. These changes show up as anomalies or deviations…
[/FONT]
4 hours ago April 16, 2019 in ENSO.
 
[h=1]The Soho Forum Global Warming Debate, And The Impact Of Scientific Arguments[/h]April 17, 2019/ Francis Menton[FONT=&quot]As you may have noticed from the announcement that appeared for the past week or so on my sidebar, the Soho Forum held a debate Monday night on the issue of Global Warming. The official resolution for the debate was Resolved: There is little or no rigorous evidence that rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are causing dangerous global warming and threatening life on the planet. The debaters were Craig Idso for the affirmative, and Jeffrey Bennett for the negative.
For those who haven’t heard of it, the Soho Forum sponsors debates, roughly monthly, on current policy issues. The venue is usually the Subculture Theater, at 45 Bleecker Street in Manhattan. The Forum’s Director is long-time Barron’s senior editor Gene Epstein, and the Chief Operating Officer is my daughter Jane. Other recent Soho Forum debate topics have included things like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the causes of the 2008-09 financial crisis.
Holding a debate on the issue of global warming or “climate change” — and particularly one focused on the scientific question of whether empirical evidence supports or refutes the hypothesis of potential dangerous warming — is often difficult. Contrary to what you might think, the problem is not that it is hard to find scientifically-literate advocates for the skeptic position. Actually, there are plenty of those. Rather, the problem generally is that adherents to the alarmist cause refuse to debate anyone who disagrees with their position, often denigrating their adversaries as “climate deniers.” So Gene Epstein deserves credit for locating Mr. Bennett, and Mr. Bennett also deserves credit for being willing to put his position to the test.
On the other hand, the whole endeavor gave some real perspective on the practical limits of the human mind, or at least the large majority of even very intelligent human minds, to grapple with the basics of scientific reasoning and the scientific method. At its most fundamental, the scientific method is just an exercise in rigorous logic. . . .
READ MORE[/FONT]
 
[FONT=&quot]Climate Myths[/FONT]
[h=1]Cooling Down the Hysteria About Global Warming[/h][FONT=&quot]Guest essay by Rich Enthoven Recently, NASA released its annual report on global temperatures and reported that 2018 was the fourth hottest year on record, surpassed only by three recent years. This claim was accompanied by dire predictions of climate change and for immediate action to dramatically curtail CO2 emissions around the globe. Like every…
[/FONT]
 
[h=2]Alarm-Silencing Spring: Data Show March Mean Temperatures Have Not Been Warming Alarmingly As Claimed[/h]By P Gosselin on 24. April 2019
[h=3]By Kirye[/h]Today we’ll take a look at March mean temperatures and their trend for some locations for which almost complete data are available from the Japan meteorology Agency.
Though March is only a single month, it is important because we often hear how spring is supposedly arriving earlier due to global warming, and as a result winters will get shorter before disappearing altogether, according to some alarmists “experts”.
The arrival of spring is also important because the length of the growing season depends on it.
[h=3]No trend in Canada in 30 years[/h]What follows first is the chart for March mean temperature for 9 stations scattered over Canada. These stations were selected because they are the very few that have almost complete data sets going back 3 decades.

Data source: JMA

.....​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom