Perspectives on Temperature

longview · Nov 26, 2019

Buzz said:
You are not seriously suggesting what I think you are suggesting... are you?

:lamo

You may assume anything you like, but we have words in a language for a reason!
The erroneous expected warming used in the some of the models was .21 °C/decade.
This error, stated as having been a continuation of the 1978 to 1998 warming.
Climate change: The case of the missing heat : Nature News & Comment

Stark contrast
On a chart of global atmospheric temperatures, the hiatus stands in stark contrast to the rapid warming of the two decades that preceded it.
Simulations conducted in advance of the 2013–14 assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggest that the
warming should have continued at an average rate of 0.21 °C per decade from 1998 to 2012. Instead, the observed warming during that period was just 0.04 °C
per decade, as measured by the UK Met Office in Exeter and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK.

A recorded heat island effect of 0.8°C/decade is enormous, and unlikely to have been accounted for in the homogenization formulas.
If you think they knew that the urban heat island effect was so large and accounted for it, then you can cite some supporting publication.

longview · Nov 26, 2019

Buzz said:
Did you read the study? Obviously Not.

Sorry Lord, but this study still doesn't back up your wildly speculative theory that UHI is the real cause of the warming trend in planetary temps.

It sound more like you do not understand what the paper stated,
Frontal weather differences between San Antonio and New Braunfels, ~35 miles apart are sometimes different, but only for about 1 hour.
When measuring a warming rate per decade, 1 hour (at most) delay in front arrival is very unlikely to make much difference.

Jack Hays · Nov 26, 2019

Buzz said:
You're the one copying and pasting lies onto the forum. Unfortunately, for us all, you don't understand the science well enough to know better than to just repeat Curry's lie.

And I am sure you will go ahead and continue to repeat her lies no matter how many times they are shown to be lies.
You just don't care if what you post is BS or not.

She's not lying. No one cares about your unreasoning fanaticism and paranoia. You've got one thing right though -- I'll continue to post Dr. Curry's wise words.

Lord of Planar · Nov 26, 2019

Buzz said:
Did you read the study? Obviously Not.

Sorry Lord, but this study still doesn't back up your wildly speculative theory that UHI is the real cause of the warming trend in planetary temps.

You need to first comprehend what my contention is. You obviously don't because it does not dispel my argument.

My argument is the loss of evapotranspiration from rainwater being directed into storm sewers. My argument is the wind moves this heat downwind, and when downwind has a meteorological station in its path, it skews the local reading of the meteorological station.

Why is this so difficult to comprehend?

It supports my argument. It is blowing that heat elsewhere.

My God man.

Buy a clue.

Lord of Planar · Nov 26, 2019

longview said:
It sound more like you do not understand what the paper stated,
Frontal weather differences between San Antonio and New Braunfels, ~35 miles apart are sometimes different, but only for about 1 hour.
When measuring a warming rate per decade, 1 hour (at most) delay in front arrival is very unlikely to make much difference.

And if the wind is blowing at 35 MPH...

Buzz · Nov 27, 2019

longview said:
You may assume anything you like, but we have words in a language for a reason!
The erroneous expected warming used in the some of the models was .21 °C/decade.
This error, stated as having been a continuation of the 1978 to 1998 warming.
Climate change: The case of the missing heat : Nature News & Comment

OMG... are you really citing that almost 5-year-old article that allows you to ignore the last 7 years of temps AGAIN?

:lamo

longview said:
A recorded heat island effect of 0.8°C/decade is enormous, and unlikely to have been accounted for in the homogenization formulas.
If you think they knew that the urban heat island effect was so large and accounted for it, then you can cite some supporting publication.

Actually the 0.8°C/decade is just for the month of June, for just 13 years and just one city. And then you are comparing it to the global temperature trend. You never have been very good at understanding what are and are not legitimate comparisons. This one is not.

And to quote the study:

The UHI may also affect climate change studies since temperatures are gathered in urban areas and need to be calibrated for the UHI. However, this has been disputed by Hansen et al.[7] and Peterson[8] who claim that the influence of urban heat bias on estimates of global surface temperature change is minimal.

longview said:
It sound more like you do not understand what the paper stated,
Frontal weather differences between San Antonio and New Braunfels, ~35 miles apart are sometimes different, but only for about 1 hour.
When measuring a warming rate per decade, 1 hour (at most) delay in front arrival is very unlikely to make much difference.

I would say you don't understand. They are referring to "frontal weather" because fronts can change both wind speeds and directions. And those variables can persist for hours or even days.

Buzz · Nov 27, 2019

Jack Hays said:
She's not lying. No one cares about your unreasoning fanaticism and paranoia. You've got one thing right though -- I'll continue to post Dr. Curry's wise words.

Well... she is either lying or just made a huge mistake for someone who claims to be an actual climate scientist.

And thanks for proving me correct when I say you will continue to cut and paste her BS. Like I said... You just don't care if what you post is BS or not. And that is truely pathetic.

Buzz · Nov 27, 2019

Lord of Planar said:
You need to first comprehend what my contention is. You obviously don't because it does not dispel my argument.

My argument is the loss of evapotranspiration from rainwater being directed into storm sewers. My argument is the wind moves this heat downwind, and when downwind has a meteorological station in its path, it skews the local reading of the meteorological station.

Why is this so difficult to comprehend?

It supports my argument. It is blowing that heat elsewhere.

Oh for God's sake Lord... I have only been refuting your loss of evapotranspiration theory for well over 2 years now and clearly understand it far better than you. I can actually cite data and studies to back my-self up. You, on the other hand, can't back up jack ****!!

Like this study here. It states that when the wind blows that UHI is suppressed. This doesn't really support your belief that the wind blows the UHI around enough to effect surrounding temperature readings.

Why is this so difficult for you to comprehend?

Lord of Planar said:
And if the wind is blowing at 35 MPH...

Then there probably isn't enough UHI to significantly change any surrounding temps.

longview · Nov 27, 2019

Lord of Planar said:
And if the wind is blowing at 35 MPH...

And when the fronts come in it usually is!

longview · Nov 27, 2019

Buzz said:
OMG... are you really citing that almost 5-year-old article that allows you to ignore the last 7 years of temps AGAIN?

:lamo

Actually the 0.8°C/decade is just for the month of June, for just 13 years and just one city. And then you are comparing it to the global temperature trend. You never have been very good at understanding what are and are not legitimate comparisons. This one is not.

And to quote the study:

I would say you don't understand. They are referring to "frontal weather" because fronts can change both wind speeds and directions. And those variables can persist for hours or even days.

Buzz, the Nature article speaks to what the models were expecting and why.
They saw the observed changes between 1978 and 1998 as continuing at .21 °C/decade.
As to the study, it covered a broader time frame, june was just an example of their findings.
(PDF) Current Perspectives to Environment and Climate Change Vol. 2

The study was designed to compare 20 years of daily air temperature records (1991-2010) of San Antonio, Texas (USA), with three small surrounding communities;
New Braunfels, Poteet, and Boerne. These towns are all within 50 kilometers of San Antonio and have contemporary temperature records.

Fronts can change both wind speed and direction, and do persist for several days, but affect close geography almost the same.

Buzz · Nov 27, 2019

longview said:
Buzz, the Nature article speaks to what the models were expecting and why.
They saw the observed changes between 1978 and 1998 as continuing at .21 °C/decade.

Cut the BS long... it is you cherry-picking data again.

longview said:
As to the study, it covered a broader time frame, june was just an example of their findings.
(PDF) Current Perspectives to Environment and Climate Change Vol. 2

Fine... then don't use an example to compare the whole planet too. It just doesn't prove anything.

longview said:
Fronts can change both wind speed and direction, and do persist for several days, but affect close geography almost the same.

Yes... the same suppression of UHI. That they admit they don't correct for.

Jack Hays · Nov 27, 2019

Buzz said:
Well... she is either lying or just made a huge mistake for someone who claims to be an actual climate scientist.

And thanks for proving me correct when I say you will continue to cut and paste her BS. Like I said... You just don't care if what you post is BS or not. And that is truely pathetic.

The only BS here is your own unreasoning fanaticism.

Lord of Planar · Nov 27, 2019

Buzz said:
Oh for God's sake Lord... I have only been refuting your loss of evapotranspiration theory for well over 2 years now and clearly understand it far better than you. I can actually cite data and studies to back my-self up. You, on the other hand, can't back up jack ****!!

LOL...

You never have cited a study that addresses the angle I present, in fact, you are a denier of what I say. You clearly cannot grasp it from what the heat of evaporation really is.

You are a denier of science.

Please, show us again what you think you know and I don't know.

Please, explain to the class how I am wrong. In your words. Not some link you think you comprehend.

Buzz said:
Like this study here. It states that when the wind blows that UHI is suppressed. This doesn't really support your belief that the wind blows the UHI around enough to effect surrounding temperature readings.

That heat is moved by the wind. It doesn't magically disappear. If a measuring station is in it's path. it will read warmer than if the urban area didn't exist, and was in its natural form in the 1700's.

Jack Hays · Nov 27, 2019

[h=2]More Real Data Totally Contradict Fake Media… Show Scandinavia, Ireland NOT WARMING Over Past Decades[/h]By P Gosselin on 27. November 2019
[h=3]By Kirye[/h]and Pierre Gosselin
Global warming alarmists like to tell us the planet is warming faster and faster.
Yet, when we look objectively at the untampered data, we see this is not the case at all at many locations. Today we look at the (untampered) data from the Japan Meteorology Agency (JMA) for some stations across northern Europe for the month of October.
According to global warming believers, winter is supposed to be coming later, and spring arriving earlier. So looking at the season transition month of October is interesting.
[h=3]Ireland[/h]At the JMA we find seven stations in Ireland that have October data going back sufficiently to 1994:

Data source: JMA

As the chart above shows, 6 of 7 stations in Ireland show October temperatures have a COOLING trend since 1994. How can winter be possibly coming later?
Finland
Next we have October data from the Scandinavian country of Finland, near the Arctic, where it’s supposedly warming rapidly and a it is the climate canary in a coal mine.

Data source: JMA

In Finland we have data from 6 stations, and they clearly show that there has not been any real warming at all over the past quarter century.
Isn’t it puzzling that we continue to hear reports from alarmists from every direction that the warming is speeding up? It stinks like some cynical Communist-grade propaganda, doesn’t it?

With all the fakes news we’ve been witnessing lately, nothing should surprise us anymore. We certainly need to be careful when it comes to believing these now infamously dubious media sources.
Norway
Next we move on to Scandinavian Norway, which is situated next to the North Atlantic, and so there oceanic cycles would have a truly profound effect.

(Note: I didn’t include stations which don’t have the data from 20 century.) Data source: JMA

Lo and behold: Six of 11 stations in Norway show October temperatures have had no warming trend since 1999.
[h=3]Sweden[/h]And not surprisingly, the story is the same in Sweden.
Here the 6 stations with sufficient JMA data were examined, and here as well there’s been no real warming to speak of since 1995.

Data source: JMA here.

Four of the 6 stations in Sweden show October temperatures have had no warming trend since 1995.
Where’s the climate emergency that hysterical alarmists are pushing to declare? There hasn’t been any since the IPCC issued it’s 2nd assessment report – a quarter of a century ago! . . .

longview · Nov 28, 2019

Buzz said:
Cut the BS long... it is you cherry-picking data again.

Fine... then don't use an example to compare the whole planet too. It just doesn't prove anything.

Yes... the same suppression of UHI. That they admit they don't correct for.

It is not that they do not correct for the UHI effect, but the correction is a lower amount that the empirical evidence.
Urban Heat Islands and U.S. Temperature Trends << RealClimate
realclimate, an alarmist site says,

In our paper (Hausfather et al, 2013) (pdf, alt. site), we found that urban-correlated biases account for between 14 and 21% of the rise in unadjusted minimum temperatures since 1895 and 6 to 9% since 1960.

Where as the measured amount in San Antonio was higher by .8C per decade since 1960, would be many times greater.

Jack Hays · Nov 30, 2019

How AGW advocates misrepresent temperature:

[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[h=1]Three Graphs[/h][FONT=&quot]News Brief by Kip Hansen — 30 November 2019 A recent study in Oceanography, the Official Magazine of The Oceanography Society, titled “Atlantic warming since the Little Ice Age” [.pdf here], is interesting in its entirety, with an Abstract as follows: “Radiocarbon observations suggest that the deep Atlantic Ocean takes up to several…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]

Buzz · Dec 1, 2019

Jack Hays said:
The only BS here is your own unreasoning fanaticism.

My unreasoning fanaticism??

:lamo

Do you really have no self-awareness of what you do here on this forum? That your constant posting of denialist propaganda is the very definition of fanaticism? And since you literally have no clue whether what you post is true or not it is perfectly legitimate to describe your fanaticism as unreasoning.

I think we have a perfect example of projection here.

Buzz · Dec 1, 2019

Lord of Planar said:
You never have cited a study that addresses the angle I present,...

You are correct... just like you have never cited a study that supports your "angle". You have even admitted that you can't find anything in the scientific literature to back it up.

Lord of Planar said:
...in fact, you are a denier of what I say. You clearly cannot grasp it from what the heat of evaporation really is.

Yes... I deny what you say because it is wrong. And to say I can't grasp the topic is a lie.

Lord of Planar said:
You are a denier of science.

I never deny science. And while I am far from perfect I am very careful about making sure what I argue is based on science. That is why I don't even have a thousand posts here. Unlike you, I research and think about what I say before I post. You don't even bother to spell check yourself before you post.

Lord of Planar said:
Please, show us again what you think you know and I don't know.

Please, explain to the class how I am wrong. In your words. Not some link you think you comprehend.

No problem, I have explained in the past how your estimations of increased heating due to loss of evaporation are greatly exaggerated. And I am sure your selective memory has conveniently forgotten all about it. Or do you remember the time you decided to calculate how much you thought the loss of evapotranspiration in Portland Oregon warms the city over the course of a year? You came up with a ridiculously high number of about 50 W/m2. And I provided numerous reasons why your number was a joke most of which you ignored or just blew off. And I actually provided sources to back myself up while you never provided anything except the annual average rainfall of the city. You couldn't even cite the correct number for the heat of vaporization of water.

Here is the start of that debate

You never proved anything I said back then to be wrong. You made plenty of false assertions but couldn't actually back yourself up. Not even once.

Then there is evaporation data that I found later on. In it, you can see proof that when Portland(N. Willamette Exp Station is just south of Portland) gets most of its precipitation there isn't enough evaporation happening to evaporate anywhere near all the water. And when there is the most evaporation happening there isn't enough precipitation to supply the evaporation.

The fact of the matter is that warming due to lost evapotranspiration is nowhere near as large as you think.

Lord of Planar said:
That heat is moved by the wind. It doesn't magically disappear. If a measuring station is in it's path. it will read warmer than if the urban area didn't exist, and was in its natural form in the 1700's.

How much warmer? You have no way of knowing except to guess. For all you know it could be a thousandth of a degree and nowhere near a significant amount. Or do you have any data that says otherwise?

Buzz · Dec 1, 2019

longview said:
It is not that they do not correct for the UHI effect, but the correction is a lower amount that the empirical evidence.
Urban Heat Islands and U.S. Temperature Trends << RealClimate
realclimate, an alarmist site says,

Where as the measured amount in San Antonio was higher by .8C per decade since 1960, would be many times greater.

Damn long... sometimes you amaze me with the relevant studies you find and cite. But then almost every time you do you completely miss the most important part or just flat out misrepresent what the study says. And you are doing exactly that with this study.

From the conclusion of that study:

The simple take-away is that while UHI and other urban-correlated biases are real (and can have a big effect), current methods of detecting and correcting localized breakpoints are generally effective in removing that bias. Blog claims that UHI explains any substantial fraction of the recent warming in the US are just not supported by the data.

emphasis mine

I think you have actually found a study that helps prove LoP wrong!!

longview · Dec 1, 2019

Buzz said:
Damn long... sometimes you amaze me with the relevant studies you find and cite. But then almost every time you do you completely miss the most important part or just flat out misrepresent what the study says. And you are doing exactly that with this study.

From the conclusion of that study:

emphasis mine

I think you have actually found a study that helps prove LoP wrong!!

And you simply ignored the part where they said,

we found that urban-correlated biases account for between 14 and 21% of the rise in unadjusted minimum temperatures since 1895 and 6 to 9% since 1960.

I am going to guess that San Antonio's .8C per decade since 1960 relative to 35 miles away, vastly exceeds the adjustments.

Buzz · Dec 1, 2019

longview said:
And you simply ignored the part where they said,

Those are the unadjusted numbers and by themselves don't prove anything. This debate is about whether or not the UHI effect is being sufficiently removed from the temp records to avoid biasing them. You can't determine that from just the unadjusted numbers.

longview said:
I am going to guess that San Antonio's .8C per decade since 1960 relative to 35 miles away, vastly exceeds the adjustments.

Guess is right! It might help to look at all the data and not just cherry-pick the data that supports your belief.

Jack Hays · Dec 1, 2019

Buzz said:
My unreasoning fanaticism??

:lamo

Do you really have no self-awareness of what you do here on this forum? That your constant posting of denialist propaganda is the very definition of fanaticism? And since you literally have no clue whether what you post is true or not it is perfectly legitimate to describe your fanaticism as unreasoning.

I think we have a perfect example of projection here.

Please cite any post of mine that you think is untrue. Can't find one? I thought not.
I have my own thoughts on what is most likely to be true regarding climate, based on my reading and knowledge of the history of science. But unlike you I have no specific agenda to push, so no, I don't qualify as a fanatic.

longview · Dec 1, 2019

Buzz said:
Those are the unadjusted numbers and by themselves don't prove anything. This debate is about whether or not the UHI effect is being sufficiently removed from the temp records to avoid biasing them. You can't determine that from just the unadjusted numbers.

Guess is right! It might help to look at all the data and not just cherry-pick the data that supports your belief.

Had they adjusted for .8C per decade since difference, the record might show cooling instead of warming, the number is much larger than the recorded warming.

Lord of Planar · Dec 1, 2019

Buzz said:
You are correct... just like you have never cited a study that supports your "angle".

If you understood science, you wouldn't need some paper to tell you what to believe. My explanations are facts of science.

Buzz · Dec 1, 2019

Jack Hays said:
Please cite any post of mine that you think is untrue. Can't find one? I thought not.

Oh, I can find plenty. As a matter of fact, I have personally shown that you and/or your posts are wrong numerous times. And there are literally hundreds, if not thousands of times others here have done the same.

Seriously Jack, just the fact that you think your posts are never wrong is a sure sign that you are fanatical about pushing denialist BS.

Jack Hays said:
I have my own thoughts on what is most likely to be true regarding climate, based on my reading and knowledge of the history of science. But unlike you I have no specific agenda to push, so no, I don't qualify as a fanatic.

If you have no agenda then why does over 99% of what you post in this section of the forum always push the denialist perspective?

Perspectives on Temperature

longview

longview

Jack Hays

Traveler

Lord of Planar

Lord of Planar

Buzz

Irritant

Buzz

Irritant

Buzz

Irritant

longview

longview

Buzz

Irritant

Jack Hays

Traveler

Lord of Planar

Jack Hays

Traveler

longview

Jack Hays

Traveler

Buzz

Irritant

Buzz

Irritant

Buzz

Irritant

longview

Buzz

Irritant

Jack Hays

Traveler

longview

Lord of Planar

Buzz

Irritant