2024 is starting out even warmer than 2023!

[Volunteer]

Do we also have to consider the billions of people who are alive and productive today, because of the benefits of fossil fuels?
What things do you depend on every day, that would not be available but for our use of fossil fuels?

Yes, those are true benefits. But at what cost?

 

[longview]

Yes, those are true benefits. But at what cost?

Perhaps minimal, there is no empirical scientific evidence that added CO2 does much of anything.
While it is true that CO2 can absorb 15um photons, under the right conditions, the energy imbalance causing the warming is not in that portion of the spectrum.
From my perspective (four plus decades in science) the biggest problem with fossil fuels, is that the supply is finite.

 

[Slavister]

Updated chart as of today... No relief in sight.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Updated chart as of today... No relief in sight.


View attachment 67499745

Yes, and observed temperatures will continue to increase as long as we continue to grow our populations and cities.

Meteorological station do not represent global temperatures. They represent the temperature of their immediate location, and most are within the bounds of the growing urban heat island effect.

until we have several thousand more monitoring stations in regions of the globe untouched otherwise by man, we cannot do anything but guess at the global temperature.

 

[Slavister]

Yes, and observed temperatures will continue to increase as long as we continue to grow our populations and cities.

Meteorological station do not represent global temperatures. They represent the temperature of their immediate location, and most are within the bounds of the growing urban heat island effect.

until we have several thousand more monitoring stations in regions of the globe untouched otherwise by man, we cannot do anything but guess at the global temperature.

Not according to NASA

 

[Lord of Planar]

Not according to NASA

Not everything under the NASA umbrella is accurate. They claim the UHIE is accounted for, and yes. They try to do that. But it is impossible to properly quantify the skew, and it is just one big guess. I believe thay do coirrections based on what they believe the earth should have warmed with their hyped up belief of CO2 sensitivity.

Dis you know that authors not tied to the UN's IPCC collective paper writing staff, who have written papers on CO2 sensitivity, make sensitivity clams far lower than the IPCC et. al. My own assessment is in line with others, that a doubling of CO2 is about o.6 C.

I have read several studies that speak of the corrections used. None of them are possible be accurate to correct.
They easily have at least a 6 degree error range.

Notice the author of that page does not link any studies. Notice that there isn't even an authors name.

Your standards for accepting what you read as fact are exceptionally low.

 

[Slavister]

Not everything under the NASA umbrella is accurate. They claim the UHIE is accounted for, and yes. They try to do that. But it is impossible to properly quantify the skew, and it is just one big guess. I believe thay do coirrections based on what they believe the earth should have warmed with their hyped up belief of CO2 sensitivity.

Dis you know that authors not tied to the UN's IPCC collective paper writing staff, who have written papers on CO2 sensitivity, make sensitivity clams far lower than the IPCC et. al. My own assessment is in line with others, that a doubling of CO2 is about o.6 C.

I have read several studies that speak of the corrections used. None of them are possible be accurate to correct.
They easily have at least a 6 degree error range.

Notice the author of that page does not link any studies. Notice that there isn't even an authors name.

Your standards for accepting what you read as fact are exceptionally low.

I trust scientists more than I trust you or your random unverifiable claims. And yes, that includes prominent scientists in IPCC. Sorry you disagree. I don't care.

"Heat islands may skew long-term temperature records as urbanization encroaches on weather stations located near the outskirts of town. Consequently, researchers must remove heat island effects from temperature records to accurately estimate climate change.

The data may be corrected in a variety of ways. In some cases, researchers statistically adjust urban weather station data to match trends seen in nearby rural stations; in other analyses urban data are simply excluded from the record."

EPA

See... not that hard.

You wanted a paper?

"Urban heat island effects are real but local, and have not biased the large-scale trends. A number of recent studies indicate that effects of urbanisation and land use change on
the land-based temperature record are negligible (0.006ºC per decade) as far as hemispheric- and continental-scale averages are concerned because the very real but local effects are
avoided or accounted for in the data sets used. In any case, they are not present in the SST component of the record. Increasing evidence suggests that urban heat island effects extend to changes in precipitation, clouds and DTR, with these detectable as a ‘weekend effect’ owing to lower pollution and other effects during weekends."

IPCC paper - oh no! IPCC! The enemy of the people!

Here is another one

"Numerous inhomogeneities including station moves, instrument changes, and time of observation changes in the U.S. Historical Climatological Network (USHCN) complicate the assessment of long-term temperature trends. Detection and correction of inhomogeneities in raw temperature records have been undertaken by NOAA and other groups using automated pairwise neighbor comparison approaches, but these have proven controversial due to the large trend impact of homogenization in the United States. The new U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN) provides a homogenous set of surface temperature observations that can serve as an effective empirical test of adjustments to raw USHCN stations. By comparing nearby pairs of USHCN and USCRN stations, we find that adjustments make both trends and monthly anomalies from USHCN stations much more similar to those of neighboring USCRN stations for the period from 2004 to 2015 when the networks overlap. These results improve our confidence in the reliability of homogenized surface temperature records."

source

 

[longview]

I trust scientists more than I trust you or your random unverifiable claims. And yes, that includes prominent scientists in IPCC. Sorry you disagree. I don't care.

"Heat islands may skew long-term temperature records as urbanization encroaches on weather stations located near the outskirts of town. Consequently, researchers must remove heat island effects from temperature records to accurately estimate climate change.

The data may be corrected in a variety of ways. In some cases, researchers statistically adjust urban weather station data to match trends seen in nearby rural stations; in other analyses urban data are simply excluded from the record."

EPA

See... not that hard.

You wanted a paper?

"Urban heat island effects are real but local, and have
not biased the large-scale trends. A number of recent studies
indicate that effects of urbanisation and land use change on
the land-based temperature record are negligible (0.006ºC per
decade) as far as hemispheric- and continental-scale averages
are concerned because the very real but local effects are
avoided or accounted for in the data sets used. In any case, they
are not present in the SST component of the record. Increasing
evidence suggests that urban heat island effects extend to
changes in precipitation, clouds and DTR, with these detectable
as a ‘weekend effect’ owing to lower pollution and other effects
during weekends."

IPCC paper - oh no! IPCC! The enemy of the people!

So which of your two quotes are correct, because they contradict each other?
The first quote says, they have to make corrections,

Consequently, researchers must remove heat island effects from temperature records to accurately estimate climate change.

but the second quote says,

A number of recent studies indicate that effects of urbanisation and land use change on
the land-based temperature record are negligible (0.006ºC per decade) as far as hemispheric-
and continental-scale averages are concerned because the very real but local effects are
avoided or accounted for in the data sets used.

So is the UHI corrected or is it negligible?

 

[Slavister]

So which of your two quotes are correct, because they contradict each other?
The first quote says, they have to make corrections,

but the second quote says,

So is the UHI corrected or is it negligible?

Once you again you demonstrate that you don't understand how to read basic scientific papers... you know, with all your claimed "science" experience.

Try again to read it... maybe you'll understand the second time.

 

[longview]

Once you again you demonstrate that you don't understand how to read basic scientific papers... you know, with all your claimed "science" experience.

Try again to read it... maybe you'll understand the second time.

I understand just fine, the one is saying they make adjustments, and the second is saying the change is already accounted for
and is negligible.

 

[Slavister]

I understand just fine, the one is saying they make adjustments, and the second is saying the change is already accounted for
and is negligible.

Here is another hint you for you: "... as far as hemispheric- and continental-scale averages are concerned ..."

 

[longview]

Here is another hint you for you: "... as far as hemispheric- and continental-scale averages are concerned ..."

If most of the ground based weather stations, regardless of continent were in areas that have become urban over the last century,
then yes it could skew the continental scale averages.

 

[Slavister]

If most of the ground based weather stations, regardless of continent were in areas that have become urban over the last century,
then yes it could skew the continental scale averages.

1. That's why they adjust to account for the effect of local stations
2. Compared to global temperature, UHI is very small

This is not complicated and you trying to pretend there is a contradiction just again shows you don't even know how to interpret the papers.

 

[longview]

1. That's why they adjust to account for the effect of local stations
2. Compared to global temperature, UHI is very small

This is not complicated and you trying to pretend there is a contradiction just again shows you don't even know how to interpret the papers.

You are assuming that stations are spread evenly, but they tend to be concentrated in areas that are now Urban.
They then average between two warmer urban areas, It is like drawing a line between two mountains and saying
that's the average elevation of the valley.

 

[Slavister]

You are assuming that stations are spread evenly, but they tend to be concentrated in areas that are now Urban.
They then average between two warmer urban areas, It is like drawing a line between two mountains and saying
that's the average elevation of the valley.

Don't worry. Scientists are well aware and don't make dumb mistakes like this.

That's why they first adjust each station to account for UHI before combining results.

 

[longview]

Don't worry. Scientists are well aware and don't make dumb mistakes like this.

That's why they first adjust each station to account for UHI before combining results.

who said it was a mistake?

 

[Slavister]

who said it was a mistake?

You did ...

They then average between two warmer urban areas, It is like drawing a line between two mountains and saying
that's the average elevation of the valley.

unless you think this is the correct elevation of the valley of course in your example...

 

[longview]

You did ...



unless you think this is the correct elevation of the valley of course in your example...

That does not mean that they necessarily made a mistake, it could be a willful error!

 

[Lord of Planar]

I trust scientists more than I trust you or your random unverifiable claims.

You need to stop and listen to yourself.

I trust the scientists too, as for what they can show in a peer reviewed paper, but... YOU ARE NOT QUOTING SCIENTISTS!

You are relying on what the lying pundits claim the scientists can show in peer reviewed papers.

 

[Buzz]

You need to stop and listen to yourself.

I trust the scientists too, as for what they can show in a peer reviewed paper, but... YOU ARE NOT QUOTING SCIENTISTS!

You are relying on what the lying pundits claim the scientists can show in peer reviewed papers.

Damn, Lord... He was responding to your comment that wasn't from any peer-reviewed paper. As a matter of fact, you can't back up your claims about UHI with anything from any peer-reviewed papers.

I guess this makes you a pundit who lies about the science of climate change.

 

[Slavister]

You need to stop and listen to yourself.

I trust the scientists too, as for what they can show in a peer reviewed paper, but... YOU ARE NOT QUOTING SCIENTISTS!

You are relying on what the lying pundits claim the scientists can show in peer reviewed papers.

So your reply to my post, which literally quotes papers, is that I don't use papers but I use lying pundits? LOL!

I say what those papers say. You say your random opinions without any linked papers.

 

[Slavister]

Damn, Lord... He was responding to your comment that wasn't from any peer-reviewed paper. As a matter of fact, you can't back up your claims about UHI with anything from any peer-reviewed papers.

I guess this makes you a pundit who lies about the science of climate change.

Not only that, he was literally responding to my post where I posted quotes from 2 papers.

 

[Buzz]

Not only that, he was literally responding to my post where I posted quotes from 2 papers.

Yup. Lord of Planar is known for saying stuff that is directly contradictory to reality.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Damn, Lord... He was responding to your comment that wasn't from any peer-reviewed paper. As a matter of fact, you can't back up your claims about UHI with anything from any peer-reviewed papers.

I guess this makes you a pundit who lies about the science of climate change.

Papers? Do you mean post 132? The IPCC material are agenda driven and pal reviewed. Not peer reviewed. I have addressed these methods before pointing out they do not yield accurate results. Just because they have a method, does not mean they have accuracy.

Comparing rural station is a joke. Rural areas have a significant heat island effect also. I have addressed this several times in the past.

Why do you guys not understand such simple things.They make no claim for accuracy. Just just let you assume adjusting by nearby rural station is the fix.

Total bullshit.

Show me where they state an accuracy.

 

[Buzz]

Papers? Do you mean post 132?

No! I'm talking about your posts #129 and #131 and your complete inability to back up your belief concerning the UHI. You have been making claims that the UHI is biasing the temperature records for years now but, as far as I can remember, have never backed up your opinion with any peer-reviewed and published papers that say the records are biased.

The IPCC material are agenda driven and pal reviewed. Not peer reviewed.

Bullshit! Almost all the studies cited in the IPCC reports are independently peer-reviewed and published before they are even cited in the IPCC reports. And then they are further reviewed by the authors of the IPCC report. You are just wrong.

I have addressed these methods before pointing out they do not yield accurate results. Just because they have a method, does not mean they have accuracy.

So you say. Too bad you can't cite anything peer-reviewed and published to back up this opinion of yours.

Comparing rural station is a joke.

More of your unsupported opinion.

Rural areas have a significant heat island effect also.

Oh really?



So you are claiming there is a rural heat island effect(RHI)??



Damn, Lord... that is just stupid.

I have addressed this several times in the past.

Where did you do that?

Why do you guys not understand such simple things.They make no claim for accuracy. Just just let you assume adjusting by nearby rural station is the fix.

Total bullshit.

Show me where they state an accuracy.

My God man... Slavister gave you an example in post #132. Here is the conclusion of that study:

Conclusions​

During the period of overlap between the USHCN and USCRN networks, we can confidently conclude that the adjustments to the USHCN station records made them more similar to proximate homogenous USCRN station records, both in terms of trends and anomalies. There are no systematic trend biases introduced by adjustments during this period; if anything adjusted USHCN stations still underestimate maximum (and mean) temperature trends relative to USCRN stations. This residual maximum temperature bias warrants additional research to determine the exact cause.


While this analysis can only directly examine the period of overlap, the effectiveness of adjustments during this period is at least suggestive that the PHA will perform well in periods prior to the introduction of the USCRN, though this conclusion is somewhat tempered by the potential changing nature of inhomogeneities over time. This work provides an important empirical test of the effectiveness of temperature adjustments similar to Vose et al. [2012] and lends support prior work by Williams et al. [2012] and Venema et al. [2012] that used synthetic data sets to find that NOAA's pairwise homogenization algorithm is effectively removing localized inhomogeneities in the temperature record without introducing detectable spurious trend biases.

I swear... you are just wilfully ignorant.