2024 is starting out even warmer than 2023!

[Lord of Planar]

I swear... you are just wilfully ignorant.

No, I just demand the facts.

I have explained all this before. I have better things to do with my time, but note one key things said in the quite. Saying "in terms of trends and anomalies" but nothing about accuracy, and we are speaking of tenths of a degree per decade that will unravel what they say. You quote stuff like that not realizing it does not dismiss what I say.

 

[Buzz]

No, I just demand the facts.

I have explained all this before. I have better things to do with my time, but note one key things said in the quite. Saying "in terms of trends and anomalies" but nothing about accuracy, and we are speaking of tenths of a degree per decade that will unravel what they say. You quote stuff like that not realizing it does not dismiss what I say.

Yes... I am familiar with your debate tactics. You always demand everyone else has to back up what they believe with nothing but peer-reviewed and published papers Educational websites and blogs don't count. But then you also demand that everyone else has to prove what you say wrong with the same standard all while you don't back up what you believe with anything at all. You sometimes even make up shit out of thin air, like making up the term Rural heat island effect.



And yes... we all know you have better things to do with your time than back up what you believe. Like posting more unsubstantiated denialist bullshit.

 

[Brack]

I've mentioned that it is also warming globally according to Satellite temperature measurements. But @Lord of Planar doesn't seem to also really trust Satellite temperature measurements.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Yes... I am familiar with your debate tactics. You always demand everyone else has to back up what they believe with nothing but peer-reviewed and published papers Educational websites and blogs don't count.

I demand that of people who do not understand science and math. I regularly explain the science. I know you disagree with my capabilities, but I am a peer with these people in my understanding of science and intelligence.

I do on occasion quote peer reviewed material. most people link material from pundits that lie about what science actually shows.

But then you also demand that everyone else has to prove what you say wrong with the same standard all while you don't back up what you believe with anything at all. You sometimes even make up shit out of thin air, like making up the term Rural heat island effect.

I am looking for someone as learned in the topics as i am to attempt to show me wrong. I know the consensus of the papers do not show me to be wrong.

And yes... we all know you have better things to do with your time than back up what you believe. Like posting more unsubstantiated denialist bullshit.

I can type my thoughts in a minute or two. Trying to find the material to use and satisfy others always ends in denial of the science by you guys. Generally claiming it was paid for by an oil company or something.

Buzz... How can I respect your words, or most others here? You cannot follow the actual science when it is presented.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I've mentioned that it is also warming globally according to Satellite temperature measurements. But @Lord of Planar doesn't seem to also really trust Satellite temperature measurements.

I understand how they work, and we have too many changed in the atmosphere for them to accurately assess the surface. they also have a drift in calibration that cannot be properly corrected over time. Look at how they do the various adjustments some time. Look at how the guess what the final results are through the varying atmosphere.

 

[Slavister]

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.

See - all you do is shift goal posts. First you accused me of not relying on papers but instead relying on pundits.

Then, when I presented you with papers, you are now claiming those papers are useless because their claims have no accuracy.

Yeah... scientists just come up with random numbers that are not accurate to any useful degree. That's how they publish and review their "pal work"...

 

[Lord of Planar]

See - all you do is shift goal posts. First you accused me of not relying on papers but instead relying on pundits.

I am used to everyone doing just that. Relying on pundits. And just because a pundit directed =you to a paper, does not mean it is valid for the topic.

Then, when I presented you with papers, you are now claiming those papers are useless because their claims have no accuracy.

They are useless. I have addressed this topic before. Look at their methodology. Just because there is a paper on a topic, that does not mean it is the end of discussion.

Please quote me the part of the paper that shows it is scientifically, quantitatively, accurate.

Yeah... scientists just come up with random numbers that are not accurate to any useful degree. That's how they publish and review their "pal work"...

Ever read an Earth Energy Budget paper? They have an error range on their variables of several watts per square meter. They then adjust them to fit their assumption. Scientists often use assumed numbers in their papers. It does not make the paper irrelevant if you understand the limitations.

Understanding the imitations of a paper is key. These sciences are not showing CO2 as a threat. The best they show is that more CO2 is good for the earth. The “greening” of the earth by CO2 is quantifiable. The warming is not, especially as we are seeing the percentage of cloud cover has the greatest effects.

 

[Glitch]

I've mentioned that it is also warming globally according to Satellite temperature measurements. But @Lord of Planar doesn't seem to also really trust Satellite temperature measurements.

For good reason.

First, satellite temperature data did not become available until 1979.

Second, satellite temperature data is limited to the upper stratosphere (~31 miles above sea level), which does not reflect surface temperatures. This is because satellites cannot take surface temperature measurements through clouds.

 

[Lord of Planar]

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.

I have explained why on several occasions. It is impossible to remove the changes of emissivity, spectral absorption, and then also account for the reduction of evaporation cooling that is lost down the storm sewers.

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.

The studies are, but the IPCC is not. They cherry pick from the studies.

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

I am not aware of any that points out the facts that I do. Are you going to deny the science, just because it comes from me?

More of your unsupported opinion.

Oh really?



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



Damn, Lord... that is just stupid.

Different studies that compare rural and urban sites class rural stations differently. The population they use is 50,000 people, or 30,000 people (maybe 35k?) that I have seen. A population center of over 30k people still has a huge heat island effect. Most meteorological station are located within this effect.

Are you going to claim I am wrong with this as well? I believe in all these studies I have read, only one if them used a population below 30k to class it as rural.

Where did you do that?

My explanations in terms of science. My explanations explaining the shortcomings of the various studies.

Not may fault you wish to critique my work when you cannot comprehend it.

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

The only one he quoted was a completely unreliable method. The first two had no quotes. I was likely in a hurry and obviously dismissed his entire post at the time, because people like him just regurgitate what the pundits claim, and link pundit suggested material from lying bloggers frequently. Had I read the quote then, I would have pointed out what I did latte, and now.

I swear... you are just wilfully ignorant.

If you say so Mr. D-K.

 

[Lord of Planar]

For good reason.

First, satellite temperature data did not become available until 1979.

Second, satellite temperature data is limited to the upper stratosphere (~31 miles above sea level), which does not reflect surface temperatures. This is because satellites cannot take surface temperature measurements through clouds.

You are correct. Since the 70's is worthless as it is not a long enough period of time. I remember at least twice pointing out we didn't have satellites for hundreds of years or more for such comparisons. What data they can see to the surface is still going through atmospheric pollutants, ever changing. Temperatures anomalies still larger than the margin of error, can still only be seen under clear sky observations. The cloudy conditions have too limited of a bandwidth to see two ranges through the clouds to calculate a temperature.

I don't think these people understand how thermal measurements at a distance work. They just accept it as reliable, when the accuracy is clearly not acceptable.

 

[Buzz]

I demand that of people who do not understand science and math. I regularly explain the science. I know you disagree with my capabilities, but I am a peer with these people in my understanding of science and intelligence.

I do on occasion quote peer reviewed material. most people link material from pundits that lie about what science actually shows.

I am looking for someone as learned in the topics as i am to attempt to show me wrong. I know the consensus of the papers do not show me to be wrong.

I can type my thoughts in a minute or two. Trying to find the material to use and satisfy others always ends in denial of the science by you guys. Generally claiming it was paid for by an oil company or something.

Buzz... How can I respect your words, or most others here? You cannot follow the actual science when it is presented.

I have explained why on several occasions. It is impossible to remove the changes of emissivity, spectral absorption, and then also account for the reduction of evaporation cooling that is lost down the storm sewers.

The studies are, but the IPCC is not. They cherry pick from the studies.

I am not aware of any that points out the facts that I do. Are you going to deny the science, just because it comes from me?

Different studies that compare rural and urban sites class rural stations differently. The population they use is 50,000 people, or 30,000 people (maybe 35k?) that I have seen. A population center of over 30k people still has a huge heat island effect. Most meteorological station are located within this effect.

Are you going to claim I am wrong with this as well? I believe in all these studies I have read, only one if them used a population below 30k to class it as rural.


My explanations in terms of science. My explanations explaining the shortcomings of the various studies.

Not may fault you wish to critique my work when you cannot comprehend it.

The only one he quoted was a completely unreliable method. The first two had no quotes. I was likely in a hurry and obviously dismissed his entire post at the time, because people like him just regurgitate what the pundits claim, and link pundit suggested material from lying bloggers frequently. Had I read the quote then, I would have pointed out what I did latte, and now.


If you say so Mr. D-K.

Oh boy!! Nothing but more talk and no proof.

When are you going to quit being a hypocrite? You demand peer-reviewed and published papers from everyone you disagree with but then rarely provide anything to back yourself up. For some stupid reason, you think your word is as good as a peer-reviewed paper when it isn't. What you say is usually no better than what comes from a blog. And you frequently outright lie about stuff. Like your recent claim that some authors and studies say that a doubling of CO2 will only cause about 0.6C of warming. I know for a fact that you have cited just one paper from a known climate change denialist that says it will be that low.

The fact of the matter is that you are a pundit who makes unsupported claims and lies about climate science!!