• 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!

Week's six shocking climate events

PoS said:
Wrong. Your pal Quaestio accused him of comparing the wrong cities, when flogger was actually talking about the temp records for the entire state.

It seems you need to take remedial reading comprehension classes too.
Click to expand...

No, that record he was talking about was in Fort Yukon. Numerous records have been broken recently...
Alaskas_HeatWave_2019.webp
 
Media_Truth said:
No, that record he was talking about was in Fort Yukon. Numerous records have been broken recently...
View attachment 67260117
Click to expand...

Do you even know what the difference between what a city and a state is? Here is what flogger said since you are unable to go back and read it:

flogger said:
Nonsense. The the state record temperature for Alaska is 100 F set way back in 1915.

It remains unbroken
Click to expand...

Jesus, its like Im talking to a 3 year old. :roll:
 
PoS said:
Do you even know what the difference between what a city and a state is? Here is what flogger said since you are unable to go back and read it:

Jesus, its like Im talking to a 3 year old. :roll:
Click to expand...

Measured in Fort Yukon. This doesn't change the fact that localized temperature records have been broken throughout the state, in 2019, at various locations. Look at the title of the thread. It's newsworthy that this extremely long-duration heatwave occurred in 2019, just like your oft-mentioned record was newsworthy in 1915.

I have no problem with your downplaying of the 2019 heatwave because of a warmer temperature in 1915. Similarly you should have no problem with the emphasis of the long-duration of the heatwave of 2019.
 
Quaestio said:
The 1915 record was in Fort Yukon, not Anchorage.

How hard was it for you to miss the word Anchorage in the graphic that you responded to?
Click to expand...
Did Fort Yukon set a record? In any case a northerly wind would encourage a record high for Anchorage.
 
Media_Truth said:
Measured in Fort Yukon. This doesn't change the fact that localized temperature records have been broken throughout the state, in 2019, at various locations. Look at the title of the thread. It's newsworthy that this extremely long-duration heatwave occurred in 2019, just like your oft-mentioned record was newsworthy in 1915.

I have no problem with your downplaying of the 2019 heatwave because of a warmer temperature in 1915. Similarly you should have no problem with the emphasis of the long-duration of the heatwave of 2019.
Click to expand...

Wrong, wrong, wrong, the state record remains unbroken and that was the whole point. Your nitpicks are pointless and a lie because there is no new record.
 
PoS said:
Wrong, wrong, wrong, the state record remains unbroken and that was the whole point. Your nitpicks are pointless and a lie because there is no new record.
Click to expand...

Yes, the State record is old. I get your point. But many different local records have been broken with the recent heat wave. See post #51 for all the Anchorage records. This is not nitpicking. It was a very long heat wave. And it's very relevant, because it's 2019.
 
Media_Truth said:
Yes, the State record is old. I get your point. But many different local records have been broken with the recent heat wave. See post #51 for all the Anchorage records. This is not nitpicking. It was a very long heat wave. And it's very relevant, because it's 2019.
Click to expand...

If the old record hasnt been broken, then its not a new record is it? Logic and understanding 101
 
PoS said:
If the old record hasnt been broken, then its not a new record is it? Logic and understanding 101
Click to expand...

If Los Angeles sets a temperature record, it's somewhat irrelevant to the folks in New York. Locations matter - especially to the people who are feeling the effects. How do you think this headline would have gone over in Anchorage, during the heat wave?

Anchorage Breaks Temperature Records all Month Long - but not to worry, Across the State, in the 1930s it was Hotter.
 
Media_Truth said:
Yes, the State record is old. I get your point. But many different local records have been broken with the recent heat wave. See post #51 for all the Anchorage records. This is not nitpicking. It was a very long heat wave. And it's very relevant, because it's 2019.
Click to expand...

Local record are expected to be broken. It's a simple land use change factor, with monitoring stations being affected with the urban heat island effect. The urban heat island effects gets stronger and stronger as the footprint and/or population grows of a town or city.

To think otherwise is to not understand chemistry and physics.

Don't you claim to have a BS degree?

Yes!!! I say BS to your degree!!!

Otherwise, this would make sense to you.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Local record are expected to be broken. It's a simple land use change factor, with monitoring stations being affected with the urban heat island effect. The urban heat island effects gets stronger and stronger as the footprint and/or population grows of a town or city.

To think otherwise is to not understand chemistry and physics.

Don't you claim to have a BS degree?

Yes!!! I say BS to your degree!!!

Otherwise, this would make sense to you.
Click to expand...

You seem to be barking up the wrong tree. And for as many times as you've stated this, and been proven wrong, it would be "the wrong forest". Take a look at the link below and the map below. There is no correlation of high heat areas to Urbanization.

‘Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect’ — No, it isn’t | Grist

Urban Heat Island Effect has been examined quite thoroughly (PDF) and found to have a negligible effect on temperature trends. Real Climate has a detailed discussion of this here. What’s more, NASA GISS takes explicit steps in their analysis to remove any such spurious signal by normalizing urban station data trends to the surrounding rural stations. It is a real phenomenon, but it is one climate scientists are well aware of and have taken any required steps to remove its influence from the raw data.

World_Temp_Map.webp
 
Media_Truth said:
You seem to be barking up the wrong tree. And for as many times as you've stated this, and been proven wrong, it would be "the wrong forest". Take a look at the link below and the map below. There is no correlation of high heat areas to Urbanization.

‘Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect’ — No, it isn’t | Grist

Urban Heat Island Effect has been examined quite thoroughly (PDF) and found to have a negligible effect on temperature trends. Real Climate has a detailed discussion of this here. What’s more, NASA GISS takes explicit steps in their analysis to remove any such spurious signal by normalizing urban station data trends to the surrounding rural stations. It is a real phenomenon, but it is one climate scientists are well aware of and have taken any required steps to remove its influence from the raw data.

View attachment 67260466
Click to expand...

You guys have never proven me wrong, and you use an activist cite by Grist to think it means something?

One again, you are ignorant to what I have said about this topic. You have not shown the specifics of what I have claimed to be wrong. You have countered my claims in the past with works that didn't address my points.

Really now... How many time are you going to show you don't understand?
 
Lord of Planar said:
You guys have never proven me wrong, and you use an activist cite by Grist to think it means something?

One again, you are ignorant to what I have said about this topic. You have not shown the specifics of what I have claimed to be wrong. You have countered my claims in the past with works that didn't address my points.

Really now... How many time are you going to show you don't understand?
Click to expand...

Well... you are an admitted liar.

So there’s that.


And then there’s this:

Physicist Muller's 'BEST' Report Satisfies Few In Reaffirming Validity of Temperature Station Records >> Yale Climate Connections

Did Muller's 'BEST' Study Cool The Heated Global Warming Rhetoric? >> Yale Climate Connections
 
Threegoofs said:
The BEST data looked specifically at urban heat islands.

This might be new information for you.
Click to expand...

And they homogenize with rural stations, which are also contaminated by the changing loss of evaporation cooling.

We have discussed this before. You have never shown me to be wrong in that regard.
 
Threegoofs said:
LOL.

Still lying.

http://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/UHI-GIGS-1-104.pdf
Click to expand...

What does the title of the study, and this mean to you:

The approach of the GISS team is to identify urban, “peri-urban”
(near urban) and rural stations using satellite images of
nighttime lights [8]. Urban and peri-urban stations are then adjusted
by subtracting a two-part linear trend based on comparison to an
average of nearby rural stations. The result of the adjustment on their
global average is a Reduction of about 0.01C in warming over the
period 1900-2009.
​

Tell me this. Where are the meteorological stations not contaminated by land use changes?
 
Media_Truth said:
If Los Angeles sets a temperature record, it's somewhat irrelevant to the folks in New York. Locations matter - especially to the people who are feeling the effects. How do you think this headline would have gone over in Anchorage, during the heat wave?

Anchorage Breaks Temperature Records all Month Long - but not to worry, Across the State, in the 1930s it was Hotter.
Click to expand...

Anchorage is in the state of Alaska- so your silly deflection is still wrong.

Threegoofs said:
You know you’ve lost the argument when you have to depend upon the weather records in arbitrary political boundaries to sustain your point.
Click to expand...

Anyone with half a brain knows you lost the argument ages ago since all you post are fallacies.
 
Lord of Planar said:
What does the title of the study, and this mean to you:

The approach of the GISS team is to identify urban, “peri-urban”
(near urban) and rural stations using satellite images of
nighttime lights [8]. Urban and peri-urban stations are then adjusted
by subtracting a two-part linear trend based on comparison to an
average of nearby rural stations. The result of the adjustment on their
global average is a Reduction of about 0.01C in warming over the
period 1900-2009.
​

Tell me this. Where are the meteorological stations not contaminated by land use changes?
Click to expand...

Their conclusion:


“We observe the opposite of an urban heating effect over the period 1950 to 2010, with a slope of -0.10 ± 0.24°C/100yr (2σ error) in the Berkeley Earth global land temperature average. The confidence interval is consistent with a zero urban heating effect, and at most a small urban heating effect (less than 0.14°C/100yr, with 95% confidence) on the scale of the observed warming (1.9 ± 0.1°C/100 yr since 1950 in the land average from Figure 5A).”

Now you’re going to argue they are ‘pundits’, right?

LOL
 
PoS said:
Anchorage is in the state of Alaska- so your silly deflection is still wrong.



Anyone with half a brain knows you lost the argument ages ago since all you post are fallacies.
Click to expand...

Hey- I notice you saw the link I posted.

Guess that’s a fallacy too?
 
Threegoofs said:
Their conclusion:


“We observe the opposite of an urban heating effect over the period 1950 to 2010, with a slope of -0.10 ± 0.24°C/100yr (2σ error) in the Berkeley Earth global land temperature average. The confidence interval is consistent with a zero urban heating effect, and at most a small urban heating effect (less than 0.14°C/100yr, with 95% confidence) on the scale of the observed warming (1.9 ± 0.1°C/100 yr since 1950 in the land average from Figure 5A).”

Now you’re going to argue they are ‘pundits’, right?

LOL
Click to expand...

You don't get it.

I'm saying their results are flawed because they compare with rural, and adjust that way. They take no account of the loss of evaporation cooling in both setting.

They are missing a crucial variable.
 
Sounds like some deniers on this thread are walking around with a chip on their shoulder - nothing but inflammatory, non-substantive, unlinked comments. I guess, when they have no valid arguments, this is the resulting desparation.
 
Lord of Planar said:
You don't get it.

I'm saying their results are flawed because they compare with rural, and adjust that way. They take no account of the loss of evaporation cooling in both setting.

They are missing a crucial variable.
Click to expand...

I rarely get your natterings, because they are unclear, unformed and generally unfounded in reality.

He compared the stations in rural areas with the ones in rural and urban, and he found no substantial difference. Now you’re whining that rural stations also have a bias... which is true, because all are subject to AGW.

But I guess a lying denier needs to come up with some excuse.

Odd that I post the thing you were talking about, yet once you saw it (unfamiliar with the literature again, I see), you move the goalposts. Now rural AND urban stations are wrong!
 
Threegoofs said:
LOL.

Still lying.

http://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/UHI-GIGS-1-104.pdf
Click to expand...

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Greenland Near-Surface Land Air Temperature Data from Berkeley Earth Present Some Surprises[/h][FONT=&quot]I enjoy surprises in data, especially when they might make alarmists unhappy. Willis Eschenbach’s post Greenland Is Way Cool at WattsUpWithThat prompted me to take a look at the Berkeley Earth edition of the Greenland TAVG temperature data. See Figure 1, which presents the graph of the annual Berkeley Earth TAVG temperature (not anomaly) data.
[/FONT]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom