Why I stopped debating Climate Science with Science denialists...

Satellite measurements use microwave emissions, not IR.

Satellites measure a cross section of the whole troposphere, not the surface.

Rural stations show the same warming as urban stations, meaning we absolutely positively know the warming is not an artifact of urbanization.

There are literally thousands of buoys and argo floats measuring ocean temperatures.

The error of an average decreases as more measurements are added to the average, so averages tend to have very small errors.

 

No. You claimed the CO2 spikes happened faster than they're happening now. That paper does not support that claim in any way.

 

Soooo - you are expecting me to accept a claim from an anonymous person on the internet who so far has not proven they have a tertiary education let alone anything else (you do not back claims with citations). You know the last person who made this claim also claimed that scientists were measuring CO2 wrong because the Mana Loa observatory was on a mountain and CO2 is heavier than air and that there was plenty of oxygen in the water because H2O contains oxygen. Sorry if I don’t have faith in claims like yours. Mate your contentions you prove it - that is how this works and it WOULD prove you have the qualifications

 

That is false.

New paper submission: Urban heat island effects in U.S. summer temperatures, 1880-2015
October 19th, 2023
After years of dabbling in this issue, John Christy and I have finally submitted a paper to Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology entitled, “Urban Heat Island Effects in U.S. Summer Surface Temperature Data, 1880-2015“.

I feel pretty good about what we’ve done using the GHCN data. We demonstrate that, not only do the homogenized (“adjusted”) dataset not correct for the effect of the urban heat island (UHI) on temperature trends, the adjusted data appear to have even stronger UHI signatures than in the raw (unadjusted) data. This is true of both trends at stations (where there are nearby rural and non-rural stations… you can’t blindly average all of the stations in the U.S.), and it’s true of the spatial differences between closely-space stations in the same months and years.

The bottom line is that an estimated 22% of the U.S. warming trend, 1895 to 2023, is due to localized UHI effects.

And the effect is much larger in urban locations. Out of 4 categories of urbanization based upon population density (0.1 to 10, 10-100, 100-1,000, and >1,000 persons per sq. km), the top 2 categories show the UHI temperature trend to be 57% of the reported homogenized GHCN temperature trend. So, as one might expect, a large part of urban (and even suburban) warming since 1895 is due to UHI effects. This impacts how we should be discussing recent “record hot” temperatures at cities. Some of those would likely not be records if UHI effects were taken into account.

Yet, those are the temperatures a majority of the population experiences. My point is, such increasing warmth cannot be wholly blamed on climate change.

One of the things I struggled with was how to deal with stations having sporadic records. I’ve always wondered if one could use year-over-year changes instead of the usual annual-cycle-an-anomaly calculations, and it turns out you can, and with extremely high accuracy. (John Christy says he did it many years ago for a sparse African temperature dataset). This greatly simplifies data processing, and you can use all stations that have at least 2 years of data.

Now to see if the peer review process deep-sixes the paper. I’m optimistic.

 

Lols! I was not going to be that nice to him! If any of these people actually took time to look up claims they would be busy rescinding posts left right and centre

 

That paper - data was America only yes?

 

Indeed, but the effect is the important thing.

 

And how much of the globe is represented? I mean I know Americans have a tendency to believe there is nothing outside of America but……

 

You mean as opposed to your who is saying I am wrong.

Prove me wrong.

I am open to sizeable side bet on my qualifications, if you want.

 

Global temperature is not the focus, so that doesn't matter. You're trying to deflect again. And what about #384?

 

Nope, quite true. This will give you a better overview.

https://skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect-intermediate.htm

And this shows how the "pristine" USCRN network actually shows a little bit more warming that the "dirty" overall station set.

https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/the-most-accurate-record-of-us-temperatures

So, did the Spencer/Christy paper pass peer review? Those two don't have a good record of getting things correct.

 

Not how it works I do not fall victim to Brandolinis law



If you want to “prove” your “qualifications” then use academic rigor. Back your claims with citations

 

Your source is obsolete.
As already posted, the Spencer/Christy paper is in peer review now.

 

No it is the focus and love your shift just because I have pointed out the massive cherry pick.

 

Prove it. Prove the “source is obsolete”

 

Because you say so?

You're claiming May 2023 analysis is obsolete, as you present a paper that stops its analysis at ... 2015.

 

Well, no. I merely responded to another poster's false claim.
You still avoid #384.

 

The paper linked in #404.

 

The point is the effect, not the period. You're deflecting.

 

Once you dismiss the possibility that there IS a conspiracy - you've lost.

 

Actually the submitters and reviewers are chosen by th UN

sure, believe anything. Did you really read that?

There has been, but the UN wields a lot of power in silencing detractorsl. I think it was AR4 or AR5 where several scientific contributors complained het at he result and conclusions in the AR were distorted in the SPM.

 

What “power” in “silencing” detractors? This has all the hallmarks of a conspiracy theory at the level of Lizard people and Chemtrails. If you have an allegation link to a valid source

 

Is the the new QANON mantra?

 

No, it’s science, not faith. LOL. I’m happy to educate. Few are aware of the facts pertaining to this subject. But I prefer to look at the actual science when it comes to climate change instead of basing my opinions on “recent deaths” reported in the news. News media is a poor source for information on climate change.

Let’s have a look at the actual evidence warmer is better for humans.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.do...res-kill-5-million-a-year-20-year-study-77875

Then there is another large study that looked at suboptimal temps in relation to severity as well as just heat/cold.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)62114-0/fulltext

So we see temperatures that are cooler than optimal for humans kills between ten and seventeen times as many people as temperatures that are warmer than ideal.

Isn’t real science amazing? Real science shows your narrative is patently false and diametrically opposed to empirical evidence. A warming planet will save MANY lives by decreasing the massive death loss from below optimal temperatures.

Between 2000 and 2019 the warming trend has decreased temp related mortality 0.3% already! Because mortality from cooler than optimal temperatures is decreasing much faster than increasing mortality from hotter than optimal temperatures this will persist for a VERY long time as today cold related temperatures kill at least 10-17 times as many as heat related.



The temperature in New England USA is rising as faster than most places on earth.

https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/9/12/176/htm

Yet when we look at the future under RCP 8.5 in New England we project more healthcare needed but fewer overall deaths towards the end of this century. I can’t get others to answer this question. Do you think LESS net mortality is a good thing?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5980746/#:~:text=This approach also assumes that,to increased adaptation to heat.

So an area with some of the fastest climate change on the planet, and warming will still be saving over 200 lives annually in the tiny state of RI under RCP 8.5 at the turn of the century! Science is so much more interesting than people’s unsubstantiated opinions!


https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/38/6/1689/667818#:~:text=Every 1°C decrease,any of the lags examined

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25073563/

Rates of cardiovascular deaths are far higher when it’s cold than when it’s hot.

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.061832

LOL. No data. That’s you! Beliefs don’t belong in discussions of science. I post evidence produced through application of the scientific method. Not beliefs.

They agree with the above information that shows less deaths when it’s warmer and more deaths when colder.

I’m not aware of anywhere they say exactly what you asked. I’m not aware of oil and other fossil fuel companies advertising that particulates and other pollutants cause millions of deaths annually either.

I accept your concession I didn’t say anything like you claimed. My claim is accurate and I’ll accept your concession that it is until the time you provide evidence it isn’t. I already provided evidence for my content.

No. I’ll just point out you are dishonest.

It’s just an example of a time when best predictions about warming were incorrect. There was a claim that scientist’s predictions had been accurate since 1970. I simply chose the information from 1985 as an example that claim about predictions since 1970 was not correct.

Yes the predictions got better. Much better. By orders of magnitude. But the prediction from 1985 was incorrect. That means the claim predictions since 1970 have been accurate and “spot on”. It’s as simple as that. That’s what started this whole thread. Another dude claimed 1985 level emissions could cause several degrees C rise in temps by 2100 at an atmospheric CO2 level of 475 ppm. That’s not possible because the IPCC 8.5 scenario puts warming at 4.4°C by 2100 with continually increasing emissions through 2100 and atmospheric CO2 at 1000-1200 ppm.

Sure. My point that started this thread is that current IPCC predictions of warming at various emission levels and atmospheric CO2 levels are more accurate than predictions from 1985. The topic is climate change. Everything I’ve posted deals with climate change—so it’s relevant. Except perhaps when I have to address the endless stream of fallacies you produce here.

 

Says the person who posted a meta analysis without reading it that conflicted 100% with her post and opinion.

Funny stuff.