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

Instead of another appeal-to-bad-authority fallacy, why not act like we do? Don't just drop names. Talk about the science.

In your own words, tell us what Curry's theory is, and describe the hard evidence that backs it up. Tell us exactly how it debunks the consensus, with something other than "BECAUSE CURRY SAYS IT DOES".

If you read the piece and understand it, that shouldn't be a problem.

 

Spoken like a true physics denialist.

 

Since that UHI is corrected for in the temperature record, what's the point of this? It's not like anyone doesn't know that UHI exists, which is all your piece showed.

Were you trying to insinuate that UHI isn't corrected for?

Or are you going for fake credibility, by posting papers that state what everyone already knows, and then pretending they somehow back up your unrelated point?

 

So, tell us what physics I'm denying.

I'm glad you posted that, because it will give me a chance to show just how bad you are at physics.

 

Great. Here's a really solid summary that another poster did.

Have at it.

 

You didn't keep up with the literature.
Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify ... - AGU Journals

AGU Journals
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com › doi


Nov 4, 2008 — With this in mind, we use the oceans as a calorimeter to measure the radiative forcing variations associated with the solar cycle. This is ...

 

I provided an entire thread to discuss over multiple posts. Feel free to catch up.
The Sun-Climate Effect

 

The paper that calls your assumptions into question is in peer review.
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. . . .

 

It's under-corrected for in all the surface temperature records that purport to show large, near-linear recent warming, like GISS. That is the point.

Wrong. It's about how much bigger it is than it is assumed to be in the standard "corrected" temperature records.

It's deliberately under-corrected for.

The import of the paper is obvious -- except to you, that is.

 

Of course that is just another bald falsehood from you.

Sad.

 

You most certainly did. That is the whole content of your claim that recent warming cannot be natural.

Your whole argument is that recent warming can't be natural, while the previous cooling was.

Sorry to have so cruelly exposed the actual nature of your "argument." I don't blame you for now disavowing it.

 

Says the person who I have yet to see use a single citation

 

But not yet accepted under peer review
Plus - this is a very limited data set - why stop at 2015? Plus how much input to the global temperature is the US temps?

 

Here's your citation. It's a quote from another poster who summarizes the science quite nicely. Maybe you know enough about actual science to understand it.

As you always say, Lols.

 

Yep! Blank space - says it all really

So what is YOUR theory as to why the climate is changing - green moon cheese falling to earth maybe? Sun has decided to move closer to the earth? Eart has travelled into a warm region of space?

 

The important thing is the effect, not the period or the geography.

 

Not when the USA is less than 2% of the global surface
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/countries-by-share-of-earths-surface/

 

Doesn't matter in the slightest.

 

This is of interest.
Dr Roy Spencer: New Global Dataset: Global Grids of UHI Effect On Air Temp, 1800-2023
By P Gosselin on 4. November 2023

See full report at Dr. Roy Spencer
As a follow-on to our paper submitted on a new method for calculating the multi-station average urban heat island (UHI) effect on air temperature, I’ve extended that initial U.S.-based study of summertime UHI effects to global land areas in all seasons and produced a global gridded dataset, currently covering the period 1800 to 2023 (every 10 years from 1800 to 1950, then yearly after 1950).

It is based upon over 13 million station-pair measurements of inter-station differences in GHCN station temperatures and population density over the period 1880-2023.

Since UHI effects on air temperature are mostly at night, the results I get using Tavg will overestimate the UHI effect on daily high temperatures and underestimate the effect on daily low temperatures.

As an example of what one can do with the data, here is a global plot of the difference in July UHI warming between 1800 and 2023, where I have averaged the 1/12 deg spatial resolution data to 1/2 deg resolution for ease of plotting in Excel (I do not have a GIS system):

If I take the 100 locations with the largest amount of UHI warming between 1800 and 2023 and average their UHI temperatures together, I get the following:


Note that by 1800 there was 0.15 deg. C of average warming across these 100 cities since some of them are very old and already had large population densities by 1800. Also, these 100 “locations” are after averaging 1/12 deg. to 1/2 degree resolution, so each location is an average of 36 original resolution gridpoints. My point is that these are *large* heavily-urbanized locations, and the temperature signals would be stronger if I had used the 100 greatest UHI locations at original resolution.

Read entire article at Dr. Roy Spencer.

 

We have managed to escape. It's a big country and fortunately everything is spread out. Some areas haven't done well though.

It definitely shouldn't be a taboo to point out practical ways forward. I guess that's what happens when an issue becomes politicized.

I think this is a good example of where you might go a little bit beyond studies and statistics, which could open up a bit more of a broader picture. Now you can always trump me with that study but still I'd like to look a little closer. Let's take the web bulb temperature of 30 degrees to be an arbitrary maximum for surviving six hours and I believe from what I've read even 10 degrees Celsius is a danger point for surviving cold. I've just chosen them for convenience. My point that a couple of degrees cooler won't make much of a difference whereas a couple of degrees hotter would was based on the assumption of easy accessibility of clothing or blankets. These readily available passive solutions can make a massive difference to survivability in the cold to well below zero, yet there is almost nothing that you can do short of dehumidifying or cooling the air to increase survivability in humid heat. That was my point - with a little bit of nouse and initiative the human species has populated and thrived in areas that are cold.

Of course the statistics that you have presented are a reflection of real world conditions. My model is unduly simplistic. Nevertheless I think it would have more relevance as temperature increases.


The perfect place to bolster your line of argument is in India, the most populous country in the world. I've worked two seasons in India. This is over winter and the reason that we leave in summer is it is bakingly hot (unlivable) for a westerner. Yet, despite the ever-increasing heat, there is barely a blip in increased mortality for Indians. However much below 12 degrees Celsius in their winter and (statistically speaking) Indians drop like flies. It defies what we would call common sense in the West. This may not be so for Europeans. Projections suggest that my 2040 heat deaths will outweigh the reduction in cold deaths. And temperatures will still be well below India averages.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms1360#Sec6

Perhaps cultural and racial components may play a much larger role than we thought. Even factoring in incomplete data on heat deaths, Indians (and Africans, arabs) seem culturally and physically adapted to the extreme heat.

Temp and humidity?

A rabbit hole I'm sure. I think in the US wet bulb above 28C is considered a dangerous threshold. I was being generous with 35C. Don't forget even below these temps will cause distress. If you are suggesting there is more complexity to the topic of heat stress I agree that more sophisticated methodologies than mere wet-bulb temp are needed. Though not all conclusion would favour your argument.

The conservative assumption that this value must be reached to cause widespread death is only valid under a specific set of conditions, i.e., the person is completely sedentary, unclothed, maximally heat acclimatized, and an average-sized adult free from any thermoregulatory impairments. These assumptions are implausible in the real-world, and severe illness and death can occur at much lower heat stress levels when considering realistic metabolic heat loads, clothing, population demographics, and health status.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19994-1#Sec5


Have you spent a few days in near unlivable heat and humidity?

And yet very easy to mitigate, when unsurvivable temp is 10C or so. You wonder how 100s of millions get through winter? Unsurviable for whom would be the question.

Well, I cited at least one paper suggesting otherwise.


What about the benefits of cold?

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43587-023-00383-4

 

The only thing I want to be doing outside when it's below freezing is skiing!

 

It often does not matter what you "want to do", it is what you have to do.

One thing about having spent a career in the military, I have had to work in a huge variety of climates. From the jungles of Central America, the Middle East, high in the Rocky Mountains, the Mojave Desert, and almost everything in between.

And in that, I learned that the human body is amazingly flexible in the conditions it can operate in. A couple of weeks to acclimatize and most would be good to go.

Good example, when I flew home for my wife's surgery in 2009, it was hitting unseasonably warm temperatures in El Paso of around 90f. And I was actually wearing a jacket, because I had just left an area where the normal daytime temperatures were over 120f. So to me, it would be the same as if somebody went from having to work on a nice summer day, to having to work in a fridge. And here in NA it is heading towards winter. But expect in March people to be wearing short sleeves in temperatures they would want a jacket for today.

And I first experienced that when in school I moved from Idaho to LA. Got on the plane at -10f, landed in LA at 75f. Two weeks later was going to school with no jacket and short sleeves because 65f felt damned nice to me. While all the life-long Angelinos were in jackets and sweaters.

But we are long distance endurance hunters by evolution. Which ultimately is why we were more successful than our predecessors. And we are still here, they are not.

 

OK, again, the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, Stefan-Boltzmann and black body science all say the climate isn't changing significantly.

Therefore, I don't see any reason to care.

 

Translation “I’m OK Jack! Pity about all the rest though

 

Then why post about it? BTW where are your links? On second thought - anything as egregiously and hilariously wrong as this will never have a link