Hiding Earth’s Warm Past

"Right about everything". Two worlds "Hockey Sticks".

And by the way - as an urban area gets larger its UHI has more effect; more concrete, more blacktop, more buildings/heat sinks, and probably more sensors encompassed.

 

Not exactly. Spencer:
". . . But as we progress to higher population stations, we find that UHI warming effect becomes larger. In the highest population density class (“suburban to urban”, lower-right panel) my calculation of UHI warming is virtually the entire GHCN-reported warming signal since 1880, but only a small part of the reported warming since 1980.

If these results stand, what will they mean for reported land warming trends?

I’m guessing that the UHI effect on area-average trends since 1980 (the period of most rapid temperature rise) will turn out to be relatively small. But before 1980 it looks like the UHI effect on GHCN temperatures could be substantial. This would change the nature of the global warming narrative, with little land-based warming for the first 100 years starting in 1880. . . . "

 

I looked at the first few.

The first was a prediction for the future, so no judgement can be made on it.

The second was not something from climate scientists.

The third was about oil, so not from climate scientists.

The fourth was about famine, so not from climate scientists.

The fifth is a prediction for the future, which will probably be proven to be correct.

The sixth was Greta, who is not a climate scientist.

Need we go on? Anyways, congrats. You're still batting .000 in showing these "failed predictions" from climate scientists.

How are things at WUWT these days? Pretty sad, I imagine. I see it's mainly a Trumper conspiracy website that only occasionally talks about climate now.

Here's a thought. Instead of doing the craven "YOU MUST REFUTE MY WHOLE PAGE OF COMMIE-INSPIRED LINKS ONE BY ONE OR I WIN!" thing over and over, why not put forth your own best argument, in your own words?

AHAHAHAHAHA. Right. Like that's ever going to happen.

 

So you're saying the temperature predictions being right shows the temperature predictions weren't right? That makes no sense.

Nah. That's not what evidence shows. The UHI jump is over with pretty quick, it doesn't stretch out over decades.

But since the rural stations have the same rate of warming as urban stations, and that debunks the UHI myth completely, why are we still talking about this?

Oh, that's right. Our side was completely right, your side was completely wrong, and you can't accept that, so you're pushing a conspiracy theory to explain away the evidence.

 

Nope, not saying that at all.

That doesn't even make sense. Blacktop and concrete and most building heat up ever year.

Huh? Where do you get the idea rural stations heat the same as urban ones?

. Right about what? That this year's fabricated global surface temp was .3C warmer than last years? Big whoop. Do you ever cite facts or present data? Or maybe just back up your claim to always being right because I haven't seen a climate chicken little EVER present solid data.

 

They don't.

 

That's not a fact. It's a bald falsehood, just some absurd nonscience you made up, and I have already refuted it many times. My side has got everything right so far:
no "climate refugees"
arctic sea ice still there, and not declining
no inundation of island nations
agricultural yields still rising
deserts still shrinking
no credible evidence that it is now warmer than the 1930s or the Medieval Warm Period, let alone the Holocene Optimum
etc., etc.

Right: the rational people being the climate realists, like me.

See above. Climate science and anti-fossil-fuel scaremongering are two entirely different things. I do the former, you do the latter.

When the sun becomes less active than its historical average for at least two cycles. No one knows what the sun is going to do.

No, it just awaits a less active sun. Based on the paleoclimate record, the next ice age could start any time in the next several thousand years. But if it does, we will stop it -- unless absurd anti-CO2 nonscience has destroyed industrial civilization in the meantime, of course.

 

I guess that's why you can't actually quote any of us saying anything like that...

By using logic. You might want to try it some time.

Again, who said that?

Meanwhile, on your side, Lyin' Michael Mann deliberately removed the natural variations of the MWP and LIA to create his bogus hockey stick graph, giving a false impression that natural norms had remained the same for a thousand years.

 

To the extent that they do, it's because neither of those categories includes formerly rural sites that are now urban.

The hard data says your theory is wrong, so it's wrong, no matter how fervent your belief in it is.

Sure they did.

Do you think you could find out about upward economic mobility by looking at people who started out rich and stayed rich and people who started out poor and stayed poor, and ignoring the people who started out poor and got rich?? That is the "logic" you are touting for finding out about the effect of UHI on global temperature.

It's called "logic." You could try it some time.

 

Huh?? Speaking of constantly using bad logic arguments, that's not a bad logic argument in the least, any more than, "Look how many people voted in the past," is a bad logic argument when discussing voter turnout trends. It is also in no way a claim that people can't affect the climate, only that it remains to be demonstrated that they have. I.e., it merely invokes the Law of Causation: like causes have like effects. Good scientific logic (i.e., not your kind) holds that the most likely cause of like effects is like causes. Bad logic (your kind) assumes, without evidence, that a phenomenon that always had a certain set of causes in the past now has a different cause.

Which part of that elementary scientific logic are you having so much trouble understanding?

 

Do you have evidence this study is in error? Do you have evidence rural temps are increasing at the same rate as urban temps?

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43...al analyses of,trend for the rural background.

To be clear, I’m not positing any theory, just supplying factual information.

 

It's not. As is almost always the case with deniers, you just don't understand what the papers are saying.

No one argues that UHI exists. I'm popinting out that, once a city is built up, the UHI effect is constant.

And that's why denier arguments faceplant. Deniers make the loony claim that UHI keeps growing over the years, and they're just plain wrong.

 

Of course it is. That's how your side always presents the argument. Please don't embarrass yourself further by denying that.

No, nobody on our side has ever said or implied such a thing. You made a crazy story up there. Try to remember that, since we know the facts, you can't gaslight us.

The hard data says you're wrong. The stratospheric cooling, increase in backradiation, polar amplification, and decrease in outoging longwave show that the "IT'S NATURAL" Theory is wrong. As does the fact that the natural cycle is trying to make the earth cool, and instead it's warming strongly.

Since the data says you're wrong, you're wrong, no matter how fanatical your faith in your pseudoscience is. That's how science works. That's why your side has stopped even trying to debate actual science, and now sticks with spewing political propaganda in online safespaces.

Congratulations, you're now considered to be in same the category as flat-earthers, for the same reasons.

 

Where do you come up with this stuff?

That is, what propaganda mills feed you these stories? That is, who told you to say it? We know you don't come up with this stuff yourself. It involves things like math, and deniers don't do math. They copy what other people say about doing math, not caring at all if it was accurate as long as it reinforces their prejudices.

And isn't Mann-hatred soooooooooo 2010?

I'm sure that made some sort of sense to you. Just not to anyone else. It's dangerous to try to fathom out what leads deniers to make the conclusions they make. If you delves too deeply into the crazy, they risk having the insanity rubbing off on themselves.

 

That makes no sense. Saying that humans are primarily driving climate change now does not exclude natural factors. Why would you think it did?

 

Ok. What do I deny? Be specific.

Let’s look at the study some more.


Your claim is incorrect. Temperature rate increases are greater in urban areas. That means the differential between urban and rural areas is INCREASING. It is not static.

From the study YOU don’t understand.

Also, as cities grow, the rate of warming differential compared to rural increases.

So the claim “once a city is built up, the UHI effect is constant” is patently false (according to science).

Furthermore, the changes in “greening” in urban vs. rural environments contributes to variations in the differential.

The EVI is increasing at different rates in different urban areas as well as increasing faster in rural areas. Thus, the UHI differential is changing from EVI as well and is NOT static as you seem to erroneously believe.

You can deny the science if you wish. But the science is clear. The UHI effect is not static. It increases with city growth. It increases if green spaces are reduced and decreases with greening. The UHI differential is not static because the rate of increase in temp is higher in urban areas than rural ones. Your unsubstantiated opinion is in conflict with peer reviewed research.

You should probably study more and spend less time falsely claiming people are deniers.

Please use the PF quote function to provide some aspect of climate science I’ve “denied”. Provide evidence anything I’ve posted is in error. Go ahead. You won’t. You will post more fallacy because your position is not based on evidence.

SMH.

 

Sorry, but it's a bit late for you to backtrack. Please cite for me a post of yours in which you concede that anything other than CO2 might be a significant cause of modern warming.

 

No, you are just doubling down on the same bald falsehood, which is why you cannot QUOTE me, Jack, Tommy, 557, or any climatologist on the climate realist side making any such claim. I have very rarely seen people make such claims, but it is certainly not common, usually done by creationist types who also talk about God promising never to cause another Flood, and never by anyone who quotes or discusses actual peer-reviewed climate research as I, Jack, Tommy, 557 and a few others here do.

They carefully don't say it in so many words because when stripped to its essentials, the CO2 climate narrative is such obvious bat$#!+ nonscience. But that global warming has a different cause this time than it did in the MWP, Roman and Minoan Warm Periods, and the Holocene Optimum is the clear implication of the CO2 climate narrative.

Try to remember that since we know the facts, you can't gaslight us.

No, that is false, which is why actual physical events continue to prove me right and you wrong.

No, I have already refuted that claim many times, including to you. I repeat:

So-called stratospheric cooling is a measurement artifact that results from CO2 increasing the altitude and reducing the characteristic temperature of the final IR radiation to outer space, but has no discernible effect on surface temperature.

Increased back radiation is caused by increased CO2 and the increased number, size, and altitude of contrails, but also has no discernible effect on global surface temperature. Indeed, contrails increase the earth's albedo, and that effect is far larger in the daytime than the increased back radiation from contrails that is observed mainly at night.

Polar amplification is a natural effect of the positive ice-albedo feedback, and is why the earth has experienced alternating glacial and interglacial phases for the last couple of million years. Nothing to do with CO2.

Decreased outgoing longwave radiation is also a measurement artifact caused mainly by contrails, and has no discernible effect on surface temperature.

I have explained these facts to you many times. You just ignore them and keep repeating the same false and disingenuous claim that the observed effects have no possible explanation other than the CO2 climate narrative.

See how absurd your nonscience claims always have to be? Now you are actually claiming that the highest sustained level of solar activity in thousands of years during the 20th century, and the dramatic and unexpected increase in solar activity in the last two years, is "the natural cycle trying to make the earth cool."

How can you expect us to take anything you say seriously after that?

Since the data says you're wrong, you're wrong, no matter how fanatical your faith in your pseudoscience is. That's how science works. That's why your side has stopped even trying to debate actual science, and now sticks with spewing political propaganda in online safespaces -- and politically pressuring peer-reviewed journals to reject unread any research that challenges the CO2 climate narrative.

Congratulations, you're now considered to be in same the category as big pharma, for the same reasons.

 

By looking at the facts of objective physical reality, which include the MWP and LIA, and comparing them to the nonscience from people like Lyin' Michael Mann, who erase them.

Obvious projection.

<yawn> I took half a dozen undergrad math courses at an internationally respected university, and scored in the top quarter of the class in all of them. You did not. I also took a couple of courses in planetary physics, including atmospheric physics, at the same university, but didn't do as well in those as the other students were all geophysics and astronomy majors. You also -- self-evidently -- did not do that.

That would describe CO2 dittoheads.

Hating evil liars is always the right thing to do.

You are the only one who has claimed not to understand my analogy. I think it was quite clear and valid.

It's dangerous to try to fathom out what leads deniers to make the conclusions they make. If you delve too deeply into the crazy, you risk having the insanity rubbing off on yourself.

 

Of course it does. It is an explicit claim that the natural factors that always drove climate change in the past are somehow no longer significant drivers of climate change.

Logic. You could try it.