Do Global warming evangelicals realize scientists can't explain climate change is....

[healthmyths]

There is nothing at all congress can do about climate change. Why do liberals constantly harp on it?

Do you think China, India, Argentina and other developing nations are going to cut back on energy consumption because a gaggle of academics think it's a good idea?

Dream on.

You know every single time I put this up there is NOT ONE global warming evangelical refuting it!
Because it is a fact... The USA made out to be the BIGGEST and WORST CO2 emitter actually is called a net carbon sink—it sequesters more carbon than it emits.

In simple terms, the US absorbs all the CO2 emitted by the USA with enough Landscape to absorb another 15% CO2!
Yet NOT one global warming enthusiast will agree much less do they understand!
They don't seem to get even with the analogy..
Say all the CO2 emitted in the USA could fit in a glass. There would still be enough room in the glass for 15% more CO2!
So where is the BIG BAD USA chief corrupter of GAIA folks??? Absorbing ALL plus 15% of the rest of the world's CO2!!!

Two types of analyses confirm this:

1) atmospheric, or top-down, methods that look at changes in CO2 concentrations; and
2) land-based, or bottom-up, methods that incorporate on-the-ground inventories or plot measurements.
Net sequestration (i.e., the difference between carbon gains and losses) in U.S. forests, urban trees and agricultural soils totaled almost 840 teragrams (Tg) of CO2 equivalent (or about 230 Tg or million metric tons of carbon equivalent) in 2001 (Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks).
This offsets approximately 15% of total U.S. CO2 emissions from the energy, transportation and other sectors. Net carbon sequestration in the forest sector in 2005 offset 10% of U.S. CO2 emissions. In the near future, we project that U.S. forests will continue to sequester carbon at a rate similar to that in recent years. Based on a comparison of our estimates to a compilation of land-based estimates of non-forest carbon

sinks from the literature, we estimate that the conterminous U.S. annually sequesters 149–330 Tg C year1. Forests, urban trees, and wood
products are responsible for 65–91% of this sink.

World Climate Report » Earth?s Carbon Sink Still Strong and Growing
http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/jrnl/2007/nrs_2007_woodbury_001.pdf

 

[mamooth]

Never heard of Abiotic Oil have you???

Sure we have. It's a crank theory, often embraced by the same right-wing lunatic fringe cult that denies global warming, says DDT was harmless, claims ozone depletion was a scam, claims President Obama is a Kenyan socialist, and in general falls hard for the dumbest scams imaginable.

Despite claims from its backers that it would find huge amounts of oil, all the searches for abiotic oil have found no more than a trace of it, just as standard oil theory predicted. Hence, abiotic oil fails as science. The theory made predictions, those predictions turned out to be false, so the theory was discarded.

In contrast, AGW has made accurate predictions on temperature and many other factors for 20+ years running now. Since AGW has been so successful at making predictions, it passes the test as solid science. When the denialist cranks get as good a success record, instead of failing laughably in every way, they'll have the same credibility as AGW science.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

There is nothing at all congress can do about climate change. Why do liberals constantly harp on it?

Do you think China, India, Argentina and other developing nations are going to cut back on energy consumption because a gaggle of academics think it's a good idea?

Dream on.

You know every single time I put this up there is NOT ONE global warming evangelical refuting it!
Because it is a fact... The USA made out to be the BIGGEST and WORST CO2 emitter actually is called a net carbon sink—it sequesters more carbon than it emits.

In simple terms, the US absorbs all the CO2 emitted by the USA with enough Landscape to absorb another 15% CO2!
Yet NOT one global warming enthusiast will agree much less do they understand!
They don't seem to get even with the analogy..
Say all the CO2 emitted in the USA could fit in a glass. There would still be enough room in the glass for 15% more CO2!
So where is the BIG BAD USA chief corrupter of GAIA folks??? Absorbing ALL plus 15% of the rest of the world's CO2!!!

Two types of analyses confirm this:

1) atmospheric, or top-down, methods that look at changes in CO2 concentrations; and
2) land-based, or bottom-up, methods that incorporate on-the-ground inventories or plot measurements.
Net sequestration (i.e., the difference between carbon gains and losses) in U.S. forests, urban trees and agricultural soils totaled almost 840 teragrams (Tg) of CO2 equivalent (or about 230 Tg or million metric tons of carbon equivalent) in 2001 (Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks).
This offsets approximately 15% of total U.S. CO2 emissions from the energy, transportation and other sectors. Net carbon sequestration in the forest sector in 2005 offset 10% of U.S. CO2 emissions. In the near future, we project that U.S. forests will continue to sequester carbon at a rate similar to that in recent years. Based on a comparison of our estimates to a compilation of land-based estimates of non-forest carbon

sinks from the literature, we estimate that the conterminous U.S. annually sequesters 149–330 Tg C year1. Forests, urban trees, and wood
products are responsible for 65–91% of this sink.

World Climate Report » Earth?s Carbon Sink Still Strong and Growing
http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/jrnl/2007/nrs_2007_woodbury_001.pdf

Liberals believe we can legislate climate and the weather. There is no end to their blind faith in the force of government. I'm surprised they don't make it illegal to rain on Sundays.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Never heard of Abiotic Oil have you???

Sure we have. It's a crank theory, often embraced by the same right-wing lunatic fringe cult that denies global warming, says DDT was harmless, claims ozone depletion was a scam, claims President Obama is a Kenyan socialist, and in general falls hard for the dumbest scams imaginable.

Despite claims from its backers that it would find huge amounts of oil, all the searches for abiotic oil have found no more than a trace of it, just as standard oil theory predicted. Hence, abiotic oil fails as science. The theory made predictions, those predictions turned out to be false, so the theory was discarded.

In contrast, AGW has made accurate predictions on temperature and many other factors for 20+ years running now. Since AGW has been so successful at making predictions, it passes the test as solid science. When the denialist cranks get as good a success record, instead of failing laughably in every way, they'll have the same credibility as AGW science.

Absolutely classic ad hominem argument.

Not to mention the circular logic used for the AGW. Yeah, they were wrong, but then they changed the terminology and now they're right.

Please.

 

[healthmyths]

Never heard of Abiotic Oil have you???

Sure we have. It's a crank theory, often embraced by the same right-wing lunatic fringe cult that denies global warming, says DDT was harmless, claims ozone depletion was a scam, claims President Obama is a Kenyan socialist, and in general falls hard for the dumbest scams imaginable.

Despite claims from its backers that it would find huge amounts of oil, all the searches for abiotic oil have found no more than a trace of it, just as standard oil theory predicted. Hence, abiotic oil fails as science. The theory made predictions, those predictions turned out to be false, so the theory was discarded.

In contrast, AGW has made accurate predictions on temperature and many other factors for 20+ years running now. Since AGW has been so successful at making predictions, it passes the test as solid science. When the denialist cranks get as good a success record, instead of failing laughably in every way, they'll have the same credibility as AGW science.

"Global warming" started with temperature reading stations around from 1659.
Most, if not all, climate models use the Central England Temperature (CET) record to compare historical temperatures with model outcomes [hindcasting]. The CET is the longest instrument record of temperatures in the world, dating back to 1659.

Revisiting Temperature Reconstructions used in Climate Change Modeling | Watts Up With That?

Since then the international temperature reading stations have been tracking temperatures.

But

12.5% of the Earth's land mass is missing in the temperature readings which by omission has skewed the average temperature higher as only those stations in large population centers were used.

"The number of [Siberian] stations increased from 8 in 1901 to 23 in 1951 and
then decreased to 12 from 1989 to present only four stations,
those at Irkutsk, Bratsk, Chita and Kirensk, cover the entire 20th century.

IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced
by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations…

The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting
for 12.5% of the world’s land mass.

The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale
of such exaggeration.
Climategatekeeping: Siberia « Climate Audit

So if the average temperature has been rising since temperature readings started in 1659
BUT during that time most temperature reading stations were in urban areas where temperatures are artificially higher and land masses
with less urban areas also have lower temperatures.. isn't there a bias at play???

 

[Little-Acorn]

Your article admits that the land the city is built on is sinking. Sea level increases are not affecting any other coastal city in America that I'm aware of.

(yawn)

New Orleans

<Yawn>

what about New Orleans?

(patiently)

Look at the message I was replying to, which you quoted but managed to not read.

 

[mamooth]

Absolutely classic ad hominem argument.

Awwww. Is the crank angry because someone mocked his stupid crank beliefs?

Why is it none of the oil companies can find this magic abiotic oil? How does your cult's dogma explain that? Are all the oil companies also part of a giant conspiracy to hide these vast fields of abiotic oil? Is everyone in the world, except for the TrueBelievers of your cult, part of the conspiracy?

Not to mention the circular logic used for the AGW. Yeah, they were wrong, but then they changed the terminology and now they're right.

But they didn't change the terminology. Scientists have always and still call it "global warming". That's because it's it's been steadily warming for the past 30 years. Wave your hands around and deny the facts all you want, but the earth doesn't care about your cult's ravings. It's still warming.

 

[mamooth]

Sea level increases are not affecting any other coastal city in America that I'm aware of.

The residents of the Jersey Shore and NYC would no doubt be very surprised to learn how sea level rise had no effect on them. They must have imagined the flooding.

Meanwhile, the dirty pinkos known as "The US Navy" are planning for rising sea levels.

Navy Releases Roadmap for Global Climate Change

Egads! Even the US Military is part of the vast socialist global warming conspiracy!

 

[JoeNormal]

Never heard of Abiotic Oil have you???

Sure we have. It's a crank theory, often embraced by the same right-wing lunatic fringe cult that denies global warming, says DDT was harmless, claims ozone depletion was a scam, claims President Obama is a Kenyan socialist, and in general falls hard for the dumbest scams imaginable.

Despite claims from its backers that it would find huge amounts of oil, all the searches for abiotic oil have found no more than a trace of it, just as standard oil theory predicted. Hence, abiotic oil fails as science. The theory made predictions, those predictions turned out to be false, so the theory was discarded.

In contrast, AGW has made accurate predictions on temperature and many other factors for 20+ years running now. Since AGW has been so successful at making predictions, it passes the test as solid science. When the denialist cranks get as good a success record, instead of failing laughably in every way, they'll have the same credibility as AGW science.

"Global warming" started with temperature reading stations around from 1659.
Most, if not all, climate models use the Central England Temperature (CET) record to compare historical temperatures with model outcomes [hindcasting]. The CET is the longest instrument record of temperatures in the world, dating back to 1659.

Revisiting Temperature Reconstructions used in Climate Change Modeling | Watts Up With That?

Since then the international temperature reading stations have been tracking temperatures.

But

12.5% of the Earth's land mass is missing in the temperature readings which by omission has skewed the average temperature higher as only those stations in large population centers were used.

"The number of [Siberian] stations increased from 8 in 1901 to 23 in 1951 and
then decreased to 12 from 1989 to present only four stations,
those at Irkutsk, Bratsk, Chita and Kirensk, cover the entire 20th century.

IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced
by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations…

The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting
for 12.5% of the world’s land mass.

The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale
of such exaggeration.
Climategatekeeping: Siberia « Climate Audit

So if the average temperature has been rising since temperature readings started in 1659
BUT during that time most temperature reading stations were in urban areas where temperatures are artificially higher and land masses
with less urban areas also have lower temperatures.. isn't there a bias at play???

Here's a 6 minute video that addresses your concerns.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=B7OdCOsMgCw]Climate Denial Crock of the Week - The "Urban Heat Island" Crock - YouTube[/ame]

 

[healthmyths]

Sure we have. It's a crank theory, often embraced by the same right-wing lunatic fringe cult that denies global warming, says DDT was harmless, claims ozone depletion was a scam, claims President Obama is a Kenyan socialist, and in general falls hard for the dumbest scams imaginable.

Despite claims from its backers that it would find huge amounts of oil, all the searches for abiotic oil have found no more than a trace of it, just as standard oil theory predicted. Hence, abiotic oil fails as science. The theory made predictions, those predictions turned out to be false, so the theory was discarded.

In contrast, AGW has made accurate predictions on temperature and many other factors for 20+ years running now. Since AGW has been so successful at making predictions, it passes the test as solid science. When the denialist cranks get as good a success record, instead of failing laughably in every way, they'll have the same credibility as AGW science.

"Global warming" started with temperature reading stations around from 1659.
Most, if not all, climate models use the Central England Temperature (CET) record to compare historical temperatures with model outcomes [hindcasting]. The CET is the longest instrument record of temperatures in the world, dating back to 1659.

Revisiting Temperature Reconstructions used in Climate Change Modeling | Watts Up With That?

Since then the international temperature reading stations have been tracking temperatures.

But

12.5% of the Earth's land mass is missing in the temperature readings which by omission has skewed the average temperature higher as only those stations in large population centers were used.

"The number of [Siberian] stations increased from 8 in 1901 to 23 in 1951 and
then decreased to 12 from 1989 to present only four stations,
those at Irkutsk, Bratsk, Chita and Kirensk, cover the entire 20th century.

IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced
by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations…

The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting
for 12.5% of the world’s land mass.

The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale
of such exaggeration.
Climategatekeeping: Siberia « Climate Audit

So if the average temperature has been rising since temperature readings started in 1659
BUT during that time most temperature reading stations were in urban areas where temperatures are artificially higher and land masses
with less urban areas also have lower temperatures.. isn't there a bias at play???

Here's a 6 minute video that addresses your concerns.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=B7OdCOsMgCw]Climate Denial Crock of the Week - The "Urban Heat Island" Crock - YouTube[/ame]

US Rural vs. Urban Temperature Stations
There's an article by Edward R. Long titled "Contiguous U.S. Temperature Trends Using NCDC Raw and Adjusted Data For One-Per-State Rural and Urban Station Sets." It claims to show that in the raw/unadjusted NCDC data, urban U.S. stations have a warming trend that diverges from that of rural stations, whereas in the adjusted data, the rural trend has been adjusted to "take on the time-line characteristics of urban data." In not so many words, it claims that NCDC data has been fudged. Not surprisingly, Long's article appears to be quite popular in "sceptic" circles.

The methodology of the article is peculiar. First, why only analyze the U.S.? Even though the U.S. has more stations than any other single country, its surface area is only 2% that of Earth.

More importantly, why pick only one rural and one urban station from each state? What was the criteria used to pick each state's stations? Was it random? The article does not clarify, so it lends itself to accusations of cherry-picking.

It's fairly easy to verify Long's claims with GHCN Processor. A quick verification takes perhaps 10 minutes if you're familiar with the tool's options.

First, we can get rural and urban temperature anomaly series for the U.S. from the adjusted data, with the following commands, respectively
Siting weather stations in urban areas has always been a tricky endeavor. Issues like security and extreme localized heat sources (e.g. asphalt, vehicles, heating and air conditioning sources) are primary concerns. For these reasons, the National Weather Service stations are usually sited in urban parks or airports.
Nevertheless many urban weather stations are still located on rooftops, but they can be suspect because of the temperature biases of dark roof membranes which can easily reach 176 degrees F (80 C).
Green roofs completely remove the temperature biases of rooftops as they are essentially meadows in the sky!
You can look at some of the comparative temperature data at my station ‘dashboards’ (see research stations on right-hand side).

If the number of such green roof weather station locations grow, this will improve data on true micro-climate variations within cities. A recent publication of mine about this is at this link.
Urban Weather Stations, Bee Conservation and Green Roofs | Environment Forum

 

[mamooth]

Your junk science isn't getting any better with repetition. You can take temp averages from these "bad" stations only, and they show _less_ warming than the "good" stations. That's because urban heat island effects are compensated for. Since you didn't know that, you clearly need to do some more reading outside of your cult. Doubtful you'll do so, of course. You were spoonfed the video, but refused to watch it. Good cultist.

Now, here's something interesting. Latest science shows rural areas have been heating up more than urban areas since 1950. And one of the authors is denialist hero Judith Curry, which kind of puts a whole in the whole "socialist conspiracy" thing you were hoping to use.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/96723180/Influence of Urban Heating.pdf

 

[healthmyths]

Your junk science isn't getting any better with repetition. You can take temp averages from these "bad" stations only, and they show _less_ warming than the "good" stations. That's because urban heat island effects are compensated for. Since you didn't know that, you clearly need to do some more reading outside of your cult. Doubtful you'll do so, of course. You were spoonfed the video, but refused to watch it. Good cultist.

Now, here's something interesting. Latest science shows rural areas have been heating up more than urban areas since 1950. And one of the authors is denialist hero Judith Curry, which kind of puts a whole in the whole "socialist conspiracy" thing you were hoping to use.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/96723180/Influence of Urban Heating.pdf

So how do you discount the fact the USA has enough CO2 sequestering landscape that ALL the CO2 is being absorbed that the USA emits
and there is still 15% capacity for more of the world's CO2???

World Climate Report » Earth?s Carbon Sink Still Strong and Growing
"The U.S. landscape acts as a net carbon sink—it sequesters more carbon than it emits.
Two types of analyses confirm this:
1) atmospheric, or top-down, methods that look at changes in CO2 concentrations; and
2) land-based, or bottom-up, methods that incorporate on-the-ground inventories or plot measurements.
Net sequestration (i.e., the difference between carbon gains and losses) in U.S. forests, urban trees and agricultural soils totaled almost 840 teragrams (Tg) of CO2 equivalent (or about 230 Tg or million metric tons of carbon equivalent) in 2001 (Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks).
This offsets approximately 15% of total U.S. CO2 emissions from the energy, transportation and other sectors. Net carbon sequestration in the forest sector in 2005 offset 10% of U.S. CO2 emissions. In the near future, we project that U.S. forests will continue to sequester carbon at a rate similar to that in recent years. Based on a comparison of our estimates to a compilation of land-based estimates of non-forest carbon
sinks from the literature, we estimate that the conterminous U.S. annually sequesters 149–330 Tg C year1. Forests, urban trees, and wood
products are responsible for 65–91% of this sink.

http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/jrnl/2007/nrs_2007_woodbury_001.pdf

 

[BlindBoo]

By Environment Correspondent Alister Doyle

OSLO (Reuters) - Climate change could get worse quickly if huge amounts of extra heat absorbed by the oceans are released back into the air, scientists said after unveiling new research showing that oceans have helped mitigate the effects of warming since 2000.

Heat-trapping gases are being emitted into the atmosphere faster than ever, and the 10 hottest years since records began have all taken place since 1998. But the rate at which the earth's surface is heating up has slowed somewhat since 2000, causing scientists to search for an explanation for the pause.

Experts in France and Spain said on Sunday that the oceans took up more warmth from the air around 2000. That would help explain the slowdown in surface warming but would also suggest that the pause may be only temporary and brief.

Oceans May Explain Slowdown in Climate Change: Scientific American

Guemas's study, twinning observations and computer models, showed that natural La Nina weather events in the Pacific around the year 2000 brought cool waters to the surface that absorbed more heat from the air. In another set of natural variations, the Atlantic also soaked up more heat.

"Global warming is continuing but it's being manifested in somewhat different ways," said Kevin Trenberth, of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research. Warming can go, for instance, to the air, water, land or to melting ice and snow.

Warmth is spreading to ever deeper ocean levels, he said, adding that pauses in surface warming could last 15-20 years.

"Recent warming rates of the waters below 700 meters appear to be unprecedented," he and colleagues wrote in a study last month in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

The U.N. panel of climate scientists says it is at least 90 percent certain that human activities - rather than natural variations in the climate - are the main cause of warming in recent decades.

 

[kaz]

The dupes fighting for the greedy idiot rich, hugely subsidized Big Oil, and polluters....only people in the world doing so...

The dups fighting for the greedy idiot politicians, hugely subsidized left wing special interests and unions...are the ones saying more government will fix the problem...

All you are saying...is give sheep a chance....

 

[JoeNormal]

US Rural vs. Urban Temperature Stations
There's an article by Edward R. Long titled "Contiguous U.S. Temperature Trends Using NCDC Raw and Adjusted Data For One-Per-State Rural and Urban Station Sets." It claims to show that in the raw/unadjusted NCDC data, urban U.S. stations have a warming trend that diverges from that of rural stations, whereas in the adjusted data, the rural trend has been adjusted to "take on the time-line characteristics of urban data." In not so many words, it claims that NCDC data has been fudged. Not surprisingly, Long's article appears to be quite popular in "sceptic" circles.

The methodology of the article is peculiar. First, why only analyze the U.S.? Even though the U.S. has more stations than any other single country, its surface area is only 2% that of Earth.

More importantly, why pick only one rural and one urban station from each state? What was the criteria used to pick each state's stations? Was it random? The article does not clarify, so it lends itself to accusations of cherry-picking.

It's fairly easy to verify Long's claims with GHCN Processor. A quick verification takes perhaps 10 minutes if you're familiar with the tool's options.

First, we can get rural and urban temperature anomaly series for the U.S. from the adjusted data, with the following commands, respectively
Siting weather stations in urban areas has always been a tricky endeavor. Issues like security and extreme localized heat sources (e.g. asphalt, vehicles, heating and air conditioning sources) are primary concerns. For these reasons, the National Weather Service stations are usually sited in urban parks or airports.
Nevertheless many urban weather stations are still located on rooftops, but they can be suspect because of the temperature biases of dark roof membranes which can easily reach 176 degrees F (80 C).
Green roofs completely remove the temperature biases of rooftops as they are essentially meadows in the sky!
You can look at some of the comparative temperature data at my station &#8216;dashboards&#8217; (see research stations on right-hand side).

If the number of such green roof weather station locations grow, this will improve data on true micro-climate variations within cities. A recent publication of mine about this is at this link.
Urban Weather Stations, Bee Conservation and Green Roofs | Environment Forum

View attachment 25424

Here is a source of information that you can view at either a basic or intermediate level of detail. The gist of it is that whether taken as a whole (all 728 temperature stations) or as subsets of urban/rural, the trend is the same.

Does Urban Heat Island effect exaggerate global warming trends?

Your junk science isn't getting any better with repetition. You can take temp averages from these "bad" stations only, and they show _less_ warming than the "good" stations. That's because urban heat island effects are compensated for. Since you didn't know that, you clearly need to do some more reading outside of your cult. Doubtful you'll do so, of course. You were spoonfed the video, but refused to watch it. Good cultist.

Now, here's something interesting. Latest science shows rural areas have been heating up more than urban areas since 1950. And one of the authors is denialist hero Judith Curry, which kind of puts a whole in the whole "socialist conspiracy" thing you were hoping to use.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/96723180/Influence of Urban Heating.pdf

So how do you discount the fact the USA has enough CO2 sequestering landscape that ALL the CO2 is being absorbed that the USA emits
and there is still 15% capacity for more of the world's CO2???

World Climate Report » Earth?s Carbon Sink Still Strong and Growing
"The U.S. landscape acts as a net carbon sink&#8212;it sequesters more carbon than it emits.
Two types of analyses confirm this:
1) atmospheric, or top-down, methods that look at changes in CO2 concentrations; and
2) land-based, or bottom-up, methods that incorporate on-the-ground inventories or plot measurements.
Net sequestration (i.e., the difference between carbon gains and losses) in U.S. forests, urban trees and agricultural soils totaled almost 840 teragrams (Tg) of CO2 equivalent (or about 230 Tg or million metric tons of carbon equivalent) in 2001 (Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks).
This offsets approximately 15% of total U.S. CO2 emissions from the energy, transportation and other sectors. Net carbon sequestration in the forest sector in 2005 offset 10% of U.S. CO2 emissions. In the near future, we project that U.S. forests will continue to sequester carbon at a rate similar to that in recent years. Based on a comparison of our estimates to a compilation of land-based estimates of non-forest carbon
sinks from the literature, we estimate that the conterminous U.S. annually sequesters 149&#8211;330 Tg C year1. Forests, urban trees, and wood
products are responsible for 65&#8211;91% of this sink.

http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/jrnl/2007/nrs_2007_woodbury_001.pdf

The point they seem to be trying to make is that the greater the concentration of atmospheric CO2, the more CO2 uptake there will be. Isn't the fallacy of this implication obvious? It doesn't mean the CO2 concentration will go down unless emissions decrease (which they aren't).

 

[healthmyths]

US Rural vs. Urban Temperature Stations
There's an article by Edward R. Long titled "Contiguous U.S. Temperature Trends Using NCDC Raw and Adjusted Data For One-Per-State Rural and Urban Station Sets." It claims to show that in the raw/unadjusted NCDC data, urban U.S. stations have a warming trend that diverges from that of rural stations, whereas in the adjusted data, the rural trend has been adjusted to "take on the time-line characteristics of urban data." In not so many words, it claims that NCDC data has been fudged. Not surprisingly, Long's article appears to be quite popular in "sceptic" circles.

The methodology of the article is peculiar. First, why only analyze the U.S.? Even though the U.S. has more stations than any other single country, its surface area is only 2% that of Earth.

More importantly, why pick only one rural and one urban station from each state? What was the criteria used to pick each state's stations? Was it random? The article does not clarify, so it lends itself to accusations of cherry-picking.

It's fairly easy to verify Long's claims with GHCN Processor. A quick verification takes perhaps 10 minutes if you're familiar with the tool's options.

First, we can get rural and urban temperature anomaly series for the U.S. from the adjusted data, with the following commands, respectively
Siting weather stations in urban areas has always been a tricky endeavor. Issues like security and extreme localized heat sources (e.g. asphalt, vehicles, heating and air conditioning sources) are primary concerns. For these reasons, the National Weather Service stations are usually sited in urban parks or airports.
Nevertheless many urban weather stations are still located on rooftops, but they can be suspect because of the temperature biases of dark roof membranes which can easily reach 176 degrees F (80 C).
Green roofs completely remove the temperature biases of rooftops as they are essentially meadows in the sky!
You can look at some of the comparative temperature data at my station ‘dashboards’ (see research stations on right-hand side).

If the number of such green roof weather station locations grow, this will improve data on true micro-climate variations within cities. A recent publication of mine about this is at this link.
Urban Weather Stations, Bee Conservation and Green Roofs | Environment Forum

View attachment 25424

Here is a source of information that you can view at either a basic or intermediate level of detail. The gist of it is that whether taken as a whole (all 728 temperature stations) or as subsets of urban/rural, the trend is the same.

Does Urban Heat Island effect exaggerate global warming trends?

Your junk science isn't getting any better with repetition. You can take temp averages from these "bad" stations only, and they show _less_ warming than the "good" stations. That's because urban heat island effects are compensated for. Since you didn't know that, you clearly need to do some more reading outside of your cult. Doubtful you'll do so, of course. You were spoonfed the video, but refused to watch it. Good cultist.

Now, here's something interesting. Latest science shows rural areas have been heating up more than urban areas since 1950. And one of the authors is denialist hero Judith Curry, which kind of puts a whole in the whole "socialist conspiracy" thing you were hoping to use.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/96723180/Influence of Urban Heating.pdf

So how do you discount the fact the USA has enough CO2 sequestering landscape that ALL the CO2 is being absorbed that the USA emits
and there is still 15% capacity for more of the world's CO2???

World Climate Report » Earth?s Carbon Sink Still Strong and Growing
"The U.S. landscape acts as a net carbon sink—it sequesters more carbon than it emits.
Two types of analyses confirm this:
1) atmospheric, or top-down, methods that look at changes in CO2 concentrations; and
2) land-based, or bottom-up, methods that incorporate on-the-ground inventories or plot measurements.
Net sequestration (i.e., the difference between carbon gains and losses) in U.S. forests, urban trees and agricultural soils totaled almost 840 teragrams (Tg) of CO2 equivalent (or about 230 Tg or million metric tons of carbon equivalent) in 2001 (Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks).
This offsets approximately 15% of total U.S. CO2 emissions from the energy, transportation and other sectors. Net carbon sequestration in the forest sector in 2005 offset 10% of U.S. CO2 emissions. In the near future, we project that U.S. forests will continue to sequester carbon at a rate similar to that in recent years. Based on a comparison of our estimates to a compilation of land-based estimates of non-forest carbon
sinks from the literature, we estimate that the conterminous U.S. annually sequesters 149–330 Tg C year1. Forests, urban trees, and wood
products are responsible for 65–91% of this sink.

http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/jrnl/2007/nrs_2007_woodbury_001.pdf

The point they seem to be trying to make is that the greater the concentration of atmospheric CO2, the more CO2 uptake there will be. Isn't the fallacy of this implication obvious? It doesn't mean the CO2 concentration will go down unless emissions decrease (which they aren't).

I'm not sure who "they" are but my putting this source was simple.
The USA emits CO2 we all agree.. right?
The USA landscape absorbs ALL the CO2 the USA emits and still has enough Landscape capacity to handle 15% more CO2!
So far from the USA being the "bad guy " in the scenarios global warming evangelistas proclaim through good landscape management i.e. trees like other crops
are harvested, re-planted,etc. by those EVIL lumber companies.. to the tune that there is MORE LANDSCAPE capturing MORE CO2 then the USA emits!
That is what the above states. Simple OK???

 

[JoeNormal]

I'm not sure who "they" are but my putting this source was simple.
The USA emits CO2 we all agree.. right?
The USA landscape absorbs ALL the CO2 the USA emits and still has enough Landscape capacity to handle 15% more CO2!
So far from the USA being the "bad guy " in the scenarios global warming evangelistas proclaim through good landscape management i.e. trees like other crops
are harvested, re-planted,etc. by those EVIL lumber companies.. to the tune that there is MORE LANDSCAPE capturing MORE CO2 then the USA emits!
That is what the above states. Simple OK???

Your World Climate Report link only refers to global uptake. Did you link the correct article?

 

[JoeNormal]

I'm not sure who "they" are but my putting this source was simple.
The USA emits CO2 we all agree.. right?
The USA landscape absorbs ALL the CO2 the USA emits and still has enough Landscape capacity to handle 15% more CO2!
So far from the USA being the "bad guy " in the scenarios global warming evangelistas proclaim through good landscape management i.e. trees like other crops
are harvested, re-planted,etc. by those EVIL lumber companies.. to the tune that there is MORE LANDSCAPE capturing MORE CO2 then the USA emits!
That is what the above states. Simple OK???

Your World Climate Report link only refers to global uptake. Did you link the correct article?

So I just returned from vacation to find that this was never addressed. Is this all it takes to silence the GW critics?

 

[ClosedCaption]

lol