Alarmist Claim Rebuttals

[Sunsettommy]

All trolling, name calling comments WILL be reported, I seek honest factual counterpoints to the article.

Acresearch

Alarmist Claim Rebuttals

May 20, 2019

Joseph D'Aleo, CCM, AMS Fellow

EXCERPT:

Alarmist Claim Rebuttal Overview[1]

Below are a series of rebuttals of the 11 most common climate alarmists’ claims such as those made in the recently released Fourth National Climate Assessment Report.[2] The authors of these rebuttals are all recognized experts in the relevant

For each alarmist claim, a summary of the relevant rebuttal is provided below along with a link to the full text of the rebuttal, which includes the names and the credentials of the authors of each rebuttal.

• Heat Waves – have been decreasing since the 1930s in the U.S. and globally
• Hurricanes – hurricane activity is flat to down since 1900, landfalls in the US are declining
• Tornadoes – the number of strong tornadoes have declined over the last half century
• Droughts and Floods – no statistically significant trends
• Wildfires – decreasing since 1800s. The increase in damage in recent years is due to population growth in vulnerable areas and poor forest management
• Snowfall – increasing in the fall and winter in the Northern Hemisphere and North America with many records being set.
• Sea level – the rate of global sea level rise on average has fallen by 40% the last century. Where it is increasing – local factors such as land subsidence are to blame.
• Arctic, Antarctic and Greenland Ice – the polar ice varies with multidecadal cycles in ocean temperatures. Current levels are comparable to or above historical low levels
• Alaska July 2019 heat records – this resulted from a warm North Pacific and reduced ice in the Bering Sea late winter due to strong storms. The opposite occurred with record cold in 2012.
• Ocean Acidification – when life is considered, ocean acidification is often found to be a non-problem, or even a benefit.
• Carbon Pollution as a health hazard – carbon dioxide (CO2) is an odorless invisible trace gas that is plant food and it is essential to life on the planet. It is not a pollutant.
• Climate change is endangering food supply – the vitality of global vegetation in both managed and unmanaged ecosystems is better off now than it was a hundred years ago, 50 years ago, or even a mere two-to-three decades ago thanks in part to CO2.

Claim: Heat Waves are increasing at an alarming rate and heat kills.

LINK for the rest

 

[Sunsettommy]

Here is another angle to the same 11 warmist claim failures:

11 Empty Climate Claims

Ron Clutz

October 23, 2019

EXCERPT:

Claim: Heat Waves are increasing at an alarming rate and heat kills.
Fact: They have been decreasing since the 1930s in the U.S. and globally.

There has been no detectable long-term increase in heat waves in the United States or elsewhere in the world. Most all-time record highs here in the U.S. happened many years ago, long before mankind was using much fossil fuel. Thirty-eight states set their all-time record highs before 1960 (23 in the 1930s!). Here in the United States, the number of 100F, 95F and 90F days per year has been steadily declining since the 1930s. The Environmental Protection Agency Heat Wave Index confirms the 1930s as the hottest decade.

LINK

 

[abu afak]

/----/ The warmers are getting agitated over your post.

Then I assume SunsetTommy REPORTED the quoted TROLL (I just did IAC) which got alot of likes from Other TROLLS: the board's mainstay.
But be sure, due to partisanship, Tommy didn't.
Screw you.
In fact, screw the USMboard for being basically 50%+ TROLL Posts.
I'm in favor of Zero.

On to the topic.... Which is Cherry Picking/Fallacious attempt in and of itself when one wants to make a conclusion on Global Warming.
Just Heat Waves in the USA, Just daytime highs.
IAC::

AccuWeather misleads on global warming and heat waves, a throwback to its past climate denial
August 9
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weat...heat-waves-throwback-its-past-climate-denial/

""[......] But there are problems with this argument that have been addressed in the scientific literature and independent analyses.

The heat waves of the 1930s were exacerbated by land mismanagement tied to the Dust Bowl. A combination of springtime drought and farming practices left fields bare of vegetation, which allowed summer temperatures to skyrocket. In other words, the extreme heat of the 1930s is a reflection of specific circumstances in that decade and does not invalidate a link between today’s heat waves and climate change.

Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist for Berkeley Earth, which specializes in temperature data, points out that although the heat waves in the 1930s may have had higher daytime temperatures, present-day nighttime temperatures are much higher. This is an expected outcome of climate change as the atmosphere responds to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases.

Today’s steamier nighttime temperatures allow heat stress to build, increasing the risk of heat-related illness and death for vulnerable populations without air-conditioning. So, from the standpoint of extreme nighttime temperatures, present-day heat waves are objectively far worse than those in the 1930s.

Moreover, temperature measurements in the 1930s may well have been inflated. Hausfather wrote in an email that many of those temperatures were taken on rooftops before later moving to ground stations in the same locations. Research has shown that rooftop stations tend to run warmer than their ground-based counterparts (for high temperatures). In addition, Hausfather says these historic measurements were taken using mercury thermometers which have since been replaced by new temperature sensors (thermistors), which tend to read about one degree cooler (for high temperatures).

“[O]nce the data is corrected for instrument changes, station moves, and similar factors, U.S. heat waves are actually slightly worse on average today than in the 1930s,” Hausfather said.

There’s another important point, though, that Myers is glossing over in arguing that there has been no climate change-related trend in U.S. heat waves.
The heat in the United States in the 1930s was a blip compared to the cool conditions around the rest of the world, whereas today much of the world is uniformly warm, relative to the past.

[..................]

`

I might add/agree..
Please post ON TOPIC and NO TROLLS.
I will be reporting all of them even if Sunset won't.
Alas I have no enforcement power over this Zoo.

`

 

[Sunsettommy]

I see that Abu didn't even address the Heat wave evidence in MY link at post one, not only that he as usual does a CUT and PASTE reply that attacks AccuWeather, which wasn't in the link at all. Accuweather isn't the one making the claim in post one...... Oooops!

Here is this from post one, you didn't read about that is inside the link:

Heat Waves – have been decreasing since the 1930s in the U.S. and globally

You, the Washington Post and Zeke never did counter that statement at all, here is what Zeke said from YOUR link:

"Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist for Berkeley Earth, which specializes in temperature data, points out that although the heat waves in the 1930s may have had higher daytime temperatures, present-day nighttime temperatures are much higher. This is an expected outcome of climate change as the atmosphere responds to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases.

Today’s steamier nighttime temperatures allow heat stress to build, increasing the risk of heat-related illness and death for vulnerable populations without air-conditioning. So, from the standpoint of extreme nighttime temperatures, present-day heat waves are objectively far worse than those in the 1930s."



In MY link makes it abundantly clear the 1930;s heat waves were a lot worse and much more common than now, Zeke is doing what he commonly does, is mislead you with bullcrap.

From MY link you didn't read:

Here in the United States, the number of 100F, 95F and 90F days per year has been steadily declining since the 1930s. The Environmental Protection Agency Heat Wave Index confirms the 1930s as the hottest decade.

Source: EPA Heat Wave Index (Kunkel 2016)

You did poorly, Abu.

 

[Sunsettommy]

More evidence that Heat Waves were more common long ago than now:

and,

Above: Number of Record Daily High Temperaturesper year for804 USHCN stations with >100years of data (NOAA/NCEI, prepared by JRChristy).

and,

Above: Average number of days per year with temperatures >100F and >105F in 682 USHCN stations with >105 years ofdata (NOAA/NCEI, prepared by JRChristy).

The evidence is overwhelming.

 

[abu afak]

SAME claim above
The SAME local/USA only, daytime only, hot days. Not an issue.
See my first response above that renders it meaningless.

Repeating it/making longer doesn't do anything.
I assume your next/yet more desperate post will be longer yet, with more meaningLess repeats/graphic dumps to attempt credibility by volume.
But It's over.
You lost right out if the box.
My first post ended it.
Have a nice night.




EDIT to below (or above):
SunsetTommy did it again!
The [meaningless] Spike in 1930s USA-only, daytime-only, hot days explained/debunked in my First response above.
Sorry, but he's just too dense to get it, or debate at all.
So he just keeps posting variants of Same.

`

`

 

[Sunsettommy]

One more time based on NOAA data:

LINK

 

[ReinyDays]

Sea level – the rate of global sea level rise on average has fallen by 40% the last century. Where it is increasing – local factors such as land subsidence are to blame.

The oceans are about 2-1/2 miles deep ... 40% is a full mile ... you'd think folks would notice this? ... ha ha ha ha ... yeah, I read the article's section ... the statement above is not well worded ... I worry it's carefully phrased ... see what I mean? ...

Anyway ... we're throwing away the tidal gauge data ... no sense spending the money to install recording GPS units on them, most will still show crazy results ... besides, we have satellite altimeters now ... Mr D'Aleo stated "Satellite technology has been proven to be not credible for this purpose" without anything to back that up ... a pretty severe lapse of discipline ... if our complaint about the Alarmists is their complete and utter lack of scientific discipline, then we need to be ever vigilant in our own ...

The shame of the matter is the satellite data supports Mr D'Aleo claims ... at least well enough ... I found this gem from NASA's website: Climate-change–driven accelerated sea-level rise detected in the altimeter era; Nerem et al; 2018 ... the tl:dr version is sea level rise is 3.2 (± 0.2) mm/yr and 0.084 (± 0.025) mm/yr/yr ... 65 cm total from 2005 to 2100 ... a little over two feet ... anybody who's ever said three feet or more needs to apologize right now, admit they were wrong, and promise to stop guessing in the future ... this amount of sea level rise is nothing, unnoticeable, and over a time period longer than the lifespan of the buildings we're building ... the Hysteria associated with sea level rise is the worst kind of fear-mongering, hiding preposterous speculation behind a complete lack of data ... what's wrong with you people, didn't you notice how absurd your claims of catastrophe are? ... the sad part is this is one of the Alarmist's major beating points, and apparently it's completely bogus ... what does that say about the rest of their whining? ...

Mr D'Aleo is a creationist? ... or is bringing this up considered trolling? ... I'd hate to get reported ... makes no difference to me if his science is right ...

 

[Sunsettommy]

Sea level – the rate of global sea level rise on average has fallen by 40% the last century. Where it is increasing – local factors such as land subsidence are to blame.

The oceans are about 2-1/2 miles deep ... 40% is a full mile ... you'd think folks would notice this? ... ha ha ha ha ... yeah, I read the article's section ... the statement above is not well worded ... I worry it's carefully phrased ... see what I mean? ...

Anyway ... we're throwing away the tidal gauge data ... no sense spending the money to install recording GPS units on them, most will still show crazy results ... besides, we have satellite altimeters now ... Mr D'Aleo stated "Satellite technology has been proven to be not credible for this purpose" without anything to back that up ... a pretty severe lapse of discipline ... if our complaint about the Alarmists is their complete and utter lack of scientific discipline, then we need to be ever vigilant in our own ...

The shame of the matter is the satellite data supports Mr D'Aleo claims ... at least well enough ... I found this gem from NASA's website: Climate-change–driven accelerated sea-level rise detected in the altimeter era; Nerem et al; 2018 ... the tl:dr version is sea level rise is 3.2 (± 0.2) mm/yr and 0.084 (± 0.025) mm/yr/yr ... 65 cm total from 2005 to 2100 ... a little over two feet ... anybody who's ever said three feet or more needs to apologize right now, admit they were wrong, and promise to stop guessing in the future ... this amount of sea level rise is nothing, unnoticeable, and over a time period longer than the lifespan of the buildings we're building ... the Hysteria associated with sea level rise is the worst kind of fear-mongering, hiding preposterous speculation behind a complete lack of data ... what's wrong with you people, didn't you notice how absurd your claims of catastrophe are? ... the sad part is this is one of the Alarmist's major beating points, and apparently it's completely bogus ... what does that say about the rest of their whining? ...

Mr D'Aleo is a creationist? ... or is bringing this up considered trolling? ... I'd hate to get reported ... makes no difference to me if his science is right ...

There are some problems with reliable sea level readings, as they have different methods and land changes not always accounted for. Here is a chart that should help people realize even the modeled projected (Unverifiable as they are) are nothing compared to massive sea level rise in the past:

Here is a report trying to get a handle on the subject of Sea Level rise, a 16 page PDF presentation:

Global Sea-Level Rise: An Evaluation of the Data*

Excerpt:

Sea-level RiseAccording to the Working Group I contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (IPCC, 2013), “it is very likely that the global mean rate [of sea level rise] was 1.7 [1.5 to 1.9] mm yr-1 between 1901 and 2010 for a total sea level rise of 0.19 [0.17 to 0.21] m” (p. 1139) and “it is very likely that the rate of global mean sea level rise during the 21st century will exceed the rate observed during 1971–2010 for all Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) scenarios due to increases in ocean warming and loss of mass from glaciers and ice sheets” (p. 1140).

Also according to the IPCC (2013), mass loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets over the period 1993–2010 expressed as sea-level equivalent was “about 5.9 mm (including 1.7 mm from glaciers around Greenland) and 4.8 mm, respectively,” and ice loss from glaciers be-tween 1993 and 2009 (excluding those peripheral to the ice sheets) was 13 mm (p. 368). The total is 23.7 mm (5.9 + 4.8 + 13), which is slightly less than 1 inch.

=========

Then we have Doggerland, where a huge region was swallowed up in a few thousand years of sea level rise:

Doggerland - The Europe That Was

People adapted by moving to higher elevations, they dealt with far faster sea level rise, that are far higher than even the worst IPCC scenarios by a long shot.

CO2 didn't cause all this then........

 

[mamooth]

That was quite a Gish Gallup by Tommy. Expected. Those who have nothing sensible to say often resort to Gish Gallups. Posting one is basically an admission of having nothing. Let's sample a few bits of his BS.

Heat Waves – have been decreasing since the 1930s in the U.S. and globally

No, they've been on the increase globally, and in the USA as well.

Trends in extremes | Climate Lab Book

Also, interestiong how Tommy just ran from Abu's points instead of addressing them. It's as if he knew all his crap on heat waves had been debunked, so his only option was to just repeat it again at a higher volume.

Hurricanes – hurricane activity is flat to down since 1900, landfalls in the US are declining

Wrong, and amusing that he thinks landfalls have anything to do with anytying.

National Climate Assessment
---
The intensity, frequency, and duration of North Atlantic hurricanes, as well as the frequency of the strongest hurricanes, have all increased since the early 1980s.
---

Tornadoes – the number of strong tornadoes have declined over the last half century

And nobody predicted more tornadoes, so it's a big lie by Tommy and the deniers to put this one in.

Wildfires – decreasing since 1800s. The increase in damage in recent years is due to population growth in vulnerable areas and poor forest management

A silly claim, given how people used to burn farmland routinely in the 1800s. And he's admitting wildfires are on the increase now.

Snowfall – increasing in the fall and winter in the Northern Hemisphere and North America with many records being set.

And decreasing in the spring and summer. All just as predicted.

The pattern here is becoming clear. Tommy's source is just a propaganda piece, one that usually lies by cherrypicking and leaving out pertinent information.

 

[flacaltenn]

/----/ The warmers are getting agitated over your post.

Then I assume SunsetTommy REPORTED the quoted TROLL (I just did IAC) which got alot of likes from Other TROLLS: the board's mainstay.
But be sure, due to partisanship, Tommy didn't.
Screw you.
In fact, screw the USMboard for being basically 50%+ TROLL Posts.
I'm in favor of Zero.

On to the topic.... Which is Cherry Picking/Fallacious attempt in and of itself when one wants to make a conclusion on Global Warming.
Just Heat Waves in the USA, Just daytime highs.
IAC::

AccuWeather misleads on global warming and heat waves, a throwback to its past climate denial
August 9
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weat...heat-waves-throwback-its-past-climate-denial/

""[......] But there are problems with this argument that have been addressed in the scientific literature and independent analyses.

The heat waves of the 1930s were exacerbated by land mismanagement tied to the Dust Bowl. A combination of springtime drought and farming practices left fields bare of vegetation, which allowed summer temperatures to skyrocket. In other words, the extreme heat of the 1930s is a reflection of specific circumstances in that decade and does not invalidate a link between today’s heat waves and climate change.

Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist for Berkeley Earth, which specializes in temperature data, points out that although the heat waves in the 1930s may have had higher daytime temperatures, present-day nighttime temperatures are much higher. This is an expected outcome of climate change as the atmosphere responds to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases.

Today’s steamier nighttime temperatures allow heat stress to build, increasing the risk of heat-related illness and death for vulnerable populations without air-conditioning. So, from the standpoint of extreme nighttime temperatures, present-day heat waves are objectively far worse than those in the 1930s.

View attachment 285930

Moreover, temperature measurements in the 1930s may well have been inflated. Hausfather wrote in an email that many of those temperatures were taken on rooftops before later moving to ground stations in the same locations. Research has shown that rooftop stations tend to run warmer than their ground-based counterparts (for high temperatures). In addition, Hausfather says these historic measurements were taken using mercury thermometers which have since been replaced by new temperature sensors (thermistors), which tend to read about one degree cooler (for high temperatures).

“[O]nce the data is corrected for instrument changes, station moves, and similar factors, U.S. heat waves are actually slightly worse on average today than in the 1930s,” Hausfather said.

There’s another important point, though, that Myers is glossing over in arguing that there has been no climate change-related trend in U.S. heat waves.
The heat in the United States in the 1930s was a blip compared to the cool conditions around the rest of the world, whereas today much of the world is uniformly warm, relative to the past.

[..................]

`

I might add/agree..
Please post ON TOPIC and NO TROLLS.
I will be reporting all of them even if Sunset won't.
Alas I have no enforcement power over this Zoo.

`

Funny how "station location" issues are important to the 30s, but NOT today when rational folks point out poorly located URBAN stations that are sucking exhaust heat from air conditioners, parking lots or airplane exhaust...,

Also funny how the "dust bowl" just created ITSELF, without severe persistent HEAT and drought conditions.Usually these things tend to go together..

And MORE than funny is the assertion that these USHCN temperatures were "local" in an age and time where it was VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE to put together data sets and networks of stations REPRESENTATIVE ENOUGH to even GET a sub 0.1degC ACCURATE Global Mean surface temperature. Probably 4 or 5 stations in the arctic and maybe 4 reliable stations in Africa. Not much coverage AT ALL for the 70% of the Earth's surface that are oceans and many other HORRENDOUSLY huge gaps in creating that kind of study. And no established networks...

If 8 trees in Siberia can become the critical PROXY evidence for the ENTIRE GLOBE in the Mann and other hockey stick historical studies, YOU should have NO ISSUE accepting the actual relatively great data from USA records in the early 20th century as an important marker.

 

[flacaltenn]

Denmark has periods of temperatures in the 30s and 40s that were about 0.6degC higher than neighboring years..

https://www.dmi.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/Rapporter/TR/2019/DMIRep19-02.pdf

graph pg 42...

And pretty much the same for historical network in Australia except maybe a tenth or two HIGHER deviations in the 30s and 40s..

In fact when you look at individual countries historical "networks", you see far more VARIABILITY then you do in the NOAA/GISS/Hadley worldwide data that we get in the latter part of the 20th century..

BTW... The "linear trend" on the Australia graph is LESS than the UAH sat trend.. Are you still absolutely PANICKED by 0.1DegC per decade snowflakes??? LOL....

 

[Intolerant]

I see that Abu didn't even address the Heat wave evidence in MY link at post one, not only that he as usual does a CUT and PASTE reply that attacks AccuWeather, which wasn't in the link at all. Accuweather isn't the one making the claim in post one...... Oooops!

Here is this from post one, you didn't read about that is inside the link:

Heat Waves – have been decreasing since the 1930s in the U.S. and globally

You, the Washington Post and Zeke never did counter that statement at all, here is what Zeke said from YOUR link:

"Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist for Berkeley Earth, which specializes in temperature data, points out that although the heat waves in the 1930s may have had higher daytime temperatures, present-day nighttime temperatures are much higher. This is an expected outcome of climate change as the atmosphere responds to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases.

Today’s steamier nighttime temperatures allow heat stress to build, increasing the risk of heat-related illness and death for vulnerable populations without air-conditioning. So, from the standpoint of extreme nighttime temperatures, present-day heat waves are objectively far worse than those in the 1930s."



In MY link makes it abundantly clear the 1930;s heat waves were a lot worse and much more common than now, Zeke is doing what he commonly does, is mislead you with bullcrap.

From MY link you didn't read:

Here in the United States, the number of 100F, 95F and 90F days per year has been steadily declining since the 1930s. The Environmental Protection Agency Heat Wave Index confirms the 1930s as the hottest decade.

Source: EPA Heat Wave Index (Kunkel 2016)

You did poorly, Abu.

You have to over look abu afuc.

 

[mamooth]

[Funny how "station location" issues are important to the 30s, but NOT today when rational folks point out poorly located URBAN stations that are sucking exhaust heat from air conditioners, parking lots or airplane exhaust...,

As is always he case, reality flatly contradicts your conspiracy theory. Urban areas have been heating more slowly than rural areas.

Also funny how the "dust bowl" just created ITSELF, without severe persistent HEAT and drought conditions.Usually these things tend to go together..

And now you're denying that bad farming practices played a huge role. Wow.

And MORE than funny is the assertion that these USHCN temperatures were "local" in an age and time where it was VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE to put together data sets and networks of stations REPRESENTATIVE ENOUGH to even GET a sub 0.1degC ACCURATE Global Mean surface temperature. Probably 4 or 5 stations in the arctic and maybe 4 reliable stations in Africa. Not much coverage AT ALL for the 70% of the Earth's surface that are oceans and many other HORRENDOUSLY huge gaps in creating that kind of study. And no established networks..

That was a strange fantasy. I have no idea where you got the crazy idea that there were so few weather stations.

If 8 trees in Siberia can become the critical PROXY evidence for the ENTIRE GLOBE in the Mann and other hockey stick historical studies, YOU should have NO ISSUE accepting the actual relatively great data from USA records in the early 20th century as an important marker.

And that data shows the USA cooler then. 1934 ranks a poor seventh for the USA. 2012, 2016, 2015, 2006, and 1998 were all hotter.

The only way to make your conspiracy work is to fudge, fudge and fudge some more by deliberately leaving out error corrections. As that's not honest, no honest scientist would do it.

 

[mamooth]

Denmark has periods of temperatures in the 30s and 40s that were about 0.6degC higher than neighboring years..

And pretty much the same for historical network in Australia except maybe a tenth or two HIGHER deviations in the 30s and 40s..

Is there a point coming up soon?

In fact when you look at individual countries historical "networks", you see far more VARIABILITY then you do in the NOAA/GISS/Hadley worldwide data that we get in the latter part of the 20th century..

BTW... The "linear trend" on the Australia graph is LESS than the UAH sat trend.. Are you still absolutely PANICKED by 0.1DegC per decade snowflakes??? LOL....

I read until the end, hoping to see any kind of point, but a point never arrived.

 

[flacaltenn]

As is always he case, reality flatly contradicts your conspiracy theory. Urban areas have been heating more slowly than rural areas.

Yeah sure Squidward.. Been watching the Nashville heat island skyrocket as the city adds about 2500 people a month and the skyline DOUBLES in area since I moved here. Now up to at LEAST 3 or 4 degrees above my Hillbilly Hollywood suburban community outside Davidson County..

Growth IS heat.. Only the Goddard Inst. Space Studies seems to ignore SPACE WEATHER SCIENCE enough to make it "go away"....

 

[mamooth]

Yeah sure Squidward.. Been watching the Nashville heat island skyrocket as the city adds about 2500 people a month and the skyline DOUBLES in area since I moved here. Now up to at LEAST 3 or 4 degrees above my Hillbilly Hollywood suburban community outside Davidson County..

Those are your beliefs, sure, but the data says none of that affects the weather stations. So much for your conspiracy theory.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/1520-0442(2003)016<2941:AOUVRI>2.0.CO;2
---
Using satellite night-lights–derived urban/rural metadata, urban and rural temperatures from 289 stations in 40 clusters were compared using data from 1989 to 1991. Contrary to generally accepted wisdom, no statistically significant impact of urbanization could be found in annual temperatures. It is postulated that this is due to micro- and local-scale impacts dominating over the mesoscale urban heat island. Industrial sections of towns may well be significantly warmer than rural sites, but urban meteorological observations are more likely to be made within park cool islands than industrial regions.
---

Growth IS heat.. Only the Goddard Inst. Space Studies seems to ignore SPACE WEATHER SCIENCE enough to make it "go away"....

Is that a version of your "The sun did it, and the heat hid in the oceans for decades!" conspiracy theory? It's hard to tell.

 

[ReinyDays]

Additionally, as a community, we need to update our understanding of urban heat islands, to realize that this phenomenon is more complex than widely believed by those not immersed in the field.

One of the things understood by those "immersed in the field" is that temperature can be quite different a short distance away from the thermometer ... a full degree at a half mile, +/- 5ºF within ten miles ... any farmer knows if the forecast is for 33ºF low at the airport, he better set his smudge pots ... and pilots only care about the temperature at the airport ... we collect temperature data for specific purposes, agriculture and aviation; to use this data for climatology has well-known limitations ...

I am concerned that the paper defines "rural" as communities of less than 10,000 people ... and this is used to compare to "urban" communities regarding the UHI effect ... I can see why they found no difference but I really don't see how this discredits UHI effects, plenty of asphalt shingles and asphalt streets in a small town of 4,000 ... as a test, on some warm summer day, take the temperature over an asphalt highway, then walk over 50 feet and take the temperature under the timber canopy ... if there's a difference, then we've demonstrated the UHI effect ... surprisingly, AGW Theory covers both, and it is of scientific interest to determine what parts of AGW Theory cause which effects ... but there's nothing in this paper that doesn't confirm our need to plant more trees as an inexpensive and beautiful way to help mitigate rising temperatures ... I'd like to think my fellow Denialists would agree that more trees is a good thing ...

I think everything about the climate system "is more complex than widely believed" ... I'm shocked how many people casually post temperature readings to the nearest tenth of a degree, we can't "average out" instrumentation error, the thermometers we have in wide distribution only read +/- 1ºF ... temperature might have gone up 0.2ºF, but how would we know? ... our thermometers are giving the same readings ... yes, that means it take 40 years of global warming before we can measure it ... longer than most folks have been alive ...

 

[mamooth]

I am concerned that the paper defines "rural" as communities of less than 10,000 people

A line had to be drawn somewhere. Where would you have drawn it?

I really don't see how this discredits UHI effects,

That's not the point. Nobody has ever said there are no UHI effects.

The point is that one of the prominent denier conspiracy theory is that UHI effects explain all of warming. That conspiracy theory is conclusively debunked by the hard data.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Additionally, as a community, we need to update our understanding of urban heat islands, to realize that this phenomenon is more complex than widely believed by those not immersed in the field.

One of the things understood by those "immersed in the field" is that temperature can be quite different a short distance away from the thermometer ... a full degree at a half mile, +/- 5ºF within ten miles ... any farmer knows if the forecast is for 33ºF low at the airport, he better set his smudge pots ... and pilots only care about the temperature at the airport ... we collect temperature data for specific purposes, agriculture and aviation; to use this data for climatology has well-known limitations ...

I am concerned that the paper defines "rural" as communities of less than 10,000 people ... and this is used to compare to "urban" communities regarding the UHI effect ... I can see why they found no difference but I really don't see how this discredits UHI effects, plenty of asphalt shingles and asphalt streets in a small town of 4,000 ... as a test, on some warm summer day, take the temperature over an asphalt highway, then walk over 50 feet and take the temperature under the timber canopy ... if there's a difference, then we've demonstrated the UHI effect ... surprisingly, AGW Theory covers both, and it is of scientific interest to determine what parts of AGW Theory cause which effects ... but there's nothing in this paper that doesn't confirm our need to plant more trees as an inexpensive and beautiful way to help mitigate rising temperatures ... I'd like to think my fellow Denialists would agree that more trees is a good thing ...

I think everything about the climate system "is more complex than widely believed" ... I'm shocked how many people casually post temperature readings to the nearest tenth of a degree, we can't "average out" instrumentation error, the thermometers we have in wide distribution only read +/- 1ºF ... temperature might have gone up 0.2ºF, but how would we know? ... our thermometers are giving the same readings ... yes, that means it take 40 years of global warming before we can measure it ... longer than most folks have been alive ...

/---/ And who was taking temperatures 120 years ago, with what kind of thermometer, and where was it placed and how accurate was the reading?