Climate change caused by man is false and we have proven it already.

[Cardinal Carminative]

I'll let Amazon know logistics isn't a science.

In all reality I'm sure scheduling is "scientific" in that it requires organization and probably a reasonable dose of mathematics, but that's not really in any way associated with the physical sciences per se.

I mean no offense toward your field, but surely you must understand that shipping and receiving and scheduling really aren't related to this topic at all. It would be as if I claimed my experience with patents and intellectual property law somehow made me an expert on climate.

You actually think you should be taken seriously?

Yeah. But then I've actually gotten degrees and spent time working on topics related to earth science as well as chemistry. Both topics integral to this discussion

You're a cultist.

And with that exact phrase I know you have no clue how science actually works. Simply disagreeing with someone over science YOU don't understand at a technical level does not make ME a "cultist".

At least I have a clue of what I'm talking about.

 

[Uncensored2008]

In all reality I'm sure scheduling is "scientific" in that it requires organization and probably a reasonable dose of mathematics, but that's not really in any way associated with the physical sciences per se.

I mean no offense toward your field, but surely you must understand that shipping and receiving and scheduling really aren't related to this topic at all. It would be as if I claimed my experience with patents and intellectual property law somehow made me an expert on climate.



Yeah. But then I've actually gotten degrees and spent time working on topics related to earth science as well as chemistry. Both topics integral to this discussion



And with that exact phrase I know you have no clue how science actually works. Simply disagreeing with someone over science YOU don't understand at a technical level does not make ME a "cultist".

At least I have a clue of what I'm talking about.

You are a clown.

You never got past tactic #1 - mindless ad hom.

Poor showing, as you cultists go.

 

[ding]

Certainly. Deforestation. Loss of habitat for key species. Aerosols in the atmopshere. The acidification of the world's oceans. Agricultural monoculture. Human actions have led us into the Sixth Great Extinction. That may not have large effects on the climate but it will certainly have a large effect on the nature and quality of OUR lives.

I agree that the urban heat island effect is real. Where I disagree is blaming atmospheric CO2 for it.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

You are a clown.

To be fair, I'm not the one who got a "doctorate" in shipping and receiving.

You never got past tactic #1 - mindless ad hom.

I am surprised that you never had a logic or rhetoric class in you graduate work in shipping and receiving. You might then understand that an ad hominem is not simply an "insult" but rather a rhetorical fallacy that is much more nuaced. But I'm sure you were busy with "Thermodynamics of Shipping and Receiving" and "Quantum Scheduling".

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

I agree that the urban heat island effect is real. Where I disagree is blaming atmospheric CO2 for it.

The Urban Heat Island effect is real, and it has to do with structures placed on the ground and how they absorb heat, so nothing really to do with CO2 per se.

But that being said, studies have found that the Urban Heat Island effect has little to no statistically significant effect on the temperature record used to measure climate change and warming. (HERE)

 

[Uncensored2008]

I agree that the urban heat island effect is real. Where I disagree is blaming atmospheric CO2 for it.

Wait, Carbon Dioxide doesn't cause asphalt parking lots?

 

[Uncensored2008]

To be fair, I'm not the one who got a "doctorate" in shipping and receiving.

Oh, you try so hard, and fail so miserably.

I am surprised that you never had a logic or rhetoric class in you graduate work in shipping and receiving. You might then understand that an ad hominem is not simply an "insult" but rather a rhetorical fallacy that is much more nuaced. But I'm sure you were busy with "Thermodynamics of Shipping and Receiving" and "Quantum Scheduling".

And you have an AA in Gender Fluidity Studies, I assume?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

And you have an AA in Gender Fluidity Studies, I assume?

Oh nice! A homophobe and a transphobe! Cool!

You must be proud. Any other people you hate based on no real information? I bet you have a great list.

 

[ding]

The Urban Heat Island effect is real, and it has to do with structures placed on the ground and how they absorb heat, so nothing really to do with CO2 per se.

But that being said, studies have found that the Urban Heat Island effect has little to no statistically significant effect on the temperature record used to measure climate change and warming. (HERE)

It does when they include urban temperature stations in their models.

Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.

Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

Here is the link to the full paper.
ShieldSquare Captcha

 

[jc456]

If I am it's because such a disappointingly large proportion of them are almost as stupid as are you.

for what? again, in your lifetime, can you point to where the ocean has risen?

 

[jc456]

Oh nice! A homophobe and a transphobe! Cool!

You must be proud. Any other people you hate based on no real information? I bet you have a great list.

so you think someone with a penis is a woman. I rest the case.

 

[ding]

Wait, Carbon Dioxide doesn't cause asphalt parking lots?

Apparently the UHI effect is also influenced by electricity usage.

Right Crick and Toddsterpatriot ?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

It does when they include urban temperature stations in their models.

Nope. The way the models use temperature station data is a bit more complex. It includes corrections and grid averaging. The article showed no statistically significant difference in the temperature trends with or without the urban heat islands.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

so you think someone with a penis is a woman. I rest the case.

What case exactly?

 

[ding]

Nope. The way the models use temperature station data is a bit more complex. It includes corrections and grid averaging. The article showed no statistically significant difference in the temperature trends with or without the urban heat islands.

I literally just showed you a comparison of the datasets used. The IPCC is including data for urban stations that when excluded yield a diametrically opposite conclusion.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

I literally just showed you a comparison of the datasets used. The IPCC is including data for urban stations that when excluded yield a diametrically opposite conclusion.

View attachment 626024

And I literally just showed you a study which actually found that there was not statistically significant difference whether UHIE is included or not.

 

[jc456]

What case exactly?

two genders.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

two genders.

...and that has what to do with climate change?

 

[ding]

And I literally just showed you a study which actually found that there was not statistically significant difference whether UHIE is included or not.

Ummmm... no, you didn't. Here is what you posted:

Nope. The way the models use temperature station data is a bit more complex. It includes corrections and grid averaging. The article showed no statistically significant difference in the temperature trends with or without the urban heat islands.

I don't see any study.

What I posted was not an article. It was a study that was published. That study presented the IPCC's forecast and described the datasets the IPCC used in their modeling. Specifically, the use of data from urban temperature stations and low variability solar output datasets.

The IPCC has yet to refute anything in the paper I posted. They can’t because they do include urban station temperature readings in their models and their models do use the low variability solar output dataset.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Ummmm... no, you didn't. Here is what you posted:

Did you not see the article I linked to for Peterson's study? My bad.

HEre it is:

Assessment of Urban Versus Rural In Situ Surface Temperatures in the Contiguous United States: No Difference Found

Abstract All analyses of the impact of urban heat islands (UHIs) on in situ temperature observations suffer from inhomogeneities or biases in the data. These inhomogeneities make urban heat island analyses difficult and can lead to erroneous conclusions. To remove the biases caused by...

journals.ametsoc.org

Abstract​

All analyses of the impact of urban heat islands (UHIs) on in situ temperature observations suffer from inhomogeneities or biases in the data. These inhomogeneities make urban heat island analyses difficult and can lead to erroneous conclusions. To remove the biases caused by differences in elevation, latitude, time of observation, instrumentation, and nonstandard siting, a variety of adjustments were applied to the data. The resultant data were the most thoroughly homogenized and the homogeneity adjustments were the most rigorously evaluated and thoroughly documented of any large-scale UHI analysis to date. 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.

What I posted was not an article. It was a study that was published.

Articles are usually studies. The Peterson article is also a study.