Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
no they don't. they just don't.ahem....Just in the area around Chicago alone there are temperature readings per town/city. Per city the high for a day is mostly always different. Middway airport is the hottest reading most days, Aurora is most often the coolest. So, aren't there people in these cities, and for those who are in Aurora feeling the same heat as those around Midway? Nope!! So your big arse term global ain't accurate at all. BTW, it is an average you're referring to, so there is a high number and there is a low number are those two tossed out for the report? Is that done in their dataset? Just exactly what is done? In laymens terms.
In layman's terms? The UHI is a known factor, and it is compensated for in temperature averages.
Also, rural stations show the same upwards temperature trend as urban stations, in the same amounts, hence we know the warming is not a UHI artifact.
View attachment 33065It is a thumbnail you can open, once open you can see in the lissajou window I am calibrating the absolute channel, which is the 240 khz. On the strip charts you can see the P1 mix channel which eliminates the support signal, which can be seen in the channel 4 strip chart.Old Crock made claims that jobs for 100k were available in the steel industry then could not link to the company.Hmmm.........
Care to name whatever you are yowling about, Elektra, ol' fart?
Further Old Crock disparaged my profession stating my profession has zero to do with the quality of steel.
I challenged old crock to prove his knowledge of steel by explaining what this graphic of my work has to do with high quality steel.
This would have been quite the snappy comeback if only your "graphic" had approached legibility. That you post a phone pic of the graphic tells me you don't have an electronic copy of the thing. I guess they don't trust you with the complicated stuff.
And, seems to me you're a business major. Just what WOULD your line of work have to do with the quality of steel??
I am calibrating the system to analyze inconell 600. In the lissajou window you can see the phase difference between the 20%, 40%, 60%, as 80% threw wall signals manufactured into the calibration standard.
It is not a graphic I took a pic of, it's simply a pic of the computer screen I use to do work. I am on an old Unix system that is running proprietary software, the data is owned by the customer, so there is non-disclosure agreements and stuff.
yes, what does phase analysis, hysteresis, inductive reactance, and Faraday have to do with metal.
A business major? Hardly, this is science, after I analyze the data my results, my report will go to engineers and metallurgist.
Energy and steel go hand and gand, I am involved in both.
In layman's terms? The UHI is a known factor, and it is compensated for in temperature averages.
Also, rural stations show the same upwards temperature trend as urban stations, in the same amounts, hence we know the warming is not a UHI artifact.
no they don't. they just don't.
I read that already, your point is what? adjusted readings are..... adjusted readings. It isn't raw temperatures.In layman's terms? The UHI is a known factor, and it is compensated for in temperature averages.
Also, rural stations show the same upwards temperature trend as urban stations, in the same amounts, hence we know the warming is not a UHI artifact.
no they don't. they just don't.
As is usual, your denial of reality has no effect on reality. Here, I'll point you to a source. Which you could have looked up yourself easily enough. Don't keep counting on us to give free education to the lazy.
Quantifying the effect of urbanization on U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperature records - Hausfather - 2013 - Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres - Wiley Online Library
---
An assessment quantifying the impact of urbanization on temperature trends from the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) is described. Stations were first classified as urban and nonurban (rural) using four different proxy measures of urbanity. Trends from the two station types were then compared using a pairing method that controls for differences in instrument type and via spatial gridding to account for the uneven distribution of stations. The comparisons reveal systematic differences between the raw (unadjusted) urban and rural temperature trends throughout the USHCN period of record according to all four urban classifications. According to these classifications, urbanization accounts for 14–21% of the rise in unadjusted minimum temperatures since 1895 and 6–9% since 1960. The USHCN version 2 homogenization process effectively removes this urban signal such that it becomes insignificant during the last 50–80 years. In contrast, prior to 1930, only about half of the urban signal is removed. Accordingly, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies urban-correction procedure has essentially no impact on USHCN version 2 trends since 1930, but effectively removes the residual urban-rural temperature trend differences for years before 1930 according to all four urban proxy classifications. Finally, an evaluation of the homogenization of USHCN temperature series using subsets of rural-only and urban-only reference series from the larger U.S. Cooperative Observer (Coop) Network suggests that the composition of Coop stations surrounding USHCN stations is sufficiently “rural” to limit the aliasing of urban heat island signals onto USHCN version 2 temperature trends during homogenization.
---
Homogenization is a fools errand. You loose the factual temps by rearranging temperature values in a model. By creating higher temps to accommodate the poorly sited stations in areas where there are no recording devices it gives a false increase every time.In layman's terms? The UHI is a known factor, and it is compensated for in temperature averages.
Also, rural stations show the same upwards temperature trend as urban stations, in the same amounts, hence we know the warming is not a UHI artifact.
no they don't. they just don't.
As is usual, your denial of reality has no effect on reality. Here, I'll point you to a source. Which you could have looked up yourself easily enough. Don't keep counting on us to give free education to the lazy.
Quantifying the effect of urbanization on U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperature records - Hausfather - 2013 - Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres - Wiley Online Library
---
An assessment quantifying the impact of urbanization on temperature trends from the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) is described. Stations were first classified as urban and nonurban (rural) using four different proxy measures of urbanity. Trends from the two station types were then compared using a pairing method that controls for differences in instrument type and via spatial gridding to account for the uneven distribution of stations. The comparisons reveal systematic differences between the raw (unadjusted) urban and rural temperature trends throughout the USHCN period of record according to all four urban classifications. According to these classifications, urbanization accounts for 14–21% of the rise in unadjusted minimum temperatures since 1895 and 6–9% since 1960. The USHCN version 2 homogenization process effectively removes this urban signal such that it becomes insignificant during the last 50–80 years. In contrast, prior to 1930, only about half of the urban signal is removed. Accordingly, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies urban-correction procedure has essentially no impact on USHCN version 2 trends since 1930, but effectively removes the residual urban-rural temperature trend differences for years before 1930 according to all four urban proxy classifications. Finally, an evaluation of the homogenization of USHCN temperature series using subsets of rural-only and urban-only reference series from the larger U.S. Cooperative Observer (Coop) Network suggests that the composition of Coop stations surrounding USHCN stations is sufficiently “rural” to limit the aliasing of urban heat island signals onto USHCN version 2 temperature trends during homogenization.
---
Your questions don't make any sense. You'll need to ask something sensible before anyone will bother to respond.
But heck, this might help. Here's denier hero Judith Curry explaining why and how adjustments are made to temperature data.
Understanding adjustments to temperature data Climate Etc.
Well, idiot, this will be a surprise you can not link or Google, but, conversations do not always follow the OP, Conversations sometimes are dictated by our thought as inspired by the thread.Besides your ego, what does this conversation have to do with anything pertinent to this forum?
More meaningless bullshit old crock, old crock is wrong about his own job, and lied about a job opening in this thread.One can clearly see the human effect in this data.
Berkeley Earth
Human Effect
Many of the changes in land-surface temperature can be explained by a combination of volcanoes and a proxy for human greenhouse gas emissions. Solar variation does not seem to impact the temperature trend.
Temperature, CO2, and volcano data | More recent data | High-resolution image
Temperature, CO2, and volcano data | More recent data | High-resolution image
The annual and decadal land surface temperature from the BerkeleyEarth average, compared to a linear combination of volcanic sulfate emissions and the natural logarithm of CO2. It is observed that the large negative excursions in the early temperature records are likely to be explained by exceptional volcanic activity at this time. Similarly, the upward trend is likely to be an indication of anthropogenic changes. The grey area is the 95% confidence interval.
Click here to see the historic temperature record with named volcanos.
After accounting for volcanic and human effects, the residual variability in land-surface temperature is observed to closely mirror (and for slower changes slightly lead) variations in the Gulf Stream.
Deniers, do you think rambling conspiracy theories are going to be convincing to anyone outside your cult?
I mean, as in convincing people you're correct, as opposed to convincing people you're part of a pack of conspiracy loons.
I find it funny that he thinks Nice Polite Republicans (NPR) is "liberal media". That would be the network that was gung-ho for War in Iraq, and which refused to refer to waterboarding as "torture", being that the Bush administration didn't like the term.
yeah I'm 95% confident that I can show anyone who is not related to your delusions the correct way to interpret what the warmers are saying. They are saying blah, blah, blah, because they cannot show one experiment that relates 120 PPM increase of CO2 to temperatures or climate. they can't, I know that. So liar, what else you want? hahahahahahahaahahha you're so LoSiNgDeniers, do you think rambling conspiracy theories are going to be convincing to anyone outside your cult?
I mean, as in convincing people you're correct, as opposed to convincing people you're part of a pack of conspiracy loons.
