how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[westwall]

Flatulence, I mean, flacaltenn "is on your ignore list". *It's still funny.

Too bad you won't be seeing this piece of valuable advice then.... I just pretty much ripped your claims to shreds.. See -- the only time I use ignore is when I'm DAMN certain the clown I'm ignoring couldn't EVER POSE A THREAT to my credibility or reputation..

You made a horrible mistake.. Laugh away ClownBoy....

Absolutely so. It is exposed as yet another in an endless train of internet trolls who parrot the exact same talking points as if they can bludgeon their way to victory. What's fun is the absolutely sure knowledge that the global cooling will become very obvious, very quickly, and these asshats will simply slink away.

 

[itfitzme]

If there are real problems, and there are, why are you against fixing them? Iceland is a perfect opportunity to evaluate whether homogenization techniques are working appropriately.

I'm all for "fixing" stuff. *I found the two temp stations in my area. One is by the airport and one is by the reserviour. *There was one in a residential area, at someones housenor something, but it has been gone since before I moved here.

Have you found the temp stations near you? *I gave you the NOAA link.

Or is what you really mean is that you want someone else to fix it. You find things to complain about and someone else fixes it. *In my experience, that's usually what people do, stand around watching someone else do the work, then complain about it.

I found local stations, but I did not find historical graphs to compare with current ones. Access to older versions data is always a problem. *How do you know how much something has been adjusted without something to compare it with? I have found lots of random stations with large differences to the present. Why should that be? I suppose we didn't know how to read a thermometer before 2000.

Not sure, it's a huge file. *All the individual stations have to be assembled into the one called "absolute".*

The NOAA says there were 6000 which has been reduced to 1,500 as equipment has been improved.

Then relative changes have to be figured out. And shit happens, so outliers are tossed. *Nobody can go through 1500 to 6000 station recording temps three to four times a day over 365 days for over 2 to 8 million data points and individually identify just the ones where a pigeon shit on the sensor or a rat chewed through the wire. *So when something is way outside three standard deviations, or four or whatever someone decides, it gets tossed. *A few were really bad, because the battery didn't get changed. Dozens are just off a litte, because a bird decided to build a nest on it or something. *Somewhere, some idiot just thought it'd be funny to hold a lighter under it, bored and only got paid minimum wage anyways. *Whatever.

It's statistical data. And the magic of statical data is the confidence level of the mean is smaller than the confidence level of the data. Oh, and another awesome thing is that a) systematic errors disappear when using changes and b) random errors average out to zero, on average. *So unless the reading says it's 200 degrees F in the dead of winter in Montana, who cares. *There are 6000 stations, probably another one ten miles away.

And if we know anything from statistics, it is that shit happens, 5%-10% of the time, depending on how tight your shit is. *So in the end, we don't have to worry about a couple here and a couple there. *

Like a theatre performance, it all just works out in the end. *It's magic.

All that really matters is that it's moving that direction and getting bigger. The rest is just noise. Later, we'll install some better ones at key locations.

I found this NOAA description. *They've been nice enough to explain some things simply. *

http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html

Note this;

"Some of the volunteers have been working with the National Weather Service for as many as 50 years and more, and provide a valuable service to the agency's and the nation's weather record."

Like I said, there was one at some guys house about three miles from where I live. * Think about this.n In 1965, it was a lot of some retired guy, going out to his backyard, or a ranger taking readings on the back porch of the ranger station. *6000 people across the US, reading a thermometer four times a day amd scribbling it on a sheet of paper. *Then it all gets mailed in monthly where someone else hand calculates the changes and averages. *I might suppose that someone's zero looked like a six. *

But at some point, you just gotta trust the volunteers. *And if a few have been dipping the thermometer in their beer first, or some remote mountain station was on the fritz for a few months, before the ranger stopped by, you don't worry about it. 6000 stations, four times a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks year is more than 6000 people.

 

[westwall]

I'm all for "fixing" stuff. *I found the two temp stations in my area. One is by the airport and one is by the reserviour. *There was one in a residential area, at someones housenor something, but it has been gone since before I moved here.

Have you found the temp stations near you? *I gave you the NOAA link.

Or is what you really mean is that you want someone else to fix it. You find things to complain about and someone else fixes it. *In my experience, that's usually what people do, stand around watching someone else do the work, then complain about it.

I found local stations, but I did not find historical graphs to compare with current ones. Access to older versions data is always a problem. *How do you know how much something has been adjusted without something to compare it with? I have found lots of random stations with large differences to the present. Why should that be? I suppose we didn't know how to read a thermometer before 2000.

Not sure, it's a huge file. *All the individual stations have to be assembled into the one called "absolute".*

The NOAA says there were 6000 which has been reduced to 1,500 as equipment has been improved.

Then relative changes have to be figured out. And shit happens, so outliers are tossed. *Nobody can go through 1500 to 6000 station recording temps three to four times a day over 365 days for over 2 to 8 million data points and individually identify just the ones where a pigeon shit on the sensor or a rat chewed through the wire. *So when something is way outside three standard deviations, or four or whatever someone decides, it gets tossed. *A few were really bad, because the battery didn't get changed. Dozens are just off a litte, because a bird decided to build a nest on it or something. *Somewhere, some idiot just thought it'd be funny to hold a lighter under it, bored and only got paid minimum wage anyways. *Whatever.

It's statistical data. And the magic of statical data is the confidence level of the mean is smaller than the confidence level of the data. Oh, and another awesome thing is that a) systematic errors disappear when using changes and b) random errors average out to zero, on average. *So unless the reading says it's 200 degrees F in the dead of winter in Montana, who cares. *There are 6000 stations, probably another one ten miles away.

And if we know anything from statistics, it is that shit happens, 5%-10% of the time, depending on how tight your shit is. *So in the end, we don't have to worry about a couple here and a couple there. *

Like a theatre performance, it all just works out in the end. *It's magic.

All that really matters is that it's moving that direction and getting bigger. The rest is just noise. Later, we'll install some better ones at key locations.

I found this NOAA description. *They've been nice enough to explain some things simply. *

NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Monitoring & Understanding Our Changing Planet

Note this;

"Some of the volunteers have been working with the National Weather Service for as many as 50 years and more, and provide a valuable service to the agency's and the nation's weather record."

Like I said, there was one at some guys house about three miles from where I live. * Think about this.n In 1965, it was a lot of some retired guy, going out to his backyard, or a ranger taking readings on the back porch of the ranger station. *6000 people across the US, reading a thermometer four times a day amd scribbling it on a sheet of paper. *Then it all gets mailed in monthly where someone else hand calculates the changes and averages. *I might suppose that someone's zero looked like a six. *

But at some point, you just gotta trust the volunteers.

There were 6500 and the ones that have been dropped are those that are in rural areas (you know the ones that actually conform to siting requirements) the ones being used are overwhelmingly located at airports and in urban environments, you know, those places that benefit from the Urban Island Effect.

But that would a fact and you don't do facts.

 

[itfitzme]

I like this, especially the description of sea temps. Still for land ones, it's running for decades and has some systematic error. Then it gets upgraded.

Q. What are some of the temperature discrepancies you found in the climate record and how have you compensated for them?

NOAA is deploying a new network of stations called the U.S. Historical Climatology Network - Modernization. These stations maintain the same level of climate science quality measurements as the USCRN, but are spaced more closely and focus solely on temperature and precipitation.


Over time, the thousands of weather stations around the world have undergone changes that often result in sudden or unrealistic discrepancies in observed temperatures requiring a correction. *For the U.S.-based stations, we have access to detailed station history that helps us identify and correct discrepancies. Some of these differences have simple corrections.*

The most important difference globally was the modification in measured sea surface temperatures. In the past, ship measurements were taken by throwing a bucket over the side, bringing some ocean water on deck and putting a thermometer in it.

Today, temperatures are recorded by reading thermometers in the engine coolant water intake — this is considered a more accurate measure of ocean temperature. The bucket readings used early in the record were cooler than engine intake observations, so the early data have been adjusted warmer to account for that difference. This makes global temperatures indicate less warming than the raw data does.*

 

[itfitzme]

How nice is that. Anyone can get the NOAA data for a random station anywhere in the US. Like I said, I used it to find out what the growing season was, really, not the thing on the back of the seed package. And with three stations, the odds that two were both off is like 2/3.

 

[Foxfyre]

I found local stations, but I did not find historical graphs to compare with current ones. Access to older versions data is always a problem. *How do you know how much something has been adjusted without something to compare it with? I have found lots of random stations with large differences to the present. Why should that be? I suppose we didn't know how to read a thermometer before 2000.

Not sure, it's a huge file. *All the individual stations have to be assembled into the one called "absolute".*

The NOAA says there were 6000 which has been reduced to 1,500 as equipment has been improved.

Then relative changes have to be figured out. And shit happens, so outliers are tossed. *Nobody can go through 1500 to 6000 station recording temps three to four times a day over 365 days for over 2 to 8 million data points and individually identify just the ones where a pigeon shit on the sensor or a rat chewed through the wire. *So when something is way outside three standard deviations, or four or whatever someone decides, it gets tossed. *A few were really bad, because the battery didn't get changed. Dozens are just off a litte, because a bird decided to build a nest on it or something. *Somewhere, some idiot just thought it'd be funny to hold a lighter under it, bored and only got paid minimum wage anyways. *Whatever.

It's statistical data. And the magic of statical data is the confidence level of the mean is smaller than the confidence level of the data. Oh, and another awesome thing is that a) systematic errors disappear when using changes and b) random errors average out to zero, on average. *So unless the reading says it's 200 degrees F in the dead of winter in Montana, who cares. *There are 6000 stations, probably another one ten miles away.

And if we know anything from statistics, it is that shit happens, 5%-10% of the time, depending on how tight your shit is. *So in the end, we don't have to worry about a couple here and a couple there. *

Like a theatre performance, it all just works out in the end. *It's magic.

All that really matters is that it's moving that direction and getting bigger. The rest is just noise. Later, we'll install some better ones at key locations.

I found this NOAA description. *They've been nice enough to explain some things simply. *

NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Monitoring & Understanding Our Changing Planet

Note this;

"Some of the volunteers have been working with the National Weather Service for as many as 50 years and more, and provide a valuable service to the agency's and the nation's weather record."

Like I said, there was one at some guys house about three miles from where I live. * Think about this.n In 1965, it was a lot of some retired guy, going out to his backyard, or a ranger taking readings on the back porch of the ranger station. *6000 people across the US, reading a thermometer four times a day amd scribbling it on a sheet of paper. *Then it all gets mailed in monthly where someone else hand calculates the changes and averages. *I might suppose that someone's zero looked like a six. *

But at some point, you just gotta trust the volunteers.

There were 6500 and the ones that have been dropped are those that are in rural areas (you know the ones that actually conform to siting requirements) the ones being used are overwhelmingly located at airports and in urban environments, you know, those places that benefit from the Urban Island Effect.

But that would a fact and you don't do facts.

On a much smaller scale, I only have to look at the four or five dozen Wunderground weather reporting stations here in Albuquerque. Albuquerque is a sprawling city of roughly a half million or so with differing climate zones depending on whether you are on the sandy lava cliffs of the west mesa or near the river in the valley or up where I am in the heights closer to the mountains. and still somewhat different in the neighborhoods right up against the mountain where they get more extreme air flow.

But looking at all the differing reports of temperatures and humidity reports across town, these can vary by as much as 8 to 10 degrees and humidity percentages can vary by as much as 20--far more than can be explained by the terrain of the city. So many of us questioned this, that an enterprising reporter from one of the radio stations took a day to go visiting all the different reporting stations. He found instruments measuring air temp and humidity in the darndest places--placed in a narrow space between two buildings, under dryer vents, next to air conditioners, sitting on flagstone patios and decks, sitting on lawns and ceroscaping rocks. Mystery solved.

And given the ever changing landscape of the U.S. continent and elsewhere in the world, instruments that were once located in cow pastures are now in the city surrounded by buildings, paved streets, block walls, etc. And we are supposed to take seriously how much the climate has changed in those locations?

 

[flacaltenn]

Flatulence, I mean, flacaltenn "is on your ignore list". *It's still funny.

Too bad you won't be seeing this piece of valuable advice then.... I just pretty much ripped your claims to shreds.. See -- the only time I use ignore is when I'm DAMN certain the clown I'm ignoring couldn't EVER POSE A THREAT to my credibility or reputation..

You made a horrible mistake.. Laugh away ClownBoy....

Absolutely so. It is exposed as yet another in an endless train of internet trolls who parrot the exact same talking points as if they can bludgeon their way to victory. What's fun is the absolutely sure knowledge that the global cooling will become very obvious, very quickly, and these asshats will simply slink away.

Dam WestWall -- Now he got my advice for free..

Oh well.. If he's smart enough to "program his own regressions" no telling what I'm in for now .......

 

[westwall]

Not sure, it's a huge file. *All the individual stations have to be assembled into the one called "absolute".*

The NOAA says there were 6000 which has been reduced to 1,500 as equipment has been improved.

Then relative changes have to be figured out. And shit happens, so outliers are tossed. *Nobody can go through 1500 to 6000 station recording temps three to four times a day over 365 days for over 2 to 8 million data points and individually identify just the ones where a pigeon shit on the sensor or a rat chewed through the wire. *So when something is way outside three standard deviations, or four or whatever someone decides, it gets tossed. *A few were really bad, because the battery didn't get changed. Dozens are just off a litte, because a bird decided to build a nest on it or something. *Somewhere, some idiot just thought it'd be funny to hold a lighter under it, bored and only got paid minimum wage anyways. *Whatever.

It's statistical data. And the magic of statical data is the confidence level of the mean is smaller than the confidence level of the data. Oh, and another awesome thing is that a) systematic errors disappear when using changes and b) random errors average out to zero, on average. *So unless the reading says it's 200 degrees F in the dead of winter in Montana, who cares. *There are 6000 stations, probably another one ten miles away.

And if we know anything from statistics, it is that shit happens, 5%-10% of the time, depending on how tight your shit is. *So in the end, we don't have to worry about a couple here and a couple there. *

Like a theatre performance, it all just works out in the end. *It's magic.

All that really matters is that it's moving that direction and getting bigger. The rest is just noise. Later, we'll install some better ones at key locations.

I found this NOAA description. *They've been nice enough to explain some things simply. *

NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Monitoring & Understanding Our Changing Planet

Note this;

"Some of the volunteers have been working with the National Weather Service for as many as 50 years and more, and provide a valuable service to the agency's and the nation's weather record."

Like I said, there was one at some guys house about three miles from where I live. * Think about this.n In 1965, it was a lot of some retired guy, going out to his backyard, or a ranger taking readings on the back porch of the ranger station. *6000 people across the US, reading a thermometer four times a day amd scribbling it on a sheet of paper. *Then it all gets mailed in monthly where someone else hand calculates the changes and averages. *I might suppose that someone's zero looked like a six. *

But at some point, you just gotta trust the volunteers.

There were 6500 and the ones that have been dropped are those that are in rural areas (you know the ones that actually conform to siting requirements) the ones being used are overwhelmingly located at airports and in urban environments, you know, those places that benefit from the Urban Island Effect.

But that would a fact and you don't do facts.

On a much smaller scale, I only have to look at the four or five dozen Wunderground weather reporting stations here in Albuquerque. Albuquerque is a sprawling city of roughly a half million or so with differing climate zones depending on whether you are on the sandy lava cliffs of the west mesa or near the river in the valley or up where I am in the heights closer to the mountains. and still somewhat different in the neighborhoods right up against the mountain where they get more extreme air flow.

But looking at all the differing reports of temperatures and humidity reports across town, these can vary by as much as 8 to 10 degrees and humidity percentages can vary by as much as 20--far more than can be explained by the terrain of the city. So many of us questioned this, that an enterprising reporter from one of the radio stations took a day to go visiting all the different reporting stations. He found instruments measuring air temp and humidity in the darndest places--placed in a narrow space between two buildings, under dryer vents, next to air conditioners, sitting on flagstone patios and decks, sitting on lawns and ceroscaping rocks. Mystery solved.

And given the ever changing landscape of the U.S. continent and elsewhere in the world, instruments that were once located in cow pastures are now in the city surrounded by buildings, paved streets, block walls, etc. And we are supposed to take seriously how much the climate has changed in those locations?

Yes indeed. I remember a few years ago my friend and I were driving home from a meeting in Oklahoma and we got stranded in Albuquerque for a night. It was a blizzard all around the city but a nice rain in the city. The next morning when we left it was clear till we got about 15 miles from the center of town and the hill going up had a ton of ice on it. In fact they had to careflight some poor person who was injured when they crashed into the center divide on the other side of the hill. They were driving a van with a trailer and really did a number on it.

We had snow and ice all the way to Winslow.

 

[westwall]

Too bad you won't be seeing this piece of valuable advice then.... I just pretty much ripped your claims to shreds.. See -- the only time I use ignore is when I'm DAMN certain the clown I'm ignoring couldn't EVER POSE A THREAT to my credibility or reputation..

You made a horrible mistake.. Laugh away ClownBoy....

Absolutely so. It is exposed as yet another in an endless train of internet trolls who parrot the exact same talking points as if they can bludgeon their way to victory. What's fun is the absolutely sure knowledge that the global cooling will become very obvious, very quickly, and these asshats will simply slink away.

Dam WestWall -- Now he got my advice for free..

Oh well.. If he's smart enough to "program his own regressions" no telling what I'm in for now .......

Somehow I doubt he will be much of a challenge for you.

 

[PMZ]

Not sure, it's a huge file. *All the individual stations have to be assembled into the one called "absolute".*

The NOAA says there were 6000 which has been reduced to 1,500 as equipment has been improved.

Then relative changes have to be figured out. And shit happens, so outliers are tossed. *Nobody can go through 1500 to 6000 station recording temps three to four times a day over 365 days for over 2 to 8 million data points and individually identify just the ones where a pigeon shit on the sensor or a rat chewed through the wire. *So when something is way outside three standard deviations, or four or whatever someone decides, it gets tossed. *A few were really bad, because the battery didn't get changed. Dozens are just off a litte, because a bird decided to build a nest on it or something. *Somewhere, some idiot just thought it'd be funny to hold a lighter under it, bored and only got paid minimum wage anyways. *Whatever.

It's statistical data. And the magic of statical data is the confidence level of the mean is smaller than the confidence level of the data. Oh, and another awesome thing is that a) systematic errors disappear when using changes and b) random errors average out to zero, on average. *So unless the reading says it's 200 degrees F in the dead of winter in Montana, who cares. *There are 6000 stations, probably another one ten miles away.

And if we know anything from statistics, it is that shit happens, 5%-10% of the time, depending on how tight your shit is. *So in the end, we don't have to worry about a couple here and a couple there. *

Like a theatre performance, it all just works out in the end. *It's magic.

All that really matters is that it's moving that direction and getting bigger. The rest is just noise. Later, we'll install some better ones at key locations.

I found this NOAA description. *They've been nice enough to explain some things simply. *

NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Monitoring & Understanding Our Changing Planet

Note this;

"Some of the volunteers have been working with the National Weather Service for as many as 50 years and more, and provide a valuable service to the agency's and the nation's weather record."

Like I said, there was one at some guys house about three miles from where I live. * Think about this.n In 1965, it was a lot of some retired guy, going out to his backyard, or a ranger taking readings on the back porch of the ranger station. *6000 people across the US, reading a thermometer four times a day amd scribbling it on a sheet of paper. *Then it all gets mailed in monthly where someone else hand calculates the changes and averages. *I might suppose that someone's zero looked like a six. *

But at some point, you just gotta trust the volunteers.

There were 6500 and the ones that have been dropped are those that are in rural areas (you know the ones that actually conform to siting requirements) the ones being used are overwhelmingly located at airports and in urban environments, you know, those places that benefit from the Urban Island Effect.

But that would a fact and you don't do facts.

On a much smaller scale, I only have to look at the four or five dozen Wunderground weather reporting stations here in Albuquerque. Albuquerque is a sprawling city of roughly a half million or so with differing climate zones depending on whether you are on the sandy lava cliffs of the west mesa or near the river in the valley or up where I am in the heights closer to the mountains. and still somewhat different in the neighborhoods right up against the mountain where they get more extreme air flow.

But looking at all the differing reports of temperatures and humidity reports across town, these can vary by as much as 8 to 10 degrees and humidity percentages can vary by as much as 20--far more than can be explained by the terrain of the city. So many of us questioned this, that an enterprising reporter from one of the radio stations took a day to go visiting all the different reporting stations. He found instruments measuring air temp and humidity in the darndest places--placed in a narrow space between two buildings, under dryer vents, next to air conditioners, sitting on flagstone patios and decks, sitting on lawns and ceroscaping rocks. Mystery solved.

And given the ever changing landscape of the U.S. continent and elsewhere in the world, instruments that were once located in cow pastures are now in the city surrounded by buildings, paved streets, block walls, etc. And we are supposed to take seriously how much the climate has changed in those locations?

Here's a good reason to risk humanity. Someone might have made a mistake. And it might be that lots of people made numerous mistakes all in the same direction. And all of those mistakes created bad data that contradicts what theory says, instead of supporting theory.

 

[Foxfyre]

There were 6500 and the ones that have been dropped are those that are in rural areas (you know the ones that actually conform to siting requirements) the ones being used are overwhelmingly located at airports and in urban environments, you know, those places that benefit from the Urban Island Effect.

But that would a fact and you don't do facts.

On a much smaller scale, I only have to look at the four or five dozen Wunderground weather reporting stations here in Albuquerque. Albuquerque is a sprawling city of roughly a half million or so with differing climate zones depending on whether you are on the sandy lava cliffs of the west mesa or near the river in the valley or up where I am in the heights closer to the mountains. and still somewhat different in the neighborhoods right up against the mountain where they get more extreme air flow.

But looking at all the differing reports of temperatures and humidity reports across town, these can vary by as much as 8 to 10 degrees and humidity percentages can vary by as much as 20--far more than can be explained by the terrain of the city. So many of us questioned this, that an enterprising reporter from one of the radio stations took a day to go visiting all the different reporting stations. He found instruments measuring air temp and humidity in the darndest places--placed in a narrow space between two buildings, under dryer vents, next to air conditioners, sitting on flagstone patios and decks, sitting on lawns and ceroscaping rocks. Mystery solved.

And given the ever changing landscape of the U.S. continent and elsewhere in the world, instruments that were once located in cow pastures are now in the city surrounded by buildings, paved streets, block walls, etc. And we are supposed to take seriously how much the climate has changed in those locations?

Yes indeed. I remember a few years ago my friend and I were driving home from a meeting in Oklahoma and we got stranded in Albuquerque for a night. It was a blizzard all around the city but a nice rain in the city. The next morning when we left it was clear till we got about 15 miles from the center of town and the hill going up had a ton of ice on it. In fact they had to careflight some poor person who was injured when they crashed into the center divide on the other side of the hill. They were driving a van with a trailer and really did a number on it.

We had snow and ice all the way to Winslow.

Yup. Every highway out of here can be closed due to weather and in Albuquerque the sun might be shining and the streets are dry. We sit in a big bowl so you have to climb in every direction to leave the city.

But in New Mexico you have Phoenix and Tuscon conditions in the Akela Flats and Carlsbad areas along the southern edge of the state, but a different climate on the caprock just a few miles to the east. The high desert where we are can be cooler by 15 to 20 degrees on any given summer day than either of those southern areas but we might be warmer than the even more arid high desert conditions to the northwest and west of us along the continental divide. Temperate mountain conditions to the southwest and east of us will be different from the extreme alpine conditions in the higher mountain terrains. So depending on where somebody takes their readings could have a huge influence on whether New Mexico is experiencing effects of global warming, even if they vary their location right here in the city.

But somehow I think those promoting global warming probably aren't too picky about being precise about things like that.

 

[mamooth]

iAnd we are supposed to take seriously how much the climate has changed in those locations?

You know that the urban stations showed less warming that the rural stations, right?

That's yet another fine denialist conspiracy theory that meets its end when confronted with the data.

Not that it will stop any of them from repeating it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Arctic stations near heat sources show warming over the last century. Arctic stations that are isolated from manmade heat sources show no warming.

Arctic isolated versus ?urban? stations show differing trends | Watts Up With That?

And while I find that there are narrower DTR differences in urban areas than rural areas, every study I've looked at shows wide differences in readings the more urbanized an area becomes while there is little or no difference noted in the surrounding rural areas. Most studies however show that urbanization and related DTRs have had little or no effect on global warming.

A 2010 study of Las Vegas UHI DTR (Alex Remar, “URBAN HEAT ISLAND EXPANSION IN THE GREATER LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN AREA” [http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=erscsp]) states: “Las Vegas’ urban minimum temperatures have been increasing at a substantial rate, while minimum temperatures in its rural surroundings have shown no statistically significant changes or trends. … these unnatural increases in minimum temperatures have reduced the diurnal temperature range of Las Vegas’ urban areas by 3°F more than its rural surroundings.”

Diurnal Temperature Range

 

[westwall]

iAnd we are supposed to take seriously how much the climate has changed in those locations?

You know that the urban stations showed less warming that the rural stations, right?

That's yet another fine denialist conspiracy theory that meets its end when confronted with the data.

Not that it will stop any of them from repeating it.

How about a link there....

This paper demolishes your assertion...



Quantitative estimates of warming by urbanization in South Korea over the past 55 years (1954–2008)

Quantitative estimates of warming by urbanization in South Korea over the past 55 years (1954?2008)

 

[itfitzme]

This is what you get from folks that don't known how differences and stats works. They fight tooth and nail, the whole process, that everyone else has already figured out. Like no one has thought of any of it before.

 

[itfitzme]

Thankfully, the global mean isn't dependent on Las Vega alone.

 

[itfitzme]

ALVW: Anthropoligical Las Vegas Warming

ALVW >> AGW

Sounds about right.

 

[westwall]

Still waiting for you to show us your work there not so artful dodger....

 

[itfitzme]

At the end of the day, when all is said and done, it all comes down to who knows and who's just saying that they don't know.

 

[PMZ]

At the end of the day, when all is said and done, it all comes down to who knows and who's just saying that they don't know.

None of what is known about AGW came from blogs.

The blog discussions are between those who believe in the capability of science to understand and define problems, vs those who believe that their politics entitles them to have what "right" they prefer.

That makes all of this a waste of time in terms of solving the problem of the consequences of AGW. And it is.

This is entertainment. Nothing comes of it.

The world has moved long ago into solving the problem. Not haphazardly but methodically. Large scale pilot plants of various sustainable technologies.