Massive data manipulation by AGW industry!

[SSDD]

That's a meaningless evasion, being that the point being discussed is how as temperatures have suddenly shot up with no natural explanation. The fact that climate has changed naturally in the past does not prevent humans from changing climate now.

Of course there was an explanation...the climb out of the little ice age had been ongoing for quite some time, and in the final decades of the 20th century, the output of the sun was higher than it had been for several centuries.

An ice age is not necessary. Sustained cooling global temperatures would decrease sea level.

Sorry hairball...a great deal of water would have to move from the oceans to ice fields in order to actually decrease sea level. The little ice age barely created a blip.

Again, you seem confused. I don't expect to see it. That would only happen if the sun was driving global warming, and it's not

The only one confused here is you hairball...it is the dogma your cult insists that you believe...it makes you stupid.

Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, ....

Yeah..it is pretty clear that you are...but I am still waiting for a measurement of a discrete wavelength of energy radiating down from the atmosphere made with an uncooled instrument...

No;. You're confusing total OLR with OLR in specific bands.[/quote}

Again.. you are the only one who is confused here hairball...the amount of IR escaping the atmosphere in the so called greenhouse gas wavelengths is all but immeasurable it is so small...except for that of water vapor..but feel free to provide evidence otherwise if you think it exists.

It predicts overall increasing specifc humidity. And that's obvserved.

And it predicts decreasing humidity...so it goes with unfalsifiable hypotheses that predict everything..''

Climate Change 2016: The Year the Future Arrived

clip: Human-caused “anthropogenic” influence was documented in 23 of 28 major global geographic regions. The events included increasing average temperature, warming of winter extremes, decreasing humidity due to warming, increasing dryness, increasing heavy precipitation, increased sunshine, more extreme drought, more extreme tropical cyclones, increased wildfire burn area and intensity, decreased arctic sea ice, more high tide flooding and decreased snowpack.

Climate change adaptation measure on agricultural communities of Dhye in Upper Mustang, Nepal

Clip: The study assessed that low rainfall and erratic pattern, shifting snowfall pattern, decreasing humidity, and increased air temperature created the water stress as the result dried up the spring and dropping of soil moisture which had direct negative impact on supporting healthy plant growth and animals had to travel further for fodder and water.

And I could go on and on...climate science predicts everything so no matter what happens, they say we told you so...increasing humidity, decreasing humidity, more snow, less snow, warmer, colder, more rain, less rain and any other thing that may happen in the climate...more and less of all of it...

And according to you, the energy absorbed then vanishes in the ether. That's why nobody pays attention to you.

Making up arguments now hairball? Is that what you have been reduced to like your fellow warmer buds?

As there's no evidence for such an insane claim, that wouldn't count as a previously unknown source.

Try reading something other than your cult dogma...

Discovery Of Massive Volcanic CO2 Emissions Puts Damper On Global Warming Theory

There is plenty of info out there....free for the taking...ask your priests, maybe they will give you permission to read some of it.

No, the hard data flatly contradicts that strange claim.[/uote]

Only the false "global average temperature" heavily massaged, manipulated, homogenized, and infilled...when you look at regional records, as thinking people do, you don't see a global trend towards warming....

The directly measured stratospheric cooling, increase in backradiation and decrease in outgoing OLR in the GHG bands have no natural explanation, thus your "It's natural!" theory is conclusively disproved.[/quote


There can be multiple reasons for stratospheric cooling..there is no back radiation, but feel free to provide a measurement of a discrete wavelength backradiating made with an uncooled instrument...OLR is increasing and has been for quite some time...and there isn't the first piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

Sorry hairball...you have been duped and the sad thing is that you want to be duped..

 

[SSDD]

You're obviously an idiot. Cities grow, which means the UHI effect increases.

You're just not getting it. UHI is local. Once urbanization grows to the station, that's it. It gets one UHI bump, which is always corrected for. It doesn't keep getting hotter as the urbanization spreads further outwards.

And you're evading my simple question. What hard data could possibly falsify your beliefs? As you haven't named any, I can only assume that there is literally no hard data that could falsify your beliefs, being that your beliefs are entirely religious in nature.

You are very easily fooled aren't you? Better than 90% of the so called observed warming is due to UHI...

 

[mamooth]

Better than 90% of the so called observed warming is due to UHI...

As all the hard data flatly contradicts that crazy claim, that claim is obviously politically-based conspiracy nonsense.

 

[Crick]

You said CO2 generates energy. You said asphalt doesn't heat up as much as it used to.

I said CO2 in our environment (with our atmosphere and our sun) jheats the planet.

I said the area covered by asphalt is not growing as quickly as it once was.

English much?

 

[mamooth]

Of course there was an explanation...the climb out of the little ice age had been ongoing for quite some time, and in the final decades of the 20th century, the output of the sun was higher than it had been for several centuries.

As temperatures in 1850 were back to temperature prior to the LIA, that means the earth had recovered from the LIA by 1850. That means any claims of the current warming being an LIA recovery are bunk.

Temperature used to track solar activity, up to around 1970. Then they went the opposite way. Thus, it's clear that changing solar activity is not what's driving the current fast warming.

Sorry hairball...a great deal of water would have to move from the oceans to ice fields in order to actually decrease sea level. The little ice age barely created a blip.

As you don't even understand that sea levels are primarily driven by thermal expansion of sea water, you have no place in the discussion.

And it predicts decreasing humidity..

As you've just demonstrated you don't grasp the difference between specific and relative humidity, you shouldn't be in the discussion. You're expected to understand the basics, and you don't.

Making up arguments now hairball? Is that what you have been reduced to like your fellow warmer buds?

We've asked you where the energy goes after the CO2 absorbs it, and you've refused to answer. Thus, the best description we can surmise for your theory is "The energy magically vanishes." Needless to say, invoking magic is not good science.

Try reading something other than your cult dogma...

You've made a loopy claim that suddenly thousands of undersea volcanoes started erupting, undetected, and they're somehow warming the oceans, even though none of the floats can detect any heat coming up from the bottom. As there's no evidence to support your crazy claim, it's laughed at.

Discovery Of Massive Volcanic CO2 Emissions Puts Damper On Global Warming Theory

Well why didn't you just say you had a conspiracy blog piece by a retired guy with a BS in geology? You're right, that completely overturns mainstream science.

 

[bripat9643]

You're obviously an idiot. Cities grow, which means the UHI effect increases.

You're just not getting it. UHI is local. Once urbanization grows to the station, that's it. It gets one UHI bump, which is always corrected for. It doesn't keep getting hotter as the urbanization spreads further outwards.

And you're evading my simple question. What hard data could possibly falsify your beliefs? As you haven't named any, I can only assume that there is literally no hard data that could falsify your beliefs, being that your beliefs are entirely religious in nature.

NO, that's not correct. A heat Island that is 2 miles in diameter will have a cooler center than one that is 20 miles in diameter. Furthermore, the later is likely to encompass more than one measuring station.

 

[bripat9643]

Better than 90% of the so called observed warming is due to UHI...

As all the hard data flatly contradicts that crazy claim, that claim is obviously politically-based conspiracy nonsense.

It does? Can you post the data that shows this?

 

[mamooth]

NO, that's not correct. A heat Island that is 2 miles in diameter will have a cooler center than one that is 20 miles in diameter. ]Furthermore, the later is likely to encompass more than one measuring station.

The data still says urban stations aren't warming faster than rural stations.

If your theory is contradicted by the data, your theory is wrong.

It does? Can you post the data that shows this?

I already showed you one example. Let's add a few more.

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.
---

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI3730.1
---
On the premise that urban heat islands are strongest in calm conditions but are largely absent in windy weather, daily minimum and maximum air temperatures for the period 1950–2000 at a worldwide selection of land stations are analyzed separately for windy and calm conditions, and the global and regional trends are compared. The trends in temperature are almost unaffected by this subsampling, indicating that urban development and other local or instrumental influences have contributed little overall to the observed warming trends.
---

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2008JD009916
---
Urban‐related warming over China is shown to be about 0.1°C decade−1 over the period 1951–2004, with true climatic warming accounting for 0.81°C over this period.
---

 

[bripat9643]

NO, that's not correct. A heat Island that is 2 miles in diameter will have a cooler center than one that is 20 miles in diameter. ]Furthermore, the later is likely to encompass more than one measuring station.

The data still says urban stations aren't warming faster than rural stations.

If your theory is contradicted by the data, your theory is wrong.

It does? Can you post the data that shows this?

I already showed you one example. Let's add a few more.

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.
---

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI3730.1
---
On the premise that urban heat islands are strongest in calm conditions but are largely absent in windy weather, daily minimum and maximum air temperatures for the period 1950–2000 at a worldwide selection of land stations are analyzed separately for windy and calm conditions, and the global and regional trends are compared. The trends in temperature are almost unaffected by this subsampling, indicating that urban development and other local or instrumental influences have contributed little overall to the observed warming trends.
---

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2008JD009916
---
Urban‐related warming over China is shown to be about 0.1°C decade−1 over the period 1951–2004, with true climatic warming accounting for 0.81°C over this period.
---

Wrong. It's real.

Advanced Weather Forecasting Models Confirm Urban Heat Island Effect…It’s Very Real

 

[daveman]

You said CO2 generates energy. You said asphalt doesn't heat up as much as it used to.

I said CO2 in our environment (with our atmosphere and our sun) jheats the planet.

I said the area covered by asphalt is not growing as quickly as it once was.

English much?

You said that -- after you were called out on them.

You really aren't very good at this.

 

[Crick]

This is what I said. You really aren't very good at this.

So, CO2 generates heat now? What an amazing energy source it must be!

In our environment, yes it does and yes it is.
The Earth is 510.1 trillion square meters so the energy being added to the planet is 1.168129 quadrillion watts.
Just figure out a way to use that and we'll be home free. Electric barbecues for every house.

I said "in our environment" which would include our pre-industrial atmosphere, our sun and our land and sea absorbing SW radiation. Under those circumstances, CO2 DOES generate heat.

and

The total amount of asphalt is not growing as quickly as in the past. The rate of CO2 increase is still accelerating.

 

[SSDD]

Better than 90% of the so called observed warming is due to UHI...

As all the hard data flatly contradicts that crazy claim, that claim is obviously politically-based conspiracy nonsense.

All the hard data proves it beyond doubt...again..when you look at regional temperature records, there is no warming trend across the globe...that only shows up in the heavily manipulated, massaged, homogenized, infilled global record...

 

[SSDD]

As temperatures in 1850 were back to temperature prior to the LIA, that means the earth had recovered from the LIA by 1850. That means any claims of the current warming being an LIA recovery are bunk.

And you have what sort of evidence that puts a stop to the process of warming out of the little ice age and becoming man made warming? Is there a prescribed amount of warming that can happen naturally and then from there on it must be man made? Everything you believe you know is nothing but an assumption hairball...your cult beliefs have made you blind to rationality.

The rest is just more cultist dogma not supported by observation...all models all the time with you guys..

 

[Crick]

The total amount of asphalt is not growing as quickly as in the past. The rate of CO2 increase is still accelerating.

See, the problem here is your inability to use language correctly. Is English perhaps your second language?

And what error do you see in my language Dave?

So, Dave, it seems the problem all along was either your faulty memory or your own poor command of English. Are you getting back to this topic (ie, changes in UHI and CO2 trends) or have you run away?

 

[jc456]

Things of that nature that ARE known are the justifications of some of the adjustments that have been made to historical data.

funny, the adjustments you state, are not a form of manipulation? just asking.

 

[mamooth]

funny, the adjustments you state, are not a form of manipulation? just asking.

Of course not. Corrections to known errors are not manipulations. It would be fraud to leave them out.

Would you prefer the corrections not be made, which would make the warming look bigger?

 

[mamooth]

And you have what sort of evidence that puts a stop to the process of warming out of the little ice age and becoming man made warming?

The fact that there's another cooling period afterwards pounds in the coffin nails on that theory.

Miraculous, that "LIA recovery". By your standards, it explains the post-LIA warming and the post-LIA cooling. As your theory there is unfalsifiable, it's pseudoscience nonsense.

 

[jc456]

funny, the adjustments you state, are not a form of manipulation? just asking.

Of course not. Corrections to known errors are not manipulations. It would be fraud to leave them out.

Would you prefer the corrections not be made, which would make the warming look bigger?

I prefer a causation statement on why the adjustments are necessary. And sorry, but adjusting is the same as manipulation.

 

[mamooth]

I prefer a causation statement on why the adjustments are necessary.

Then why don't you get off your butt and look for it? It's there for anyone who wants to read it.

Start here. As you won't even look at that, I won't waste time giving more examples.

https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Hansen_ha02300a.pdf

And sorry, but adjusting is the same as manipulation.

I had an oven that ran hot. Thus, I set the knob to be 25F below what I wanted.

Normal people would say correcting known errors is normal behavior. Odd people would call my action a conspiracy to falsify oven temperature.

 

[bripat9643]

And you have what sort of evidence that puts a stop to the process of warming out of the little ice age and becoming man made warming?

The fact that there's another cooling period afterwards pounds in the coffin nails on that theory.

Miraculous, that "LIA recovery". By your standards, it explains the post-LIA warming and the post-LIA cooling. As your theory there is unfalsifiable, it's pseudoscience nonsense.

He's talking about the real ice age, not the LIA, dumbass.