Urban Heat Island Crock

[Blueskyboris]

YouTube- Climate Denial Crock of the Week - The "Urban Heat Island" Crock

YouTube- Climate Denial Crock of the Week - The "Urban Heat Island" Crock

[Blueskyboris]

More on the Urban Heat Island myth:

YouTube- The Video Climate Deniers Tried to Ban - Climate Denial Crock of the Week

YouTube- The Video Climate Deniers Tried to Ban - Climate Denial Crock of the Week

[pythagoras]

Sounds like someone desperately trying to convince themselves of their faith in something that they do not understand. Calling people "denialists" and formulating conspiracy theories does not lend to credibility.

As for the substance, as anyone who has so much as opened a climate journal can tell you, all the local urban heat island effects are explicitly subtracted out of the temperatures in the construction of temperature anomaly maps.

So to turn the "antidenialist" video maker's question on himself is he ignorant, lazy, or does he not actually care if he's right or wrong?

[Gagundathar Inexplicable]

BSB, I live to the east of Atlanta, Georgia.
I watch storms on radar as they come from the west and break up into two storms tracking to the northeast and southeast of the city.
There is a clearly drier area to the east of the city, and my hometown of Athens, typically gets less rain than Atlanta does.

This is empirical evidence. It isn't based upon some conspiracy.
The mean temperature of the planet has increased over the past several centuries as has the total percentage of CO₂. This increase in CO₂ has led to a significant increase in ocean acidity and is directly and adversely affecting the oceanic ecosystems planet-wide.

We are not certain that the general increase in global mean temperatures are caused by the increase in greenhouse gases, but the linkage between CO₂ and ocean acidity is well-established.

Do you have any supporting evidence to validate your claim that climate change is a 'crock'?

[pythagoras]

The increase in CO₂ has probably had some negative effect on ocean life that is particularly sensitive to pH. It has definitely had a positive effect on plant life, especially forests, and especially in low water areas.

GI, saying the "mean temperature of the planet has increased over the past several centuries" is a misstatement. The oft-touted number that you are referring to is a weighted average by area of the atmospheric temperature nearest to the surface over land, together with the water surface temperature over the water-covered area, with corrections to eliminate the localized urban heat effects. It is sort of a "what-if" pseudo-measurement of a two-dimensional slice along the surface of the planet.

It should NOT be confused with the average temperature of the climate system. It doesn't include any upper layers of the troposphere, any layers of the stratosphere (which have been cooling, and have been doing so because of increased CO₂), or any lower layers of the oceans (which are not well-studied but have probably been cooling because of increased El Nino activity).

[Gagundathar Inexplicable]

By what mechanism might increased CO₂ lead to cooling?
Also, just in general, this link seems to clearly show a mean increase in temperature over time. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

But my reply to BSB's deliberately confrontational OP dealt with the known phenomenon of urban heat islands. I am still waiting for some evidence that the existence of these is, in fact, a 'crock'. I suspect I will continue to do so for quite some time. It is, after all, easy to speculate upon ideas that are difficult to quantify. It is, however, more difficult to dismiss factual and timely evidence.

[pythagoras]

Those mean temperature anomaly graphs are all the measure I described: just-above-surface air temps over land, and surface ocean temps, adjusted down for to compensate for local urban heating. Any time you see either temp anomaly or general temp trend numbers, that's the number you're seeing.

CO2 leads to cooling in the stratosphere because it is excellent at radiating heat at the temperatures of the stratosphere. O3 is not, but O3 absorbs a lot of heat from the sun in the UV range. So basically, the CO2 plays the role of the stratosphere's only effective radiator. Therefore adding O3 heats it, and adding CO2 cools it.

[Blueskyboris]

If the urban heat myth was true, these maps would be in red near the cities.

[Blueskyboris]

So, either the heating is insignificant, or it doesn't exist.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Originally Posted by Blueskyboris

If the urban heat myth was true, these maps would be in red near the cities.

You have no idea as to how those maps are constructed, do you?

[Blueskyboris]

Yes, but I don't know how the heat islands are taken into account if they don't know how much heat is being generated.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Originally Posted by Blueskyboris

Yes, but I don't know how the heat islands are taken into account if they don't know how much heat is being generated.

According to the e-mails they faked the data.

The apparent attempts to cover up problems with temperature data from the Chinese weather stations provide the first link between the email scandal and the UN's embattled climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as a paper based on the measurements was used to bolster IPCC statements about rapid global warming in recent decades.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...-jones-chinese

[Blueskyboris]

Are you saying the other stations had problems as well? If not, I don't really care...

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Originally Posted by Blueskyboris

Are you saying the other stations had problems as well? If not, I don't really care...

If they put fake data into the calculation it fucks up the conclusions you retard.

The map you posted was created with faked data.

[Subduction Zone]

Jerome, the urban heat island effect is not a factor in the Arctic or Antarctic, there are not too many large cities up there. And yet that is the zone of the world with the largest change. When the experts say that they make a correction for the effect maybe they know what they are doing.

[Blueskyboris]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

If they put fake data into the calculation it fucks up the conclusions you retard.

The map you posted was created with faked data.

From China, not the rest of the world you boneheaded little punk.

[Blueskyboris]

LOL,

YouTube- 7. Climate Change - "Those" e-mails and science censorship

YouTube- 7. Climate Change - "Those" e-mails and science censorship

[Blueskyboris]

YouTube- 5. Climate Change -- isn't it natural?

YouTube- 5. Climate Change -- isn't it natural?

[Blueskyboris]

I like how from 9:07 to 9:30 he makes fun of Rathtard and Jerome Dumb.

[fragment]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

According to the e-mails they faked the data.

You realise the emails relate to the CRU temperature data, whereas those graphs are from GISS, right?

[pythagoras]

Pay attention carefully people. They take surface temperature measurements all over the globe. They then see where the cities are warmer than everywhere else, and they reduce those temperatures so that you essentially can't see the existence of the cities on the resulting map. Then they publish the map, take averages over the map, calling it the "average temperature of the planet" and so forth.

So saying, "look the cities aren't any hotter than anywhere else in the map" is completely silly. The numbers were specifically altered so that the cities would not be any hotter. If you download the unaltered data, you will see that by far, all the hottest spots, and all the spots with the greatest increase in temperature are where the cities are.

The purpose of the map above is to show how temperatures have changed OTHER than any changes in cities. The benefit -- or lack there of -- of making such a map can be argued, but it is essentially important that one knows the meaning of the map one is looking at.

This is a pretty big deal, because it obviously changes the conclusion you will draw from the map. But someone who doesn't get their hands dirty with the original studies from which the temperatures come from would never know how the data was modified, as it is NEVER discussed when such maps are displayed for general consumption. Is this a type of scientific fraud, despite the fact that the truth is plain to anyone who reads the original studies? Yes, I think it is. The purpose of the exercise to make people form conclusions based upon a misunderstanding of what they're seeing.

[pythagoras]

Originally Posted by Blueskyboris

YouTube- 5. Climate Change -- isn't it natural?

These videos are by a JOURNALIST who has been lead down a path by ideological science with an agenda to push. What he has been lead to believe -- that his 4 drivers of insolation, greenhouse gases, particulate cooling, and positive feedback -- have been showed to accurately predict observed climate changes, is complete hogwash. None of these things, and no combination of these things, has been observed to dramatically change with the start and stop of each ice age, when the climate most dramatically changes.

[Boro Nut]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

If they put fake data into the calculation it fucks up the conclusions you retard.

The map you posted was created with faked data.

Don't be so stupid. The data is absolutely genuine. All the Arctic weather stations show an intense warming signal. It's the huskies that are to blame. You can't build the only interruption in a vast featureless landscape and expect them not to piss on it the second you arrive to check the reading.

Be fair. It's more coherent than anything coming from cunts like Inhofe.

Boro Nut

[Boro Nut]

Originally Posted by fragment

You realise the emails relate to the CRU temperature data, whereas those graphs are from GISS, right?

Give me a break. We all saw the emails. They were caught bang to rights trying to hide the decline that never actually occurred in global temperatures after 2005! In an email sent in 1999 no less!! What does that tell you? THEY'D BEEN PLANNING TO DO IT FOR SIX FUCKING YEARS THAT'S WHAT!!! Fuckers.

Who says the climate models aren't reliable eh?

Boro Nut

[fragment]

Originally Posted by pythagoras

These videos are by a JOURNALIST who has been lead down a path by ideological science with an agenda to push. What he has been lead to believe -- that his 4 drivers of insolation, greenhouse gases, particulate cooling, and positive feedback -- have been showed to accurately predict observed climate changes, is complete hogwash. None of these things, and no combination of these things, has been observed to dramatically change with the start and stop of each ice age, when the climate most dramatically changes.

It's really only the end of glaciations which change dramatically - going into glaciations tends to be more of a slow, interrupted slide. Glaciations and inter-glacials can also be punctuated by fairly rapid but short-lived changes. For the end of the most recent glaciation, you could look at Monnin et al (2001) (to pick the first google hit):

A record of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration during the transition from the Last Glacial Maximum to the Holocene, obtained from the Dome Concordia, Antarctica, ice core, reveals that an increase of 76 parts per million by volume occurred over a period of 6000 years in four clearly distinguishable intervals. The close correlation between CO2 concentration and Antarctic temperature indicates that the Southern Ocean played an important role in causing the CO2 increase. However, the similarity of changes in CO2 concentration and variations of atmospheric methane concentration suggests that processes in the tropics and in the Northern Hemisphere, where the main sources for methane are located, also had substantial effects on atmospheric CO2 concentrations.