A challenge for Jfuh and other AGW Acolytes.

[Renae]

Can you refute the following?

Using just the US rural temperature data (not including temperature sensors near urban areas due to the urban heat island affect), today's US rural temperatures are cooler than those of the 1930's. (David Archibald)

Why, if AGW is real, when you take out the big cities, there is no warming?

 

[jfuh]

Can you refute the following?


Why, if AGW is real, when you take out the big cities, there is no warming?

You need to prove it first - burden of proof and all.

 

[RedAkston]

You need to prove it first - burden of proof and all.

Kind of like when you haven't proven that man has caused some sort of global warming?

 

[Renae]

You need to prove it first - burden of proof and all.

The statement comes from a source that shows this to be true. I'm giving you a chance to disprove it. Either you admit you cannot disprove it, and thus admit that AGW is a farce, or you show that taking out big cities does NOT in fact alter the heating equation.

I'll give a HUGE clue here, since you need one, go pull up Albany NY and New York cities GISS files for the last oh... 70-100 years.

 

[jfuh]

Kind of like when you haven't proven that man has caused some sort of global warming?

Oh I've done that plenty already. Read what has been presented and get back to me.

 

[jfuh]

The statement comes from a source that shows this to be true. I'm giving you a chance to disprove it. Either you admit you cannot disprove it, and thus admit that AGW is a farce, or you show that taking out big cities does NOT in fact alter the heating equation.

I'll give a HUGE clue here, since you need one, go pull up Albany NY and New York cities GISS files for the last oh... 70-100 years.

I'm not going to do that. It's your job to come present the evidence "go see for yourself" is not proof whatsoever.
Prove your case.

 

[Renae]

Oh I've done that plenty already. Read what has been presented and get back to me.

But you cannot refute this?

AGW = Heat Island.

DOH.

 

[jfuh]

But you cannot refute this?

AGW = Heat Island.

DOH.

What should I refute? You haven't proven anything or even presented anything that I haven't already directly addressed you.
As I said back up your original premise - or are you simply just trolling by the regurgitation of what you posted before?

 

[DarkWizard12]

What should I refute? You haven't proven anything or even presented anything that I haven't already directly addressed you.
As I said back up your original premise - or are you simply just trolling by the regurgitation of what you posted before?

Here, instead of refuting his evidence, refute his hypothesis.

Can you?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

The only hits come from other MBs.
Further, it's not at all clear that it's relevant at all because it relates only to weather conditions in the US rather than the climate globally.

If it were that simple, don't you think that the climatologists would have figured it out already?
It may well be that one day we decide that global climate change wasn't impacted by Mankind's activities, but the case is unlikely to be something that you can post in a single sentence on a MB.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Can you refute the following?
Why, if AGW is real, when you take out the big cities, there is no warming?

One further thing to note, cities do exist and are anthropogenic.
I'm not at all sure what you think your quote demonstrates or why you think it demonstrates that.

 

[jfuh]

Here, instead of refuting his evidence, refute his hypothesis.

Can you?

Hypothesis requires proof, he has not provided any proof.
Until he provides ample proof for his hypothesis in the form of a conclusion, there's nothing to refute.
Again, burden of proof.

 

[Pinu7]

Also, Vic did not bother citing his source.
For what we know, he pulled that quote from his ***.

 

[jfuh]

Also, Vic did not bother citing his source.
For what we know, he pulled that quote from his ***.

Exactly
and welcome:2wave:

 

[rebelbuc]

One further thing to note, cities do exist and are anthropogenic.
I'm not at all sure what you think your quote demonstrates or why you think it demonstrates that.

So, Moon, by this latest post you are insinuating that the CO2 just hangs around the urban heat islands and that's why we have to include them in studies. As I understand what jfuh and others with similar opinion state, something to the effect that man's CO2 emissions are causing increased atmospheric CO2 (as measured on a mountain in Hawaii - far away from the urban heat islands) which, in turn, is causing an increased greenhouse effect all over the planet. Therefore, a logical mind would state that a representative (not cherry picked) group of rural weather stations should all show the corresponding temperature rise per the elevated CO2 levels. While I'm not familiar with the study cited, don't get illogical just because someone is blowing holes in your AGW theory (IMHO).

I, like many posting here, do not believe that Gore, IPCC, jfuh, you, or anyone has proven AGW to be real (per poor model performance and recent trends especially) and the debate is alive and well. Since the cost of cooperating with the AGW crowd is probably financial ruin for those nations that take it to the demanded extreme (you know, bankrupting coal, etc.), I think that you AGW supporters should bear the responsibility of overwhelming proof (no, you haven't done that yet).

 

[Renae]

One further thing to note, cities do exist and are anthropogenic.
I'm not at all sure what you think your quote demonstrates or why you think it demonstrates that.

Heat Island effect.

Cities show heating, rural do not. The bigger the city, the more the heat "effect". Since this is demonstratively a localized phenomenon... removing say Toyko, which if you go look up the chart shows this QUITE well vs. a rural location...

New York City Vs. West Point, or Albany...

They all show the same thing. Teh bigger the city, the warmer they are. If they are, (and they are) showing warming while rural locations are showing far less to none...

Doesn't that negate the entire premise of GLOBAL warming?

 

[Renae]

Exactly
and welcome:2wave:

I didn't, I didn't want you to focus on the source location or any of your other games.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

So, Moon, by this latest post you are insinuating that the CO2 just hangs around the urban heat islands and that's why we have to include them in studies.

Not at all. I am just saying that not only are cities on the globe, but also that they are a part of it. Since they are a part of the globe, what is the reason that they should be excluded from data used to assess changes in global climate?
Also, I was pointing out that if indeed cities accounted for global warming as is implied, then it global warming would be accounted for by man-made causes - the cities.
As such, teh staement in the OP, even if it were accurate, doesn't seem to do much for tha case against AGW.

As I understand what jfuh and others with similar opinion state, something to the effect that man's CO2 emissions are causing increased atmospheric CO2 (as measured on a mountain in Hawaii - far away from the urban heat islands) which, in turn, is causing an increased greenhouse effect all over the planet. Therefore, a logical mind would state that a representative (not cherry picked) group of rural weather stations should all show the corresponding temperature rise per the elevated CO2 levels.

Perhaps this is true, but the quote provided for discussion refers to a 'cherry-picked' group rather than a representative one. The reason that it is cherry picked is because it refers only to ones in the US. The US is not the same thing as the entire planet. Therefore, it's not actually indicated that the data from the rest of the world follows suit with the data from points clustered in any specific locale.

While I'm not familiar with the study cited, don't get illogical just because someone is blowing holes in your AGW theory (IMHO).

Thanks for the advice. I'll keep it handy.

I, like ... that yet).

Be that as it may, this particular thread was about the quote provided in the OP.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Heat Island effect. ... Doesn't that negate the entire premise of GLOBAL warming

The poorly sourced quote of the OP pertains solely to the US. If you wish to bring in more data go right ahead. Thus far you have not. If you do, I hope it is better sourced.

If you have data that show global warming can be entirely accounted for by the data from cities, you have two other problems.

1st, you still have to justify removing data from the pool. When you are are willing to remove inconvenient data, it's much easier to prove any sort of thing you like - just remove the data that you don't like instead of examining it all.

2nd, you're make the case that global warming is the result of Man's activities - which seems to run counter to an attempt to prove the opposite.

 

[jfuh]

Heat Island effect.

Cities show heating, rural do not. The bigger the city, the more the heat "effect". Since this is demonstratively a localized phenomenon... removing say Toyko, which if you go look up the chart shows this QUITE well vs. a rural location...

New York City Vs. West Point, or Albany...

They all show the same thing. Teh bigger the city, the warmer they are. If they are, (and they are) showing warming while rural locations are showing far less to none...

Doesn't that negate the entire premise of GLOBAL warming?

Aside from the fact that cities do exist and you can not take them out of the equation for your own intents and purposes, fact still remains that you have not proven your premise that rural areas are not heating.
Cite your source and prove your case.

 

[jfuh]

I didn't, I didn't want you to focus on the source location or any of your other games.

You're a space troll - now prove it wrong.
See how absurd that is? When you don't make any attempt to back up your claims with legitimate sources that prove your point your entire premise is utterly moot and invalid.
You make the claim, you need to back it up with proof.
Some hack job blog site is typically not the way to go because you can literally google and find any material you want. including the religion of the Flying Spaghetti monster - Oh look look but it says right there that it's true! How dare you depute the source just because you don't like it or it doesn't agree with you.
It's utterly absurd and I think that unless you are retarded or too young to know any better you know that what you're doing here is absurd.
I repeat again, prove your premise.

 

[Renae]

You're a space troll - now prove it wrong.
See how absurd that is? When you don't make any attempt to back up your claims with legitimate sources that prove your point your entire premise is utterly moot and invalid.
You make the claim, you need to back it up with proof.
Some hack job blog site is typically not the way to go because you can literally google and find any material you want. including the religion of the Flying Spaghetti monster - Oh look look but it says right there that it's true! How dare you depute the source just because you don't like it or it doesn't agree with you.
It's utterly absurd and I think that unless you are retarded or too young to know any better you know that what you're doing here is absurd.
I repeat again, prove your premise.

It's not hard to find the info Jfuh, you're so worried about WHERE it came from instead of disproving it (cause ya know... ya can't). This is fun.

 

[Renae]

The poorly sourced quote of the OP pertains solely to the US. If you wish to bring in more data go right ahead. Thus far you have not. If you do, I hope it is better sourced.

If you have data that show global warming can be entirely accounted for by the data from cities, you have two other problems.

1st, you still have to justify removing data from the pool. When you are are willing to remove inconvenient data, it's much easier to prove any sort of thing you like - just remove the data that you don't like instead of examining it all.

2nd, you're make the case that global warming is the result of Man's activities - which seems to run counter to an attempt to prove the opposite.

You are missing a simple point.

Cities are warmer then rural areas. Period. The data supports this.

Thus if you remove the ARTIFICALLY warmed areas.. concrete, steel, and all that good stuff messing up the weather stations... the warming is negligible. I just chose the USA because it has some of the best temp records across the country.

 

[jfuh]

It's not hard to find the info Jfuh, you're so worried about WHERE it came from instead of disproving it (cause ya know... ya can't). This is fun.

I'm not worried by the least bit, I'm simply asking you to prove yourself.

 

[jfuh]

You are missing a simple point.

Cities are warmer then rural areas. Period. The data supports this.

Thus if you remove the ARTIFICALLY warmed areas.. concrete, steel, and all that good stuff messing up the weather stations... the warming is negligible. I just chose the USA because it has some of the best temp records across the country.

What heats cities? Concrete? Steel?