• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Climate change: World now sees twice as many days over 50C

Lord of Planar said:
How about telling us why adjustments to such measurements should be trusted.

And if you tell us they aren't adjusted, you are in denial.
Click to expand...


You didn't give a forthright, honest reply. Instead of answering my reasonable questions, you instead ask questions of me. Go away.
 
So the data between 1900 and 2011 increased by 0.12C between 2013 and 2021 ?
If you do not think the concept of ACC is based upon the observed increase in temperature, then let me ask you a question?
If the average temperature in for the 3 decades leading up to 2021, were exactly the same as the pre 1900 average,
do you think the IPCC would exists?
 
That's because you refuse to acknowledge the distinction I make.

The Urban heat island effect can be high, and is generally somewhat proportional to a city size. It can be several degrees in the cities. Part of this heat transfers to the meteorological stations nearby.

The extra heat in the cities do not have but a minuscule effect of the global temperatures.

This heat makes the meteorological readings higher as the cities grow. The scientists are aware of this contamination of the readings, and attempt to adjust for them.

You want to say I cannot prove my claim. I can, I just not going to look for papers I have read in the past. May I point out, you cannot prove your contentions?

How about stopping for a moment and consider common sense and simple science. What I say is 100% true. I just cannot quantify the effect.
 
longview said:
We know the UHI effect is real, the only question is if the compensation adjustments are accurate.
I see that the IPCC has toned down their warming estimates for the last century,
with warming of only 1.09 °C between 1900 and 2020.
Click to expand...


It doesn't matter that you've been proved wrong on this point, which you have, but that, regardless, ACC marches on.
 
bluesmoke said:
It doesn't matter that you've been proved wrong on this point, which you have, but that, regardless, ACC marches on.
Click to expand...
You have not proven that the UHI correction is ether correct or correctly applied!
 

I can’t count the number of times that you’ve used the “I’m not doing to look for papers I have read in the past” lame excuse for not providing a source or a link for your claims. It gets tiring that you are unable and/or unwilling to do so. Here’s a hint: we don’t believe your claims based on your say-so alone. If you can’t provide sources, don’t make outlandish claims.

And simple science and common sense are not foundations for claims either. If it was, we would still believe that the sun revolves around the Earth.
 
Wow. You can't count that high? It's probably only been a dozen times.

That explains quite a bit though.
 
longview said:
You have not proven that the UHI correction is ether correct or correctly applied!
Click to expand...


I'm not interested in what as usual tortured extrapolation of some range of correction you math out that results in the world heading into an ice age. Nothing you've posted in the vein of ACC science denial is accepted as anything significant by the science community as is always where our debates end with me than saying "See you on another..."
 
It means you have not supported your position!
 
longview said:
So the data between 1900 and 2011 increased by 0.12C between 2013 and 2021 ?
Click to expand...
It wasn't so much that the data in the different records changed, it was that there was a change in which and how the different records were and were not used in their estimation. They explain this in the report. Are you really just not going to bother to read it?
And there you go again moving the goal-posts. You were talking about all the ACC predictions. Not the concept of ACC.

Your intellectual dishonesty is getting really tiring.
 
I am sorry you do not like an honest question, but if the average temperature had not increased, since the pre 1900 average, there would be no IPCC!
And the discussion was about the accuracy of the measured warming, not predicted warming!
 
Last edited:
longview said:
I am sorry you do not like an honest question, but if the average temperature had not increased, since the pre 1900 average, there would be no IPCC!
Click to expand...
It is not an honest question when you are changing the subject. And what the hell is the point here? Of course, there wouldn't be an IPCC if temps hadn't been rising over the last few decades. But they have been. What does this prove other than you can't stick to the subject when you get your facts wrong and know you can't defend yourself.
 
The subject was always about the extra 0.12C of warming between 2000 and 2011, and if there were no measured warming, if there would be any need for an IPCC!
By the way, a correction by changing stations of more than 10% of the total for a period of 11 years is enormous, and would represent an large error in the data!
 
longview said:
The subject was always about the extra 0.12C of warming between 2000 and 2011,
Click to expand...
No, it wasn't. Especially when I was pointing out that you were wrong when you claimed that the IPCC had lowered their estimation of how much warming the planet has seen. Or when you falsely claimed that all predictions of ACC are based only on the temperature record. You are attempting to change the subject so that you can forget about getting called out for pushing denialist BS again!
longview said:
and if there were no measured warming, if there would be any need for an IPCC!
Click to expand...
So what? There was warming no matter if we account for the difference between the two IPCC reports or not. This is just another of your lame attempts to change the subject.
longview said:
By the way, a correction by changing stations of more than 10% of the total for a period of 11 years is enormous, and would represent an large error in the data!
Click to expand...
So... you are just going to remain willfully ignorant of what the IPCC's reasoning is. Do I really need to spoon-feed you everything and provide the specific quotes from them where they state that the changes were NOT from changes in station data? Do I really need to publically humiliate you again? I guess when you have no shame...
 
Lord of Planar said:
LOL... Believe as you wish.
Click to expand...
Yes, I will! I believe what the evidence shows. And anyone call do a search of your posts and find numerous examples over many years of you refusing to provide the studies you claim to have read. You are actually well known for and have been repeatedly documented for lying about what you have stated on this forum in the past. Either that or you just really have no clue what you have said in the past.
 
Your bias on the topic is only exceeded by your inability to follow the thread!
In post #171, I acknowledged that you were correct, about the IPCC not toned down their estimate of warming,
but in fact had increased the period ending in 2011 by an additional 0.12°C.
Thanks for pointing that out by the way!
It is worth noting what the IPCC says about their data correction.
IPCC AR6 SPM
So the increase ending in 2011 of 0.99ºC should really be the AR5 level of 0.78 ºC, at least according to the IPCC!

You may want to deny that had their not been any warming since 1900, that a group like the IPCC would exists, but it is groundless.
they only exists because there appears to be a correlation between the increase in CO2 and the increase in global average temperature,
without the temperature increase, there would be no correlation!
 
longview said:
Minuscule data like the average temperature increase since the pre 1900 average, the basis of all the ACC predictions?
Click to expand...


You've not produced evidence that the science community accepts as affecting their position on ACC as presented by the IPCC. It's longview and a miniscule number of scientist v the science community and the accepted science of ACC. See you on another thread.
 
What do you think is the position of the science community on ACC?
If you think it is the IPCC, then the numbers the IPCC produces are valid.
IPCC AR6 SPM
and of course footnotes 9 and 10 say,
so the increase in physical warming over AR5 is 0.12ºC that is stated as not representing physical warming. (Which begs the question, what is it representing?).
It does not matter which number is used, because neither can demonstrate the high feedback factors necessary for ECS type of warming of 2XCO2=3.0°C.
 


I acknowledge the distinction. I also recognize what you say is of no significant global, national or regional impact, though science accounts for UHI effect on ACC, however minor. That you say UHI "skews the measurements as meterological stations have seen the increased heat from the cities." is a claim that defies the definition of "skew" when the effect is so miniscule. All is accounted for in scientific estimates. So, I don't know what your point really is.

The only real argument I've heard regarding UHI is the impact on specific minority communities due to the lack of heat shielding vegetation and other urban planning peculiar in those communities. It is in those urban pockets where UHI has undoubtedly high impact. There are cities with as much as a 10F higher night temp than the surrounding rural area, or even 30F higher in a city park than the surrounding streets. Then, there are urban areas that are cooler than the surrounding rural area due to heat shielding vegetation and better urban planning (homes further apart, fewer multi-unit bldg).

Anyway, ACC makes it all worse. UHI does not skew or make ACC seem worse. But, again, I really don't know what your point is.
 
You still don't comprehend. The point is we really don't know how much we have warmed the planet. I suggest it is less than claimed, but that is my personal educated guess.

The actual global effect from a city is insignificant. The effect it has on nearby meteorological stations is large.

This is where it is nothing but a SWAG to adjust the observed readings. When you do a SWAG, you tend to make adjustments that fit your own bias.

There is no way to trust the adjusted readings as accurate. If you can show me proof otherwise, I will change my mind.
 

“Show me the proof that my confirmation bias SWAG about the manner in which scientists adjust the readings of meteorological stations is biased.”
 

The effect on nearby stations is accounted for in the science. That's the part that has already been brought up in our debate and you refuse to acknowledge but rather ignore.

The assumption of bias is your own biased assumption. That science involves humans and thus bias is accepted, that in what you say it might be skewed is another. It's your opinion not supported by fact. Your claim is unfounded.

What I comprehend is that because you don't believe in the science, you think others must prove what is accounted for, as is in question, is accurate. Well, that's been done by the science you simply don't believe in. You simply disagree with that methodology. That's your opinion based on your educated guess vs the educated guess of the science community. It's Lord vs Science. And, you're talking about readings that would have to be taken to implausible extreme to have any significant effect on what is considered the most accurate estimate of current and future warming of the planet and it's regions. The last thing I want to do is change your mind. More important is pointing out you can't prove what you say as having any impact on anything and pointing out that what science says is preferable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…