- Joined
- Jul 17, 2020
- Messages
- 35,220
- Reaction score
- 15,259
- Location
- Springfield MO
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Yes, observed temperature reading will continue to rise for decades more, as long as the global meteorological network is withing range of the urban heat island effect. We have no way of accurately removing the urban heat island effect from the observed reading, so we really have no accurate idea what the temperatures really are.
Temperature data showing rapid warming in the past few decades, the latest data going up to 2021. According to NASA data, 2016 and 2020 tied for the warmest year since 1880, continuing a long-term trend of rising global temperatures. The 15 warmest years on record have occurred since 2005, with the eight most recent years being the warmest. Credit: NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies
Yes, observed temperature reading will continue to rise for decades more, as long as the global meteorological network is withing range of the urban heat island effect. We have no way of accurately removing the urban heat island effect from the observed reading, so we really have no accurate idea what the temperatures really are.
This is no surprise what so ever.
Nobody disagrees with this. Only the quantification of this effect.It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s climate. This is based on over a century of scientific evidence forming the structural backbone of today's civilization.
How many times a year are you going to post this?NASA Global Climate Change presents the state of scientific knowledge about climate change while highlighting the role NASA plays in better understanding our home planet. This effort includes citing multiple peer-reviewed studies from research groups across the world,1 illustrating the accuracy and consensus of research results (in this case, the scientific consensus on climate change) consistent with NASA’s scientific research portfolio.
With that said, multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1show that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.
Scientific Consensus
It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s...climate.nasa.gov
How many times a year are you going to post this?
The first "naysayer" shows up...Yes, observed temperature reading will continue to rise for decades more, as long as the global meteorological network is withing range of the urban heat island effect. We have no way of accurately removing the urban heat island effect from the observed reading, so we really have no accurate idea what the temperatures really are.
This is no surprise what so ever.
What's your problem with scientific facts?The first "naysayer" shows up...
What's your problem with scientific facts?
I have no problem with them. You, on the other hand, seem to revel in your ignorance.What's your problem with scientific facts?
Yes, observed temperature reading will continue to rise for decades more, as long as the global meteorological network is withing range of the urban heat island effect. We have no way of accurately removing the urban heat island effect from the observed reading, so we really have no accurate idea what the temperatures really are.
This is no surprise what so ever.
Did you ignore this part of my post?
We have no way of accurately removing the urban heat island effect from the observed reading
We have discussed this before, and nobody has shown the methodology/model is accurate. It's just one huge SWAG (scientific wild ass guess.) Comparing urban and rural stations is a joke. It in no way accurately shows a correct adjustment to use.You don’t know that.
We have discussed this before, and nobody has shown the methodology/model is accurate. It's just one huge SWAG (scientific wild ass guess.) Comparing urban and rural stations is a joke. It in no way accurately shows a correct adjustment to use.
Can you supply us with a paper that shows it's accurate?
Maybe if you guys would stop calling us names, we would be a little more gentle towards your feeling.Your post is every bit as much garbage as those of flogger and Queen Margo. They ask questions, not for discussion, but for the sole purpose of criticizing the answer, no matter what it is, and neither of them know squat about the issue.
What if it is garbage in garbage out?Your first paragraph is what is SWAG. It’s just a claim without merit. And your use of the word “accurate” is garbage because no matter what anyone would say about it, you would simply repeat your first paragraph, just like flogger and Queen Margo repeat their garbage questions. Garbage in, garbage out, should be your motto.
Maybe if you guys would stop calling us names, we would be a little more gentle towards your feeling.
You flat our deserve to be critisizes. The truth of these sciences is they have been politically corrupted. Notice how attempting to understand every variable that diminishes the role CO2 can play is taboo. This is not science to talk about real variables that need further study.
What if it is garbage in garbage out?
See, your problem is you are 100% anti-science. Science demands that allow your hypothesis to be tested not only in manners to support it, but try to look at every thing that can nullify your hypothesis to claim the hypothesis has merit.
Why do you think climate papers are never explicit? The scientists know their work has a very wide margin of error for the real world. The scientists present the papers are results of the input variables, in a model. They know the models are insufficient. I say time and time again, I trust the science. I understand the science. But what you guys believe is what the pundits are saying. Not the actual research scientist who actually perform the work. And it is their actual work that I read. Not the pundits.
Why do you think climate papers are never explicit? The scientists know their work has a very wide margin of error for the real world.
I'm just curious. If these climate change studies being done by these scientists came back and said there is no negligible climate rise in temperature, wouldn't their funding be cut off? So what do you think they are doing, a legitimate study, or a search for information to support their pre decided outcome?It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s climate. This is based on over a century of scientific evidence forming the structural backbone of today's civilization.
NASA Global Climate Change presents the state of scientific knowledge about climate change while highlighting the role NASA plays in better understanding our home planet. This effort includes citing multiple peer-reviewed studies from research groups across the world,1 illustrating the accuracy and consensus of research results (in this case, the scientific consensus on climate change) consistent with NASA’s scientific research portfolio.
With that said, multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1show that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.
Scientific Consensus
It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s...climate.nasa.gov
I'm just curious. If these climate change studies being done by these scientists came back and said there is no negligible climate rise in temperature, wouldn't their funding be cut off? So what do you think they are doing, a legitimate study, or a search for information to support their pre decided outcome?
It does not really work like that! For example say someone runs an experiment that finds thatI'm just curious. If these climate change studies being done by these scientists came back and said there is no negligible climate rise in temperature, wouldn't their funding be cut off? So what do you think they are doing, a legitimate study, or a search for information to support their pre decided outcome?
Thus paying homage to the idea that everyone is finding similar results.This range is in keeping with contemporary estimates of transient climate response to cumulative carbon emission obtained in a number of studies (Collins et al 2013), though our metric is time-dependent so the values are not directly comparable.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?