• 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!

It's All About the Waste Heat

It is a mind-boggling amount of heat.

But it's also a big ass planet.

The problem is that the thermometers that measure the temperature of the planet are not everywhere, they are generally located near civilization to accommodate regular reading and maintenance. Many of these thermometers are also out of compliance with the requirements to minimize UHI interference.

Instead of correcting these issues the climate database managers have chosen to deal with the issue statistically with little or no control groups in their modeling efforts to show that their adjustments are sound and reasonable.

Even with the growing evidence of UHI interference in the surface station record the overwhelming adjustments to that record have been up rather than down.

In fact there is an inverse relationship over the last 30 years between the global termerature derived from surface stations and the number of stations actually used in the GHCN:

DAleo_Station_Dropout.jpg
 
Last edited:
I don't see how the tiny amount of heat generated by burning fossil fuels will directly effect the global temperature.

That it may well effect the data is different; There does not need to be many weather stations on the roof of a building next to the air-con outlet to skew the result.
 
I don't see how the tiny amount of heat generated by burning fossil fuels will directly effect the global temperature.

That it may well effect the data is different; There does not need to be many weather stations on the roof of a building next to the air-con outlet to skew the result.

This is probably the case.

I think its funny that it has a better statistical fit than 3Goofs chart... or is that Deuce? I get the two mixed up. I swear, they are so similar, it's as if one is the others sock puppet.
 
You think it does?
Did you not read the thread from the start,
The idea that the waste heat is a better correlation is from a published paper.
From Urban to National Heat Island: the effect of anthropogenic heat output on climate change in high population industrial countries - Murray - 2016 - Earth's Future - Wiley Online Library

Using energy consumption as a proxy for thermal emission, strong correlations (mean r2 = 0.90 & 0.89 respectively) are found between national equivalent heat output HO and temperature above background levels ∆t averaged over 5 to 8 year periods between 1965 and 2013, as opposed to weaker correlations for CMIP5 model temperatures above background levels ∆mt (mean r2 = 0.52 & 0.10).
 

And you don't think the fact that they chose the two locations on the entire planet where waste heat would have the largest impact is part of it?

They aren't saying "this explains climate change." They're saying "this can contribute to climate change in dense areas."
 
And you don't think the fact that they chose the two locations on the entire planet where waste heat would have the largest impact is part of it?

They aren't saying "this explains climate change." They're saying "this can contribute to climate change in dense areas."
I was point out that the correlation was from a paper, not necessary the quality of the paper.
That they found a correlation is interesting, I would have thought the effect too weak.
 
I was point out that the correlation was from a paper, not necessary the quality of the paper.
That they found a correlation is interesting, I would have thought the effect too weak.

I suspect it is too weak to detect, globally speaking. But if you deliberately take temperature readings over a volcano you'll certainly find a better correlation between volcanic activity and local temperatures than you will for carbon dioxide.
 
You think it does?

Absolutely. I have explained the problems with the log CO2 chart vs. temperature before. But them of course, a denier of science will deny such common sense.
 
And you don't think the fact that they chose the two locations on the entire planet where waste heat would have the largest impact is part of it?

They aren't saying "this explains climate change." They're saying "this can contribute to climate change in dense areas."

Duh...

Why do you always read into things people don't say?
 
Absolutely. I have explained the problems with the log CO2 chart vs. temperature before. But them of course, a denier of science will deny such common sense.

Common sense like "if you measure waste heat in the most densely populated areas on the planet you'll find a larger effect than in Kansas?"
 
I suspect it is too weak to detect, globally speaking. But if you deliberately take temperature readings over a volcano you'll certainly find a better correlation between volcanic activity and local temperatures than you will for carbon dioxide.

And if you deliberately take two relatively stable trends, they will have a high correlation...

Careful...

Your hypocrisy is very apparent right now!!!
 
Common sense like "if you measure waste heat in the most densely populated areas on the planet you'll find a larger effect than in Kansas?"

LOL...

Reading in your own confirmation bias again.

Forum Jesters like you sure do make me laugh!
 
Read the title of the WUWT article and get back to me.

It all makes sense now. You read a title from a liberal rag, and you know everything. You think we do the same.

You are starting to make more sense to me now! I'm beginning to understand your arrogant ignorance better.
 
And if you deliberately take two relatively stable trends, they will have a high correlation...

Careful...

Your hypocrisy is very apparent right now!!!

What hypocrisy do you imagine I'm displaying?
 
It all makes sense now. You read a title from a liberal rag, and you know everything. You think we do the same.

You are starting to make more sense to me now! I'm beginning to understand your arrogant ignorance better.

Well known liberal rag WattsUpWithThat :lamo
 
Lord Of Planar... I am disappointed that you have resorted to mostly name calling and insults. And please... I would love for you to explain this "problems with the log CO2 chart vs. temperature". Or at least a link. Do it for the new guy.

All you denialists need to remember what Anthony Watts' title said:

Important study: Waste heat is a major source of national warming, significantly pollutes climatic record

Now this study he cites said nothing about polluting any climatic record. He just made that part up. This is just more of his "surface stations are corrupted" delusion.

You denialists need to learn that Anthony Watts is not a reliable source of information. He loves to take studies like this and twist them into something they are not.
 
Well known liberal rag WattsUpWithThat :lamo

I don't read Watts material except about 25 of the time someone posts it. Then, I go to their well referenced source material and focus on that, rather than what Watts has to say..

You obviously do not follow to the source material.
 
Lord Of Planar... I am disappointed that you have resorted to mostly name calling and insults. And please... I would love for you to explain this "problems with the log CO2 chart vs. temperature". Or at least a link. Do it for the new guy.
The graph is one that either 3Goofsd, or his counterpart, Duece, generated themselves. It had something like a 0.82 correlation. It is repeated over and over in various threads, and I laugh each time pointing out that you will have good correlation any time you compare two trends that are relatively stable. Why is my pointing out that 0.89 and 0.90 correlations are better than his, wrong? I didn't say it was proof that direct human induced direct heating was the cause, did I?

All you denialists need to remember what Anthony Watts' title said:
Important study: Waste heat is a major source of national warming, significantly pollutes climatic record
That statemnent is entirely accurate. Why do you think it's wrong? Look at a dictionary lately?


ma·jor
ˈmājər/
adjective
adjective: major

1.
important, serious, or significant.

Now this study he cites said nothing about polluting any climatic record. He just made that part up. This is just more of his "surface stations are corrupted" delusion.
That's incorrect. It is well documented that heat from not only man made changes in land use, but air conditioning output and other heat sources built by man are in close enough proximity to temperature monitoring sites to make the readings higher than they would otherwise be.

You denialists need to learn that Anthony Watts is not a reliable source of information. He loves to take studies like this and twist them into something they are not.
Speak of name-calling. I am not a "denialist." Maybe you should get a better education of word meaning and facts, and see that I actually understand the things I speak of.

Did you read one of the sources referenced?

Up to now climate projections, neglecting thermal emissions, typically foresee maximum forcing around
the year 2050, followed by a decline. In this paper we show that, if humanity’s energy use grows at
1%/year, slower than in recent history, and if thermal emissions are not controlled through novel energy
technology, temperature forcing will increase indefinitely unless combated by geoengineering.

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0811/0811.0476.pdf

Because anthropogenic heat is generated close to where temperatures are measured in
both countries, we have not used a climate model to investigate the transport of such
released heat further afield. Early attempts to do this globally found temperature
variations of a similar order to the model’s natural fluctuations (Washington 1972), and
Flanner (2009) found no significant effect for the present day. Oleson (2012) used
CMIP5 simulations to model future changes in urban minus rural temperatures in
response to changing climate over the 21st century, rather than the effects of changing
energy consumption. More recently however, Zhang et al. (2013) despite including only
42% of world energy consumption in their model, found significant winter and autumn
temperature changes up to 1° C in mid- and high- latitudes, far from heat sources, that
correspond well to areas of previously unexplained differences between observed and
modelled temperatures. Chen et al. (2014), entering anthropogenic heat flux into a
refined model that included long wave radiation, found higher and more widespread
increases over standard models: 1°-2° C in mid- to high-latitude areas of Eurasia, North
America and parts of the southern hemisphere, and concluded that anthropogenic
heating is an important factor in global warming that should not be ignored. Our study is
the first of its kind that provides direct observational evidence of this.

From Urban to National Heat Island: the effect of anthropogenic heat output on climate change in high population industrial countries - Murray - Earth's Future - Wiley Online Library

I'll bet you didn't go to these two sources I just referenced.
 
The graph is one that either 3Goofsd, or his counterpart, Duece, generated themselves. It had something like a 0.82 correlation. It is repeated over and over in various threads, and I laugh each time pointing out that you will have good correlation any time you compare two trends that are relatively stable.

The trend in temperature has not been stable over the last 165 years. And the trend in ln(CO2) has not been stable over the last 165 years, either. So you're essentially complaining that the data fits the theory, and you're laughing at that? Only in Denierstan.

Why is my pointing out that 0.89 and 0.90 correlations are better than his, wrong? I didn't say it was proof that direct human induced direct heating was the cause, did I?

It's not wrong, just wrongheaded. There is a huge qualitative difference between a scientific theory that is based in physics, and handwaving mathturbation that defies the laws of physics. Correlation is not causation, as many have pointed out. One side has known causation that is firmly based in science. One side does not. Guess which side lives in Denierstan.

That statemnent is entirely accurate. Why do you think it's wrong? Look at a dictionary lately?

Please tell us all why you believe that 1.1% of forcing is a "major source" of warming. Because if you can't, then he's right and you're wrong.

That's incorrect. It is well documented that heat from not only man made changes in land use, but air conditioning output and other heat sources built by man are in close enough proximity to temperature monitoring sites to make the readings higher than they would otherwise be.

But it's not documented anywhere that they make the temperature anomalies higher than they otherwise would be. Which is why we use anomalies in the first place. In fact, in his one-and-only peer-reviewed paper, Anthony Watts himself admitted that station siting makes no difference at all in surface temperature trends.
 
The graph is one that either 3Goofsd, or his counterpart, Duece, generated themselves. It had something like a 0.82 correlation. It is repeated over and over in various threads, and I laugh each time pointing out that you will have good correlation any time you compare two trends that are relatively stable. Why is my pointing out that 0.89 and 0.90 correlations are better than his, wrong? I didn't say it was proof that direct human induced direct heating was the cause, did I?.

What I have a problem with is you not only not explaining this for people like me who have not seen this graph but you also have ignored several good points Deuce has made in which you just respond with name calling and insults. I don't necessarily have a problem with this as I do it too but when that is all you have.... it makes you look bad.

That statemnent is entirely accurate. Why do you think it's wrong? Look at a dictionary lately?


ma·jor
ˈmājər/
adjective
adjective: major

1.
important, serious, or significant.
.

Look at a dictionary for the word "major"? Nope... That word is pretty basic. I use the dictionary for words I don't know or for spell checking. And I wasn't really disputing Anthony Watts' use of the word but if you want to go there...

This study says that waste heat is a major source for warming in just 2 countries. So you can't say waste heat is a major source for ALL countries. And that is what Watts' misleading title suggests.

That's incorrect. It is well documented that heat from not only man made changes in land use, but air conditioning output and other heat sources built by man are in close enough proximity to temperature monitoring sites to make the readings higher than they would otherwise be..

No. This is where you and Anthony Watts are wrong. This is not well documented. Watts just thinks and has most of you denialists thinking that it is. Now I can show you why here but I think that subject deserves a separate discussion. Look for a new thread in the near future.

Speak of name-calling. I am not a "denialist." Maybe you should get a better education of word meaning and facts, and see that I actually understand the things I speak of..

Well... when I see you saying things that I know are not true I am going to call it as I see it. And so far you look like a denialist to me.

Did you read one of the sources referenced?

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0811/0811.0476.pdf.

Where did this come from? I can't find a reference or link to it anywhere in this thread.


Actually I went and read the whole study. Not just the portion cut and pasted by Watts. And that is how I know the study says nothing about polluting the temperature record like Anthony lied about.
 
Please tell us all why you believe that 1.1% of forcing is a "major source" of warming. Because if you can't, then he's right and you're wrong.

If it is 1.1% of the forcing that is very notable. However, I think yo mean to say 1.1% of the forcing flux.

The 1.1% global you speak of is concentrated in in the populated areas, where the highest concentration of measuring sites are located. It probably represents more than 50% of the changes in the heat content being measured.
 
Back
Top Bottom