It's All About the Waste Heat

[Lord of Planar]

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.

I don't know off the top of my head where the graph is, and Deuce has not made good points. At least not to those of us who have actually studied the material.

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.

It's a major influence on measurements. Not actual global averages.

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.

The inaccuracy of measurement sites due to man made influences on them is well documented. Not my fault if you haven't sen the material, or deny its existence.

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.

What have I said that you "know" is false, and why?

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

It is sourced in the Watts material. You deny that he has a good blog and don't trace his referenced sources, which are linked.

Not my fault you deny good research habits.

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.

You have to understand cause and effect of what the study says. Just because a study doesn't explicitly say something, doesn't mean the evidence within is doesn't apply.

 

[Poor Debater]

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.

Forcing is always a flux. You're making a distinction without a difference.

The 1.1% global you speak of is concentrated in in the populated areas, where the highest concentration of measuring sites are located.

That doesn't matter one bit to global temps. Global data is weighted to remove sampling bias, something they never teach you about in Denierstan. Real scientists know how to do real science.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Forcing is always a flux. You're making a distinction without a difference.

LOL...

Your ignorance is showing.

LOL...

That doesn't matter one bit to global temps. Global data is weighted to remove sampling bias, something they never teach you about in Denierstan. Real scientists know how to do real science.

No. You are wrong. Contaminated samples are used, and there is no way to accurately correct them.

 

[iguanaman]

It is a mind-boggling amount of heat.

But it's also a big ass planet.

 

[Lord of Planar]

View attachment 67203256

But if because of the transient time of returning energy is fast, then the GHG warming might only raise the heat by 1% of potential. These numbers would then be about equal. A 2.9 W/m^2 increase in warming only amounts to a 0.5 degree increase. Now remember also, these waste heat numbers are primarily in urban areas, but the 0.029 is averaged over the globe. If these urban areas represented 2% of the globe, then in these smaller regions, the number is actually close to 50 times in the urban areas. More like 1.45 W/m^2, in the areas affecting meteorological sites. Now the truth lies somewhere between.

 

[Poor Debater]

LOL...

Your ignorance is showing.

LOL...

No, actually, your ignorance is showing. Please cite a forcing measurement which is not a flux. Since you seem to think that's common, that should be easy. And of course, don't bother citing anything that's not peer-reviewed.

No. You are wrong.

Assertion without evidence. Denier FAIL.

Contaminated samples are used, and there is no way to accurately correct them.

Assertion without evidence. Denier FAIL.

 

[Lord of Planar]

If you have ever actually read papers like this:

Earth's Global Energy Budget
Kevin E. Trenberth, John T. Fasullo, and Jeffrey Kiehl
National Center for Atmospheric Research,* Boulder, Colorado
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/2008BAMS2634.1
Published Online: 1 March, 2009

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2634.1
​

You would see that they use power levels, and flux of those power levels.

I get it though. You let the pundits tell you what is true and false, rather than doing your own thinking.