- Joined
- Dec 22, 2012
- Messages
- 67,039
- Reaction score
- 22,365
- Location
- Portlandia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Maybe you can find a clean paper instead of the one your blogger buddy may have put viruses in.
Nope.Read it.
My remarks do have merit. The summary you gave uses the same claim I shot down before regarding rural stations. If there is more long term records it speaks of, find a copy of the paper that is not a security risk.Then don’t read it. Continue to make remarks with no merit. It’s up to you. You have now been given the opportunity. Download it on an iPad with Safari. That’s how I did it with no warning and no problems.
My remarks do have merit. The summary you gave uses the same claim I shot down before regarding rural stations. If there is more long term records it speaks of, find a copy of the paper that is not a security risk.
Sorry. I do not have toys like that.Again, download it on an iPad with Safari. Until you do, you have “shot down” nothing. Simply ignoring research does not make it go away.
Part of the problem of using the night glow as a metric is that it may not work.My remarks do have merit. The summary you gave uses the same claim I shot down before regarding rural stations. If there is more long term records it speaks of, find a copy of the paper that is not a security risk.
Weird how you know it doesn’t address this, yet don’t seem to have read it.Dose it talk about how they correct the rural station readings?
LOL...Weird how you know it doesn’t address this, yet don’t seem to have read it.
Oh, wait. Not weird. Just the usual denial.
LOL...
All the studies I have seen regarding the UHIE that mention rural stations, just say the trends are similar.
Stop trying to bullshit your way through this.
You have nothing.
Just stop. You have nothing. Past linked papers that I am not wasting my time looking up for the likes of you.What trends are similar? What studies? Can you list one?
Just stop. You have nothing. Past linked papers that I am not wasting my time looking up for the likes of you.
Not an excuse. Reality. You are nothing but a waste of people's time. If you have something relevant, I will most certainly entertain it. but you don't even understand science enough to discuss any of it.Exactly the excuses that I was expecting. So predictable!
I can actually read the paper.LOL...
All the studies I have seen regarding the UHIE that mention rural stations, just say the trends are similar.
Stop trying to bullshit your way through this.
You have nothing.
Or it could be that the instruments are not positioned to record the phenomena. The instrument packaged used by NOAA in Anchorage, for example, is located between two run-ways at the Ted Stevens International Airport, which sits on a peninsula with Cook Inlet on three of the four sides. It is not anywhere near downtown or the city center, and does not record actual city temperatures or precipitation. There can be as much of 10" difference in snowfall and as much as 10°F difference in temperature between downtown, hillside, and the airport.Part of the problem of using the night glow as a metric is that it may not work.
Assessment of Urban Versus Rural In Situ Surface Temperatures in the Contiguous United States: No Difference Found
We know the urban heat island effect is real, yet the studies using night-lights data found no difference. To me this says they are not using the correct metric.
D-K is clearly your department.I can actually read the paper.
LOL
This would be total humiliation for you, but you are too far on the left side of DK to understand why.
I'll bet they have no desire to find the actual difference. I will contend the researchers would no longer be eligible for activist grants if they found an accurate means of correcting for the UHIE.Part of the problem of using the night glow as a metric is that it may not work.
Assessment of Urban Versus Rural In Situ Surface Temperatures in the Contiguous United States: No Difference Found
We know the urban heat island effect is real, yet the studies using night-lights data found no difference. To me this says they are not using the correct metric.
Not an excuse. Reality. You are nothing but a waste of people's time. If you have something relevant, I will most certainly entertain it. but you don't even understand science enough to discuss any of it.
You have nothing, so why are you pretending to?See post #262.
Because only warming that cannot be attributed to other causes can be attributed to added CO2, any portion of the observed warming that could be attributed to the UHI effect, would have to be subtracted from the warming attributed to CO2!I'll bet they have no desire to find the actual difference. I will contend the researchers would no longer be eligible for activist grants if they found an accurate means of correcting for the UHIE.
Everything I have read leads me to believe they adjust the global temperatures to what their models claim they should be.
Yep.Because only warming that cannot be attributed to other causes can be attributed to added CO2, any portion of the observed warming that could be attributed to the UHI effect, would have to be subtracted from the warming attributed to CO2!
About the only safe thing we could say is that the actual average global temperature would be somewhere between the recorded Land based temperature and the recorded sea surface temperature.Yep.
The Urban Heat Island Effect is huge. The error range has to be huge as well, for any numbers they can realize. To narrow it down to usable tenths of a degree is impossible, and anyone thinking it is possible, is delusional.
That doesn't address what I am saying.
Give me a quote that matters, else you are wasting both out times.What you are saying is that there has not been enough research to offset UHI in determining global warming. Perhaps some of these would help:
Jones PD., Groisman PYa, Coughlan M, Plummer N, Wang W-C, et al. Assessment of urbanization effects in time series of surface air temperature over land. Nature 1990, 347:169–172. DOI:10.1038/347169a0.
Peterson TC. Assessment of urban versus rural in situ surface temperatures in the contigu-
ous United States. J Clim 2003, 16:2941–2959. DOI:10.1175/1520-0442 (2003)016<2941:AOUVRI>2.0.CO;2.
Brandsma T, Ko ̈nnen, GP, Wessels HRA. Empirical estimation of the effect of urban heat advection on the temperature series of De Bilt (The Netherlands). Int J Climatol 2003, 23:829–845. DOI: 10.1002/joc.902.
Jones PD, Lister DH, Li Q. Urbanization effects in large-scale temperature records, with an empha- sis on China. J Geophys Res 2008, 11316122. DOI:10.1029/2008JD009916.
LiQ,ZhangH,LiuX,HuangJ.Urbanheatislandeffect on annual mean temperature during the last 50 years in China. Theor Appl Climatol 2004, 79:165–174. DOI:10.1007/s00704-004-0065-4.
RenG,ZhouY,ChuZ,ZhouJ,ZhangA,etal.Urban- ization effects on observed surface air temperature trends in North China. J Clim 2008, 21:1333–1348. DOI:10.1175/2007JCLI1348.1.
Karl TR, Diaz HF, Kukla G. Urbanization: its detec- tion and effect in the United States climate record. J Clim 1988, 1:1099–1123. DOI: 10.1175/1520-0442 (1988)001<1099:UIDAEI>2.0.CO;2.
I have more when you are through reading those.
Give me a quote that matters, else you are wasting both out times.
I will be exceptionally surprised if you find something that is actually relevant.
Can you even imagine would take to adjust the land use changes out of the observed reading? Don't you see how impossible of a task it is?