Urban 'heat island' effect is only a small contributor to global warming

[longview]

Yes, and?

I suspect that is what is happening in the SW, they are using water faster than can be recharged by the cycle of rainfall and aquifer recharge.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Yes, and?

Really?

Yes and

 

[Lord of Planar]

Strange, what I hear in your comments is,
Any possible change that can happen in the weather, can be attributed to AGW!

That's what really pisses me off about the AGW crowd. They always blame AGW, instead of doing real science.

 

[Hafnium1979]

Strange, what I hear in your comments is,
Any possible change that can happen in the weather, can be attributed to AGW!

Wow. Reading not your thing? I explicitly said JUST THE OPPOSITE.

Please do NOT misrepresent what I clearly said. Unless, of course, you have a reading disability which I am more than willing to accept as an excuse. If that is the case then my sincerest apologies.

I never said that the only thing that can change climate or weather is AGW. NEVER said it, never meant it, don't believe that to be the case.

Just a friendly warning. Thanks.

 

[Hafnium1979]

But that is fact. You leave out the inconvenient truths.

I have already shown this to be incorrect in regards to the UHIE topic. Please do not force me to waste more time showing you your errors.

It is well known that the SW has a problem with their water supply due to increased populations.

No one is disputing that. Please do try to keep up.

Why do I need to prove something that is already accepted as fact?

What you have failed to prove (or evidence in ANY way) is the contention that population increases are the SOLE reason for the lowering of Lake Mead and other drought related issuses.

Sure, I could waste my time finding such material, but my God man. This is a fact that you should already be aware of, especially if you have studied geology, aquifers, etc.

And, again, I am not debating that point at all. We are in absolute agreement that the desert SW has a population issue in regards to water that is only getting worse. The contention under discussion here is that there is also a likely meteorological component to the drought which can be (not necessarily IS) a result of climate change

This is an absolutely dead-simple concept.

Precipitation is down. It is near record lows. See what I man about getting my arguments wrong?

So FINALLY you agree precipitation is lower. That is a component of the drought. It is not the ONLY problem but it IS a component. Which means it can be affected by and made worse by (and maybe even dominate) the problem and that can be (but not necessarily IS) due to climate change.

I never claimed it was "solely" due to populations.

You CONSISTENTLY argue against ANYONE who posts discussions of meteorological drought. Your position seems to be changing because someone provided you with actual data. That's good, it shows you are capable of learning. Now show the responsible attitude of either being quiet or at the very least NOT trying to make it sound like you were of that opinion earlier.

Is that how you conduct your science?

Who says I'm a scientist?

It might help, if instead of jumping to conclusions, if you actually thought out what my words really mean.

Speaking of jumping to things you clearly just jump on people for no real reason. You have come out swinging at me so much in the past week it is mind boggling. Whether you are accusing me of being a "snobbish reactionary" or a "creationist" (A charge you will not support), or trying to accuse me of being someone's sock puppet. You are off the charts aggressive.

Please do try to dial it down a bit.

 

[Hafnium1979]

I suspect that is what is happening in the SW, they are using water faster than can be recharged by the cycle of rainfall and aquifer recharge.

...and yet I keep showing data that indicates a lower PRECIPITATION rate as well. You and Lord seem deadset on arguing against that as being part of the issue because it would be problematic for something in your imagination. I'm not sure what.

Why is it so hard to accept that climate may be in play here? Is it because it will result in real-world economic issues of significance that will cause us to have to address the problem short of just shaking our fingers at the people who live there?

 

[Hafnium1979]

Really?

Yes and

Yes. Overpumping aquifers is a bad thing. Overpumping aquifers in a water-starved region where recharge rates are infinitessimal is even worse.

Now where does recharge come from in those aquifers? Hmmm. Probably snowpack in the Sierras AND precipitation. If those are lower (something unrelated to population) then there will be a net deficit of water resources.

 

[watsup]

It uses precipitation as an index, but uses two other main variables. Calculations are based on precipitation, temperature data, and the local Available Water Content of the soil. We have been pumping the aquifers rather low in the last few decades. Haven't we?

I never said we didn't have a growing water shortage. You act as if you understand these things better than I do. If that is true, why can't you get my arguments correct? My claim is simply that a large part of this drought, which will get even worse, is primarily due to population. More people means a greater demand of a limited resource.

“Water content of the soil” in this case refers to the very top layers of soil. It has nothing at all to do with the aquifers. The point is that if the “water content” of the soil is already low, then any precipitation will go towards restoring some basic moisture to the soil before it can be considered as useful to replenish reservoirs, for instance. It Is in that way that a drought often builds on itself.

 

[watsup]

If global warming were increasing drought, would it not be increasing it, globally?

I really and truly can’t believe that you ask questions that might otherwise be heard in second grade science class.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I have already shown this to be incorrect in regards to the UHIE topic. Please do not force me to waste more time showing you your errors.

Sorry. But comparing urban and rural stations don't cut it.

What you have failed to prove (or evidence in ANY way) is the contention that population increases are the SOLE reason for the lowering of Lake Mead and other drought related issuses.

Here you go again. How many times have I pointed out you argue against something I didn't say?

I never claimed it was the sole variable. I only point it out as a very prominent variable.

And, again, I am not debating that point at all. We are in absolute agreement that the desert SW has a population issue in regards to water that is only getting worse. The contention under discussion here is that there is also a likely meteorological component to the drought which can be (not necessarily IS) a result of climate change

And I never claimed otherwise. We are at near record lows on precipitation. I already said that several times.

So FINALLY you agree precipitation is lower. That is a component of the drought. It is not the ONLY problem but it IS a component. Which means it can be affected by and made worse by (and maybe even dominate) the problem and that can be (but not necessarily IS) due to climate change.

Finally?

I have said this before. I have never said anything contrary to that. Why do you make up arguments against me that have no merit?

You CONSISTENTLY argue against ANYONE who posts discussions of meteorological drought. Your position seems to be changing because someone provided you with actual data. That's good, it shows you are capable of learning. Now show the responsible attitude of either being quiet or at the very least NOT trying to make it sound like you were of that opinion earlier.

You are claiming it to be a meteorological drought. There are other factors.

Who says I'm a scientist?

I thought you said you were in a different post. Am I wrong?

Speaking of jumping to things you clearly just jump on people for no real reason. You have come out swinging at me so much in the past week it is mind boggling. Whether you are accusing me of being a "snobbish reactionary" or a "creationist" (A charge you will not support), or trying to accuse me of being someone's sock puppet. You are off the charts aggressive.

Maybe if you toned down your rhetoric, I would mine as well.

Something to consider.

It is very, very irritating for you to claim I said things I didn't. Maybe we can start there?

 

[watsup]

If we use more water than arrives through precipitation, and that we can draw from the aquafers, sooner or later, bad things will happen!

If there is less precipitation available due to the variations of climate change, then sooner or later bad things will happen.

 

[watsup]

Strange, what I hear in your comments is,
Any possible change that can happen in the weather, can be attributed to AGW!

Are there changes in the weather that can be attributed to AGW? You seem to completely dismiss that possibility.

 

[Lord of Planar]

If there is less precipitation available due to the variations of climate change, then sooner or later bad things will happen.

Precipitation has proven over the long record, to be cyclical. Can you show it to be due to CO2?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Are there changes in the weather that can be attributed to AGW? You seem to completely dismiss that possibility.

Can be? Sure, but the verdict isn't out yet on how much AGW there actually is, or how large of an effect it has.

 

[watsup]

I suspect that is what is happening in the SW, they are using water faster than can be recharged by the cycle of rainfall and aquifer recharge.

That has nothing at all to do with the METEOROLOGICAL drought of less precipitation, which is the topic.

 

[Lord of Planar]

That has nothing at all to do with the METEOROLOGICAL drought of less precipitation, which is the topic.

I see. You wish to deny all other variables.

OK...

 

[watsup]

That's what really pisses me off about the AGW crowd. They always blame AGW, instead of doing real science.

That’s what really upsets me about the denier crowd. They can literally never admit that AGW may indeed contribute to a weather events.

 

[Hafnium1979]

I never claimed it was the sole variable. I only point it out as a very prominent variable.

So why do you argue so vociferously AGAINST anyone attributing a meteorological component to the drought? You INSIST on population effects only.

I have said this before. I have never said anything contrary to that. Why do you make up arguments against me that have no merit?

Things like Lake Meade are because of too many people for the available water. Not because of CO2.

Why do you blame that on CO2?

^^^THIS. FIrst off if there IS a climatological component (which you seem to be claiming is non-existent) then it COULD be due to AGW which means it COULD be in part due to CO2.

I thought you said you were in a different post. Am I wrong?

I'm not. But feel free to show me where I said I am a scientist. I believe I have more direct knowledge of the sciences than many on here, but that does not mean I am a scientist.

Maybe if you toned down your rhetoric, I would mine as well.

No, my rhetoric is pretty even keeled. YOU jumped on me from the outset becuase I have been able to provide data for my position which disagrees with yours. That is a threat to you but it shouldn't be.

It is very, very irritating for you to claim I said things I didn't. Maybe we can start there?

Well, perhaps you shouldn't say things you don't mean then.

 

[watsup]

Sorry. But comparing urban and rural stations don't cut it.

Here you go again. How many times have I pointed out you argue against something I didn't say?

I never claimed it was the sole variable. I only point it out as a very prominent variable.


And I never claimed otherwise. We are at near record lows on precipitation. I already said that several times.


Finally?

I have said this before. I have never said anything contrary to that. Why do you make up arguments against me that have no merit?


You are claiming it to be a meteorological drought. There are other factors.


I thought you said you were in a different post. Am I wrong?


Maybe if you toned down your rhetoric, I would mine as well.

Something to consider.

It is very, very irritating for you to claim I said things I didn't. Maybe we can start there?

Nobody was comparing rural and urban stations.

 

[Hafnium1979]

That's what really pisses me off about the AGW crowd. They always blame AGW, instead of doing real science.

I am shocked, literally shocked at how you and Longwave insist on misrepresenting what I EXPLICITLY said!

It is annoying that I have to keep repeating the point for you but if you insist on misrepresentation (lying) about my position then I can only rely on the record.

I have CONSISTENTLY said population is a likely component but that climate may be a real component. I have EXPLICITLY stated that it is IMPOSSIBLE to take one isolated event and blame it conclusively on AGW.

Wow.

 

[Lord of Planar]

It looks cyclical to me.

Anyone else?

How Much Rain Does Tucson Get Annually?

Last week, monsoon storms dumped more than 2 inches of rain on some parts of Tucson in just one day. Sure, it's usually rainy during monsoon season, but what about the rest of the year? How much rain does Tucson get annually?

kjzz.org

 

[Hafnium1979]

Nobody was comparing rural and urban stations.

Actually Peterson does in order to establish the statistical lack of impact of UHIE on the overall dataset. There have been several papers on this topic, which Lord claimed he'd never seen. When I showed him, note how quickly he suddenly "knew it already".

This is strange to watch. It's almost like some folks don't think the forum is searchable

 

[Hafnium1979]

View attachment 67338592It looks cyclical to me.

Anyone else?

How Much Rain Does Tucson Get Annually?

Last week, monsoon storms dumped more than 2 inches of rain on some parts of Tucson in just one day. Sure, it's usually rainy during monsoon season, but what about the rest of the year? How much rain does Tucson get annually?

kjzz.org

Anecdotal data.

I thought you actually understood science.

Too bad.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Nobody was comparing rural and urban stations.

Really?

I thought you said you read those studies. Am I mistaken?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Anecdotal data.

I thought you actually understood science.

Too bad.

Are you claiming there isn't a clear cyclical pattern there?