Why “97% consensus on climate change” claims are wrong (1 Viewer)

[expat_panama]

You asked a question

I gave you a direct and clear answer


I asked a question


You run


You are not in charge here. This is not an interrogation. Give what you get.


Answer the question

There's a horrible misunderstanding here, I am simply not available for quarreling and I can't be provoked. Please accept my thanks for your cooperation to this point because I think u've answered my questions about what are the present and past temperatures of what mass. What ur confirming is that nobody agrees on that, but many agree that the AGW partisan faction must prevail.

You're upset now but maybe we can be friends at a later time. Cheers.

 

[PoS]

There's a horrible misunderstanding here, I am simply not available for quarreling and I can't be provoked. Please accept my thanks for your cooperation to this point because I think u've answered my questions about what are the present and past temperatures of what mass. What ur confirming is that nobody agrees on that, but many agree that the AGW partisan faction must prevail.

You're upset now but maybe we can be friends at a later time. Cheers.

LOL he's just trolling you. Dont waste your time with him.

 

[vegas giants]

There's a horrible misunderstanding here, I am simply not available for quarreling and I can't be provoked. Please accept my thanks for your cooperation to this point because I think u've answered my questions about what are the present and past temperatures of what mass. What ur confirming is that nobody agrees on that, but many agree that the AGW partisan faction must prevail.

You're upset now but maybe we can be friends at a later time. Cheers.

Then I accept your concession


Have a wonderful day

 

[vegas giants]

LOL he's just trolling you. Dont waste your time with him.

If you are terrified of losing the debate....you better run. Lol

 

[expat_panama]

Then I accept your concession


Have a wonderful day

"Concession"? LOL!!! Sure why not. As long as I never promised to send u money also...

 

[vegas giants]

"Concession"? LOL!!! Sure why not. As long as I never promised to send u money also...

You'll get em next time

 

[Buzz]

Can you show me a five temperature monitoring station that are not within the influence of the land use changes that increase as population does?

Yes. There are plenty of stations that are not under the influence of land use changes. Take for instance most of the stations in the Arctic and Antarctic.

But land use changes are not what I am talking about. I was talking about your repeated claim that there are no stations not influenced by urban heat islands. And urban heat islands are a lot bigger than just land use change. You are just dishonestly attempting to move the goalposts.

This is so funny. You claim I lie, but you, yourself, have zero evidence to make that claim!

All anyone has to do to see that you are wrong is look at a map of weather stations. There are plenty of weather stations that are in rural areas away from UHIs. Here is a file that if you load it into an install of Google Earth shows the approximate locations of just the National Weather service stations. It shouldn't take long for anyone to find lots of stations not in UHIs.

Bullshit. You don't know how to read those papers. All the papers claimed was that there was little deviation between urban monitoring sites and rural monitoring site anomalies. That does not show I'm wrong. Just shows you don't comprehend.

Bullshit! That is not all that the papers say. Here is some of what the IPCC's AR4 that you have saved on your hard drive says:

Global adjusted data sets likely account for much of the UHI effect present
in the raw data. For the US network, Hausfather et al. (2013) showed
that the adjustments method used in GHCNv3 removed much of an
apparent systematic difference between urban and rural locations, concluding
that this arose from adjustment of biased urban location data.
Globally, Hansen et al. (2010) used satellite-based nightlight radiances
to estimate the worldwide influence on LSAT of local urban development.

And here is what Hausfather had to say about this:

The simple take-away is that while UHI and other urban-correlated biases are real (and can have a big effect), current methods of detecting and correcting localized breakpoints are generally effective in removing that bias. Blog claims that UHI explains any substantial fraction of the recent warming in the US are just not supported by the data.

And here is the post where I quoted this peer-reviewed and published scientist for you and long over two and a half years ago.

When will you learn how to read science papers?

I know how to read papers. When are you going to actually start reading them?

You want me to back up "probably?"

What? Are you saying that you can't just because you said probably?



Looks to me like you are resorting to weasel words again.

LOL... Just how lame is that?

What is lame is how you can almost never back yourself up.

Can you show us the method they use for correction?

Of course, I can. And I already have shown you NASA's method in the past. Here is one time I referred you to NASA's methodology. The link to the methodology doesn't work anymore but this one works. And I know for a fact that others have cited NOAA's methodology for you and longview in the past.

You keep claiming you keep proving me wrong, but never do. Here's your chance!

There you go again, lying about me not proving you wrong. I have proven you wrong plenty of times... remember?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Yes. There are plenty of stations that are not under the influence of land use changes. Take for instance most of the stations in the Arctic and Antarctic.

<snipped everthing between first and last sentence>

There you go again, lying about me not proving you wrong. I have proven you wrong plenty of times... remember?

You keep getting it all wrong. Who cares about arctic and antarctic. They don't represent enough of the earth to matter. I should have specified in regions that are habitable.

My bad. I should have known you wouldn't understand.

That quote from the IPCC.... My God man. That's what I mean. They are comparing urban and rural, but they both change with land use changes. My God man. I said "All the papers claimed was that there was little deviation between urban monitoring sites and rural monitoring site anomalies. That does not show I'm wrong. Just shows you don't comprehend." Your link confirms that. Doesn't discredit me at all, but once again, proves you don't comprehend this stuff.

We have been thorough this. Just haw many times just I show your folly over the same thing?

"Global adjusted data sets likely account for much of the UHI effect present​

in the raw data."​

Just how do they determine it's "likely?" and even then, that is just a SWAG on their part. I am pointing out that it is possible that their adjustments are wrong. I would claim it is very likely the adjustments are wrong, but then I would be as guilty as they are in using poor language for a paper.

​

"The simple take-away is that while UHI and other urban-correlated biases are real (and can have a big effect), current methods of detecting and correcting localized breakpoints are generally effective in removing that bias."​

Generally... And to what accuracy? I didn't see that stated. Did you? How many locations is it not effective, and do they really know? Another SWAG.

As for claiming you quoted a paper? My God man, that's a guest commentary.

How about this in the conclusions:

​

"According to all four proxy measures used to identify station environments that are currently urban, there is consistent evidence that urban stations have a systematic bias relative to rural stations throughout the USHCN period of record. This bias has led to an apparent urban warming signal in the unhomogenized data that accounts for approximately 14–21% of the total rise in USHCN minimum temperatures averaged over the CONUS for the period since 1895 and 6–9% of the rise over the past 50 years."​

"and its impact on that station's temperature trend will be removed with a bias adjustment."​

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2012JD018509

Corrections on top of corrections, which in my viewpoint are just correcting to get the results they expect to get.

What if they are wrong?

Nightlights... Any idea how inaccurate that is?

But then... someone paid for that study...

Nothing you presented shows I am wrong. I'm sorry you don't understand what my claim is. Maybe you should go back and read my words slower. Pull out a dictionary for all meanings of my words, as you often choose a meaning other than what the context means.

Good luck showing me wrong on something important. You have not yet.

Again. My claim. Comparisons between rural and urban stations do not give you corrections to use. There is no way to accurately adjust the UHI effect out.

I guess you are playing horseshoes or hand grenades instead of science...

 

[Threegoofs]

You keep getting it all wrong. Who cares about arctic and antarctic. They don't represent enough of the earth to matter. I should have specified in regions that are habitable.

My bad. I should have known you wouldn't understand.

That quote from the IPCC.... My God man. That's what I mean. They are comparing urban and rural, but they both change with land use changes. My God man. I said "All the papers claimed was that there was little deviation between urban monitoring sites and rural monitoring site anomalies. That does not show I'm wrong. Just shows you don't comprehend." Your link confirms that. Doesn't discredit me at all, but once again, proves you don't comprehend this stuff.

We have been thorough this. Just haw many times just I show your folly over the same thing?

"Global adjusted data sets likely account for much of the UHI effect present​

in the raw data."​

Just how do they determine it's "likely?" and even then, that is just a SWAG on their part. I am pointing out that it is possible that their adjustments are wrong. I would claim it is very likely the adjustments are wrong, but then I would be as guilty as they are in using poor language for a paper.

​

"The simple take-away is that while UHI and other urban-correlated biases are real (and can have a big effect), current methods of detecting and correcting localized breakpoints are generally effective in removing that bias."​

Generally... And to what accuracy? I didn't see that stated. Did you? How many locations is it not effective, and do they really know? Another SWAG.

As for claiming you quoted a paper? My God man, that's a guest commentary.

How about this in the conclusions:

​

"According to all four proxy measures used to identify station environments that are currently urban, there is consistent evidence that urban stations have a systematic bias relative to rural stations throughout the USHCN period of record. This bias has led to an apparent urban warming signal in the unhomogenized data that accounts for approximately 14–21% of the total rise in USHCN minimum temperatures averaged over the CONUS for the period since 1895 and 6–9% of the rise over the past 50 years."​

"and its impact on that station's temperature trend will be removed with a bias adjustment."​

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2012JD018509

Corrections on top of corrections, which in my viewpoint are just correcting to get the results they expect to get.

What if they are wrong?

Nightlights... Any idea how inaccurate that is?

But then... someone paid for that study...

Nothing you presented shows I am wrong. I'm sorry you don't understand what my claim is. Maybe you should go back and read my words slower. Pull out a dictionary for all meanings of my words, as you often choose a meaning other than what the context means.

Good luck showing me wrong on something important. You have not yet.

Again. My claim. Comparisons between rural and urban stations do not give you corrections to use. There is no way to accurately adjust the UHI effect out.

I guess you are playing horseshoes or hand grenades instead of science...

In other words 91-94% of the temerature rise shown in the last 50 years is independent of the UHI effect, as you masterfully point out.



You sure you know how to interpret ‘science papers’?

Ever wondered why actual scientist interpret them differently? I bet not.

 

[Lord of Planar]

In other words 91-94% of the temerature rise shown in the last 50 years is independent of the UHI effect, as you masterfully point out.

From about 1980 to about 2000, most the increased temperature was from more surface insolation.

We started clearing the skies from pollution, and guess what... More sunlight heats the surface!

 

[Threegoofs]

From about 1980 to about 2000, most the increased temperature was from more surface insolation.

We started clearing the skies from pollution, and guess what... More sunlight heats the surface!

Sure.

Your amateur opinion is fascinating. To someone, probably.

 

[longview]

From about 1980 to about 2000, most the increased temperature was from more surface insolation.

We started clearing the skies from pollution, and guess what... More sunlight heats the surface!

I think a decent argument can be made that .2C is from aerosol clearing.
Wood for trees
Most of the aerosol dimming was in the Northern Hemisphere, so the Southern Hemisphere could be used as a control group.
The faster warming in the Northern Hemisphere dragged the global average up by roughly 0.2C.

 

[Threegoofs]

I think a decent argument can be made that .2C is from aerosol clearing.
Wood for trees
Most of the aerosol dimming was in the Northern Hemisphere, so the Southern Hemisphere could be used as a control group.
The faster warming in the Northern Hemisphere dragged the global average up by roughly 0.2C.
View attachment 67413999

Gotta find any straw of denial to grasp.

 

[longview]

Gotta find any straw of denial to grasp.

Again what do you think is being denied?

 

[Threegoofs]

Again what do you think is being denied?

Anything to pretend GHG emissions aren’t the problem, up to and including pretending there’s no problem.

 

[longview]

Anything to pretend GHG emissions aren’t the problem, up to and including pretending there’s no problem.

“The problem “, you assume there is a problem, there is no evidence suggesting that recent weather events are outside a normal range.
This does not mean that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, only that it’s sensitivity is to low to have a major impact. The 2XCO2 sensitivity for TCR is only 1.5C.

 

[Threegoofs]

“The problem “, you assume there is a problem, there is no evidence suggesting that recent weather events are outside a normal range.
This does not mean that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, only that it’s sensitivity is to low to have a major impact. The 2XCO2 sensitivity for TCR is only 1.5C.

LOL.

Whadda reflexive denier.

 

[Buzz]

You keep getting it all wrong. Who cares about arctic and antarctic. They don't represent enough of the earth to matter. I should have specified in regions that are habitable.

My bad. I should have known you wouldn't understand.

My God man... you are the one who moved the goalposts and demanded weather stations that are not even affected by land use changes. Where would that be other than uninhabitable areas of the Earth or areas where the inhabitants are hunter/gatherers living in grass huts? It looks to me like you don't understand.

That quote from the IPCC.... My God man. That's what I mean. They are comparing urban and rural, but they both change with land use changes. My God man. I said "All the papers claimed was that there was little deviation between urban monitoring sites and ruralmonitoring site anomalies. That does not show I'm wrong. Just shows you don't comprehend." Your link confirms that. Doesn't discredit me at all, but once again, proves you don't comprehend this stuff.

Yes... and what you said was just COMPLETELY WRONG as evidenced by what you later quote from the study I cited? And that pretty much discredits what you are saying.

We have been thorough this. Just haw many times just I show your folly over the same thing?

Really? I challenge you to show me where we have gone over this. We both know you won't show us jack.

"Global adjusted data sets likely account for much of the UHI effect present
in the raw data."
Just how do they determine it's "likely?"

Let me guess... you didn't really read much of the two sources I provided... did you?

and even then, that is just a SWAG on their part.

In your completely unsupported opinion.

I am pointing out that it is possible that their adjustments are wrong.

Yes, it is possible. But you can not provide anything that suggests that they are wrong. You are just completely evidence-free... as usual.

I would claim it is very likely the adjustments are wrong, but then I would be as guilty as they are in using poor language for a paper.

No... you would be guilty of making statements without any evidence whatsoever that backs you up.

"The simple take-away is that while UHI and other urban-correlated biases are real (and can have a big effect), current methods of detecting and correcting localized breakpoints are generally effective in removing that bias."
Generally... And to what accuracy? I didn't see that stated. Did you? How many locations is it not effective, and do they really know? Another SWAG.

The only one here spouting SWAG is you.

As for claiming you quoted a paper? My God man, that's a guest commentary.

I never said I was quoting the paper. I said I was quoting the author of said paper.

How about this in the conclusions:

"According to all four proxy measures used to identify station environments that are currently urban, there is consistent evidence that urban stations have a systematic bias relative to rural stations throughout the USHCN period of record. This bias has led to an apparent urban warming signal in the unhomogenized data that accounts for approximately 14–21% of the total rise in USHCN minimum temperatures averaged over the CONUS for the period since 1895 and 6–9% of the rise over the past 50 years."

This quote disproves your earlier statement. And this is about unadjusted data.

 

[Buzz]

Corrections on top of corrections, which in my viewpoint are just correcting to get the results they expect to get.

Actually, the study states that the evidence shows that this is not what they are doing. You didn't even read very much of the study... did you?

What if they are wrong?

I would rather have people believe the scientists and have what they say and be wrong than believe people like you and have you be wrong.

Nightlights... Any idea how inaccurate that is?

I seriously doubt if you have even a clue. But feel free to provide something that might tell us.

Nothing you presented shows I am wrong. I'm sorry you don't understand what my claim is. Maybe you should go back and read my words slower. Pull out a dictionary for all meanings of my words, as you often choose a meaning other than what the context means.

Oh please... you have been claiming for years now that almost all weather stations are in urban heat islands and that this bias can't be accounted for. And I have just presented peer-reviewed and published science that says you are wrong. And you haven't shown anything that says otherwise.

Good luck showing me wrong on something important. You have not yet.

There you go again... lying like a rug.

Again. My claim. Comparisons between rural and urban stations do not give you corrections to use. There is no way to accurately adjust the UHI effect out.

Prove it!

We both know you can't.

 

[Buzz]

I think a decent argument can be made that .2C is from aerosol clearing.
Wood for trees
Most of the aerosol dimming was in the Northern Hemisphere, so the Southern Hemisphere could be used as a control group.
The faster warming in the Northern Hemisphere dragged the global average up by roughly 0.2C.
View attachment 67413999

Oh, God!! Not this BS again.

Seriously, long... do you even know what a control group even is?

Well... the Sothern Hemisphere is a terrible control for the Northern Hemisphere. If you really knew science and were intellectually honest you would know this and not push this Bullshit.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Maybe Buzz, you should understand what people are actually saying. It seems too often you respond outside of what is said. I'm away from home now so I cant do a proper response on my cell phone, but damn. You never learn. You stick with your preconceived notions, no matter what is presented.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Well... the Sothern Hemisphere is a terrible control for the Northern Hemisphere. If you really knew science and were intellectually honest you would know this and not push this Bullshit.

It is a good control group to distinguish aerosol noise, as there are some places without anthropogenic aerosols.

 

[longview]

LOL.

Whadda reflexive denier.

Consider that there is a recent study,
Bayesian estimation of Earth's climate sensitivity and transient climate response from observational warming and heat content datasets
where they have done something similar to what I have been suggesting and looked at the feedbacks within
the observed temperature record.

The resulting TCR distributions when using two preferred combinations of historic datasets both find a TCR of 1.5 (1.3 to 1.8 at 5–95 % range) ∘C. We find the posterior probability distribution for S for our preferred dataset combination evolves from S of 2.0 (1.6 to 2.5) ∘C on a 20-year response timescale to S of 2.3 (1.4 to 6.4) ∘C on a 140-year response timescale, due to the impact of multi-decadal feedbacks.

S is analysed by forcing the four posterior ensembles with an instantaneous step-function quadrupling of atmospheric CO2 (hereafter, the 4×CO2 scenario) and applying Eq. (2) with 11-year averages.

The TCR is analysed by forcing our posterior ensembles with a 1pctCO2 scenario and recording the surface warming for each ensemble member for the 20-year average centred on the year in which CO2 reaches twice its initial value (Fig. 6; Table 1). Our analysis reveals a TCR of 1.5 (1.3 to 1.8 at 90 % range) ∘C when constrained by the HadCRUT5 temperature reconstruction with either ocean heat content dataset (Table 1).

Gee, what I call an abrupt doubling of the CO2 level, they call "instantaneous step-function quadrupling of atmospheric CO2 (hereafter, the 4×CO2 scenario)".
If the climate's sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is actually the TCR level of 1.5C per doubling, consider what that means for all the catastrophic
predictions?

 

[longview]

Oh, God!! Not this BS again.

Seriously, long... do you even know what a control group even is?

Well... the Sothern Hemisphere is a terrible control for the Northern Hemisphere. If you really knew science and were intellectually honest you would know this and not push this Bullshit.

Buzz, we know that in the Northern Hemisphere the sunlight reaching the ground dimmed until about 1985, and then brightened until about 2005.
How much that brightening added to the global warming can be evaluated compared to the Southern Hemisphere, which saw very
little aerosol changes. It is not perfect, but data seldom is!

 

[Lord of Planar]

Consider that there is a recent study,
Bayesian estimation of Earth's climate sensitivity and transient climate response from observational warming and heat content datasets
where they have done something similar to what I have been suggesting and looked at the feedbacks within
the observed temperature record.



Gee, what I call an abrupt doubling of the CO2 level, they call "instantaneous step-function quadrupling of atmospheric CO2 (hereafter, the 4×CO2 scenario)".
If the climate's sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is actually the TCR level of 1.5C per doubling, consider what that means for all the catastrophic
predictions?

Well, the cult of AGW says "The Sky is Falling."