Deniers getting pretty desperate

lawrocket · July 12, 2012

Quote
it's best to stick with the most logical and probable explanation for the high ratio of record highs to record lows, that the temperatures in the US this year have been above average (especially since we know that to, in fact, be true).

iWith the UHI, an ncrease in average temperatures with the increase being most noticeable for low temperatures versus high temperatures. (See Karl, et al. 1988; Cayan and Douglas 1984). http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0450%281984%29023%3C1520%3AUIOSTI%3E2.0.CO%3B2

A paer published by GLueck analyzing Tucson's record makes the statement that there is a near impossibilty of setting record low temperatures in Tucson because of the UHI effect.

See this, as well: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=calmitpapers&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar_url%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fdigitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1000%2526context%253Dcalmitpapers%26sa%3DX%26scisig%3DAAGBfm3pKbcOz9y6htzTP8CnmTtMJ2u3sw%26oi%3Dscholarr#search=%22http%3A%2F%2Fdigitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1000%26context%3Dcalmitpapers%22

The UHI effect is greatest at night. (it's actually greatest between February and May, with March having the highest upward variability in the northern temperate climates.)

When speaking of ratios, yes, the UHI will have that effect. I'm still talking about what you started with - expecting to see as many record highs as record lows. Not with the UHI.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

rushmc · July 12, 2012

Quote

>Because for it to have ended it would have to have started to begin with

That's true! Are you flip-flopping back to a Type I denier?

Flip flopping?

I dont think so

My postion has always been the one that questions whether the science is settled or not. And I wonder how much effect, if any , can we as occupiers of this planet, really have any extended impacts on global climate.

But since no one has directly answer my question I will ask again is a different way

It a 2000 year trend more credible than say, a 150 year trend?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

jcd11235 · July 12, 2012

Quote
Quote
it's best to stick with the most logical and probabWith the UHI, an ncrease in average temperatures with the increase being most noticeable for low temperatures versus high temperatures.

The UHI effect is greatest at night. (it's actually greatest between February and May, with March having the highest upward variability in the northern temperate climates.)

When speaking of ratios, yes, the UHI will have that effect. I'm still talking about what you started with - expecting to see as many record highs as record lows. Not with the UHI.

And yet we still see plenty of the broken daily low record temps in well developed areas, which we would not expect if the UHI were the significant factor you claim it to be.

The most logical explanation, which is confirmed by other data, is that the majority of broken records being from daily high temperatures is due to higher than average temperatures.

But, like I said previously, feel free to provide data supporting your hypothesis. None of the data seen thus far does that.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Quote

lawrocket · July 12, 2012

Wait. 11:1 high/low is what you started with. Now it's "we're seeing plenty of record lows."

You're arguing with yourself so you can argue with me.

My point - which is not disproved at all by "plenty of record lows" is that we'll see a far higher ration of record highs:lows with the UHI effect. Obviously, a rhefty cold snap can change that, too.

If you are uninterested in alternative mechanisms that contribute to causation, that's fine. You've got a position, and you're sticking with it. I'm not disagreeing that hot weather plays a role in record high temperatures - the most significant role, actually. But as a whole, we can look at such matters as the UHI providing a significant mechanism that affects the distribution of record highs and record lows.

But - still not as significant as a parking high stalled over the upper midwest. Yeah, that'll bring the heat.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

jcd11235 · July 12, 2012

Quote
Wait. 11:1 high/low is what you started with. Now it's "we're seeing plenty of record lows."

You should read my posts better before criticizing them. Of the record low daily temperatures we have seen, though there haven't been (nor did I imply that there had been) many, many of them have been observed in well developed areas that would be prone to UHI effect.

You provided a hypothesis, and have argued vehemently that that hypothesis is correct, but you have failed to provide any data at all supporting that hypothesis. At first glance, I thought the hypothesis seemed reasonable enough to be worthy of further investigation, so I looked at data to look for patterns that would be expected should the hypothesis be correct. Such patterns are not readily noticeable, and certainly are not as prevalent as they would be if the UHI effect affected the record high/low ratio to the extent that you implied when you wrote, "Hell, I'm surprised the ratio is as low as 11:1."

Now, if we were discussing a ratio of 3:2, or even 2:1, we might need to examine the data more closely. But with a ratio of 11:1, if the UHI effect was a significant factor, it would be blatantly obvious from the graphical representations of the data. It isn't. We see neither an abnormally high proportion of urban areas with record highs or an abnormally low proportion of urban areas with record lows.

I stand by my original statement: "In an average year, we would expect to see as many record lows as record highs. If there are lots more record highs than record lows, then we would expect it to be a warmer than average year. 11:1 is a pretty significant imbalance." I would concede that it is plausible that we might expect slightly fewer record lows than record highs in an average year, due to UHI effects, though the ratio should still be close to 1:1.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

lawrocket · July 12, 2012

I posted some studies that did not provide the raw data but the abstracts and findings. I've posted some generally open information that is put with ublimited distribution to other sources.

With regard to the specific studies, those that I have read are limited to specific geographical cities, like Tucson. Many studies are out there putting together information for specific towns and cities. I'll search for the Tucson study, which I recall focused mainly on the general rarity of setting nighttime low records and traced a full century of temperature records for Tucson showing the trend.

These studies are all with bery particular localities. I'm unaware of any large-scale compilation study of UHI effects nationwide/worldwide because it would necessitate studies in a large number of thermometers and temperature records over a large and dispersed series of locations.

What I am familiar with and posted about is the general science behind it - which nobody on either side questions. Sure, the "deniers" attribute far too much weight to UHI, and "alarmists" discredit it too much. I tend to lean towards a stronger weight of the UHI. It's well known and generally admitted that even rural weather stations are often at airstrips (where weather data is always handy: I've radioed approach many times letting them know I have Information Gulf or Bravo.) The heat island from an airstrip is generally acknowledged to have some effect.

There are problems with calculating the UHI effect. There are lots of variables surrounding it. Take an airfield, for example. What's the surface? Grass? Asphalt? Concrete? Is there a tarmac? What is the latitude of the airfield? Elevation? What are the surroundings? A forest? A grassy plain? A desert? For example, a concrete runway on a lava bed (like Kona) would be expected to have a negligible effect - perhaps negative depending on the LIR emissions of the surrounding lava.

Compare to the UHI effect of Denver International. A massive complex of concrete and asphalt in what was, thirty years ago, rural space in centrral Kansas. (Okay, it's not that far outside of Denver). One would expect nighttime lows at DIA to be noticeably warmer due to the thermal properties of the surface versus the prairie that was there before.

I don't know if any UHI studies have been performed at DIA or Kona. But one can get a sense of the general effect. Such may become more available with computerized entry and analysis of data from GHCN sites and satellite IR imagery that can be compiled, which will certainly lower the work needed to get data going.

It's a good discussion. I'm sorry I don't have the good data, but it isn't available. I don't want to post things that I can't prove - which is why I put out the hypothesis. When I've got spare couple of hours I'll try to compile some of the studies on individual thermometer locations.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

billvon · July 12, 2012

>11:1 high/low is what you started with. Now it's "we're seeing plenty of record lows."

?? Both are true. 251 record lows certainly count as "plenty."

>But - still not as significant as a parking high stalled over the upper midwest. Yeah,
>that'll bring the heat.

Agreed, and that will have a much bigger effect week-to-week than any average increase.

lawrocket · July 12, 2012

[Reply]>11:1 high/low is what you started with. Now it's "we're seeing plenty of record lows."

?? Both are true. 251 record lows certainly count as "plenty."

jcd11235 · July 12, 2012

Quote
And an 11:1 ratio of record heat to record cold is not inconceivable if average temperatures are 3-4 degrees higher now in developed areas than rural outskirts.

That's a vacuously true statement, since average temperatures are not 3-4 degrees higher now in urban areas than in rural areas.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

billvon · July 13, 2012

>Would you agree that we would see more more record highs than record lows in a heat island?

That's a self-answering statement, so yes.

brenthutch · July 17, 2012

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
It's the magical power of man-made CO2...there's *nothing* it can't do!

It can't make you and brenthutch open your eyes to reality.

You mean the 'flat temps since 98' reality, or the one that YOU live in?

You REALLY are getting desperate.

The global average surface temperature in 2011 was the ninth warmest since 1880, according to NASA scientists. The finding continues a trend in which nine of the 10 warmest years in the modern meteorological record have occurred since the year 2000.

NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, which monitors global surface temperatures on an ongoing basis, released an updated analysis that shows temperatures around the globe in 2011 compared to the average global temperature from the mid-20th century. The comparison shows how Earth continues to experience warmer temperatures than several decades ago. The average temperature around the globe in 2011 was 0.92 degrees F (0.51 C) warmer than the mid-20th century baseline.

www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2011-temps.html

www.nasa.gov/images/content/616910main_gisstemp_2011_graph_lrg[1].jpg

Ah, GISS... the database that's had to be corrected several times due to skeptics finding errors in it.

Yes, now all the errors they can find have been
corrected or debunked, so we can believe it.

So much for "hottest" or "second hottest"
From NOAA:
•The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for January–June 2012 was the 11th warmest on record, at 0.52°C (0.94°F) above the 20th century average

I know some will look at that and say it is proof of AGW, I look at it and see that on 11 different half years it has been warmer, despite "unprecedented" levels of CO2. It appears that CO2 is not the potent greenhouse gas we have all feared. I think we can all agree that this is a good thing.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2012/6

rushmc · July 17, 2012

I think we can all agree that this is a good thing.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2012/6

kallend · July 17, 2012

Ummm - NO. Once again you deliberately misrepresent the report.

No-one expects the temperature to increase monatonically, on account of other climate variables.

The long term warming trend is, however, unambiguous.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

billvon · July 17, 2012

From the same report; you may have overlooked these:

The average combined global land and ocean surface temperature for June 2012 was 0.63°C (1.13°F) above the 20th century average of 15.5°C (59.9°F). This is the fourth warmest June since records began in 1880.

The Northern Hemisphere land and ocean average surface temperature for June 2012 was the all-time warmest June on record, at 1.30°C (2.34°F) above average.

The globally-averaged land surface temperature for June 2012 was also the all-time warmest June on record, at 1.07°C (1.93°F) above average.

I know, it doesn't fit the spin; my bad.

kelpdiver · July 17, 2012

Quote
Ummm - NO. Once again you deliberately misrepresent the report.

No-one expects the temperature to increase monatonically, on account of other climate variables.

The long term warming trend is, however, unambiguous.

but if the rest of the year holds the pattern, and this is the 11th warmest year, then it will end up being cooler than last year, the 9th warmest, and would be the coldest or second coldest year in the last 12, which runs counter to all the talk about what a hot year this has been. In reality, it would mean the plateau continues.

kallend · July 17, 2012

Quote
Quote
Ummm - NO. Once again you deliberately misrepresent the report.

No-one expects the temperature to increase monatonically, on account of other climate variables.

The long term warming trend is, however, unambiguous.

but if the rest of the year holds the pattern, and this is the 11th warmest year, then it will end up being cooler than last year, the 9th warmest, and would be the coldest or second coldest year in the last 12, which runs counter to all the talk about what a hot year this has been. In reality, it would mean the plateau continues.

In reality it is more likely to mean that the normal Pacific Nino/Nina cycle is superimposed on the long term warming trend, as expected.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

brenthutch · July 18, 2012

Quote
Quote
Quote
Ummm - NO. Once again you deliberately misrepresent the report.

No-one expects the temperature to increase monatonically, on account of other climate variables.

The long term warming trend is, however, unambiguous.

but if the rest of the year holds the pattern, and this is the 11th warmest year, then it will end up being cooler than last year, the 9th warmest, and would be the coldest or second coldest year in the last 12, which runs counter to all the talk about what a hot year this has been. In reality, it would mean the plateau continues.

In reality it is more likely to mean that the normal Pacific Nino/Nina cycle is superimposed on the long term warming trend, as expected.

But what if the long term trend continues to plateau or even drop? Will you then say that you were wrong and I (et al) was correct?

kallend · July 18, 2012

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Ummm - NO. Once again you deliberately misrepresent the report.

No-one expects the temperature to increase monatonically, on account of other climate variables.

The long term warming trend is, however, unambiguous.

but if the rest of the year holds the pattern, and this is the 11th warmest year, then it will end up being cooler than last year, the 9th warmest, and would be the coldest or second coldest year in the last 12, which runs counter to all the talk about what a hot year this has been. In reality, it would mean the plateau continues.

In reality it is more likely to mean that the normal Pacific Nino/Nina cycle is superimposed on the long term warming trend, as expected.

But what if the long term trend continues to plateau or even drop? Will you then say that you were wrong and I (et al) was correct?

The long term trend is UP, so your question is ill posed.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

brenthutch · July 18, 2012

Yet I persist in my query. What will you say if the trend stabilize or declines? How many months? How many years? How many decades, before you concede that you were a hapless ideologue, lost in a fog of hemp and patchouli?

kallend · July 18, 2012

Quote
Yet I persist in my query. What will you say if the trend stabilize or declines? How many months? How many years? How many decades, before you concede that you were a hapless ideologue, lost in a fog of hemp and patchouli?

If pigs had wings, maybe they could fly.

The trend continues to be up, with an increasing ratio of extreme highs to extreme lows.

www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2009/images/temps_2.jpg

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

jcd11235 · July 18, 2012

Quote
How many years? How many decades, before you concede that you were a hapless ideologue …

Oh, the irony!

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

brenthutch · July 18, 2012

Quote
Quote
Yet I persist in my query. What will you say if the trend stabilize or declines? How many months? How many years? How many decades, before you concede that you were a hapless ideologue, lost in a fog of hemp and patchouli?

If pigs had wings, maybe they could fly.

The trend continues to be up, with an increasing ratio of extreme highs to extreme lows.

!Pick your metric and stick with it. Enough of moving the goalposts!

www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2009/images/temps_2.jpg

jcd11235 · July 18, 2012

Quote
Quote
Quote
Yet I persist in my query. What will you say if the trend stabilize or declines? How many months? How many years? How many decades, before you concede that you were a hapless ideologue, lost in a fog of hemp and patchouli?

If pigs had wings, maybe they could fly.

The trend continues to be up, with an increasing ratio of extreme highs to extreme lows.

www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2009/images/temps_2.jpg
!Pick your metric and stick with it. Enough of moving the goalposts!

How, exactly, have the goalposts been moved?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

kallend · July 18, 2012

Quote
Quote
Quote
Yet I persist in my query. What will you say if the trend stabilize or declines? How many months? How many years? How many decades, before you concede that you were a hapless ideologue, lost in a fog of hemp and patchouli?

If pigs had wings, maybe they could fly.

The trend continues to be up, with an increasing ratio of extreme highs to extreme lows.

!Pick your metric and stick with it. Enough of moving the goalposts!

www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2009/images/temps_2.jpg

Tell it to the National Academy of Sciences: "CLIMATE CHANGE is occurring, is very likely caused by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”, NAS report, 2011

Oh, and NOAA too: www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/2011-peterson-et-al.pdf

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

kelpdiver · July 19, 2012

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Ummm - NO. Once again you deliberately misrepresent the report.

No-one expects the temperature to increase monatonically, on account of other climate variables.

The long term warming trend is, however, unambiguous.

but if the rest of the year holds the pattern, and this is the 11th warmest year, then it will end up being cooler than last year, the 9th warmest, and would be the coldest or second coldest year in the last 12, which runs counter to all the talk about what a hot year this has been. In reality, it would mean the plateau continues.

In reality it is more likely to mean that the normal Pacific Nino/Nina cycle is superimposed on the long term warming trend, as expected.

But what if the long term trend continues to plateau or even drop? Will you then say that you were wrong and I (et al) was correct?

So instead of it being a warming year, then, it's a 'cold' year because of La Nina, a weather event that has been going on for centuries?

2010-11 was a La Nina year, but 2012 is not. NOAA does put a 50% chance of El Nino forming this summer, but that would mean warmer, not colder.

Seems like we're back to talking about the weather then...nothing about 2012 seems to support the grander notion of global warming.

Sign In

Sign In

Deniers getting pretty desperate

Recommended Posts

lawrocket 3

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

rushmc 18

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

jcd11235 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

lawrocket 3

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

jcd11235 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

lawrocket 3

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

billvon 2,396

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

lawrocket 3

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

jcd11235 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

billvon 2,396

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

brenthutch 383

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

rushmc 18

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

kallend 1,623

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

billvon 2,396

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

kelpdiver 2

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

kallend 1,623

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

brenthutch 383

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

kallend 1,623

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

brenthutch 383

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites