Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Climate change is real. Even if you use data from satellites and from remote or rural weather sites, you still get the same result. Thus it is a mistake to blame the urban heat island effect.
No kidding... the Earth's climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years. That's not going to stop, now.
I am all for taking reasonable actions to protect our environment, but I have never believed that man was causing the Earth to warm….
Anthony Watt? Senior Fellow at the Heartland Institute sounds so impressive except that he is a weatherman not a climate scientist and Heartland is funded by the fossil fuel industry. Watt's has been at this for a decade with his claims of inaccuracies, what's his point to prove the world isn't warming.
Yet another blog, not a peer reviewed study with questionable decisions. Real research doesn't try to prove a political motive.
Funny that he was critical of non-peer reviewed research back in 2011 but here he is again, he sure hit the pay day at Heartland.
Quote:
'Debate' is a contest of orators: science is a contest of evidence. Watts ignores how scientists handle the data: using strong statistical techniques to remove bias. A study using Watts' own data - Menne 2010 - found that station exposure does not play an obvious role in temperature trends, the same conclusion reached by a team including Watts in a later paper, Fall et al 2011.
Most recently, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project re-examined the surface station data. Four papers have been published on the BEST web site with all the data and software code so anyone can check.
Watts is on record as having said that he would accept the results of the BEST study. This is what he posted in his own blog:
Briggs on Berkeley’s forthcoming BEST surface temperature record, plus my thoughts from my visit there
Posted on March 6, 2011 by Anthony Watts
... I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. I’m taking this bold step because the method has promise. So let’s not pay attention to the little yippers who want to tear it down before they even see the results.
There is no proof whatsoever that climate change, an organically occurring characteristic of planet Earth, is anthropogenic.
The Earth's climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years. That's not going to stop, now. Humans have only been in existence for the last 2 million years, yet the Earth's climate has been continuously changing for 4.5 billion years. Climate change is organic. SCIENCE.
There is no proof whatsoever that climate change, an organically occurring characteristic of planet Earth, is anthropogenic.
The Earth's climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years. That's not going to stop, now. Humans have only been in existence for the last 2 million years, yet the Earth's climate has been continuously changing for 4.5 billion years. Climate change is organic. SCIENCE.
For the Gizzilionth time no one is claiming it wasn't warmer in our past history, of course it was but it was driven by physical phenomena for the most part. Easy for you to dismiss all the research from thousands of expert research scientists as "no proof".
This has nothing to do with the thread by the way, Watt is claiming the temperature readings are wrong so maybe his point is that it's not warming.
This has nothing to do with the thread by the way, Watt is claiming the temperature readings are wrong so maybe his point is that it's not warming.
I know you're not that stupid...so you're trying to twist this on purpose....that you do
Watts (with an s) proved that 96% of NOAA's own temperature stations...were not fit for purpose
96% of NOAA's own temperature stations...did not meet NOAA's own ‘Requirements and Standards for [National Weather Service] Climate Observations‘....right out of NOAA's own rule book
....and that the 4% of stations that were not compromised....showed half as much warming
now see how easy that was.........being honest is easy
It seems you would expect to take all temperature measurements out in the shaded woods. No, you take them from all kinds of environments, including in the concrete cities as well as in the wooded rural areas... and average them.
I had a response written to your last post but let it go, instead. Not this time.
No, you don't take them from all kinds of environments. Not if you want an accurate reading, not to mention consistency in data collection. This is BASIC stuff. Did you ever take a 7th grade science class? When reading a scientific instrument (thermometer), you want as little bias from external influences as possible. Would you calibrate your compass while sitting in a car? No, just as you wouldn't take an air temperature reading four feet off the asphalt in a parking lot.
For the Gizzilionth time no one is claiming it wasn't warmer in our past history, of course it was but it was driven by physical phenomena for the most part. Easy for you to dismiss all the research from thousands of expert research scientists as "no proof".
This has nothing to do with the thread by the way, Watt is claiming the temperature readings are wrong so maybe his point is that it's not warming.
The earth's climate is currently changing, just as it has been changing for 4.5 billion years. There is no evidence whatsoever that current climate change is anthropogenic.
The context of your example is the modern day concrete and steel city contributed more heat to the average global temp than the rural tree shaded areas did. So yes, the concrete and steel cities do contribute to the macro global warming trend.
You couldn’t reach a conclusion like that if you had two brain cells that could function properly.
If, in the context of his example, there were no measurable change in the temperature of those rural tree shaded areas situated in rather close proximity to the city generating the heat, then the heat generated in that city would obviously not be capable of effecting the entire planet. After all, those rural tree shaded areas are a part of the planet, and would obviously become warmer first.
You couldn’t reach a conclusion like that if you had two brain cells that could function properly.
If, in the context of his example, there were no measurable change in the temperature of those rural tree shaded areas situated in rather close proximity to the city generating the heat, then the heat generated in that city would obviously not be capable of effecting the entire planet. After all, those rural tree shaded areas are a part of the planet, and would obviously become warmer first.
Heat rises and mixes with the upper levels of air. Then blows it's way around the planet. . You expect city heat to go sideways directly to the rural areas next door? Well maybe if the wind is blowing that way.
Oh, and thanks for the insult.
Last edited by ansible90; 08-04-2022 at 06:53 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
