So who can answer Jerry Pournelle's questions about Global Warming?

[elucidator]

@Magiver

…There are no empirical facts to support climate change…

So, all those scientists who think otherwise, they have poor math skills, or are unfamiliar wth the meaning of the word “emprical”? Or did they fall victim to the liberal agenda?

[Digital_Stimulus]

@elucidator

@Magiver

…There are no empirical facts to support climate change…

So, all those scientists who think otherwise, they have poor math skills, or are unfamiliar wth the meaning of the word “emprical”? Or did they fall victim to the liberal agenda?

C’mon, now…there’s no empirical facts to support anything of sufficient complexity. Operation of the brain/CNS? Nope. Just computer models.

Let’s play a game and and come up with some more. Bah! Silly scientists.

[Frank]

@elucidator

I wish I knew exactly what day Larry Niven met Jerry Pournelle. I’d like to mark it on my calender, in a “Black Tuesday” sort of way.

Inferno and the first Mote book were pretty good. Lucifer’s Hammer wasn’t bad.

I’d be more inclined to mark down as “Black Tuesday” the day Larry Niven decided he wasn’t interested in the heavy work of actually writing his stories anymore. Pournelle was simply Niven’s first ghost-writer.

@elucidator

A novel approach to escape velocity, sticking a series of nuclear roman candles up your ass. That’s not hard SF, that’s hard stupid. Feh!, as they say on We Made It.

In fact, while certainly not the cleanest way to get spacecraft into orbit, it’s not stupid per se. It would certainly work. It’s a concept that could be expanded and/or modified for manned exploration outside the moon’s orbit.

[Magiver]

@elucidator

@Magiver

…There are no empirical facts to support climate change…

So, all those scientists who think otherwise, they have poor math skills, or are unfamiliar wth the meaning of the word “emprical”? Or did they fall victim to the liberal agenda?

It’s a hypothesis, it is not fact. It is based on computer models that certainly do not take into consideration all of the variables. It may be an accurate hypothesis but it is far from fact.

[John_DiFool]

Pournelle also can’t resist putting in political jibes in his fiction, like in the Inferno sequel where some anti-DDT scientists/activists are rewarded with a nice extended stay in Hell for their efforts, ostensibly because of all the human lives lost to malaria from the lack of spraying. Nevermind that keeping the stuff going would have meant a wholesale loss of many of our raptors (among with many other subtle nuances, like increased insect resistances over time). Weird thing is I don’t recall that kind of crap in the 1st novel, nor in his Galaxy columns, which I read religiously.

[Digital_Stimulus]

@Magiver

It’s a hypothesis, it is not fact. It is based on computer models that certainly do not take into consideration all of the variables. It may be an accurate hypothesis but it is far from fact.

Of course, that’s not what you said, which was:

There are no empirical facts to support climate change.

Bolding mine.

[GIGObuster]

@Magiver

There are no empirical facts to support climate change.

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

What the science says…

Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat. This gives a line of empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming.

@Magiver

It’s a hypothesis that may or may not be true based on computer models that cannot possibly contain all the variables.

How reliable are climate models?

What the science says…

While there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have made predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observations.

@Magiver

The only technical solution being pursued is the reduction of carbon dioxide and not technology aimed at lowering atmospheric temperatures.

Not quite accurate but on the whole it is because Geo engineering is risky.

Three new studies illustrate significant risks and complications with...

[GIGObuster]

@Magiver

@elucidator

So, all those scientists who think otherwise, they have poor math skills, or are unfamiliar wth the meaning of the word “emprical”? Or did they fall victim to the liberal agenda?

It’s a hypothesis, it is not fact. It is based on computer models that certainly do not take into consideration all of the variables. It may be an accurate hypothesis but it is far from fact.

A better hypothesis is that many that take the contrarian position never learn from previous discussions.

[smoke]

Sorry, misread OP.

[Stranger_On_A_Train]

@Typo_Knig

Didn’t Pournelle want to build Star Wars/SDI as a meteor defense before there was any census of the number or type of earth-crossing asteroids? He’s willing to piss away trillions to no known effect, yet unwilling to accept the demonstrated empirical facts of climate change. :rolleyes:

To be fair, regardless of the statistical likelihood of a large meteor impact (>1 km in diameter), the consequences for human civilization would be literally apocalyptic. Even a near miss might be seriously disruptive to telecommunications and geoobservation satellites, so even a trillion dollar pricetag might pay for itself for a single use. However, aside from basic space launch capability, the technologies used to deflect a large hazardous object and those proposed for the Strategic Defense Initiative are very different, and trying to backdoor justify SDI based upon meteor defense is disingenuous at best.

@Chronos

Any individual data point has large error bars on it, but if you take information from a large number of data points, with the proper statistical techniques, you can significantly improve your signal-to-noise ratio.

True that. Given enough data, you can even bootstrap your thin regions of data or (possibly) make valid extrapolations outside of the data set. The problem, especially for a complex system like climate, becomes one of interpretation: what does all this data mean, and what are the independent, covariant, and dominant parameters. There is no question that there is a clear and dramatic climate warming trend over the past 150 years, even given that we have sparse data outside of that range, and if Pournelle is saying otherwise he is either ill-informed or intentionally obtuse.

The question then becomes how much of this is due to anthropomorphic effects, and how much is part of the natural complex climate cycle. It seems awfully suspicious that the rise in overall temperature and increase in amplitude of seasonal variations occurs over the same period as industrialization, and while different global climate models tend to vary pretty widely in year-to-year predictions, nearly (if not all) show a global warming trend that corresponds to observation if CO and CO[sup]2[/sup] emissions are included in the model. While the hypothesis of anthropologically-caused warming can’t be falsified to a degree of scientific certainty, there is certainly an increasingly strong circumstantial case to be made that carbon emissions play a significant component into the warming trend. The degree to which they do, and the future response of the climate is still uncertain, as climate models are complex, readily perturbed systems. However, this same problem doesn’t prevent economists from making projections about market trends, or biologists from estimating population growth and decay, and using subsequent data to refine their models. Similarly, climatologists are plugging increasingly detailed measurements into their models and are obtaining progressively better agreement between prediction and future observations.

Stranger

[GIGObuster]

It sounds to me that Pournelle is going for the now old “there is no warming or no warming with statistical significance”

Flogging the Scientists

What’s the mark of a good reliable scientific journal?

Generally, peer reviewed science journals don’t carry ads telling you how to buy gold, survive a nuclear blast, or kick butt. For climate deniers, these are the essential features they look for in good science writing.

For instance, the UK Daily Mail is a source deniers rely on for information. Did you see the story about the Chinese Goat woman? [The goat woman: Chinese grandmother, 101, grows mystery horn on forehead] That was awesome. See? The headline and picture tell you all you need to know.

Another awesome headline was, “ClimateGate U-turn as scientist at center of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995“. Within hours of the headline’s appearance, verbatim transcriptions began turning up on climate denial sites all over the internet. The story concerns Phil Jones, the lead scientist at the University of East Anglia, a major center for climate science.

There’s only one thing wrong with the article. According to the conservative Economist magazine [Journalistic malpractice on global warming], it’s a complete fabrication, an out-and-out lie, which makes it the ideal climate denial story.

The Daily Mail story was based on an interview published by the BBC [Q&A: Professor Phil Jones] - which most denialists know nothing of, and certainly have not read. But, as always, we’ll read it here.

Question: How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?

Answer: I am 100% confident that climate has warmed.  … There is evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.

Question: If you agree that there were similar periods of warming since 1850, and the medieval warming period is under debate, what factors convince you that recent warming has been largely man made?

Answer:  The fact that we can’t explain the warming since the 1950s with solar or volcanic forcing.

Question: Would it be reasonable looking at the same scientific evidence to take the view that recent warming is not predominantly man made?

Answer: No

Some of the more specific questions were gathered from climate skeptics, and they are obviously worded to elicit specific responses. For instance …

Question: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Answer: Yes, but only just. …

This is the quote that deniers ran with in headlines, conveniently omitting the remainder of the answer.

… “I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.“

Scientists know that in a slow process like climate change, if you choose the right time period, you can show any trend you like. [Uncertainty, noise and the art of model-data comparison] Measuring for longer periods makes it easier to reach the 95 percent certainty level that defines statistical significance.

The year 1995 was most likely chosen because skeptic scientists like Richard Lindzen have often repeated [Richard Lindzen deliberately blurring lines] that if you measure from 1995, you don’t reach the 95 percent certainty level. He relies on an ignorant audience to conclude that therefore, warming has stopped.

An indication of why this question was asked, came in a blog post from Lubos Motl, a self described “conservative physicist” and climate skeptic.

He wrote: [Lubos Motl blog post] ”I discussed 1995…because that’s the year BBC asked Phil Jones about, and for a good reason. 1995 is the earliest year when the statistical significance of the trend to 2009 safely fails. Since 1994, you could get a technically significant trend.”

So it’s clear the question was phrased to elicit an honest response, knowing the denialist mob would do the rest.

It’s a technique that’s proven effective for the anti-science movement, and we’ve seen several variations.

[matt]

@Magiver

It’s a hypothesis, it is not fact. It is based on computer models that certainly do not take into consideration all of the variables. It may be an accurate hypothesis but it is far from fact.

That is at best a gross oversimplification.

1. It is a fact that CO2 levels are rising.

2. It is extraordinarily likely that the CO2 rise is due to human fossil fuel combustion. For a citation I give you Willis Eschenbach, strident climate skeptic and sometimes doper under the name intention. He is sufficiently skeptical of AGW that he has been accused of being a shill on this board, and yet his essays http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/07/some-people-claim-that-theres-a-human-to-blame/ and http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/04/under-the-volcano-over-the-volcano/ argue powerfully that the CO2 rise is real and caused by humans.

3. It is a fact that increasing the CO2 level alters the energy fluxes in and out of Earth’s atmosphere, giving a warming effect. This is basic radiative physics, lab demonstrable over a hundred years ago. The effect is small, but it’s real. It’s small enough that if CO2 were the only thing we needed to worry about, then there wouldn’t be anything like as much pressure for action. Unfortunately, it isn’t. There are amplifying feedbacks, the strongest and most immediate of which is water vapour.

4. It is a very safe prediction that increasing the CO2 level in the atmosphere will increase the absolute water vapour level. Exactly how much is not easily predicted, and most models simply hold the average relative humidity of the atmosphere fixed and account for temperature. Recent satellite measurements have confirmed that the water vapour level is rising as expected, but IIRC the average RH is falling so the water vapour feedback might not be as large as some models predict. It is still significant though.

5. It is a fact that increasing the absolute water vapour level also alters the energy fluxes in and out of the Earth’s atmosphere, amplifying the warming effect of CO2. Corresponding changes in albedo due to cloud are not well modelled or even currently well measured however, introducing a fair amount of uncertainty into the total effects of increased water vapour.

6. The net imbalance in energy fluxes in and out of the atmosphere is too small and noisy to be directly measurable, but it is very apparent in the eminently measureable, rising heat content of the oceans. The oceans have absorbed a truly scary amount of heat energy in the last thirty years or so. Warming has definitely happened, regardless of any doubts about the surface temperature records. There may be something of an unexplained hiatus in the rising heat content of the oceans at the moment, which is the subject of much research. See Trenberth and Pielke Senior’s dialogue here: Further Feedback From Kevin Trenberth And Feedback From Josh Willis On The UCAR Press Release | Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. Something interesting may come out of that in the next year or two.

7. The IPPC’s estimates of climate sensitivity to CO2 ranges from around 1.5 - 6 degrees C for a doubling of CO2. These estimates do come from models, and the wide spread indicates that the models make different assumptions. Apart from clouds, some other poorly understood factors include the lag between heat accumulation in the ocean and surface temperature rise, and the amount of AGW being “masked” by sulphate aerosols. If the lag is small and the sulphate aerosols have a small effect, then the sensitivity will be in the lower range. The truth is we don’t have good figures for either yet, and the figures we do have support a sensitivity in the lower range of the estimate.

[septimus]

@matt

1 … 2 … 3 … 4 … 5 … 6 … 7

Syllogisms? :dubious: Aristotle’s Law of the Excluded Middle? :dubious: You’re just going to provoke the Flat-Earthers to conscript the great mathematican Brouwer into their camp, and deny Western logic. :smack:

I like the SDMB motto:

Fighting Ignorance since 1973
(It’s taking longer than we thought)

Taking longer because so much of the ignorance is willful. And because otherwise-intelligent humans imagine they need to find some blogger to double-check the statistical tests of a legion of physical scientists. :smack:

[Sam_Stone]

I guess I’ll defend Pournelle, even though I think he’s wrong about the basics of global warming.

No one has answered his question. The specific question involves measurement error and the reliability of historical temperature data. All other points about global warming are irrelevant for the purpose of this discussion.

wevets and Stranger on a Train are closest in staying on topic, but I think their arguments are invalid in this case. Both of them are making the assumption that the data points are random, and that there is no common-mode error.

But consider the following possibilities:

1. Areas with the earliest temperature monitoring are likely to have undergone significant industrial/human development near them, causing an ‘urban heat island effect’ that causes a common-mode trend error towards heating.

2. Data may be cherry-picked. That’s certainly the criticism against tree-ring data, which critics claim is an artificially small sample set because the larger sample of data does not show the same temperature and thus does not support the conclusion

3. The technique of smoothing the data by gridding the measurements and virtually moving them on the grid creates a common mode error by shifting more temperature points north. In addition, the creation of virtual stations hides the fact that some of the data is actually very sparse, as in only one temperature monitoring station existing for hundreds or thousands of miles.

4. The placement of temperature stations is not consistent in altitude, and there may be common mode bias in the data if stations are more likely to be put at lower altitudes and then ‘gridded’ to a higher average altitude, due to atmospheric temperature lapse rate.

5. There are really two eras in the measurement data: One in which there were actual man-made temperature monitoring stations, and another in which the temperature has to be determined by proxy (tree rings, historical accounts of ice changes, etc). The latter area is, as far as I can tell, based on extremely thin data. A tree ring sample from a Russian forest, some ice core samples, and a few other things. There’s not even scientific agreement over whether the Little Ice Age was a global phenomenon, and it was a major temperature excursion. The data is just too thin.

6. The data has been massaged/manipulated. One of the arguments the skeptics have made is that if the errors in temperature measurement were truly random, then adjustments made by gridding and other statistical techniques should result in as many temperature downgrades as upgrades. But in fact, it seems that most or all of the adjustments that have been made have resulted the entire dataset moving in one direction. That seems suspicious. Maybe not intentional fraud, but observer/confirmation bias making its way into the data. For example, if you already believe that global warming is real, and you’re in charge of filtering out ‘bad’ historical data or coming up with algorithms to smooth it, you may be more willing to look critically at data that doesn’t fit the model, or more willing to accept flawed analytical techniques that support it.

Because the original data is noisy, discontinuous and not randomly sampled (at the least, more temperature stations will be found in areas with more human activity), these types of errors may be harder to spot.

[Sailboat]

@elucidator

I wish I knew exactly what day Larry Niven met Jerry Pournelle. I’d like to mark it on my calender, in a “Black Tuesday” sort of way.

I’m a little bit baffled that Pournelle is a denier. After all, a primary underlying idea in Niven’s Known Space stories is that civilizations can rid themselves of every waste product except heat. The idea that overindustrialized worlds would need a way to lower their temperature seemed instantly obvious to science fiction readers and writers at the time. True, he meant heat heat inevitably produced by energy used for work, rather than a greenhouse gas emission problem. We have that problem too, of course…to a small degree…look at any weather map and you’ll see it’s always a few degrees warmer in cities.

I’m using this next quote as a jumping-off point, not disagreeing with it:

@Chronos

The question then becomes how much of this is due to anthropomorphic effects, and how much is part of the natural complex climate cycle.

Which leaves us with two courses of action:

1. If it’s human-caused, we need to reduce our greenhouse gas output as much as possible to slow or stop the trend.

2. If it’s a natural cycle, we need to reduce our greenhouse gas output as much as possible so as not to contribute to the trend and make it any worse than it’s already going to be.

This is one of the most important goals for us, and grows more important as the trend continues. The economy will certainly be poor if earth no longer supports human life. It might be a choice between:

1. spending trillions of dollars and getting a highly desirable planet, or

2. wasting all the money there will ever be and winding up with nothing.

[JoelUpchurch]

Sam Stone wrote an excellent summary of temperature measurement errors. An additional point is that most of the Earth’s surface is ocean and most of our historical data concerning sea surface temperatures are limited to major trade routes and collected by people who were not trained meteorologists. NOAA has a summary here:

http://www.csc.noaa.gov/crs/cohab/hurricane/sst.htm

Even on land, there are huge parts of the Earth’s surface where we have a very limited temperature history. There are large parts of the interior of Asia and Africa where the temperature record might as well be blank and say “Here there be dragons”.

Our ability to measure the temperature of the Earth has improved enormously since 1980 with satellites collecting temperature data. Thermographic sensors are better suited to measuring the temperatures of areas rather than points and you are only dealing with a few instruments that are constantly being analyzed and calibrated.

In addition, in the last few years the Argo sea buoy system has been deployed which consists of over 3,000 buoy reporting temperature data from the ocean from the surface to 2000 meters.

http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/About_Argo.html

P.S. Speaking as someone who wore out his first copy of “The Mote in God’s Eye”, I have to strongly disagree with anyone who wishes Niven and Pournelle never met.

[GIGObuster]

@Sam_Stone

I guess I’ll defend Pournelle, even though I think he’s wrong about the basics of global warming.

No one has answered his question.

I have to say that is the fault of the OP by not pointing out the exact issue, Pournell is all over the map.

@Sam_Stone

The specific question involves measurement error and the reliability of historical temperature data. All other points about global warming are irrelevant for the purpose of this discussion.

wevets and Stranger on a Train are closest in staying on topic, but I think their arguments are invalid in this case. Both of them are making the assumption that the data points are random, and that there is no common-mode error.

But consider the following possibilities:

1. Areas with the earliest temperature monitoring are likely to have undergone significant industrial/human development near them, causing an ‘urban heat island effect’ that causes a common-mode trend error towards heating.

Does Urban Heat Island effect exaggerate global warming trends?

The Urban Heat Island Effect (UHI) is a phenomenon whereby the concentration of structures and waste heat from human activity (most notably air conditioners and internal combustion engines) results in a slightly warmer envelope of air over urbanised areas when compared to surrounding rural areas. It has been suggested that UHI has significantly influenced temperature records over the 20th century with rapid growth of urban environments.

Scientists have been very careful to ensure that UHI is not influencing the temperature trends. To address this concern, they have compared the data from remote stations (sites that are nowhere near human activity) to more urban sites. Likewise, investigators have also looked at sites across rural and urban China, which has experienced rapid growth in urbanisation over the past 30 years and is therefore very likely to show UHI. The difference between ideal rural sites compared to urban sites in temperature trends has been very small

Are surface temperature records reliable?

@Sam_Stone

2. Data may be cherry-picked. That’s certainly the criticism against tree-ring data, which critics claim is an artificially small sample set because the larger sample of data does not show the same temperature and thus does not support the conclusion

What evidence is there for the hockey stick?

What the science says…
Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.

@Sam_Stone

3. The technique of smoothing the data by gridding the measurements and virtually moving them on the grid creates a common mode error by shifting more temperature points north. In addition, the creation of virtual stations hides the fact that some of the data is actually very sparse, as in only one temperature monitoring station existing for hundreds or thousands of miles.

So far I have seen only innuendo and bad evidence when contrarians they say that the technique is misleading, in this case more than just their say so should be considered.

@Sam_Stone

4. The placement of temperature stations is not consistent in altitude, and there may be common mode bias in the data if stations are more likely to be put at lower altitudes and then ‘gridded’ to a higher average altitude, due to atmospheric temperature lapse rate.

Are surface temperature records reliable?

The temperature increase is not an artifact of declining numbers of stations

While it is true that the number of stations in GHCN has decreased since the early 1990s, that has no real effect on the results of spatially weighted global temperature reconstructions. How do we know this?

* Comparisons of trends for stations that dropped out versus stations that persisted post-1990 show no difference in the two populations prior to the dropouts (see, e.g., here and here and here).
* The spatial weighting processes (e.g., gridding) used in these analyses makes them robust to the loss of stations. In fact, Nick Stokes has shown that it's possible to derive a global temperature reconstruction using just 61 stations worldwide (in this case, all the stations from GISTEMP that are classified as rural, have at least 90 years of data, and have data in 2010).
* Other data sets that don't suffer from GHCN's decline in station numbers show the same temperature increase (see below).

One prominent claim (by Joe D’Aleo and Anthony Watts) was that the loss of “cool” stations (at high altitudes, high latitudes, and rural areas) created a warming bias in the temperature trends. But Ron Broberg conclusively disproved this, by comparing trends after removing the categories of stations in question. D’Aleo and Watts are simply wrong.

@Sam_Stone

5. There are really two eras in the measurement data: One in which there were actual man-made temperature monitoring stations, and another in which the temperature has to be determined by proxy (tree rings, historical accounts of ice changes, etc). The latter area is, as far as I can tell, based on extremely thin data. A tree ring sample from a Russian forest, some ice core samples, and a few other things. There’s not even scientific agreement over whether the Little Ice Age was a global phenomenon, and it was a major temperature excursion. The data is just too thin.

As mentioned before, the contrarians that say scientists are using extremely thin data are 100% wrong. Even in previous discussion it was pointed out that (specially the 2008 Mann one) other proxies were used in the reconstruction, including coral, boreholes and cave strata. You may had noticed that denialists almost never criticize the results obtained by the experts that got that other proxy data.

@Sam_Stone

6. The data has been massaged/manipulated. One of the arguments the skeptics have made is that if the errors in temperature measurement were truly random, then adjustments made by gridding and other statistical techniques should result in as many temperature downgrades as upgrades. But in fact, it seems that most or all of the adjustments that have been made have resulted the entire dataset moving in one direction. That seems suspicious. Maybe not intentional fraud, but observer/confirmation bias making its way into the data. For example, if you already believe that global warming is real, and you’re in charge of filtering out ‘bad’ historical data or coming up with algorithms to smooth it, you may be more willing to look critically at data that doesn’t fit the model, or more willing to accept flawed analytical techniques that support it.

I still will have to see better evidence for that.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33482750/

WASHINGTON — An analysis of global temperatures by independent statisticians shows the Earth is still warming and not cooling as some global warming skeptics are claiming.

The analysis was conducted at the request of The Associated Press to investigate the legitimacy of talk of a cooling trend that has been spreading on the Internet, fueled by some news reports, a new book and temperatures that have been cooler in a few recent years.

In short, it is not true, according to the statisticians who contributed to the AP analysis.

The statisticians, reviewing two sets of temperature data, found no trend of falling temperatures over time.

@Sam_Stone

Because the original data is noisy, discontinuous and not randomly sampled (at the least, more temperature stations will be found in areas with more human activity), these types of errors may be harder to spot.

And that is why the reconstructions do not depend on the tree rings alone as mentioned.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Sam_Stone

1. Areas with the earliest temperature monitoring are likely to have undergone significant industrial/human development near them, causing an ‘urban heat island effect’ that causes a common-mode trend error towards heating.

Science is all about refining the data and it is fair to point out places where error can creep in. In this case scientists have long since accounted for the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect and found it to be a non-issue.

Assessment of Urban Versus Rural In Situ Surface Temperatures in the Contiguous United States: No Difference Found

THOMAS C. PETERSON

National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina
(Manuscript received 26 May 2002, in final form 23 February 2003)

ABSTRACT

All analyses of the impact of urban heat islands (UHIs) on in situ temperature observations suffer from inhomogeneities or biases in the data. These inhomogeneities make urban heat island analyses difficult and can lead to erroneous conclusions. To remove the biases caused by differences in elevation, latitude, time of observation, instrumentation, and nonstandard siting, a variety of adjustments were applied to the data. The resultant data were the most thoroughly homogenized and the homogeneity adjustments were the most rigorously evaluated and thoroughly documented of any large-scale UHI analysis to date. Using satellite night-lights–derived urban/rural metadata, urban and rural temperatures from 289 stations in 40 clusters were compared using data from 1989 to 1991. Contrary to generally accepted wisdom, no statistically significant impact of urbanization could be found in annual temperatures. It is postulated that this is due to micro- and local-scale impacts dominating over the mesoscale urban heat island. Industrial sections of towns may well be significantly warmer than rural sites, but urban meteorological observations are more likely to be made within park cool islands than industrial regions.

SOURCE: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/wmo/ccl/rural-urban.pdf (WARNING: 6MB PDF file)

Not even sure what all the rest of that is pointing at except generic complaints.

Again, it is fine to point out weaknesses in data and how it is tabulated/correlated/massaged. Thing is I have yet to see a complaint actually debunk the larger notion of global warming. Every time a complaint has been leveled and an effort made to address the complaint the same answer keeps appearing…global warming is real. Global warming deniers are still seeking their smoking gun and in the meantime just cast endless obstacles and demand ever more stringent levels of “proof”. Presumably that level will one day rise to the, “You can’t even prove we exist,” level and they will declare victory; Descartes be damned.

Every complaint has not been addressed yet but the effort continues and, were I a betting man, I would not bet against this trend. The deniers’ track record is miserable to this point.

[Magiver]

@GIGObuster

@Magiver

The only technical solution being pursued is the reduction of carbon dioxide and not technology aimed at lowering atmospheric temperatures.

Not quite accurate but on the whole it is because Geo engineering is risky.

Three new studies illustrate significant risks and complications with geoengineering climate

This was not a definitive study on anything. It talked about possible problems with a couple of methods.

My community just had a solar array shoved up it’s collective keyster by state mandate to the tune of $35K per houses served. Since the array only works during the day, that’s really a $60K price tag for power per house. Due to the short cycle life of solar cells it’s just really expensive landfill. Maybe some of it can be recycled but it’s still an incredible waste of money. We’re already transitioning to more efficient cars and the nuclear technology to replace coal burning plants is sitting on the shelf. If we truly want to take advantage of future electric cars then the only real alternative is to build REAL power plants and not a bunch of monuments to stupidity that only work part of the day or depend on variations in wind.

Beyond the normal course of technology that should be taking place the solution to reducing temperatures shouldn’t rest on the insistence that co2 is the cause. We could easily overspend on a bunch of feel-good technocrap and still have a problem with increased solar activity.

The solution is to use the technology we have know and pursue the most cost effective technology in the future to lower temperatures. It may be cheaper to scrub co2 from the air than re-engineering society not to produce it in the first place. What we’re doing now is the equivalent of removing anything that burns to prevent forest fires instead of adding fire more fighting equipment.

[BrainGlutton]

@Whack-a-Mole

@Stan_Shmenge

Can anyone here refute his skepticism?

Sure:

Jacobshavn Glacier Retreating

A bunch of glaciers retreating.

Athabasca glacier retreating.

McCarty Glacier.

Nunavut Glacier

Retreating glaciers in Bhutan (Himalayas)

Franz Josef Glacier

Polar Ice Cap

We can do the above all day. This is happening in almost every case wherever you look in the world.

If this is not the earth getting warmer is there another explanation?

Hell, yeah, there is! Warmist Greencommies are secretly covering our all our glaciers with rock salt! :mad: