Interesting Statistics Seldom Seen

[wacojoe]

I understand your theory to explain why days of highest temperatures in the United States have gone down over the last 100 years by the historical record in the face of rise CO2 concentration over the same period is that we have built more urban areas that are a cooling effect in the day and a warming effect at night because they are a heat sink. Right?

Nice theory, but demonstrably wrong. Measurements show that the Urban Island heat sinks are generally warmer than surrounding rural areas in the day by “1.8 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit...(while in) the evening, the difference can be as much as 22 degrees, as rural areas quickly cool down after sunset, while cities maintain their heat.”

https://weather.com/science/weather-...suburbs-cooler

I cited The Weather Channel because they are a rabid warmest source and it even uses as an example the same NYC you used to illustrate its point, but there are any number of cites if you just query “are urban areas cooler than surrounding rural ones in the day?,” as I did. If the sources are correct, you have not answered why the historical record shows that the number of highest temperature days has been trending down over the last 100 years, while during the same period deadly atmospheric CO2 has been increasing.

[Dave Grubb]

At this point I am lost regarding what you are trying to do here. You have just confirmed what I have been saying but seem to suggest otherwise.

The entire issue of climate change and global warming is not one that can be examined based on a single criteria. The earth and our atmosphere are extremely complex models and have to be analyzed in their entirety---integrated and interacting.

The bottom line of this discussion is that we will not agree---I am coming at it from the science, you are coming at it from the political side. Unfortunately, from the aspect of the planet---this is not beholding to politics.

[wacojoe]

We can agree that the subject here is but one aspect of the larger issue. That I do not come at the issues from a scientific prospective is nonsense and a dodge. Now, do you have a new theory why the anomaly shown by the graph exists? There has to be a scientific explanation why the record does not comport with climate change theory.

[TxMusky]

As usual we are all stupid and scientists and engineers are the brains of the bunch. I guess it is not well known that both of those two, no matter how highly they regard themselves, make mistakes. This old world has been heating and cooling itself as it sees fit, to rectify any problems that arise, whether the problem is man made or natural, for billions of years. No single man will ever change that cycle and those that think they can will be sorely mistaken. Mother nature does what mother nature does, try as we may as mere humans, we will not have much of an effect on her wishes.


I find it funny that out of all of the explanations for temp changes, that all of the forest fires we have had for the past few years are not looked at as a source of warming. Those huge fires have got to have a major effect on both the temps and humidity levels, both in the actual burning and the putting out of said fires. Nature at its finest will overcome anything that we humans throw at it. We can chart, graph and argue, yet still have absolutely no effect on anything but our own self worth.

[mgrist]

As usual we are all stupid and scientists and engineers are the brains of the bunch. I guess it is not well known that both of those two, no matter how highly they regard themselves, make mistakes. This old world has been heating and cooling itself as it sees fit, to rectify any problems that arise, whether the problem is man made or natural, for billions of years. No single man will ever change that cycle and those that think they can will be sorely mistaken. Mother nature does what mother nature does, try as we may as mere humans, we will not have much of an effect on her wishes.


I find it funny that out of all of the explanations for temp changes, that all of the forest fires we have had for the past few years are not looked at as a source of warming. Those huge fires have got to have a major effect on both the temps and humidity levels, both in the actual burning and the putting out of said fires. Nature at its finest will overcome anything that we humans throw at it. We can chart, graph and argue, yet still have absolutely no effect on anything but our own self worth.

Damn, my keyboard just drank a cup of coff. Climate change = drought= flames ho about the Cuyahoga n Oho that caught on flames man can mess up a lot of stuff. Thrs something to both sds. damn ill lav this maybe th spell check???

[mgrist]

Nope spellcheck didn’t help. What I was trying to say is I don’t believe in man made global warming, I think that what is going on is natural and I’ve got a page full of links. However, a fire, a bunch of fires out west doesn’t create “global” warming. A lot of those were arson I think, the river in Ohio that caught on fire was man made. The pacific caludron I think it’s called Is destroying our food chain from the bottom up, that is man made. His poaching and devastation of the forests is man made. His wars and greed are destroying untold resources and killing unknown numbers of people. We can destroy our habitat but it’s not because we want to drive to the store. I think the loony left with their hair brained fixes are destroying thing quicker than any other entity’s.

[TxMusky]

I agree Mike, yes we can be the cause for problems, I remember the 70's when it was totally legit to dump raw waste into rivers. We did cause many pollution problems, we have caused many more as well, but laws and regulations are fixing that wreck. I think that the regulated harvesting of timber would put an end to many forest fires caused by natural occurrences such as lightning storms. Throw in a bundle of careless campers and a few arsonists and the problem intensifies. Of course our building in places that never had problems with man being stupid or careless adds more to the problem.


Either way, whatever we do to the earth only hurts us as a species, we may kill ourselves off, but the earth will move on and regenerate itself. It has happened many times with no man made interference, take for instance the dinosaurs extinction. Earthquakes have shifted continents and ice has covered much of North America and yet we still have our wildlife and of course us humans.

[Dave Grubb]

We can agree that the subject here is but one aspect of the larger issue. That I do not come at the issues from a scientific prospective is nonsense and a dodge. Now, do you have a new theory why the anomaly shown by the graph exists? There has to be a scientific explanation why the record does not comport with climate change theory.

In all due respect you see my explanation as nonsense because you don't fully understand it. The model is one of extreme complexity. The effect of daytime radiation includes almost unlimited variables: wind, wind velocity, wind direction, humidity (which effects the entropy and thus the specific heat), reflectivity,cloud density et al.

You have chosen one limited measure (which may or may not have been "adjusted") and seem to suggest that single point of reference is indicative of the entire planet---do I understand that correctly? That sir is invalid---unless you are not looking for an answer but instead trying to justify "your" answer.

For every little perceived "anomaly" you find there are a dozen examples to counter it. Regarding your last specific question---there is a huge difference between average temperatures and extremes--and in fact they can be in contradiction to one another. Yes--on average urban centers are warmer than rural centers--for a host of reasons, but that is not an absolute property. The same reasons that can effectively limit the extreme highs can also raise the averages through thermal lag---there is no inconsistency in that when you look at the model in totality.

Now---to end my involvement in this discussion--I do believe that climate change is real---I do not know if it is natural, man made or a combination of both (which is more likely in my mind). I have no idea of the impact of carbon dioxide but will not out of hand reject the theory that it is core to the phenomenon. Further, the remedial measures suggested, are for the most part, things we should be doing in any event---the idea that our natural resources are infinite is about as childish as Tx rants over his lack of a formal education.

So---in summary---I don't know the answer, but I do know that I am not willing to ignore the signs and find out they are real and I could have done something to secure the future for my progeny.

[wacojoe]

Oh, get off your high horse. Nowhere did I or do I put forth this one cluster of data as indicative of the planet’s climate, nor did the authors. It is a set of facts that needs explaining in the context of a theory put forth which it’s powerful adherents desire to use and are using to force us to abandon the fossil fuel, which is responsible in large measure for the way of life we enjoy today in favor of tertiary and more expensive methods of energy production.

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right, a single experiment can prove me wrong." — Albert Einstein

If a theory cannot explain observable data, the theory is wrong or incomplete.

[Dave Grubb]

I'm on a high horse because I don't agree with you?

Give me a break. Your claim of an isolated "case in question" is phony---you have been in the business of denial regarding climate change for as long as I have known you. Are you now suggesting that you are having a change of heart? I think not.

This appeared in the NYT yesterday---you might want to play with it. Just for ****s and giggles---my "hometown" didn't match your data.

Note the global illustration of expected high temperature change---and the fact that major portions of the earth see none while others see significant change.

[wacojoe]

^^^
No you cited factors like you are the only one here who has ever heard or considered them in their reviews of the subject. I resent being talked down to, wouldn’t you?

[Dave Grubb]

^^^
No you cited factors like you are the only one here who has ever heard or considered them in their reviews of the subject. I resent being talked down to, wouldn’t you?

It happens all the time---do you never read Tx's posts?

If you are versed in such things as entropy my apologies--but you are not the only one reading this and I suspect not everyone is so well read.

[TxMusky]

So all throughout history engineers and scientists have NEVER been wrong?


The only perfect man they hung on a cross, I will remind you.

[Dave Grubb]

So all throughout history engineers and scientists have NEVER been wrong?

I'll ignore the ridicules statement but ask you a simple question---point out one thing---just ONE thing in this thread that I have presented as fact which you can ----in your infinite self assessed and professed wisdom---show as incorrect.

I'll wait to see what your grand reserve of hot air comes up with.

[2ndthyme]

stopped reading Joe on climate change when he posited the theory that plants will thrive because CO2 is a fertilizer