View Single Post
Old 11-13-2013, 08:10 PM   #25
Isaac Clarke
Junior Member
 
Isaac Clarke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommycat View Post
Believe me, I'm opposed to pollution of our environment. But this whole global warming sham reminds me of the hysteria over the "COMING ICE AGE" of the 70's. Though largely media driven back then, the hysteria was the same.


Sure, the media, then, was hysterical about supposed "cooling". But the media does not represent scientific literature. A minority of scientific literature in the 1970's actually predicted cooling, while the vast majority predicted a continued upward trend of warming. Peterson 2008 showed a 6:1 ratio of support of a continued upward trend of warming in scientific literature.

Possibly the reason why some scientific papers still backed cooling is because of the rapid acceleration of emissions of anthropogenic aerosols (specifically, sulfur) into the atmosphere until the 1970's. This, along with a study done showing a reduction of 3.5K with a quadrupling of aerosol concentration, would suggest global cooling, but with the enaction of sulfur emission limitations by the Clean Air Acts, cooling became less likely, and a better method of determining a trend was to just look at the temperature data itself.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommycat View Post
There are few areas where the measuring instruments are not near a heat source. In a few cases, the measuring equipment is actually near exhaust vents, in areas surrounded by blacktop, or have been moved a significant distance.


You don't think that scientists already know this? They even adjust for this "urban heat island" effect, described in detail by NASA's GISS:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hansen et al, 2001
Urban warming at a single
station, if it were not removed, would influence our estimated temperature out to distances of about 1000 km, i.e., 1
million square kilometers, which is clearly undesirable.
If they had not known about the urban heat island effect, they would not have called it "undesirable".

But to what extent do urban heat islands affect temperature data? In the same paper, an analysis was done on how much adjustment was needed, and in what direction:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Section 4.2.2
Indeed, in the global analysis we find that the homogeneity adjustment changes the urban record to a
cooler trend in only 58% of the cases, while it yields a warmer trend in the other 42% of the urban stations. This
implies that even though a few stations, such as Tokyo and Phoenix, have large urban warming, in the typical case,
the urban effect is less than the combination of regional variability of temperature trends, measurement errors, and
inhomogeneity of station records.
So this "urban heat island" has very little effect, warming or cooling, on the temperature data.

However, you may be asking still what the total adjustments needed for the urban heat island are. This is a little tricky. Urban heat islands do need relatively large homogeneity adjustments at a small scale. But, on a large scale, multi-decadal record, adjustments are few and far between.

In 2008, there was a study done comparing the absolute temperature records averaged annually in and around London. Trend-wise, the effect has next to none, as can be seen in this graph:
Show spoiler

Clearly, there is a difference between the sets. However, the overall trend of each and every one of the sets is very similar. Almost no adjustments need to be made to the trend in order to get an accurate data set.

In the same study, absolute temperature records, average annually once again, in two sites in Vienna (Hohe Warte and Groß-Enzersdorf) were compared. Again, although there is difference in the data, the trend is left almost unchanged:
Show spoiler


Even in China, the greatest human contributor to carbon emissions, shows the same result. The following graph compares three data sets, from both rural and urban locations:
Show spoiler


So this "urban heat island" effect, while still affecting data points themselves, has little effect on the overall trend, and that is the important part.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommycat View Post
I remember how bad the air was before we had significant air quality requirements. The air is much cleaner and easier to breathe now.
Anecdotes are not scientific data. Provide evidence of the increase in air quality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommycat View Post
If you want to focus on that aspect, I'll agree with you. If you want to focus on not pouring chemicals into the water we drink, or the oceans and lakes we get our food from, ABSOLUTELY.
Good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommycat View Post
Global warming, NOPE. The problem with this global warming scam is it's filled with pseudo science, and faulty data.
In what way is the data faulty?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommycat View Post
Why would they do that? Because governments pay for grants for the global warming studies,
Evidence?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommycat View Post
while only a few companies seem willing to fund the opposite research(which is then discredited because of the source of funding).
And this is supposed to prove what, exactly?
Isaac Clarke is offline   you may: quote & reply,