In two years of searching i have not found even one piece of evidence in support of AGW. It`s like trying to find evidence for God. Everybody has evidence but they are all irrelevant.
@greenman3610 there is more evidence that supports the idea that global warming leads to co2 increase. if you find more co2 and a lot of heat you may assume that the co2 did that but that`s a far-fetched idea.
@greenman3610 well, i could use Al Goore`s graph on the correlation between co2 and temperature, which shows that co2 increase follows temperature rise but this graph seems a bit more interesting ncwatch.typepad.com/media/2008/02/call-al-gore-th.html .But if you study physical geography you will understand that it is normal for co2 to follow temperature rise. You will not need any graph to understand that, it`s basic science.
@greenman3610 you haven`t crushed anything. those huge temperature swings are real (Richard Alley says) and it`s the same as the antarctica records so it`s global. Those swings cannot be anthropogenic and they are very cyclical. I`ve watched your link but i have to ask you: what did you utterly crushed? just because Alley says that co2 is to blame i have to believe it? there are thousands of people that say the same thing. thank god his data cannot be bought and can`t tell lies.
@andreiuta171: No doubt you've discerned Greenman's standard MO? He 1st attitudinizes on his opponents in a smug condescending manner, even when dealing scientists obviously far more knowledgable then him. 2nd he presents a fatuous simplistic interpretation of his oppenents position 3rd he presents mere models & conjectures put out by others as though they constituted real data based evidence. The notion that someones model of what might be happening ISN'T what IS happening is alien to him
@VictorLepanto That`s true. And this is how all AGW supporters behave. There is no room for debate with them, and that is not the scientific way. If you say anything against their beliefs you are crazy or stupid and they are right all the time no matter how powerful the evidence against them is. Just like a religion.
@greenman3610: We've all wasted enough or our lives making detailed critiques of YOUR bloviations. Demonstrating your strawman constructs of your opponents & your passing off mere speculations or "models" as real evidence is tiresome. My past experience w/ is enough for me to dismiss your similar efforts.
@greenman3610: You really are obtuse. I often wonder if you're even capable of reading the English language, you so utterly fail to understand what is addressed to you. You can pretend (atleast to yourself if no one else) that we've never attempted to converse on any other vidoe then this one. Even you know that isn't true. I've exposed how fatuous your videos are. It has no effect on your propaganda out put. You are the one who acts like a "DENIER." No matter how your arguments are refuted.
@greenman3610 "ALL of my videos are copiously and transparently cited" ALL? Really? ALL? You sure? hahaha HAHAhaha HAHAHAHHAAHA Except for the ones that AREN'T that is. For the umteenth time, please copiously cite the source of your quote from a FICTIONAL CHARACTER at the beginning of your 'In the 70s' crock. hahahaha HAHAhahahaha HAHAHAHAHAHAHA Come on, YOU SAID people would think you're a clueless blowhard if you didn't give sources. Time to walk the talk Mr.Cluelessblowhard3610!
@andreiuta171: Most leftwing enthusiasms are a substitute for more conventional religions. It gives a sense of meaning & purpose to their lives. & "greenism" is a leftist scam. It is more properly called the watermelon movement. Politicians love "being green" for the same reason they love Keynesian economics. It justifies their controlling others handing privileges out to a few friends.
I'd like to see our boy Greenman explain Soyndra. That is what "green" is about, cronyism.
@greenman3610 well, i did use google a lot for the research. that is how i got to the ipcc official site and many other readings. but the means through which i got to the data is not that important.
@Baerchenization; Here's some citation: Richard Lindzen's November 10 2010 testimony for the Congressional Record: "Do you accept the 50 temperature increase as irrefutable?" "Yes". " Is Carbon dioxide the primary DRIVING mechanism?" "Yes". Do you believe that humans are responsible for that increase in CO2?" "Yes". Howz that for more recent congressional hearings? ;P
I have come to where I am unwilling to discuss the AGW con as a serious scientific question. I will only discuss it as what it so manifestly is, a political swindle. It is a big political scam being run out of the U.N.
Lysenko is the very exact paradigm for this game. I have to wonder how many trained scientists in Russia knew Lysenko was full of it. I am sure most of the them did. They went along w/ it anyway. They didn't want to wind up in Siberia. Also, they wanted to earn a living.
@tooyjfwn: Whether or not I am scientifically illiterate, I am no more illiterate then this Greenman person. I've looked into the depths (such as they are) of his postings & found them utterly fatuous & I've discussed them in depth previously. I really have no interest in wasting my life peeling through the nonsense & showing his utter lack of substance.
He is obsessed & will ignore all contrary evidence.
@VictorLepanto: "The destruction of the environment, its improper or unselfish use, and the violent hoarding of the Earth's resources causes grievances, conflicts and wars, precisely because they are the consequences of an inhumane concept of development." Pope Benedict XVI, World Peace Day 2006. BTW, you don't have to resort to communism to mitigate CO2 emissions, the Paul VI Auditorium has been covered with 2,400 solar panels. Sounds like the Holy See sees the light....;)
@Victor Lepanto: "The destruction of the environment, its improper or unselfish use, and the violent hoarding of the Earth's resources causes grievances, conflicts and wars, precisely because they are the consequences of an inhumane concept of development." Pope Benedict XVI, World Peace Day 2006. BTW, you don't have to resort to communism to mitigate CO2 emissions, the Paul VI Auditorium has been covered with 2,400 solar panels. Sounds like the Holy See sees the light....;)
Google Nasa urban heat islands - see what you find. You will find that the clip you chose, the dude around 1.10min and Nasa agree (Nasa web site). Maybe you had something else in mind, but it is not there.
They now say that you won't even be able to detect the signal of human influence for some more 20-30 years. So it cannot be that big, is it? So the issue remains, nobody denies warming. The degree of human contribution to it is questioned.
I am not a little off, I am a little more up-to-date. 23 years, in a field where new findings are made every day - you need to try a bit harder. It is a tell-tale that you refered to 1988, instead of the most recent congressional hearing. The true view is of course that things have changed a bit over the years and what I said is not a cranky opinion, it is held by pro AGW scientists, only, it doesn't suit the black-n-white style of your advocacy.
@greenman3610: That is too funny, you calling someone else a blowhard. You w/ your obsessive posting over this wretched neo-Lysenkoist fantasy. I think I am most angry w/ the hucksters @ the U.N. for how they've wasted so much of the lives of people like yourself. I just wish your lot would quit trying to ruin the rest of our lives over your obessions.
@VictorLepanto One problem here -- you aren't offering us any real evidence, just routinely dismissing Greenman's information like some king on his throne declaring what is "real" and what is "not". Just repeating "No" endlessly isn't evidence or even much of an argument. How about something more sophisticated? Links to scientific material? Give us good information and we'll believe. Instead, you act as though you shouldn't have to "lower" yourself to such practicalities.
Moab Latif on the 20-30 years. What the guy says, well, I told you go to 1.10 - that doesn't need citation. What else needs a citation? That there are more up to date findings than 23 years ago?
If anything urban heat adds to total warming and the urban areas are now even hotter. Atlanta is one good example of overall high temps rising yet that city has been built the way it is mostly before the last decade. I can see where urban area contribute some heat all that Red in those other zones but not the cause of the total rise.
I do not trust NASA, an organisation founded to put men into space & not a meteorological authority, as they are only seeking to get some of the AGW money the politicians are handing out.
You need to explain the sources of your illustrations better. A map w/ pretty swirly colors is NOT data. It is a MODEL. Once again you pass off mere models as though they were real.
they put up the weather satellites, and read the data. Part of their mission is to understand our home planet.
as to this video, this is old, old news. as you may have read, the new temp research, put together by climate deniers - further debunked the Urban Heat effect, and confirmed rising global temps. surprising to them, but not to those familiar with the science.
@greenman3610: So you'd say the ambulance driver who drives the patient to brain or heart surgeon is as qualified to do the surgery as the surgeon. This is the kind of bait & switch approach you take to your propaganda. You raise a serious issue & then use some absurd non sequitor to confuse the issue. What I've learned is all the weather station reports are unreliable b/c no reliable standard of reporting is maintained.
@greenman3610: If you have any references for Anthony Watts, you could simply point me to those or give me the quote of him repudiating his original position. You haven't done that, You are too funny dressing your own failure to present references as a demand for references. & I will remind you that you are the one presenting the positive claim & thus obliged to present evidence. I am immune to your burden shifting sophistry.
@greenman3610: Thank you. Now you can present me w/ some reason to take this weather station data serious as a reliable scientific source of information. I have been presented w/ some very sound reasons to doubt this data & certainly feel justified in dismissing it as a basis for making the kinds of draconian policy inititiative you advocate. These stations are not maintained to any consistent standard. Frankly only remoted controlled & routinely calibrated stations could.
if you don't like the weather stations, look at the satellite data. it shows warming.
so does the ocean data.
Sea level is rising, primarily, so far, due to warming.
The movements of animals, the blooming of plants, thousands of other natural cycles, including the polar icecaps, all changing consistent with warming.
@greenman3610: Talking to you is like listening to an old tobacco executive on the scientific evidence. Everything I've ever heard on the satellite data & ocean data directly contradicts what you say. Those English professors wouldn't have been talking about cooking the data if what you say is true. I've seen your videos on the ice caps. No matter how ofter you try to pass off models as actual evidence & are called on it, you won't stop.
@greenman3610: Once again, you show your utter lack of understanding for basic logic. Thus you can not grasp real science, & so you fall for the AGW con. YOU are the one making the positive claim, I'm merely obliged to refute what passes for evidence from you. Something I've repeatedly done to no effect w/ you. You habitually present models as though they were real evidence. It's all make pretend w/ you. I've mentioned Lysenko to you, do you know who he is, & why he relevant to the AGW con?
Carbon tax is a disgusting crime against Humanity. CO2 whether man-made or otherwise doesn't drive global climate, it never has, it never will, the Sun does...
Flowering is induced by day length. Swallows arrive here on 20th May every year and right now it is damn cold. Could the length of day not initiate migration? I would be very surprised if temperature does. This would cause swallows to abandon their nests if the temperature fell below say 5 celcius at night and start migrating. Birds do not lie Humans do eg climategate.
so youi're suggesting that the length of days is changing throughout the year? Some kind of abrupt alteration in speed of rotation that no one else has noticed?
@greenman3610 I am suggesting nothing of the sort , it is a well known biological fact that day length induces flowering. Have you noticed that the days get longer in the summer? the Earth tilts towards the sun when its summer, nothing to do with speed of rotation lol
you are suggesting that flowering times are changing due to a progressive change in the diurnal cycle that has somehow been missed by the astrophysics community.
some things are right. some things are wrong. some things are so divorced from reality, they do not even rise to the level of wrong.
@greenman3610 Yes every Biologist knows this ! try googling short and long day plants.Inceased Temperature will make plants grow faster ( along with increased co2 lol ). Flowering is induced by the time exposed to light. The green biosphere also reaches compensation point just after sunrise when no gases are exchanged from the atmosphere.ie co2 and o2 are balanced. ( photosynthesis = respiration ). Bet the data was taken then lol.
i'm not sure your method of debunking the uhi hypothesis in this video is reliable. no offense, because i really enjoy your videos, but you seem to be guilty of doing the same sort of cherry-picking of data that you often accuse climate skeptics of doing. for example, you used the anomaly data for 2008. certainly, there are other factors, which you've often cited, which could explain the discrepancy, for example: el nino effects. (cont.)
@cristoballs further, if the 2008 anomaly data does contradict the uhi hypothesis, wouldn't that same data also contradict co2 hypothesis? i looked at similar map that displays co2 emissions, and compared with the same anomaly data, and there didn't appear to be any correlation between the two. based on your method of debunking, does this mean we should ignore co2 as a factor of climate change?
Well, there was no el nino in 2008. Further, those effects would be seen in the eastern and central pacific, (where there are clearly no cities ) not in the arctic areas, which show the greatest warming. ( and where there are also clearly no cities)
There is no expected correlation between where the greatest sources of co2 are, ie the US and China, and where the greatest warming is (the arctic) since co2 is well mixed throughout the atmosphere.
@greenman3610 i didn't mean an el nino, in particular. i was only suggesting that there are other factors at play, that we can't just look at a two pics and determine that because there is no apparent relation between between the two then we can conclude uhi's don't play a factor in our temperature data, which is essentially what you did. if i run the fans and the furnace in my house at the same time, and my house has a net increase in temperature, it doesn't mean the fans aren't working.
Well, if you have evidence that UHI has an actual effect on global temp data, then post it. The disinformation that has been circulated to suggest that somehow UHI has distorted temp data has long been discredited, except among the most in denial deniers. To simply say, "maybe there might be an effect" is no more credible than saying "it might be flying saucers or fairy dust"...
@greenman3610 fair enough... if i may play the devil's advocate, i would say one thing that has me concerned about the data that we do have from the data stations that were rated as "good" or "best", which were highlighted in one of your previous videos, is the convergence of data we get from 70 stations used with that of the over 1200 that were used before. what's even more incredible is the fact that several states were completely left out of the analyses. (cont.)
@cristoballs it's not as if warming trends are uniform, in fact some parts of the country even showed cooling or no change over the period you highlighted, so should we see and entirely different graph with the 70 data stations than we saw with all the data stations? i think this is something scientists... real scientists should be skeptical of.
@greenman3610: Also kinda ironic given the fact that many of the people, companies, and organizations who funded CC denial were often guilty of the very things that txsray1 talked about.
@greenman3610: I know, right? Although, TBH, I was once a big-time skeptic and part denialist myself at one point, so it is kinda sombering to look at all this now.
Meteorologist Joseph DAleo and computer expert E. Michael Smith have found that NASA & NOAA have strategically deleting cherry-picked, cooler-reporting weather observation stations to support AGM. NOAA had deleted from its datasets all but 1,500 of the 6,000 stations in service. Their primary accomplices are the scientists at GISS, who manipulated the data by replacing data from stations in colder areas with readings from stations located in much warmer locales.
@greenman3610 I do believe that this melting has happened 100's of this before and will happen 100's of times more in the future. What I do not believe is suddenly the man has this much of an effect this cycle of warming.
by cheery picking out only the stations that support a theory and discarding all the ones the disprove it make your con much easier to pull off.
"could every pro sci org on the planet really have missed...'
No, they did not miss. but other than GISS ( which applies some very poor effort ) how is it COMPENSATED for ? Terrible GISS adjustments...outside of the USA, NASA adjusts UPWARD for UHI.
....and that is all Greenman is selling. Garbage. Innuendo. False claims. .
"isn't temperature change due to urbanisation still anthropogenitic GW"
Yes it is, and good question.gamesbok
However reading the signal from that, spreading that onto everything else is not correct.
it's bogus science.
It's like if I want to know the overall room temp and l put the thermometer in a good spot on the wall but later someone installs a hot air vent under it.
It will be reading high. because of the position/location.
@pointyhead1 You don't say. I guess nobody ever thought of that before. I've been recording ambient temperature from inside my wife's ceramic kiln.
Here in UK we have temperature records back to 1649. Imagine, nobody thought to get genuine readings in all that time.
Forests are cooler than heathland because of higher transporation rates, mountains cooler because adiabatic expansion. Every location has idiocyncratic features. The idea that science is unaware of this is absurd.
@pointyhead1 Watch him say they adjust. but they do not adjust the temperature that was read. They adjust their "certainty". hehe
GISS at least makes an attempt to correct for it. However, outside of the US where it is under better scrutiny, it just as often adjusts up, instead of down.
Have you noticed yet that all of Africa's brightly lit areas together, add up to about as much as Canada's prairie provinces ?
Our 3 prairie provinces ( center/ left of Canada) has 6 million population.
Africa has a billion, rapidly urbanizing. but they are poor. Do they burn the lights at night ? Maybe not so much, eh ? Sometimes the municipal water supply is even shut off at night, you know.
@greenman3610 To your funny bit here: "But you don't really need one. There are no urban areas in the arctic ocean
- I don't get why that's a mystery to you."
It's not a mystery to me, Greenman. I explained how GISS spreads out land values over the ocean. in some cases it spans thousands of km between land masses. Less data comes from the ocean itself.
It's there at NASA for you to see. Go look at NASA, instead of listening to Al Gore.
I am well aware that nasa has a formula for including the arctic. That's why so many people think NASAs data is superior to others, including Hadley and the Satellite sets, which leave a hole at the poles - exactly where the most intense warming is taking place.
Nevertheless, every data set shows warming. To hear it verbatim on video from even the "skeptic" scientists like Spencer and Christy, go here
@pointyhead1 oh you're good. you are actually cherry picking a response and building a strawman with it. All you need to do now is make an outlandish claim that greenman is part of a huge carbon tax scam conspiracy and you have the big three tactics (cherrypicking, strawman and attack the messenger)...and in such a short space of time. well done. well done. you have, through your own sense of....whatever it is... proven your worth as an AGW denier.
" oh you're good. you are actually cherry picking a response and building a strawman with it. All you need to do now is make an outlandish claim'
Thanks for your attempt at input, "unknowinglyspeakingnonsense", but as to what you speak about - well, you offered ZERO instances no examples, to support your wild claim.
Try to find an example of what you are talking about and then tell us with evidence in hand.
@pointyhead1 Mate I don't need to back it up. I'm trying on the denier way of arguing and you know, its kind of refreshing. How about, you're full of shit. Everyone knows the globe is warming. I read so on some website somewhere so it must be true. Wow, that feels really good, not having to explain myself. Oh, gee it was hot today! So much for no global warming. AND IF I TYPE IT IN CAPS IT MUST ALSO BE TRUE. Wow, I can see why clowns like you go this way. Its so easy to be lazy.
@pointyhead1 idiot. I am demonstrating the simplistic denier way of arguing to argue that there is global warming. If you cannot understand such simple mockery then you definately are a tool. As for not backing up my accusations, I don't need to because everything I have accused you of is laid bare in your posting in here but here goes. "I am well aware that nasa has a formula for including the arctic" ...other sets... which leave a hole at the poles "Nevertheless, every data set shows warming"
@pointyhead1 cont. was your cherry pick. The "non-sequitur" was your strawman. Please don't ask me to provide examples of your outlandish claims. There are enough of them in here.
@uknowispeaksense hehehe, the tool doesn't know what a strawman is. He doesn't know what cherry- picking is.
If I reply to a statement made to me, he calls it "cherry picking".
He's good entertainment. I think I'll keep that troll. I don't often find one quite so stupid. Aerobique sends GayMuslimPride, now this one. This one is funnier.
@pointyhead1 Why did you remove the other statement? Too many spelling mistakes?
Well, obviously I'm not as in tune with the concepts of cherry picking and strawmen as you, but then, I'm not a climate change denier. I'm not going to bother with you anymore because you are a lost cause but one day you will wake up. So, go ahead, get the last word in. Claim some sort of victory. You win. You clearly are much smarter than I.
" am well aware that nasa has a formula for including the arctic. That's why so many people think NASAs data is superior to others, including Hadley and the Satellite sets, which leave a hole at the poles - exactly where the most intense warming is taking place."
Good point. Where "the most intense warming" is taking place, is where "no data" is coming from..
there are other indicators of temp besides thermometers, satellites and models.
since the arctic ice cap is losing mass at a historic rate, and the greenland and antarctic ice sheet are shrinking, we know that heat is going into that system. We also have thousands of other kinds of data from physical and bioligical systems that are responding consistent with warming.
seriously, man, the UHI thing has been so dead for so long, you really are embarrassing yourself.
@greenman3610 "there are other indicators of temp besides thermometers, satellites and models"
uh huh. Consistent with warming. but your claim is not just "warming", It's "the most intense warming" - precisely where the measuring stick you've been using, does not give data.
For you to be a denier of what is recognized by NASA is not doing you any good.
Satellites Pinpoint Drivers of Urban Heat Islands in the Northeast 12.13.10
new research
".... size, background ecology, and development patterns also combine... according to NASA scientists ..new research... American Geophysical Union meeting.
Summer land surface temperature of cities in the Northeast were an average of 7 °C to 9 °C (13°F to 16 °F) warmer than surrounding rural .... The complex phenomenon that drives up temperatures is called the urban heat island effect. "
greenman mocks the idea that UHI can affect ocean temp reported.
Has he got a lot to learn.
go to NASA and make your own map...you can ask to to use the standard 1200 km smooth..where land data is spread out 1200 KM over the ocean. See the red Antarctic ocean. then ask it to show the 250 km smooth..it goes grey...no data from land to fill in the ocean temp past 250 km.
"I think you should write a paper showing how Nasa does not understand their own data" I'm saying YOU made errors. For you to not admit this, tells us a lot.
Did I claim NASA does not understand ? No, greenman.
I was saying YOU GO TO NASA and look at the mapmaker. You can ask it to show the standard 1200 km smooth from land stations out into the ocean. When you ask it to show 250 km smoothing, it shows grey.
here is NASA's mapmaker where you can see how land station data is spread out over the ocean up to 1200 km. you can click on the choice of smoothing you want it to show - 250 km or standard 1200 km from land station out over the ocean
It's really about dialogue and honesty...why would you pretend that I said NASA does not understand it's own data, when my claim is that YOU do not understand ?
The IPCC took UHI into account, and added a 0.006°C per decade since 1900 level of uncertainty to account for UHI. End of story.
Source: IPCC 4th Assessment, p. 244
If you think the global temperature measurements of the past century are wrong, by all means, do the research, get peer reviewed, and get published. Peer-reviewed research is what the IPCC based its 0.006°C adjustment on, and who knows, maybe your work will be the basis for a different adjustment in the IPCC's 5th assessment.
@pointyhead1 : pull yo hed out yo azzz dawg. U needz to stop tryin 2 sound smarter dan UR dumb ass and jest continue munchin on muh kawk. Now bend ovah aghain <3
Look at the map. From Europe stretching all the way to China. Its warmer there than in North America. Think people? More land equals more sun heating the ground. This video proves climate change is real. Denial of Climate change is easy to do because most people don't understand. I didn't get it either but I know better now. I just deny the reasoning behind what is normal and not normal. Climate change is real but is it man caused? I deny that it is man caused.
It's not very clear what you are trying to dispute with your video.
...that UHI Effect does not exist ?
Jones claims .1 degree per decade in the timeframe for the Chinese area he studied. That is 1 degree per century. Jones is certainly not intentionally LOWBALLING it.
Deniers believe that there is no such thing as global warming, that the observed temperature change is an artifact of urban development growing around existing temperature measurement stations.
The fact that the greatest warming demonstrably exists far from urban centers, and that numerous studies have now shown that no bias exists, have long ago dispatched this canard from all but the most reality challenged corners of the denialosphere.
Deniers believe that there is no such thing as global warming, that the observed temperature change is an artifact of urban development growing around existing temperature measurement stations"
Well, you have an extreme statement there..."no global warming".
You said the teenager's claim was as what you showed from "Swindle" and "Christy" and neither make the claim "global warming does not exist" in the clips.
"The question of whether temperature is rising is not seriously debated "
That was not in question in my comments, you're simply smearing the issues now. That was not the issue here at all. Please restrain yourself.
You're saying that me suggesting that you've neglected some things, e.g. that maybe UHI Effect on some rural areas might be more than in some big cities, is like saying "Aliens from Zeta are manipulating temps".
greenman, try and see it from others' persective; there's lots of junk on the internet and in books. You might reasonably expect those with higher curiosity to question more..
Now, look at it another way for a sec.
Take London say 8 million/1900, what INCREASE in TREND of urban heating would there be, in a stagnating city ...population even declining perhaps ?
Now think of a small rural airport station becoming surrounded by Tim Hortons, gas stations,warehouses highway spaghetti.
clearly the greatest warming is taking place over arctic areas, and the West Antarctic peninsula is warming faster than any place on the planet. Do you really not understand that there are no urban heat islands in the middle of the arctic ocean?
@greenman3610 So you see, one of the first things to consider, is your data for the anomalies. from NASA. We want to know if UHI has been adjusted for already...and therefore would be invisible on your map.
hat's a first question...it would be really sick to pull a stupid stunt like that. I don't think you would. but I keep an open mind for error possibility
Comment removed
andreiuta171 1 month ago
In two years of searching i have not found even one piece of evidence in support of AGW. It`s like trying to find evidence for God. Everybody has evidence but they are all irrelevant.
andreiuta171 1 month ago
@andreiuta171
2 years? wow.
google much?
does the acronym IPCC mean anything to you?
might be a place to start and see what all the hubbub is about.
greenman3610 1 month ago
@greenman3610
you could also check
watch?v=yLYqzIhhT6o
greenman3610 1 month ago
@greenman3610 there is more evidence that supports the idea that global warming leads to co2 increase. if you find more co2 and a lot of heat you may assume that the co2 did that but that`s a far-fetched idea.
andreiuta171 1 month ago
@andreiuta171
so, you'll cite this evidence? that's the usual practice if you actually have any.
greenman3610 1 month ago
Comment removed
andreiuta171 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@greenman3610 well, i could use Al Goore`s graph on the correlation between co2 and temperature, which shows that co2 increase follows temperature rise but this graph seems a bit more interesting ncwatch.typepad.com/media/2008/02/call-al-gore-th.html .But if you study physical geography you will understand that it is normal for co2 to follow temperature rise. You will not need any graph to understand that, it`s basic science.
andreiuta171 1 month ago
@greenman3610 this tells all about man made global warming watch?v=Cx_PERZ8kdY&feature=related
andreiuta171 1 month ago
@andreiuta171
I have utterly crushed this BS meme here:
watch?v=c90nab5i-TQ
the narrator claims to use the ice core data of Richard Alley - to which Dr Alley directly responds that this distortion is "stupid".
Are you stupid, too, andreiuta?
greenman3610 1 month ago
@greenman3610 you haven`t crushed anything. those huge temperature swings are real (Richard Alley says) and it`s the same as the antarctica records so it`s global. Those swings cannot be anthropogenic and they are very cyclical. I`ve watched your link but i have to ask you: what did you utterly crushed? just because Alley says that co2 is to blame i have to believe it? there are thousands of people that say the same thing. thank god his data cannot be bought and can`t tell lies.
andreiuta171 1 month ago
@andreiuta171
Anyone who wishes to can watch my vid, read what Alley says, and decide for themselves who is telling the truth.
greenman3610 1 month ago
@andreiuta171: No doubt you've discerned Greenman's standard MO? He 1st attitudinizes on his opponents in a smug condescending manner, even when dealing scientists obviously far more knowledgable then him. 2nd he presents a fatuous simplistic interpretation of his oppenents position 3rd he presents mere models & conjectures put out by others as though they constituted real data based evidence. The notion that someones model of what might be happening ISN'T what IS happening is alien to him
VictorLepanto 1 month ago
@VictorLepanto That`s true. And this is how all AGW supporters behave. There is no room for debate with them, and that is not the scientific way. If you say anything against their beliefs you are crazy or stupid and they are right all the time no matter how powerful the evidence against them is. Just like a religion.
andreiuta171 1 month ago
@andreiuta171
All of my videos are copiously and transparently cited.
maybe one of these days you'll cite something tangible, attempt to rebut something, and actually begin a discussion, instead of merely bloviating.
Let me know when you're ready.
greenman3610 1 month ago
@greenman3610: We've all wasted enough or our lives making detailed critiques of YOUR bloviations. Demonstrating your strawman constructs of your opponents & your passing off mere speculations or "models" as real evidence is tiresome. My past experience w/ is enough for me to dismiss your similar efforts.
VictorLepanto 1 month ago
@VictorLepanto
a lot of words to say "I got nuthin'"
greenman3610 1 month ago
@greenman3610: You really are obtuse. I often wonder if you're even capable of reading the English language, you so utterly fail to understand what is addressed to you. You can pretend (atleast to yourself if no one else) that we've never attempted to converse on any other vidoe then this one. Even you know that isn't true. I've exposed how fatuous your videos are. It has no effect on your propaganda out put. You are the one who acts like a "DENIER." No matter how your arguments are refuted.
VictorLepanto 1 month ago
RealOldOne2 2 weeks ago
@andreiuta171: Most leftwing enthusiasms are a substitute for more conventional religions. It gives a sense of meaning & purpose to their lives. & "greenism" is a leftist scam. It is more properly called the watermelon movement. Politicians love "being green" for the same reason they love Keynesian economics. It justifies their controlling others handing privileges out to a few friends.
I'd like to see our boy Greenman explain Soyndra. That is what "green" is about, cronyism.
VictorLepanto 1 month ago
@greenman3610 well, i did use google a lot for the research. that is how i got to the ipcc official site and many other readings. but the means through which i got to the data is not that important.
andreiuta171 1 month ago
@Baerchenization; Here's some citation: Richard Lindzen's November 10 2010 testimony for the Congressional Record: "Do you accept the 50 temperature increase as irrefutable?" "Yes". " Is Carbon dioxide the primary DRIVING mechanism?" "Yes". Do you believe that humans are responsible for that increase in CO2?" "Yes". Howz that for more recent congressional hearings? ;P
nickschor1 1 month ago
I have come to where I am unwilling to discuss the AGW con as a serious scientific question. I will only discuss it as what it so manifestly is, a political swindle. It is a big political scam being run out of the U.N.
Lysenko is the very exact paradigm for this game. I have to wonder how many trained scientists in Russia knew Lysenko was full of it. I am sure most of the them did. They went along w/ it anyway. They didn't want to wind up in Siberia. Also, they wanted to earn a living.
VictorLepanto 1 month ago
@VictorLepanto
I am unwilling to discuss the AGW con as a serious scientific question"
tired of getting your ass kicked? I can understand. go full bore conspiracy - its safer and easier.
greenman3610 1 month ago
@VictorLepanto You are unable to discuss this or most likely any other issue because you are a scientifically illiterate cretin.
tooyjfwn 1 month ago
@tooyjfwn
right.
when you want to actually cite something to rebut the videos, let me know.
greenman3610 1 month ago
@greenman3610 I think he was talking to the other guy.
booley 1 month ago
@tooyjfwn: Whether or not I am scientifically illiterate, I am no more illiterate then this Greenman person. I've looked into the depths (such as they are) of his postings & found them utterly fatuous & I've discussed them in depth previously. I really have no interest in wasting my life peeling through the nonsense & showing his utter lack of substance.
He is obsessed & will ignore all contrary evidence.
He apparently doesn't even know who Lysenko is.
VictorLepanto 1 month ago
@VictorLepanto you`re absolutely right.
andreiuta171 1 month ago
The xylophone soundtrack reminds me of old Civilization games.
DataEntity 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@VictorLepanto: "The destruction of the environment, its improper or unselfish use, and the violent hoarding of the Earth's resources causes grievances, conflicts and wars, precisely because they are the consequences of an inhumane concept of development." Pope Benedict XVI, World Peace Day 2006. BTW, you don't have to resort to communism to mitigate CO2 emissions, the Paul VI Auditorium has been covered with 2,400 solar panels. Sounds like the Holy See sees the light....;)
nickschor1 2 months ago
@Victor Lepanto: "The destruction of the environment, its improper or unselfish use, and the violent hoarding of the Earth's resources causes grievances, conflicts and wars, precisely because they are the consequences of an inhumane concept of development." Pope Benedict XVI, World Peace Day 2006. BTW, you don't have to resort to communism to mitigate CO2 emissions, the Paul VI Auditorium has been covered with 2,400 solar panels. Sounds like the Holy See sees the light....;)
nickschor1 2 months ago
Google Nasa urban heat islands - see what you find. You will find that the clip you chose, the dude around 1.10min and Nasa agree (Nasa web site). Maybe you had something else in mind, but it is not there.
They now say that you won't even be able to detect the signal of human influence for some more 20-30 years. So it cannot be that big, is it? So the issue remains, nobody denies warming. The degree of human contribution to it is questioned.
Baerchenization 2 months ago
@Baerchenization
since NASA's lead atmospheric scientist testified to congress in 1988 that the signal of global warming had been detected, you're a little off. see
watch?v=YVh7z-0oo6o
and
watch?v=D6Un69RMNSw
Warming over the last century is about 0.8 degrees C - most of it human caused, according to the overwhelming body of science (including NASA)
The degree of human contribution is only questioned by a small clique of ideologically driven outliers
greenman3610 2 months ago
@greenman3610
I am not a little off, I am a little more up-to-date. 23 years, in a field where new findings are made every day - you need to try a bit harder. It is a tell-tale that you refered to 1988, instead of the most recent congressional hearing. The true view is of course that things have changed a bit over the years and what I said is not a cranky opinion, it is held by pro AGW scientists, only, it doesn't suit the black-n-white style of your advocacy.
Baerchenization 2 months ago
@Baerchenization
citation then, or go away, blowhard.
greenman3610 2 months ago
@greenman3610 I believe you've won that argument!
awlugosi 1 month ago
@greenman3610: That is too funny, you calling someone else a blowhard. You w/ your obsessive posting over this wretched neo-Lysenkoist fantasy. I think I am most angry w/ the hucksters @ the U.N. for how they've wasted so much of the lives of people like yourself. I just wish your lot would quit trying to ruin the rest of our lives over your obessions.
VictorLepanto 1 month ago
@VictorLepanto One problem here -- you aren't offering us any real evidence, just routinely dismissing Greenman's information like some king on his throne declaring what is "real" and what is "not". Just repeating "No" endlessly isn't evidence or even much of an argument. How about something more sophisticated? Links to scientific material? Give us good information and we'll believe. Instead, you act as though you shouldn't have to "lower" yourself to such practicalities.
Ranillon 1 month ago
@Baerchenization Citation needed on all of those lies of yours.
tooyjfwn 1 month ago
@tooyjfwn
Look at you :)
Moab Latif on the 20-30 years. What the guy says, well, I told you go to 1.10 - that doesn't need citation. What else needs a citation? That there are more up to date findings than 23 years ago?
Baerchenization 1 month ago
@Baerchenization
"nobody denies warming"
/watch?v=q20cnn8vOfg
These are the people in charge denying global warming
AndrianGA 2 months ago
Great video! But didn't you already cover this?
Bellantoni 2 months ago
@Bellantoni
this vid is 2 years old
greenman3610 2 months ago
If anything urban heat adds to total warming and the urban areas are now even hotter. Atlanta is one good example of overall high temps rising yet that city has been built the way it is mostly before the last decade. I can see where urban area contribute some heat all that Red in those other zones but not the cause of the total rise.
TheAlabamaCajun 2 months ago
I do not trust NASA, an organisation founded to put men into space & not a meteorological authority, as they are only seeking to get some of the AGW money the politicians are handing out.
You need to explain the sources of your illustrations better. A map w/ pretty swirly colors is NOT data. It is a MODEL. Once again you pass off mere models as though they were real.
VictorLepanto 2 months ago
@VictorLepanto
hello.
they put up the weather satellites, and read the data. Part of their mission is to understand our home planet.
as to this video, this is old, old news. as you may have read, the new temp research, put together by climate deniers - further debunked the Urban Heat effect, and confirmed rising global temps. surprising to them, but not to those familiar with the science.
watch?v=tciQts-8Cxo
greenman3610 2 months ago
@greenman3610: So you'd say the ambulance driver who drives the patient to brain or heart surgeon is as qualified to do the surgery as the surgeon. This is the kind of bait & switch approach you take to your propaganda. You raise a serious issue & then use some absurd non sequitor to confuse the issue. What I've learned is all the weather station reports are unreliable b/c no reliable standard of reporting is maintained.
VictorLepanto 2 months ago
@VictorLepanto
the whole point of my series is to point people to the primary resources. that's why denialists get so angry.
If you don't like NASA, try the National Academy of Sciences. Of any country. Or any of the world's prestigious scientific societies or universities.
The team that just debunked the "heat island" nonsense included this year's Nobel Physics prize winner.
Even the originator of the "heat island" meme, Anthony Watts, had to recently admit that the US temp data was accurate.
greenman3610 2 months ago
@greenman3610
If you have relevant citations, submit them. Simply being argumentative does not count here. I've cited sources, you should try it, too.
greenman3610 2 months ago
@greenman3610: If you have any references for Anthony Watts, you could simply point me to those or give me the quote of him repudiating his original position. You haven't done that, You are too funny dressing your own failure to present references as a demand for references. & I will remind you that you are the one presenting the positive claim & thus obliged to present evidence. I am immune to your burden shifting sophistry.
VictorLepanto 2 months ago
@VictorLepanto
sorry, I didn't realize you were so poorly informed.
google
Anthony Watts contradicted by Watts et al
greenman3610 2 months ago
@greenman3610: Thank you. Now you can present me w/ some reason to take this weather station data serious as a reliable scientific source of information. I have been presented w/ some very sound reasons to doubt this data & certainly feel justified in dismissing it as a basis for making the kinds of draconian policy inititiative you advocate. These stations are not maintained to any consistent standard. Frankly only remoted controlled & routinely calibrated stations could.
VictorLepanto 2 months ago
@VictorLepanto
if you don't like the weather stations, look at the satellite data. it shows warming.
so does the ocean data.
Sea level is rising, primarily, so far, due to warming.
The movements of animals, the blooming of plants, thousands of other natural cycles, including the polar icecaps, all changing consistent with warming.
greenman3610 2 months ago
@greenman3610: Talking to you is like listening to an old tobacco executive on the scientific evidence. Everything I've ever heard on the satellite data & ocean data directly contradicts what you say. Those English professors wouldn't have been talking about cooking the data if what you say is true. I've seen your videos on the ice caps. No matter how ofter you try to pass off models as actual evidence & are called on it, you won't stop.
VictorLepanto 2 months ago
@VictorLepanto
I cite sources. by all means, I invite you to source your claims, including "cooking the data", "satellite data", "ocean data'.
For instance, re temp data, see
watch?v=YVh7z-0oo6o
anyone can look at the satellite temp data on line, and see the overall rise.
or, google
nasa, key indicators
for ocean and ice info
or google, national snow and ice data center, sea ice faq
for more about arctic ice
greenman3610 2 months ago
@greenman3610: Once again, you show your utter lack of understanding for basic logic. Thus you can not grasp real science, & so you fall for the AGW con. YOU are the one making the positive claim, I'm merely obliged to refute what passes for evidence from you. Something I've repeatedly done to no effect w/ you. You habitually present models as though they were real evidence. It's all make pretend w/ you. I've mentioned Lysenko to you, do you know who he is, & why he relevant to the AGW con?
VictorLepanto 1 month ago
@VictorLepanto Yawn!
awlugosi 1 month ago
@awlugosi: No doubt you are easily bored. That is why your childish mind clings to fairy tales like Global Warming.
VictorLepanto 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Carbon tax is a disgusting crime against Humanity. CO2 whether man-made or otherwise doesn't drive global climate, it never has, it never will, the Sun does...
The Great Global Warming Swindle [Full Film]
watch?v=T8KgbUvsC_o
Galv140577 5 months ago
This should be called the crock of the week LMAO!
harp1925 6 months ago
@harp1925
uhmmm......
greenman3610 6 months ago
I see we have a Global Cooling denier here.
david222444 7 months ago
@david222444
global cooling:
watch?v=PLnJttkhDTM
greenman3610 7 months ago
Ah, Greenman, a true believer....
gourdonboy 8 months ago
@gourdonboy
should be easy for you to rebut.
I'll wait.
greenman3610 8 months ago
@gourdonboy im not sure people are denying that the world is getting warmer. just the cause.
thoughtpattern0 7 months ago
@thoughtpattern0
check these threads. There's plenty of people that say, despite the data, that the world is cooling, or about to cool.
greenman3610 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I present The Quick Glance Guide to Global Warming Part A:
Denial: oi52.tinypic.
com/35d2nie.jpg
Oceans: oi53.tinypic.
com/35b9g08.jpg
Thermometers: oi52.tinypic.
com/2agnous.jpg
Ice: oi52.tinypic.
com/2upvlvm.jpg
NikFromNYC 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I present The Quick Glance Guide to Global Warming Part B:
Earth: oi56.tinypic.
com/16ifevq.jpg
Authority: oi54.tinypic.
com/dny4nt.jpg
Prophecy: oi54.tinypic.
com/2hq5tae.jpg
Psychopathy: oi52.tinypic.
com/i56fsg.jpg
NikFromNYC 8 months ago
Flowering is induced by day length. Swallows arrive here on 20th May every year and right now it is damn cold. Could the length of day not initiate migration? I would be very surprised if temperature does. This would cause swallows to abandon their nests if the temperature fell below say 5 celcius at night and start migrating. Birds do not lie Humans do eg climategate.
david222444 8 months ago
@david222444
so youi're suggesting that the length of days is changing throughout the year? Some kind of abrupt alteration in speed of rotation that no one else has noticed?
write it up. Your nobel is waiting.
greenman3610 8 months ago
@greenman3610 I am suggesting nothing of the sort , it is a well known biological fact that day length induces flowering. Have you noticed that the days get longer in the summer? the Earth tilts towards the sun when its summer, nothing to do with speed of rotation lol
david222444 8 months ago
@david222444
you are suggesting that flowering times are changing due to a progressive change in the diurnal cycle that has somehow been missed by the astrophysics community.
some things are right. some things are wrong. some things are so divorced from reality, they do not even rise to the level of wrong.
greenman3610 8 months ago
@greenman3610 Yes every Biologist knows this ! try googling short and long day plants.Inceased Temperature will make plants grow faster ( along with increased co2 lol ). Flowering is induced by the time exposed to light. The green biosphere also reaches compensation point just after sunrise when no gases are exchanged from the atmosphere.ie co2 and o2 are balanced. ( photosynthesis = respiration ). Bet the data was taken then lol.
david222444 8 months ago
@david222444 Dude... They're comparing year to year data. Not on the same year... That would be silly nonsense.
T0B0KKE 8 months ago
i'm not sure your method of debunking the uhi hypothesis in this video is reliable. no offense, because i really enjoy your videos, but you seem to be guilty of doing the same sort of cherry-picking of data that you often accuse climate skeptics of doing. for example, you used the anomaly data for 2008. certainly, there are other factors, which you've often cited, which could explain the discrepancy, for example: el nino effects. (cont.)
cristoballs 11 months ago
@cristoballs further, if the 2008 anomaly data does contradict the uhi hypothesis, wouldn't that same data also contradict co2 hypothesis? i looked at similar map that displays co2 emissions, and compared with the same anomaly data, and there didn't appear to be any correlation between the two. based on your method of debunking, does this mean we should ignore co2 as a factor of climate change?
cristoballs 11 months ago
@cristoballs
Well, there was no el nino in 2008. Further, those effects would be seen in the eastern and central pacific, (where there are clearly no cities ) not in the arctic areas, which show the greatest warming. ( and where there are also clearly no cities)
There is no expected correlation between where the greatest sources of co2 are, ie the US and China, and where the greatest warming is (the arctic) since co2 is well mixed throughout the atmosphere.
greenman3610 11 months ago
@greenman3610 i didn't mean an el nino, in particular. i was only suggesting that there are other factors at play, that we can't just look at a two pics and determine that because there is no apparent relation between between the two then we can conclude uhi's don't play a factor in our temperature data, which is essentially what you did. if i run the fans and the furnace in my house at the same time, and my house has a net increase in temperature, it doesn't mean the fans aren't working.
cristoballs 11 months ago
@cristoballs
Well, if you have evidence that UHI has an actual effect on global temp data, then post it. The disinformation that has been circulated to suggest that somehow UHI has distorted temp data has long been discredited, except among the most in denial deniers. To simply say, "maybe there might be an effect" is no more credible than saying "it might be flying saucers or fairy dust"...
greenman3610 11 months ago
@greenman3610 fair enough... if i may play the devil's advocate, i would say one thing that has me concerned about the data that we do have from the data stations that were rated as "good" or "best", which were highlighted in one of your previous videos, is the convergence of data we get from 70 stations used with that of the over 1200 that were used before. what's even more incredible is the fact that several states were completely left out of the analyses. (cont.)
cristoballs 10 months ago
@cristoballs it's not as if warming trends are uniform, in fact some parts of the country even showed cooling or no change over the period you highlighted, so should we see and entirely different graph with the 70 data stations than we saw with all the data stations? i think this is something scientists... real scientists should be skeptical of.
cristoballs 10 months ago
Greenman you do great work.
Which clip shows the simulation of the Co2 molecule reacting to radiation? I'm having trouble finding it.
again, thanks
MrWhylie 11 months ago
@MrWhylie
try this.
watch?v=yLYqzIhhT6o
It's obviously way too simplistic, but this vid has the basics.
greenman3610 11 months ago
@greenman3610
much thanks and respect.
MrWhylie 11 months ago
The debate is over.
Global warming was a scam.
Not just faulty science.
Deliberate fraud conceived to make a few people rich, tax others into poverty, and give globalist organizations power to dominate poor countries.
txsray1 11 months ago
@txsray1
no science, no fact, no evidence, no citation, coupled with absolute certainty.
The perfect denier post.
greenman3610 11 months ago
@greenman3610: Also kinda ironic given the fact that many of the people, companies, and organizations who funded CC denial were often guilty of the very things that txsray1 talked about.
MiracleMile90 8 months ago
@MiracleMile90
denialists have a well known irony deficiency.
greenman3610 8 months ago
@greenman3610: I know, right? Although, TBH, I was once a big-time skeptic and part denialist myself at one point, so it is kinda sombering to look at all this now.
MiracleMile90 8 months ago
Meteorologist Joseph DAleo and computer expert E. Michael Smith have found that NASA & NOAA have strategically deleting cherry-picked, cooler-reporting weather observation stations to support AGM. NOAA had deleted from its datasets all but 1,500 of the 6,000 stations in service. Their primary accomplices are the scientists at GISS, who manipulated the data by replacing data from stations in colder areas with readings from stations located in much warmer locales.
cupera1 1 year ago
@cupera1
this is a conspiracy theory with no foundation.
To believe this, you would have to believe that arctic ice is melting due to magic fairy dust.
google
Assessing global surface temperature reconstructions
and
Why are there fewer weather stations and what's the effect?
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 I do believe that this melting has happened 100's of this before and will happen 100's of times more in the future. What I do not believe is suddenly the man has this much of an effect this cycle of warming.
by cheery picking out only the stations that support a theory and discarding all the ones the disprove it make your con much easier to pull off.
cupera1 1 year ago
@cupera1
sorry, but your opinion has no basis in fact.
The paleo record is clear as to how the earth responds to increased greenhouse gases.
Unless the laws of physics have been repealed, it will continue to do so in the future.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 that there has never been a warming and cooling cycle in the history of the planet? that is astounding!!
Please tell me why there is a 500-800 year lag in in an increase in temperature to an increase in CO2
cupera1 1 year ago
@cupera1 "that there has never been a warming and cooling cycle in the history of the planet? that is astounding!!"
Did I say that?
Of course there have been cycles.
Orbital cycles explained here:
watch?v=-NQPolcYoIc
Solar Cycles described here: watch?v=_Sf_UIQYc20
65 million years recapped here:
watch?v=ZGFAWzjO378
"800 year lag" crock explained here:
watch?v=hWJeqgG3Tl8 best to watch all the vids to avoid this kind of embarrassment. I'm here to help.
greenman3610 1 year ago
Greenman, please do tell us how NOAA corrects for UHI, OK ?
You're not just making phony misinforming videos, are you ? You're not essentially just lying to us, are you , greenman ?
Then tell us about NOAA and how they correct. You made claims, greenman. So tell us how NOAA deals with UHI.
We'll accept just for argument that they are not a political action org and think of them as a scientific org.
So tell us.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
Comment removed
pointyhead1 1 year ago
at 1:26 listen to greenman's effusions.
"could every pro sci org on the planet really have missed...'
No, they did not miss. but other than GISS ( which applies some very poor effort ) how is it COMPENSATED for ? Terrible GISS adjustments...outside of the USA, NASA adjusts UPWARD for UHI.
....and that is all Greenman is selling. Garbage. Innuendo. False claims. .
pointyhead1 1 year ago
I'm sorry, but isn't temperature change due to urbanisation still anthropogenitic global warming?
gamesbok 1 year ago
@gamesbok said:
"isn't temperature change due to urbanisation still anthropogenitic GW"
Yes it is, and good question.gamesbok
However reading the signal from that, spreading that onto everything else is not correct.
it's bogus science.
It's like if I want to know the overall room temp and l put the thermometer in a good spot on the wall but later someone installs a hot air vent under it.
It will be reading high. because of the position/location.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 You don't say. I guess nobody ever thought of that before. I've been recording ambient temperature from inside my wife's ceramic kiln.
Here in UK we have temperature records back to 1649. Imagine, nobody thought to get genuine readings in all that time.
Forests are cooler than heathland because of higher transporation rates, mountains cooler because adiabatic expansion. Every location has idiocyncratic features. The idea that science is unaware of this is absurd.
gamesbok 1 year ago
@gamesbok said "The idea that science is unaware of this is absurd."
Yes it is absurd.
Please then look for how your scientists over there ACCOUNT FOR IT and make the corresponding adjustments.
You find out and come back, Smartypants.
This should be fun...'cause they DON'T. GISS does. Differently in USA than outside USA.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 'Differently in USA than outside USA.' I'm sure of that. We have Darwin's portrait on the bank notes here.
gamesbok 1 year ago
@gamesbok You just don't know. You are now making a fool of yourself. Go check. Do that for yourself...instead of assuming.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 Watch him say they adjust. but they do not adjust the temperature that was read. They adjust their "certainty". hehe
GISS at least makes an attempt to correct for it. However, outside of the US where it is under better scrutiny, it just as often adjusts up, instead of down.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 this is from Brohan 2006 analysis
"The previous analysis of urbanisation effects in the HadCRUT dataset [Folland et al., 2001] recommended a 1 sigma uncertainty "
Therefore they do not say they correct the temp for UHI. They merely say they are very slightly "less sure".
pointyhead1 1 year ago
Greenman,
Have you noticed yet that all of Africa's brightly lit areas together, add up to about as much as Canada's prairie provinces ?
Our 3 prairie provinces ( center/ left of Canada) has 6 million population.
Africa has a billion, rapidly urbanizing. but they are poor. Do they burn the lights at night ? Maybe not so much, eh ? Sometimes the municipal water supply is even shut off at night, you know.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1
they are poor - which is why they need renewable energy - see my blog post
google
crock Small Solar Changes lives in Rural Third World
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 It seems the notions of nightlights being a good enough proxy for urbanization, is floundering a bit now.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1
I think it's a pretty good rough proxy.
But you don't really need one. There are no urban areas in the arctic ocean - I don't get why that's a mystery to you.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 To your funny bit here: "But you don't really need one. There are no urban areas in the arctic ocean
- I don't get why that's a mystery to you."
It's not a mystery to me, Greenman. I explained how GISS spreads out land values over the ocean. in some cases it spans thousands of km between land masses. Less data comes from the ocean itself.
It's there at NASA for you to see. Go look at NASA, instead of listening to Al Gore.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
Comment removed
pointyhead1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@greenman3610 said: "I think it's a pretty good rough proxy."
No doubt you do.. but which study says your idea of laying one map over the other is a legit method of showing what you claim you show ?
See where I'm going with this? Sure you do.
Why aren't you working at NASA, with abilities like that ?
To dismiss UHI all with a wave of the hand !.
Or was it even legit to do ? hmmmm ?
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1
I am well aware that nasa has a formula for including the arctic. That's why so many people think NASAs data is superior to others, including Hadley and the Satellite sets, which leave a hole at the poles - exactly where the most intense warming is taking place.
Nevertheless, every data set shows warming. To hear it verbatim on video from even the "skeptic" scientists like Spencer and Christy, go here
watch?v=PLnJttkhDTM
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610said
"I am well aware that nasa has a formula for including the arctic"
...other sets... which leave a hole at the poles
"Nevertheless, every data set shows warming"
Umm, you offer a non-sequitur.
You were asking me essentially how an ocean can possibly get values reflecting urbanization.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 oh you're good. you are actually cherry picking a response and building a strawman with it. All you need to do now is make an outlandish claim that greenman is part of a huge carbon tax scam conspiracy and you have the big three tactics (cherrypicking, strawman and attack the messenger)...and in such a short space of time. well done. well done. you have, through your own sense of....whatever it is... proven your worth as an AGW denier.
uknowispeaksense 1 year ago
@uknowispeaksense said;
" oh you're good. you are actually cherry picking a response and building a strawman with it. All you need to do now is make an outlandish claim'
Thanks for your attempt at input, "unknowinglyspeakingnonsense", but as to what you speak about - well, you offered ZERO instances no examples, to support your wild claim.
Try to find an example of what you are talking about and then tell us with evidence in hand.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 Hmm nice attempt at mucking around with my name. very clever. a little childish though, but then....
uknowispeaksense 1 year ago
@uknowispeaksense ye3s, it's about as childish as posting false accusations which you do not attempt to support.
you deserved nothing more.
Attempt to show support for your false claim and you may get a decent reply, .
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 Mate I don't need to back it up. I'm trying on the denier way of arguing and you know, its kind of refreshing. How about, you're full of shit. Everyone knows the globe is warming. I read so on some website somewhere so it must be true. Wow, that feels really good, not having to explain myself. Oh, gee it was hot today! So much for no global warming. AND IF I TYPE IT IN CAPS IT MUST ALSO BE TRUE. Wow, I can see why clowns like you go this way. Its so easy to be lazy.
uknowispeaksense 1 year ago
@uknowispeaksense "Mate I don't need to back it up"
well, then, no more replies to such a loser, who makes accusations and cannot back them.
You'll just have to continue being a know-nothing troll who is frightened to say anything on topic.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@uknowispeaksense hehe, numbskull, you meant to say it was cold today, so no global warming.
If you cannot even get such simple mockery right, you must be quite the tool indeed.
""Oh, gee it was hot today! So much for no global warming. "
What a buttwipe. Bye now. If you still have a headache, call someone else in the morning
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 idiot. I am demonstrating the simplistic denier way of arguing to argue that there is global warming. If you cannot understand such simple mockery then you definately are a tool. As for not backing up my accusations, I don't need to because everything I have accused you of is laid bare in your posting in here but here goes. "I am well aware that nasa has a formula for including the arctic" ...other sets... which leave a hole at the poles "Nevertheless, every data set shows warming"
uknowispeaksense 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 cont. was your cherry pick. The "non-sequitur" was your strawman. Please don't ask me to provide examples of your outlandish claims. There are enough of them in here.
uknowispeaksense 1 year ago
Comment removed
pointyhead1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@uknowispeaksense hehehe, the tool doesn't know what a strawman is. He doesn't know what cherry- picking is.
If I reply to a statement made to me, he calls it "cherry picking".
He's good entertainment. I think I'll keep that troll. I don't often find one quite so stupid. Aerobique sends GayMuslimPride, now this one. This one is funnier.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 Why did you remove the other statement? Too many spelling mistakes?
Well, obviously I'm not as in tune with the concepts of cherry picking and strawmen as you, but then, I'm not a climate change denier. I'm not going to bother with you anymore because you are a lost cause but one day you will wake up. So, go ahead, get the last word in. Claim some sort of victory. You win. You clearly are much smarter than I.
uknowispeaksense 1 year ago
@greenman3610 said
" am well aware that nasa has a formula for including the arctic. That's why so many people think NASAs data is superior to others, including Hadley and the Satellite sets, which leave a hole at the poles - exactly where the most intense warming is taking place."
Good point. Where "the most intense warming" is taking place, is where "no data" is coming from..
So that's how you know.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1
there are other indicators of temp besides thermometers, satellites and models.
since the arctic ice cap is losing mass at a historic rate, and the greenland and antarctic ice sheet are shrinking, we know that heat is going into that system. We also have thousands of other kinds of data from physical and bioligical systems that are responding consistent with warming.
seriously, man, the UHI thing has been so dead for so long, you really are embarrassing yourself.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 "there are other indicators of temp besides thermometers, satellites and models"
uh huh. Consistent with warming. but your claim is not just "warming", It's "the most intense warming" - precisely where the measuring stick you've been using, does not give data.
For you to be a denier of what is recognized by NASA is not doing you any good.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1
I think it's clear that nasa and I are on the same page.
you're really reaching now.
greenman3610 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@greenman3610 "I think it's clear that nasa and I are on the same page."
Oh yeah ! You're a riot.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
Global WARMING IS A RELIGION.
elbuggo 1 year ago
Satellites Pinpoint Drivers of Urban Heat Islands in the Northeast 12.13.10
new research
".... size, background ecology, and development patterns also combine... according to NASA scientists ..new research... American Geophysical Union meeting.
Summer land surface temperature of cities in the Northeast were an average of 7 °C to 9 °C (13°F to 16 °F) warmer than surrounding rural .... The complex phenomenon that drives up temperatures is called the urban heat island effect. "
pointyhead1 1 year ago
why are the other planets around us warming? is it becuause of our greenhouse gases?...dout it...do more research outside of nasa..
TheWeasel420 1 year ago
@TheWeasel420
the "other planets are warming" crock
watch?v=BSXgiml5UwM
Tell you what. I'll struggle along with NASA.
You can keep Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.
greenman3610 1 year ago
greenman said:
"Nasa's map. I merely show where the cities are. It's really not complicated at all.
You are apparently arguing for urban effects in the middle of the ocean."
and "not much need to remove urban effects from arctic ocean.
why are you struggling with that?"
These comments show core "not knowingness" of greenman.
Now go to NASA mapmaker and see how land station temps are spread 1200 km into the ocean.
Not addressing his errors shows lack of basic truthfulness
pointyhead1 1 year ago
greenman mocks the idea that UHI can affect ocean temp reported.
Has he got a lot to learn.
go to NASA and make your own map...you can ask to to use the standard 1200 km smooth..where land data is spread out 1200 KM over the ocean. See the red Antarctic ocean. then ask it to show the 250 km smooth..it goes grey...no data from land to fill in the ocean temp past 250 km.
greenman is such a poseur.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
go here to check on this way land temperatures are spread out over the ocean, raising temp reports.
ht tp: //data. giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 : Buttt sekz wit me again boo ? <3
GayMuslimPride 1 year ago
@pointyhead1
I think you should write a paper showing how Nasa does not understand their own data.
I'd be interested to read it, so let us know when that gets published.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 said:
"I think you should write a paper showing how Nasa does not understand their own data" I'm saying YOU made errors. For you to not admit this, tells us a lot.
Did I claim NASA does not understand ? No, greenman.
I was saying YOU GO TO NASA and look at the mapmaker. You can ask it to show the standard 1200 km smooth from land stations out into the ocean. When you ask it to show 250 km smoothing, it shows grey.
What about that do you not understand ?
pointyhead1 1 year ago
here is NASA's mapmaker where you can see how land station data is spread out over the ocean up to 1200 km. you can click on the choice of smoothing you want it to show - 250 km or standard 1200 km from land station out over the ocean
ht tp: //data. giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@greenman3610
It's really about dialogue and honesty...why would you pretend that I said NASA does not understand it's own data, when my claim is that YOU do not understand ?
pointyhead1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@greenman3610 "I think you should write a paper showing how Nasa does not understand their own data."
I think you know you've been caught. NASA site shows that you do not understand what you have been talking about.
It shows how the ocean temp may be reported from land temps up to 1200 km away. That is what you did not understand.
Your video is toast. You seem to know that now.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
The IPCC took UHI into account, and added a 0.006°C per decade since 1900 level of uncertainty to account for UHI. End of story.
Source: IPCC 4th Assessment, p. 244
If you think the global temperature measurements of the past century are wrong, by all means, do the research, get peer reviewed, and get published. Peer-reviewed research is what the IPCC based its 0.006°C adjustment on, and who knows, maybe your work will be the basis for a different adjustment in the IPCC's 5th assessment.
robopaladin 1 year ago
@robopaladin hehehe, more misdirection..
you talk about uncertainty, not about actuality of measured temps and adjustments.
You do not know enough to comment intelligently on the matter.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 : pull yo hed out yo azzz dawg. U needz to stop tryin 2 sound smarter dan UR dumb ass and jest continue munchin on muh kawk. Now bend ovah aghain <3
GayMuslimPride 1 year ago
"greenman said:
"You are apparently arguing for urban effects in the middle of the ocean."
and
"not much need to remove urban effects from arctic ocean. why are you struggling with that?"
These are 2 very enlightening posts by greenman.
What NASA GISS does:They use *land temps* to cover the ocean - mixed with stations reporting from the ocean .
Check it out...the red blotches grow and move out over the ocean as well. compare
greenman missed something this obvious ~
pointyhead1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
greenman said:
"You are apparently arguing for urban effects in the middle of the ocean."
and
"not much need to remove urban effects from arctic ocean.
why are you struggling with that?"
These are 2 very enlightening posts by greenman.
What NASA GISS does to get ocean temps:
They use *land temps* to cover the ocean - mixed with stations reporting from the ocean .
The smoothing takes place for 250 km or 1200 km radius.
Check it out...the red blotch moves out to sea
pointyhead1 1 year ago
Look at the map. From Europe stretching all the way to China. Its warmer there than in North America. Think people? More land equals more sun heating the ground. This video proves climate change is real. Denial of Climate change is easy to do because most people don't understand. I didn't get it either but I know better now. I just deny the reasoning behind what is normal and not normal. Climate change is real but is it man caused? I deny that it is man caused.
feelzthelove 1 year ago
google "record high temperatures by state".
its all 1930's,
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1
the 1930s were hot in the US. This is not in dispute.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610
It's not very clear what you are trying to dispute with your video.
...that UHI Effect does not exist ?
Jones claims .1 degree per decade in the timeframe for the Chinese area he studied. That is 1 degree per century. Jones is certainly not intentionally LOWBALLING it.
What is it that you do not believe ?
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1
The video is clear.
Deniers believe that there is no such thing as global warming, that the observed temperature change is an artifact of urban development growing around existing temperature measurement stations.
The fact that the greatest warming demonstrably exists far from urban centers, and that numerous studies have now shown that no bias exists, have long ago dispatched this canard from all but the most reality challenged corners of the denialosphere.
greenman3610 1 year ago
greenman3610 said:
"The video is clear.
Deniers believe that there is no such thing as global warming, that the observed temperature change is an artifact of urban development growing around existing temperature measurement stations"
Well, you have an extreme statement there..."no global warming".
You said the teenager's claim was as what you showed from "Swindle" and "Christy" and neither make the claim "global warming does not exist" in the clips.
So you're denying UHI ?
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@greenman3610 "..fact..greatest warming..exists far from urban centers.. numerous studies have now shown that no bias exists"
greenman waves it away . too bad greenman did not present anything from those studies.
Now.
greenie sez: "map of the city lights...this is where UHIeffect is to show up. Don't ya think?"
"Don't ya think" is not sufficient.
Possible that UHIeffect is to be found in rural areas/small towns experiencing new urbanization ?
More so than in established cities ?
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1
It's also possible that aliens from planet zeta are manipulating temperature from the fourth dimension. But not likely.
The question of whether temperature is rising is not seriously debated outside of denialist fever swamps, Glenn beck and Fox and friends.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610
"The question of whether temperature is rising is not seriously debated "
That was not in question in my comments, you're simply smearing the issues now. That was not the issue here at all. Please restrain yourself.
You're saying that me suggesting that you've neglected some things, e.g. that maybe UHI Effect on some rural areas might be more than in some big cities, is like saying "Aliens from Zeta are manipulating temps".
Is that so ? heehee. yeah, baby. come on !
pointyhead1 1 year ago
greenman, try and see it from others' persective; there's lots of junk on the internet and in books. You might reasonably expect those with higher curiosity to question more..
Now, look at it another way for a sec.
Take London say 8 million/1900, what INCREASE in TREND of urban heating would there be, in a stagnating city ...population even declining perhaps ?
Now think of a small rural airport station becoming surrounded by Tim Hortons, gas stations,warehouses highway spaghetti.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@greenman3610 Please show where your procedure of map overlay is scientifically supported.
If it's not, why not ?
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1
clearly the greatest warming is taking place over arctic areas, and the West Antarctic peninsula is warming faster than any place on the planet. Do you really not understand that there are no urban heat islands in the middle of the arctic ocean?
greenman3610 1 year ago
Comment removed
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@greenman3610
Sorry, but your reply is not responsive to any of the questions being asked.
A similarly deceptive answer would be for me to ask you, " Do you really believe from that global map, that the ARCTIC Is warmer than the EQUATOR ?"
hahaha.
Let's not get silly like that, OK ? Thanks.
NOW. Is there any scientifically documented support for your overlaying of the map as you did in order to reach those conclusions?
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@greenman3610 So you see, one of the first things to consider, is your data for the anomalies. from NASA. We want to know if UHI has been adjusted for already...and therefore would be invisible on your map.
hat's a first question...it would be really sick to pull a stupid stunt like that. I don't think you would. but I keep an open mind for error possibility
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1
not my data. Nasa's data.
Nasa's map. I merely show where the cities are. It's really not complicated at all.
You are apparently arguing for urban effects in the middle of the ocean.
greenman3610 1 year ago