@hengistmcstone supporting evidence :)). these people have just explained to you how they did their research. how dumb can you be? do your own research and don`t take sides unless you have done that research. btw, you may also want to see this watch?v=8mxmo9DskYE&feature=endscreen&NR=1 Peter and his dad did a great job but this will broaden your views a little more.
1 /2 Obama was allowed to stop offshore drilling gas prices are expected to increase yet another $5 a gallon, because we would grow dependent upon foreign nations we are not allies with in order to provide our oil. They would price gouge w/ gas prices increasing to $10/gal!Cap and Trade (American Power Act) would increase gas prices increase by $2.58 a gallon according to George C. Marshall Institute& taxes on the average household up to $3200 according to the RNC .
1 /2 Cap and Trade (American Power Act) would increase gas prices increase by $2.58 a gallon according to George C. Marshall Institute& taxes on the average household up to $3200 according to the RNC . Obama was allowed to stop offshore drilling gas prices are expected to increase yet another $5 a gallon, because we would grow dependent upon foreign nations we are not allies with in order to provide our oil. They would price gouge w/ gas prices increasing to $10/gal!
new evidence just in from NASA; Satellite on UHI Effect
"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 areas over a three year period,"
Actually Global warming due to co2 has been disproved. Only takes a little digging. Nice work guys btw. You guys are better at this science than me =P Your next video look at the data for earth's climate over million years or ten million. Correlation of earth's temp and the sun and sun spots. Or earths co2 level and it's correlation or to earth's temp. Sorry i get fired up about co2 hoax.
Did you talk to NOAA and GISS about what other corrections need to be made for changes in equipment, locations etc?
BTW you are aware the NOAA and GISS make a correction for this effect? When they analyse the urban and rural sites separately they get the same result.
PS there are those that will believe that this disprove AGW. They should ask themselves what urban areas are out in the middle of the oceans where the buoy data show consistent warming too.
"They should ask themselves what urban areas are out in the middle of the oceans where the buoy data show consistent warming too"
You can go to NASA site. It shows that land station temperatures are smoothed 1200 km out over the ocean. You can ask the mapmaker to do the 1200 km standard or 250 km smooth...when you do 250 Km, the red hot ocean turns grey...from no data
go and find out, drkstrong . ht tp: //data. giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/
@pointyhead1 Google "Monthly Global Ocean Temperature Anomalies (degrees C)"
Go down to the page to the link by the same name (2/3 of the way down) and click on that - and you will see the data from 1880 on. note it starts largely negative and ends uniformly positive.
For how it is calculated - rad the background information and folow the link to the Smith et al paper.
@pointyhead1 As you know YouTube does not allow citations. I gave you enough infoprmation in 3 clicks to get all the information you need to show that the oceans are warming at the same time (and at a different rate than the land and atmosphere as predicted).
@drkstrong thanks. OK. number one..are you sure you are not changing the subject of our discussion? We were discussing NASA GISS gistemp maps, right ?
How many thousands of cold weather monitoring stations have been closed over the past few years to help get the desired temperature increases in their data sets?
Junk food, junk media and junk science are all turning our planet into junk.
A barrel floating in the ocean will grow a seaweed farm. It would be easy to create rainforest sized algae farms mid ocean. The seaweed farms would photosynthesis, as well as the lifeforms themselves would be made of carbon.
Cheap. Proactive. Harmless.
Also mid ocean seaweed (algae) farms could be towed to counties in need for emergency food fuel.
No downside.
Build seaweed farms from shore and tow them out to sea and anchor them. Polluting companies could sponsor the low costs.
Molecular Geneticist. Had a lot of chemical thermodynamics, biophysical chemistry, calculus etc. This was not a global analysis, only a small comparison of two sets of data.
petitionproject (dot) org names are NOT 'made up'. You can go to the site and look up the names for any given state then search on them. Pick a few at random and see what you get.
I've been screaming for years - WHY USE TAINTED DATA AT ALL? The climate hacks at NASA and NOAA say they can ~correct~ for the urban heating but people like me say - WHY BOTHER? Why not just throw out the urban data altogether? There are enough rural stations around the country to get a reliable aggregate and THAT is the only temperature record data worth using. I always knew man-made global warming was a hoax but now I have reason to doubt there was any significant global warming anyway.
Re: Petition Project ... the numbers are NOT "made up" ... you can view the names by state ... I added mine (the process is neither easy nor quick). You make an online request to be added, including certain information about your education and background that qualifies you to be added. You are then mailed some more material and respond by mail. Only then, after your responses have been verified, can your name be added. The warmists continue to lie about this petition. That's all they have.
Great video guys. If I use your research in a debate, one of the obvious criticisms would be that you cherry-picked the locations that you analyzed. Were these the only 28 pairs that met your criteria? Using your same size criteria, have you done a more general analysis of all U.S. rural sites and all urban sites? That would be interesting.
We are trying to look at rural sites that have long histories at the moment (at least 150 that are at least 70 km away from urban sites. There may be an interesting effect of latitude on temperatures in the US. Some locations get warmer, some stay the same and some get colder. But there may be a pattern. There is also an issue with the cyclic nature of the rise and fall of the mean annual temp over the years. There appears to be about a 70 year cycle and it must be carefully considered .
No, there's no a 70 year cycle, and it's pretty dumb to insinuate that from a statistically insignificant grouping of 70 year periods. The post-1930s cooling was due to the increase in aerosols from coal-burning power plants, in particular SOx (the primary cause of volcanic winter). Once we started scrubbing them, this temporary masking effect was halted.
I would like to see these guys do a follow up with US National Average Corn yields and CO2 levels.. Nat Avg Corn Yields in 1900 were around 27 bu per acre.. today it is over 160.. any connection?
For what? For (using incorrect methods) "proving" that the US hasn't warmed on average -- a conclusion of the IPCC? What's the logic -- "Haha! I disproved you by showing that what you said is true!"
Most of the warming that has occurred so far is in the arctic. The US makes up a tiny fraction of the world's surface, and according to all three major climate records (GISS, CRU, and NOAA), is only just now surpassing its 1930s peak.
Yes, actually, I have. Not all of the reports, but about half of the AR4 technical reports.
Of course the temperature change from North America was due to the high latitudes. First off, Canada has significantly more land mass than the US, and secondly, EVERY dataset shows most of the 20th century temperature anomalies concentrated in the high latitudes.
I don't have the AR4 reports on here, but I'm pretty sure "A closer look at United States and global surface temperature change" is cited.
Please cite refs. for increased anomolies vs latitude. Im interested.
BTW, Im not a CC *denier*, but I do believe the urban data has contaminated and exaggerated the warming. Its obvious that the urban effects have NOT been CORRECTLY *detrended*or they would agree closer. Plotting corrected, adjusted, combined, homogenized, fiddled or otherwise tortured data shows this.
Any real *global* warming should show up in the rural stations alone, if indeed the warming has been *global*.
Using sites that have *urbanized*( incr therm mass & extra heat sources) contaminates the *global* signal by introducing very *localized* temp effects, which *bias* the overall data toward warming.
Example: I put 6 temp stations on my 640 acres to measure long-term climate change. Later I build a greenhouse around one of the stations. The other 5 temps dont change over time, but the avg goes up because of the higher temps of the GH station. Has climate changed on my sq mile of the globe? No!
Now, instead of the greenhouse, I build my house next to that station, surround it with blacktop, put my central AC unit right under it & build a big heavy brick bbq beside it. Over time, the other 5 temps stay constant but avg temp goes up because my *urban* station temp increased. Has climate changed on my sq mile of the globe? No. Is it proper to *homogenize* the stations and change temps of the other 5? No. The true measure of climate change would be found by eliminating my *urbanized* data.
BOTTOM LINE: to *ACCURATELY* determine long term climate(temp) change, URBAN SITES SHOULD NOT BE USED. IPCC denies a UHI *contamination* problem, but they are wrong.
NOAA is setting up a new U.S. Climate Reference Network for the express purpose of detecting the national signal of climate change.
Google USCRN, then look at the photos of ALL 120 stations. THEY ARE ALL RURAL! WHY? Because climate scientists KNOW that urban sites contaminate the data over time. Case closed.
Nice piece by the kid, illustrating the heat island effect. Which scientists have been closely measuring for at least 25 years, and for which they always apply corrections. Y'all did know that, right?
Remember, despite some of the conspiracy theories out there, scientists are neither stupid or agenda-driven. They have very closely monitored urban heat islands, the sun, and volcanoes ever since the beginning. That's why we know none of those things are the cause of the current warming.
It's easier to pretend that scientists are stupid and that the lay-person is a genius who can come up with original, not completely obvious theories like UHI. Sigh...
NOAA removed UHI correction from its data. GISS applies a correction based on satellite measurements of nighttime light output (not optimal).
Scientists are not stupid but, as Climategate shows, they are agenda driven.
Even though the sun shows better correlation to global temp, it was dismissed NOT because it was disproven to be an effect but because no mechanism was found to model its effect. A group of scientists have recently published a paper describing a possible mechanism.
Stevea526, NOAA applies corrections alright, but curiously they always serve to increase the warming. Of the five adjustments that they currently apply to the filtered raw data, only one (the Urban or UHI adjustment) lowers the temperature data. The other four raise the temperature data, two of them dramatically so.
@KarenRei, I don't know to whom your last post was directed, but the demand for peer-reviewed research has become the great warmist cop-out. You know full well that the AGW establishment, as personified by Jones, et al, have made it extraordinarily difficult for skeptics to get their papers peer reviewed or published.
@KarenRei, so as someone who seems to know her stuff, please argue your case with the facts. Given the hyper-political environment and the antagonism toward skeptics in the AGW debate, neither possession of peer-reviewed studies or lack thereof means anything.
You two rock. Perhaps a formula could be developed to calculate the UHI effect based on population and area, and then used to adjust the urban site readings.
Love the Metheny background music, too. Did Big Oil pay for the CD it came from (haha, that was a joke)?
I don't know. I have tried to find matched sites for the rest of the world but have not been able to find any that have continuous data that goes back this far or have two sites within the 100 km limit. I am trying to do another analysis using only rural sites that are at least 100 km away from urban sites with populations over 100,000. Again there are some in the US but very few in the rest of the world that have good continuous data.
Thanks for taking the time with your presentation. It was very professional.
Ive learned that if we pave the roads with sand (tan) colored asphalt, reducing the amount of absorbed light+heat. Also painting asphalt shingles white using marine grade paint, this will reflecting light back into the sky! Could this reduce heat island problems. What is your opinion?
The results don't surprise me. Cities are basically gigantic heatsinks. Asphalt roads blasted by the sun for 12 hours and then it slowly releases the heat during the night (this is why so many raccoons wander around country roads, they're attracted to the dissipating heat.)
If people want to talk about global warming then we might as well talk about creationism too.. both are junk science.
We need to stick to the MAIN issue here, which is that GW science is a bunch of crap. Please don't try to link it to creationism, as that is what the GW crowd will try to do in order to divide and conquer those of us who want truth on this AGW crap.
And the reason I say this to you is it's my opinion that it's DARWINISM 'science' that is much more like this GW Hoax, you know, like Piltdown Man-Made GW.
We would expect that growing cities would release more heat. Especially because of the loose of vegetation, being replaced by pavement. I don't think there is enough city areas to have much effect on global warming. Global warming is a natural cycle. As historical data proves.
I have been looking at a bunch of rural and urban sites, and I had no trouble at all in finding many rural sites with increasing temperature trends. I just roamed around the US picking sites at random, but most of the rural sites had increasing trends. I also found many stations in Africa, Asia, and South America even though you said that most stations were in the US. Same thing around the world -- most of the rural sites I picked at random showed an increasing trend.
What we are doing is looking at two matched populations. The US is really the only place you can find enough matched sites(within 100 km of each other) with continuous readings that go back over 100 years. This just indicates that the rural sites may more accurately represent what the temperature trends may be. Including Urban sites in the calculations on a global scale may be forcing the overall temperature calculations upward.
Yes, but did you get an average of many different rural sites, and did you do an extensive analysis? Otherwise your assessment of finding "many" or "more" rural sites with increasing trends than decreasing trends is only anecdotal.
No, just about 20 with maybe 15 increasing and the others steady. It has been done by researchers with no essential difference between urban and rural. Also, when you look at maps of the geographical distrubution of warming, the greatest warming is in the arctic, northern asia, antarctic coastal (not interior) points, the Brazilian rain forest, the Sahara Desert, several off-shore areas, and other areas that are essentially rural. So there has to be more to it than just urban heat effects.
I agree that the unadjusted set would be the better one to use but it added a great deal more work. The combined data set still illustrates the point. Thank you for your comment.
The First Circle, Metheny -- smart and good taste in music?!? Great presentation. It's interesting to watch you mine and manipulate data into a usable form -- even more appreciated is the objectivity in your findings. I thought for sure we were going to move to a global inference. Great work -- stay objective and keep learning. :-) You appear to be light-years ahead of most high school kids I know...kudos to You and your Dad.
I think people were getting hung up on the idea that the urban sites being warmer means there is global warming. Urban sites make up a very small percentage of the total land mass and they are insignificant to global temperature on the whole.
The most frightening aspect of this whole argument goes beyond gullibility of the public. It goes to the terrible education system that is somehow preventing people from a rational evaluation of objective data. The understanding of the scientific method and data analysis seems beyond our education system except for a few rational people.
Great job guys! Keep up the analysis and the videos. Maybe we can avoid making some big mistakes based upon the pseudoscience that politicians hope we'll buy without actually looking at the facts.
Great video. Uses real science to disprobe some of the 'global warming' pseudo science we are bombarded with.
If we have 'global warming' or 'climate change' why is the Antarctic sea ice experiencing record sizes in recent winters, and the continental ice shelf thicker than it has ever been?
I bet the Arctic ice is melting because of all the exhausts of ships in the Arctic there to study melting ice. Catch 22.
Awesome. The problem is with the data collection sites. Lots of the urban data sites were originally located just outside of the cities, in agricultural land use areas. Now, they're surrounded by concrete and asphalt, which reflect more heat.
THE EARTH IS NOT WARMING. URBAN DATA COLLECTION SITES HAVE WARMED, because the data is being collected poorly. If you take the urban data sites out, the temperature is much more stable.
CO2 is the stuff that trees breathe.Think of what you were told at School about Photosynthesis.The sun controls the climate.Not a bunch of chicks spraying their armpits with deodorant.
Would you like to show me one moment in history that shows an increase in Co2 preceding a warming event? You can't, because it never happened, and it never will. , just look at Big Als 600,000 graphup close.
After WWII, when Co2 production kicked in to full gear, why did temps go down for 30 + years? Why haven't temps gone up in the last 10 years? You can't give a good answer to these questions because the comp. models are bunk, they don't work and they never have. Crap in - Crap out.
You have a very loose understanding of cause and effect. Since the ice cores show CO2 rising proceeding warming, that means CO2 can't possibly cause warming? Really? You should take a basic logic class so that you can talk like an adult.
I'm not totally sold on AGW, but at least attempt to be reasonable.
Look at Al Gore's 600,000 year graph that he's so proud of, not once did CO2 preceded warming, but the other way around. Now the question, what caused the warming that drove the CO2?
I think you misunderstood what I said or you can't read a graph. I know the earth has warmed, less than 1degree C in the last 100 years, but I don't think we have anything to do with it. Over 1/2 of the increase came before WWII, then we dropped, and now were on our way up again.
I meant to say "succeeding" not "proceeding" (especially since proceeding doesn't even make sense there). I understand what the graph shows. CO2 following warming. How does that prove that CO2 can never cause warming?
It is the basis that all the science rests on, as Al said, "When there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer." He was stating that what he thought the graph showed, but it's the other way around.
Out of the 160 GTs of CO2 in the atmosphere, we only contribute 5 to 6 GTs per year, which is the statistical noise of that much CO2. Water vapor, which is much better than CO2 at warming, comes in at 950 times the weight of CO2 and has much more to do with GW than we do.
The science does not rest on that whatsoever. Listen to actual scientists, not Al Gore. Al Gore is a joke opportunist profiting off of all of this, not someone who should be taken with any legitimacy.
So you're saying we add about 3.5% more CO2 to the atmosphere EVERY YEAR? That is not statistical noise. That's definitely significant.
Why would water also being a greenhouse gas somehow make CO2 not a greenhouse gas?
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it's just so insignificant compared to water vapor that the difference it makes, the amount we contribute, that is noise comparatively speaking.
CO2 is close to 400ppm but H2O is 10500ppm, and it absorbs 10 - 100 times more heat than CO2. So whatever contribution CO2 might make to heating the earth, H2O will have already done it.
Remember we are looking at greenhouse gases making up less than 1% of the atmosphere, and CO2 is less than 3.5% of that.
"we only contribute 5 to 6 GTs per year" -- the amount we emit is fraction of the total mass, but it's an *unaccounted for* fraction of the total mass. Nothing removes it. Once can hope that life will increase to remove it, but there are problems with that: beyond the fact that it clearly hasn't (see the Mauna Loa record), most life (esp. ocean life) is nutrient-limited, not CO2-limited. In fact, ocean acidification, under most studies, *reduces* the CO2-sequestration capacity of the oceans.
"Water vapor, which is much better than CO2 at warming, comes in at 950 times the weight of CO2"
First off, they largely effect different regions of spectrum. Secondly, water vapor has an extremely short average atmospheric residency -- approximately two weeks, if I recall correctly. If you remove *all* of the water from the atmosphere, in months, it'd be essentially back to normal. It cannot act as forcing; it can only respond to other forcing. And it's more amplification than negation.
CO2's atmospheric residency is measured in 100s-1000s of years. On the order of human activity, that's forcing. On the order of hundreds of thousands of years, it's feedback. In particular, it's feedback to the Milankovitch cycles. Milankovitch cycles do not provide enough forcing to create the difference in temperatures we see in the glacials; most of the difference is explained by the CO2 amplification feedback. That is, as the planet warms, it encourages CO2 outgassing, which warms more.
Also: it was not "over 1/2 the increase" before WWII. The reason for the leveling off after WWII was primarily because of another anthropogenic emission, sulfur dioxide. This is the same chemical that is the primary factor in "volcanic winter". Coal power plants without scrubbers emit it en masse. When the first world started requiring SO2 scrubbers to prevent acid rain, this cooling effect faded away, exposing the warming it had been hiding during that period.
In view of some of the staggeringly stupid comments posted here I thought it would worth pointing out that this analysis shows that there has been NO global warming in the last 100 years.
Urban areas can be as much as 10 degrees higher than surrounding rural areas on a daily basis. This has NOTHING to do with global warming and these figures should be excluded from the average.
As shown this results in NO increasing temperature trend.
You obviously did not watch or listen to the video. We actually did quite a sophisticated data analysis with separate populations, curve fits and r2 analysis. The data show what the data show, urban sites are warming, rural ones are not.
If I am understanding this correctly, it would be safe to assume that urban temperatures are not affecting overall Earth's temperature. Rather, the heat produced in urban areas are only affecting a certain parameter. Therefore, what is this data reveal about global warming? If urban areas were affecting global warming, the closer by rural areas would be increasing as well. Thus, this data reveals simply, that urban areas produce more heat with no affect to its' surrounding areas.
Exactly, so man is CLEARLY causing the warming that is happening in the urban areas.
Since rural temperatures in the US only represent a very small portion of global temperatures I don't think it tells us more than: man causes warming, but not everywhere is affected.
What about rural areas in the rest of the world?
And what about the particularly sensitive areas where there is significant reactions to warming? ie: Greenland, Antarctica, etc?
There are many sites in the far northern hemisphere that are not warming overall. There just are not many that have continuous data over the past 100 years. There are some sites in central asia that do show warming but these could be the result of agriculture changes. Go to the GISS site and pick out sites yourself and compare. Just the fact that there are many sites that do not show warming is very important.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I think you're missing something very critical here. No one, except for people doing small scale analysis, is disputing whether overall global temperatures are rising or not.
The only debate is whether man is causing it or not, and if he is - how significant is his impact?
Your video CLEARLY demonstrates that where there are high populations of people, the temperatures are rising.
Your analysis PROVES that in the US, high populations density of man is correlated with rising temperatures.
Yes, the urban centers are getting warmer but they are not global. It is the rural areas which show the true temperature. The accuracy of the temperature readings is in doubt because many are influenced by urbanization. It is like saying its 75 outside when your thermometer is in the kitchen.
Nice video! This video has more proof and actual facts than "Inconvenient Truth" . People want there to be global warming even if there isn't. People are always looking for something to fix. Well I say don't fix what isn't broken. A Myth that is told convincingly as truth, over time becomes accepted as truth. Thanks for the vid.
We are not proving or disproving anything. Keep this in perspective. It is only a small study comparing two populations and shows that they are different. It does make you think about data collection,analysis, and interpretation.
I was responding to the person arguing that Al Gore's personal gluttony is somehow relevant to this discussion. Although what you're doing is by no means new or revelatory, I do like when people attempt to make sense of the data themselves instead of throwing around nonsense arguments.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Land, sea, and satellite temperature recording stations all yield the same increase in global average temperature. Are there many cities in orbit? Are there many on the ocean? Only a real simpleton would assume climate scientists would not think to check for urban-heat-island effects when pronouncing a warning as stern as what they have said about global warming.
Again, nice propaganda.
I'm sure Exxon would have been happy to pay you for this, so you sold the entire human race out for NOTHING!
A very large problem with data analysis is the use of controls. This type of comparison may not typically be used by climatologists. Since we are looking at a highly variable system with uncontrolled and different methods of data collection, it is necessary to have some base for comparison, that is why we used a population difference between relatively close sites as our method to sort the data. The data show what they show, it isn't propaganda. It is more destructive to promote a falsehood.
I think the very strong correlation between the three temperature measurement methods I mentioned puts the notion of rising global average temperature on very firm ground. If, however, I had to choose one of the three, I'd take the satellite data because it affords us the perspective of Earth as a singular thermodynamic entity.
By the way, I wish to apologize for my rudeness. I got in several frustrating arguments with name-callers earlier and became a little terse.
I too would prefer the use of the satellite data. Many surface stations are not well maintained and may not meet the correct guidelines. Furthermore, the data collection methods have changed over the years. It is just that the satellite data does not go back long enough. You really need to cover over 75 years of data to start to see patterns. I do worry about the UHIE. I don't know just how "urban" a site has to be before it starts to influence the temperature. It might be interesting.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Please tell me you're not a legitimate scientist who somehow thinks you've found a "flaw" that the climatologists missed. Do you really think it never occurred to them to check this? They wouldn't report that the global average temperature is increasing if it was only due to increases in the cities.
Sr. here, and yes I am a very legitimate scientist. The sea and satellite data do not go back long enough for this type of analysis so one must use surface data. We were not looking for any "flaw" but did a comparison of two sets of data which we found to differ. Urban sites have a temperature increase which is not seen in rural sites that are relatively close by. What is the problem with that? We do not have any agenda about it, the data show a difference. Do you have an explanation?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Again I apologize for being terse before, but climate scientists are perfectly aware cities are heat islands. The problem is that people see this and assume climatologists didn't think of it, and that it proves the "real" temperature isn't rising. It think the fact that it is would be undeniable. If you mean to imply that the rural sites give better data, I suggest you use non-populous site data from all over the world. The past 30 years should show something if you have enough locations.
I have searched the GISS data base extensively and there is a difference between the rural and urban sites worldwide. The sites are far apart and you can't match them as well as in the US. The rural sites do not give better data, it is just that it is different. Some warm, some do not. I have checked over 250 sites world wide, just haven't finished with the analysis. You don't want to just look at the past 30 years which do show warming, you want to look at 75 to 100 years to look at cycles.
Actually, we are well on our way to making it like it last was many millions of years ago. You know, back when life on Earth was vastly different, back when life as we currently know it probably wouldn't have done too well. It seems pretty moronic to choose to artificially revert the world to those conditions. Then we have idiots insisting that we should just let it happen. I guess those people volunteer to give up eating first.
Congratulations! Thank you for doing the work you've done. Thank you even more so for presenting it in such a clear and easy to understand format. It's wonderful to see logical and rational thought rather than hysteria. Cheers!
I love it when average American's do their homework to find their answers. Great job! I'd love to see another video detailing how to import the data into excel because i'd like to do this myself. 5 Stars *****!
WHO'S PAYING YOU??? lol, sorry. I am getting paid by the cheesecake factory to ask that question.
E1itetube 2 months ago
Great Work - love the grass roots attitude and your display of scientific rigor that exceeds the rigor of the 'consensus'.
abbottaerospace 5 months ago
At 4:50 you say the average temperature of the rural sites surveyed is not increasing, please can you direct me to the supporting evidence in detail
hengistmcstone 1 year ago
Comment removed
andreiuta171 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hengistmcstone supporting evidence :)). these people have just explained to you how they did their research. how dumb can you be? do your own research and don`t take sides unless you have done that research. btw, you may also want to see this watch?v=8mxmo9DskYE&feature=endscreen&NR=1 Peter and his dad did a great job but this will broaden your views a little more.
andreiuta171 2 months ago
At 4:50 you say the average temperature of the rural sites surveyed is not increasing, please can you direct me to the supporting evidence
hengistmcstone 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1 /2 Obama was allowed to stop offshore drilling gas prices are expected to increase yet another $5 a gallon, because we would grow dependent upon foreign nations we are not allies with in order to provide our oil. They would price gouge w/ gas prices increasing to $10/gal!Cap and Trade (American Power Act) would increase gas prices increase by $2.58 a gallon according to George C. Marshall Institute& taxes on the average household up to $3200 according to the RNC .
.
Allen West 2012
FreedomInAmerica 1 year ago
2/2 Obama's Former Green Jobs Czar and Communist, Van Jones
Admits Left is 'PRETENDING' Need for Regulations in Green Movement
watch?v=bgKr480RYc4
FreedomInAmerica 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1 /2 Cap and Trade (American Power Act) would increase gas prices increase by $2.58 a gallon according to George C. Marshall Institute& taxes on the average household up to $3200 according to the RNC . Obama was allowed to stop offshore drilling gas prices are expected to increase yet another $5 a gallon, because we would grow dependent upon foreign nations we are not allies with in order to provide our oil. They would price gouge w/ gas prices increasing to $10/gal!
.
Allen West 2012
FreedomInAmerica 1 year ago
ht
tp: //ww w.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/heat-island-sprawl. html
new research
pointyhead1 1 year ago
Beautiful clean work, Father and Son !
new evidence just in from NASA; Satellite on UHI Effect
"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 areas over a three year period,"
Bravo, fellas !
pointyhead1 1 year ago
Actually Global warming due to co2 has been disproved. Only takes a little digging. Nice work guys btw. You guys are better at this science than me =P Your next video look at the data for earth's climate over million years or ten million. Correlation of earth's temp and the sun and sun spots. Or earths co2 level and it's correlation or to earth's temp. Sorry i get fired up about co2 hoax.
DoYouThinkForUrselF 1 year ago
Did you talk to NOAA and GISS about what other corrections need to be made for changes in equipment, locations etc?
BTW you are aware the NOAA and GISS make a correction for this effect? When they analyse the urban and rural sites separately they get the same result.
PS there are those that will believe that this disprove AGW. They should ask themselves what urban areas are out in the middle of the oceans where the buoy data show consistent warming too.
drkstrong 1 year ago
@drkstrong said:
"They should ask themselves what urban areas are out in the middle of the oceans where the buoy data show consistent warming too"
You can go to NASA site. It shows that land station temperatures are smoothed 1200 km out over the ocean. You can ask the mapmaker to do the 1200 km standard or 250 km smooth...when you do 250 Km, the red hot ocean turns grey...from no data
go and find out, drkstrong . ht tp: //data. giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/
fun, it takes 10 seconds
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 That is just for the artic ocean - not all oceans there is no grey on them and they are still warming.
If you read the legend it says they dont use sea temperatures with 100 km of land stations.
drkstrong 1 year ago
@drkstrong said:
"read the legend...they dont use sea temperatures with 100 km of land stations"
Exactly.
"That is just for the artic ocean"
Now look at the Antarctic ocean.
"not all oceans.. and they are still warming."
some are warming some are cooling some are white.
"...ask themselves what urban areas are out in the middle of the oceans"
There is some urban temp in the oceans. In "the middle" of oceans, you get a mix of some warming and some cooling.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 Google "Monthly Global Ocean Temperature Anomalies (degrees C)"
Go down to the page to the link by the same name (2/3 of the way down) and click on that - and you will see the data from 1880 on. note it starts largely negative and ends uniformly positive.
For how it is calculated - rad the background information and folow the link to the Smith et al paper.
drkstrong 1 year ago
@drkstrong
Please give proper citation for what you want to show. I can't make assumptions and go here and there without proper description .
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 As you know YouTube does not allow citations. I gave you enough infoprmation in 3 clicks to get all the information you need to show that the oceans are warming at the same time (and at a different rate than the land and atmosphere as predicted).
drkstrong 1 year ago
@drkstrong No, actually I would have to make presumptions that I got the right site etc.
You can give the site name, for instance, and the exact study name and date. I can't be sure to get to the same page without a decent description
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1
This is the exact tilte of the data in the NCDC: "The Monthly Global (land and ocean combined into an anomaly) Index (degrees C)"
drkstrong 1 year ago
Comment removed
pointyhead1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@drkstrong thanks. OK. number one..are you sure you are not changing the subject of our discussion? We were discussing NASA GISS gistemp maps, right ?
pointyhead1 1 year ago
surfacestations(dot)o-r-g. Look it up. I think you'll like it.
CrossoverManiac 1 year ago
Very well done!
4TIMESAYEAR 2 years ago
How many thousands of cold weather monitoring stations have been closed over the past few years to help get the desired temperature increases in their data sets?
Junk food, junk media and junk science are all turning our planet into junk.
Slavestorms 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A barrel floating in the ocean will grow a seaweed farm. It would be easy to create rainforest sized algae farms mid ocean. The seaweed farms would photosynthesis, as well as the lifeforms themselves would be made of carbon.
Cheap. Proactive. Harmless.
Also mid ocean seaweed (algae) farms could be towed to counties in need for emergency food fuel.
No downside.
Build seaweed farms from shore and tow them out to sea and anchor them. Polluting companies could sponsor the low costs.
Win Win Win
RichLOAguy 2 years ago
Great science guys , keep up the good work..
ViperWK 2 years ago
Is the integral of Temperature over the Earths Surface (plus or minus 6 meters) , over yearly time interval, rising or falling; include the oceans?
bjphysics 2 years ago
@TheseData
Read you are a "scientist", that covers a lot of ground. What kind of scientist?
bjphysics 2 years ago
Molecular Geneticist. Had a lot of chemical thermodynamics, biophysical chemistry, calculus etc. This was not a global analysis, only a small comparison of two sets of data.
gundlgj 2 years ago
Then a Mathematical-Physics sanity check is in order.
Which number is larger?
The number of natural numbers or
The number of rational numbers between zero and one?
Background: transfinite number analysis shows one of these infinities is larger than the other so you have a 50/50 chance of being correct.
bjphysics 2 years ago
@bjphysics
The answer is that there is a larger infinity between zero and one.
jrisch48 1 year ago
petitionproject (dot) org names are NOT 'made up'. You can go to the site and look up the names for any given state then search on them. Pick a few at random and see what you get.
Mikeishere1st 2 years ago
I've been screaming for years - WHY USE TAINTED DATA AT ALL? The climate hacks at NASA and NOAA say they can ~correct~ for the urban heating but people like me say - WHY BOTHER? Why not just throw out the urban data altogether? There are enough rural stations around the country to get a reliable aggregate and THAT is the only temperature record data worth using. I always knew man-made global warming was a hoax but now I have reason to doubt there was any significant global warming anyway.
Mikeishere1st 2 years ago
Re: Petition Project ... the numbers are NOT "made up" ... you can view the names by state ... I added mine (the process is neither easy nor quick). You make an online request to be added, including certain information about your education and background that qualifies you to be added. You are then mailed some more material and respond by mail. Only then, after your responses have been verified, can your name be added. The warmists continue to lie about this petition. That's all they have.
rdwebster0 2 years ago
@Midnightsun454
watch?v=Py2XVILHUjQ
SaganAppreciationSoc 2 years ago
@Midnightsun454
You're pushing a bogus petition. The numbers are made up.
SaganAppreciationSoc 2 years ago
JonSCKs, some correlation. Check out CO2 Science. They do great research on these types of things.
Bobki52 2 years ago
Also, have you posted your datasets or graphs anywhere? I would love to have them for my archives.
Bobki52 2 years ago
Great video guys. If I use your research in a debate, one of the obvious criticisms would be that you cherry-picked the locations that you analyzed. Were these the only 28 pairs that met your criteria? Using your same size criteria, have you done a more general analysis of all U.S. rural sites and all urban sites? That would be interesting.
Bobki52 2 years ago
We are trying to look at rural sites that have long histories at the moment (at least 150 that are at least 70 km away from urban sites. There may be an interesting effect of latitude on temperatures in the US. Some locations get warmer, some stay the same and some get colder. But there may be a pattern. There is also an issue with the cyclic nature of the rise and fall of the mean annual temp over the years. There appears to be about a 70 year cycle and it must be carefully considered .
TheseData 2 years ago
No, there's no a 70 year cycle, and it's pretty dumb to insinuate that from a statistically insignificant grouping of 70 year periods. The post-1930s cooling was due to the increase in aerosols from coal-burning power plants, in particular SOx (the primary cause of volcanic winter). Once we started scrubbing them, this temporary masking effect was halted.
KarenRei 2 years ago
Comment removed
Bobki52 2 years ago
this is EXCELLENT research and data analysis
EletrikRide 2 years ago
I would like to see these guys do a follow up with US National Average Corn yields and CO2 levels.. Nat Avg Corn Yields in 1900 were around 27 bu per acre.. today it is over 160.. any connection?
JonSCKs 2 years ago
Bravo....you guys get a standing ovation from this video!!!
It is a sterling example of keeping it simple. Brilliantly done, but it will never play in Copenhagen or congress for that matter.
RMCroft 2 years ago
For what? For (using incorrect methods) "proving" that the US hasn't warmed on average -- a conclusion of the IPCC? What's the logic -- "Haha! I disproved you by showing that what you said is true!"
Most of the warming that has occurred so far is in the arctic. The US makes up a tiny fraction of the world's surface, and according to all three major climate records (GISS, CRU, and NOAA), is only just now surpassing its 1930s peak.
KarenRei 2 years ago
KarenRei- Document your statements please.
incorrect methods- List them.
US hasnt warmed on average - a conclusion of the IPCC- Where does IPCC say this?
Fact: IPCC says North America got 1deg warmer in 20th century.
Source:IPCC 2007 Tech Sum p.61 FigTS.22 & p.75 Fig TS.29
It's online at the IPCC site.
Have you even read the IPCC reports?
Are you saying that ALL that 1deg change was due to Canada & Greenland?
RealOldOne2 2 years ago
Yes, actually, I have. Not all of the reports, but about half of the AR4 technical reports.
Of course the temperature change from North America was due to the high latitudes. First off, Canada has significantly more land mass than the US, and secondly, EVERY dataset shows most of the 20th century temperature anomalies concentrated in the high latitudes.
I don't have the AR4 reports on here, but I'm pretty sure "A closer look at United States and global surface temperature change" is cited.
KarenRei 2 years ago
Karen
Please cite refs. for increased anomolies vs latitude. Im interested.
BTW, Im not a CC *denier*, but I do believe the urban data has contaminated and exaggerated the warming. Its obvious that the urban effects have NOT been CORRECTLY *detrended*or they would agree closer. Plotting corrected, adjusted, combined, homogenized, fiddled or otherwise tortured data shows this.
Any real *global* warming should show up in the rural stations alone, if indeed the warming has been *global*.
RealOldOne2 2 years ago 2
Using sites that have *urbanized*( incr therm mass & extra heat sources) contaminates the *global* signal by introducing very *localized* temp effects, which *bias* the overall data toward warming.
Example: I put 6 temp stations on my 640 acres to measure long-term climate change. Later I build a greenhouse around one of the stations. The other 5 temps dont change over time, but the avg goes up because of the higher temps of the GH station. Has climate changed on my sq mile of the globe? No!
RealOldOne2 2 years ago
Now, instead of the greenhouse, I build my house next to that station, surround it with blacktop, put my central AC unit right under it & build a big heavy brick bbq beside it. Over time, the other 5 temps stay constant but avg temp goes up because my *urban* station temp increased. Has climate changed on my sq mile of the globe? No. Is it proper to *homogenize* the stations and change temps of the other 5? No. The true measure of climate change would be found by eliminating my *urbanized* data.
RealOldOne2 2 years ago 4
BOTTOM LINE: to *ACCURATELY* determine long term climate(temp) change, URBAN SITES SHOULD NOT BE USED. IPCC denies a UHI *contamination* problem, but they are wrong.
NOAA is setting up a new U.S. Climate Reference Network for the express purpose of detecting the national signal of climate change.
Google USCRN, then look at the photos of ALL 120 stations. THEY ARE ALL RURAL! WHY? Because climate scientists KNOW that urban sites contaminate the data over time. Case closed.
RealOldOne2 2 years ago 6
Is it possible to get the video without the annoying music background?
jimmww 2 years ago
Clear as a bell. Good going!
daburack 2 years ago
Nice piece by the kid, illustrating the heat island effect. Which scientists have been closely measuring for at least 25 years, and for which they always apply corrections. Y'all did know that, right?
Remember, despite some of the conspiracy theories out there, scientists are neither stupid or agenda-driven. They have very closely monitored urban heat islands, the sun, and volcanoes ever since the beginning. That's why we know none of those things are the cause of the current warming.
maammooth 2 years ago
It's easier to pretend that scientists are stupid and that the lay-person is a genius who can come up with original, not completely obvious theories like UHI. Sigh...
rzaireic 2 years ago
NOAA removed UHI correction from its data. GISS applies a correction based on satellite measurements of nighttime light output (not optimal).
Scientists are not stupid but, as Climategate shows, they are agenda driven.
Even though the sun shows better correlation to global temp, it was dismissed NOT because it was disproven to be an effect but because no mechanism was found to model its effect. A group of scientists have recently published a paper describing a possible mechanism.
stevea526 2 years ago
Stevea526, NOAA applies corrections alright, but curiously they always serve to increase the warming. Of the five adjustments that they currently apply to the filtered raw data, only one (the Urban or UHI adjustment) lowers the temperature data. The other four raise the temperature data, two of them dramatically so.
Bobki52 2 years ago
And they passed peer review. Where's your peer-review?
KarenRei 2 years ago
@KarenRei, I don't know to whom your last post was directed, but the demand for peer-reviewed research has become the great warmist cop-out. You know full well that the AGW establishment, as personified by Jones, et al, have made it extraordinarily difficult for skeptics to get their papers peer reviewed or published.
Bobki52 2 years ago
@KarenRei, so as someone who seems to know her stuff, please argue your case with the facts. Given the hyper-political environment and the antagonism toward skeptics in the AGW debate, neither possession of peer-reviewed studies or lack thereof means anything.
Bobki52 2 years ago 2
petition project d o t c o m / review_article . p h p
regresseur 2 years ago
You just proved that Global Warming has occurred in the past 100 years. Rural no change, cities up 1.5%.
zbc407 2 years ago
Excellent work. Why don't you write this up and submit it to a journal? It looks eminently publishable to me.
1person 2 years ago
You two rock. Perhaps a formula could be developed to calculate the UHI effect based on population and area, and then used to adjust the urban site readings.
Love the Metheny background music, too. Did Big Oil pay for the CD it came from (haha, that was a joke)?
kolnidre666 2 years ago
Very good! Congratulations to you and your son for producing such an informative video.
Thesedata, do you know if anyone has done this same analysis for the world? (Assuming that reliable data is available, of course.)
sheide51 2 years ago
I don't know. I have tried to find matched sites for the rest of the world but have not been able to find any that have continuous data that goes back this far or have two sites within the 100 km limit. I am trying to do another analysis using only rural sites that are at least 100 km away from urban sites with populations over 100,000. Again there are some in the US but very few in the rest of the world that have good continuous data.
TheseData 2 years ago
Hello,
Thanks for taking the time with your presentation. It was very professional.
Ive learned that if we pave the roads with sand (tan) colored asphalt, reducing the amount of absorbed light+heat. Also painting asphalt shingles white using marine grade paint, this will reflecting light back into the sky! Could this reduce heat island problems. What is your opinion?
Paul
pgm98387 2 years ago
Awesome.
greatleaper 2 years ago
Excellent example. Like a lot!
pomdeterre 2 years ago
The results don't surprise me. Cities are basically gigantic heatsinks. Asphalt roads blasted by the sun for 12 hours and then it slowly releases the heat during the night (this is why so many raccoons wander around country roads, they're attracted to the dissipating heat.)
If people want to talk about global warming then we might as well talk about creationism too.. both are junk science.
AlcoholLevel 2 years ago 3
AlcoholLevel,
We need to stick to the MAIN issue here, which is that GW science is a bunch of crap. Please don't try to link it to creationism, as that is what the GW crowd will try to do in order to divide and conquer those of us who want truth on this AGW crap.
And the reason I say this to you is it's my opinion that it's DARWINISM 'science' that is much more like this GW Hoax, you know, like Piltdown Man-Made GW.
orpydna 2 years ago
Holy cow, there are people who still think evolution isn't real? People with access to books and are literate? Unbelievable...
rzaireic 2 years ago
We would expect that growing cities would release more heat. Especially because of the loose of vegetation, being replaced by pavement. I don't think there is enough city areas to have much effect on global warming. Global warming is a natural cycle. As historical data proves.
Howie47 2 years ago
P.S. Search "Climategate" to see whats really behind the Global warming hysteria.
Howie47 2 years ago 3
Excellent work. Congratulations!
artynz 2 years ago
Just found this now. Well done, looks like it was a fun project for the two of you.
grndiesel 2 years ago
I have been looking at a bunch of rural and urban sites, and I had no trouble at all in finding many rural sites with increasing temperature trends. I just roamed around the US picking sites at random, but most of the rural sites had increasing trends. I also found many stations in Africa, Asia, and South America even though you said that most stations were in the US. Same thing around the world -- most of the rural sites I picked at random showed an increasing trend.
tgib42 2 years ago
What we are doing is looking at two matched populations. The US is really the only place you can find enough matched sites(within 100 km of each other) with continuous readings that go back over 100 years. This just indicates that the rural sites may more accurately represent what the temperature trends may be. Including Urban sites in the calculations on a global scale may be forcing the overall temperature calculations upward.
TheseData 2 years ago
Yes, but did you get an average of many different rural sites, and did you do an extensive analysis? Otherwise your assessment of finding "many" or "more" rural sites with increasing trends than decreasing trends is only anecdotal.
NickTony29 2 years ago
No, just about 20 with maybe 15 increasing and the others steady. It has been done by researchers with no essential difference between urban and rural. Also, when you look at maps of the geographical distrubution of warming, the greatest warming is in the arctic, northern asia, antarctic coastal (not interior) points, the Brazilian rain forest, the Sahara Desert, several off-shore areas, and other areas that are essentially rural. So there has to be more to it than just urban heat effects.
tgib42 2 years ago
Could you please direct me to that research? I am interested in looking at it.
NickTony29 2 years ago
There are 2 sets of data, use set 1, the unadjusted set.
DaveE.
DrDave953 2 years ago
I agree that the unadjusted set would be the better one to use but it added a great deal more work. The combined data set still illustrates the point. Thank you for your comment.
TheseData 2 years ago
The other thing you have to be really careful with is that GISS lists Airports as rural, although they have their own UHI effect.
Also check a site carefully, there are some urban sites listed as rural too.
Dave.
DrDave953 2 years ago
The First Circle, Metheny -- smart and good taste in music?!? Great presentation. It's interesting to watch you mine and manipulate data into a usable form -- even more appreciated is the objectivity in your findings. I thought for sure we were going to move to a global inference. Great work -- stay objective and keep learning. :-) You appear to be light-years ahead of most high school kids I know...kudos to You and your Dad.
musicman812 2 years ago
Good job, well thought out.
I think people were getting hung up on the idea that the urban sites being warmer means there is global warming. Urban sites make up a very small percentage of the total land mass and they are insignificant to global temperature on the whole.
mailwormhole 2 years ago 4
The most frightening aspect of this whole argument goes beyond gullibility of the public. It goes to the terrible education system that is somehow preventing people from a rational evaluation of objective data. The understanding of the scientific method and data analysis seems beyond our education system except for a few rational people.
hdame 2 years ago 2
Great job guys! Keep up the analysis and the videos. Maybe we can avoid making some big mistakes based upon the pseudoscience that politicians hope we'll buy without actually looking at the facts.
tlpiselcpa 2 years ago 2
Took your advice in the Times Herald and watched your vid. Great job to you and your son.
Darmesis 2 years ago
I cannot believe that you're playing Pat Metheny in the background. Too cool! Oh and the video...very informative.
fmdpvt 2 years ago 2
Great video. Uses real science to disprobe some of the 'global warming' pseudo science we are bombarded with.
If we have 'global warming' or 'climate change' why is the Antarctic sea ice experiencing record sizes in recent winters, and the continental ice shelf thicker than it has ever been?
I bet the Arctic ice is melting because of all the exhausts of ships in the Arctic there to study melting ice. Catch 22.
Siegetower 2 years ago 3
no the answer is outlaw black sealcoating in the western part of the country
livingproofof 2 years ago
Awesome. The problem is with the data collection sites. Lots of the urban data sites were originally located just outside of the cities, in agricultural land use areas. Now, they're surrounded by concrete and asphalt, which reflect more heat.
THE EARTH IS NOT WARMING. URBAN DATA COLLECTION SITES HAVE WARMED, because the data is being collected poorly. If you take the urban data sites out, the temperature is much more stable.
golfmaniac72 2 years ago 3
The solution is obvious: abandon the cities now!
I suggest that we start with San Francisco and Washington D.C.
deadpan227 2 years ago 4
good luck with that
TheseData 2 years ago
San Francisco? Are you allergic to beautiful cities with diverse populations?
rzaireic 2 years ago
Lots of liberal lemmings here.
What do you guys think of britain and norway wanting to dump 600 billion tons of CO2 under the ocean?
What do you think about volcanoes?
How about that thing that gives you a tan at the beach?
Ive never met such a stupid group of white people as you idiots who eat this al gore shit up with a spoon.
Go look at who is going to capitalize on this hoax.
HeetXS 2 years ago 9
CO2 is the stuff that trees breathe.Think of what you were told at School about Photosynthesis.The sun controls the climate.Not a bunch of chicks spraying their armpits with deodorant.
sploggon 2 years ago 2
Volcanoes? Sun fluctuations? Yes, we've all heard of those. Would you like to point to any evidence that they're the cause of the warming trend?
rzaireic 2 years ago
Would you like to show me one moment in history that shows an increase in Co2 preceding a warming event? You can't, because it never happened, and it never will. , just look at Big Als 600,000 graphup close.
After WWII, when Co2 production kicked in to full gear, why did temps go down for 30 + years? Why haven't temps gone up in the last 10 years? You can't give a good answer to these questions because the comp. models are bunk, they don't work and they never have. Crap in - Crap out.
capmjamestkirkII 2 years ago
You have a very loose understanding of cause and effect. Since the ice cores show CO2 rising proceeding warming, that means CO2 can't possibly cause warming? Really? You should take a basic logic class so that you can talk like an adult.
I'm not totally sold on AGW, but at least attempt to be reasonable.
rzaireic 2 years ago
Look at Al Gore's 600,000 year graph that he's so proud of, not once did CO2 preceded warming, but the other way around. Now the question, what caused the warming that drove the CO2?
I think you misunderstood what I said or you can't read a graph. I know the earth has warmed, less than 1degree C in the last 100 years, but I don't think we have anything to do with it. Over 1/2 of the increase came before WWII, then we dropped, and now were on our way up again.
capmjamestkirkII 2 years ago
I meant to say "succeeding" not "proceeding" (especially since proceeding doesn't even make sense there). I understand what the graph shows. CO2 following warming. How does that prove that CO2 can never cause warming?
rzaireic 2 years ago
It is the basis that all the science rests on, as Al said, "When there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer." He was stating that what he thought the graph showed, but it's the other way around.
Out of the 160 GTs of CO2 in the atmosphere, we only contribute 5 to 6 GTs per year, which is the statistical noise of that much CO2. Water vapor, which is much better than CO2 at warming, comes in at 950 times the weight of CO2 and has much more to do with GW than we do.
capmjamestkirkII 2 years ago
The science does not rest on that whatsoever. Listen to actual scientists, not Al Gore. Al Gore is a joke opportunist profiting off of all of this, not someone who should be taken with any legitimacy.
So you're saying we add about 3.5% more CO2 to the atmosphere EVERY YEAR? That is not statistical noise. That's definitely significant.
Why would water also being a greenhouse gas somehow make CO2 not a greenhouse gas?
rzaireic 2 years ago
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it's just so insignificant compared to water vapor that the difference it makes, the amount we contribute, that is noise comparatively speaking.
CO2 is close to 400ppm but H2O is 10500ppm, and it absorbs 10 - 100 times more heat than CO2. So whatever contribution CO2 might make to heating the earth, H2O will have already done it.
Remember we are looking at greenhouse gases making up less than 1% of the atmosphere, and CO2 is less than 3.5% of that.
capmjamestkirkII 2 years ago
"we only contribute 5 to 6 GTs per year" -- the amount we emit is fraction of the total mass, but it's an *unaccounted for* fraction of the total mass. Nothing removes it. Once can hope that life will increase to remove it, but there are problems with that: beyond the fact that it clearly hasn't (see the Mauna Loa record), most life (esp. ocean life) is nutrient-limited, not CO2-limited. In fact, ocean acidification, under most studies, *reduces* the CO2-sequestration capacity of the oceans.
KarenRei 2 years ago
"Water vapor, which is much better than CO2 at warming, comes in at 950 times the weight of CO2"
First off, they largely effect different regions of spectrum. Secondly, water vapor has an extremely short average atmospheric residency -- approximately two weeks, if I recall correctly. If you remove *all* of the water from the atmosphere, in months, it'd be essentially back to normal. It cannot act as forcing; it can only respond to other forcing. And it's more amplification than negation.
KarenRei 2 years ago
CO2's atmospheric residency is measured in 100s-1000s of years. On the order of human activity, that's forcing. On the order of hundreds of thousands of years, it's feedback. In particular, it's feedback to the Milankovitch cycles. Milankovitch cycles do not provide enough forcing to create the difference in temperatures we see in the glacials; most of the difference is explained by the CO2 amplification feedback. That is, as the planet warms, it encourages CO2 outgassing, which warms more.
KarenRei 2 years ago
Also: it was not "over 1/2 the increase" before WWII. The reason for the leveling off after WWII was primarily because of another anthropogenic emission, sulfur dioxide. This is the same chemical that is the primary factor in "volcanic winter". Coal power plants without scrubbers emit it en masse. When the first world started requiring SO2 scrubbers to prevent acid rain, this cooling effect faded away, exposing the warming it had been hiding during that period.
KarenRei 2 years ago
In view of some of the staggeringly stupid comments posted here I thought it would worth pointing out that this analysis shows that there has been NO global warming in the last 100 years.
Urban areas can be as much as 10 degrees higher than surrounding rural areas on a daily basis. This has NOTHING to do with global warming and these figures should be excluded from the average.
As shown this results in NO increasing temperature trend.
Manoo62 2 years ago 9
This comment has received too many negative votes show
So a 4 year old looks at a few charts and graphs and thinks he disproves global warming, nice.
flang 2 years ago
You obviously did not watch or listen to the video. We actually did quite a sophisticated data analysis with separate populations, curve fits and r2 analysis. The data show what the data show, urban sites are warming, rural ones are not.
TheseData 2 years ago
Was this a global analysis?
bjphysics 2 years ago
Great Job Guys! Just another use of actual FACTS that seem to disprove the hockey stick global warming theory. Way to Go!
wadescoolerthanyou 3 years ago 3
If I am understanding this correctly, it would be safe to assume that urban temperatures are not affecting overall Earth's temperature. Rather, the heat produced in urban areas are only affecting a certain parameter. Therefore, what is this data reveal about global warming? If urban areas were affecting global warming, the closer by rural areas would be increasing as well. Thus, this data reveals simply, that urban areas produce more heat with no affect to its' surrounding areas.
rntrammell 3 years ago
It's amazing to me a 6th grader can figure this out but, the "elites" in government can't.....
arkivx1 3 years ago 2
Great job guys!
Clear and Concise!
TxTeaParty 3 years ago 2
Ok so it's warming in urban areas...and it's happening where there is the most people...so man is obviously causing the warming that's happening.
jamesfgray 3 years ago
The warming is not global, but local. So, no it's not causing it.
TheseData 2 years ago
Exactly, so man is CLEARLY causing the warming that is happening in the urban areas.
Since rural temperatures in the US only represent a very small portion of global temperatures I don't think it tells us more than: man causes warming, but not everywhere is affected.
What about rural areas in the rest of the world?
And what about the particularly sensitive areas where there is significant reactions to warming? ie: Greenland, Antarctica, etc?
Are temperatures rising there?
jamesfgray 2 years ago
There are many sites in the far northern hemisphere that are not warming overall. There just are not many that have continuous data over the past 100 years. There are some sites in central asia that do show warming but these could be the result of agriculture changes. Go to the GISS site and pick out sites yourself and compare. Just the fact that there are many sites that do not show warming is very important.
TheseData 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I think you're missing something very critical here. No one, except for people doing small scale analysis, is disputing whether overall global temperatures are rising or not.
The only debate is whether man is causing it or not, and if he is - how significant is his impact?
Your video CLEARLY demonstrates that where there are high populations of people, the temperatures are rising.
Your analysis PROVES that in the US, high populations density of man is correlated with rising temperatures.
jamesfgray 2 years ago
Yes, the urban centers are getting warmer but they are not global. It is the rural areas which show the true temperature. The accuracy of the temperature readings is in doubt because many are influenced by urbanization. It is like saying its 75 outside when your thermometer is in the kitchen.
TheseData 2 years ago
Nice video! This video has more proof and actual facts than "Inconvenient Truth" . People want there to be global warming even if there isn't. People are always looking for something to fix. Well I say don't fix what isn't broken. A Myth that is told convincingly as truth, over time becomes accepted as truth. Thanks for the vid.
Drewbie915 3 years ago
Thank you. Send a link to your friends and have them also spread it around.
TheseData 3 years ago
most of the energy used at algore's
super sized house
is a result of the eighteen refrigerators
and twelve air conditioners that he runs 24/7
he has one or two in every room of the residence
at least 2 of the entry doors had to be widened
since he moved in
bbfife 3 years ago
Oh your God, you're right! This totally disproves global warming. You're a genius!
rzaireic 2 years ago
We are not proving or disproving anything. Keep this in perspective. It is only a small study comparing two populations and shows that they are different. It does make you think about data collection,analysis, and interpretation.
TheseData 2 years ago
I was responding to the person arguing that Al Gore's personal gluttony is somehow relevant to this discussion. Although what you're doing is by no means new or revelatory, I do like when people attempt to make sense of the data themselves instead of throwing around nonsense arguments.
rzaireic 2 years ago
Good presentation! Keep in mind though, this fills the God-shaped hole for many people, and facts are irrelevant.
Orthokevin 3 years ago
For Some Reason, this video keeps becoming "Unavailable". Go to "Global Warming US Cities Getting Warmer" to see video.
TheseData 3 years ago
Heretic! Thou Shalt Not Question Holy Mother AGW! Burn them as witches! None shall question our truth!
delphi7000 3 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Land, sea, and satellite temperature recording stations all yield the same increase in global average temperature. Are there many cities in orbit? Are there many on the ocean? Only a real simpleton would assume climate scientists would not think to check for urban-heat-island effects when pronouncing a warning as stern as what they have said about global warming.
Again, nice propaganda.
I'm sure Exxon would have been happy to pay you for this, so you sold the entire human race out for NOTHING!
sixbillionmorons 3 years ago
A very large problem with data analysis is the use of controls. This type of comparison may not typically be used by climatologists. Since we are looking at a highly variable system with uncontrolled and different methods of data collection, it is necessary to have some base for comparison, that is why we used a population difference between relatively close sites as our method to sort the data. The data show what they show, it isn't propaganda. It is more destructive to promote a falsehood.
TheseData 3 years ago
I think the very strong correlation between the three temperature measurement methods I mentioned puts the notion of rising global average temperature on very firm ground. If, however, I had to choose one of the three, I'd take the satellite data because it affords us the perspective of Earth as a singular thermodynamic entity.
By the way, I wish to apologize for my rudeness. I got in several frustrating arguments with name-callers earlier and became a little terse.
sixbillionmorons 3 years ago
I too would prefer the use of the satellite data. Many surface stations are not well maintained and may not meet the correct guidelines. Furthermore, the data collection methods have changed over the years. It is just that the satellite data does not go back long enough. You really need to cover over 75 years of data to start to see patterns. I do worry about the UHIE. I don't know just how "urban" a site has to be before it starts to influence the temperature. It might be interesting.
TheseData 3 years ago
sixbillion and one morons including you lol.
arkivx1 3 years ago
"sixbillion and one morons including you lol."
Do grow up.
sixbillionmorons 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Please tell me you're not a legitimate scientist who somehow thinks you've found a "flaw" that the climatologists missed. Do you really think it never occurred to them to check this? They wouldn't report that the global average temperature is increasing if it was only due to increases in the cities.
Nice propaganda.
sixbillionmorons 3 years ago
Sr. here, and yes I am a very legitimate scientist. The sea and satellite data do not go back long enough for this type of analysis so one must use surface data. We were not looking for any "flaw" but did a comparison of two sets of data which we found to differ. Urban sites have a temperature increase which is not seen in rural sites that are relatively close by. What is the problem with that? We do not have any agenda about it, the data show a difference. Do you have an explanation?
TheseData 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Again I apologize for being terse before, but climate scientists are perfectly aware cities are heat islands. The problem is that people see this and assume climatologists didn't think of it, and that it proves the "real" temperature isn't rising. It think the fact that it is would be undeniable. If you mean to imply that the rural sites give better data, I suggest you use non-populous site data from all over the world. The past 30 years should show something if you have enough locations.
sixbillionmorons 3 years ago
I have searched the GISS data base extensively and there is a difference between the rural and urban sites worldwide. The sites are far apart and you can't match them as well as in the US. The rural sites do not give better data, it is just that it is different. Some warm, some do not. I have checked over 250 sites world wide, just haven't finished with the analysis. You don't want to just look at the past 30 years which do show warming, you want to look at 75 to 100 years to look at cycles.
TheseData 3 years ago
"climate scientist" as you describe then an oxymoron.
arkivx1 3 years ago
Oh, you mean the fact that the Earth's climate hasn't been static over the last few billion years isn't a big enough flaw?
arkivx1 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"Oh, you mean the fact that the Earth's climate hasn't been static over the last few billion years isn't a big enough flaw?"
Think before you type.
The last several big changes in climate have been accompanied by the deaths of almost everything on the planet. Are you sure you want this?
Different climates support different kinds of life. If we change our climate, many of our food crops will not be able to grow.
sixbillionmorons 3 years ago
Like we could stop or slow it down......... i guess all those morons thousands of years ago with all there co2 emissions caused it.
arkivx1 3 years ago
Actually, we are well on our way to making it like it last was many millions of years ago. You know, back when life on Earth was vastly different, back when life as we currently know it probably wouldn't have done too well. It seems pretty moronic to choose to artificially revert the world to those conditions. Then we have idiots insisting that we should just let it happen. I guess those people volunteer to give up eating first.
sixbillionmorons 2 years ago
OK, it's official, your a moron.
arkivx1 2 years ago
I know of no crops that will not grow in warmer climates, but there are many that will not grow in colder ones.
capmjamestkirkII 2 years ago
Congratulations! Thank you for doing the work you've done. Thank you even more so for presenting it in such a clear and easy to understand format. It's wonderful to see logical and rational thought rather than hysteria. Cheers!
LilacWine404 3 years ago 6
Good job at tracking the heat island effect, a nice simple way to understand it.
solargw 3 years ago 5
whoever doesnt like this video is just another idiot biting into the liberal media.
rrgdpg 3 years ago 5
Excellent job guys, well done.
alantmac 3 years ago 4
I love it when average American's do their homework to find their answers. Great job! I'd love to see another video detailing how to import the data into excel because i'd like to do this myself. 5 Stars *****!
GlobalWarmingFraud 3 years ago 3
At the station of interest just clic on
"Download monthly data as text"
Select all and copy, then
paste into Excel spreadsheet, then go to data dropdown menu and convert text to columns.
TheseData 3 years ago