CLIMATE CHANGERS JUST CAN'T KEEP GETTING AWAY WITH IT, Continued: Warmists can't deal with facts

[Anonymous No.7656171]

>>7653428
>>7653489

>>We look at tampered data and surprise! shrunk the UHI
>It's easy to dismiss data you don't like when you claim (without evidence)
Violating basic physics is not evidence in the world of the warmists. And basic physics says the UHI happens both day and night.


>>Yes, that means that the urban minimum (night) temperature data is COLDER than the rural data.
>>This is terrible science at best. It is essentially physically impossible.
>You obviously don't know anything about materials science or climatology, and haven't bothered to look. You think it's physically impossible for cities to be cooler than rural areas at night? I guess nobody told you that bare ground and buildings don't hold heat as well as dense foliage does. Seriously? That's your argument? You think that cities can't possibly lose heat at night faster than rural areas? How amateurish.

Thanks for making it up. I would expect nothing less from a warmist. Actual science says that the nighttime UHI is significant:

Numerical Modelling of Urban Heat-Island Intensity
B.W. Atkinson
Boundary-Layer Meteorology
"At night emissivity, roughness length, SVF and SRE had effects ranging from 0.3 to 0.75 °C,"

Nocturnal heat island effect in urban residential developments of Hong Kong
Energy and Buildings
• R. Giridharan, • S.S.Y. Lau, • S. Ganesan
" Case studies of Belchers, Wah Fu-1 and -2 reveal the maximum nocturnal UHI in the order of 1.3 °C within an estate, and 0.4 °C between estates."

" The urban heat island effect is strongest at night,"
https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/2186/is-the-urban-heat-island-effect-stronger-during-a-particular-season-or-part-of-t

[Anonymous No.7656184]

>>7653504

>>This graph supposedly "proves" that the homogenization adjustments don't bring in UHI, because using just rural temps works >just as well as also using urban temps.
>>But the trend of the majority of rural stations is negative (see the figure for randomly chosen rural temps). Yet the chosen paired rural stations do not have a negative trend.
>You didn't actually READ the captions for those figures, did you?
The fact that you don't understand these graphs does not mean that other people don't understand these graphs.

Let me explain it in as clear and as simple terms as possible.
1. Rural stations are cooler than similarly situated urban temp stations
2. The graph shows that when a rural station is randomly picked, it is colder than the urban station, as expected. (Green dashed line). And the trend is toward greater cooling relative to urban stations (negative slope of the line).
3. This means the trend for rural stations is negative relative to all stations.
4. However, the rural station picked to "match" the urban station has a positive trend.
5. This is impossible in the "trend detecting" homogenization process if it only uses rural data since rural data has a negative trend.
6. This proves that the process uses both urban and rural data to "detect" the trend.
7. This means that the "chosen," paired rural station is chosen based on a trend that includes urban data. Because, despite the rural trend, it is warmer than the station it is paired to.
8. This means that using rural stations to "prove" that the algorithm is robust to UHI, is a failed demonstration because the trend used to pick the rural station includes urban temp station data.

In short, this process includes the influence of UHI, despite the claim that it eliminates it.

There, was that too difficult for you?

[Anonymous No.7656193]

>>7653543

>>>Zeke and company rely on general definitions of rural and urban areas instead of looking at the actual conditions (micro-environments) of the temperature stations. The latter is what really counts. If the station is close to an air conditioner belching out hot air, it doesn't matter if the station is supposedly a "rural" station. Accounting for micro-environments is what a "good scientist" would do.
>>So, what makes you think that a weather station that has a bush near it (this is a criterion SurfaceStations and NOAA use for downgrading stations) will record precipitously more warming over several decades than a station without a bush near it? how will that bush make a warming trend appear? be specific now.

>>the siting of a weather station will affect the reliability temperature (T) recorded, but not so much the trend (dT/dt) recorded. >The unspoken and incorrect assumption that this isn't the case is integral to SurfaceStations and their agenda.

> hurr durr, of course not, I just said "SufaceSations and their agenda."
As always, ad hominem is all you've got.

Did you even look at the results of the data I provided from the Surface Stations project?
It tremendously affects the trend; changing it from 0.155 C/decade to 0.248 C/decade; almost doubling it.

It was right before your eyes. Read it. Or do you always just run over to unskepticalpseudo-science for all your pull quotes?

[SaGePlZ No.7656201]

>>7656171

[SaGePlZ No.7656203]

>>7656171
sagelel

[Anonymous No.7656209]

>>7653445
>And here's where you went full retard:
>>It is meaningless to talk about finding a "warming signal." The mean value of temperature has a statistical meaning, but no physical meaning. That is because in thermodynamics, temperature is an intensive measure (like density; unlike an extensive measure like length). So to talk about detecting a "warming signal" in a physical sense is so much pseudo-scientific garbage.

>I don't think I need to explain why this is a bunch of meaningless babble. Just for those who are wondering, a "warming signal" is just an observed positive trend in temperature measurements that happens to be caused by actual warming. Nothing more, nothing less.
never heard of signal and noise, m8?

Nonsense. You're confusing the actual warming with a graph, or as you say, "positive trend," which does not exist except through data analysis. In short, you've confused reality with the attempt to describe reality. And most importantly, you've forgotten that there are different temperatures at different places. Yet "homogenization" assumes that there is a sort of general temperature increase function that is universal across the different locations. A "global warming signal." This is an unfortunate case of begging the question. The theory says there is a general warming going on. But the homogenization process "corrects" temperature data that does not fit this trend. That is circular reasoning. It assumes the trend and then looks at data that does not fit the trend and "corrects" it. And it corrects a tremendous amount of the data, around 50%! If half the data does shown the presumed signal, maybe it's much weaker than you presumed.

There. Again, was that too difficult? Please test your reading comprehension, it seems quite amateurish:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/15/circularity-of-homogenization-methods/

My apologies for using logic and facts. I should stick to warmist methods; appeals to authority, popularity and ad hominem.

[Anonymous No.7656211]

bump

[Anonymous No.7656216]

>>7656201
This quote is not from OP.
This thread is a serious discussion of a published paper on the homogenization method for temperature data processing:

Examining the published "proof" that Homogenization is a good algorithm for temperature processing.
"Quantifying the effect of urbanization on U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperature records"
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012JD018509/full

bump

[Anonymous No.7656217]

>>7656211
kill yourself

[Anonymous No.7656221]

>>7656216
>Pretending you're not OP
> only 2 unique posters to this thread (me and you)

You're trying too hard faggot

[Anonymous No.7656223]

>>7656217
>>7656201
>>7656203
samefag

[Anonymous No.7656226]

>>7656221
Read again. Didn't say I wasn't OP. I said that the quote in the pic here:
>>7656201
was not from me.

The only shitposter here is you.

[Anonymous No.7656495]

>>7656171
>Thanks for making it up.
>Actual science says that the nighttime UHI is significant:
>proceeds to pass off results of simulation as if they were actual measurements
Yes, the UHI effect is stronger TODAY, especially at night. The data you were bitching about were from NEARLY A CENTURY AGO, when the UHI effect was much weaker due to a lesser degree of urbanization.
Note that I didn't claim that cities are cooler than the surrounding areas at night, only that the materials of which built-up areas are made can influence microscales (such as weather stations).

>>7656184
>The graph shows that when a rural station is randomly picked, it is colder than the urban station, as expected. (Green dashed line). And the trend is toward greater cooling relative to urban stations (negative slope of the line).
NO. NO NO NO NO NO.
That is not a graph of the adjusted temperature; that is a graph of the cumulative impact of the adjustments made, just like the fucking Y-AXIS SAYS. The negative slope of the dashed green line means that the adjustments found ONLY in the rural-paired homogenized data series tend to make the measurements progressively cooler than they are. You are not actually reading what the graph says; you are looking at a pretty picture and claiming it says what you want it to say.

>>7656193
>data I provided
maybe I would if you provided any actual data instead of 100% unsourced charts
also:
>ignores the fact that a station's siting might affect its individual readings but not the trend among its readings, as I mentioned
>homes in on the fact that imputing undue importance to a station's siting is in SurfaceStations's political interests
>AD HOMINEM LOL

[Anonymous No.7656505]

>>7656209
>responds to my accusation that he is posting irrelevant babble by posting more irrelevant babble
keep accusing climatologists of circular reasoning, m8. maybe it'll distract people from the fact that you don't know what you're talking about. remember, you straight-up said:
>It is meaningless to talk about finding a "warming signal." The mean value of temperature has a statistical meaning, but no physical meaning. That is because in thermodynamics, temperature is an intensive measure (like density; unlike an extensive measure like length). So to talk about detecting a "warming signal" in a physical sense is so much pseudo-scientific garbage.


>You're confusing the actual warming with a graph, or as you say, "positive trend," which does not exist except through data analysis.
So you're saying that if the temperature climbs steadily (heck, let's say for the sake of argument that temperature might even climb monotonically), there's no trend? A positive trend in this case means only that as time elapsed increases, so too does temperature tend to increase. (I didn't think I'd have to explain this in such simple terms, honestly, even to you.) But no, according to you there's a meaningful difference between continued warming over time and a positive correlation between time and temperature? How entertainingly delusional.
>Please test your reading comprehension
yeah, I really don't need to take that from a guy who can't read the caption of a graph to see what the graph describes.

sage and move on, the OP has bullshitted his way through two threads already and steadfastly refused to learn anything, much less provide evidence to support his claims.