Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

For instance, some of us here noticed a wide diversity of temperatures among the stations reporting on the local weatherunderground site. As the relatively short distances between sone stations made broad temperature flucuations implausible, one of our local radio station guys set out to check it out. He found recording instruments placed in the sun, placed in almost fully enclosed areas, placed near air conditioning compressors, placed near clothes dryer vents. This of course would distort the true readings.

The discussion then moved to the fact that the United States has the most temperature reporting stations than anywhere else in the world, and at least one of the longest uninterrupted history of temperature recordings. Yet how much has the steadily increasing urbanization of the USA affected the temperature records in any given area? And how much have variables in the USA affected the overall conclusions re global warming?

The distinction is, of course, that urbanization absolutely changes the dynamics of average temperature in any area. It will always be at least a degree or two, or maybe a lot cooler in the middle of an alfalfa field than it will be in the middle of a large paved parking lot on any summer day. A plowed field will be warmer than one covered in native grasses and wild flowers.

If no allowance is made for the changing land mass use, could it be possible that humans are not significantly affecting the climate, but rather urbanization is changing the immediate average temperature where the measuring equipment is located?

Even the pope hates "global warming" alarmists.

God isn't far behind.

Foxfyre wrote:

For instance, some of us here noticed a wide diversity of temperatures among the stations reporting on the local weatherunderground site. As the relatively short distances between sone stations made broad temperature flucuations implausible, one of our local radio station guys set out to check it out. He found recording instruments placed in the sun, placed in almost fully enclosed areas, placed near air conditioning compressors, placed near clothes dryer vents. This of course would distort the true readings.

Of course we wouldn't want to consider the fact that any Tom Dick or Henry can post temperature readings to a weatherunderground site but official temperature readings have standards of where the thermometer can be placed and how it is read. Those standards have NOT changed.

Quote:

The discussion then moved to the fact that the United States has the most temperature reporting stations than anywhere else in the world, and at least one of the longest uninterrupted history of temperature recordings. Yet how much has the steadily increasing urbanization of the USA affected the temperature records in any given area? And how much have variables in the USA affected the overall conclusions re global warming?

Good questions. Do you have answers or only speculation without facts?]

It seems others have answered about the rest of your post.

If they have, I haven't seen the answers.

Foxfyre wrote:

The distinction is, of course, that urbanization absolutely changes the dynamics of average temperature in any area. It will always be at least a degree or two, or maybe a lot cooler in the middle of an alfalfa field than it will be in the middle of a large paved parking lot on any summer day. A plowed field will be warmer than one covered in native grasses and wild flowers.

Except offical temperature readings are not taken in alfalfa fields or parking lots. You might as well be arguing that people are putting the official thermometers in ovens. It is NOT happening.

Quote:

If no allowance is made for the changing land mass use, could it be possible that humans are not significantly affecting the climate, but rather urbanization is changing the immediate average temperature where the measuring equipment is located?

Get back to us when you actually look at the requirements for official temperature readings.

parados wrote:

...

ican711nm wrote:

If no additional CO2 were to be inserted into the atmosphere, then almost all of it currently in the atmosphere would eventually mix with water vapor and precipitate into surface water.

... Henry's law is one of diminishing returns. As you reduce the amount of CO2 then Henry's law says that water will hold less and less CO2. ... precipitation becomes surface water and the water MUST be evaporated to return to the atmosphere. ...

inserted by ican: then

Your statement is true, but it does not contradict my supposition. Had you added that there is no way that evaporated surface water would not contain at least some CO2, I would have agreed with you about that too.

parados wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

The distinction is, of course, that urbanization absolutely changes the dynamics of average temperature in any area. It will always be at least a degree or two, or maybe a lot cooler in the middle of an alfalfa field than it will be in the middle of a large paved parking lot on any summer day. A plowed field will be warmer than one covered in native grasses and wild flowers.

Except offical temperature readings are not taken in alfalfa fields or parking lots. You might as well be arguing that people are putting the official thermometers in ovens. It is NOT happening.

Quote:

If no allowance is made for the changing land mass use, could it be possible that humans are not significantly affecting the climate, but rather urbanization is changing the immediate average temperature where the measuring equipment is located?

Get back to us when you actually look at the requirements for official temperature readings.

Well I tried. I went to all the most popular pro-AGW sites to see if I could find how measurements are taken. No luck. Seems like none of those folks are posting any standards or even methods for how the global temperature is taken.

I did find these sites, but they probably won't be acceptable to the pro-AGW group:

http://www.john-daly.com/ges/surftmp/surftemp.htm

http://www.dosits.org/people/resrchxp/2.htm

http://www.colutron.com/download_files/global_warming.pdf

http://www.open2.net/sciencetechnologynature/worldaroundus/taking_temperature.html

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2007/10/01/weather-stations-giving-bad-global-warming-data-msm-mia

...
Evaporated surface water can NOT contain CO2. Gases do NOT contain other gases.

http://www.psinvention.com/mixtures.htm
Brief Outline Of Molecular Mixtures
There are basically 3 types of mixtures. They can be characterized by how they combine ( interaction with the solute (substance being disolved) and solvent ( dissolving medium)) as well as how they can be separated.
• Suspension:
The ingredients are (stirred) in. If left alone, they will settle out. The heavier ingredient will settle to the bottom. Filtration can seperate the two ingredients. An example would be dirt mixed with water.
• Colloidial:
The size of the solute is smaller than in a suspension, but greater than in a solution (see below). The solute breaks down but remains as a clump of molecules and is smaller than the eye can see. Colloids are a bit unusual in that the solute is equally dispersed in the solvent as in a solution, but the solute does not completely break down. In many cases this is because something coats the bits of solute and prevents them from completely disolving in the solvent. An example would be mayonaise, jello or Oobleck.
• Solution:
The solute and solvent are dissolved and cannot be separated unless one of the ingredients changes state of matter. ie. distilation, (evaporating) or crystallation. An example would be salt and water.

Now that you have the answers to your questions Fox, I assume you will no longer need to ask the questions.

Temperature taking has NEVER been done in "wild shrubbery".

Temperature taking has always been done where people can acutally go and record the temperature. It has ALWAYS been near buildings if not on buildings.

The majority of the temperature recording sites are NOT in cities.
Urban recording sites are usually located at airports. Airports have large grassy areas that are NOT paved.

Those sites that ARE in urban areas are adjusted based on nearby rural readings.

parados wrote:

...
Evaporated surface water can NOT contain CO2. Gases do NOT contain other gases.

Gases form mixtures with each other. In gaseous mixtures of H2O molecules and CO2 molecules, the number of H2O molecules usually far exceeds the number of CO2 molecules. In that sense, in a mixture of molecules of H2O vapor and molecules of CO2 gas, the H2O molecular mixture contains the CO2 molecules .

parados wrote:

Now that you have the answers to your questions Fox, I assume you will no longer need to ask the questions.

Temperature taking has NEVER been done in "wild shrubbery".

Well good. I'm glad we cleared that up. It was therefore clever of me when I didn't suggest that it was. I did make the point that the temperature in wild shrubbery well away from developed areas would likely be cooler than the temperature in the developed areas. And that was pertinent to the point I was making for those paying attention,.

Quote:

Temperature taking has always been done where people can acutally go and record the temperature. It has ALWAYS been near buildings if not on buildings.

I see. Do you have anything to support that opinion which would of course discredit the article about the weather station at Bandelier NM that I posted?

Quote:

The majority of the temperature recording sites are NOT in cities.
Urban recording sites are usually located at airports. Airports have large grassy areas that are NOT paved.

Again, do you have something I could use for reference? (I post at other sites where this is being discussed.) Most airports have also explanded and both ground and air traffic has increased substantially over the last several decades. Do you have any information on whether this would affect the nearby temperatures, say on those large grassy areas?

Quote:

Those sites that ARE in urban areas are adjusted based on nearby rural readings.

So again when I read that they only use the actual measurements and do not 'estimate' for the nearby station that is down, they are just talking through their hats? How is it that you have come to know about all this. I'll admit I'm just learning.

Diest TKO wrote:

First off, stop being a dick.
Second, I read your article, and it doesn't refutte GW, only that this particular glacier makes a poor example via the mass decrease is mostly due to sublimation.
...
I believe Mr Mote, and Mr Kaser wrote a sound article, but in no way have disproved GW. However, they may have found further effects of GW in the process. I will have to keep my eyes peeled.

Here's the deal, I'll stop being a dick when you'll stop belching non sequiturs.
GW is a tautology like tomatoes ketchup or zero calory water : climate has only 2 choices, GW or G cooling. Never has it been stable and never it will. So what's the fuss about GW ?

The majority of the temperature recording sites are NOT in cities.

Urban recording sites are usually located at airports. Airports have large grassy areas that are NOT paved.
Those sites that ARE in urban areas are adjusted based on nearby rural readings.

I've done this hard work, have you ?

You'll find nowhere temperature records of stations used by the CRU (just a list of stations released only last september after more than 15 years of request and several FOI filings). I've done this hard work, have you ?

parados wrote:

The majority of the temperature recording sites are NOT in cities.

That's untrue!

Sites are classified rural or urban (with population) and most of the GHCN sites are urban.

For France as a whole, there are only 6 "reference" stations in this Global Climate Network,

and just ONE (Mont Aigoual) is rural but its data is mysteriously interrupted since 2000 (the station is still maintained, it's even one of the best stations used for weather forecast by Meteo France).

The CRU (global temperature purveyor for the IPCC) for example has not included A SINGLE rural station in all sites for France.

For the whole Africa, there is no rural site with consistent record longer than 50 years in the GISS database! NOT A SINGLE.

parados wrote:

Urban recording sites are usually located at airports. Airports have large grassy areas that are NOT paved.
Those sites that ARE in urban areas are adjusted based on nearby rural readings.

Parados, if adjustments worked, global surface temperatures given by the 3 official organisms (GISS, CRU, NOAA) should be the same, but it's not the case. Visibly, you don't know how adjustments work, so avoid talking about adjustments.

The climate network is problems ridden and is scientifically unsuitable to assess small temperature trends in the order of 0.1°C/decade. But to know it, it requires hard work, a lot of reading and a lot of data analysis, not just hand waving. That's the only way to know since the people who give the global temperature don't open their raw data, nor their algorithm and their results are UNREPRODUCIBLE by third parties. You'll find nowhere temperature records of stations used by the CRU (just a list of stations released only last september after more than 15 years of request and several FOI filings). I've done this hard work, have you ?