For the geographically challenged, Iowa is 2,100 kilometres away from Maine.
Apparently the CO2 forgot to “trap heat” in the United States.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- “falsely labeling”
- Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- Protesting Too Much Snow
- Glaciers Vs. The Hockey Stick
- CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- IPCC : Himalayan Glaciers Gone By 2035
- Deadly Cyclones And Arctic Sea Ice
- What About The Middle Part?
- “filled with racist remarks”
- Defacing Art Can Prevent Floods
- The Worst Disaster Year In History
- Harris Wins Pennsylvania
- “politicians & shills bankrolled by the fossil fuel industry”
- UN : CO2 Killing Babies
- Patriotic Clapper Misspoke
- New York Times Headlines
- Settled Science At The New York Times
- “Teasing Out” Junk Science
- Moving From 0% to 100% In Six Years
- “Only 3.4% of Journalists Are Republican”
- “Something we are doing is clearly not working”
- October 26, 1921
- Hillary To Defeat Trump By Double Digits
- Ivy league Provost Calls For Assassination
Recent Comments
- Disillusioned on “falsely labeling”
- arn on “falsely labeling”
- Disillusioned on “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- Greg in NZ on “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- Greg in NZ on “falsely labeling”
- Gordon Vigurs on “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- Disillusioned on CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- Disillusioned on “falsely labeling”
- Disillusioned on “falsely labeling”
- stewartpid on “falsely labeling”
Or how about this graph which is a little less “local”.
Your repetitive spamming from the same location and same closed minded viewpoint is as “local” as it gets. You have made your point. We understand your religious viewpoint.
That you continue to select cities without warming and only highlight those showing cooling or little warming.
How about showing New York or Washington?
You like those Urban Heat Islands. Do you think that 20 million cars, air conditioners and heating systems packed into a few square miles might affect the temperature?
Which location gives us a more realistic view of the temperature. Rural Pennsylvania and Maine, or New York City?
Yeah I love the UHI effect which is known and considered.
A comparison of rural vs urban trends, they’re almost identical.
Obviously, that is why Hansen’s home In PA is cooling while his office in Manhattan is warming. Doh!
Brendon says:
That you continue to select cities without warming and only highlight those showing cooling or little warming
————————————————
I rather suspect that Iowa, Maine, and Georgia, etc cover a bit more area that mere cities do, what with them being States and all. But you’d rather cherry pick out the UHI of cities than deal with the fact that the large rural areas outside those small cherry picked UHI are not showing any warming trend.
Brendon says:
October 27, 2010 at 2:02 pm
A comparison of rural vs urban trends, they’re almost identical.
You use pure sophistry. ‘Almost identical’ is the difference between there being global warming and being no global warming. It’s all about 1/10ths and 1/100ths of a degree. The naked eye cannot distinguish such a small trend difference in a graph. So you alarmists can can feel some kind of victory over bringing up trend to explain away UHI.
Also, what really matters in global warming is the actual temperature. No on has ever talked about trends when reporting global warming. It is always hottest ever this, hottest ever that. And UHI is a big part of what is creating all these hottest evers.
The only time global warmers point out trend is when UHI puts a serious hurt on there beliefs. Otherwise they go on and on about hottest temperatures.
So you were selective to only talk about cities getting warmer.
Brendon says:
October 27, 2010 at 2:02 pm
A comparison of rural vs urban trends, they’re almost identical.
Here’s a presentation about a study that was done that shows how trend can cover up fabricated temperature readings.
How ClimateGate scientists do the anomaly trick, PART 1
How ClimateGate scientists do the anomaly trick, PART 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dfew9lgzz5o
didn’t link to video, so here’s part 1 again
How ClimateGate scientists do the anomaly trick, PART 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kmp3vUJhzI
Joseph D’Aleo, UHI, adjusted, or not adjusted?
2:31 video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSiCji9FA4g
Brendon says:
October 27, 2010 at 2:02 pm
A comparison of rural vs urban trends, they’re almost identical.
Please link to the work you are talking about. I want to see how the trend you talk about compare to what you linked.
It appears you chose graphs with most aggressive trends. If you did, that would be cherry picking. Would you do that?
I always do appreciate the opportunity to link to those ‘anomaly trick’ videos. They show how warming can be created while having a negligible affect on anomaly and trend.
Yup, all you have to do is homogenize the data.
Homogenize: (math) containing terms all of the same degree
Homogenize: (milk) heating, aka cooking (the data?)
Brendan
Please show your graph before adjustments from raw data + then explain the adjustments added.
It is always telling when AGW believers are so clueless over the supposed effect of CO2,that is supposed to warm up the atmosphere.
They mindlessly follow every absurd CO2 molecule like it is some kind of dandy heater.Despite that it is trace gas with 3 minimal absorption bands.That it shares the main one with Water Vapor,which is far more abundant in the atmosphere where it really matters.The Tropics.
You can have the atmosphere be 100% filled with CO2 and it will still only at best absorb around 6% of the outgoing IR.That means most of the IR can zoom right into space.
85 parts per MILLION higher and 80 years later,still no warming.
If the atmosphere was 100% CO2, temperatures would be extremely cold on Earth.
Noone wants to hear about heat island effects, they just want to talk CO2. You must realize that cities make up only a tiny percentage of surface area on our planet, roughly 3%. The rural areas are immense! Where I live, in the country, it can be 10F cooler from the city’s weather station (the airport) which is less than twenty miles away. I verify my readings using three different thermometers. Comparing temperature readings of today with those of 75-100 years ago is pointless, unless you are using rural stations.
I have also verified this by checking with rural weather stations in my area, they show NO WARMING over the last century. So in essence, we are grossly overweighting urban temperatures and virtually ignoring “natural” rural readings. Rural areas accounting for around 90% of the land area on Earth!
So now we can blame all them city slickers for ruining our climate. 😉
Bless you for your patience Mr Goddard. The lad is a wee thick in the head isn’t he.
Brendon
“Yeah I love the UHI effect which is known and considered.
A comparison of rural vs urban trends, they’re almost identical”
Please provide your evidence for this statement.
Steve,
I really struggle to understand your point with these types of posts.
Are you making any claims based on this or that local temperature record show now warming?
I don’t think that even you would argue that globally there has been warming according to the temperature record ‘Since CO2 Was 310 ppm’.
So simple logic suggest that for every place you find no warming there will be more with warming.
So if you are doing posts about weather why not for balance highlight some of them?
What about Portland Maine? http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/global_monitoring/temperature/tn72606_1yr.gif
Now in its TWELFTH straight month of warmer than normal temps.
During this we have set:
TWELVE new record high daily high temps
TWELVE new record high daily low temps
2nd-warmest Nov. on record
4th-warmest Feb. on record
#1 warmest March on record
#1 warmest April on record
2nd-warmest May on record
2nd-warmest July on record
3rd-warmest Sept. on record
And how many new record low highs or lows during these 12 months? A big, fat ZERO.
All of this is simply unprecedented in the historical record for persistence and longevity and severity.
Or what bout an Unusually Late End to the Growing Season this year due to mild temperatures and lack of frost;
http://www.erh.noaa.gov/ctp/features/2010/10_20/index.php
It was warm in the NE this year. Do you live there?
Here in Colorado we had the coldest winter in about 20 years.
Locations in Canada and China had short growing seasons due to early frost. Regional weather patterns are not always the same globally. NOAA lost credibility with their obvious biased reports which they have to continue manipulating data to support. It is a toss-up who does the “Best” Job on the data.