For the geographically challenged, Maine is 2,000 kilometres away from Georgia
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”
Here’s something new
Thank you for identifying yourself as being geographically challenged. Even Hansen isn’t foolish enough to correlate temperatures over 2,000 km.
Nice grid size!!
So why is it you miss out on showing New York or Washington?
Brendon, NY, sure, just as applicable. D.C.? What does that mean? A city has UHI? Also, you see where Steven had the same years as start dates for both this and Tenn.? You’ve responded with D.C. from 1963? Huh?
That’s all the data they have for that site. If you find more, let me know.
Try Roswell, that’s considered rural isn’t it? Still warming there, but you folks probably think that made by UFO’s or some government coverup right?
You think that a city with 50,000 people, golf courses and hundreds of miles of black asphalt roads is not going to affect the temperature in the desert? You have got to be kidding. The desert is the worst place for UHI.
“Try Roswell, that’s considered rural isn’t it? Still warming there, but you folks probably think that made by UFO’s or some government coverup right?”
Duhyam Brendan. What kind of left field attack is that? Before you can ad-hom or strawman, you have to at least make a connection of some sort. For instance, when I say “Brendon, put that stuff down!! Not all mushrooms are good!”, I’ve implied a connection to your disjointed thinking process and your obvious consumption of hallucinogenic substances.
Don’t worry bigun, we’ll bring you up to speed eventually. Some people just take longer than others. I’ll ask Steven to go slower for you.
Hmm … you think they would have considered the UHI effect – if they were real scientists.
Golly gosh – look at that. wonders never cease.
“If 30% of the highest population stations were
removed from the analysis, no statistically significant urban heat island was detected. The implications of
this work on U.S. climate change analyses is that, if the highest population stations are avoided (populations
above 30 000 within 6 km), the analysis should not be expected to be contaminated by UHIs. However,
comparison between U.S. Historical Climatology Network (HCN) time series from the full dataset and a
subset excluding the high population sites indicated that the UHI contamination from the high population
stations accounted for very little of the recent warming.”
What does this mean to you? I specifically referenced D.C., as did you. “(populations above 30 000 within 6 km)” definitely describes D.C. The abstract states there is a measurable difference, and implies a logarithmic curve. Spencer has reinforced this notion.
Brendon, it states there is UHI, but the abstract presented assumes it doesn’t significantly effect global temps. I disagree, but the idea isn’t relevant to the current discussion. Steven showed you Maine’s temp trend, you, in response (in part) showed a city[?]. I responded by, in part, stating that you showed UHI, you countered with an abstract about NCDC’s reluctant acknowledgment of such an occurrence, but they caveat it with a statement saying it doesn’t effect the general warming globally. That’s nice, did we suddenly start referencing global temps? I guess the only appropriate response would be, “Wet birds never fly at night!”
Brendon:
For a better argument you need to use the “small” “rural” town of Las Vegas, Nevada. Use the start date of 1904. That is when the Union Pacific Railroad auctioned off the downtown lots that became the center of the city. Compare it with recent temperatures. Population of over 1 million.
Other options should be Phoenix or Tucson in Arizona.
James, I agree!
Steven: Please Type slower so Brendon can keep up!
Suyts:
Do you have a “Peer-reviewed” Report that shows wet birds do not fly at night. I thought I saw sea gulls flying at night!
😉
I thought the Rural Urban issue was put to rest when they compared the area around Sacramento to the Sierra foothills and many other rural urban comparisons of real historic records rather than “Homogenized” for publication data.
suyts writes,
“Brendon, it states there is UHI, but the abstract presented assumes it doesn’t significantly effect global temps.”
There’s no controversy among climatologists, so far as I know, that urban heat islands exist. The question is whether UHI effects can explain away global trends in temperature anomalies. Numerous studies, like the one Brendon cited, have found that they cannot.
For example, the study cited does not assume UHI doesn’t affect temperature trends. Rather, it applies data to test whether they do, in a pretty straightforward manner. The authors (like other studies using a variety of different datasets and methods) find no evidence to support the UHI-explains-global-trends hypothesis.
And of course there are other kinds of temperature indicators, for which UHI are irrelevant, that point to similar warming trends yet cannot be affected by UHI. I believe Brendon has mentioned lower-troposphere satellite estimates a few times, for instance.
“No Warming Ever Recorded In Maine”
Not Portland Maine surely?
Portland, Maine is now in its TWELFTH straight month of warmer than normal temps.
During this period (Nov. ’09 to a few days ago), 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.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/global_monitoring/temperature/tn72606_1yr.gif
That happens during El Nino. Most of the US has been normal to below normal this year.
http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/products/maps/acis/YearTDeptUS.png
“That happens during El Nino.”
What does? maximum temperatures being broken every El Nino year?
Only if it occurs with a background of warming.