Four Winters of Urban Heat Island Data from Barrow, Alaska (USA) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference Hinkel, K.M. and Nelson, F.E. 2007. Anthropogenic heat island at Barrow, Alaska, during winter: 2001-2005. Journal of Geophysical Research 112: 10.1029/2006JD007837.
"On the basis of rural and urban group temperature averages for the period 1 December to 31 March of four consecutive winters, Hinkel and Nelson determined that the spatially-averaged temperature of the urban area was about 2°C warmer than that of the rural area, and that it was not uncommon for the daily magnitude of the urban heat island to exceed 4°C. In fact, they report that on some days the magnitude of the urban heat island exceeded 6°C, and that values in excess of 8°C were even recorded, while noting that the warmest individual site temperatures were "consistently observed in the urban core area.""
What does this mean? It means that anyone that uses temperature recordings from anywhere near human habitation cannot get an accurate record because variations of two orders of magnitude over the natural variability cannot be filtered out of the data.
Four Winters of Urban Heat Island Data from Barrow, Alaska (USA) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference Hinkel, K.M. and Nelson, F.E. 2007. Anthropogenic heat island at Barrow, Alaska, during winter: 2001-2005. Journal of Geophysical Research 112: 10.1029/2006JD007837.
What does this mean? It means that anyone that uses temperature recordings from anywhere near human habitation cannot get an accurate record because variations of two orders of magnitude over the natural variability cannot be filtered out of the data.
Four Winters of Urban Heat Island Data from Barrow, Alaska (USA) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Reference Hinkel, K.M. and Nelson, F.E. 2007. Anthropogenic heat island at Barrow, Alaska, during winter: 2001-2005. Journal of Geophysical Research 112: 10.1029/2006JD007837.
What does this mean? It means that anyone that uses temperature recordings from anywhere near human habitation cannot get an accurate record because variations of two orders of magnitude over the natural variability cannot be filtered out of the data.
You could try to explain to Tom about that measuring a trend in the presence of an offset is not a huge problem, or that the Hinkel reference points out there is no UHI effect in Barrow in the summer, so that the increase in summertime temperatures in Barrow cannot be attributed to UHI effects, but why bother? The question to ask people like Tom is what evidence would it take to convince them that global mean temperature is rising and that the cause of this rise is the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels caused by human activity. They invariably will say "nothing would convince me because x, y, and z" where x, y, and z are standard "climate skeptic" arguments easily debunked by a cursory examination of the literature (e.g., the increase in atmospheric CO2 is not anthropogenic in origin). Their response means they are without objectivity and the debate has entered the sphere of religion, not science.
It is pointless arguing climate change on usenet since it is religion for the skeptics. They refuse to understand the science.
You could try to explain to Tom about that measuring a trend in the presence of an offset is not a huge problem, or that the Hinkel reference points out there is no UHI effect in Barrow in the summer, so that the increase in summertime temperatures in Barrow cannot be attributed to UHI effects, but why bother?
Don't you know that Marco Polo stopped off in Barrow on his way to the North Pole?
You could try to explain to Tom about that measuring a trend in the presence of an offset is not a huge problem, or that the Hinkel reference points out there is no UHI effect in Barrow in the summer, so that the increase in summertime temperatures in Barrow cannot be attributed to UHI effects, but why bother?
Don't you know that Marco Polo stopped off in Barrow on his way to the North Pole?
Most of the natives in Barrow look like Marco Polo. In fact, he is referred to as Marc o'Pole in Inuit legend.
In article <[email hidden]>, William Asher <[email hidden]>
Quoted message said:
It is pointless arguing climate change on usenet since it is religion for the skeptics. They refuse to understand the science.
The most simple example of that regarding TK is the number of times he's posted about how the main IPCC report IS BEING CHANGED TO MATCH THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE SUMMARY!!!! in spite of you patiently explaining several times what is actually happening. They aren't interested in knowing.
Most of the natives in Barrow look like Marco Polo. In fact, he is referred to as Marc o'Pole in Inuit legend.
But you're ignoring the most compelling evidence of all: there are reports that in a Venetian townhouse, there is a remnant of a frayed piece of fabric dating to the 13th Century on which is written: "My uncle visited Barrow Alaska and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
You could try to explain to Tom about that measuring a trend in the presence of an offset is not a huge problem, or that the Hinkel reference points out there is no UHI effect in Barrow in the summer, so that the increase in summertime temperatures in Barrow cannot be attributed to UHI effects, but why bother?
Don't you know that Marco Polo stopped off in Barrow on his way to the North Pole?
Most of the natives in Barrow look like Marco Polo. In fact, he is referred to as Marc o'Pole in Inuit legend.
rechungREMOVETHIS said:
But you're ignoring the most compelling evidence of all: there are reports that in a Venetian townhouse, there is a remnant of a frayed piece of fabric dating to the 13th Century on which is written: "My uncle visited Barrow Alaska and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
It is pointless arguing climate change on usenet since it is religion for the skeptics. They refuse to understand the science.
Has Tom explained to you why Rachel Carson is responsible for hundreds of millions of malaria deaths?
No, but I can guess the story line. Have you tried to explain to Tom how corporate interests in the developed world decided there wasn't enough money to be made in selling anti-malarial drugs to bother developing them and that, not the lack of DDT (which is still widely available globally), causes those malaria deaths?
Donald Munro <[email hidden]> wrote in news:467d6082$0$14792 [email hidden]:
Quoted message said:
William Asher said:
Quoted message said:
Most of the natives in Barrow look like Marco Polo. In fact, he is referred to as Marc o'Pole in Inuit legend.
rechungREMOVETHIS said:
But you're ignoring the most compelling evidence of all: there are reports that in a Venetian townhouse, there is a remnant of a frayed piece of fabric dating to the 13th Century on which is written: "My uncle visited Barrow Alaska and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Its probably on youtube as well.
Search for the "Barrow Postcard of Venice" and you can find many references to the mysterious postcard, brown with age, showing a picture of a polar bear lying dejectedly on an ice floe with the humorous caption "Until they invent Tupperware, I'll never get a tight seal." On the back is the message "The nights are cold but the chicks are hot. -ciao mp"
It's never been authenticated since the corner with the postmark was conveniently torn off. As you can imagine, along with the t-shirt shard, this postcard has been the subject of much discussion by Marco Polo scholars.
"William Asher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Four Winters of Urban Heat Island Data from Barrow, Alaska (USA) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Reference Hinkel, K.M. and Nelson, F.E. 2007. Anthropogenic heat island at Barrow, Alaska, during winter: 2001-2005. Journal of Geophysical Research 112: 10.1029/2006JD007837.
What does this mean? It means that anyone that uses temperature recordings from anywhere near human habitation cannot get an accurate record because variations of two orders of magnitude over the natural variability cannot be filtered out of the data.
You could try to explain to Tom about that measuring a trend in the presence of an offset is not a huge problem, or that the Hinkel reference points out there is no UHI effect in Barrow in the summer, so that the increase in summertime temperatures in Barrow cannot be attributed to UHI effects, but why bother? The question to ask people like Tom is what evidence would it take to convince them that global mean temperature is rising and that the cause of this rise is the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels caused by human activity. They invariably will say "nothing would convince me because x, y, and z" where x, y, and z are standard "climate skeptic" arguments easily debunked by a cursory examination of the literature (e.g., the increase in atmospheric CO2 is not anthropogenic in origin). Their response means they are without objectivity and the debate has entered the sphere of religion, not science.
It is pointless arguing climate change on usenet since it is religion for the skeptics. They refuse to understand the science.
Many skeptics may fit into that category but there are some who are not convinced that CO2 is the biggest driver. IOW, if we solve the CO2 problem, we are not out of the woods.
Many skeptics may fit into that category but there are some who are not convinced that CO2 is the biggest driver. IOW, if we solve the CO2 problem, we are not out of the woods.
Oh, absolutely. But even if GHGs aren't the biggest driver, they're the ones over which we have some control. It is currently thought that genetic contributions to certain cancers and certain forms of heart disease dominate contributions from individual behavior -- but we can't do anything (yet) about the genetic component, while we can do something about smoking, diet, exercise, and other behaviors. Even if you do all of those things you're not out of the woods with respect to cancer or heart disease, but it would be myopic to think that because they're not the biggest driver they're not worth doing.
Many skeptics may fit into that category but there are some who are not convinced that CO2 is the biggest driver. IOW, if we solve the CO2 problem, we are not out of the woods.
Oh, absolutely. But even if GHGs aren't the biggest driver, they're the ones over which we have some control. It is currently thought that genetic contributions to certain cancers and certain forms of heart disease dominate contributions from individual behavior -- but we can't do anything (yet) about the genetic component, while we can do something about smoking, diet, exercise, and other behaviors. Even if you do all of those things you're not out of the woods with respect to cancer or heart disease, but it would be myopic to think that because they're not the biggest driver they're not worth doing.
That statement is somewhat obfuscatory and a great example of FUD. I think a better way to state this proposition is that it is clear that on long time scales, CO2 is a very good amplifier, although perhaps not the trigger, of global climate change. However, when we are talking about the global warming observed over the last 20 years, that is almost entirely due to CO2 and reducing atmospheric levels would help a great deal.
The intersection of the set of people who really understand climate dynamics and the set of people who believe the late 20th century warming is not due to anthropogenic CO2 is a very small set. Hence the near unamimous opinion voiced by the IPCC.
Many skeptics may fit into that category but there are some who are not convinced that CO2 is the biggest driver. IOW, if we solve the CO2 problem, we are not out of the woods.
Oh, absolutely. But even if GHGs aren't the biggest driver, they're the ones over which we have some control. It is currently thought that genetic contributions to certain cancers and certain forms of heart disease dominate contributions from individual behavior -- but we can't do anything (yet) about the genetic component, while we can do something about smoking, diet, exercise, and other behaviors. Even if you do all of those things you're not out of the woods with respect to cancer or heart disease, but it would be myopic to think that because they're not the biggest driver they're not worth doing.
That statement is somewhat obfuscatory and a great example of FUD. I think a better way to state this proposition is that it is clear that on long time scales, CO2 is a very good amplifier, although perhaps not the trigger, of global climate change. However, when we are talking about the global warming observed over the last 20 years, that is almost entirely due to CO2 and reducing atmospheric levels would help a great deal.
The intersection of the set of people who really understand climate dynamics and the set of people who believe the late 20th century warming is not due to anthropogenic CO2 is a very small set. Hence the near unamimous opinion voiced by the IPCC.
I think that nobody understands climate. Opinion of the IPCC is only opinion, and nothing more. . The man-made CO2 fad is a political boondoggle of epic size. It is purpose made to extract money from you.
"Michael Press" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
In article <[email hidden]>,
William Asher said:
Quoted message said:
On Jun 24, 11:05 pm, "Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote:
> Many skeptics may fit into that category but there are some who > are not > convinced that CO2 is the biggest driver. IOW, if we solve the CO2 > problem, we are not out of the woods.
Oh, absolutely. But even if GHGs aren't the biggest driver, they're the ones over which we have some control. It is currently thought that genetic contributions to certain cancers and certain forms of heart disease dominate contributions from individual behavior -- but we can't do anything (yet) about the genetic component, while we can do something about smoking, diet, exercise, and other behaviors. Even if you do all of those things you're not out of the woods with respect to cancer or heart disease, but it would be myopic to think that because they're not the biggest driver they're not worth doing.
That statement is somewhat obfuscatory and a great example of FUD. I think a better way to state this proposition is that it is clear that on long time scales, CO2 is a very good amplifier, although perhaps not the trigger, of global climate change. However, when we are talking about the global warming observed over the last 20 years, that is almost entirely due to CO2 and reducing atmospheric levels would help a great deal.
The intersection of the set of people who really understand climate dynamics and the set of people who believe the late 20th century warming is not due to anthropogenic CO2 is a very small set. Hence the near unamimous opinion voiced by the IPCC.
I think that nobody understands climate. Opinion of the IPCC is only opinion, and nothing more. . The man-made CO2 fad is a political boondoggle of epic size. It is purpose made to extract money from you.
I don't know about extracting money, but it certainly is about power and control. While it makes a lot of sense for society to be much more efficient with its energy consumption, there'll be a lot of "you can pry my gas guzzling SUV from my dead cold fingers". Whatever............... the future potential for bicycles is bright.
I don't know about extracting money, but it certainly is about power and control. While it makes a lot of sense for society to be much more efficient with its energy consumption, there'll be a lot of "you can pry my gas guzzling SUV from my dead cold fingers". Whatever............... the future potential for bicycles is bright.
You could outsource taking out gas guzzling SUV's to Iraqi insurgents.
