Actual Weather Station Data from Rural Weather Stations

[Subduction Zone]

But it’s not just “actual weather station data,” it’s carefully selected weather station data with certain stations omitted. Also, I’m no expert, but I suspect climate charge is a sufficiently complicated issue such that it cannot be easily measured and examined by mere weather station data.

It is one piece of data. And he does not like it when corrections are applied to urban sources that remove the heat island effect. He calls it "altering data". Of course there is satellite data which is even better since it covers the whole earth. Weather stations in the middle of the ocean would be rather rare. There probably are some, but I am personally unaware of them. One can measure temperatures with satellites, but those are unreliable because "reasons". (actually I think the reasons are because they disagree with his findings).

Meanwhile, none of the science deniers want to learn even something as simple as the Greenhouse Effect. It can easily be verified to be a thing using even the crudest of measurements and the Stefan Boltzmann Law. It is pretty hard to deny global warming when it can be shown that some CO2 will warm the Earth. Why wouldn't adding more CO2 warm it even more?

 

[KW]

You demonstrate with almost every post on this forum that that is you.
You are projecting.

I post data. The leftists then start spinning.

 

[KW]

But it’s not just “actual weather station data,” it’s carefully selected weather station data with certain stations omitted. Also, I’m no expert, but I suspect climate charge is a sufficiently complicated issue such that it cannot be easily measured and examined by mere weather station data.

Yes, he chose rural weather stations for a reason.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I post data. The leftists then start spinning.

No, you posted cherry picked data from a bogus source. It has nothing to do with being leftist or rightist. Science doesn't do politics that way.

You appear to be just a science denier that does not even understand something as simple as the Greenhouse Effect How do you think that you are qualified to even comment on today's weather report?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, he chose rural weather stations for a reason.

He only picked certain rural stations for a reason. Why such an incredibly small number of stations?

 

[KW]

No, you posted cherry picked data from a bogus source. It has nothing to do with being leftist or rightist. Science doesn't do politics that way.

You appear to be just a science denier that does not even understand something as simple as the Greenhouse Effect How do you think that you are qualified to even comment on today's weather report?

He only picked certain rural stations for a reason. Why such an incredibly small number of stations?

I accept science. I am a chemist, after all.

You are politically motivated, clearly, and you seem unable to see the absurdity of your statements.

To claim that the coldester winter ever recorded in Antarctica, in 2021, was due to global warming is the kind of claim a blind extremist makes.

Of course, we know the earth is in an overall warming period and has been for 100s of years. What the left wants us to accept is that we are in a catastrophic warming period due to human activity. That is political propaganda.

Over 100 well established weather stations from around the world is not an incredibly small sample.

It calls into question the results of some weather stations that just recently emerged.

 

[Stevicus]

How do you think that you are qualified to even comment on today's weather report?

My scientific analysis of today's weather report in my area: Hot and dry.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I accept science. I am a chemist, after all.

You are politically motivated, clearly, and you seem unable to see the absurdity of your statements.

To claim that the coldester winter ever recorded in Antarctica, in 2021, was due to global warming is the kind of claim a blind extremist makes.

Of course, we know the earth is in an overall warming period and has been for 100s of years. What the left wants us to accept is that we are in a catastrophic warming period due to human activity. That is political propaganda.

Over 100 well established weather stations from around the world is not an incredibly small sample.

It calls into question the results of some weather stations that just recently emerged.

I have my doubts about your claim of being a chemist. I could claim to be a nuclear engineer on the internet, it does not mean anything. The way that you approach science tells us that you are almost certainly not a scientist.

But if you are a chemist then you should have enough physics literacy to be able to describe how the Greenhouse Effect works. This is not graduate level stuff.

Also you should be able to explain how we know that man is the cause in the increase of CO2 if you are a chemist. That should be right down your alley.

Can you meet these two challenges or is your claim simply more hot air?

 

[Subduction Zone]

My scientific analysis of today's weather report in my area: Hot and dry.

Ha!! One look outside and I can see that you are wrong. Cloudy cool and it will probably rain to boot.

 

[KW]

I have my doubts about your claim of being a chemist. I could claim to be a nuclear engineer on the internet, it does not mean anything. The way that you approach science tells us that you are almost certainly not a scientist.

But if you are a chemist then you should have enough physics literacy to be able to describe how the Greenhouse Effect works. This is not graduate level stuff.

Also you should be able to explain how we know that man is the cause in the increase of CO2 if you are a chemist. That should be right down your alley.

Can you meet these two challenges or is your claim simply more hot air?

Yes, I'll do that when you prove the existence of Bigfoot.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, I'll do that when you prove the existence of Bigfoot.

Ooh, that is a dodge. So you are not a chemist. Nice to know.

 

[KW]

Ooh, that is a dodge. So you are not a chemist. Nice to know.

You proved it. What a genius.



Question: What produces more CO2? Burning a log or letting it decay in the forest?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You proved it. What a genius.



Question: What produces more CO2? Burning a log or letting it decay in the forest?

No, you proved it. You ran away from a reasonable request.

And a real chemist would know how we can tell the difference between regularly recycled carbon and carbon from fossil fuels. You claim to be a chemist, but your posts keep screaming "I am not any sort of scientist".

I can explain to you how we know where the additional carbon is coming from.

Oh wait, do you even know that the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere has been directly measured?

 

[KW]

No, you proved it. You ran away from a reasonable request.

And a real chemist would know how we can tell the difference between regularly recycled carbon and carbon from fossil fuels. You claim to be a chemist, but your posts keep screaming "I am not any sort of scientist".

I can explain to you how we know where the additional carbon is coming from.

Oh wait, do you even know that the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere has been directly measured?

It was a stupid question. Anyone can look it up. It's common knowledge and has nothing to do with a chemistry degree.

CO2 levels started increasing before the industrial age.

Why do you suppose that is the case? Because the earth was warming before the industrial age.

Human contributions to CO2 levels is about 5%. Even without humans on earth CO2 levels would be increasing today.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It was a stupid question. Anyone can look it up. It's common knowledge and has nothing to do with a chemistry degree.

CO2 levels started increasing before the industrial age.

Why do you suppose that is the case? Because the earth was warming before the industrial age.

Human contributions to CO2 levels is about 5%. Even without humans on earth CO2 levels would be increasing today.

Was that a chevy? Was that a ford? No! It was another dodge.

A real chemist would know the answers to my questions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I accept science. I am a chemist, after all.

You are politically motivated, clearly, and you seem unable to see the absurdity of your statements.

To claim that the coldester winter ever recorded in Antarctica, in 2021, was due to global warming is the kind of claim a blind extremist makes.

Of course, we know the earth is in an overall warming period and has been for 100s of years. What the left wants us to accept is that we are in a catastrophic warming period due to human activity. That is political propaganda.

Over 100 well established weather stations from around the world is not an incredibly small sample.

It calls into question the results of some weather stations that just recently emerged.

Is that chemist that you are claiming for yourself a qualification or just a job title?

 

[KW]

Is that chemist that you are claiming for yourself a qualification or just a job title?

I have a BS in Chemistry and a BSE in engineering from Purdue.

 

[metis]

Up until 2002.

Note that there is little to no warming when urban centers are excluded.

What the Stations Say (john-daly.com)

So, you say that the Pope with his encyclical and his scientific advisors are lying, eh?

 

[KW]

So, you say that the Pope with his encyclical and his scientific advisors are lying, eh?

He believes lies.

He is right that we should be good stewards of the earth.

If you can refute any of the facts I’ve posted please do so.

 

[metis]

I post data. The leftists then start spinning.

What sheer unadulterated nonsense you've posted, provable by the fact that we have seen massive melt off in Greenland and Siberia, and that's just for starters.