http://www.skepticalscience.com/land-use-and-global-warming.htm

In Lee's latest contortion he is stating that it is changes in land use rather than Gas concentration which is driving climate change.

Please follow the above link for a more detailed explanation of how this has been considered by the scientific community, and why it has been discounted as a potential cause of climate change.

If you have any credible research adding credence to Climate change caused by land use(other than the discredited study included in the above link), Please feel free to post it..-this includes you Lee.

Climate change humbug?
82,000,000 barrels of oil consumed every day, 50,000 plant animal and insect species wiped out every year, 80,000 acres of rainforest leveled per DAY, 90,000,000 tons of fish being extracted from our oceans per year.
How can this possibly have any long term effect.
Its a bit of a gamble without another planet to go to.

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 21^st, 2016 at 12:03pm:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/land-use-and-global-warming.htm In Lee's latest contortion he is stating that it is changes in land use rather than Gas concentration which is driving climate change. Please follow the above link for a more detailed explanation of how this has been considered by the scientific community, and why it has been discounted as a potential cause of climate change. If you have any credible research adding credence to Climate change caused by land use(other than the discredited study included in the above link), Please feel free to post it..-this includes you Lee.

Skeptical Sciene? :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

'How does land-use change affect climate change?

Land-use change is one type of human activity that is causing changes in Earth’s climate. This excerpt, taken from the World Meteorological Organization’s website gives a short explanation of how land-use change alters the climate system:

“Land-use changes (e.g. cutting down forests to create farmland) have led to changes in the amount of sunlight reflected from the ground back into space (the surface albedo). The scale of these changes is estimated to be about one-fifth of the forcing on the global climate due to changes in emissions of greenhouse gases.'

https://www2.usgs.gov/faq/node/5601

So when you stand under a tree is it cooler or warmer? Is open land warmer or cooler? If it is warmer more heat gets reflected.

' In his Perspective, Pielke discusses results reported in the same issue by Feddema et al. in which changes in land cover--for example, from agricultural development--were included in climate simulations. One result of the simulation is that conversion of forest to agriculture in the model in the Amazon region leads to local temperature increases comparable to that simulated as being due to the radiative effect of the addition of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.'

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/310/5754/1625

But apparently, according to SKS, there is no effect. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Are you Retarded?

You've posted links to two reputable, credible documents, neither of which supports ANY of the points you have made on this forum.

Not only that, your massively distorting(surprise surprise) the actual findings of the paper your referencing.
The paper finds that some locations(dense biospheres like the Amazon) can have a significant impact on climate when cleared. It also finds that only about 1.5 % of the planet would actually respond this way. The other 98.5%(inc 70% water) would only be slightly affected. And this is all based on model with forcings which in your own words



lee wrote on Dec 20^th, 2016 at 3:13pm:

All of them rely on models. Models that have a number of "forcings" or parameters. The output of these models is not empirical data. They are a function of whatever is introduced by these parameters. Change one parameter and the output changes. '     With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.'

Just in case you missed the second classic Lee moment, its the little part after the bit he likes that kind of supports his position. Somehow even though the document clearly states that GHG have 4 times the effect as land clearing, somehow its land clearing which is the bigger factor  :o


lee wrote on Dec 21^st, 2016 at 1:56pm:

“Land-use changes (e.g. cutting down forests to create farmland) have led to changes in the amount of sunlight reflected from the ground back into space (the surface albedo). The scale of these changes is estimated to be about one-fifth of the forcing on the global climate due to changes in emissions of greenhouse gases.' https://www2.usgs.gov/faq/node/5601

Since were talking about climate change why don't you gimme some credible data that doesn't say that 80% of the worlds forcing is created by C02.
And that global warming isn't anthropogenic.

And stop misrepresenting research that disagrees with your fundamental premise as somehow supporting your case.

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 21^st, 2016 at 8:53pm:

ust in case you missed the second classic Lee moment, its the little part after the bit he likes that kind of supports his position. Somehow even though the document clearly states that GHG have 4 times the effect as land clearing, somehow its land clearing which is the bigger factor

Once again you distort what I wrote. Land use change is one part of global warming. CO2 is postulated to be another. I never ascribed a ratio to either. Are you being wilfully ignorant?


Pho Huc wrote on Dec 21^st, 2016 at 8:53pm:

ince were talking about climate change why don't you gimme some credible data that doesn't say that 80% of the worlds forcing is created by C02. And that global warming isn't anthropogenic.

What a dick. Completely distort what I write. Does it make you feel good?

The null hypothesis is what needs to be proven wrong. Do it if you can.

lee wrote on Dec 21^st, 2016 at 10:16pm:

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 21st, 2016 at 8:53pm: ust in case you missed the second classic Lee moment, its the little part after the bit he likes that kind of supports his position. Somehow even though the document clearly states that GHG have 4 times the effect as land clearing, somehow its land clearing which is the bigger factor Once again you distort what I wrote. Land use change is one part of global warming. CO2 is postulated to be another. I never ascribed a ratio to either. Are you being wilfully ignorant?

Ill try this again Lee. If you post a scientific paper which you state supports your view, you cannot just pretend parts of it don't exist when they disagree with you opinion.

The "material" you posted ascribed a ratio of carbons power as a heating agent in relationship to land clearing.


lee wrote on Dec 21^st, 2016 at 1:56pm:

“Land-use changes (e.g. cutting down forests to create farmland) have led to changes in the amount of sunlight reflected from the ground back into space (the surface albedo). The scale of these changes is estimated to be about one-fifth of the forcing on the global climate due to changes in emissions of greenhouse gases.'

Because YOU posted this extract, i'm allowed to hold you to it. If you dont like it dont post it in support of you opinions.


I note that you didn't mention GHG's emissions as a possible cause of climate change when I asked, even though everything credible you have linked to concludes that they are primary driver. 


lee wrote on Dec 21^st, 2016 at 10:31am:

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 21st, 2016 at 12:19am: Provide credible evidence for your claim that global warming not anthropogenic. You just don't get it do you. It is the alarmists who have to disprove the null hypothesis. As I have previously said some of the gloal warming is anthropogenic. Think land use change. ;)

Its like your.........just trying to make everyone stupider. And that upsets my sense of balance.

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 1:54am:

lee wrote on Dec 21st, 2016 at 10:16pm: Pho Huc wrote on Dec 21st, 2016 at 8:53pm: ust in case you missed the second classic Lee moment, its the little part after the bit he likes that kind of supports his position. Somehow even though the document clearly states that GHG have 4 times the effect as land clearing, somehow its land clearing which is the bigger factor Once again you distort what I wrote. Land use change is one part of global warming. CO2 is postulated to be another. I never ascribed a ratio to either. Are you being wilfully ignorant? Ill try this again Lee. If you post a scientific paper which you state supports your view, you cannot just pretend parts of it don't exist when they disagree with you opinion. The "material" you posted ascribed a ratio of carbons power as a heating agent in relationship to land clearing. lee wrote on Dec 21st, 2016 at 1:56pm: “Land-use changes (e.g. cutting down forests to create farmland) have led to changes in the amount of sunlight reflected from the ground back into space (the surface albedo). The scale of these changes is estimated to be about one-fifth of the forcing on the global climate due to changes in emissions of greenhouse gases.' Because YOU posted this extract, i'm allowed to hold you to it. If you dont like it dont post it in support of you opinions. I note that you didn't mention GHG's emissions as a possible cause of climate change when I asked, even though everything credible you have linked to concludes that they are primary driver.  lee wrote on Dec 21st, 2016 at 10:31am: Pho Huc wrote on Dec 21st, 2016 at 12:19am: Provide credible evidence for your claim that global warming not anthropogenic. You just don't get it do you. It is the alarmists who have to disprove the null hypothesis. As I have previously said some of the gloal warming is anthropogenic. Think land use change. ;) Its like your.........just trying to make everyone stupider. And that upsets my sense of balance.

lee is a pedo is other words  :D :D yeh, we all know that but the mods love him!!

lee wrote on Dec 21^st, 2016 at 10:16pm:

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 21st, 2016 at 8:53pm: ust in case you missed the second classic Lee moment, its the little part after the bit he likes that kind of supports his position. Somehow even though the document clearly states that GHG have 4 times the effect as land clearing, somehow its land clearing which is the bigger factor Once again you distort what I wrote. Land use change is one part of global warming. CO2 is postulated to be another. I never ascribed a ratio to either. Are you being wilfully ignorant? Pho Huc wrote on Dec 21st, 2016 at 8:53pm: ince were talking about climate change why don't you gimme some credible data that doesn't say that 80% of the worlds forcing is created by C02. And that global warming isn't anthropogenic. What a dick. Completely distort what I write. Does it make you feel good? The null hypothesis is what needs to be proven wrong. Do it if you can.

lee knows nothing but pretend rich guy doodle called daddykins  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 1:54am:

The "material" you posted ascribed a ratio of carbons power as a heating agent in relationship to land clearing. lee wrote Yesterday at 11:56am: “Land-use changes (e.g. cutting down forests to create farmland) have led to changes in the amount of sunlight reflected from the ground back into space (the surface albedo). The scale of these changes is estimated to be about one-fifth of the forcing on the global climate due to changes in emissions of greenhouse gases.'

Ok. So 1/5 equals 20% - land use change

16% is natural forcing - Plants

We have admitted Internal Variation - no percentage.

So we have known warming non-anthropogenic of at least 36%, without Internal Variation.

So how did you come up with anthropogenic CO2 causes 80-85% of  warming?

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 1:54am:

Its like your.........just trying to make everyone stupider. And that upsets my sense of balance.

I can't help what it makes YOU appear. But did everyone give you permission to talk on their behalf?

You have a sense of balance?

lee wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 10:43am:

lee wrote Yesterday at 11:56am: “Land-use changes (e.g. cutting down forests to create farmland) have led to changes in the amount of sunlight reflected from the ground back into space (the surface albedo). The scale of these changes is estimated to be about one-fifth of the forcing on the global climate due to changes in emissions of greenhouse gases.'

So how did you come up with anthropogenic CO2 causes 80-85% of  warming?
[/quote]


I didn't come up with that figure, You did old boy :)


lee wrote on Dec 14^th, 2016 at 5:21pm:

You may want to cut down the trees.  Plants respire too. 'They found that, averaged over the entire globe, the evapotranspiration effects of plants account for 16% of warming of the land surface, with greenhouse effects accounting for the rest. But in some regions, such as parts of North America and eastern Asia, it can be more than 25% of the total warming. Every little bit helps.

lee wrote on Dec 21^st, 2016 at 1:56pm:

“Land-use changes (e.g. cutting down forests to create farmland) have led to changes in the amount of sunlight reflected from the ground back into space (the surface albedo). The scale of these changes is estimated to be about one-fifth of the forcing on the global climate due to changes in emissions of greenhouse gases.'

If you posted documents that SUPPORTED you assertions you would make a much better fist of debating.

The problem with being a contortionist is sometimes you bite yourself on the ass!

lee wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 10:43am:

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 1:54am: The "material" you posted ascribed a ratio of carbons power as a heating agent in relationship to land clearing. lee wrote Yesterday at 11:56am: “Land-use changes (e.g. cutting down forests to create farmland) have led to changes in the amount of sunlight reflected from the ground back into space (the surface albedo). The scale of these changes is estimated to be about one-fifth of the forcing on the global climate due to changes in emissions of greenhouse gases.' Ok. So 1/5 equals 20% - land use change 16% is natural forcing - Plants We have admitted Internal Variation - no percentage. So we have known warming non-anthropogenic of at least 36%, without Internal Variation. So how did you come up with anthropogenic CO2 causes 80-85% of  warming?

I didn't come up with those figure, You did old boy!

lee wrote on Dec 14th, 2016 at 5:21pm:
You may want to cut down the trees.  Plants respire too.

'They found that, averaged over the entire globe, the evapotranspiration effects of plants account for 16% of warming of the land surface, with greenhouse effects accounting for the rest. But in some regions, such as parts of North America and eastern Asia, it can be more than 25% of the total warming.
Every little bit helps.


lee wrote Yesterday at 1:56pm:
“Land-use changes (e.g. cutting down forests to create farmland) have led to changes in the amount of sunlight reflected from the ground back into space (the surface albedo). The scale of these changes is estimated to be about one-fifth of the forcing on the global climate due to changes in emissions of greenhouse gases.'

If you posted documents that SUPPORTED you assertions you would make a much better fist of debating.

The problem with being a contortionist is sometimes you bite yourself on the ass!

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 2:39pm:

I didn't come up with those figure, You did old boy!

Yes and I included references.


lee wrote on Dec 21^st, 2016 at 1:56pm:

https://www2.usgs.gov/faq/node/5601

Which quotes as an excerpt from WMO.

the other from Stanford University

https://carnegiescience.edu/news/co2-effects-plants-increase-global-warming-0

You disagree with the science? How strange?

lee wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 3:09pm:

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 2:39pm: I didn't come up with those figure, You did old boy! Yes and I included references.

I know. I quoted their findings that 80-85% of global warming is caused by GHG's.


It went straight over you head though, I was actually arguing against you with your own references.

=

So Lee,

DO you have any credible peer reviewed documents demonstrating that largest forcing agent is land use change instead of GHG's?

Its getting to that part of the thread where you start demanding evidence from other people, even though we are discussing YOUR assertion.

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 3:15pm:

I quoted their findings that 80-85% of global warming is caused by GHG's.

prove the 80-85% claim.

lee wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 3:28pm:

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 3:15pm: I quoted their findings that 80-85% of global warming is caused by GHG's. prove the 80-85% claim.

I cant, i'm only going to the figures you posted to support your arguments.

My opinion on this matter only as credible as the information your basing your opinion on.



Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 2:39pm:

lee wrote Yesterday at 11:56am: “Land-use changes (e.g. cutting down forests to create farmland) have led to changes in the amount of sunlight reflected from the ground back into space (the surface albedo). The scale of these changes is estimated to be about one-fifth of the forcing on the global climate due to changes in emissions of greenhouse gases.'

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 2:34pm:

lee wrote on Dec 14th, 2016 at 5:21pm: You may want to cut down the trees.  Plants respire too. 'They found that, averaged over the entire globe, the evapotranspiration effects of plants account for 16% of warming of the land surface, with greenhouse effects accounting for the rest. But in some regions, such as parts of North America and eastern Asia, it can be more than 25% of the total warming. Every little bit helps.

You posted two statements, on of which states that GHG's contribute 80% the forcing in global warming.
The other states that GHG's contribute 85% of the warming effect.

Thats my source,



YOU!

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 4:57pm:

You posted two statements, on of which states that GHG's contribute 80% the forcing in global warming.

yes land use change has a 20% effect.


Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 4:57pm:

The other states that GHG's contribute 85% of the warming effect.

Yes plants contribute 16%.

That is a total change over two different types of forcings of ~36%.

Not just add 5% to 80%.

Of course that is only two variables affecting climate. There are others. Remember the models mostly don't do clouds, water vapour etc. They have an impact on climate also.

lee wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 5:15pm:

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 4:57pm: You posted two statements, on of which states that GHG's contribute 80% the forcing in global warming. yes land use change has a 20% effect. Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 4:57pm: The other states that GHG's contribute 85% of the warming effect. Yes plants contribute 16%. That is a total change over two different types of forcings of ~36%. Not just add 5% to 80%. Of course that is only two variables affecting climate. There are others. Remember the models mostly don't do clouds, water vapour etc. They have an impact on climate also.

Your contorting.

You have posted two credible statements.
Both statement clearly indicate that GHG's are the primary driver of AGW.

You understand that right?


Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 2:39pm:

lee wrote Yesterday at 11:56am: “Land-use changes (e.g. cutting down forests to create farmland) have led to changes in the amount of sunlight reflected from the ground back into space (the surface albedo). The scale of these changes is estimated to be about one-fifth of the forcing on the global climate due to changes in emissions of greenhouse gases.'

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 2:39pm:

lee wrote on Dec 14th, 2016 at 5:21pm: You may want to cut down the trees.  Plants respire too. 'They found that, averaged over the entire globe, the evapotranspiration effects of plants account for 16% of warming of the land surface, with greenhouse effects accounting for the rest. But in some regions, such as parts of North America and eastern Asia, it can be more than 25% of the total warming. Every little bit helps.

Note, that both quotes quantify the effect as being much smaller than the effect of GHG's.

This is the BEST evidence Lee could find to support his assertion that AGW is not caused by GHG's.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 5:27pm:

Note, that both quotes quantify the effect as being much smaller than the effect of GHG's. This is the BEST evidence Lee could find to support his assertion that AGW is not caused by GHG's. Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin

Your the one that came up with the claim of 80-85%. Live with it.

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 4:57pm:

lee wrote Yesterday at 11:56am: “Land-use changes (e.g. cutting down forests to create farmland) have led to changes in the amount of sunlight reflected from the ground back into space (the surface albedo). The scale of these changes is estimated to be about one-fifth of the forcing on the global climate due to changes in emissions of greenhouse gases.'

80 %


Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 4:57pm:

lee wrote on Dec 14th, 2016 at 5:21pm: You may want to cut down the trees.  Plants respire too. 'They found that, averaged over the entire globe, the evapotranspiration effects of plants account for 16% of warming of the land surface, with greenhouse effects accounting for the rest. But in some regions, such as parts of North America and eastern Asia, it can be more than 25% of the total warming. Every little bit helps.

85%


This wasn't you? it sure looks like you!

Yes. One metric for land use change and then another for the plants.

Two entirely different measurements, but you want to count them as one.

But to be pedantic 100% - 16% = 84%. ;)

I agree that the maths doesn't add up.
Since it was data you posted that is really your problem though.

The implication is that both of the forces you claimed were responsible for climate change(land use change and water vapour) actually play a smaller role in climate change than your purporting since both the papers posit a similar percentage of the increase in temperatures from GHG's.

The thing that you refuse to acknowledge is that both the documents you quoted conclude that 80-85% of the forcing on the climate is produced by GHG's. Its clearly written, and it was posted by you.

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 5:57pm:

I agree that the maths doesn't add up.

Yep Your maths is bad. Can't even add 2 discrete components together.


Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 5:57pm:

Since it was data you posted that is really your problem though.

Since it was scientific data - not my problem.

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 5:57pm:

The implication is that both of the forces you claimed were responsible for climate change(land use change and water vapour) actually play a smaller role in climate change than your purporting since both the papers posit a similar percentage of the increase in temperatures from GHG's.

Again - 2 discrete components.


Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 5:57pm:

The thing that you refuse to acknowledge is that both the documents you quoted conclude that 80-85% of the forcing on the climate is produced by GHG's

You really are mathematically challenged aren't you?

As previously stated I agree that the numbers in the papers your using to justify your position do not add up. That doesn't strengthen your position however, since they are papers YOU were referencing.

Since it was data you posted that is really your problem that the maths dont add up.

And your still refusing to acknowledge that 80-85% of climate forcing is caused bu GHG's. Again, according to documents YOU referenced.

If you want to dispute this thats fine, but also retract any other points you were relying on these papers to prove, mainly the effects of water vapour and land use change on climate variation.

Its not maths, Its logic that you should be worried about!

lee wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 5:49pm:

Yes. One metric for land use change and then another for the plants. Two entirely different measurements, but you want to count them as one. But to be pedantic 100% - 16% = 84%. ;)

This is the post where you state the two measurements you posted shouldn't be combined



lee wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 5:15pm:

Yes plants contribute 16%. That is a total change over two different types of forcings of ~36%. Not just add 5% to 80%. Of course that is only two variables affecting climate. There are others. Remember the models mostly don't do clouds, water vapour etc. They have an impact on climate also.

This is the post where you state the two measurements you posted should be combined

As I have posted elsewhere, the inconsistencies in your position undermines your argument.

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 7:33pm:

lee wrote Today at 3:15pm: Yes plants contribute 16%. That is a total change over two different types of forcings of ~36%.

Nope. That's how they should be combined. You want to say they are essentially the same thing  80% being the remainder from one fifth land use change. 85% being the remainder from the 16% evapotranspiration. What you're saying it is only between those 2 figures.

That's like saying evapotranspiration is the same thing as land use change.


Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 7:33pm:

lee wrote Today at 3:15pm: Yes plants contribute 16%. That is a total change over two different types of forcings of ~36%. Not just add 5% to 80%. Of course that is only two variables affecting climate. There are others. Remember the models mostly don't do clouds, water vapour etc. They have an impact on climate also. This is the post where you state the two measurements you posted should be combined

Yep. Entirely consistent with the opening one. Talk about comprehension issues.

Do you think anyone could understand the point you think your making?

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 9:02pm:

Do you think anyone could understand the point you think your making?

Certainly not you, Mr 80-85%. :D :D :D :D

So you don't really care if what you say is comprehensible or not........

I try and make all my posts clear. I have a reasoned position and I want people to understand me.

I only try and confuse people when i'm running out of solid arguments.

But that's me.

So did you ever find any evidence to support your contentions that anything another than GHG's are responsible for climate change?

Now that we have established that the data demonstrates warming an order of magnitude faster than any time in the last million years,

Any ideas why?????????

With evidence?  ::)

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2016 at 8:42am:

So did you ever find any evidence to support your contentions that anything another than GHG's are responsible for climate change?

Have you heard of UHI? Obviously not.


Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 11:56pm:

So you don't really care if what you say is comprehensible or not........

It is only you, who wants to add 80% form one measurement to 85% from another measurement and come to a conclusion that CO2 is causing 80-85% of global warming. What a tool.

Yep. Your comprehension is lacking. Bye.

lee wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2016 at 8:40pm:

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 23rd, 2016 at 8:42am: So did you ever find any evidence to support your contentions that anything another than GHG's are responsible for climate change? Have you heard of UHI? Obviously not.

Ah the mysterious third agent........
Water Vapor, Land use change and UHI.

I have heard of UHI-
I just didn't realise that anybody had done any credible research supporting it a main driver of climate change.
Dumb Dumb me!

Please provide a peer reviewed paper which demonstrates that Water Vapor  Land use change UHI is driving climate change.

Not that this sort of request has ever caused you to post anything credible that supports your position, but I am an optimist!

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2016 at 9:40pm:

Please provide a peer reviewed paper which demonstrates that Water Vapor  Land use change UHI is driving climate change.

You don't realise how they calculate Global Temperature?

Most of the sites used are large cities. Large cities have large UHI. Concrete and asphalt lose heat more slowly overnight than rural land. That raises the average night time temperature. Of course in cold climates the UHI is a function of the heating of the buildings, (furnaces etc)

http://www.meteo.fr/icuc9/presentations/UCP/UCP2-4.pdf

I'm aware of what UHI is.
You forgot to mention airports(that's a common one too)

Now that we've established that I know which particular flavor garbage your peddling tonight,

Please be a doll and post some credible research that supports your assertion UHI is distorting change date......thats supports your opinion......Its Xmas-go on, gimme a present  :)

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2016 at 11:02pm:

You forgot to mention airports(that's a common one too) Now that we've established that I know which particular flavor garbage your peddling tonight,

So yo >:(u don't believe UHI affects local and therefore global temperatures?

"The term "heat island" describes built up areas that are hotter than nearby rural areas. The annual mean air temperature of a city with 1 million people or more can be 1.8–5.4°F (1–3°C) warmer than its surroundings. In the evening, the difference can be as high as 22°F (12°C). "

https://www.epa.gov/heat-islands

Of course your favourite resource Skeptical Science says it "has no significant influence". But I'm not arguing "Significant" influence, merely influence.

It is all these things adding up. Little and not so little influences on global temperature.

I have never seen any research that indicated that UHI had not been accounted for(along with land use change or water vapor).
Since the papers I have read state it is accounted for, and I have seen no evidence to he contrary I accept that it is indeed included in their calculations.


Show me credible research supporting your position that UHI is having a significant impact on the data supporting AGW and we can talk.

otherwise....walk

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2016 at 11:29pm:

I have never seen any research that indicated that UHI had not been accounted for(along with land use change or water vapor).

You didn't read Chapter 9 of the IPCC ar5 page 78, did you. It lists feedbacks and what models , if any, used them.

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf

This would be you again selectively cherry picking that large IPCC report which disagrees with your fundamental position?

If I was use you I would look up the early warning signs for RSI and keep an eye open.

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 24^th, 2016 at 7:13pm:

This would be you again selectively cherry picking that large IPCC report which disagrees with your fundamental position?

I can't help your confirmation bias. Fancy refusing to look at how the models work. Those models which you say don't mean much to you,but is what all the "evidence" is.


Pho Huc wrote on Dec 24^th, 2016 at 7:13pm:

If I was use you I would look up the early warning signs for RSI and keep an eye open.

Speaking from experience? Good to know.

So,
you have had a few days now,

Any luck finding any credible research that supports your assertion that land use rather than CO2 emissions are driving climate change?

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 25^th, 2016 at 6:33pm:

So, you have had a few days now, Any luck finding any credible research that supports your assertion that land use rather than CO2 emissions are driving climate change?

Pleas quote where I said that land use change rather than CO2 emissions are driving climate change.

lee wrote on Dec 21^st, 2016 at 10:16pm:

Once again you distort what I wrote. Land use change is one part of global warming. CO2 is postulated to be another. I never ascribed a ratio to either. Are you being wilfully ignorant?

Note the language.
Land use change is one part of global warming(definitive) (always good to see you acknowledge global warming btw)

CO2 is postulated to be another.(tentative)

Its obvious that you only want to blame things other than CO2, because of the things you post. Not even an element of an open mind.

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 25^th, 2016 at 7:58pm:

Land use change is one part of global warming(definitive)

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 25^th, 2016 at 7:58pm:

CO2 is postulated to be another.(tentative)

Of course it is water vapour is a much larger presence than CO2. Yet your claim is it is "the MAIN driver" of climate change, not a driver. CO2 warming is an hypothesis, it is not the null hypothesis.

I am very aware of my language use.


Pho Huc wrote on Dec 25^th, 2016 at 7:58pm:

(always good to see you acknowledge global warming btw)

Yes. Then there are the negative effects, particulates etc, it is what the net effect is rather than any one thing.

BTW- your claim was that l said land use change was " driving climate change."

Not so. It is a contributor.

You said two things were affecting it, one definitely and one possibly.

Because you never make clear declarative statements of your positions I need to do a bit of interpretive work to understand your viewpoint.

You could be more precise about what you think is actually driving climate change and make your argument much more legibly, but obviously that would place you at a tactical disadvantage, given your demonstrated inability to support assertions.

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 25^th, 2016 at 10:18pm:

You said two things were affecting it, one definitely and one possibly. Because you never make clear declarative statements of your positions I need to do a bit of interpretive work to understand your viewpoint. You could be more precise about what you think is actually driving climate change and make your argument much more legibly, but obviously that would place you at a tactical disadvantage, given your demonstrated inability to support assertions.

Is anything "driving" climate change?