Yet more proof.

[Nick]

Almost certainly not for several reasons.

1) Roads, concrete etc are are a small % of the UK surface area. Between 9% and 2% depending on nation.

2) If we look at the previous May averages (this was supposed to be on the other post but somehow didn't upload)



You can see the uptick started late last century and we haven't significantly upped our urban area since then.

3) if we look at the pattern of where the temperatures were u usually higher, we see it is Scotland - which is also the least built on (2%)



So the 3 points together seem to argue strongly against this being the "heat island" effect (which is absolutely a real thing and can make urban areas feel even hotter than the raw data suggests.

That means absolutely nothing, they've already decided there is an anomaly, given it a name and a value. It's like the judge stating to the jury, This is the boy that stabbed the other boy, now let's hear from the prosecution and defence.
You've given the zero value an arbitrary point and value in time, as I keep stating: it's the weakest science in history. I've asked you to show me the maths but you keep avoiding it cause you can't.

Simple questions.

1) Has the Earth had much higher concentrations of CO2 prior to humans burning fossil fuels? Yes

2) Has the Earth experienced much higher temperatures prior to hums burning fossil fuels? Yes

3) Previously, has temperature ever been the product of increased CO2? No

Again, show me the science (not model) that flies in the face of the above.

[Nick]

If that's a contributor, along with deforestation, it would show that human activity is a (but not the) likely cause of warming.

In Greater London there's concern that the growing number of paved and concreted-over front gardens are a significant factor in the shrinking water table and increased urban flooding...

That is a guarantee, there is no way for water to follow its usual path into the water table, it just runs off the surface, into a drain and straight into a river. Hence all the floods in the last few decades. 

[patman post]

How about the fact that the Earth is vastly more concrete and tarmac than it was in the past, which holds a lot more latent heat than Earth, desert and vegetation. This is being radiated back out at night, hence the reason you find snakes and other animals on the roads at night. Could this just possible be a source of the extra heat?

If that's a contributor, along with deforestation, it would show that human activity is a (but not the) likely cause of warming.

In Greater London there's concern that the growing number of paved and concreted-over front gardens are a significant factor in the shrinking water table and increased urban flooding...

[BeElBeeBub]

How about the fact that the Earth is vastly more concrete and tarmac than it was in the past, which holds a lot more latent heat than Earth, desert and vegetation. This is being radiated back out at night, hence the reason you find snakes and other animals on the roads at night. Could this just possible be a source of the extra heat?

Almost certainly not for several reasons.

1) Roads, concrete etc are are a small % of the UK surface area. Between 9% and 2% depending on nation.

2) If we look at the previous May averages (this was supposed to be on the other post but somehow didn't upload)



You can see the uptick started late last century and we haven't significantly upped our urban area since then.

3) if we look at the pattern of where the temperatures were u usually higher, we see it is Scotland - which is also the least built on (2%)



So the 3 points together seem to argue strongly against this being the "heat island" effect (which is absolutely a real thing and can make urban areas feel even hotter than the raw data suggests.

[Nick]

Exactly, it certainly didn't feel our idea of warm. The days were not particularly warm, though there were a few hot days.  But the nights were much warmer than usual. Given usual was pretty chilly, this meant they were merely mild, which doesn't feel warm.

You're correct that the mean temperature can be calculated in various ways but the met office uses the same method it has for 140 or so years for consistency (average of max/min in 24hrs) despite now having minute by minute frequency.

This means the readings are directly comparable.

How about the fact that the Earth is vastly more concrete and tarmac than it was in the past, which holds a lot more latent heat than Earth, desert and vegetation. This is being radiated back out at night, hence the reason you find snakes and other animals on the roads at night. Could this just possible be a source of the extra heat?

[BeElBeeBub]

If it was, it hasn't felt like it at all.
Our heating was on about 8 days later this year because of the cool weather.
I fully understand that the cloudy weather meant that the nights were not frosty, so the mean temps were a little higher than expected.
Mean temperatures can be measured in different ways, too.
Max of 15 and min of 5  - mean is obviously 10.
However 30 minute interval readings all added up and divided by 48 will find a different result.
Years ago, we didn't do that, of course.

It's still cool now. We've got a northerly blast with showers. It's the weather, of course.

Exactly, it certainly didn't feel our idea of warm. The days were not particularly warm, though there were a few hot days.  But the nights were much warmer than usual. Given usual was pretty chilly, this meant they were merely mild, which doesn't feel warm.

You're correct that the mean temperature can be calculated in various ways but the met office uses the same method it has for 140 or so years for consistency (average of max/min in 24hrs) despite now having minute by minute frequency.

This means the readings are directly comparable.

[Nick]

Cooking the figures implies treating May differently from other months (or previous Mays) to achieve the record breaking temps.

However the methodology used is the same.  Average temps are always calculated including night temps.

As the met office points out, hotter doesn't necessarily mean sunnier and drier.

Night time temps matter. High night temps can be just as dangerous as higher day time temps. We've all experienced this. A 30C day is warm but not unbearable. A 30C night is horrible.  One of the predictions is for hotter summer nights.

Not seen any mathematical science to prove your point yet.

[Barry]

Anyway we've been told it's been the warmest May since records began only it isn't and it's this relentless effort to deceive that ai find so annoying.

If it was, it hasn't felt like it at all.
Our heating was on about 8 days later this year because of the cool weather.
I fully understand that the cloudy weather meant that the nights were not frosty, so the mean temps were a little higher than expected.
Mean temperatures can be measured in different ways, too.
Max of 15 and min of 5  - mean is obviously 10.
However 30 minute interval readings all added up and divided by 48 will find a different result.
Years ago, we didn't do that, of course.

It's still cool now. We've got a northerly blast with showers. It's the weather, of course.

[BeElBeeBub]

Except it wasn't,the days were wet and miserable  and because of the cloud cover the nights were warmer so they cooked the figures,and since records began which is how long? Less than 150 years and the earth is how old? 4:5 billion years records that don't even register in timescale if they were over a thousand years,but they aren't.

Cooking the figures implies treating May differently from other months (or previous Mays) to achieve the record breaking temps.

However the methodology used is the same.  Average temps are always calculated including night temps.

As the met office points out, hotter doesn't necessarily mean sunnier and drier.

Night time temps matter. High night temps can be just as dangerous as higher day time temps. We've all experienced this. A 30C day is warm but not unbearable. A 30C night is horrible.  One of the predictions is for hotter summer nights.

[cromwell]

Except it was.

And every month since December has been above average.

Except it wasn't,the days were wet and miserable  and because of the cloud cover the nights were warmer so they cooked the figures,and since records began which is how long? Less than 150 years and the earth is how old? 4:5 billion years records that don't even register in timescale if they were over a thousand years,but they aren't.

[BeElBeeBub]

Anyway we've been told it's been the warmest May since records began only it isn't and it's this relentless effort to deceive that ai find so annoying.

Except it was.

And every month since December has been above average.

[cromwell]

Anyway we've been told it's been the warmest May since records began only it isn't and it's this relentless effort to deceive that ai find so annoying.

[Nick]

Now you're getting it! 😁

Yes the atmosphere *is* a "diode" (to use your analogy)

The make up of the atmosphere means it reflects/absorbs different wavelengths.

The energy coming from the sun is spread across a much higher set of frequencies than the energy leaving the earth.

So the atmosphere is relatively transparent to the incoming energy and opaque to the outgoing energy

It's exactly the mechanism that greenhouses use.

Incoming energy in the form of light and shortwave ir (because it comes from a star at several thousand K) can pass through glass. But long waver IR (because it is coming from a plant pot at a few hundred K) is reflected.

Here is a nice illustration of the issue.

50% of energy from the Sun is radiated back into space from CO2 leaving us an average of 342 Watts sq/m. So from this point show me the maths in W/sqm that you think proves AGW. Bear in mind that 71% of Earth is sea and we have seasons. 

[BeElBeeBub]

I'm betting that in the future they announce that extra CO2 in the atmosphere helps to cool the Earth, rotting vegetation / warming seas gives off way more CO2 that humans and I am sure Mother Nature would not build a
mechanism where the sea warming releases CO2 which warms it even more.

Nature doesn't build mechanisms for our convenience.

What you have just outlined is exactly the sort of thing scientists are warning about 

If (and entertain the possibility for a few moments, that the vast majority of climate scientists are right and you are wrong) Co2 is responsible for causing the planet to war, then such a release of CO2 would only make the planet warm more, which would release more co2 and so on.

[BeElBeeBub]

So now we move on to the huge flaw in what you've said. Your heat source is coming through your huge layer of insulation, how's that work? Has the CO2 just turned into a Diode with a depletion layer?

Now you're getting it! 😁 

Yes the atmosphere *is* a "diode" (to use your analogy)

The make up of the atmosphere means it reflects/absorbs different wavelengths.

The energy coming from the sun is spread across a much higher set of frequencies than the energy leaving the earth.

So the atmosphere is relatively transparent to the incoming energy and opaque to the outgoing energy 

It's exactly the mechanism that greenhouses use.

Incoming energy in the form of light and shortwave ir (because it comes from a star at several thousand K) can pass through glass. But long waver IR (because it is coming from a plant pot at a few hundred K) is reflected.

Here is a nice illustration of the issue.