Is This a Verifiable Claim?

Originally posted by @deepthought
Well the dataset you linked to is based on "satellite and southern hemisphere air measurements". Since there is less land in the one would expect southern hemisphere temperature differences to be lower.

Since the dataset I referenced earlier and below goes back to 1880 and is for global mean temperatures it is not obvious what your case is.

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/#
Also at:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Your graph from central England still shows a temp increase before 1940 and a decrease after 1940. There is still no correlation with temps and CO2. It still proves my point.
You are trying to find a flaw in my source of info and "attack the source" is something you resort to a lot. You are merely nitpicking and it isn't going to work. You can pick a temp graph from most parts of the world and find the same temp pattern more or less before and after 1940.
Go ahead and find one from the upper hemisphere. It will make little difference.

Originally posted by @deepthought
The article says its resolution is 164 square feet, so it can tell if there are sources of methane in that area. It cannot count individual leaks within that area, but I don't think that's the objective. The purpose seems to be to discover leaks and other sources of methane so they can be mitigated.

That is fine, but many leaks will already have stopped by the time someone gets there. Kind of hard to determine a measure of what leaked when that happens.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
Your graph from central England still shows a temp increase before 1940 and a decrease after 1940. There is still no correlation with temps and CO2. It still proves my point.
You are trying to find a flaw in my source of info and "attack the source" is something you resort to a lot. You are merely nitpicking and it isn't going to work. You can pick a t ...[text shortened]... nd after 1940.
Go ahead and find one from the upper hemisphere. It will make little difference.

There is a clear increase post 1970. It is the dominant increase. That you refuse to acknowledge this seems to be wilfully ignoring data.

I have provided a number of carbon dioxide graphs. That the temperature graph and carbon dioxide graphs are not superimposed is because the came from separate sources.

I am attacking your source because I think it is flawed.

The Hadley data is northern hemisphere.

Originally posted by @deepthought
There is a clear increase post 1970. It is the dominant increase. That you refuse to acknowledge this seems to be wilfully ignoring data.

I have provided a number of carbon dioxide graphs. That the temperature graph and carbon dioxide graphs are not superimposed is because the came from separate sources.

I am attacking your source because I think it is flawed.

The Hadley data is northern hemisphere.

Only in the central England graph you posted. Let's find out why.
Your link says this:

"These daily and monthly temperatures are representative of a roughly triangular area of the United Kingdom enclosed by Lancashire, London and Bristol."

I am not familiar with that area in England. Is this area prone to the "heat island effect"? I would much rather get data from satellites rather than surface temp data for that reason.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
Only in the central England graph you posted. Let's find out why.
Your link says this:

"These daily and monthly temperatures are representative of a roughly triangular area of the United Kingdom enclosed by Lancashire, London and Bristol."

I am not familiar with that area in England. Is this area prone to the "heat island effect"? I would much rather get data from satellites rather than surface temp data for that reason.

That's about half the country.

They didn't have satellites in the 18th, 19th and early twentieth century.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
Only in the central England graph you posted. Let's find out why.
Your link says this:

"These daily and monthly temperatures are representative of a roughly triangular area of the United Kingdom enclosed by Lancashire, London and Bristol."

I am not familiar with that area in England. Is this area prone to the "heat island effect"? I would much rather get data from satellites rather than surface temp data for that reason.

You would much rather use satellite data so why don't you do the actual research to suss out that data rather than grousing about it here?
I already posted links to satellite data so why don't you start there?

Originally posted by @deepthought
That's about half the country.

They didn't have satellites in the 18th, 19th and early twentieth century.

I meant since the 80s when that specific bump in temps happened. That is what you claim was caused by CO2 increases. I don't think one country represents the whole northern hemisphere though. Isn't measuring global warming supposed to be data from multiple countries around the globe?
I don't think that bump proves anything, especially since there is a steep drop right in the middle of it. You can see from the Central England data that temp fluctuations are normal throughout that whole timeline.
I also still don't know if those temp locations in central England are cities or airports which are known for the heat island effect. Where are the specific locations of the temp measurements? Are they near pavement and concrete?

Originally posted by @sonhouse
You would much rather use satellite data so why don't you do the actual research to suss out that data rather than grousing about it here?
I already posted links to satellite data so why don't you start there?

You are being a dick.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
You are being a dick.

And you either don't really care about what you are talking, wanting sat data or you are just being lazy.

Originally posted by @sonhouse
And you either don't really care about what you are talking, wanting sat data or you are just being lazy.

Apparently you are being lazy since you have not posted any. You are just grumpy because you can't prove me wrong.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
Apparently you are being lazy since you have not posted any. You are just grumpy because you can't prove me wrong.

I don't give a crap whether I prove you wrong or not. I said you could just as easily look up the satellite data that I actually posted here a few dozen posts back but you are just to lazy to do it yourself.
Well I went back quite and couldn't find it but all I had to do was gargle 'atmosphere temperature taken by satellite'

And found a bunch which you could have done just as easily, like this taken at random:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/07/satellite-temperature-record-update-closes-gap-with-surface-records/

This one has data from 1980 on and shows a clear uptick in temperatures.

Originally posted by @sonhouse
I don't give a crap whether I prove you wrong or not. I said you could just as easily look up the satellite data that I actually posted here a few dozen posts back but you are just to lazy to do it yourself.
Well I went back quite and couldn't find it but all I had to do was gargle 'atmosphere temperature taken by satellite'

And found a bunch which yo ...[text shortened]... ith-surface-records/

This one has data from 1980 on and shows a clear uptick in temperatures.

You couldn't find it because you never posted it.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/22720-global-warming-satellite-data-gets-suspicious-makeover

Originally posted by @metal-brain
You couldn't find it because you never posted it.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/22720-global-warming-satellite-data-gets-suspicious-makeover

I posted one of the sat links but can't find it here in this thread so it was another one of the same type we are discussing here.

It seems nothing will change your mind about anything, you will find fault in any link we post here.

Why are you even talking to us since you seem to know everything and we are just duped alarmists.

You already convinced me about methane, I did not know it was such a high ratio compared to CO2 but why the FUK didn't you just come out with that like a month and a couple hundred posts ago? We already knew CH4 is a LOT more active a greenhouse gas and at 14% of CO2 and something like 100 x the power of CO2 that means CH4 is about 13 times more significant than CO2, at least in this century but it also degrades from UV into CO2 in time so it is a relatively short term effect, that is to say if the sources of CH4 disappear the ratio of CO2 to CH4 will go way low and leave CO2 as the biggest driver of climate change.
You still stubbornly keep with the story that CH4 is not manmade and if so what do you or perhaps your buddy Singer knows what is making all the CH4? We know it is seeping out of the ground now by literally thousands of fracking sites all over the US and Canada and around the world but there seems to be a concerted effort to deny CH4 is the driver of climate change. That would, following the money, point to lobbying by the fossil fuel industry to do everything in its power to make sure the general public doesn't know that. That is one take on the issue anyway.

Originally posted by @sonhouse
I posted one of the sat links but can't find it here in this thread so it was another one of the same type we are discussing here.

It seems nothing will change your mind about anything, you will find fault in any link we post here.

Why are you even talking to us since you seem to know everything and we are just duped alarmists.

You already convi ...[text shortened]... s power to make sure the general public doesn't know that. That is one take on the issue anyway.

So you wanted me to waste my time looking for something that was not on this thread? Even accused me of being lazy when you could not find it yourself?????

"You still stubbornly keep with the story that CH4 is not manmade"

That is a LIE! I never said anything of the sort.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
So you wanted me to waste my time looking for something that was not on this thread? Even accused me of being lazy when you could not find it yourself?????

"You still stubbornly keep with the story that CH4 is not manmade"

That is a LIE! I never said anything of the sort.

Ok, I'll take you on your word about that. Do you think we already have passed the tipping point, that is where the positive feedback of the greenhouse gasses, all of them together, goes past where even desperate measures won't stop the worse of the effects of climate change?