Yes, at times in the winter, the night is a bit warmer longer, but usually that seems to die out around December. Interestingly enough, each month does display a sudden change in temperature. We like it that way so don’t plan on retiring here. There is only so much water and too many golf course, haha.

Anyway, what I wanted to express that in the summer time, it is a bit reversed for certain portions of the city. Phoenix was a farming town since inception until about ten years ago. Yes, you see golf courses, etc., but there was a lot of land dedicated to dairy, farming, and most apparent citrus. After WWII and with the invention of the airconditioner, many began to flock out here. I watched as the citrus fields diminished, leaving a bunch of kids who enjoyed “fruiting cars” in the afternoon to suddenly take up drugs, er, I mean find new avenues of passing time. These new homes were built right on the existing fields, only to have trees moved out of the way for streets, houses, and driveways. You can still see where the old fields are by looking down a street and noticing the arranged trees.

These neighborhoods still receive water, in the form of monthly irrigation, to flood the yards with what is equivalent to about 90+ inches of water per year. It is a standard fee, and it is environmentally sound: that water percolates into the soil and is purified through the sand enough to allow wells to pull it out and receive minimal treatment prior to human consumption. It pays in two ways: the lush greenery in the central districts of each of the cities in Metro Phx, as well as keeping water close and stored in the ground. Oh, and it is a great place to play kill the carrier (football) or skeetboard on a warm day.

Again, back to what I was trying to get to, in the summer, when you drive from the newer areas of Phoenix (any area that does not have irrigation canals tied to yards) into the older areas, there is anywhere from a ten to thirty degree drop, Fahrenheit, depending on the month (June is usually the driest so the cooling efficiency is the best). And in the winter, this added moisture to the localized atmosphere has caused inversions and once in a while a bit of fog.

I bring these items up because Phoenix literally is a city formed from the ashes of another civilization. Some of the irrigation networks were built by the Hohokam and are older than 1000 years. We have added to this and engineered a city in the middle of a desert. I think that cities like Phoenix, Tucson, and Las Vegas should be analyzed differently as these were built sans significant water supply and over the course of years had this vital source brought to each in unique ways.

That’s my bit.

Great site as well.

“Looks like you are undecided about what you actually believe”

Correct. I cannot find sufficient evidence either way to settle the issue. Probably 5 years more may be needed if dramatic cooling or warming continues. It will take much longer if cooling or warming continues to be flat or gradual. I’m not of the opinion that the absence of the ‘hot spot’ disproves AGW yet. It may be there, but not detectable… yet. One shouldn’t be too quick to dismiss a theory but a credible theory does have to have both logical consistency and be capable of making empirical predictions that turn out to be true.

You asked for an objective scientific way of determining who might be worth listening to about climate. I gave you one. You have yet to tell us the objective scientific criterion for preferring to believe a man who has no track record in publishing any kind of climate science over a bunch of people who are active climate scientists.

Regarding Barry Brook: you claim “His funding (i.e., financial dependency) is based on the reality of AGW” because “He’s the director of the “Research Institute for Climate Change & Sustainability”. Non sequitur – try again.

You claim to be ‘undecided’. What exactly are you undecided about? You say “If AGW turns out to be a viable theory”, and then “I do believe that CO2 plausibly can cause global warming”. Looks like you are undecided about what you actually believe.

Now you’re arguing for quantity over quality? He has published in prestigious journals, just as others have. I never said that the guys who run RealClimate aren’t smart guys. In fact I think I did say they were smart guys. (When you start picking at gnats, it weakens, not strengthens, your arguments.)

“His funding (i.e., financial dependency) is based on the reality of AGW – well, then, he’s quite safe. But what makes you think this is so? Is it in his contract? How do you know?”

He’s the director of the “Research Institute for Climate Change & Sustainability”.

“take your own advice and never even think about proposing Steve McIntyre as a useful source on any climate issue.”

He found GISS US surface temperature anomalies, that then caused a revision of their temperature records. He’s done lots of great work like this. But in your eyes it all counts for nothing because he is on the ‘wrong’ side?

I realise he is annoying to people who don’t want to tolerate any criticism of AGW, but in the long run the work he does do, makes everyone improve the quality of their own work. If AGW turns out to be a viable theory, he will have made a constructive contribution. No one needs to be afraid of him. Criticism is part of the scientific process. To be scared of it or to try to rubbish it, is to be scared that the truth might be different from something you’ve already preconceived.

I suspect, but I hope I’m wrong, that you don’t even regularly read what he writes? I think you need to do that, especially if you are determined to express your views, even if it is just a case of ‘know your enemy’. (Although I doubt you or anyone would view things this simplistically.)

That is what makes sceptics sceptical of people with viewpoints such as yours in the first place. Namely, the fear and tolerance of accepting criticism, especially when it is constructive.

“I think your claim to be undecided is a lie.”

Firm assertions without supporting facts, is, I suspect your main problem.

If you want to save the world, great. But don’t be lazy. Do your own research into the science. Don’t quote propaganda websites. You’ll only convince the uninformed with a strategy like that. Try to understand the issues for yourself, draw your own conclusions, be polite, and especially be patient. Then you can win people over to your point of view. If you take the viewpoint that everyone is a moron except you and you already know all the answers to these difficult questions, you unfortunately alienate people. You actually become someone a sceptical person can point to as a reason why they don’t believe in AGW, and this damages your cause. People should be deciding these issues based on reasoning and science. Not because of fanatical believers on either side of the fence upsetting people and causing them to join one of these camps. Remember, be patient. Be polite. And if you don’t know how to respond to a question posed, don’t get angry and mock that person. Find the answer, reason it out, and patiently explain it to the misinformed person you’re communicating with. Heck, there are lots of misinformed people on both sides of the fence right now. (And BTW, I do believe that CO2 plausibly can cause global warming. But the actual degree of warming is a more complicated issue that is still open to question.)

His funding (i.e., financial dependency) is based on the reality of AGW – well, then, he’s quite safe. But what makes you think this is so? Is it in his contract? How do you know?

if you want to be credible, quote the original science, not the opinion of an individual or group with a vested interest – take your own advice and never even think about proposing Steve McIntyre as a useful source on any climate issue.

Anyone who is undecided, though, and may go either way on the issue (such as myself) will write you off as one of the alarmist true believers, as soon as you start sprouting RealClimate propaganda – I think your claim to be undecided is a lie.

It’s a site funded by environmental activists. It’s mission is to push an agenda, unfortunately. It operates on the same level as, say, a Michael Moore documentary. Now I’m not against everything Michael Moore does, and agree with some of the points he makes, but his business is to present a point of view, not provide factual balanced information.

RealClimate does not tolerate dissenting points of views. It’s comments areas are heavily censored, unlike a site such as this.

I’ve done reading of the RealClimate site and in my opinion, when I have understood both sides of an issue and the complexities and nuisances involved, I’ve found the RealClimate “view point” disingenuous at best.

“you obviously think that Steve McIntyre is a credible source.”

I think his assessments are cautious, and generally fair and balanced. What ‘objective scientific criteria’ do you have for asserting that they are not? Obviously, it’s a judgement call one has to make, based on one’s intelligence.

“I quoted you a link to Barry Brooks’ site, anyway, not realclimate.”

Barry Brook’s is not a climatologist. He gets most of his information from RealClimate, just as you do. His funding (i.e., financial dependency) is based on the reality of AGW. He is not interested in being critical of the scientific debate, he would rather there was no sceptical debate, so he is a very poor source to quote.

“He happened to use a figure quoted also by realclimate, which seems to offend you somehow, but the ultimate source was a peer-reviewed paper. So, if you’d only looked a little further, you could have found what you requested.”

Peer reviewed papers tend to get spun one way or another to suite an argument, so if you want to be credible, quote the original science, not the opinion of an individual or group with a vested interest. I’m not offended. I’m just pointing out that you don’t need to reinforce the views of the hard core true believers (too much) because they are already convinced. The hard core ‘denyer’ will not change his mind no matter what you write. Anyone who is undecided, though, and may go either way on the issue (such as myself) will write you off as one of the alarmist true believers, as soon as you start sprouting RealClimate propaganda, much the same way as a sceptic about 9/11 would write off an individual quoting Loose Change. OK, RealClimate does have lots of good science discussed on their site, and Loose Change is nonsense. But nonetheless it’s still a site pushing an agenda and not trying to present a balanced view of the science.

How about sticking to science instead of paranoid rants?

The only confused one here is you, as you descend into your foul-mouthed name-calling to bolster your failed arguments. It is so reminiscent of the tired hash brought here by Scientist and its many alter egos. In your confusion you must not realize that it is dishonest to post under various pseudonyms and pretend that you are not one and the same person. That dishonesty is clear to everyone who reads these comments. Well, it would seem one person doesn’t get it.

I await further frustrated cock-waving from you and the other angry little boys.