Posted on 07/31/2022 1:44:13 PM PDT by Twotone
The rise from 0.028% to 0.042% is almost entirely manmade. The CO2 production from nature is about 30 times more than manmade production. However the absorption of CO2 by nature is about equal to the production by nature. Mankind's CO2 absorption is essentially zero.
CO2 levels are definitely manmade this time around. But temperatures don't follow CO2, it's mostly the other way around.
I believe in climate change it’s been changing since creation
Bookmark
people pointed to this data corruption 10+ years ago. takes a long time for wheels of gov’t ‘science’ to turn.
Thanks. The link below is an update of your link and has a secure rating.
New study shows half of the global warming in the USA is artificial!
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/
For nearly five decades the official weather reporting station in my small hometown in South Dakota was within twenty feet of a large west facing brick wall of the old city auditorium. The locals, who had there own thermometers, frequently complained that the official high temperatures reported in the weekly newspaper, were always degrees hotter than what they noted on there thermometers. When the gentleman who operated the weather station passed away, the official weather station was moved to a new location in the middle of a large back yard away from any buildings and the reported high temperatures immediately began to more or less agree with what the locals were noting.
We have had basically the opposite N. of Gay Frisco.
Weather stations from semi normal sites were closed down, and the new stations were often in heat sink areas. So supposedly temps went up, and they didn’t!
People, who dared to point out these changes were hammered in local news papers.
Enjoy!
In short, no, they generally were seldom placed correctly.
Yes, sprawl has made it worse, but still always has been GIGO.
The fact is that there has been warming. That is pretty much settled.
The issue is not warming but if the warming trend is manmade and related to manmade carbon dioxide emissions
> The fact is that there has been warming. That is pretty much settled. <
I’ll believe that when I see estimates of uncertainty attached to the warming data. Forgive me if you already know about this...
Every measurement has an estimate of uncertainty (a +/- value). Such values aren’t guesses. They can be calculated.
But you never see these values when it comes to climate change data. I suspect that’s because they would make the data meaningless. For example, we are told something like the earth’s oceans have gotten 0.1 degree Celsius warmer. The estimate of uncertainty there might be +/- 0.2 degrees. That’s greater than the actual change itself. Therefore, the original measurement is meaningless.
Sorry for being a bit long-winded here. I’m not saying warming isn’t happening. I just want to see better evidence of it.
OK, I base my thoughts on visible, real conditions. These are not instrument readings over time
The Glaciers in Glacier National Park have been receding for some time now. I have hiked there and seen the recession.
In the Exit Glacier National Park in Alaska, as you approach the glacier, at least two miles out, there is a sign designating the location of the toe of the glacier in 1896. There are other signs along the way locating the glacial toe in specific years.
What that means is that the US Government has known of the warming trend for a very long time, perhaps 100 + years.
The ice is gone. It Melted. It was warmer.
The climate has changed from accumulating glacial ice to melting glacial ice. Perhaps on a really long term view, the noted results are a continuation of the change that ended the last ice age. Perhaps not.
So, is the present condition the result of prolonged weather change in Montana and Alaska. Yes of course. Is that permanent climate change? Perhaps.
However, all that is irrelevant to the political question at hand. Was the warming in Montana and Alaska in 1896 the result of excess atmospheric carbon dioxide resulting from SUV’s, jet airplanes and coal burning power plants? No, of course not
The way to end the Climate Change political controversy is to eradicate the enemies of the world population perpetrating the hoax. Such misguided people are the only real problem
Thanks for the reply.
My professional training revolved around making measurements, and usually small measurements. So that’s the way I tend to first think of things.
I found your comments about glaciers to be very interesting. A glacial retreat of two miles is certainly well beyond any estimate of uncertainty!
I suppose the real crime here is that no one is allowed to debate the issue. As you noted, it’s become too political. A professor who wants to argue for man-made global warming would talk to a full house. A professor who wants to argue against man-made global warming would be shouted down, and maybe even physically attacked. That’s surely not how science is supposed to work.
I seem to recall reading that the Clinton era FAA ordered sensors moved closer to runways in order that pilots receive "more accurate" information about runway conditions.
A long time ago, I read an article stating that global temperature and weather models had for many years included data from weather stations scattered across the USSR. Afer the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 many of those stations were abandoned and left to fall into ruin and that data stopped being included. What I remember most about the article was one scientist's analogy that said it would be like charting global per capita income and then all of a sudden, stop including data from sub-saharan African. Unsurprisingly, you would see a, "hockey stick," rise in the per capita numbers, and such was the effect of the sudden cessation of data from the former USSR on global temperatures.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.