Posted on 02/20/2019 5:00:15 AM PST by Moseley
Advocates of a hypothesis that there is global warming that humans are causing ridicule those who won’t join their club. Yet the problem is that our schools have spread lack of understanding throughout our once-great society. Every institution run by people has been diminished. So let this be a primer if readers want to understand the hypothesis of global warming or try to free a believer from their fever:
I. Failing Freshman Statistics
The vast majority of the Earth is not being measured by weather stations. As we try to compare temperatures earlier in time, the poor coverage grows radically worse the farther back in time we go toward 1880.
The Earth’s surface measures 196.9 million square miles. Today, there are an estimated 10,100 weather stations world-wide, in addition to 1,000 free-floating buoys completely useless for measuring climate change.
Trending: Nathan Phillips Pushes Conservative Journalist, Runs Away When Confronted Over Covington Students
That means that if the temperature measurements were spread evenly across the Earth’s surface (they aren’t), there would be 1 weather station for every 19,495 square miles of the Earth’s surface. That’s almost the size of the State of Maryland (12,407 square miles).
Can today’s pseudo-scientists measure trends in the planet’s temperature? No. Here’s why:
First, the vast majority of the Earth’s surface is not being measured.
Second, a statistically valid sample, must be a random sample. You must take 196.9 million temperature measurements and average 196.9 million temperature measurements to come up with a single global average.
We can only resort to a smaller sample if the sample is random. But it is not. Any first-year student in undergraduate science would get an “F” if he tried to use a non-random sample to extrapolate the Earth’s overall global temperature.
(Excerpt) Read more at bigleaguepolitics.com ...
If the heavier gases settled out by weight, then all animals (including humans) on the Earth’s surface would suffocate because we would have nothing but oxygen to breathe.
The fatal flaw is trying to analyze these constituent parts in isolation and hot as a whole.
The atmosphere is in constant motion, and therefore constantly mixing. I would imagine that the extent of constant atmospheric mixing and turbulence exceeds the extent to which CO2 is heavier than other gases.
I mean we would have nothing but carbon dioxide to breathe
laughing! thank you
Climatic change can be measured in caves. The temperature within a cave is in fact the average 24/7/365 temperature for that location. Locally that temp is said to be 55° F.
If there is in fact significant warming, cave temperatures will rise.
I looked for a plot of Mammoth cave temps over time but could not find one
But even if tree ring data were not faked,
how do you calibrate tree rings as an instrument of precise scientific measurement?
how do you standardize it as an instrument of measure?
what is the margin of error in tree ring measurements?
isn’t the margin of error or range of imprecision far greater than the effects we are trying to calculate?
Well you surely need to get a massive grant to pursue that concept
I think tree rings are one of Blam’s areas of expertise
The problem is that thanks to Jimmah Carter, who gave the NEA and AFT the Department of Education as a payoff for supporting his campaign, a couple of generations of education-conversion-to-indoctrination has created the Millenial Generation, non-functionally ignorant with a false sense of self-worth and entitlement.
They do not have the basic math and science skills, back by critical thinking skills, to understand the scam that is “climate science”.
Plus, they are totally ignorant in History and Civics, so they buy the socialism bullshit without thought.
Now from a biology perspective. Plants are CO@ starved. So much so, it is a growth factor limiter.
There are two energy paths in photosynthesis. Most plants use the energy intensive path because Co2 concentration is so low. Once CO2 becomes more available the less energy method kicks in and the plants suck up the CO2.
Of course this is just random, no design involved.
OK!! Everybody pay attention!
Lesson for today:
1. The sun is 1,300,000 times as big as the earth.
2. The sun is a giant nuclear furnace that controls the climates of all its planets.
3. The earth is one of the sun’s planets.
4. The earth is a speck in comparison to the size of the sun.
5. Inhabitants of the earth are less than specks.
Study Question: How do less-than-specks in congress plan to control the sun?
They don’t need stats, math, or science. Just a basic understanding of the scientific method.
1) What has the science predicted?
2) Have those predictions occurred?
There’s a little more to it from a scientist’s view, but that’s enough to evaluate credibility of the science. There are dozens of scientific predictions over 30 years. The one they cling to is “the direction of temperature change”. We weren’t warned about “direction”, but “amount”. And that prediction has failed like so many others. A theory is not scientifically credible if tests (predictions in this case) repeatedly fail.
We can apply the same analysis to public advocacy predictions (i.e. IPCC, Hansen, Gore, etc) as to scientific predictions and determine the credibility of advocates. Most people know these predictions since they flooded the media unlike the scientific predictions which most people don’t see
1) The hockey stick (when’s the last time anyone heard about that debunked prediction? They won’t even admit it was debunked, just won’t talk about it)
2) Polar bear demise
3) Ice-free arctic
4) End of snow in the US northwest
5) Tuvalu sinking
6) More & stronger hurricanes and other natural disasters
Every year there are new predictions and new warnings. Often contradicting a previous prediction. The scariest stats they can pull from the previous year are always used and then ignored in future years when then end up being a one-time problem.
Anyone who ignores the lack of successful predictions is denying the scientific method (which was created and improved over centuries for exactly this problem of determining the credibility of science vs scientists and advocates).
and then there is this:
Folks, the air is only .033% co2, there isn’t much there! Of course 78% is nitrogen and that alone may kill us./sarc
http://mistupid.com/chemistry/aircomp.htm
Human Respiration
The air that leaves a person’s lungs during exhalation contains 14% oxygen and 4.4% carbon dioxide.
Atmospheres with oxygen concentrations below 19.5 percent can have adverse physiological effects, and atmospheres with less than 16 percent oxygen can become life threatening.
Folks, look at that. we need at least 19.5 presence o2 in the atmosphere and we only have 20.94% The real danger is potential lack of oxygen. lets build a model of what happens when that happens.
Thanks! Thoroughly enjoyed the song. We all need to remember the power of love for each other.
Several gases in our atmosphere do indeed react with inbound and reflected light (
Folks, we NEED the energy reflected back to earth!
It is this simple: If AGW was a trye Scientific Theory there would be one model and it would be predictive.
Even TtoE adheres to this. Let us not discuss TToE here. I bring it up to note that the climate snowflakes try to throw the distrust some Conservatives have in TtoE as proof we don’t understand science.
AGW meets ZERO criteria of a Scientific Theory.
Ask liberals for the model of what temps would be WITHOUT humans and how it was verified.
Being soluable doesn’t negate gravity. Fill a balloon with helium. See what happens. Fill a balloon with CO2. See what happens.
Water vapor, aka clouds, do that. Clouds are responsible for over 70% of global climate.
The problem occurs when they try to extrapolate that to a year round temperature. For example, in the southwest where tree ring dating was first developed, you can have a moist cool spring but a hot dry summer. For that year you have a wide ring (growth mostly complete) and a hotter than normal summer. The reverse is also true - a dry spring and a wet summer due to the SW monsoons. It's obvious then that using tree rings as a indicator of temperature can be fraught with problems.
As for calibration, tree rings were originally calibrated against spring rainfall records for locations in the US southwest (Tucson area to begin with) and are used, for example, to show that a dry period occurred in the 1100-1200's that may have contributed to the abandonment of the large Indian pueblo culture of Chaco Canyon in northwest New Mexico. Again, relying on tree rings alone as a predictor of past temperature can result in false conclusions.
(BTW back in the ancient past, I took a semester course at the UofAZ and actually went out, collected tree rings, measured them and learned to correlate them with rainfall records.)
Well even if there is no Global Warming, some fauna & flora are getting extinct. So I don’t think that humanity will live long if everything will be going that way
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.