ut in 1880, careful, historical, temperature records only started in a few large cities in Western Europe and the Northeast United States. I don’t mean that someone was using a thermometer. I mean carefully keeping precise, historical records to be maintained for posterity.
Fourth, how can we compare temperature records from 1970 to 1910 when the locations being measured were not the same in 1910 as in 1970? The number and locations being measured were concentrated in Western Europe and Northeastern North America.
This is why free-floating buoys are useless (for this purpose). We cannot compare the temperature records from one year to the next, because they are not measuring the same place year to year. The 1,000 buoys, 7,000 ships, and various airplanes may be good for monitoring “weather” — the movement of air masses and changes in pressure driving weather systems — but useless for measuring the planet’s temperature over the long haul. (And that is not “random.” Letting buoys drift does not constitute a truly random sample, starting from scratch for each measurement.)
Measurements from satellites systematically disagree with measurements at the Earth’s surface. Pseudo-scientists “adjust” (a.k.a. falsify) satellite data to hide this problem.
Fifth, temperature measurements of planet Earth would get an “F” grade in Freshman statistics. And that’s before we get into missing measurements when stations malfunction, temperature stations at airports in the exhaust of jet engines of airplanes taking off, next to fire department barbecues, next to industrial air conditioning exhaust, near asphalt or brick heat sinks, or in heat islands. And then there are the 80%+ weather stations that don’t meet the required standards, especially for site locations. And then there is the outright fraud in the temperature measurements that have been exposed.
And carbon? Of all things to declare war on? Carbon? Really?
Science class has been corrupted.
Good post
“Yet the problem is that our schools have spread lack of understanding throughout our once-great society.”
No, our schools have purposely propagandized and indoctrinated false information and beliefs in our children, for socialist/progressive change/takeover.
I try to keep up with Joanne Nova, an Australian researcher. Here’s a recent post where she shows NASA hiding information that disagrees with their public hysteria. An earlier one speaks about officially manipulated warming. She is also currently discussing the increasing energy costs in Australia involving complying with recent “green” requirements.
Absolutely right. Pretending to take the temperature of the Earth with so few measurement points is ridiculously stupid.
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.
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.
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.
CO2 concentration is a lagging indicator of temperature change.
The largest sequestration of CO2 are the oceans (2/3rds of the surface). CO2 is sequestered in higher concentrations during cold periods and released in warmer periods.
Ice cores are not precise indicators of global CO2 concentrations because their sequestration rate is higher in the cold periods (freezing temps).
Climate alarmists ignore these established facts.
Under the category of: Opinion.
If it’s fact, it’s not opinion. Needs to be categorized differently.
* * *
“This is why free-floating buoys are useless (for this purpose). We cannot compare the temperature records from one year to the next, because they are not measuring the same place year to year. “
LOL! First he says land stations are invalid because they are fixed and we need random locations measured.
With friends like this we don’t need enemies.
Here he says the bouys are invalid because they take random locations instead of fixed.
According to this link, the buoys are floating but moored and not free to move about the oceans.
https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/BUOY/