man-made climate change 101 - or climate change for dummies
1) carbon dioxide has been known, proven, and reproven to trap heat in
the atmosphere (it's called a greenhouse gas for this reason). this is
scientific FACT and has been known for over a hundred years!
2) carbon dioxide leveles have been rising to unprecedented levels as
compared to any levels ever measured, i believe the data goes back
hundreds of thousands years. the carbon dioxide level for ANY time
period can and has been ACCURATELY measured by drilling into the
Artic or Antarcrtica ice glaciers, taking core samples, letting the ice
melt to release the trapped air bubbles, and accurately measuring
the composition of that sample to determine the carbon dioxide level
of the atmosphere during the timeframe.
3) the excess of carbon dioxide in todays atmosphere can be measured
and the age of that carbon be determined ACCURATELY by the
ratio of carbon isotope atoms to regular carbon. evidently
this breakdown of carbon follows a scientifically known and PROVEN
rate of decay which allows one to measure reasonably accurately a
samples age from this ratio ( I believe this is the method used is
the scientifically accepted method called carbon dating). todays
atmosphere shows that a huge % of the carbon in the carbon
dioxide is MILLIONS and MILLIONS of years old. where could
all that very old carbon come from? not many sources are
that old and certainly not in quantities to spike the CO2 rate.
as a matter of fact there is only one source, it's called fossil
fuels which were formed from deaths of creatures that died
millions of years ago.
these are scientifically understood, proven, and accepted points that
are known and understand by almost everyone in the world. many
of the studies trying to refute these points come from studies funded
by groups that are trying to encourage our continued use of fossil
fuels or by scientists and non scientists not considered to be fluent
in this field. sometimes rhetoric from politicians who are either
ignorant or come from regions that fossil fuels are a large % of
their local economy; try to drown out or minimize the science.
unfortunately all that noise has influenced too many people
worldwide from taking any meaningful action to stop or reverse
this trend.
4) warmer temperatures should mean greater evaporation of
water from lakes and oceans. greater evaporation should
mean more precipitation globally thus possibly increasing the
amount and duration of rain delays. i'm sure al gore will
release a film soon showing how climate change is affecting
outdoor sports.
opposing viewpoints are encouraged. I wonder how many will
call me delusional, a libtard, gay, or worse. those comments
are just too painful for me.
1) carbon dioxide has been known, proven, and reproven to trap heat in
the atmosphere (it's called a greenhouse gas for this reason). this is
scientific FACT and has been known for over a hundred years!
2) carbon dioxide leveles have been rising to unprecedented levels as
compared to any levels ever measured, i believe the data goes back
hundreds of thousands years. the carbon dioxide level for ANY time
period can and has been ACCURATELY measured by drilling into the
Artic or Antarcrtica ice glaciers, taking core samples, letting the ice
melt to release the trapped air bubbles, and accurately measuring
the composition of that sample to determine the carbon dioxide level
of the atmosphere during the timeframe.
3) the excess of carbon dioxide in todays atmosphere can be measured
and the age of that carbon be determined ACCURATELY by the
ratio of carbon isotope atoms to regular carbon. evidently
this breakdown of carbon follows a scientifically known and PROVEN
rate of decay which allows one to measure reasonably accurately a
samples age from this ratio ( I believe this is the method used is
the scientifically accepted method called carbon dating). todays
atmosphere shows that a huge % of the carbon in the carbon
dioxide is MILLIONS and MILLIONS of years old. where could
all that very old carbon come from? not many sources are
that old and certainly not in quantities to spike the CO2 rate.
as a matter of fact there is only one source, it's called fossil
fuels which were formed from deaths of creatures that died
millions of years ago.
these are scientifically understood, proven, and accepted points that
are known and understand by almost everyone in the world. many
of the studies trying to refute these points come from studies funded
by groups that are trying to encourage our continued use of fossil
fuels or by scientists and non scientists not considered to be fluent
in this field. sometimes rhetoric from politicians who are either
ignorant or come from regions that fossil fuels are a large % of
their local economy; try to drown out or minimize the science.
unfortunately all that noise has influenced too many people
worldwide from taking any meaningful action to stop or reverse
this trend.
4) warmer temperatures should mean greater evaporation of
water from lakes and oceans. greater evaporation should
mean more precipitation globally thus possibly increasing the
amount and duration of rain delays. i'm sure al gore will
release a film soon showing how climate change is affecting
outdoor sports.
opposing viewpoints are encouraged. I wonder how many will
call me delusional, a libtard, gay, or worse. those comments
are just too painful for me.
Global Warming: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration may have a boring name, but it has a very important job: It measures U.S. temperatures. Unfortunately, it seems to be a captive of the global warming religion. Its data are fraudulent.
What do we mean by fraudulent? How about this: NOAA has made repeated "adjustments" to its data, for the presumed scientific reason of making the data sets more accurate.
Nothing wrong with that. Except, all their changes point to one thing — lowering previously measured temperatures to show cooler weather in the past, and raising more recent temperatures to show warming in the recent present.
This creates a data illusion of ever-rising temperatures to match the increase in CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere since the mid-1800s, which global warming advocates say is a cause-and-effect relationship. The more CO2, the more warming.
But the actual measured temperature record shows something different: There have been hot years and hot decades since the turn of the last century, and colder years and colder decades. But the overall measured temperature shows no clear trend over the last century, at least not one that suggests runaway warming.
That is, until the NOAA's statisticians "adjust" the data. Using complex statistical models, they change the data to reflect not reality, but their underlying theories of global warming. That's clear from a simple fact of statistics: Data generate random errors, which cancel out over time. So by averaging data, the errors mostly disappear.
That's not what NOAA does.
According to the NOAA, the errors aren't random. They're systematic. As we noted, all of their temperature adjustments lean cooler in the distant past, and warmer in the more recent past. But they're very fuzzy about why this should be.
Far from legitimately "adjusting" anything, it appears they are cooking the data to show a politically correct trend toward global warming. Not by coincidence, that has been part and parcel of the government's underlying policies for the better part of two decades.
What NOAA does aren't niggling little changes, either.
As Tony Heller at the Real Climate Science web site notes, "Pre-2000 temperatures are progressively cooled, and post-2000 temperatures are warmed. This year has been a particularly spectacular episode of data tampering by NOAA, as they introduce nearly 2.5 degrees of fake warming since 1895."
So the global warming scare is basically a hoax.
This winter, for instance, as measured by temperature in city after city and by snow-storm severity, has been one of the coldest on record in the Northeast.
But after the NOAA's wizards finished with the data, it was merely about average.
Climate analyst Paul Homewood notes for instance that in New York state, measured temperatures this year were 2.7 degrees or more colder than in 1943. Not to NOAA. Its data show temperatures this year as 0.9 degrees cooler than the actual data in 1943.
[h=2]Erasing Winter[/h]By the way, a similar result occurred after the brutally cold 2013-2014 winter in New York. It was simply adjusted away. Do this year after year, and with the goal of radically altering the temperature record to fit the global warming narrative, and you have what amounts to climate fraud.
"Clearly NOAA's highly homogenized and adjusted version of the Central Lakes temperature record bears no resemblance at all the the actual station data," writes Homewood. "And if this one division is so badly in error, what confidence can there be that the rest of the U.S. is any better?"
That's the big question. And for those who think that government officials don't have political, cultural or other agendas, that's naivete of the highest sort. They do.
Since the official government mantra for all of the bureaucracies at least since the Clinton era is that CO2 production is an evil that inevitably leads to runaway global warming, those who toil in the bureaucracies' statistical sweat shops know that their careers and future funding depend on having the politically correct answers — not the scientifically correct ones.
"The key point here is that while NOAA frequently makes these adjustments to the raw data, it has never offered a convincing explanation as to why they are necessary," wrote James Delingpole recently in Breitbart's Big Government. "Nor yet, how exactly their adjusted data provides a more accurate version of the truth than the original data."
There are at least some signs of progress, however. In the case of the Environmental Protection Agency, future reports and studies will include the data and the underlying scientific assumptions for public scrutiny.
That's one way to bring greater honesty to government — and to keep climate charlatans from bankrupting our nation with spurious demands for carbon taxes and deindustrialization of our economy to prevent global warming. The only real result won't be a cooler planet, but rather mass poverty and lower standards of living for all.
What do we mean by fraudulent? How about this: NOAA has made repeated "adjustments" to its data, for the presumed scientific reason of making the data sets more accurate.
Nothing wrong with that. Except, all their changes point to one thing — lowering previously measured temperatures to show cooler weather in the past, and raising more recent temperatures to show warming in the recent present.
This creates a data illusion of ever-rising temperatures to match the increase in CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere since the mid-1800s, which global warming advocates say is a cause-and-effect relationship. The more CO2, the more warming.
But the actual measured temperature record shows something different: There have been hot years and hot decades since the turn of the last century, and colder years and colder decades. But the overall measured temperature shows no clear trend over the last century, at least not one that suggests runaway warming.
That is, until the NOAA's statisticians "adjust" the data. Using complex statistical models, they change the data to reflect not reality, but their underlying theories of global warming. That's clear from a simple fact of statistics: Data generate random errors, which cancel out over time. So by averaging data, the errors mostly disappear.
That's not what NOAA does.
According to the NOAA, the errors aren't random. They're systematic. As we noted, all of their temperature adjustments lean cooler in the distant past, and warmer in the more recent past. But they're very fuzzy about why this should be.
Far from legitimately "adjusting" anything, it appears they are cooking the data to show a politically correct trend toward global warming. Not by coincidence, that has been part and parcel of the government's underlying policies for the better part of two decades.
What NOAA does aren't niggling little changes, either.
As Tony Heller at the Real Climate Science web site notes, "Pre-2000 temperatures are progressively cooled, and post-2000 temperatures are warmed. This year has been a particularly spectacular episode of data tampering by NOAA, as they introduce nearly 2.5 degrees of fake warming since 1895."
So the global warming scare is basically a hoax.
This winter, for instance, as measured by temperature in city after city and by snow-storm severity, has been one of the coldest on record in the Northeast.
But after the NOAA's wizards finished with the data, it was merely about average.
Climate analyst Paul Homewood notes for instance that in New York state, measured temperatures this year were 2.7 degrees or more colder than in 1943. Not to NOAA. Its data show temperatures this year as 0.9 degrees cooler than the actual data in 1943.
[h=2]Erasing Winter[/h]By the way, a similar result occurred after the brutally cold 2013-2014 winter in New York. It was simply adjusted away. Do this year after year, and with the goal of radically altering the temperature record to fit the global warming narrative, and you have what amounts to climate fraud.
"Clearly NOAA's highly homogenized and adjusted version of the Central Lakes temperature record bears no resemblance at all the the actual station data," writes Homewood. "And if this one division is so badly in error, what confidence can there be that the rest of the U.S. is any better?"
That's the big question. And for those who think that government officials don't have political, cultural or other agendas, that's naivete of the highest sort. They do.
Since the official government mantra for all of the bureaucracies at least since the Clinton era is that CO2 production is an evil that inevitably leads to runaway global warming, those who toil in the bureaucracies' statistical sweat shops know that their careers and future funding depend on having the politically correct answers — not the scientifically correct ones.
"The key point here is that while NOAA frequently makes these adjustments to the raw data, it has never offered a convincing explanation as to why they are necessary," wrote James Delingpole recently in Breitbart's Big Government. "Nor yet, how exactly their adjusted data provides a more accurate version of the truth than the original data."
There are at least some signs of progress, however. In the case of the Environmental Protection Agency, future reports and studies will include the data and the underlying scientific assumptions for public scrutiny.
That's one way to bring greater honesty to government — and to keep climate charlatans from bankrupting our nation with spurious demands for carbon taxes and deindustrialization of our economy to prevent global warming. The only real result won't be a cooler planet, but rather mass poverty and lower standards of living for all.
carl, I believe I have. todays carbon dioxide level increase is coming mainly
from carbon that is millions of tears old; not recently produced carbon.
stevie, do you really want to draw your scientific conclusions from breitbart
and mr delingpole? actually the president does and the former head of
the environmental PROTECTION agency do; so you're in good company.
from carbon that is millions of tears old; not recently produced carbon.
stevie, do you really want to draw your scientific conclusions from breitbart
and mr delingpole? actually the president does and the former head of
the environmental PROTECTION agency do; so you're in good company.
