Understanding Earth's Climate and What Changes Earth's Climate
How many of you know that exactly 1/2 of the weather stations used to calculate global warming are non-exitent, virtual weather stations? That means that the specious stations DO NOT REPORT actual observations. They report “projected” temperatures. Example: If the nearest NWS or other certified station is reporting 32F at 8,000ft, the mountain above it has a “virtual weather station” that reports the temp at 12,000ft at 20F using the 3F per 1000ft standard. Problem: I commonly pass a known point 6 miles from here at 6,985ft and see a temp of 32F. We live at 7,399ft and when we get home, we are commonly at 26-27F. We are much colder than the virtual weather station would have reported. We should only be 1/2 degree less at 31.5F according to the virtual formula. Yet, we are at 25F-27F at home, a 5-7F discrepancy, reporting a warmth here that does not exist. Scientific data is data collected scientifically; not projections of what one thinks is occurring. If my anecdotal observations of such a deviation is projected across tens of thousands of virtual weather stations, then, at the very least, degree of confidence needs be lowered substantially. Arguably, all virtual stations should be excludec for one report that should become known as “Actual Data Based Report” and a separate report know as “Virtual, Blended, Non-Actual Report.” The latter is what we have now; a not real, factual data based report.
Further, “climate” happens over centuries, at least. “Weather” is what changes or varies over decades and years.
The statement that 97% of scientists agree human-produced CO2 is changing climate is demonstrably false and without merit. John Cook's misleading statistical diatribe lacks any mathematical credibility, as anyone that has actually reviewed his nonsensical claims already knows, and for which he has been roundly criticized. In any event, hypothesis and theory are NOT corroborated by a show of hands, they are corroborated -- or not -- by the provision of scientific evidence.
I would add, ice core isotope analyses from GISP2 to Vostok directly refute the assertion modern temperatures are the highest in 1,000 years. Even if they were, said ice core analyses show modern average temperatures have been significantly exceeded on numerous occasions in terms of both heat and cooling during the past 10,000 years. In point of fact, the more recent warming trend really started 12,000 years ago when the planet mysteriously emerged from an ice age without the assistance of human-produced CO2...
Humans produce approximately 3% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere. The assertion this infinitesimally small percentage of CO2 is altering climate is not only questionable on its face, the assertion it solely responsible for altering climate is not corroborated by any definitive scientific evidence, whatsoever.
Yes, the climate is changing as is has for 4-billion years or so. That humans are changing the climate with 3% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere has not been affirmed in any way, shape, or form, which has been plainly borne out by the gross inaccuracies of virtually every climate model since 1979 that erroneously predicted vastly more warming than has occurred. Climate models that do not accurately reflect past temperatures are garbage and the IPCC is a vast repository of just such a garbage collection.
Your facts are wrong. The % of scientist who say we humans are not in charge of the climate is very high. The testing has been altered to fit an agenda. Being good stewards of this beautiful place given to us to call home is essential. Climate changes! Changes in our climate is the natural process of the universe.
Yeah...no. The facts are correct. There are no actual scientists, looking at current data who do not understand that the climate is changing. My own garden and bird population reflect it.
I don't mind it talking about those disagreeing with climate change, but the writer should have emphasized that the majority that support it are 97% of all scientists, and the detractors are a tiny 3%.
The writer, Michael Steinberg, was writing fairly balanced until..."Detractors disagree..."
Many intelligent people have not bought into the theory of climate change, as the facts do not support it. Those who disagree with the believers of climate change are not "detractors". The writer should really be more careful and use non-devisive wording.
I've spent most of my life in Florida and have seen first hand the indicators of rising sea levels, and I've been fortunate enough to travel extensively all over the planet. Some glaciers I saw when I was young and again when I got older have just about disappeared completely.
The signs of climate change are all around you IF you'll just pay attention, historic floods all up and down the East coast of the US and there isn't a hurricane to blame, and the historic numbers of wildfires in the West with no relief in sight. It's not even peak fire season yet.
The facts, proven by climatologists worldwide, are showing us that climate change is real. Michael Steinberg was being a nice guy when he labelled non-believers as "detractors," even intelligent people can be "ignorant" of new "realities."
When your side is only 3% of all scientists, you are a detractor. Period. You are the vast minority. You are on the wrong side. There is no decisiveness. There is right and wrong. 97/3 is not an argument. It is a fact.
I see all these comments and they are all valid points. What I dont see or hear anymore is the fact that literally thousands of acres of CO2 eating forest are being cut down and slash burned daily. Yes now a lot of that is replanted, but those little baby trees do not use a 10th of the CO2 the mature trees used and the rain-forests, being cut down for mono cropping, produced loads of Oxygen for the atmosphere. Yes humans are contributing to the rise in CO2 but the truly significant ways are not the ones being broadcasted to the people through the media. Even those significant ones are not at the levels of other factors that are not controllable by the humans.
People are saying that humans are the major cause of the increase in CO2 levels. But what about volcanoes, do they not put out far more CO2 in a single day, than we ever could ? There is at the very least, one volcano erupting somewhere on earth every minute of every day. How much difference would there be in all the various gas levels if there were no volcanoes ?