
Understanding Earth's Climate and What Changes Earth's Climate
More Like This
ADVERTISEMENT
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%.
Comments