What you need to know to understand climatology arguments
The most important thing is that global warming is not really about warming . It is about a lack of nightime cooling . That is not the same thing as warming . The detection of such an effect is substantially different than actual warming . That is why climatologists are having such a hard time predicting the future of climate . Instead of trying to find warming they need to be looking for changes in nightime cooling . But here they are not only failing to do that ; They are suppressing the evidence from the rest of us ... evidence of a trend in cooling continuing unabated .
In politics such actions are called censorship . In climatology they are simply ignored and covered up by statistical trickery .
Here is what they are doing in Australia : As Richard Lintzen explained "politicians are obliged to respond to alarm " . That's why the predictions from climatology is inevitably alarmist in nature even if the data don't support it .
Here Doctor Jennifer Marohasy discusses the mishandling of the data from Amberley Australia . This data set has been recorded continuously since 1941 . That makes it a very valuable data set . It gives a longer time perspective that most other data sets don't have .
Dr. David Jones was quoted as saying that 2013 was the hottest year on record . He said "We know every place across Australia is getting hotter ." . As you can see from the graphs at 5:15 below neither the maximum series nor the minimum series is showing a warming trend since 2002 . The minimum temperature series actually shows cooling from about 1970 .
Tags
Who is online
396 visitors
First comment
If you are reading material that simply claims the earth is warming , you know you are already dealing with faulty thinking . The lack of nightime cooling is the only effect that greenhouse gases could possibly have . And as the video explains that statement is NOT supported by this particular long lived data series . What is shown is a callous disregard for the facts in evidence and a simplistic manipulation of the data to purposely show erroneous results . Is that called propaganda ? I would think so .
Here is another excellent link on this topic :
I think we should do everything reasonable to reduce our emission of green house gases into the atmosphere, no different than trying to keep the earth as unpolluted as we can. I just don't like the idea of do as I say not as I do.
Any particular greenhouse gases? Apparently CO2 is not one of those ...based on the empirical data anyway.
Very informative and always good to learn more about what is really going on.
Thanks for you input JCM . According to the greenhouse gas theory low temperatures should be going up all over the globe with no exceptions . But they're not . The video I posted from Doctor Jennifer Marohasy goes into the details of one location in Australia where the lows are trending lower . If greenhouse gases were having their theoretical effects that could not happen .
BTW what is the source of the graph you posted ? If I'm not mistaken it is not measuring the required stat which is directly related to nightime cooling . It is only looking at long term extremes for decades at a time for the entire US . That info could be effected by local extremes in small regions and has no bearing on nightime cooling issues .
Even worse is the purposeful deception on the part of establishment climate scientists to prevent the public from seeing the raw data ... in other words censorship . What is happening in Australian climatology is used to produce data for the entire globe ... even the BEST study .
One more thing : CO2 levels are undoubtedly increasing . My conclusion is that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas ...
Comment removed for CoC violation. Randy
Hi Petey,
The graph came from the US EPA at
The most meaningful thing is the long-term trends as short-term temperatures fluctuate wildly as a result of ever-changing weather patterns. Looking at it over decades averages out the short-term fluctuations and shows up the trend.
I don't believe anyone is really trying to keep you from seeing the raw data, it is just that it comes from many different sources and isnot very meaningful until it is organized and graphed so we can see what is happening. I tried looking at some of the raw data myself but I didn't want to devote that much of my life to it.
Carbon dioxide and water vapor absorbstrongly in the infrared region and they are responsible for most of the greenhouse effect. Global averages of CO2 concentrations and temperatures serve as a scorecard to show us the effect of increasing CO2 concentrations on theearths average emperature. Though they fluctuate from region to region and over the years, the trend in both is upward.
The easiest way to deal with this is to contact a moderator yourself and link them to the offending comment . I am trying to do that now .
Thanks for your response .
Yes to water , no to CO2 . That was in dispute from the beginning of this subject matter . Apparently the IR absorbing effects of CO2 saturate out at much lower concentrations .
The trend in CO2 is steadily up . But temperature trends are not global . They are almost exclusively in the Arctic . If they were caused by CO2 they should be uniformly global .
k Gronk
I realize that you are just reporting what the insult was by re-posting it, however it has been archived and I'm asking that you please remove your response as it doesn't do much good for me to delete an offensive post that is in violation of the CoC, if you're just going to repeat the words yourself. Thank you. RandyThanks for your help moderator Randy . And k Gronk would do well to delete his comment to prevent perpetuating the CoC violation against himself ...
In my research, I often ran the infrared spectrum of the atmosphere, and CO2 and water vapor both absorbed strongly in the infrared.
You are correct that the Arctic, as well as high elevationsand deserts- areas with low humidity - have seen the greatest increase in temperature as the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased. Though some areas are warming faster than others, the Earth's average temperature is something like a scorecard which tells us that theearth's systems are storing energy.
Let's not forget about the Antarctic . It has not seen the same temperature increases even though it also has the same increases in CO2 concentrations . Also any warming that has happened is not correlated well with CO2 concentration levels . But it should be .
In any case looking only at average temperatures is not very revealing . The theory behind greenhouse gases says to look at night time cooling changes .
The big point one should take away from this article is that the effects of greenhouse gases [if any] are secondary effects . The primary effects are due to changes in solar irradiation . According to another female scientist there is going to be a large change to the primary effect in only 15 years resulting in a mini ice age :
Didn't we just go through this discussion ? It is not the entire earth undergoing warming . It is the Arctic .
It is not the Milankovic cycles that is involved in the prediction from this article :
The decrease in solar irradiance is part of the sunspot cycle according the the scientist who wrote that piece .
According to the Milankoviccycles, the earth should be cooling slowly over the next 20,000 years, but it appears to be warming instead. Empirical data shows theEarth's average temperature is increasing, and a paper by skeptics Ryan O'Donnelland Steve McIntyre found that even Antarctica is warming.
You have not disputed what I said previously . The earth is not warming . It is only the Arctic that is warming .
Feel free to post links to the O'Donnelland McIntyre info .
I noticed you did not bother posting what you claim is Antarctic warming but that misrepresents what their paper was about . It pointed out that the warming is concentrated in one location , the results of volcanic activity . It was not spread out over the entire continent as would happen in the case of greenhouse warming .
Here is the link :
As JCM said, I've read that there are 80,000 recording stations in the world and that NOAA has 4 supercomputers crunching the data. I don't think anyone could do them all, especially in their spare time.
I am trying to add something positive, Petey, not a negative view. So, please don't jump on me.
I'm have no intention of "jumping on you " . Apparently you are addressing the issue of intention in the data distortion . I really can't argue with the possibility it is not purposeful . But I will add that I think the distortion to data is systemic in the climatology analysis .
They have a sole theory which they are devoted to proving . That is the exact opposite of how real science is done . They need to begin with the data , not with a prior agreed upon theory . Until they do that they are going to continue to conceal facts from the data that are critical , whether purposeful or not .
BTW I think it might be a good idea for me to write a prequel to this article . Not everyone seems to be on the same page with me ...
ALL I was saying, was that it would be very difficult for one person to crunch through all that data. That's all. No hidden agenda, no meanness intended, nothing, just that it's a lot of data.
I wasn't attacking your ideas, or theory, or anything-- just that it's a lot of data.
Sure it's a lot of data . But with computers it is easy to effect distortions . All you need is faulty programming . And that's what happens when you turn the science on its head ...
I'm sure it would be! One hell of a spreadsheet...
Using a spread sheet to process large volumes of data is inadvisable . That is where statistical packages are utilized . There are many of those but they are not designed for amateur usage .
I was trying to joke, Petey... Sorry it fell flat.
It's a travesty how shamelessly they manipulate the data. You can't take them seriously.
OK Dowser , your joke gave me the opportunity to show off my knowledge of statistical processing software . Maybe it will help to establish my level of expertise if nothing else ...
Here is a link that NOAA publishes to give a visual how hot things have gotten .
But it is relative to some mythical average which reveals little . What they should do but won't is show how some recent day compares to a day exactly one year before it . That removes the effects of seasonality . But they want to exaggerate the results by cherry picking July and comparing that to an all year average . That is indeed a statistical travesty which anyone with ethics would be ashamed to present as a useful argument . Do they have ethics ? Not as far as I can detect ...
Unfortunately the conversion process has stripped off the supporting video from the article . I am therefore adding it here :