Posted on 02/20/2019 5:00:15 AM PST by Moseley
Advocates of a hypothesis that there is global warming that humans are causing ridicule those who won’t join their club. Yet the problem is that our schools have spread lack of understanding throughout our once-great society. Every institution run by people has been diminished. So let this be a primer if readers want to understand the hypothesis of global warming or try to free a believer from their fever:
I. Failing Freshman Statistics
The vast majority of the Earth is not being measured by weather stations. As we try to compare temperatures earlier in time, the poor coverage grows radically worse the farther back in time we go toward 1880.
The Earth’s surface measures 196.9 million square miles. Today, there are an estimated 10,100 weather stations world-wide, in addition to 1,000 free-floating buoys completely useless for measuring climate change.
Trending: Nathan Phillips Pushes Conservative Journalist, Runs Away When Confronted Over Covington Students
That means that if the temperature measurements were spread evenly across the Earth’s surface (they aren’t), there would be 1 weather station for every 19,495 square miles of the Earth’s surface. That’s almost the size of the State of Maryland (12,407 square miles).
Can today’s pseudo-scientists measure trends in the planet’s temperature? No. Here’s why:
First, the vast majority of the Earth’s surface is not being measured.
Second, a statistically valid sample, must be a random sample. You must take 196.9 million temperature measurements and average 196.9 million temperature measurements to come up with a single global average.
We can only resort to a smaller sample if the sample is random. But it is not. Any first-year student in undergraduate science would get an “F” if he tried to use a non-random sample to extrapolate the Earth’s overall global temperature.
(Excerpt) Read more at bigleaguepolitics.com ...
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.
So what that thermometers didn’t exist 140 years ago, that’s what tree rings and sheep entrails are for, silly infidel.
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.
carbon in the form of carbon dioxide is said to be a greenhouse gas. Like the glass in a greenhouse, the excessive green house gasses in the atmosphere resist radiation into space thus increasing the temperatures.
Recently, a Freeper introduced a brilliant thought. CO2 is heavier then air and cannot form a layer at altitudes necessary to act as the glass in a green house.
I had never heard that thought which seems on the surface to be correct
Well my point is that — to do actual science according to the Scientific Method — we would have to study and TEST this behavior in the open atmosphere, not in a lab. The crucial issue is not how CO2 molecules act, but how they interact with the entire global atmosphere and how they effect the heat of the entire planet planet-wide.
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.
And the glass in a greenhouse (a) traps the air inside in an enclosed space so it cannot mix with the rest of the atmosphere and (b) stays put.
Carbon dioxide cannot act as a greenhouse because it does not stay put, it moves.
yep.
When the idolized stupid of the group become famous and lead their flock of stupid, the flock of stupid follow and believe. Reminds me of this...........https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp_l5ntikaU
Not really. CO2 is completely soluble in the other gases of the atmosphere and doesn’t settle in lower lyers.
To be fair, your post is not entirely correct. Several gases in our atmosphere do indeed react with inbound and reflected light (albedo) to heat certain layers of our atmosphere
The same was true for CFCs, which they claimed destroyed ozone. I saw one panel in which a scientist was asked how CFCs got to the ozone instead of just staying on the ground. His answer was “tornadoes”. These scam artists need to be publicly shamed at every opportunity.
Which is why Prof Mann faked the tree ring data.
Absolutely right. Pretending to take the temperature of the Earth with so few measurement points is ridiculously stupid.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.