Posted on 02/20/2019 5:00:15 AM PST by Moseley
“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. “
LOL! First he says land stations are invalid because they are fixed and we need random locations measured.
With friends like this we don’t need enemies.
Here he says the bouys are invalid because they take random locations instead of fixed.
That’s not how a random sample works.
You cannot do a random sample of the entire Earth by letting buoys drift.
To do a random sample, you have to start from scratch and randomly sample the entire Earth, not just allow buoys to float around near where they were previously.
So free-floating buoys NEITHER work if you think sampling the same place each year works NOR do they constitute a random sample.
For example, if you are doing a random sample of voters, and you call 2929 Oak Tree Road one year, you cannot sample the house next door at 2927 Oak Tree Road next year.
That’s not a random sample
“That’s not how a random sample works.”
REREAD my post. I was not explaining how to take random samples. I was pointing out that the author said land measurements were invalid because they were in fixed locations but bouy samples were not valid because they were NOT in fixed locations.
According to this link, the buoys are floating but moored and not free to move about the oceans.
https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/BUOY/
As Blueflag points out, CO2 mixes with other gases in the and does not settle out at lower elevations. If the latter were true, how would you explain the lack of trees at near sea level in the arctic? Temperature is the controlling variable there though length of day, wind conditions and lack of moisture also impact wood growth. In mountain areas in addition to temperature, snow pack duration and wind also minimize tree growth.
Gasses do move, and do circulate. It doesn’t mean that the circulation isn’t limited by gravity.
The level of CO2 (and dust, and water vapor) decrease gradually as you get higher into the atmosphere. This is due to both circulation and gravity. Upper levels of the atmosphere are mostly Hydrogen and Helium.
The sun warms all the planets, it warms up comets in -455 degree space. The sun’s energy varies all the time.
The earth wobbles around the sun and tilts thru out the year with the sunshine amount varying with the seasons as a result. The idea that anyone can measure the variations in the atmosphere as the air circulates around and over the oceans, deserts, mountains with temperature changing along the way. Try predicting how a river current will play out.
Plus the thermometers vary. No one calibrates all plus I bet no one has ever done so once out in the field.
These liars are saying half a degree temperature change a hundred years from now is catastrophic while every single day temps vary wildly is just absurd.
Also their predictions are all computer models based on lies that have been revealed to be lies.
The information I was citing is that there are both kinds of buoys. Some are moored in place. Some are floating freely
Why only 196.9 million temperature measurements? That’s one per square mile. Not hardly enough! Needs to be many times more dense than that.
And one more thing: the thermometers are at what height? 6 feet? Why 6 feet? because a man is 6 feet tall? dumb reason. The atmosphere is not a flat surface. It is measured in 3 dimensions. So you need thermometers at various heights, not just at 6 feet. How high will you go? It gets colder as you go up, so obviously the “scientists” are not going to go up.
Bottom line is that this measures the temperature of the air. That’s not the temperature of the Earth.
“Bottom line is that this measures the temperature of the air. That’s not the temperature of the Earth.”
A very interesting point.
The subject of Venus has to be discussed more thoroughly. Right now the Goebbels Warming crowd take global warming as a given on Venus, ignoring things like volcanic activity and closeness to the sun. I would like to see an article attacking the ASSUMPTION that Venus is what you get when you have too much CO2 in the atmosphere.
Agreed.
I have seen an in-depth article a while ago on how the temperature on Venus responds to the PRESSURE of the atmosphere not the composition. The modeling based on the composition of gases of Venue is a poor predictor of temperature. The modeling based on the intense pressure of the atmosphere is a good predictor of the temperature.
I don’t know where I saw that and I didn’t keep it. I should have.
The problem with Venus or with anything else is that we are not comparing it to anything.
We observe a snapshot of Venus.
Without being able to compare A to B it is impossible to make a scientific analysis or to engage in any logical analysis whatsoever.
So to simply observe Venus as it is now can tell us nothing.
To determine if there is a greenhouse effect, much less why, we would have to COMPARE Venus in its current location and size WITH carbon dioxide and WITHOUT carbon dioxide.
It is complete nonsense to see a single situation and say that it “proves” anything.
Excellent analysis. Thanks for your thoughts on this.
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.