Bogus Warming

in climate-change •  7 years ago 



What Global Warming? It might be an artifact of the instrumentation!
................................................................................................................................................................................

In the not so long ago past temperature was measured using liquid filled glass tubes. They were called 'Thermometers'. It takes a few minutes for the liquid in the tubes to react to a change in temperature, it's NOT instant. Since the mid nineties (oddly enough when global warming was first noticed) electronic sensors have come into use.

Electronic sensors react VERY quickly...fractions of a second.

So..suppose....a puff of hot air from...oh...I dunno....a passing truck or a jet engine (odd how many weather 'sites' are at airports?) were to cause the temperature sensor to SPIKE. It'd only last for a second...perhaps less...the old time liquid filled thermometers would not have registered. The electronic sensor WOULD.

Next day the headline reads..."HOTTEST TEMPERATURE EVER!".....due to a puff of exhaust gas on an electronic sensor.

BUT WAIT...THERE"S more...for some very suspicious , very odd coincidence..the COLD extreme temps are...filtered out.
The hot ones are not.
Imagine that.

Read the whole sordid story

  • Record temperatures, maximum and minimum temperatures, and monthly, seasonal, and annual analyses are based not on daily values but on ONE SECOND VALUES.

  • Instrument errors may account for a quarter to one half of our national warming trend in the last century:
Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

I watched a documentary where they sampled ice cores to determine that global warming FOLLOWED CO2 rise, not the other way round where CO2 causes global warming. There could well be global warming going on because the temperature has been swinging from hot to cold long before Man ever came into being.

I saw that too.
In fact I've known that for a long time.
In FACT the 'scary chart' that AlGore used when he was on the 'skeery globull wurming' tour...showed that very thing. CO2 increase FOLLOWS warming (by about 800 years)

The way it works iz...cold (ocean) water absorbs CO2.
Hot water...notsomuch.
When the cold water warms up...it releases CO2..

so what does THAT inconvenient fact tell us about Globull Wurmers?

Yea. It's interesting how many people are gobbling up all the hype and BS though. If you read about it or hear about it 7 times or more, it must be true! So just keep repeating, "global warming is man-made" and you too may become a believer. LOL

shall we discuss the 'dirty window' effect of co2 and it's adsorption factor?

Sure if you have the time to go into it. I have not done any research on that topic, so it will be another learning experience for me.

and THUS you cut to the heart of the matter.
how many people have NOT done any research?
How many people TRUST their news source?

Very few even think about where their news comes from. It's all beyond their monkey-sphere, so its not really important to them.

People are stupid.

Another great observation sir.

Is that about the same electronic election ballot box's things, started too?

dunno...
election fraud is NOT a new thing..
as far as I can tell the dhmikratic party has never won an election without it.

definitely not - but electronic rigging is sooooo much easier

  ·  7 years ago (edited)

Good article! I found a documentary were all scientists who really look at data from a million years speak out against this global warming nonsense.

The science is settled.
but not on the side of the alarmists.
they have an agenda...global warming the tool they use to acheive it.

  ·  7 years ago (edited)

exactly! ...they have an agenda
Access.jpg

maybe.
I think they are insane.

another good one: Greenpeace Co-Founders Warns of Global Climate Change Scam

Very interisting.

Hear! Hear! Thanks my friend @everittdmickey!

Life wisdom comes slowly. Imagine the surprises these instant conclusion finding scientists will discover when they are age 70!

can't fix stupid.

Great post! I've never thought much about the exhaust affecting the electronic sensors at the airport, but your right, they do respond ultra fast. Different sampling rates 'could' be used to account for this, however, that wouldn't help sell the "global warming crisis", very well LOL.

Lets see how Houston is doing in 3 years. If Houston gets hit with another Harvey within the next 3 years then I will call it. We are all fucked due to anthropogenic climate change.

Brilliant observation!

I'm extremely sceptical of Global Warming since it has many characteristics of a pseudoscience.

I do agree that the climate is changing in some drastic ways, and that natural disasters and plagues are getting worse, but it cannot be easily tied to 'Global Warming' or fossil fuel burning. It is a very reductionist perspective which reeks of propaganda.

natural disasters and plagues are getting worse
got any data?
worse compared to when?

Well, if we take the past century or so, recorded disasters have really multiplied. An article in Live-Science says that "According to the EM-DAT, the total natural disasters reported each year has been steadily increasing in recent decades, from 78 in 1970 to 348 in 2004."

There are other graphs the I can't really show in a comment why show the recorded disasters increasing on average, as far as records go.

Mind you, I've noticed in their documents that natural disaster 'events', such as earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes etc. are only classed as 'disasters' after they inflict a certain amount of damage.

When I tried to look for the 'events' in general, the various articles begin to explain that such events happen all the time, but when they get into the data it turns out that the numbers are increasing.

I've found out that the biggest increase in the past century has been in hydrological catastrophes, such as floods, hurricanes, tsunamis etc. Here's a link to a graph from AccuWeather, you can see the number of catastrophes since the 1950s. The biggest jump is in the hydrological events but geophysical ones have increased too, just not as drastically.

It would certainly be interesting to do an in depth study on this, since finding in depth records seems to be tricky XD

if a tornado crosses an open field it's not a catastrophe.
if that same tornado were to cross down town dallas it would be.
but it's the SAME TWISTER.
WHAT'S different?

The difference is that people are not harmed. But I personally would consider both cases a catastrophe, since a tornado is a destructive force. Either way, land would be devastated. For me, both are a cause for concern.

Scientific assessments, including those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the U.S. government’s latest National Climate Assessment, indicate no long-term increases in the frequency or strength of hurricanes in the U.S. Neither has there been an increase in floods, droughts and tornadoes, though heat waves and heavy precipitation have become more common.

PS: By worse I meant that they are increasing in frequency. Sorry if I was vague XD

why do you think that they are?
do you have any data?

I cited some in my other answer ^_^

Scientific assessments, including those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the U.S. government’s latest National Climate Assessment, indicate no long-term increases in the frequency or strength of hurricanes in the U.S. Neither has there been an increase in floods, droughts and tornadoes, though heat waves and heavy precipitation have become more common.

HA!

I don't believe you but I am thankful for you!

It is nice to see someone ACTUALLY THINKING and ASKING QUESTIONS!

One thing you can be sure....what you read in the papers, see on the news or hear in the churches is FAR from accurate, logical or conscious.

I really like you so far!