Commentary #6: Global Warming

[Mark Rippetoe]

IPCC adjusts temperature data to create the impression of catastrophic global warming – The Expose

[Subby]

Has there been an experiment done, ideally on a small scale biosphere, or hell even a small glass box just as a proof of concept. In this experiment two boxes are left in the son for a period with temperature monitoring equipment and various levels of gas mixes are put in the sealed containers? Presumably 100% Co2 would get hotter than the atmosphere mix control. But this would seem to me, as an uneducated moron, the simplest way to settle the argument if Co2 traps heat or not.

[VNV]

Supplemental material, another article by Happer:

The Truth About Greenhouse Gases by William Happer | Articles | First Things

[Jason Donaldson]

Has there been an experiment done, ideally on a small scale biosphere, or hell even a small glass box just as a proof of concept. In this experiment two boxes are left in the son for a period with temperature monitoring equipment and various levels of gas mixes are put in the sealed containers? Presumably 100% Co2 would get hotter than the atmosphere mix control. But this would seem to me, as an uneducated moron, the simplest way to settle the argument if Co2 traps heat or not.

What would you make the box out of? Given how actual...you know... greenhouses are built, I'm guessing the box itself would have a far greater effect, throwing the whole thing off.

Just a guess, though...

[francesco.decaro]

The earth has been cooling for about two decades. Have you not noticed how cold the last three or four springs have been?

Not really, but I've tried looking at weather forecast data from the past 20 years at random, and temperatures have been pretty much the same, there's no actual objective trend of temperatures increasing.
I think using people's perception of what the temperature or weather events are is pretty useless, and precisely the point of the climate change agenda. Don't you FEEL how hot it is???!

[Subby]

What would you make the box out of? Given how actual...you know... greenhouses are built, I'm guessing the box itself would have a far greater effect, throwing the whole thing off.

Just a guess, though...

Glass ideally, but assuming the glass is the same and the only variable is the concentration of C02 it should show an affect right? I'll "trust the science" to make an appropriate experiment.

[VNV]

Has there been an experiment done, ideally on a small scale biosphere, or hell even a small glass box just as a proof of concept. In this experiment two boxes are left in the son for a period with temperature monitoring equipment and various levels of gas mixes are put in the sealed containers? Presumably 100% Co2 would get hotter than the atmosphere mix control. But this would seem to me, as an uneducated moron, the simplest way to settle the argument if Co2 traps heat or not.

You can find experiments on YT showing how the image of a match on a thermal camera is obscured by CO2 injected into an intervening cylinder. But that's another all-things-being-equal argument, and all things are far from equal. See my link to Happer above.

[Jovan Dragisic]

Not really, but I've tried looking at weather forecast data from the past 20 years at random, and temperatures have been pretty much the same, there's no actual objective trend of temperatures increasing.
I think using people's perception of what the temperature or weather events are is pretty useless, and precisely the point of the climate change agenda. Don't you FEEL how hot it is???!

The past two decades have seen more instances of historical lows than highs all over the world. The fact checkers have been in a rush to explain it away. This is why the main phrase has shifted to climate change instead of global warming, but it is slow to propagate, a lot of junk science is still geared towards melting ice in the oceans and silly shit like that.

[Barry Charles]

Has there been an experiment done, ideally on a small scale biosphere, or hell even a small glass box just as a proof of concept. In this experiment two boxes are left in the son for a period with temperature monitoring equipment and various levels of gas mixes are put in the sealed containers? Presumably 100% Co2 would get hotter than the atmosphere mix control. But this would seem to me, as an uneducated moron, the simplest way to settle the argument if Co2 traps heat or not.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is governed by the science of “radiative transfer” which is how radiation , eg sunlight, goes through, is absorbed, reflected, and wavelength shifted going through a medium such as the atmosphere. It is a mature science over 100yrs old.

A greenhouse gases, are those that let sunlight through and keep longer wavelength heat in and from radiating back to space.

CO2 is not the strongest greenhouse gas. Methane and water vapor, are far stronger for example.

Anyway, the problem is not answering whether is CO2 a greenhouse gas or not, (it is), it’s how does it compare to the other gases and factors such reflected, absorption by surfaces, solar variability , and a million other things. That is not a simple experiment or easy to model. The models to date adjust the algorithm to fit the data, which is generously fraud.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Climate Change Scandal in Australia Heating Up – The Daily Sceptic

Further significant doubts have been cast on the accuracy of global surface temperature results following the discovery that electronic thermometers in Australia have read up to 0.7°C higher than traditional mercury glass units. The Australian dataset is a major component of global compilations since it provides an important guide to one of the largest land masses in the southern hemisphere. After many years of trying, local freedom of information requests from scientists have forced the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) to release comparative information from the two measuring devices around Brisbane airport. It shows that automatic readings are higher 41% of the time, compared with 32% when the temperatures were the same.

Electronic temperatures devices have been in general use in Australia since 1995. The guidance of the World Meteorological Organisation suggests averaging temperatures over a minute to remove corruptions caused by temporary effects such as a sudden gust of hot air. But the BoM records highs for just a second, something that basic mercury thermometers cannot do. For years, the BoM has refused to release comparative instrument data.

The Australian journalist Jo Nova takes a sceptical view as to why the BoM has been so stubborn. Potentially, the electronic sensors “offer a bonanza of propaganda headlines for the Green Blob to pick from, especially when ‘coldest ever days’ get ignored by the media”. The sensors are offering many more headlines of records for heat, heatwaves, hottest nights, more days over 35°C, she continued, adding, “there are many cherries to be picked here”.

The use of highly sensitive measuring equipment to produce temperature records and hence whip up climate emergency fears is common throughout the world. Last year In the U.K., the Met Office promoted a ‘record’ high of 40.3°C halfway down the runway at RAF Coningsby on the afternoon of July 19th. Admittedly, the record was declared to have stood for longer than a second – 60 seconds to be precise. To this day, the Met Office has refused to answer a number of Daily Sceptic enquiries about possible non-climatic causes of this widely promoted record. In the light of the Australian disclosures, we wonder if the Met Office should re-examine the way it declares heat records and compare the results of its measuring devices with those produced by basic mercury thermometers.

This shit has been going on for a VERY long time.