Climate change is real... But we found a shocking surprise.

originally posted by: mbkennel

...
Actual professional scientists ...

The problem with " Actual-Professional-Scientists™ " , is that somebody or someone is paying ( investing ) in the study, with expectations for results.

Might well be a wacky old uneducated dumbass, but am still able to grasp what ' Professional™ ' means.

Who is out there paying for studies, with a 100% open mindedness as to the results ?

Funding
This work was supported by National Key Research and Development Program of China [grant number 2016YFA0600101] and National Aeronautics and Space Administration [grant number 80NSSC18K0620].

China™ and NASA™ eh ?

Both 100% on-board with Agenda-21™, Agenda-2030™, Rio and Paris Accords™, and were cheerleading on the sidelines at the anointment of Ste-Greta™, otherwise known as the Climate-Queen™ .

Neither of them has the slightest interest in anything that would raise questions about their AGW™ scaremongering.

Please don't take my critique as mean-spirited, because am just a big ole jolly dumb uneducated arse, mostly chuckling, and teasing you.

my first problem with this whole thing is that a planetary system is an unbelievably complex thing with innumerable moving parts and going "this happens on the moon so let's get a reading in my backyard and see if it follows" seems like a remarkably misguided concept from the start. It does seem like a fun lil home experiment though so well done for collecting all the data

my second problem is the suspension of disbelief necessary to entertain anti-climate change in a more general sense. Like you're telling me that THOUSANDS, literally thousands of scientists from all walks of life all over the globe, they're all in on some big secret, they're all being paid off and lying to us, but your guy is the one and only brave truth teller out there? And he just happens to be selling what you're buying? i dunno man seems awful convenient

originally posted by: continuousThunder
my second problem is the suspension of disbelief necessary to entertain anti-climate change in a more general sense. Like you're telling me that THOUSANDS, literally thousands of scientists from all walks of life all over the globe, they're all in on some big secret, they're all being paid off and lying to us, but your guy is the one and only brave truth teller out there? And he just happens to be selling what you're buying? i dunno man seems awful convenient

There's another thing: many people talk about global warming, climate change or whatever they want to call it as if it's something that has just been talk in the last 10 years or so, when the first time I read about was more than 30 years ago.

a reply to: continuousThunder

I for one am not relying on anyone I cannot personally verify. I am relying on empirical data and direct observation.

Ever hear of the "helio-centric universe"? Used to be all the rage. All the scientists believed in the helio-centric universe (which stated the sun was the center of the universe). Until, oops, we discovered that the sun was not the center of the universe.

Go back further... the earth-centric universe. The Earth was the center of the universe and anyone who said differently was not following the science. Of course, we now know that was a load of poppycock, but at the time it was the accepted scientific theory.

Flat Earth theory, easily disproven in a dozen different ways, was the accepted theory until Christopher Columbus and Ferdinand Magellan (among others) went west to get east. Blew everyone's minds!

History is rife with failed scientific theories. All were disproven by careful examination of the data and questioning minds. Almost all were accepted by both scientists and the general public. When disproven, most theories even stayed entrenched in the minds of the public. Have we learned nothing?

Every single prediction, save one, based on Global Warming has been disproven. New York is not underwater. Storms have not increased in severity. The planet has not turned into a desert. Crops are still producing. People have not started dying in droves from heat strokes. And CO2 levels, the one prediction that has come true and the one that no one seriously disagreed with, has continued to rise slowly.

Incorrect is incorrect. It does not matter if 10 trillion scientists agree that something is real; if they cannot use that theory to accurately predict future events, the theory is not sound. That's just the way it is. Reality, physics, does not bow to democratic numbers. It is what it is, and it will not change what it is no matter how badly we want it to or how many people want it to.

TheRedneck

a reply to: continuousThunder

Like you're telling me that THOUSANDS, literally thousands of scientists from all walks of life all over the globe, they're all in on some big secret, they're all being paid off and lying to us, but your guy is the one and only brave truth teller out there?

you remember Covid-19 right ?

a reply to: TheRedneck

Hey mate you cant just steal my ATS Signature and use it as a post

Climate chanage is masturbation. It’s self gratification or virtue signaling at this point.

It’s a wet dream at most.

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: swanne

Interesting, but I have a few doubts.

First, local measurements can only be taken that way, locally, we can never apply the data from one are to the whole planet, specially when talking about weather, that in many areas has specific, local, characteristics.

That is a fact. That's why we hope more people around the globe could begin measuring nightside heat loss, to determine if it is a global trend or just a local trend. That being said, we would expect greenhouse gases-induced Global Warming to have effects on the local scale, since the local scale is part of the global scale.

Second, loss of temperature during the night is highly related to cloud coverage, no clouds allow more heat loss, so it would be good if you could add that in the collected data (if it's not already being done).

Precisely! We came to a similar realization and in the middle of the year 2021, we began recording cloud coverage. Our findings corroborate your point. We would measure something like 7 degrees of nightside heat loss during cloudy nights (I would have to run the figures to be more exact), and something like 13 degrees during clear nights (once again, don't quote me on this, I would need to filter our data before giving a more precise figure).

But indeed we have observed superior heat loss during clear nights than during cloudy nights, and starting from the middle of 2021 we have begun adding cloud coverage into our records.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Those are excellent arguments, thank you for bringing those up. I do not disagree; we are aware of the physical properties of water vapor, as well. I feel our records can help bring a piece of the puzzle, but they are most definitely NOT the entire puzzle.

Nevertheless, I must point out that an increase in global temperature will increase global water vapor, which WILL have an effect on our local heat loss records, unless we are for some reasons locally spared from the effects of global warming. The more people verify heat loss for themselves, the more we can indirectly verify the global warming theory, as a global warming should be associated with an increase in global heat retention, and its effects would register in all of our records.

Also, I find your observations of a cyclical pattern highly interesting. Do you have a personal theory as to what may have caused such a cycle? The Sun is known to be a variable star, however it is usually thought to have much shorter cycles than the one you have observed. So this makes it even more interesting.

a reply to: swanne

Do you have a personal theory as to what may have caused such a cycle?

Cyclical, usually sinusoidal, variations are quite common in control systems. It is actually quite unusual to not find some sort of minor fluctuation. The climate itself is a massively complex MIMO (Multiple Input Multiple Output) control system, so massively complex that we do not yet understand all of the feedback systems involved.

For example, if one wishes to address the atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, one feedback is through photosynthesis. Any warming in the planetary atmosphere will adjust the growth season globally, allowing for flora growth to move closer to the poles. This uses more carbon dioxide from the air. In addition, growth rates will increase; we know this because the exact same principle is used commercially in greenhouses - excess carbon dioxide as high as 1500 ppmv is purposely added to the enclosed environment to accelerate plant growth. Both feedbacks, increased area of growth and increased growth rates, will use more carbon dioxide form the atmosphere. in addition, we know that the atmospheric carbon dioxide level to heat retention relationship is not linear... far from it. Considering that plant growth is cyclical in itself and slow to increase overall, it is quite possible that this would create a sinusoidal variation of some undetermined period.

That is one example. There are many, many other possibilities, including a great number which are independent of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.

The issue with using heat retention as a sole indicator is that heat retention is not necessarily the primary force driving planetary temperature. Planetary temperature, at least on a local scale, is more easily monitored directly. Since climate is a summation of weather over time, it follows that the preferred method of determining if excessive variations are occurring is to measure various local settings over time and analyze those results. That is the first thing that begs investigation, after all: is a phenomenon occurring? That seems to be the disconnect when it comes to Global Warming. If there is no Global Warming, any attempt to show why global Warming is occurring is moot.

That would be akin to calling a mechanic to see why one's car doesn't start before checking to see if it starts.

My work has thusly been based on determining if there is an issue and if so, to what extent is the issue occurring? My local climate shifts during the course of the year between 20°F and 100°F, with regular variations of 10°F to 110°F. The annual average is around 60°F. Thus far I have not seen any temperature readings outside those parameters (discounting fringe, sporadic and rare readings). The average annual temperature has increased and decreased by less than 2°F in a sinusoidal manner, and at present the average annual temperature is within a few hundredths of a degree from circa 1950. That is so minor it can be chalked up to sensor variations and thus is not indicative of an issue.

If there is no indicated change over time with average annualized surface temperatures, there is no need to find out why average annualized surface temperatures are changing.

This is the lie about Global Warming: if one is constantly being told why temperatures are changing, one will come to accept that such change is real. After all, why else would anyone be trying to study it? Human experience is of a time scale already much faster than seasonal temperature variations, so we have this tendency to think the summer is too hot or the winter is too cold. During winter, our memories of summer temperatures are still fresh in our mind; during summer, our memories of winter temperatures are still fresh in our mind. I have watched, personally, since I started maintaining this data about ten years ago, people in January remarking how cold it is while the average temperatures are above normal. I have seen the same thing in July and August with the opposite complaint and reality. Yes, it is cold in the winter and hot in the summer... that's normal.

Studying heat transfer ratios based on atmospheric carbon dioxide levels is not a bad thing... but doing so because one believes there are global changes occurring that are not actually occurring is merely an exercise in cognitive dissonance. At best, such a study is academic at this time.

Humans can handle carbon dioxide levels up to 1000 ppmv or more without suffering any serious effects; it is quite common for enclosed areas to reach that point already (a carbon dioxide content of ~1000 ppmv is what we would colloquially call "stuffy" air). Plant life, the base of all the various food chains, only begins to thrive at ~280 ppmv and thrives up to and likely beyond 1500 ppmv. A carbon dioxide concentration between 300 and 900 ppmv seems to be optimal for life to flourish, and we are still well towards the lower end of that range. The change to 400 ppmv that has occurred during the last few decades is actually a benefit to humanity and life in general, not a detriment. It has increased potential food supply and has had no appreciable effect on temperatures nor deleterious effect on life.

TheRedneck