Thomas Sowell, in one of his books, talks about how the left has changed words. For example, wetlands used to be call swamps. The rain forest used to be called the jungle. It's easier to get donations when you're saving the rain forest or the wetlands. Who cares about the jungle or a swamp? Climate change sounds so much more concerning than "weather".
@@desertodavid thats' pretty warm! Zero Celsius overnight and up to around 11 Celsius during the day. I know there are much colder places around but that's chilly even for our winters.
It's not just the urban heat island effect; the list of errors in the historical unadjusted temperature record is as long as your arm. My second favorite is that if the wind speed is less than 10 KM/H then you're not measuring the temperature of the atmosphere, you're measuring the temperature of the box. P.S. Great reporting Linnea! I am now subscribed.
While I don't necessarily agree with the cause of climate change, it's STILL changing, whether some want to accept it or deny it. I mean here in California we use to get almost daily fog in the winter and over the last decade or two it's become much more rare, and I don't live near any industrial buildings or anything else that could have affected that. We also have much less frosty mornings than before. Those are just two examples. Change is Change, whether you want to argue the cause is one thing, but it's still changing.
The climate always has been changing there is no point in "fighting" it with taxes and fear mongering. We simply must and will adapt. The first humanoids would have be delighted in our weather....govt's are using this as a Trojan horse...oldest political trick in the books...invent a mean enemy so you can better control people. Pathetic leadership.
Sen. Rennick has questioned our Bureau of Meteorology and they said they decided to increase all the temperature readings because the USA set a standard to increase historical temperature readings. A temperature record is a recording of observation. Changing historical temperatures is tantamount to perjury. What's that saying about statistics...?
Same in the US. Unfortunately, the approach is to adjust the data to match the models rather than adjusting the models to match the data. This is scientific malpractice but they seem to not really care and the media ignores it.
@@bills5009 A 2019 study led by Zeke Hausfather evaluated 17 global surface temperature projections from climate models in studies published between 1970 and 2007. The authors found "14 out of the 17 model projections indistinguishable from what actually occurred." Look up “Hausfather et al 2019 Evaluating the Performance of Past Climate Model Projections."
Cities growing/putting in more housing, concrete and asphalt, get warmer every year. That's where most of the "Panic and Crisis" temperature readings are rising rapidly.
If you can figure out asphalt adds heat to the environment, why can't you understand that CO2, CH4, O3, N2O, CFCs, and HCFCs also add heat to the environment?
I have no doubt that the wrong location of these sensors will not be corrected. It is too useful for providing support to the climate alarmists. Thanks for revealing this to us.
You rock young lady. You know your stuff and you put it out there. As an Aussie I can say that historical weather events over here have been conveniently removed from the records to promote Climate change. I refer to events that have happened in my lifetime and that I have witnessed plus many more before my time. Keep up the good fight.
A few years ago I could look up temps going back to the late 1800s. Many high and low temps breaking records go back to the 19th century. Try finding those temperatures today. I can't any more.
Put another way, the temperature records as it's presented from 1880-present is a measurement of the urban heat island confounder in the data and not of an independent effect. There is warming, but it's impossible to disambiguate it from the UHI effect due to the methodology by which those data were collected.
It is possible, and has already been done. Removal of UHIE-influenced stations also removes over 50% of the perceived warming. It is quite an easy thing to show.
@@Conserpov So you are saying the rapid warming we are seeing is a natural recovery from the Little Ice Age. Do you have citations to back that up? BTW... A simple search for "Why is global warming not a recovery from the Little Ice Age" will show you the truth. Or, Search for. New Scientist, "Climate myths: We are simply recovering from the Little Ice Age" And, Carbon Brief, "Is climate change all just a recovery from the Little Ice Age"
All around the world highest temperature records go back 50-170 years when CO2 was as low as 290ppm. They haven't shifted despite CO2 rising to 420ppm.
Selecting the period of time used in these analysis has a major impact on the conclusions. Around 2000, the data from 1970 forward was used. It show a significant warming trend. Today, if you go back to the 1930, say the last 100 years you see little change. Yes, our climate does change but there is not meaningful like to CO2. If CO2 has an impact, that impact is minor compared to others. Plus, the theory was a logarithmic relationship. The get a unit of increase, the CO2 has to double. So, the impact reduces over time, even if the theory is correct.
1930's had the most state high temps by a multiple according to NOAA website, I looked it up a few years ago. Fake news news alarmist fodder to try to seduce self loathing liberals to stay constantly tuned in. Back before television, newspapers couldn't maintain constant alarmism with 24/7 boasting warnings. TV ushered in the slow but inevitable ratings wars which demand hucksterist, edge of the seat, "WAIT TILL YOU HEAR THIS after the commercial break" fake news, but intelligent fools are calling on & tuning the alarm barkers out bit by bit
Thank you! When asked the question: 'Do you believe in global warming?' My answer: 'Yep! I believe in global warming and global cooling...they're called CYCLES! Oh...do you mean manmade global warming?...No.'
I get that you have an engineering degree from University of Wyoming, but hey, our role model Greta who flunked her science class and dropped out of school says the earth is boiling and we're all gonna die. Sorry.
The NOAA Climate Reference Network has been in place for nearly 20 years. This should have put the hysteria to rest. But instead, the best data, from the best sources, has been completely ignored. Why? Because it would ruin a good "catastrophe".
I monitored a couple of manual weather stations for a number of years. There's plenty of human error in that data. Missed days. Inconsistent time of day. Forgetting to reset the max./min. readings. Inconsistent use of the sling psychrometer. Failure to empty the rain gauge. One of those stations is now automated. Are the manual and automated data sets comparable? Heck no. To draw sweeping, catastrophic conclusions based on differences between past and current data is questionable science, at best. There is too much error and uncertainty.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gases allow short wave length solar radiation to pass through the atmosphere unimpeded. As the Sun warms up the planet’s surface, longer wave length thermal radiation is reflected back into the atmosphere. Some of this thermal radiation passes into space, some of the radiation is absorbed and some is directed back to Earth. Satellites have provided direct empirical evidence that the earth is currently trapping more heat than it used to, specifically at the frequencies that are absorbed by CO2 (Harries et al. 2001; Griggs and Harries 2007).
Could you please announce the DATE at which your video was created? Publication date can often be very different so we can never know at what point in time your video was relevant...
Don't know about stats or graphs but the glaciers in Glacier National Park are gone and others are receding in the PNW. The ski seasons are shorter and the fire season longer. I am old enough to remember when the winters were colder or seemed so.
You had better let the National Parks Service know about your claim. They seem to think there are still glaciers year round in the Glacier National Park. As for length and depth of winters, they still run plenty long and cold here in Vermont.
Weather is what's happening in the atmosphere, on any given day, in a specific place. Local or regional weather forecasts include temperature, humidity, winds, cloudiness, and prospects for storms or other changes over the next few days. Climate is the average of these weather ingredients over many years. For example, it might be raining in Phoenix today, but they have a dry, hot climate because on average, it only rains a few days of the year. Weather can change day to day but climate changes slowly, over decades or centuries.
Be the first to highlight high pressure blowing all clouds away from USA's west coast. Especially California. Every day high pressure, same place. Make a collage. What creates high/low pressure (eg. Ionosphere)? What interacts with it (eg. sun, radio transmitters)? Does it originate from Nicola Tesla's testing? Why was the weather weapon treaty (1970s) not renewed?
The fact that development has encroached on measuring stations is important to note, and does represent what is going on with global temperature. Not sure what you are trying to sell here but you are doing the same thing the extreme environmentalists are doing. Cherry picking data to promote your view point. Global warming is NOT a day or two with record high temperatures. It is the number of days with above average temperatures. You are much too young to remember how long winters and summers were in the 70's and there are lots of people that choose not to remember because they wish to keep their belies and life styles. I challenge you to look up the number of days above 60 degrees F each year. You will see that number has increased quite a bit over the last 50 years. No the temperature is no where near as hot as it's been 10,000 years ago or more. The point is it's hotter than it's ever been in modern times. This is going to change how and where we live and produce food. With a population millions of times bigger than it has ever been the impact is going to be devastating. Pick what to give up today or loose everything tomorrow.
Just like here in NC, the large cities have higher temperatures. Just like RDU airport, they haven't moved their thermometer station to a more accurate location. It's a concrete jungle out there.
In 2010 Dr. Richard Muller criticized the "hockey stick" graph and decided to do his own temperature analysis. He organized a group called Berkeley Earth to do an independent study of the temperature record. They specifically wanted to answer the question is "the temperature rise on land improperly affected by the four key biases (station quality, homogenization, urban heat island, and station selection)?" Their conclusion was NO. None of those factors bias the temperature record. The Berkeley conclusions about the urban heat effect were nicely explained by Andy Skuce in an SkS post in 2011. Figure 2 shows that the U.S. network does not show differences between rural and urban sites.
Are you saying the rapid warming we are seeing is a natural recovery from the Little Ice Age and if so do you have citations to back that up? BTW... A simple search for "Why is global warming not a recovery from the Little Ice Age" will show you the truth. Or, Search for. New Scientist, "Climate myths: We are simply recovering from the Little Ice Age" And, Carbon Brief, "Is climate change all just a recovery from the Little Ice Age"
@@hosnimubarak8869 There is no "rapid warming". The rate of the warming is just 0.5 degrees per century. This is exactly a natural recovery from the Little Ice Age. Julius Caesar would say it's still quite cool - it was warmer in his time, and for thousands of years prior. Corporate propaganda is not "truth", buddy.
@@hosnimubarak8869 There is no "rapid warming". The rate of the warming is just 0.5 degrees per century. This is exactly a natural recovery from the Little Ice Age. Julius Caesar would say it's still quite cool - it was warmer in his time, and for thousands of years prior. Whatever you are reading is neither science nor the truth.
@@hosnimubarak8869 0.5 degrees in 100 years is not rapid. Julius Caesar would say it's still quite cool - it was warmer in his time, before LIA. What you are reading and believing on faith is neither science nor the truth.
@@Conserpov A recent study working with a global database of paleoclimate records found that no previous warm or cool period in the last 2,000 years-including the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period (also called the Medieval Climate Anomaly)-occurred globally and synchronously. But 20th Century temperatures were the warmest of the last 2,000 years for the entire surface of the Earth. Search for this, “No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era, Raphael Neukom, Nathan Steiger, Juan José Gómez-Navarro, Jianghao Wang & Johannes P. Werner Nature volume 571".
"All our science is just a cookery book, with an orthodox theory of cooking that nobody's allowed to question, and a list of recipes that mustn't be added to except by special permission from the head cook." - Aldous Huxley
Aw shucks, you mean we're not really getting hotter. Gee, I thought we were going to get some benefits from global warming, things like longer growing seasons, less deadly cold weather, etc...guess not, if it's not happening. Oh well, at least there's more CO2 and that's good for our plants and algae...more food and oxygen...a greener planet.
Using the best and advanced technologies to measure or predict the weather? Or just trying the same BS to sell and make most people scared and run to the stores and buy gadgets to try heat or cool their homes?
Humans have thrived after the last ice age. Stop your bitching about the heat. Those that go through the cool down in the future will find it hard to survive.
It’s not about climate change but the speed at which it is occurring. If climate was changing at the gradual rate that it normally would, then the world would have plenty of time to adapt, instead, thousands of years of climate change are occurring in a few decades, and that is the point.
@@Conserpov Here are my sources, Journal of Earth Science and Climatic Change Climate Atmospheric and Climate Science Journal of Climate Climatic Change Climate Dynamics Ecological Applications International Journal of Climatology American Journal of Climate Change Global Change Climate Change Climate Research Theoretical and Applied Climatology Your turn.
@@Steve-yo4ld Your comment here is typical. I never stated anyone was wrong nor have I stated I knew everything. I have been kind and rational in my contributions here and was hoping to get the same in return. Good day to you sir.
