Change Of Climate …

All through the summer and the first half of autumn, we saw a large drop in daily maximum temperatures after the 1950’s and early 1960’s. But this time of year does not show that. Temperatures have trended up.

Note the step up in the 1970’s – the exact opposite of what the summer temperatures show.

If there were any real climatologists out there, wouldn’t they want to understand this – rather than bury it?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Change Of Climate …

  1. dafaddah says:

    Carbon Dioxide contributes 3.610% to the “Greenhouse Effect” and humans contribute 3.225% of the Atmospheric CO2.
    3.610% x .03225 = 0.116%.
    In other words, reducing man’s contribution to atmospheric “Greenhouse Gasses” to zero would have no discernible effect on Global Climate Change.
    Ask yourself Why are we being blamed for Global Climate Change when we contribute less than 0.2% to the Greenhouse Gasses causing global warming and who is spending all the money to make us feel guilty?

    • AndyG55 says:

      There is NO EMPIRICAL SCIENTIFIC PROOF that CO2 has any affect what-so-ever. You are welcome to present some if you have some.

      • dafaddah says:

        Greenhouse Gases

        Carbon dioxide () is one of the greenhouse gases. It consists of one carbon atom with an oxygen atom bonded to each side. When its atoms are bonded tightly together, the carbon dioxide molecule can absorb infrared radiation and the molecule starts to vibrate. Eventually, the vibrating molecule will emit the radiation again, and it will likely be absorbed by yet another greenhouse gas molecule. This absorption-emission-absorption cycle serves to keep the heat near the surface, effectively insulating the surface from the cold of space.

        Carbon dioxide, water vapor (), methane (), nitrous oxide (), and a few other gases are greenhouse gases. They all are molecules composed of more than two component atoms, bound loosely enough together to be able to vibrate with the absorption of heat. The major components of the atmosphere ( and ) are two-atom molecules too tightly bound together to vibrate and thus they do not absorb heat and contribute to the greenhouse effect.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “Eventually, the vibrating molecule will emit the radiation again, ”

          There is magnitudes difference in time between the re-emittance and the collision with other molecules.

          There is very little re-emittance., all energy is rapidly passed onto the other 99.96% of the atmosphere and joins the convective and acts as just another form of energy transfer cooling the atmosphere, controlled by the gravity thermal gradient.

          No mechanism allows for warming of the atmosphere by CO2 absorption of a tiny band of LWR..

        • AndyG55 says:

          What you present is NOT empirical proof. :-)

  2. dafaddah says:

    Ignorant is curable. Stupid isn’t.
    Trying to teach a Gore apostle is like trying to resurrect a corpse by administering two aspirin.

  3. Bob G says:

    I live in St Cloud, MN and our local temperature record that goes back 130 years agrees with Tony’s data. Our records show that 7 months out of the year have gotten warmer, 5 cooler. The warming months are January, February, March, April, May, June and November. Essentially winters have become warmer and summers cooler.

  4. jc says:

    Here is the real plausibility issue :

    Climate scientists want us to believe that we have manipulated the natural climate to change and the earth to warm by using fossil fuels.

    They also want us to believe we have the ability to further control and manipulate the natural climate to attain and maintain a globally “satisfactory” temperature and a stable unchanging climate, presumably, indefinitely.

    And they want us to believe that all of the above can be achieved by simply not using fossil fuels.

    That is the real plausibility issue.

    There’s no empirical evidence to back up either the “cause” or the silver bullet “solution”.

    But then again, it’s not really about science, weather or the climate, it’s politics.

    UN style.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *