Yes, we can and it is done. Accurate thermometers have been avaiable for over 200 years and in many places systematic temperature measurements were done. Of course, these measurements are influenced by local weather events, but when combined internationally, result in highly accurate data, very clearly showing the climate change.
But is is always interesting to add independent data sources which also confirm the temperature measurements.
You are correct about thermometers -- we
are really good at measuring temperatures.
Early in my career I was at the NBS, now
NIST, and our lab routinely measured
temperatures to within 0.01 C.
And, right, global warming needs to be
evaluated by the average of a lot of
credible, accurate measurements of
temperature with thermometers or, now,
with satellites. A satellite in a polar
orbit might be able to get a good estimate
of average global temperature.
But what the article has is some pictures
of some snow in some place in Scotland.
And I should add, with temperatures over
time, there will be a probability
distribution with long tails of events
that do occur but have low probability.
Soooo, each year we can look around the
world and see some events from one of the
long tails, maybe in Scotland, Alaska,
Brazil, Nevada, .... Those events are to
be expected and are not good evidence of
anything about global warming. Or maybe
with a lot of global warming, some snow in
Scotland would melt. But that some snow
in Scotland melted is very weak or no good
evidence of global warming.
I see a lot of that, e.g., a claim that
the cruise ship season is now longer
because of fewer ice bergs because of
global warming.
And for each hurricane or tornado, I see
claims that those events are evidence of
climate change and, thus, a "climate
crisis".
But here is what I do not see, have so far
never seen, have looked and can't find --
reports of average global temperatures,
over time with good details on how the
measurements were made, who made them,
where the details are that I can look up
and check, from credible sources.
Here is some more that I do see:
(1) There was Al Gore's movie. He showed
a graph of temperature and CO2
concentrations from 800,000 years of ice
core data. He said that we should notice
that the temperature and CO2 "went up and
down together". Yup, they did. From that
he concluded that CO2 caused the warming
in the 800,000 year ice or data.
But, directly from the Gore's graph:
(A) When temperatures started to increase,
CO2 concentrations were low, not high.
So, something made the temperatures go up,
but it wasn't high CO2 concentrations.
(B) CO2 concentrations did go up but about
800 years AFTER the temperatures went up.
So, a good guess is that the CO2 went up
because the higher temperatures, from
whatever cause, at least initially NOT
CO2, caused more biological activity.
(C) Some thousands of years later,
temperatures fell and we got a lot of ice.
When the temperatures started down, CO2
concentrations were high, not low.
Something made the temperatures fall, but
it wasn't low CO2.
One could argue from Gore's graph that CO2
caused cooling. His graph certainly does
not support a claim that CO2 caused
warming. Looks to me like Gore was not
able to read his graph.
Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Its
absorption spectrum is at
So, CO2 absorbs in three narrow bands out
in the infrared. The standard explanation
is that the bands are for bending,
stretching, and twisting of the molecule.
But CO2 is transparent to visible light --
exhale or pop open a brewski and observe
that the CO2 does not cast a shadow. So,
the common claim repeated by the newsies
that CO2 absorbs sunlight is not really
correct. Instead, of course, the sunlight
warms the surface which as in Planck's
black body radiation theory radiates, and
radiates mostly out in the infrared.
There CO2 absorbs in the three narrow
bands. Then, of course, maybe soon the
molecule's energy level falls back and the
infrared is radiated again. Or the more
rapidly vibrating CO2 molecule bumps into
some other molecule and creates some
warming. Then ..., the effect on global
temperature is not easy to calculate.
(2) We had the Medieval Warm period.
There are no credible claims that the
cause was CO2 from humans. So, global
temperatures go up and down for reasons
other than CO2 from humans or CO2 at all.
(3) For 100+ years, we had the Little Ice
Age. At least much of Europe and the US
were significantly colder. Something
caused the lower temperatures, but it
wasn't lower CO2.
(4) It is not clear when we came out of
the Little Ice Age. Maybe that was 1890,
1900, 1910, 1920 -- tough to know. We can
guess that the Little Ice Age cooled the
oceans, and they are deep, often 3-7 miles
deep, and, we can guess, can take a long
time to warm up. In the early 1900s,
there was some warming. CO2 does not look
like the cause. Pulling out of the last
of the Little Ice Age looks like a better
explanation.
(5) We had some cooling from 1945 to 1970.
Then we also had, although I'd like to see
the actual numbers, often missing in this
whole subject, more CO2 from WWII and the
postwar economic boom. So, here we had
some cooling, while we had more CO2.
Again we could argue that CO2 can cause
cooling. Again, just from the
observational data, it is tough to argue
that CO2 can cause warming.
Net: So far from the more credible
observational data, (1)-(5) above, I see
no credible evidence that CO2 from any
source, humans or otherwise, has ever
caused significant warming.
(6) There were some dozens of studies,
maybe attempts at serious work, to
calculate, model, whatever, to estimate
the effect of CO2 on global temperatures.
The studies are summarized in the now
apparently well known, maybe famous, graph
at
Results: All of the studies that
predicted significant warming were proved
wrong: The times of the predicted warming
came and went years ago with no credible
evidence of the predicted warming.
A lot of the models were junk. I question
the credibility, even the honesty, of the
models of the effects of CO2.
Net, so far I see no credible evidence
that CO2 from human sources has had, is
having, or will have a significant effect
on global temperatures. No, none, nichts,
nil, nada, zip, zilch, zero. The
alarmists have shouted "wolf" way too
often and now have no credibility. Good
science can predict and find the Higgs
Boson as predicted, but the alarmists are
just unable and/or unwilling competently
to model the effects of CO2.
Instead of good science, credible
evidence, a "climate crisis", I see a hoax
and a scam, a global political movement
after money and power. That is a MUCH
more credible explanation than any
science about CO2.
So, back to the snows of Scotland: This
time it was Scotland. Next time it might
be some part of the Grand Tetons,
something in New Zealand, .... It's a big
world. If look carefully, each year
should be able to find somewhere a rare
event out in the tail of the probability
distribution. So, here, that upset some
people, I merely asked for temperature
measured with a thermometer! That is, I
want to see global temperatures measured
with thermometers or maybe some accurate
satellites and not with just pictures from
some valley in Scotland.
From page 76 of
Susan Milbrath, 'Star Gods of the Maya:
Astronomy in Art, Folklore, and Calendars
(The Linda Schele Series in Maya and
Pre-Columbian Studies)', ISBN-13
978-0292752269, University of Texas Press,
2000.
there is
"Indeed, blood sacrifice is required for
the sun to move, according to Aztec
cosmology (Durian 1971:179; Sahaguin
Sooooo, they killed people, poured their
blood on a rock, and wonder of wonders,
the sun kept moving across the sky.
If we cut way back on CO2, we can expect,
wonder of wonders, we won't get the
predicted Hudson River water level rising
to cover the NYC West Side Highway.
There are some people who really like to
push the claim of a "climate crisis".
The UN and their IPCC supported efforts to
transfer big bucks from the rich countries
to the poor ones.
People selling solar panels and wind
turbines got a lot of business.
People selling electric cars got a lot of
subsidies.
A lot of newsies got a lot of shocking
headlines, fears of disasters, standard in
the news business, eyeballs, and ad
revenue.
Some politicians got a lot of power and
some constituents eager to make political
donations.
And some Maya High Priests got power?
The predicted "hockey stick"!!!! Where's
the hockey stick????? There's zero
credibility.
Right, I conclude that the "climate
crisis" is not about CO2 at all, or
temperature, but about money and power.
Me, nope, I don't like it.
You are mixing a lot of things in your post, I won't go into all details. But long term precise temperature measurements exist, they are the basis of all work about global warming. I am sure you can find them quickly if you browse the corresponding scientific literature.
And of course there are plenty of calculations about the warming effect of CO2. Arrhenius published early calculations in 1874. And that directly leads us to the harming effect of human caused emissions onto the global climate. Humanity has increased the CO2 content in the atmosphere by 50%. Within 200 years, most in the last 50. Which already has caused a significant warming, which is very well documented. There is plenty of rock solid science behind this.
> Humanity has increased the CO2 content
in the atmosphere by 50%. Within 200
years, most in the last 50. Which already
has caused a significant warming, which is
very well documented. There is plenty of
rock solid science behind this.
Apparently humans have increased the
concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Sure. Okay. Fine. That data is easy to
find and is credible.
Problem is, as I argued, with current
science that change in CO2 does not
necessarily mean a change in temperature.
Apparently the warming effect of CO2 is
just too small to detect.
Again, yet again, over again, once again,
one more time, (A) as I explained in
detail, Al Gore badly misread the data in
his graph and showed no evidence that CO2
had any effect, warming or cooling on the
climate, (B) in the Medieval warm period
and the Little Ice Age, we had significant
warming/cooling without a role for CO2,
(C) the warming early in the 1900s was
likely from the end of the Little Ice Age
and not from human sources of CO2, another
case of temperature changes not caused by
human CO2, (D) with the CO2 from WWII and
the postwar boom, we had significant
cooling from 1945 to 1970, a tough problem
for the alarmists' arguments, (E) as in
the famous reference I gave there were
many studies, models, calculations
evaluating the effects of CO2, and ALL the
studies that predicted significant
warming, including the "hockey stick",
were badly wrong, a real shot in the gut
of all modeling of the effects of CO2
that predict warming from human sources of
CO2, (F) from the failed predictions of
the modeling efforts, the science of
global warming has lost its credibility,
(G) similarly, from the failed
predictions, the UN and IPCC have no
credibility.
The alarmists are stuck: (i) the
empirical evidence from the 800,000 years
of ice core data, the Medieval Warm
period, the Little Ice Age, and the the
last 120 years do not support any claims
of human sources of CO2 causing
significant warming. (ii) As in the
famous reference I gave, the modeling
efforts lack all credibility. (iii) As I
explained, the UN and its IPCC are not
credible sources of science.
Since ALL the modeling efforts that
predicted significant warming failed,
predictions of temperature increases in
2050, 2100, etc. are just silly talk.
Actually, the significant increase in CO2
concentration with NO credible evidence of
significant warming is good evidence that
the warming effect of CO2 is just tiny,
too small to observe.
Lots of alarmists say there is lots of
data showing the significant warming
effects of CO2, but I've never seen a
credible reference, graph, data set, etc.
showing that. Instead I see a lot of
stories like the snow in Scotland.
But long ago I carefully studied the
highly credible
Committee on Surface Temperature
Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years,
National Research Council ISBN:
0-309-66264-8, 196 pages, 7 x 10, (2006)
Sorry, the solid, objective science that
human CO2 has caused, is causing, or will
cause significant warming just is not easy
enough to find or not there.
Again, net, so far, as best as I can tell
from years of paying attention, there is
no credible evidence that CO2 from human
sources has caused, is causing, or will
cause significant global warming.
The credible evidence just is NOT there.
Politics, stories, worries, claims -- lots
of those. Credible evidence -- no.
If you have some credible evidence, then
trot it out. Your just saying I can find
the evidence is not good enough. If the
alarmists want to make their case, then
they need to make public and easy to find,
as easy to find as the story about the
snows in Scotland, credible evidence of
warming.
That's why in my first post I begged for
evidence from THERMOMETERS and not just
some story about Scotland.
The alarmists have to hurry because there
are some cycles in the weather, e.g., from
the 11 year cycles of sun spots, El Nino
episodes, etc. that complicate the
analysis.
Meanwhile, to me the alarmism is a hoax
and a scam to get money and power. It's
clear that a lot of money and power are
involved. And the pursuit of money and
power are MUCH better explanations for the
alarmism than any credible science about
CO2.
To get the science why more CO2 means more heat, look no further than Arrhenius, he described and calculated the phenomenum in the late 19th century. That is very basic and confirmed physics.
Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I gave the reference to its absorption spectrum. From that, it causes some warming. And that is "very basic and confirmed physics". But that alone is, for practice, meaningless. Instead, the crucial question is, how much CO2 causes how much warming. Dozens of studies were done. No doubt the work of Arrhenius was considered.
I gave the famous reference to the results of the studies.
And the blunt fact is, all the studies, from Arrhenius and everything else, that predicted significant warming were wrong, badly wrong, because the times of the predicted warming came and went years ago with no evidence of the predicted warming or any significant warming at all.
And now we do have significantly more CO2, and still we see no significant warming.
Net, CO2 really is a greenhouse gas and really does cause warming, and that fact really is "very basic and confirmed physics", but the warming it causes is trivial, too small to be measured.
In particular, from Arrhenius, where is the "hockey stick", where is the warming? From 1945 to 1970, as CO2 was increasing, there was significant cooling. And since 1970, with more CO2, still there is no credible evidence of significant warming.
And as I explained in detail, the empirical evidence doesn't support that CO2 causes warming.
So, the (1) theory didn't work. And (2) the empirical data back 800,000 years doesn't support that CO2 causes warming. So, (1) and (2) both fail. Now the alarmists are left with no evidence, none, zero.
Well, there is an explanation for the studies that failed. See "The truth about global warming" with Patrick Michaels
at
In short the explanation is: The studies that predicted warming were working with climate models. They didn't have enough data so put in some adjustable parameters. Then they assumed that the warming in the early 1900s was caused by CO2 and adjusted their parameters to fit that early 1900s temperature data. Then they applied their resulting model to more recent levels of CO2. From that, they got predictions of significant warming. But those predictions failed -- the times of the predicted warming came and went years ago with no credible evidence of significant warming. E.g., the West Side Highway in NYC is still high and dry.
Of course, a big flaw was their assumption that the temperature changes of the early 1900s were caused by CO2 changes.
But by now from (1) and (2), we know better, know that the warming caused by CO2 is trivial, too small to be measured. In particular, the warming of the early 1900s was not caused by CO2. The likely cause was pulling out of the Little Ice Age.
Whatever, we have two rock solid points, (1) the models fail and (2) the empirical data doesn't support CO2 warming.
So, we are left with no credible evidence that human sources of CO2 have caused, are causing, or will cause significant warming. Indeed the evidence from the cooling of 1945 to 1970 and the current higher concentration of CO2 without significant warming is that the warming of CO2 is trivial, too small to be measured. So, there's no "climate crisis".
But plenty of people know this.
But we still have people screaming about the climate crisis. For them, the science is just an excuse. For them, they are not afraid of the warming. Instead, from the hoax, scam of the climate crisis, they are making money.
Soon the climate crisis will be over, will go the way of the ozone hole, low flow plumbing, and the hula hoop. People will give up on the climate crisis not because of science such as I am explaining but because of the reason for the screaming about the climate crisis -- nothing to do with science but just a way to make money. So, people are noticing how much the climate crisis is costing them and will stop the nonsense based on those costs.
Electric vehicles (EVs)? The batteries are too expensive, don't last very long, are too expensive to replace, present one heck of a fire hazard, take too long to charge, and need more electric power than the electric grid can supply. The EVs have many fewer moving parts so have some potential of being much cheaper than gasoline powered internal combustion engines but in practice so far are more expensive, not less. As the climate crisis fad fades, the subsidies for EVs will fade. Musk stands to lose a bundle.
You are still presenting a mix out of climate denial myths and lies. Global warming didn't "go away", it is ongoing and accelerating. As it is expected from the ever rising CO2 content in the atmosphere.
> Actually, the significant increase in
CO2 concentration with NO credible
evidence of significant warming is good
evidence that the warming effect of CO2 is
just tiny, too small to observe.
From your post, it looks like the
propaganda army to push the E. Bernays
narrative of a "climate crisis" via the
WWII German Nazi Minister of Propaganda
Dr. Josef Goebbels and his famous
"If you tell a lie often enough people
will believe it."
is out in force.
"I'm angry. Waste always makes me angry,
and that's what this is, sheer waste."
Intelligence and mental health do not seem to correlate.
Even very intelligent people can be susceptible to all kinds of cognitive distortions or disturbed thought patterns, even ones which seem very striking or bizarre to an outside observer.
Climate change is just one of those topics, I guess because it's so dire and large in scope, that it brings peoples psychological defence mechanisms right to the fore.
If you have some credible evidence that human sources of CO2 have caused, are causing, or will cause significant warming, then trot it out. I've been waiting for such evidence for years.
By now you have a big problem: We have had in recent years a significant increase in CO2 but without a significant increase in temperature. So, we have good evidence that the warming effect of CO2 is tiny, too small to detect.
As I argued, as has been made clear for years, the UN and its IPCC are political and not scientific. As I mentioned, one of their main goals is to arrange big bucks transfers from rich nations to poor ones.
In particular, the many predictions of significant warming by the alarmists including the IPCC never happened. E.g., years ago the West Side Highway of NYC was supposed to be under water. Nope.
I'm sure you can see this rationally and objectively.
But is is always interesting to add independent data sources which also confirm the temperature measurements.