SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post

Skybird · 12-19-23, 08:56 AM

https://think-again.org/global-warming-halb-so-schlimm/

------------------

Satellites have been measuring the Earth's temperature for half a century. There should now be enough data to be able to compare it with the forecasts of computer models. Several teams of meteorologists have done this, and their results are (not) surprising.

The temperature of the earth

Why can a satellite even measure the earth's temperature? This happens very indirectly. One uses a property of air, more precisely that of oxygen, whose molecules emit more or less infrared radiation depending on the temperature. The satellites have spectrometers on board, which are measuring devices that are precisely calibrated for this radiation, which is invisible to the eye. You can then draw conclusions about the temperature from their data.

Let me illustrate this with an example: There is a big festival taking place near your apartment. From midday onwards there is a level of noise that reaches you. To find out how many visitors are currently at the fair, analyze this sound. There are voices of children, men and women together, laughing, singing or ordering a beer. There are also noises from carousels, ghost trains and radio strips.

They install a microphone on the balcony and connect it to a “spectrometer for sound”, which measures the pitches and volumes that make up the noise. They observe all of this very closely and find a window in the spectrum of sound frequencies in which man-made sound lies. Using the rule of thumb “the louder, the more” you can now determine the current number of visitors.

Infrared noise

Our meteorologists also face a similar task. Satellites look at the intensities in a specific window of the spectrum from the infrared “noise” generated by a wide variety of physical processes in the atmosphere and on the ground. They then calculate a temperature from this. But what temperature is that? After all, the atmosphere is many kilometers thick, and with every kilometer of altitude it gets around 6 °C colder. The spectrometers look into a huge mixture of different temperatures. A lot of calculations have to be done in order to come up with a realistic statement about the temperature near the earth. This should then be within a tenth of a degree in order to be relevant when it comes to climate change.

The interplay of the elements

The measurement results from NASA and NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), which have been accumulated since satellite measurements began, were recently analyzed very carefully and came to the following conclusion: Since the 1970s, the atmosphere has changed by 0.13 to 0 per decade .18 °C warmed. If this continues, global warming would be 1.2 °C by the end of the century. The University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH) satellites, in turn, observed a cooling of 0.016 degrees for the seven years 2015-2022.

This is not in line with the “official” news reported by mainstream media, and so we should take a closer look at it.

In order to identify the causes of possible global warming, you have to look at all the processes that could influence the earth's temperature. These are factors such as variations in solar activity, clouds, changes in the Earth's orbit, spread of vegetation, composition of the atmosphere and much more. A “model” can then be created from this, i.e. with the help of a wealth of mathematical equations that describe the respective effect, one simulates which temperatures would arise in the interplay of these influences.

Complicated models

Computers are conveniently used for such calculations, and so the term “computer model” has become established. A number of institutions have taken on this very demanding task, most of which work under the umbrella of the UN agency IPCC. There is now the suspicion that they are not looking for the true causes of warming, but that it is established a priori: it is man-made CO2 in the air. All observations are intended to prove precisely this one hypothesis, and they are intended to prove that the end of the planet is imminent. It's like a doctor making a diagnosis before examining the patient. He assumes malaria a priori and then uses the fever curves only to confirm his claim.

The IPCC-compliant computer models predict warming of 2.4 degrees by the year 2100, in contrast to the 1.2 degrees mentioned above. Can you believe that? What is more plausible?

Theory and truth

You can test the models for their suitability by setting them to reproduce the temperature curves of the past. For example, you could feed the computer program with temperature data from 1980 to 2000 and use it to calculate a forecast for the years 2001 to 2020. These can then be compared with the actually measured values.

Something like this has been done, and instead of the actual, measured warming of 0.15 to 0.18 degrees per decade, the simulation results in values of around 0.25 degrees. This significant deviation must make one very skeptical. When theory and reality differ, it is wise to believe reality more than theory. And so one has to question the 2.4 degree forecast for the year 2100 and the associated end of the world. The political and economic sanctions justified by this prophecy in question would ruin our civilization sooner than Earth's temperature could.

Are they intentionally trying to deceive us? You might object that no scientist would give in to such a set-up, just as doctors wouldn't diagnose malaria in series. No? Malaria maybe not, but Corona more likely; and perhaps some doctors and some climate scientists have a similar motivation.

12-19-23, 08:56 AM	#213
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 40,570 Downloads: 9 Uploads: 0	https://think-again.org/global-warming-halb-so-schlimm/ ------------------ Satellites have been measuring the Earth's temperature for half a century. There should now be enough data to be able to compare it with the forecasts of computer models. Several teams of meteorologists have done this, and their results are (not) surprising. The temperature of the earth Why can a satellite even measure the earth's temperature? This happens very indirectly. One uses a property of air, more precisely that of oxygen, whose molecules emit more or less infrared radiation depending on the temperature. The satellites have spectrometers on board, which are measuring devices that are precisely calibrated for this radiation, which is invisible to the eye. You can then draw conclusions about the temperature from their data. Let me illustrate this with an example: There is a big festival taking place near your apartment. From midday onwards there is a level of noise that reaches you. To find out how many visitors are currently at the fair, analyze this sound. There are voices of children, men and women together, laughing, singing or ordering a beer. There are also noises from carousels, ghost trains and radio strips. They install a microphone on the balcony and connect it to a “spectrometer for sound”, which measures the pitches and volumes that make up the noise. They observe all of this very closely and find a window in the spectrum of sound frequencies in which man-made sound lies. Using the rule of thumb “the louder, the more” you can now determine the current number of visitors. Infrared noise Our meteorologists also face a similar task. Satellites look at the intensities in a specific window of the spectrum from the infrared “noise” generated by a wide variety of physical processes in the atmosphere and on the ground. They then calculate a temperature from this. But what temperature is that? After all, the atmosphere is many kilometers thick, and with every kilometer of altitude it gets around 6 °C colder. The spectrometers look into a huge mixture of different temperatures. A lot of calculations have to be done in order to come up with a realistic statement about the temperature near the earth. This should then be within a tenth of a degree in order to be relevant when it comes to climate change. The interplay of the elements The measurement results from NASA and NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), which have been accumulated since satellite measurements began, were recently analyzed very carefully and came to the following conclusion: Since the 1970s, the atmosphere has changed by 0.13 to 0 per decade .18 °C warmed. If this continues, global warming would be 1.2 °C by the end of the century. The University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH) satellites, in turn, observed a cooling of 0.016 degrees for the seven years 2015-2022. This is not in line with the “official” news reported by mainstream media, and so we should take a closer look at it. In order to identify the causes of possible global warming, you have to look at all the processes that could influence the earth's temperature. These are factors such as variations in solar activity, clouds, changes in the Earth's orbit, spread of vegetation, composition of the atmosphere and much more. A “model” can then be created from this, i.e. with the help of a wealth of mathematical equations that describe the respective effect, one simulates which temperatures would arise in the interplay of these influences. Complicated models Computers are conveniently used for such calculations, and so the term “computer model” has become established. A number of institutions have taken on this very demanding task, most of which work under the umbrella of the UN agency IPCC. There is now the suspicion that they are not looking for the true causes of warming, but that it is established a priori: it is man-made CO2 in the air. All observations are intended to prove precisely this one hypothesis, and they are intended to prove that the end of the planet is imminent. It's like a doctor making a diagnosis before examining the patient. He assumes malaria a priori and then uses the fever curves only to confirm his claim. The IPCC-compliant computer models predict warming of 2.4 degrees by the year 2100, in contrast to the 1.2 degrees mentioned above. Can you believe that? What is more plausible? Theory and truth You can test the models for their suitability by setting them to reproduce the temperature curves of the past. For example, you could feed the computer program with temperature data from 1980 to 2000 and use it to calculate a forecast for the years 2001 to 2020. These can then be compared with the actually measured values. Something like this has been done, and instead of the actual, measured warming of 0.15 to 0.18 degrees per decade, the simulation results in values of around 0.25 degrees. This significant deviation must make one very skeptical. When theory and reality differ, it is wise to believe reality more than theory. And so one has to question the 2.4 degree forecast for the year 2100 and the associated end of the world. The political and economic sanctions justified by this prophecy in question would ruin our civilization sooner than Earth's temperature could. Are they intentionally trying to deceive us? You might object that no scientist would give in to such a set-up, just as doctors wouldn't diagnose malaria in series. No? Malaria maybe not, but Corona more likely; and perhaps some doctors and some climate scientists have a similar motivation. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.