Forty-two Years of Satellite Data Raise Doubts About Man-made Climate Change

We all agree there has been global warming. The issue is how much.

The global warming is NOT uniform over the entire surface of the earth; some areas have warmed more than others

The ACCURATE satellite data regarding global warming, from 1979 onwards, is the ONLY OBJECTIVE UNALTERED  data.

All the rest, from 1850 and onward, is subjective malarkey, based on dubious temperature date and interpolated estimates, made up by various “climate experts”, mindful of their social standing, job security, getting future study grants, etc.

I wonder, if there is a society of world temperature predictors, that holds Zoom meetings to coordinate their scribbly lines.

Large, urban-sprawl-city complexes, and their Obama/Biden-world-mix of denizens, are responsible for most of global warming, due their HUGE, pollution-induced, “micro climates”, such as from Portland, Maine to well south of Washington DC, and from north of San Francisco to south of San Diego. Nature has been totally destroyed in these MEGA-COMPLEXES. Those complexes have many surface-temperature sensing stations that read high.

Those surface temperatures, which read higher and higher values, due to changing/increasing urban development, are SUBJECTIVELY ADJUSTED BY THE BIASED “97% OF CLIMATE SCIENTISTS” to be “well within the model range” of about 70 computer-generated graphs.

“97% of Climate Scientists” invent all sorts of reasons for why the graph of ACCURATE, UNALTERED, OBJECTIVE satellite data are invalid and should be ignored.

They would be out of a job, if the satellite data were not ignored.

They claim their, more or less, SUBJECTIVE computer graphs should not be ignored, because their graphs are based on “establishment science”. Their graphs are used as a tool to subjugate/scare-monger people, by the UN and associated entities.

All the newfangled RE systems should be located within those MEGA-SPRAWLS, to achieve the RE mantra “Electricity generation close to the user”. What is not to love?

With no fossil fuels, we would all be wearing jute-based clothing, and faux-leather, hand-sewn moccasins, except for the elites, who would celebrate COPs forever while enjoying 5-star hotels, yachts and private jets.

The Dem/Prog ruling elite doesn’t want to SEE, or HEAR, the results of their society-destroying policies, designed to diversify/colorize the American masses and enrich their wealthy cronies!

The obsequiously servile classes, such as the Media, think tanks and academia, are shilling for those policies, and get rewarded accordingly.

The real Americans, aka, “rebellious despicables”, in rural areas are forced to live among the wind turbines and solar systems

The 850-ft-tall offshore, 12 MW wind turbines are placed at least 30 miles offshore.
You would not expect jet-setters, such as Barack Obama or Bill Gates to look at them through their pricey-coastal-mansion windows, do you?

Here is my latest example of prepping for the “End of our World”, as we will fondly remember it.

WIND AND SOLAR TO PROVIDE 30 PERCENT OF FUTURE NEW ENGLAND ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION BY 2050
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-and-solar-provide…

WORLD POPULATION

The real problem is gross over-population of the world.

More and more opportunity seekers will come to more promising areas, such as the EU and US

In 1800, there were 1 billion people.

In my opinion, and in the likely opinion of people at that time, that was more than enough.
Those people had no idea about the oncoming fossil fuel consumption and resulting population explosion.

In 2050, there likely will be 9.5 billion; that is insane, regarding other flora and fauna

No one is mentioning it.
Not a word about it at Glasgow COP26
About 400 private planes brought the privileged.

Hypocrisy galore

BTW, 42 years of satellite data has been the ONLY accurate, unaltered and objective data out there.
Why are all the “scribblers” ignoring that data, and finding all sorts of reasons why THEIR “adjusted/reading-high” data is so much more trustworthy?

As an engineer and scientist, I find THAT disturbing.

GATHERING DATA FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD

A consortium of gov’t entities, private corporations and militaries around the world collect millions of data points from sensors, buoys, satellites, weather stations etc.

However, vast areas of the world do not have any measurement stations.

Also many are in built-up/urban areas, which likely read high.

There needs to be lots of interpolating and massaging of the data

The interpolated/massaged data is used to create real-time video of various world conditions. See interactive URL

The map has a legend.

However, the legend is not explained, which makes it a pretty picture, understandable only by the experts

https://earth.nullschool.net/

APPENDIX 1

Physicists: Climate Model Error Overestimates CO2 Impact On Global ...

By Kenneth Richard on 22. November 2021

A new study suggests CO2 molecules have little consequential impact affecting outgoing radiation, and that climate models attribute global temperature effects to CO2 that are fundamentally erroneous.

Russian physicists (Smirnov and Zhilyaev, 2021) have published a peer-reviewed paper in the Advances in Fundamental Physics Special Issue for the journal Foundations.

They assess the role of CO2 molecules in the standard atmosphere and assert “we have a contradiction with the results of climatological models in the analysis of the Earth’s greenhouse effect.”

Key points from the paper include the following:

1. Climate model calculations of CO2’s impact on global temperatures are in error by a factor of 5 as a result of “ignoring, in climatological models, the Kirchhoff law” which says radiators are “simultaneously the absorbers.”
2. Change in the concentration of an optically active atmospheric component (like CO2) “would not lead to change in the outgoing radiative flux.”
3. CO2 molecules “are not the main radiator of the atmosphere.” Water vapor molecules are, and thus they “may be responsible for the observed heating of the Earth.”

Image Source: Smirnov and Zhilyaev, 2021

The discrepancy between the greenhouse gas effect of water vapor molecules relative to CO2 has been addressed elsewhere.

Lightfoot and Mamer (2014) and (2017) suggest:

1) Water molecules are 29 times more abundant in the atmosphere and 1.6 times more effective at global warming, than CO2 molecules

2) Water molecules account for 96 percent of the total radiative forcing of all greenhouse gases

3) Doubling CO2 concentrations from pre-industrial 280 ppm to 550 ppm would result in a global temperature increase of only 0.33°C.

Image Source: Lightfoot and Mamer, 2014 and Lightfoot and Mamer, 2017