Its true that I cannot prove the above statement because the bad guys have monopolised on the data. But its the most likely hypothesis so I’d like to see research out there to prove if its wrong or right. The global warming fraud, when confronted with the heat island effect, comes up with some fuckwit saying that the effect is not all that bad. Then thats the end of the matter. So they won’t compile separate graphs where the heat island effect is not part of the story. They wave it away. So we don’t have honest ground data outside the American raw data.
We have to work with whatever we have. We cannot use the fraudulent NOAA and GISS data. We know its dirty. So we don’t have much to work with but we have to scrounge around for what we can get.
Tony Heller has managed to search out old Australian and American data that is honest data. The fraudsters have this excuse that the lower 48 States is only 2% of the global area so they bullshit people that we can dismiss this data. But its the only sound data that has been compiled without being fucked by Oligarchical minions. Not all of them gentiles. So we simply must go with the data we have.
What Tony Heller has gotten hold of shows us that we must presume a slight cooling trend for the globe as an whole, based on Australian and American data, if the 1890’s or the 1930’s is our starting point. Take another starting point and you may find another trend. There is no excuses not to extrapolate this to the globe as an whole until you can find honest data for the globe as an whole. And the money is not there to do that. The data is there. The money is lacking.
The honest way to go forward is not to whine that the Australian and lower 48 data is not complete. It should be representative, and if we are unsure we should expect money forthcoming for people to keep adding sanctified measuring stations. No heat island effect and no fucking excuses for the heat island effect.
But what about the honest data? The balloon radiosondes and the satellite data since 1979 is still honest data. But there is a problem with it. It gives us a false positive for very obvious reasons. And the frauds on Broadway have exploited this false positive mercilessly. Frauds on Broadway, not all of them gentiles, have taken the false positive of the honest satellite data, combined with their own horseshit, to allege that they have an 86% probability that the year 2016 was the hottest year on the instrumental record.
Complete fucking lies but very hard to stand up and call out once you have admitted that the satellite data is honest data. So the forces of evil have landed one clean on the jaw here, and its got even the biggest skeptics acting very cautious and restrained. I see these dudes backing off some because the satellite data isn’t telling them the story they expected.
So what is going on here? Let me explain this to the layman, to see why this supposed confirmation of the lies of the bad guys, by the satellite, is got to be assumed to be, at maybe 98% certainty, a false positive. And why this cannot be resolved without an honest survey of the ground data.
Since the global warming fraud has started people have talked as if the sun did not give off infra-red. In reality more than half the energy we get from the sun is infrared. Since the global warming fraud people have talked as if the infra-red absorbed by CO2 is independent of that absorbed by water vapour. In reality they are overlapping. And while CO2 is a narrow absorber in three tiny ranges, water vapour is a wide-spectrum absorber of infra-red.
In other words if CO2 mixes above water vapour it is absorbing some infrared prior to that infrared hitting the water vapour and heating it up. As a result of that absorption, in the first instant at least, some of the area above where water vapour taps out should be warmed by extra CO2, at the expense of the region underneath. So our first assumption has to be that extra CO2 cools the atmosphere below the clouds but warms some part of the atmosphere above that.
Now how about the greenhouse myth towards the make-up of the light from the sun being too much in the higher spectrums, whereas the thermal energy coming off the earth being all in the infra-red? Well thats kind of crazy-talk. Because the ratio is less than two-to-one. What about other energy? Well yes you have electrical energy difference between the ionosphere and the deep earth. Which is really a residual difference between the sun and the deep earth.
This electrical energy will get converted to thermal energy, thermal energy has a way of working opposite to gravity, and the CO2, particularly where and when the air is dry, will pick up some of this, which the water vapour may not have done so on its own. As we can see there are a lot of wild cards which mean we must rely on good data.
You might think that its a reasonable position to take that the CO2 will clearly absorb more joules outgoing than joules incoming so we can right away infer net warming. The reasoning might go like this; Since the ratio of infra-red incoming to infrared outgoing may be (lets say) 1.8 to 1 … and since I’ve admitted to another incoming source of energy … that will pull it up to maybe 2-to-1 and so the global warming theory still holds.
But in a 3 dimensional model, rather than a model based on watts-per-square-metre, not every joule is equal. Image a pyramid house. Is the heater in the attic as effective as the heater in the basement, for heating the pyramid house, joule for joule? No of course not. The heater in the basement is far more important. So the matter simply cannot be resolved except empirically.
Now we come to the honest data we do have. And thats the satellite data from 1979 to the present. Which does seem to show a tiny bit of CO2 warming. Because the temperature has gone up even during solar cycle 24 (a weak solar cycle) leading to the hottest year being in 2016. Well as we have seen the LEAST in doubt idea is that the extra CO2 ought to warm the atmosphere a little bit, above the clouds. Above at least where the water vapour taps out. So we expect a false positive with a high level of certainty. Because of reasons explained above we don’t really know the net effect on the ground. I say that the net effect on the ground ought to be cooling. But for reasons explained thats more than can be inferred by just thinking deeply about it.
We need good ground data. And no more excuses for why we don’t have it.