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
https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C124389&Units=SI&T...
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
http://www.energyadvocate.com/gc1.jpg
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.