It is called anthropogenic GLOBAL climate change. The word in caps there is the important one.
There are regional trends that go up and down and all around, but localized, regional stuff isn't the topic.
This is why statistics, again, is important.
As an example: here's two HISTOGRAMS showing the DISTRIBUTION of heights of women and men:
Adult men average 70" tall, and adult women average 65".
Now note that these are DISTRIBUTIONS, meaning that some men are actually 65" tall or less!
What you are doing with "localized" climate is picking out a being who is 65" and assuming it is a woman. That is not correct.
Climate change is very much like that, but instead of "height" we talk about change in temperature.
There is a distribution of behaviors but we can learn a lot from the ensemble of data that you CANNOT see in individual data points.
------------------------------
Here's an explanation of what a "histogram" is if you need some background: Histograms
Austrian Analyst: Things With Greenhouse Effect (GHE) Aren’t Adding Up…”Something Totally Wrong”
By P Gosselin on 11. September 2020
Share this...
Something is rotten with the GHE
By Erich Schaffer
Introduction
The greenhouse effect (GHE) is a well established theory which most people consider a solid fact, even those who are otherwise “critical” over global warming. On the other side there are some voices who “deny” the GHE with flatearther-like arguments, which seemingly only adds to the credibility of the theory. This is a very odd situation, since there are huge issues with the GHE hidden in plain sight.
“Without GHGs, the Earth would be a frozen planet with a temperature of only -18°C, or 255°K”. This definition is all too familiar to us all and the experts naming it are legion. The 255°K isthe result of a (relatively) simple formula.
(342 x ((1-0.3) / 1) / 5.67e-8) ^0.25 = 255
342W/m2 is the amount of solar radiation (the exact number may vary), 5.67e-8 is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant and ^0.25 (or the 4th root) represents the Stefan-Boltzmann law according to which radiation is a function of temperature to the power of 4.
Black body assumption trouble
The interesting part however is (1-0.3 / 1). 0.3 is the albedo of Earth and 1-0.3 os thus the absorbtivity, which is the share of solar radiation the Earth absorbs (~70%). The 1 below the comma, which is usually omitted, represents emissivity, which is the share of LWIR emitted by the Earth relative to a perfect black body of the same temperature. In other words, it is being assumed Earth would be emitting just like a perfect black body if it were not for GHGs. And that is where the trouble starts.
The basic problem
Quite obviously there are two factors that “violate” the assumption named above.
- The surface of the Earth, mainly consisting of water, is not a perfect emitter, pretty much like any real surface. Although it is not the scope of this article, it can be shown there is a significant deviation from 1 (in the 0.91 to 0.94 range). One needs to look up Fresnel equations, the refractive index of water and so on to sort out this subject.
- Clouds interfere massively with LWIR emissions. Actually this is common wisdom, as “clear nights are cold nights” and most people have made the according experience. Even the IPCC states clouds would block a 50W/m2 of SW radiation, retain a 30W/m2 of LWIR and thus have a net CRE (Cloud Radiative Effect) of -20W/m2 [1]. Of course those -50W/m2 of SW CRE are already included in the formula above (part of the 30% albedo), while the 30W/m2 of LW CRE are not. . . .
No. It's anecdote, not data.
It's obvious you didn't watch the video. It chronicled several other cities with record heat in 1913.
You should practice what you preach.
