Climate change is real... But we found a shocking surprise.

The Federation of Pangaea is maintaining its own ground temperature records, to independently verify Climate Change. It currently measures temperatures in the Laurentians area, in Quebec, Canada, and the records are corroborated by local weather stations.

Greenhouse gases work by trapping heat. Now, to measure greenhouse gases is tricky work; the NOAA explains how it samples the air, and must employ "careful calibration" in measuring multiple gases due to phase and electromagnetic resonance similarities. However, as greenhouse gases trap heat, there is another way to measure their combined concentration: nightside heat retention.

The Moon has no greenhouse gases in its atmosphere. In fact it has extremely little of any atmospheres to begin with. As a result, the day side of the Moon cooks up under the Sun, and temperatures in the day may reach up to 120 degrees Celsius. However, during the night, because of the lack of any heat-trapping gases, temperatures then drop well below freezing, down to -170 degrees Celsius.

On the other hand, Venus is renowned for its thick, lush CO2 atmosphere. Its temperature during the day is 460 degrees Celsius, and thanks to the abundance of greenhouse gases, this temperature remains pretty much constant even throughout the nightside.

Therefore it can be demonstrated that there exists a much simpler way to measure the concentration of greenhouse gases as a whole. Quite simply, one needs simply to measure the average heat retention between the dayside of a point and its associated nightside. Unlike NOAA's method, nightside heat loss measurements be carried out by nearly anyone, anywhere on the globe, and therefore a much larger amount of independent people can verify the authorities' claims, which is in accordance with the scientific method.

The Federation of Pangaea just completed a full year worth of temperature records. The complete records span over 370 entries, so I will spare you the boredom (I can however provide you with the link if you wish to look at the raw data). I nevertheless wish to share our findings.

- From 8 May 2021 to 7 May 2022 inclusively, the local day high averaged 10.311 degrees Celsius.

- From 8 May 2021 to 7 May 2022 inclusively, the local night low averaged 1.585 degrees Celsius.

- From 8 May 2021 to 7 May 2022 inclusively, the local nightside heat loss averaged -8.688 degrees Celsius.



******

Now, our records are only 5 days into our second year. It is much too soon to draw definite conclusions. However I wish to present our preliminary results.

- From 8 May 2021 to 12 May 2021 inclusively, the local day high averaged 16.4 degrees Celsius.
- From 8 May 2021 to 12 May 2022 inclusively, the local night low averaged 3.4 degrees Celsius.
- From 8 May 2021 to 12 May 2022 inclusively, the local nightside heat loss averaged -13 degrees Celsius.

Next are some preliminary results for this year:

- From 8 May 2022 to 12 May 2022 inclusively, the local day high averaged 26.5 degrees Celsius.
- From 8 May 2022 to 12 May 2022 inclusively, the local night low averaged 6.2 degrees Celsius.
- From 8 May 2022 to 12 May 2022 inclusively, the local nightside heat loss averaged -21 degrees Celsius.

We have just experienced a heat wave that seems to confirm Global Warming, as the average temperatures are nearly 10 degrees above the 2021 reference point.

However the average nightside temperature is less than 3 degrees above the 2021 reference point.

And more shocking is the nightside heat retention, which has dropped a whopping 16 degrees below the 2021 reference point.

Are we witnessing a situation where we are actually losing heat retention? Could those preliminary results indicate that greenhouse gases are actually decreasing, steadily bringing us closer to a Moon situation, where the Sun scorches the surface during the day, and then everything drops well below freezing point during the night?

It is much too soon to tell with certainty. What is certain however is that the recent nightside heat loss we have recorded is also an all-time record since 8 May 2021, with a nightside heat loss as large as 20 degrees on 9 May 2022.

If we discover that this heat loss trend continues, then there will be serious reasons for concerns. A theoretical runaway heat loss trend of only 1.28 degrees per year would have catastrophic effects by the end of 2100; resulting in daily averages of +60 degrees in the afternoon, and in nights dropping down below -40 degrees. Those extrapolated figures are calculated for Quebec up north; which suggests even more intense daily weather for states that are south of Quebec/Maine, especially for those with a continental climate. Of course, however, actual climate is much more complex than just greenhouse gases, and other factors will come into play by then, such as the Sun's own variable output, which has increased by 20% since prehistoric times. Additionally, an increase in dayside temperatures will increase water evaporation rates, and water vapor itself acts as a greenhouse gas.

a reply to: swanne

Anyone basing even preliminary results off a few days compared to a full year of multiple seasons isn't someone I would ever take seriously.

a reply to: swanne

OK well we better get them gas guzzlers on the road again.

Jaden

So what of the magnetic field connection?

As it turns out – according to studies— our planets magnetic field could flip in our lifetime. According to experts, the position of the South Pole has shifted and is not located precisely at Antarctica, the North Pole is also believed to be ‘racing’ across the Arctic Ocean. Earth’s magnetic field appears to be collapsing which could severely damage our climate and WIPE OUT power grids across the world.

www.chaosmosnews.net...

Experts are unsure why the magnetic field is weakening but one of the MOST LIKELY reasons is that our planets magnetic poles are getting ready to flip said Rune Floberghagen, the ESA’s Swarm mission manager.

According to experts, if the pole switch does happen the entire planet and everything on it will become exposed to solar winds which could punch giant holes into the ozone layer which in turn could have a devastating effect on mankind. If the planet’s Magnetosphere starts collapsing power grids could collapse, the weather would abruptly change and humans would have serious health risks.

According to reports from the European Space Agency, as of 2014 the magnetic field is continuing to weaken rapidly. With the help of SWARM, scientists have obtained unprecedented insights into the complex workings of Earth’s magnetic field. Reports show that the general trend of the magnetic field is weakening and the most dramatic declines are present over the Western Hemisphere.

www.chaosmosnews.net...

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: swanne

Anyone basing even preliminary results off a few days compared to a full year of multiple seasons isn't someone I would ever take seriously.

Now, our records are only 5 days into our second year. It is much too soon to draw definite conclusions. However I wish to present our preliminary results.

it seems the OP agrees.

a reply to: swanne

We have just experienced a heat wave that seems to confirm Global Warming, as the average temperatures are nearly 10 degrees above the 2021 reference point.

Has it ever occurred to you or any of the Climate alarmist that the " Climate Change Theory ' is just a result of Humanities Hubris .

According to Al Gore we were supposed to under water 10 years ago , Planet Earth is a Living thing with it's own intelligence and I doubt we are the first intelligent species to live on Planet Earth . Earth is capable of healing itself don't you understand that ? Why do you think the moon is covered in craters ? because the moon does not heal itself but the Earth on the other hand is constantly changing it's tectonic plates shifting rotating the land anew .

Earth is fully capable of handing human beings.

An interesting read, from what I can understand of it. It would be interesting to see the results, in say 5 years.

But also, couldn't this also be part of cycles, that I'm guessing all the planets probably have gone through, for thousands of years?


BTW, nice to see you posting again!

a reply to: swanne

It seems to me, that before our current heat-wave, daytime highs have been below the average since March.
This is just my anecdotal impression, from spending an entire minute every day looking at the weather forecast, and daily historic highs and lows.

Our historic high for today was 28,5°C, but today we are already at 30°C, projected 31°C : new record high.
This is destroying any kind of short-term samples.

There is still snow in the woods in the areas around you, which may affect the air flowing over your capture-points.
Does the data of The Federation of Pangaea, from March to May 2021 indicate closer to norm temps, or this year ?
Was there more or less residual snow ?

If we really were way below day avg. this year, then the large discrepancy may also show a sort of "drinking-up" of the additional daytime warmth by the mountains around you, as perhaps the bedrock was cooler than usual, so reluctant to release heat, and drinking it all up like a reptilian member of The-House-Of-Windsor™ ...

Can remember a few years ago when an NHL™ player scored 5 goals in the first game of the season .
Nobody predicted that he would do that every game, and score 5 x 82 = 410 goals that season...
( He-he - just teasing you ! )

originally posted by: swanne
The Federation of Pangaea is maintaining its own ground temperature records, to independently verify Climate Change. It currently measures temperatures in the Laurentians area, in Quebec, Canada, and the records are corroborated by local weather stations.

Greenhouse gases work by trapping heat. Now, to measure greenhouse gases is tricky work; the NOAA explains how it samples the air, and must employ "careful calibration" in measuring multiple gases due to phase and electromagnetic resonance similarities. However, as greenhouse gases trap heat, there is another way to measure their combined concentration: nightside heat retention.

The Moon has no greenhouse gases in its atmosphere. In fact it has extremely little of any atmospheres to begin with. As a result, the day side of the Moon cooks up under the Sun, and temperatures in the day may reach up to 120 degrees Celsius. However, during the night, because of the lack of any heat-trapping gases, temperatures then drop well below freezing, down to -170 degrees Celsius.

On the other hand, Venus is renowned for its thick, lush CO2 atmosphere. Its temperature during the day is 460 degrees Celsius, and thanks to the abundance of greenhouse gases, this temperature remains pretty much constant even throughout the nightside.

Therefore it can be demonstrated that there exists a much simpler way to measure the concentration of greenhouse gases as a whole. Quite simply, one needs simply to measure the average heat retention between the dayside of a point and its associated nightside. Unlike NOAA's method, nightside heat loss measurements be carried out by nearly anyone, anywhere on the globe, and therefore a much larger amount of independent people can verify the authorities' claims, which is in accordance with the scientific method.

The Federation of Pangaea just completed a full year worth of temperature records. The complete records span over 370 entries, so I will spare you the boredom (I can however provide you with the link if you wish to look at the raw data). I nevertheless wish to share our findings.

- From 8 May 2021 to 7 May 2022 inclusively, the local day high averaged 10.311 degrees Celsius.

- From 8 May 2021 to 7 May 2022 inclusively, the local night low averaged 1.585 degrees Celsius.

- From 8 May 2021 to 7 May 2022 inclusively, the local nightside heat loss averaged -8.688 degrees Celsius.



******

Now, our records are only 5 days into our second year. It is much too soon to draw definite conclusions. However I wish to present our preliminary results.

- From 8 May 2021 to 12 May 2021 inclusively, the local day high averaged 16.4 degrees Celsius.
- From 8 May 2021 to 12 May 2022 inclusively, the local night low averaged 3.4 degrees Celsius.
- From 8 May 2021 to 12 May 2022 inclusively, the local nightside heat loss averaged -13 degrees Celsius.

Next are some preliminary results for this year:

- From 8 May 2022 to 12 May 2022 inclusively, the local day high averaged 26.5 degrees Celsius.
- From 8 May 2022 to 12 May 2022 inclusively, the local night low averaged 6.2 degrees Celsius.
- From 8 May 2022 to 12 May 2022 inclusively, the local nightside heat loss averaged -21 degrees Celsius.

We have just experienced a heat wave that seems to confirm Global Warming, as the average temperatures are nearly 10 degrees above the 2021 reference point.

However the average nightside temperature is less than 3 degrees above the 2021 reference point.

And more shocking is the nightside heat retention, which has dropped a whopping 16 degrees below the 2021 reference point.

Are we witnessing a situation where we are actually losing heat retention? Could those preliminary results indicate that greenhouse gases are actually decreasing, steadily bringing us closer to a Moon situation, where the Sun scorches the surface during the day, and then everything drops well below freezing point during the night?

It is much too soon to tell with certainty. What is certain however is that the recent nightside heat loss we have recorded is also an all-time record since 8 May 2021, with a nightside heat loss as large as 20 degrees on 9 May 2022.

If we discover that this heat loss trend continues, then there will be serious reasons for concerns. A theoretical runaway heat loss trend of only 1.28 degrees per year would have catastrophic effects by the end of 2100; resulting in daily averages of +60 degrees in the afternoon, and in nights dropping down below -40 degrees. Those extrapolated figures are calculated for Quebec up north; which suggests even more intense daily weather for states that are south of Quebec/Maine, especially for those with a continental climate. Of course, however, actual climate is much more complex than just greenhouse gases, and other factors will come into play by then, such as the Sun's own variable output, which has increased by 20% since prehistoric times. Additionally, an increase in dayside temperatures will increase water evaporation rates, and water vapor itself acts as a greenhouse gas.

now i hear clean air causes more hurricanes too..


lol.

If we lose any kind of shield
then earth will get hotter in the day.
CO2 is a shield.
have volcanos kept up the CO2 and shielded us?

it would be irony.
I remember a time travle film.
in it the people had to smoke!

a reply to: network dude

somehow I like it when some people shoot themselves in the foot and even then they don't realize it and keep on doing it

a reply to: SeaWorthy

I have heard of this quite a few years ago. This is highly interesting. My most sincere thanks for posting this. It definitely deserves deeper investigations.

originally posted by: Nothin
a reply to: swanne

It seems to me, that before our current heat-wave, daytime highs have been below the average since March.

We could not confirm this, since our records have begun on 8 May 2021. However, personally, I would tend to agree with this anecdotal observation. Last year snow up here was gone by April; this year the snow was still lying around in May.

a reply to: buddha

Precisely. We are already observing this effect on the Moon.

a reply to: chiefsmom

I agree; it could indeed be part of a cycle. Well, I hope so. Otherwise if it's a linear trend, then we're in trouble...

It's good to see you too.

So, you are measuring average planetary heat loss as opposed to heat gain, I like that idea, it's like doing a mathematical equation backwards as a proof.

Keep comparing these measurements. For my own place on Earth, I got a weather station that has been taking measurements every 15 mins and putting it into a log. It covers everything, but I like what you're doing, comparing the night time losses to any daytime gains. Thanks for giving me another idea for monitoring the weather, I was more concerned with barometric pressure along with wind speed and directions for weather predicting.

The fronts move around a lot though, mixing the arctic cold air masses with the equatorial warm air masses, the northern jet stream effects this tremendously here in the Great Lakes region. Plus the lakes create a moderating effect, then there are micro climates to consider.

Anyway, a great idea in my opinion.

Now, what should be the baseline temperature of the Earth's biosphere? How warm should we be compared to outer space? Absolute zero should be the lowest limit to our planetary cooling, but what of the highest temp? Venus has to be higher, the moon seems a good comparison except the lack of atmosphere. Other planets of Earth size in other solar systems with a star like our sun perhaps? Maybe take the known averages to come up with a midpoint baseline?

Mars, 1/3 Earth's size and further out with a primarily carbon dioxide atmosphere. It could provide some comparison perhaps.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

want to hear something even funnier? as the air gets cleaner storms actually GET BIGGER and MORE FREQUENT.

In contrast to this, i have been analyzing average temperatures in my area that go back to 1950. My results show a roughly sinusoidal wave pattern with a period of between 60 and 70 years. Our coldest period was around the 1970s,with our warmest in the 2000s. Since then, the temperature has dropped back very close to 1950s levels; that drop has been very fast compared to previous observations, so I am waiting to see if it is accurately indicative of the long-term cycle or is simply an effect of superimposed short-term cycles.

This indicates a cyclical response that does not correlate to atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have been continuously increasing since the 1960s at least. Therefore, I can now say with a high degree of confidence that there is no carbon-dioxide related warming occurring in my area.

Since my area was not picked by any metric other than where I was born, which is in itself a random event, I can say with some degree of confidence that there is no carbon dioxide based heating occurring.

In contrast, you are taking measurements from a single year and trying to identify a multi-decade phenomenon. That is woefully, and I mean woefully, inadequate... to the point of ridiculousness. One cannot identify a 60-70 year cycle after comparing two consecutive years, especially in a system as complex and chaotic as atmospheric science.

In addition, your assumptions are biased. The moon has no atmosphere and is not therefore subject to greenhouse heating. That much is correct. However, Venus is a much different situation. In addition to carbon dioxide the atmosphere also contains an appreciable amount of methane. Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. There is no life on Venus, so any contribution from life is nonexistent. This simplifies the calculations considerably for Venus. Venus is also much closer to the sun, which is the primary source of heat; it is highly unlikely that life could have ever existed on Venus.

Finally, your measurement methodology is flawed if the goal is to determine which gas may be responsible. The heat retention is affected by many different gases. Water vapor, especially, is much more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide and exists naturally in much higher amounts than carbon dioxide itself. The very problems you mention in measuring carbon dioxide are the reason for this; water is a chaotic medium in itself and therefore the absorption spectrum is quite wide and varied. The carbon dioxide absorption spectrum by contrast is quite narrow, and can easily be disguised by water vapor. Therefore, even if one could confirm or deny warming based on your analysis, one could not state the cause with any real certainty or without additional data which you are missing.

TheRedneck

a reply to: swanne

Interesting, but I have a few doubts.

First, local measurements can only be taken that way, locally, we can never apply the data from one are to the whole planet, specially when talking about weather, that in many areas has specific, local, characteristics.

Second, loss of temperature during the night is highly related to cloud coverage, no clouds allow more heat loss, so it would be good if you could add that in the collected data (if it's not already being done).

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: swanne

Interesting, but I have a few doubts.

First, local measurements can only be taken that way, locally, we can never apply the data from one are to the whole planet, specially when talking about weather, that in many areas has specific, local, characteristics.

Second, loss of temperature during the night is highly related to cloud coverage, no clouds allow more heat loss, so it would be good if you could add that in the collected data (if it's not already being done).

Actual professional scientists have measured the increase in atmospheric radiative emissions from changes in atmospheric chemistry, i.e. fossil fuel production of CO2 and CH4 and the total energy budget. This has been going on for 50+ years. They have thought of everything amateurs have thought up, and far far more, with great attention to instrumental calibration, coverage, bias, numerical algorithms.

www.tandfonline.com...

The Earth’s climate is largely determined by its energy budget. Since the 1960s, satellite remote sensing has been used in estimating these energy budget components at both the top of the atmosphere (TOA) and the surface. Besides the broadband sensors that have been traditionally used for monitoring Earth’s Energy Budget (EEB), data from a variety of narrowband sensors aboard both polar-orbiting and geostationary satellites have also been extensively employed to estimate the EEB components. This paper provides a comprehensive review of the satellite missions, state-of-the art estimation algorithms and the satellite products, and also synthesizes current understanding of the EEB and spatio-temporal variations. The TOA components include total solar irradiance, reflected shortwave radiation/planetary albedo, outgoing longwave radiation, and energy imbalance. The surface components include incident solar radiation, shortwave albedo, shortwave net radiation, longwave downward and upwelling radiation, land and sea surface temperature, surface emissivity, all-wave net radiation, and sensible and latent heat fluxes. Some challenges, and outlook such as virtual constellation of different satellite sensors, temporal homogeneity tests of long time-series products, algorithms ensemble, and products intercomparison are also discussed

a reply to: mbkennel

Actual professional scientists...

...have measured the increase in atmospheric radiative emissions from changes in atmospheric chemistry, i.e. fossil fuel production of CO2 and CH4 and the total energy budget. This has been going on for 50+ years. They have thought of everything amateurs have thought up, and far far more, with great attention to instrumental calibration, coverage, bias, numerical algorithms.

And yet, empirical NOAA data from 1950 shows no overall change in climate, other than a sinusoidal cycle. Interesting.

How do you account for that?

TheRedneck