|
Post by lowtacks86 on Aug 5, 2020 17:32:53 GMT
Your own source says ... "The study found that individual and systematic changes in measuring temperature over time were the most significant source of uncertainty. Also contributing was the degree of weather station coverage. Data interpolation between stations contributed some uncertainty, as did the process of standardizing data that was collected with different methods at different points in history." Conveniently, you missed out the rest of that paragraph, here it is in full: "The study found that individual and systematic changes in measuring temperature over time were the most significant source of uncertainty. Also contributing was the degree of weather station coverage. Data interpolation between stations contributed some uncertainty, as did the process of standardizing data that was collected with different methods at different points in history. After adding these components together, GISTEMP’s uncertainty value in recent years was still less than a tenth of a degree Fahrenheit, which is “very small,” Schmidt said."What? Lil' ol' me? As usual, a health warning: the casual reader ought to be reminded that the overwhelming consensus among climate scientists is being summarily rejected here by someone with an "open mind" enough to not think Darwin contributed anything to science, that Relativity is as fictional as a Warp Drive, and that cosmologists do not know how old the universe is LOL I am not attacking you Arlon, but your arguments and regular lack of substantiation for anything you opine. That's way to do it, see? All this blather above btw, is still not answering that outstanding question I have asked about that alternative theory of yours re: all that melting ice. Evasion noted. Fact: The warmest years globally have all occurred since 1998, with the top ten being 2016, 2019, 2015, 2017, 2018, 2014, 2010, 2013 and 2005 (tied), and 1998, respectively. Year-to-date global temperature comparison from the 2019 Annual Global Climate Report. Courtesy of NOAA NCEI. NASA also found that 2010-2019 was the hottest decade ever recorded. Scientists from the United Kingdom Met Office determined that 2019 was one of the top-three hottest years on record, and the World Meteorological Organization also ranked 2019 second warmest for the globe. An updated analysis of the annual UK temperature records from the Met Office shows that since 1884 all of the UK’s ten warmest years have occurred since 2002; whereas none of the ten coldest years have occurred since 1963. The first three months of this year were the second warmest in 141 years of record keeping.The instrumental temperature record provides the temperature of Earth's climate system from the historical network of in situ measurements of surface air temperatures and ocean surface temperatures. Data are collected at thousands of meteorological stations, buoys and ships around the globe. I'm starting to suspect Arlon thinks this counts as an academic study:
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 5, 2020 23:49:34 GMT
FilmFlaneur said: [ full text here] < clips >
- After adding these components together
- the casual reader ought to be reminded that the overwhelming consensus among climate scientists
- is still not answering that outstanding question
- thousands of meteorological stations
- It is not possible to solve for unknowns by simply "adding them together." In order to solve for those unknown factors it is necessary to already know what the actual change in temperature of the entire atmosphere was. It is always absolutely necessary to know something to solve for unknowns. You won't adequately address this issue. Evasion noted.
- Is well beyond the feeble grasp of quite many amateurs, and apparently some "professionals" as well.
- You do not get to decide this issue. Claiming you won is just a claim.
- Considering that the area of the Earth is about 197 million square miles at the surface and the highest clouds are about 5 miles high at the poles and about 12 miles high at the tropics, a few thousand metering stations would be rather sever undersampling. The larger the sample size the better the guess, and you are not even close to an adequate sample size. You won't adequately address this issue. Evasion noted.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 6, 2020 6:17:10 GMT
Conveniently, you missed out the rest of that paragraph, here it is in full: "The study found that individual and systematic changes in measuring temperature over time were the most significant source of uncertainty. Also contributing was the degree of weather station coverage. Data interpolation between stations contributed some uncertainty, as did the process of standardizing data that was collected with different methods at different points in history. After adding these components together, GISTEMP’s uncertainty value in recent years was still less than a tenth of a degree Fahrenheit, which is “very small,” Schmidt said."What? Lil' ol' me? As usual, a health warning: the casual reader ought to be reminded that the overwhelming consensus among climate scientists is being summarily rejected here by someone with an "open mind" enough to not think Darwin contributed anything to science, that Relativity is as fictional as a Warp Drive, and that cosmologists do not know how old the universe is LOL I am not attacking you Arlon, but your arguments and regular lack of substantiation for anything you opine. That's way to do it, see? All this blather above btw, is still not answering that outstanding question I have asked about that alternative theory of yours re: all that melting ice. Evasion noted. Fact: The warmest years globally have all occurred since 1998, with the top ten being 2016, 2019, 2015, 2017, 2018, 2014, 2010, 2013 and 2005 (tied), and 1998, respectively. Year-to-date global temperature comparison from the 2019 Annual Global Climate Report. Courtesy of NOAA NCEI. NASA also found that 2010-2019 was the hottest decade ever recorded. Scientists from the United Kingdom Met Office determined that 2019 was one of the top-three hottest years on record, and the World Meteorological Organization also ranked 2019 second warmest for the globe. An updated analysis of the annual UK temperature records from the Met Office shows that since 1884 all of the UK’s ten warmest years have occurred since 2002; whereas none of the ten coldest years have occurred since 1963. The first three months of this year were the second warmest in 141 years of record keeping.The instrumental temperature record provides the temperature of Earth's climate system from the historical network of in situ measurements of surface air temperatures and ocean surface temperatures. Data are collected at thousands of meteorological stations, buoys and ships around the globe. Ha! NASA can land men on the Moon, but they know nothing about climate science...though Ar probably thinks that was faked. The deep tundras and permafrost are unfreezing; no telling what ancient virus are seeping up. Who knows, Covid may have had its origins there. There's an interesting point. Most people of good sense won't want manned crews going to Mars since robots have already proved to do the job for far less expense. The trip to Mars might take 200 days each way depending on how fast you're willing to risk. That's a lot of Tang instant breakfast drink. At the same time most people of good sense don't want robots driving their cars, especially in rain or snow, since those bugs have not been, and are not likely to be, worked out.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 6, 2020 11:14:53 GMT
There's an interesting point. Most people of good sense won't want manned crews going to Mars since robots have already proved to do the job for far less expense. The trip to Mars might take 200 days each way depending on how fast you're willing to risk. That's a lot of Tang instant breakfast drink. At the same time most people of good sense don't want robots driving their cars, especially in rain or snow, since those bugs have not been, and are not likely to be, worked out. “Did you see that Sammy? He bypassed the Moon and went off to Mars. At least he’s looking up.” Current events. Go figure. No matter what it costs, no matter the danger of being 200 days out, I suspect people are going to try go to Mars. The voters probably won't let the government do it though. I doubt even Elon Musk has enough money for the project. Several private interests might combine to accomplish the task. I can't say for certain, but design by committee, what could go wrong?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 6, 2020 16:49:34 GMT
FilmFlaneur said: [ full text here] < clips >
- After adding these components together
- the casual reader ought to be reminded that the overwhelming consensus among climate scientists
- is still not answering that outstanding question
- thousands of meteorological stations
- It is not possible to solve for unknowns by simply "adding them together." In order to solve for those unknown factors it is necessary to already know what the actual change in temperature of the entire atmosphere was. It is always absolutely necessary to know something to solve for unknowns. You won't adequately address this issue. Evasion noted.
If scientists want to know what Earth's climate was like hundreds of thousands to millions of years ago, one way is that they study sediment cores and ice cores.These layers of ice give clues about every year of Earth's history back to the time the deepest layer was formed. The ice contains bubbles of the air from each year. Scientists analyze the bubbles in each layer to see how much CO2 they contain. Scientists can also use ice cores to learn about the temperatures for each year. As snow accumulates onto a growing glacier, the temperature of the air imprints onto the water molecules in the ice.Scientists who use trees, ice cores, and lake and ocean sediment to study Earth's climate are called paleoclimatologists. They look at all of these sources of information and compare their findings to see if they match up. If they do, then their findings are accepted as being most likely true. If the findings don't agree, the scientists do more studies and collect more information. That's how we know the temperatures of long ago. I hope that helps. Thank you for more of your unsubstantiated opinions. But for reasons already explained and linked to, I will prefer to go by what the overwhelming majority of scientists and relevant institutions agree on, the evidence for which has come from a variety of sources: that the climate is changing and warming up and that the cause is most likely man made. This does not necessarily make them right of course, just much less likely to be wrong than you. Now if you will excuse me, since you offer no authority or sources for your views, while your rejection of such a widespread consensus seems less the result of an "open mind", more something psychological, I have better things to do. Like preparing for the projected up to 37 degree heat due in London tomorrow. You still don't appear to have answered that question I have asked about your own pet theory. But that is no surprise.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 6, 2020 21:43:54 GMT
Current events. Go figure. No matter what it costs, no matter the danger of being 200 days out, I suspect people are going to try go to Mars. The voters probably won't let the government do it though. I doubt even Elon Musk has enough money for the project. Several private interests might combine to accomplish the task. I can't say for certain, but design by committee, what could go wrong? We are already on Mars. Not people, just robots. You missed the point, again.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 6, 2020 21:59:29 GMT
FilmFlaneur said: [ full text here] - It is not possible to solve for unknowns by simply "adding them together." In order to solve for those unknown factors it is necessary to already know what the actual change in temperature of the entire atmosphere was. It is always absolutely necessary to know something to solve for unknowns. You won't adequately address this issue. Evasion noted.
If scientists want to know what Earth's climate was like hundreds of thousands to millions of years ago, one way is that they study sediment cores and ice cores.These layers of ice give clues about every year of Earth's history back to the time the deepest layer was formed. The ice contains bubbles of the air from each year. Scientists analyze the bubbles in each layer to see how much CO2 they contain. Scientists can also use ice cores to learn about the temperatures for each year. As snow accumulates onto a growing glacier, the temperature of the air imprints onto the water molecules in the ice.Scientists who use trees, ice cores, and lake and ocean sediment to study Earth's climate are called paleoclimatologists. They look at all of these sources of information and compare their findings to see if they match up. If they do, then their findings are accepted as being most likely true. If the findings don't agree, the scientists do more studies and collect more information. That's how we know the temperatures of long ago. I hope that helps. Thank you for more of your unsubstantiated opinions. But for reasons already explained and linked to, I will prefer to go by what the overwhelming majority of scientists and relevant institutions agree on, the evidence for which has come from a variety of sources: that the climate is changing and warming up and that the cause is most likely man made. This does not necessarily make them right of course, just much less likely to be wrong than you. Now if you will excuse me, since you offer no authority or sources for your views, while your rejection of such a widespread consensus seems less the result of an "open mind", more something psychological, I have better things to do. Like preparing for the projected up to 37 degree heat due in London tomorrow. You still don't appear to have answered that question I have asked about your own pet theory. But that is no surprise. The scary thing is not that anonymous people believe what you believe. The scary thing is that people in real life might actually be that stupid. Can you name one?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 6, 2020 22:02:40 GMT
If scientists want to know what Earth's climate was like hundreds of thousands to millions of years ago, one way is that they study sediment cores and ice cores.These layers of ice give clues about every year of Earth's history back to the time the deepest layer was formed. The ice contains bubbles of the air from each year. Scientists analyze the bubbles in each layer to see how much CO2 they contain. Scientists can also use ice cores to learn about the temperatures for each year. As snow accumulates onto a growing glacier, the temperature of the air imprints onto the water molecules in the ice.Scientists who use trees, ice cores, and lake and ocean sediment to study Earth's climate are called paleoclimatologists. They look at all of these sources of information and compare their findings to see if they match up. If they do, then their findings are accepted as being most likely true. If the findings don't agree, the scientists do more studies and collect more information. That's how we know the temperatures of long ago. I hope that helps. Thank you for more of your unsubstantiated opinions. But for reasons already explained and linked to, I will prefer to go by what the overwhelming majority of scientists and relevant institutions agree on, the evidence for which has come from a variety of sources: that the climate is changing and warming up and that the cause is most likely man made. This does not necessarily make them right of course, just much less likely to be wrong than you. Now if you will excuse me, since you offer no authority or sources for your views, while your rejection of such a widespread consensus seems less the result of an "open mind", more something psychological, I have better things to do. Like preparing for the projected up to 37 degree heat due in London tomorrow. You still don't appear to have answered that question I have asked about your own pet theory. But that is no surprise. The scary thing is not that anonymous people believe what you believe. The scary thing is that people in real life might actually be that stupid. Can you name one? I can name one, yes. But as you know an ad hominem is not an argument.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 6, 2020 22:14:05 GMT
The scary thing is not that anonymous people believe what you believe. The scary thing is that people in real life might actually be that stupid. Can you name one? I can name one, yes. But as you know an ad hominem is not an argument. You are not a teacher. It is however amazing that you still think you are. Analyzing bubbles in ice does not in any way reduce the number of data points you need to get past undersampling. That is a scientific, logical fact that you cannot recognize because you are neither scientific nor logical. Again, I hope someday that someone you recognize as an authority apprises you of the facts. Meanwhile your choice of authorities is totally wrong.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 7, 2020 9:06:02 GMT
I can name one, yes. But as you know an ad hominem is not an argument. You are not a teacher. It is however amazing that you still think you are. Analyzing bubbles in ice does not in any way reduce the number of data points you need to get past undersampling. That is a scientific, logical fact that you cannot recognize because you are neither scientific nor logical. Again, I hope someday that someone you recognize as an authority apprises you of the facts. Meanwhile your choice of authorities is totally wrong. I shall give your unsubstantiated opinion about the lack of climate change the due weight it deserves today - a day which looks likely to set the highest temperature in the UK ever, exceeding the last record, from just last July.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 7, 2020 9:42:23 GMT
You are not a teacher. It is however amazing that you still think you are. Analyzing bubbles in ice does not in any way reduce the number of data points you need to get past undersampling. That is a scientific, logical fact that you cannot recognize because you are neither scientific nor logical. Again, I hope someday that someone you recognize as an authority apprises you of the facts. Meanwhile your choice of authorities is totally wrong. I shall give your unsubstantiated opinion about the lack of climate change the due weight it deserves today - a day which looks likely to set the highest temperature in the UK ever, exceeding the last record, from just last July. There have been unusually hot and unusually cold days since I can remember. I will give your blinkered opinion all the attention it deserves, which is in the manner of emergency attention.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 7, 2020 10:08:15 GMT
I shall give your unsubstantiated opinion about the lack of climate change the due weight it deserves today - a day which looks likely to set the highest temperature in the UK ever, exceeding the last record, from just last July. There have been unusually hot and unusually cold days since I can remember. I will give your blinkered opinion all the attention it deserves, which is in the manner of emergency attention. I am not surprised it is the case you can remember since the warmest years globally have all occurred since 1998, with the top ten being 2016, 2019, 2015, 2017, 2018, 2014, 2010, 2013 and 2005 (tied), and 1998, respectively, just as mentioned before. “The year 2020 is almost certain to rank among the five warmest years on record,” NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) says in its recent monthly global climate report. 2019 was the second warmest year since record-keeping began in 1880, and the 2010s were by far the warmest decade. There is too, of course a difference between just an unusually hot day and a succession of broken records over a relatively short period of time. But since this is where I came in, and I don't expect such science or logic to be acceptable to your "open mind", I will leave it there. Thank you for playing. For everyone else meantime, perhaps you can provide some authoritative evidence as to why we ought to believe that the earth is not warming after all and how the stasis has been measured? You could even try and answer that question I put to you a while back and which you seem to forget about even when reminded. I will leave it to others, if they can be bothered, to point out the inevitable evasion lol.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 8, 2020 17:34:37 GMT
There have been unusually hot and unusually cold days since I can remember. I will give your blinkered opinion all the attention it deserves, which is in the manner of emergency attention. I am not surprised it is the case you can remember since the warmest years globally have all occurred since 1998, with the top ten being 2016, 2019, 2015, 2017, 2018, 2014, 2010, 2013 and 2005 (tied), and 1998, respectively, just as mentioned before. “The year 2020 is almost certain to rank among the five warmest years on record,” NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) says in its recent monthly global climate report. 2019 was the second warmest year since record-keeping began in 1880, and the 2010s were by far the warmest decade. There is too, of course a difference between just an unusually hot day and a succession of broken records over a relatively short period of time. But since this is where I came in, and I don't expect such science or logic to be acceptable to your "open mind", I will leave it there. Thank you for playing. For everyone else meantime, perhaps you can provide some authoritative evidence as to why we ought to believe that the earth is not warming after all and how the stasis has been measured? You could even try and answer that question I put to you a while back and which you seem to forget about even when reminded. I will leave it to others, if they can be bothered, to point out the inevitable evasion lol. The Earth is round. (I've always wanted to say that.) And it is much, much bigger than you can imagine. Did you know that if you look at the Earth from the Moon you can't tell the Earth has any people on it?
|
|