Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Change?"

[rogman]

Just a comment on the “hottest day on this planet” nonsense being shipped by the MSM and a response to belittling the opinions of Nobel-winning scientists.

If you ACTUALLY KNOW how a “global mean temperature” metric is calculated... you actually laugh when they make these announcements about “hottest day/year ever” are made.

You could not possibly give me a “Mean Temperature of Killington Vermont for One Day” and have produced a meaningful metric. Where did you put the thermometer(s)? How many/ how sited / at what precise location (sun/ shade/ location off the ground/ at what times measured/ method of spacial integration of data/ method of temporal integration of data/ etc/ etc.

How could you generate a GLOBAL mean temperature for a day or a year???

What would be the precision of the metric? If most of your instruments usually give data to +/- 0.1 degrees (I supplied data from Aqaba Jordan for one year from a Stevenson Screen Station)... how can you produce a mean value of +/- 0.01 degrees (the mean is ten times as accurate as the data??). Hopefully you were taught and remember the concept of significant figures. You would flunk a HS Chemistry class for mistakes at that level.

“Climate Scientists” are mostly grifters paid to generate scary stories. If you are unwilling to go along with the grift you:
get no government funding (which is virtually all “climate science” funding) AND… you
cannot call yourself a “climate scientist.” (ask Judith Curry).
Report a NEW RECORD HIGH TEMPERATURE to +/_ 0.01 degree and your funding will continue. This is fraud.

These Nobel Prize-winning scientists should be ignored because they can’t understand “climate science???”

NOBODY understands ALL the components of “climate science.”

A partial list of things you would need to be an expert at to understand all the components of the “earth climate system:
Radiative physics, quantum mechanics (for cloud nucleation events, at least), hydrology, oceanography, ecology, geology, meteorology, soil biology, botany/transpirational dynamics, physical chemistry, computer coding, statistical analysis, advanced mathematics, etc.

NOBODY has even modest expertise in ALL those areas.

So how many pieces do you need to fully understand to deserve the label: ”climate scientist?” Is an expert on “dendrochronology” a climate scientist, but an award-winning expert on radiative physics shouldn’t critique the greenhouse effect (radiative energy transfer) because he is not a “climate scientist.”

You could be a dendrochronologist, label yourself a “climate scientist,” know virtually nothing about the details of radiative transfer and BELITTLE the analysis of Will Happer and Freeman Dyson, geniuses with celebrated contributions in radiative transfer… about their analysis of the role of radiative transfer in climate dynamics… because they are not “climate scientists.”

Feels like we are living through the actualization of the script from Idiocracy. It horrifies me that so much of modern science is degrading so intensely. (There is an actual “Replication Crisis” in science.)

That’s why you can find plenty of actual geniuses with comprehensive training in the hard sciences (physics, geology, chemistry, etc) who think climate science is not science at all They understand that it is more like a religious a cult. See https://defyccc.com/scientists/ (Three Nobel Prize winning scientists (physics /chemistry) on that list)

They have a truly deep understanding of one aspect of the jumble labeled “climate science.” Radiative physics or statistical analysis for example. They read from a paper on “climate science” and see that their particular specialty is misused or misrepresented in “climate science.” So they start looking into other aspects of this field.

No matter what some jokers on this board suggest you do not need a degree in a particular topic to notice flaws in scientific analysis in this field. Science has an inherent logic that anyone who has learned well can utilize to evaluate any system. Everything beyond that is just working hard to become familiar with the relevant details. The internet exists and except for paywall issues ( my previous job allowed me unlimited access) you can read all the science in the world if you want to. (It is my indoor hobby) (Outdoor hobbies are mostly skiing and trout fishing)

So when someone suggests that the opinions of Nobel-winning scientists can be ignored for climate science…. Realize you are talking to someone from a religious cult who DEEPLY misunderstands how science actually works.

More Eminent Scientists who dissent from the "climate consensus": http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/0 ... f-agw.html

Your premise is wrong.

If you take 1000 temperature readings from one thermometer, it will retain that instrument’s systematic bias.

If you take 1000 temperature readings from 1000 different thermometers, their individual offsets will tend to cancel and a more accurate answer can and will result.

Your basic lack of understanding of the effects of noise and bias on signal measurement is disturbing for someone who passes himself off as an expert.

[easyrider16]

You could not possibly give me a “Mean Temperature of Killington Vermont for One Day” and have produced a meaningful metric. Where did you put the thermometer(s)? How many/ how sited / at what precise location (sun/ shade/ location off the ground/ at what times measured/ method of spacial integration of data/ method of temporal integration of data/ etc/ etc.

How could you generate a GLOBAL mean temperature for a day or a year???

Good questions but your lack of follow through as to the answers to those questions makes your post a little bit useless. I'm sure you know that NOAA has weather stations all over Vermont (and the rest of the U.S.) that record temperature readings. Finding out how they do this seems fairly trivial, and then you could actually present some facts about how their methodology is flawed. Instead, you speculate that the methodology is flawed without providing any real empirical data or fact-based criticism .

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

Rogman,
You might already understand all this, but in an effort to attempt actual communication here (part of “doing science”(, I will explain my understanding on this topic. If I am wrong please correct me.

In my training as a scientist, most formally from undergrad course “Quantitative Chemistry”, and when being paid to assess and report surface chemistry values, THE RULES for reporting data always involved some form of evaluation of accuracy and precision.

Accuracy usually involves reference to values generated from measurements of "qualified standards." Not always an easy call. Almost never done with global temperature data. So that's a problem.

Precision is usually assessed by making multiple measurements of the same sample and looking at the scatter in the results. Easy to do, and really required in proper lab procedure. Almost never done with global temperature data. So that's a problem.

In any case, some procedure produces some set of data with an ascribed precision usually reported as something like 28.5 +/- 0.2 degrees.
Lots of different sources of temperature data, each with their own reported precision are dumped into some giant algorithm and it calculates a MEAN VALUE for the temperature data. What should be the reported precision for this data? Today's generation of scholars seems quite happy to spit out the value generated by their calculation and not worry much about the issue of precision for that value. If you had a data set in which all members had a precision of +/-0.2 degrees... and your calculator spits out an average value (generated by adding and dividing) of 32.637298647,
WHAT SHOULD YOU REPORT as the mean??

Should you use the rules for handling significant figures when performing addition and division?
Should you use all the digits shown because the calculator told you so??

If you choose to use more digits than the rules of mathematics/ significant figures says you should....where do you cut off the number?

Anyone who thinks they should use all the digits shown because the calculator told you so,… things are truly hopeless for them.

I had always used the rules I learned about significant figures when reporting mean values from a data set. The precision (or lack thereof) from the ACTUAL DATA carried forward into the reported mean value. So the mean as shown above would be 32.6, not 32.637298647.
That is the way I learned it, have viewed it in innumerable peer-reviewed papers I have read (as part of my jobs, or as a hobby) and as seen from various sources on the internet (now that your response sent me back to the internet to fact check!)

Examples from the internet: (a bit hard to find this exact topic covered)
https://web.ics.purdue.edu/~lewicki/phy ... ignificant
MONEY QUOTE: "Now the best estimate (usually the average value) and its uncertainty (experimental error) must always have the same number of digits after the decimal point, even if the uncertainty does not contain the same number of significant figures as the best estimate.
If the uncertainty has more number of places after the decimal as compared to the best estimate, adding it to (or subtracting it from) the best estimate will leave the best estimate with more number of decimal places than your apparatus is capable of measuring. For example, 2.4 ± 0.16 implies that the result lies in the range 2.24 – 2.56. But the apparatus can measure only up to a precision of one place after the decimal. Hence the correct way to express the answer is 2.4 ± 0.2.

Another source:
"The number of significant figures that a mean value should have depends on the precision of the measurements that were used to calculate it. In general, the mean value should have the same number of significant figures as the measurements with the least precision.

This is the standard strategy for reporting data (including mean values) in the hard sciences.

ALTERNATE APPROACHES?
There seems to be some different approaches here (new to me):
Too many digits: the presentation of numerical data
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4483789/
Seems that "climate science" may prefer using an alternate version of reporting precision (as indicated in the “extra” significant figures reported in the metric), without really indicating they are using this alternate approach. This version requires calculation of standard deviation for the data set. Once a SD has been calculated you will report your mean using this rule (new to me!)
“Use enough decimal places to give either the SD to two significant digits,7or the SE to one significant digit.”
(SE is simply SD squared.)

So…first you would need to be able to calculate a standard deviation for the data. This is where thinking about what a “global temperature” data set, including mean and SD, represents is necessary.

Using a classical example from statistics, the Human Heights from a certain population might be measured and an average calculated. This is likely, but not certain, to show a normal distribution. The mean for this data would represent the “center” of the data set, and the standard deviation would represent the “spread” of the data. For normal data sets you can report the average height and suggest that 95% of all members of that data set fall within +/- TWO standard deviations from the mean value. This is not an unusual strategy for reporting this type of data set. The +/- 2SD is a reasonable way to express a characteristic of the data set. It really isn’t a report that characterizes the “Uncertainty” of the mean value of the data. But you can look at that value (2SD) and use it to “confirm” that two data sets are truly different.

For example, looking at grip strength of males in a population and grip strength of females. If you plot the normal curves, the two curves have distinctly different mean values (and SD) but the two “bell curves” overlap., males have a higher mean but the curves overlap. How much do they overlap?? If they only minimally overlapped and the male mean value MINUS 2SD was higher than the female mean value PLUS 2SD then… 95% of males have higher grip strength than 95% of females so… you could simply say males have higher grip strength than females and be within statistical conventions of correctness. (NOT political correctness though!!) But in real populations that is not typically true, so you can only officially say that males have a higher AVERAGE grip strength in most populations.
That is a normal use of SD when analyzing data sets, I have done that officially a few times.

When looking at global temperature data, what does the MEAN temperature value actually represent? Many scientists/ statisticians regard it as useless. The mean temperatures for data harvested from various sites in Hawaii (warm but moderate all year) MIGHT calculate out to an equivalent for the temperature data average from Death Valley (wildly hot at times) and Antarctica (wildly cold at times.) combined. Very hot and very cold COMBINED could yield the same average as data from a location that is always moderate. Would the identical averages indicate similar climate regimens? Nope.

I understand, and agree, with caveats, that a calculated average temperature that was generated the EXACT SAME WAY for every data point for an entire time series could generate an interesting data set. If you repeated the exact same procedure, (no matter how limited or flawed) for a 50 or 100 years.

USCRN June.png (67.45 KiB) Viewed 15816 times

I consider the USCRN data set to be a serious data set. Only started in 2004/5 but I look at that data every month when it comes out. This graphic shows all the USCRN )uncorrupted) surface station data. Not much warming in the USA, the only place that has generated uncorrupted surface station data.

In any case, what would the standard deviation represent for, for instance, Global Monthly Mean Temperature? How much spread would there be there be in a Monthly Global Temperature data set?? Just spent a chunk of time trying to find a purported calculation for that. Really hard to find a page with both Global Temperature & Standard Deviation on it, especially one that links the two metrics.

Found this one that analyzes the relationship between mean temperatures and SD at single stations.
https://climate.sitehost.iu.edu/Robeson ... r_2002.pdf
Pretty interesting, but you can see the complexity of generating SD for a SINGLE STATION for a SINGLE MONTH (using daily max/min data) and trying to retrieve patterns from your analysis. (by the way the suggestion from this analysis was that higher temps correlate (modestly) with LOWER variance!! (therefore, a warmer world would have smaller temperature GRADIENTS and thus less violent weather)
The standard deviations from this analysis were massive (typically 5-10 C) So using more precision in your mean value is CERTAINLY NOT justified by this evidence.

In any case I can find NO EVIDENCE that “climate scientists“ calculated SD for their global temperature data sets. Because, according to some folks, if you calculate SD you can use a different approach to reporting precision for your calculated mean.

If any of you find paper explaining that they DID calculate SD values for any of the global temperature sets, and actually show those values I would appreciate getting links for that info.

Anyway… SOME parts of this are a bit new to me (many parts aren’t at all new for me) so if you find any claims posted here that you can correct that would be great. I don’t mind being corrected as long as you establish some evidence of proof of your correction. Just post a link and explain a bit if you have time.

Some bright folks out there.... how do you justify reporting the AVERAGE value of a data set with precision of the measured data being mostly +/-0.2 degrees at at HIGHER precision of hundreths, not tenths, of a degree? Alternately, show me an example, outside of climate science, where this approach (preicision of the mean exceeding precision of the actual data)... it might exist... I don't think I have ever seen it.

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

Easyrider

Thanks for the fair-minded response.

How could you generate a GLOBAL mean temperature for a day or a year??? .....was a rhetorical question.

I was asking those that BELIEVE (you seem to, I guess?) in the "climate consensus" if they KNEW how it was all done... or... are they just willing to BELIEVE that because there are Priests...ooops... I meant scientists and they are reading from gospel.....oops... I meant peer-reviewed articles,so... YOU SIMPLY MUST BELIEVE THEM. (you seem to I guess?)

I never fully believe anyone. Period.

If I think a scientific claim seems reasonable and consonant with my previous understandings I probably will consider the claim to be likely to be true. No CERTAINTY involved. That is who I am.

I felt this way about climate science a couple decades ago. Seemed reasonable. Then I noticed some claims in the corpus of climate science that seemed dubious. So I started looking more carefully. It has been more than twenty years into this project (mostly fun for me!)

I love reading research papers and trying to find flaws. Two of my professors in graduate chemistry courses told me I was exceptionally talented in that endeavor. (Small World: One of those professors actually stopped our molecular biophysics class for a full day to discuss the experimental results from testing the Bell Inequality that John F. Clauser had just released back in the 70s, and has since won the 2023 Nobel Prize in physics for... Small world aspect: JohnClauser is the laureate being laughed at on this forum for announcing he thinks climate science is NONSENSE.)

In any case...

I actually know more than I should about the topic for my own sake. (A bit like Michael Yeadon's problems with his knowledge of COVID science) If you have figured out there aren't actually any witches and the powerful people that surround you still believe in witches...life gets complicated. Try to explain the actual facts about the earth climate system in an upscale New England social setting these days.... not fun I assure you.

My evaluation... after more than two decades of passionate analysis,... is that "climate scientists" actually abuse science to produce scary stories. They are well paid to do so. Ask Judith Curry. She quit her job as chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, because of the abuse of science occurring in academia. She refused to continue generating scary stories about climate once she listened to both sides in the debate (principally Stephen McIntyre ) and understood that "climate alarmism" was certainly NOT merited.

How should YOU view "climate science?"
Of course you SHOULD NOT BELIEVE ME. You shouldn't believe anyone about scientific issues.

Try to look more closely into it if you have the time. You are obviously not dumb and are obviously passionate about the world around you. I just linked this elsewhere:
https://defyccc.com/scientists/

Could be a decent starting point if you are willing to accept that SOME things scientists believe at this moment of time WILL TURN OUT TO BE WRONG. I am not sure which ones but I should be confident we don't have it all right...yet!

Another good starting spot, I have read it every day for decades is:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/
or a classic old movie that requires NO EDITS/fun to watch and the science is still sound :
The Great Global Warming Swindle (Documentary) https://www.bitchute.com/video/i0mQ5mteZ05t/

As for the average temperature issue...

If I asked you to generate a Mean Temperature for Killington Vermont (the whole town) for a single day how could you POSSIBLY generate an unambiguous number? Unlimited budget. Just describe the detailed procedure. You could ask the folks that generate the HadCRUT metric and GISSTemp and UAH /RSS (although access to satellites might be an issue) if you wanted to. Every detail you chose might have a significant impact. In the end the calculated metrics would almost certainly be different by more than the error bars on your measured data. I have spent hundreds of hours looking into what they do. Lots of bad science there. (satellites sets are better but have a VERY short temporal coverage )

"generate an Unambiguous Number"... Meaning: If your "team of scientists" did what you thought was appropriate to generate that metric and produced a number with stated precision to Hundreths of a degree. And a different "team of scientists" came up with their own strategy for producing their "Mean Temperature for Killington Vermont (the whole town) for a single day" value....

Do you really think you would come up with the same strategies and the same values? You wouldn't.

WHO DID IT RIGHT?

As Hozier clearly announced:
"Would things be easier if there was a right way?
Honey, there is no right way" (a cheap song lyric quote my daughters like)

What is the "right way" to produce an "average temperature" for some defined location (all of it) for some length of time? There are no rules for that type of enterprise (except, maybe, more is better?)

You would both produce different numbers for something that doesn't actually exist.

You decide on a procedure/model to generate this thing. The other group did it differently.

There is no actual Killington mean temperature.

You can make one if you want but be careful how you think about it. It may convince you that witches are causing flooding events.

[Coydog]

So when someone suggests that the opinions of Nobel-winning scientists can be ignored for climate science…. Realize you are talking to someone from a religious cult who DEEPLY misunderstands how science actually works.

Here’s a list of scientific papers published by Dr. Glauser:

John Glauser Publications
Google Scholar

None of them involve climate science. As far as I can tell over the past 50 years, the only thing Glauser has conveyed pertaining to climate change is an expression of his opinions.

So in the case of Glauser, you are actually making an argument from authority - accepting the opinion of a non-expert in climate science as supporting evidence that man-made climate change is not happening.

[Coydog]

John Christy and Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama Huntsville have been collecting satellite derived temperature data since 1979. The data is published monthly as temperature anomalies referenced to a specific time period to 1/100 of a degree. This data has been collected consistently all over the globe for 44 years with occasional adjustments for decaying orbits, satellites failures and other factors.

Average all the samples collected from each satellite per day of a given month and you come up with a mean value for the monthly record. Average each 12 month sequence and you obtain the annual record. Compute the linear trend of all the monthly records and you obtain the trend for the entire dataset. These values are indicated at the bottom of the table. The trend works out to about 0.13 degrees C per decade – that’s 2.3 degrees F per century.

The error bounds of the data is +/- 0.1 degrees C. If we make the data cooler by reducing all measurements larger than the mean by 0.1 degrees and increasing all values less than the mean by 0.1 degrees, the trend becomes 0.09 degrees C per decade – not too much different. Make the data hotter by the reverse procedure and the trend becomes 0.18. By this metric, the trend in the UAH data is essentially 0.13 degrees C per decade +/- 0.04 degrees. Increase or decrease the data randomly by 0.1 degrees and the trend always stays well within these bounds.

Now you don’t have to label the UAH monthly average a “global temperature”, but even with the worse case error bounds, the overall trend of this consistently measured worldwide temperature dataset is up. Christy and Spencer, both noted climate change skeptics, do not deny this.

Starting on any given month, there are 54 consecutive intervals in the monthly dataset that span 40 years, 40 years being the shortest common interval used to assess climate. Each one of these 40 year intervals is warmer than all preceding 40 year intervals. Every single one.

You can say the UAH data collected by these skeptics is unreliable, or the trend is insignificant, or the trend has nothing to do with human activity, or the trend is actually beneficial or trend will be eliminated by future magic clouds, or whatever. But by now, you certainly cannot legitimately say the overall trend of the UAH dataset isn’t up.

And of course, the UAH dataset isn't the only one with an upward trend. Simply put, it's getting hotter.

[easyrider16]

How should YOU view "climate science?"
Of course you SHOULD NOT BELIEVE ME. You shouldn't believe anyone about scientific issues.

Totally on board with you here.

Try to look more closely into it if you have the time. You are obviously not dumb and are obviously passionate about the world around you. I just linked this elsewhere:
https://defyccc.com/scientists/

Well this is the problem, isn't it? I have neither the time nor the expertise to look into it very much. Fir the most part, I have to rely on the expertise of others.

Could be a decent starting point if you are willing to accept that SOME things scientists believe at this moment of time WILL TURN OUT TO BE WRONG. I am not sure which ones but I should be confident we don't have it all right...yet!

Again, totally on board with this. Science is a process and we will never have all the answers. I wish more people would understand this.

If I asked you to generate a Mean Temperature for Killington Vermont (the whole town) for a single day how could you POSSIBLY generate an unambiguous number?

If it were just for the purpose of measuring the change in temperature over time, if I used the same methodology over the given time frame and area, would it matter that it was somewhat ambiguous?

I have often questioned how they come up with these mean temperature figures. I also question whether a warming trend will really be that catestrophic. I think there is far too much alarmism. But I also question whether we should really just ignore the potential dangers of pollution. Seems to me we should take reasonable steps to curb pollution. Also seems to me it would be in our best interests to move away from oil to the extent reasonably possible, if for no other reason than geopolitics.

[hillbangin]

There used to be a 10,000 foot high ice sheet where I'm standing.

Been warming ever since....

The next Asteroid/Meteor impact will cool things down....

Sent from my SM-S906U1 using Tapatalk

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

John Christy and Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama Huntsville have been collecting satellite derived temperature data since 1979. The data is published monthly as temperature anomalies referenced to a specific time period to 1/100 of a degree. This data has been collected consistently all over the globe for 44 years with occasional adjustments for decaying orbits, satellites failures and other factors.

Average all the samples collected from each satellite per day of a given month and you come up with a mean value for the monthly record. Average each 12 month sequence and you obtain the annual record. Compute the linear trend of all the monthly records and you obtain the trend for the entire dataset. These values are indicated at the bottom of the table. The trend works out to about 0.13 degrees C per decade – that’s 2.3 degrees F per century.

The error bounds of the data is +/- 0.1 degrees C. If we make the data cooler by reducing all measurements larger than the mean by 0.1 degrees and increasing all values less than the mean by 0.1 degrees, the trend becomes 0.09 degrees C per decade – not too much different. Make the data hotter by the reverse procedure and the trend becomes 0.18. By this metric, the trend in the UAH data is essentially 0.13 degrees C per decade +/- 0.04 degrees. Increase or decrease the data randomly by 0.1 degrees and the trend always stays well within these bounds.

Now you don’t have to label the UAH monthly average a “global temperature”, but even with the worse case error bounds, the overall trend of this consistently measured worldwide temperature dataset is up. Christy and Spencer, both noted climate change skeptics, do not deny this.

Starting on any given month, there are 54 consecutive intervals in the monthly dataset that span 40 years, 40 years being the shortest common interval used to assess climate. Each one of these 40 year intervals is warmer than all preceding 40 year intervals. Every single one.

You can say the UAH data collected by these skeptics is unreliable, or the trend is insignificant, or the trend has nothing to do with human activity, or the trend is actually beneficial or trend will be eliminated by future magic clouds, or whatever. But by now, you certainly cannot legitimately say the overall trend of the UAH dataset isn’t up.

And of course, the UAH dataset isn't the only one with an upward trend. Simply put, it's getting hotter.

Coydog

Thanks for the prompt and high quality response.

I don’t disagree with anything you wrote. It was excellent.

The UAH data set you refer to is the Global set that I think merits the most respect. Their coverage is reasonable considered to be global (not just wherever we have thermometers) and they do report to a precision of hundredths of a degree. I look for their published result posted about the 10th of every month.

Looked a bit for details on accuracy of the measurements but that was hard to find. Your report of “error bounds” of +/- 0.1 degree agrees with what I could find. Again, showing precision to the HUNDRETH of a degree (anomaly NOT actual temperature so…) and reporting measurements as +/- one TENTH of a degree does seem odd.

But that is not really what I feel dubious about. No serious complaints about UAH data/ analysis.

Yes, the UAH data do show a warming trend since their inception in the 70s. Not an accelerating warming or even a constant warning. But there has been a warming pattern since the late 70s. Mostly seems to be “step-wise” pattern probably linked to some natural oscillator (probably AMO).

I have little doubt that the planet is warmer now than it was in the late seventies (which was at the end of a significant COOLING period about 1945 – 1975)

So my issue is not with the “modern” atmospheric temperature record being one of a stochastic warming period. That seems a reasonable reading of the evidence.

The question for me is, how should we interpret evidence of earlier temperatures? The data is ENTIRELY different in quality prior to the satellite record. The “thermometer record” is incredibly problematic. The number and quality of surface stations has been constantly in flux. (Actually, more surface stations 50 years ago than now)

GHCN GLOBAL WEATHER STATION COUNT.jpg (51.38 KiB) Viewed 15673 times

The resolution and “homogenization” of the surface station measurements prior to 1970 is where most of the fire and fury in this debate can be found. It’s all we have from the 1600s to the 1970s and the quality of the record was always sketchy (because measuring the temperature of the WHOLE EARTH using thermometers is almost impossible, even using a massive collaboration of top quality scientists. Anyone who thinks about/ looks into this will agree. Making a strategy for generating a quality global mean temperature from thermometer data is… realistically impossible. So… we do our best (as sincere humans) and just acknowledge the limitations of the metric we produce.

If that was the actual state of the project, I would be a lot happier and most folks would be a lot less scared. The people “homogenizing”(altering) the thermometer data (all we have got for that crucial period when Europe emerged from the Little Ice Age) from the late 1800s through to the 1970s are the major reason for the frustration in the skeptic camp.

For example:
Phil Jones was the person in charge of the UAE Hadley Center climate data set. Largest climate data set in existence. Temperature data from all over the world, paid for by the citizens of the world. They use that data to construct the HadCRUT global temperature metric. He tried for decades to make sure that this data was not available to others who wanted to AUDIT the data/ data treatment.

A sceptic named Warwick Hughes(I was following his efforts online) had been persistently requesting access to the actual data, so that he could perform an independent analysis (audit). After months of evasive behavior Jones finally responded: “"We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?"

If you can read THAT response and not be very frightened… you definitely don’t think like a scientist.

The person IN CHARGE of the world’s largest temperature data set refused to share the data because the person making the request might look for errors in the original analysis!!!!! That is not a joke. It happened.

This kind of grift is the norm in “climate science.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ather-data

THEN…when it became legally impossible for Jones to continue to repress the dissemination of the publicly funded temperature data he responded

https://www.theregister.com/2009/08/13/cru_missing/
“As for the raw station data: We are not in a position to supply data for a particular country not covered by the example agreements referred to earlier, as we have never had sufficient resources to keep track of the exact source of each individual monthly value. Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data."

So he claimed they erased the original data, because of “data storage availability” issues!! A multi-billion dollar data set was erased because they couldn’t afford data storage? HaHa??

For those seeking a more sensible reason for this outcome… search for the “Harry Read-me” files on the internet. Part of the Climategate data release, these seem to be a coder analyzing the UAE data files and realizing they were in utter disarray (like typical grad student research) There was usually NO meta data identifying what all the columns of numbers actually meant, so most of the data set was actually useless. If THAT data had been released everyone would have known what a fraud the UAE unit actually were. So… better to just claim you erased the actual data, because you ran out of data storage space, than to admit that your data set was an undecipherable jumble of data columns.

So the thermometer data which seemed to show serious warmth prior to the 1980s has suffered from terrible stewardship…and that really matters. The unhomogenized data from the 1910s and 1930s (dust bowl years) seemed to indicate serious warmth.

Let’s say the climate commies are correct in their claims that there were no substantial heatwaves before atmospheric carbon dioxide increased substantially (1940s) (I think this is almost definitely UNTRUE) …how many years of temperature record do we have in total?

For anything more than trivial thermometer coverage (starting in 1600s) I don’t think you can claim we have a decent record worth consideration before say 1850?? So that would be, maybe, 180 years of anything you could call actual temperature readings.

What would be the “error bars” on the data prior to 1970s?? Remember you have to consider that the coverage for thermometers was in no sense global (still isn’t really) Can you compare 2023 satellite data to 1911 thermometer data at a resolution of hundredths of a degree? Not if you are sane you can’t.

Out of this period how many years have data that suggest intermittent warming? Actually, almost all of them. We were emerging from the little ice age. There seems to have been a bit of an actual cooling only from 1945 to 1975 (shown in ALL the ORIGINAL DATA (unhomogenized)

Out of this period how many years have data that suggest noticeable increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide? Since about 1945 so that has been about 75 years. About 45 of those years show warming in the best data available (which I would claim is the ORIGINAL (read from an instrument) unhomogenized data and then the satellite data) So out of 75 years of careless carbon emissions, 45 show intermittent warming and 30 show some cooling.

Out of the thermometer record shown here about 45 years precede the significant increase in CO2. Of those years about 35 showed warming and about maybe 10 showed cooling. Even in this brief record the correlation of CO2 with warming is quite weak.

skep GHCN.gif (22 KiB) Viewed 15673 times

.........................Natural caused / CO2 Caused................
Warming before 1945, which was NOT TRIVIAL, is not attributed to CO2. Cooling after 1945 was, somehow NOT attributed to CO2…even though CO2 is a very powerful molecule you should not notice correlation with cooling, only correlation with warming!

The claim that atmospheric carbon dioxide drives warming is not well-supported by this evidence.

Because the claim is being made of the “hottest on record.” Perhaps you could stop in the 1800s because there aren’t any significant HUMAN records from earlier times. I don’t think there is a clear case, given the history of explicit data manipulation of the surface stations sets, that can be made that this year(2023) is actually warmer than SOME other years with a thermometer record (1911, 1931, etc) but even if you could support that claim… that is just about 180 years total. That’s not incredibly impressive (we are in the process of exiting a very cold period (LIA) a piece of “climate change” that began, at least, due to “natural causes.”)

The MSM that are really leaning into this want you to think these are the “hottest days ever!!” which simply MUST be caused by human induced global warming.

This is utter nonsense.

How can we estimate the global temperature prior to a substantial thermometer/satellite record. We can make scientific guesses based on “climate proxy records.” Isotopic analysis of deep ice cores seems to be the most impressive proxy source. There are LOTS of other options for purported proxies, all of them are debatable in some aspects (don’t get started on tree rings!!)

In any case the resolution (both thermal and temporal) of this proxy data is way below the resolution of even the worst of our thermometer data. We really can’t justify precision in the proxy data to tenths of a degree never mind hundredths. So, comparison of proxies from the Roman warm period to modern data is difficult to manage. Greenland and Antarctic ice cores give some of the best (IMO) proxy data. This is relatively uncontested:

GISP2-Ice-Core-Temperature-Reconstruction-for-Central-Greenland-5966d4bdd0a6e__605-2690545055.jpg (50.43 KiB) Viewed 15673 times

This data SUGGESTS (not proves) that Greenland (at least… Antarctic cores look similar) has been OVER two degrees warmer than it is today. In the recent past. Wouldn’t bet the store on this being CERTAIN and TRUE but… seems like our current best evidence.

DOESN’T LOOK LIKE A HOCKEY STICK to me.

And all that’s ignoring the elephant in the room which is the ocean temperatures. The vast majority of the fluid heat content on the planet is obviously in the ocean and the vast majority of that thermal energy is at depths that have not been measured before the Argo system (at around 2000 AD). Prior to the Argo system all the ocean thermometer record is really just a joke. We cannot have any confidence in generating a history of ocean heat content.

I any case, if you actually slow down and LOOK CAREFULLY at the climate data that exists, I cannot understand how anyone could state, with confidence, that these are the hottest days ever. The evidence to support that claim simply doesn’t exist. Unless you actually WANT to needlessly scare people ( perhaps some do?) you would not make a claim with so little evidentiary support.

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

There used to be a 10,000 foot high ice sheet where I'm standing.

Been warming ever since....

The next Asteroid/Meteor impact will cool things down....

Sent from my SM-S906U1 using Tapatalk

Yup

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

How should YOU view "climate science?"
Of course you SHOULD NOT BELIEVE ME. You shouldn't believe anyone about scientific issues.

Totally on board with you here.

Try to look more closely into it if you have the time. You are obviously not dumb and are obviously passionate about the world around you. I just linked this elsewhere:
https://defyccc.com/scientists/

Well this is the problem, isn't it? I have neither the time nor the expertise to look into it very much. Fir the most part, I have to rely on the expertise of others.

Could be a decent starting point if you are willing to accept that SOME things scientists believe at this moment of time WILL TURN OUT TO BE WRONG. I am not sure which ones but I should be confident we don't have it all right...yet!

Again, totally on board with this. Science is a process and we will never have all the answers. I wish more people would understand this.

If I asked you to generate a Mean Temperature for Killington Vermont (the whole town) for a single day how could you POSSIBLY generate an unambiguous number?

If it were just for the purpose of measuring the change in temperature over time, if I used the same methodology over the given time frame and area, would it matter that it was somewhat ambiguous?
I totally agree on this. Just that the "somewhat ambiguous" can generate "big" impacts if we are talking about hundreths of a degree!!

I have often questioned how they come up with these mean temperature figures. I also question whether a warming trend will really be that catestrophic. I think there is far too much alarmism. But I also question whether we should really just ignore the potential dangers of pollution. Seems to me we should take reasonable steps to curb pollution.

I don't think CO2 should be considered "pollution"

Also seems to me it would be in our best interests to move away from oil to the extent reasonably possible, if for no other reason than geopolitics.

I think that if we returned to a policy that utilized available North American fuel the world we be MUCH better. Lots of fuel available here.

Overall another excellent response.

[easyrider16]

Hey Sgt, I saw in the other thread that you mentioned EVs. I am wondering your thoughts on that? Seems to me that EVs aren't being pushed on us. They've been subsidized by tax breaks and government regs, but nobody is being forced to buy them (yet) and people are buying them now even when they are more expensive than ICE autos. It seems to me that if they get a little better with the battery tech, they will just simply be better (less maintenance, more torque, charge at home, etc.) and will be able to out-compete ICE autos even without subsidies. Your thoughts?

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

Hey Sgt, I saw in the other thread that you mentioned EVs. I am wondering your thoughts on that? Seems to me that EVs aren't being pushed on us. They've been subsidized by tax breaks and government regs, but nobody is being forced to buy them (yet) and people are buying them now even when they are more expensive than ICE autos. It seems to me that if they get a little better with the battery tech, they will just simply be better (less maintenance, more torque, charge at home, etc.) and will be able to out-compete ICE autos even without subsidies. Your thoughts?

I have not worked much and becoming informed on EV issues.

In some ways they seem wonderful, at least in concept. A lot simpler/ less engineering issues?( no fuel supply/exhaust, transmission issue,etc).
But they also seem to have MASSIVE problems (at our current state of technology). Weight (wears down roads & tires thus more pollution) / issues from mineral mining/ fire hazard/ charging logistics / energy drain heating in winter/ no fuel taxes that help upkeep roads/ etc. Again, I have no expertise here, so these are just from lots of casual reading on this topic. (not searching diligently like I might on other topics)

I have no problem about emitting CO2... so I am not very interested in them unless the ACTUAL price (not subsidized price which incurs a cost on those not sharing my choices) becomes low enough to be attractive.

I am irritated that I am paying tax money for someone else's choice to get an EV. Except for the CO2 issue (which I think is untrue) why should people like me help pay for others (probably with a bigger paycheck) to purchase and operate an EV? Very regressive policy. Blue collar people are hurt by these policies??

Maybe fun for wealthy city folks but I don't think us flatlanders can commute to Killington during the depths of winter in a current model EV.

[Bubba]

Hey Sgt, I saw in the other thread that you mentioned EVs. I am wondering your thoughts on that? Seems to me that EVs aren't being pushed on us. They've been subsidized by tax breaks and government regs, but nobody is being forced to buy them (yet) and people are buying them now even when they are more expensive than ICE autos. It seems to me that if they get a little better with the battery tech, they will just simply be better (less maintenance, more torque, charge at home, etc.) and will be able to out-compete ICE autos even without subsidies. Your thoughts?

I have not worked much and becoming informed on EV issues.

In some ways they seem wonderful, at least in concept. A lot simpler/ less engineering issues?( no fuel supply/exhaust, transmission issue,etc).
But they also seem to have MASSIVE problems (at our current state of technology). Weight (wears down roads & tires thus more pollution) / issues from mineral mining/ fire hazard/ charging logistics / energy drain heating in winter/ no fuel taxes that help upkeep roads/ etc. Again, I have no expertise here, so these are just from lots of casual reading on this topic. (not searching diligently like I might on other topics)

I have no problem about emitting CO2... so I am not very interested in them unless the ACTUAL price (not subsidized price which incurs a cost on those not sharing my choices) becomes low enough to be attractive.

I am irritated that I am paying tax money for someone else's choice to get an EV. Except for the CO2 issue (which I think is untrue) why should people like me help pay for others (probably with a bigger paycheck) to purchase and operate an EV? Very regressive policy. Blue collar people are hurt by these policies??

Maybe fun for wealthy city folks but I don't think us flatlanders can commute to Killington during the depths of winter in a current model EV.

I have no problem with subsidizing EVs. We have lots of subsidies for fossil fuel production through the tax code, much like we have subsides for many other endeavors, including home ownership. If we choose to subsidize EVs, so be it. It's one more subsidy in a long list. Not having to pay for gasoline/diesel taxes is a subsidy I disagree with, however, as EVs cause the same or greater wear and tear on the roads than fossil fuel vehicles. We have to figure out a way to tax them based on annual mileage or other "pay as you go" methodology.

As for being able to commute to Killington during the winter using EVs, my neighbor does that right now, having put a charging station at his house. Others use the charging stations set up around the mountain and in the surrounding area. I have no plans to purchase an EV, however, due to the inconvenience of traveling longer distances with charging stops along the way. When I make a stop to "recharge" my ICE vehicle, I can fill it up, make pit stop, purchase a snack, etc., in no more than 5 - 10 minutes. I'm not interested in having to stop longer when I'm driving 3+ hours to wherever I'm going, whether to visit family in the Boston area, head for the outer Cape, visit family in the NY metro area, etc. When that problem is solved, perhaps I'd take a look. Until then, no.

[f.a.s.t.]

Hey Sgt, I saw in the other thread that you mentioned EVs. I am wondering your thoughts on that? Seems to me that EVs aren't being pushed on us. They've been subsidized by tax breaks and government regs, but nobody is being forced to buy them (yet) and people are buying them now even when they are more expensive than ICE autos. It seems to me that if they get a little better with the battery tech, they will just simply be better (less maintenance, more torque, charge at home, etc.) and will be able to out-compete ICE autos even without subsidies. Your thoughts?

I have not worked much and becoming informed on EV issues.

In some ways they seem wonderful, at least in concept. A lot simpler/ less engineering issues?( no fuel supply/exhaust, transmission issue,etc).
But they also seem to have MASSIVE problems (at our current state of technology). Weight (wears down roads & tires thus more pollution) / issues from mineral mining/ fire hazard/ charging logistics / energy drain heating in winter/ no fuel taxes that help upkeep roads/ etc. Again, I have no expertise here, so these are just from lots of casual reading on this topic. (not searching diligently like I might on other topics)

I have no problem about emitting CO2... so I am not very interested in them unless the ACTUAL price (not subsidized price which incurs a cost on those not sharing my choices) becomes low enough to be attractive.

I am irritated that I am paying tax money for someone else's choice to get an EV. Except for the CO2 issue (which I think is untrue) why should people like me help pay for others (probably with a bigger paycheck) to purchase and operate an EV? Very regressive policy. Blue collar people are hurt by these policies??

Maybe fun for wealthy city folks but I don't think us flatlanders can commute to Killington during the depths of winter in a current model EV.

Fun wealthy city folks don't mind 40,000 children , some as young as 6 years old, in working in African cobalt mines. No problem-right?

https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/ ... ale-mining