Your premise is wrong.Sgt Eddy Brewers wrote: ↑Jul 16th, '23, 20:12 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
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.