|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 29, 2023 21:36:52 GMT
Its not tongue in cheek, its basic maths. If you take enough readings and very few are anomalous then the margin of error is very small. You keep saying many scientists disagree with this, so I challenge you to list some meteorology scientists who say climate change is not predominantly caused by man made Co2. There is a peer reviewed paper that may disagree with your belief. Some brief extracts from a very well researched and very long paper. "LiG Metrology, Correlated Error, and the Integrity of the Global Surface Air Temperature Record has passed peer-review and is now published in the MDPI journal, Sensors (pdf)." "But the take-home message is simple: The people compiling the global air temperature record do not understand thermometers. The rate or magnitude of climate warming since 1900 is unknowable." "Non-linearity: Both mercury and especially ethanol (spirit) expand non-linearly with temperature. The resulting error is small for mercury LiG thermometers, but significant for the alcohol variety. In the standard surface station prior to 1980, an alcohol thermometer provided Tmin, which puts 2s = ±0.37 C of uncertainty into every daily land-surface Tmean. Temperature error due to non-linearity of response is uncorrected in the historical record." "I.2.3 The SST is unknown: In 1964 (LiG Met. Section 3.4.4) Robert Stevenson carried out an extended SST calibration experiment aboard the VELERO IV oceanographic research vessel. Simultaneous high-accuracy SST measurements were taken from the VELERO IV and from a small launch put out from the ship. Stevenson found that the ship so disturbed the surrounding waters that the SSTs measured from the ship were not representative of the physically true water temperature (or air temperature). No matter how accurate, the bucket, engine-intake, or hull-mounted probe temperature measurement did not reveal the true SST. The only exception was an SST obtained using a prow-mounted probe, but iff the measurement was made when the ship was heading into the wind “or cruising downwind at a speed greater than the wind velocity.” Stevenson concluded, “One may then question the value of temperatures taken aboard a ship, or from any large structure at sea. Because the measurements vary with the wind velocity and the orientation of the ship with respect to the wind direction no factor can be applied to correct the data. It is likely that the temperatures are, therefore, useless for any but gross analyses of climatic factors, excepting, perhaps, those taken with a carefully-oriented probe.” Links can be found in your favourite keen to ignore blog. wattsupwiththat.com/2023/06/29/the-verdict-of-instrumental-methods/There are several interesting graphs and histograms. How about a link to the peer reviewed paper and the author. And let me decide instead of wattsupwithcrap. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jun 29, 2023 21:46:11 GMT
There is a peer reviewed paper that may disagree with your belief. Some brief extracts from a very well researched and very long paper. "LiG Metrology, Correlated Error, and the Integrity of the Global Surface Air Temperature Record has passed peer-review and is now published in the MDPI journal, Sensors (pdf)." "But the take-home message is simple: The people compiling the global air temperature record do not understand thermometers. The rate or magnitude of climate warming since 1900 is unknowable." "Non-linearity: Both mercury and especially ethanol (spirit) expand non-linearly with temperature. The resulting error is small for mercury LiG thermometers, but significant for the alcohol variety. In the standard surface station prior to 1980, an alcohol thermometer provided Tmin, which puts 2s = ±0.37 C of uncertainty into every daily land-surface Tmean. Temperature error due to non-linearity of response is uncorrected in the historical record." "I.2.3 The SST is unknown: In 1964 (LiG Met. Section 3.4.4) Robert Stevenson carried out an extended SST calibration experiment aboard the VELERO IV oceanographic research vessel. Simultaneous high-accuracy SST measurements were taken from the VELERO IV and from a small launch put out from the ship. Stevenson found that the ship so disturbed the surrounding waters that the SSTs measured from the ship were not representative of the physically true water temperature (or air temperature). No matter how accurate, the bucket, engine-intake, or hull-mounted probe temperature measurement did not reveal the true SST. The only exception was an SST obtained using a prow-mounted probe, but iff the measurement was made when the ship was heading into the wind “or cruising downwind at a speed greater than the wind velocity.” Stevenson concluded, “One may then question the value of temperatures taken aboard a ship, or from any large structure at sea. Because the measurements vary with the wind velocity and the orientation of the ship with respect to the wind direction no factor can be applied to correct the data. It is likely that the temperatures are, therefore, useless for any but gross analyses of climatic factors, excepting, perhaps, those taken with a carefully-oriented probe.” Links can be found in your favourite keen to ignore blog. wattsupwiththat.com/2023/06/29/the-verdict-of-instrumental-methods/There are several interesting graphs and histograms. How about a link to the peer reviewed paper and the author. And let me decide instead of wattsupwithcrap. All the links you may wish and need are within the link I gave. wattsup is not making any decisions for you other than to provide the pathway for all that you may wish. They have done the hard work of collating all the info. I would remind you that this is the mind zone where derogatory comments such as wattsupwithcrap should realistically not be entertained. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 30, 2023 6:07:50 GMT
The basic problem is (and this is not confined to just the UK) that weather recording sites that have been used historically have, due to progress, become less than ideally placed. What used to be out in the middle of nowhere is now in the middle of a heat sink development. What it needs is enforcement of the guidelines for siting weather stations - of course this might not give the results that some are looking for. If I read the other article correctly they seem to take the pristine stations and the corrected stations and accept a level of comparison and use all the results Which seems to me would be missing the entire point of the hypothesis A bit like constructing a hypothesis that airports (specifically) are locally warmer and mixing in data from non airports to find that they aren't I wonder if these people do this sort of thing all the time - it would explain why all the future projections for climate are all so badly wrong in the same direction. |
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Jun 30, 2023 8:35:33 GMT
While various data takers are feeding staticians with probability and possible interpretations based while knowing or not knowing what cumulative or knock on effects will happen across the entirety of organic and inorganic conditions across the globe, humans will have either destroyed themselves by warring over diminishing supplies of food and usable land, by increasing migration to temperate zones or by religious extremism generated by the idea of the end of times.
Whatever the reason will be, we as humans will spend far too much time squabbling and exploiting the collapse of life on earth to stop it happening.
Pollution is the result of the 2 central motivators of human generations...curiosity and greed.
While putting all our resources into health and education (positive curiosity)
we should stop demanding new crap to replace old crap which is falling apart because it is crap. This is a latter 20th century consumer phenomenon which would have horrified 19th century consumers.
Every item produced uses energy which has to be generated and every item uses energy to dispose of it.
Creating energy is what pollutes the air we need to live.
What we should be doing is worrying less about energy supply and just stop pointless demand.
Just stop buying things we dont really need.
Go back to a simpler life, reconstruct capitalism ( which actually encourages production and consequent pollution) and curb the human need to acquire more and more.
The idea of "standard of living" so proudly assumed to be the size of our TV screens should be redefined as the severe shrinkage of Amazon and its copies. We should make things to last, as before, and learn how to repair things. Stop developing tweaks in technology that require complete replacements. (I found an old portable last week which i cant use because the size of the charging port has changed by a millimetre).
Instead of disposable fag ends we have now developed tomorrow's pollution...plastic cased vapes.
We will never stop oil production as long as we use plastic which uses oil to produce. These JSO bods are the kind who dont think things through. They would do better to just stop unnecessary plastic.
(Obviously critical in health care ).
Whatever the cause of climate change, we are facing climate difficulties. We should stop arguing why it is happening and start to deal with it together.
|
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Jun 30, 2023 8:47:31 GMT
While various data takers are feeding staticians with probability and possible interpretations based while knowing or not knowing what cumulative or knock on effects will happen across the entirety of organic and inorganic conditions across the globe, humans will have either destroyed themselves by warring over diminishing supplies of food and usable land, by increasing migration to temperate zones or by religious extremism generated by the idea of the end of times. Whatever the reason will be, we as humans will spend far too much time squabbling and exploiting the collapse of life on earth to stop it happening. Pollution is the result of the 2 central motivators of human generations...curiosity and greed. While putting all our resources into health and education (positive curiosity) we should stop demanding new crap to replace old crap which is falling apart because it is crap. This is a latter 20th century consumer phenomenon which would have horrified 19th century consumers. Every item produced uses energy which has to be generated and every item uses energy to dispose of it. Creating energy is what pollutes the air we need to live. What we should be doing is worrying less about energy supply and just stop pointless demand. Just stop buying things we dont really need. Go back to a simpler life, reconstruct capitalism ( which actually encourages production and consequent pollution) and curb the human need to acquire more and more. The idea of "standard of living" so proudly assumed to be the size of our TV screens should be redefined as the severe shrinkage of Amazon and its copies. We should make things to last, as before, and learn how to repair things. Stop developing tweaks in technology that require complete replacements. (I found an old portable last week which i cant use because the size of the charging port has changed by a millimetre). Instead of disposable fag ends we have now developed tomorrow's pollution...plastic cased vapes. We will never stop oil production as long as we use plastic which uses oil to produce. These JSO bods are the kind who dont think things through. They would do better to just stop unnecessary plastic. (Obviously critical in health care ). Whatever the cause of climate change, we are facing climate difficulties. We should stop arguing why it is happening and start to deal with it together. Fine take the options on offer. Or wallow in self delusion, those are the choices. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jun 30, 2023 9:13:55 GMT
We should make things to last, as before, and learn how to repair things. Stop developing tweaks in technology that require complete replacements... I agree, but that's the exact opposite of many so called "Green" agendas: Scrap your perfectly good car and buy an allegedly more eco friendly alternative (eg per ULEZ) which is a complete nonsense. Scrap your perfectly good boiler to buy a somewhat dubious heat pump. Stick solar panels everywhere, but what's the environmental impact of that? What about disposal? How long before there's a net benefit (if ever)? I'm not saying that we shouldn't embrace the new when we need to but scrapping perfectly usable stuff because it doesn't meet current standards is lunacy. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jun 30, 2023 9:56:04 GMT
While various data takers are feeding staticians with probability and possible interpretations based while knowing or not knowing what cumulative or knock on effects will happen across the entirety of organic and inorganic conditions across the globe, humans will have either destroyed themselves by warring over diminishing supplies of food and usable land, by increasing migration to temperate zones or by religious extremism generated by the idea of the end of times. Whatever the reason will be, we as humans will spend far too much time squabbling and exploiting the collapse of life on earth to stop it happening. Pollution is the result of the 2 central motivators of human generations...curiosity and greed. While putting all our resources into health and education (positive curiosity) we should stop demanding new crap to replace old crap which is falling apart because it is crap. This is a latter 20th century consumer phenomenon which would have horrified 19th century consumers. Every item produced uses energy which has to be generated and every item uses energy to dispose of it. Creating energy is what pollutes the air we need to live. What we should be doing is worrying less about energy supply and just stop pointless demand. Just stop buying things we dont really need. Go back to a simpler life, reconstruct capitalism ( which actually encourages production and consequent pollution) and curb the human need to acquire more and more. The idea of "standard of living" so proudly assumed to be the size of our TV screens should be redefined as the severe shrinkage of Amazon and its copies. We should make things to last, as before, and learn how to repair things. Stop developing tweaks in technology that require complete replacements. (I found an old portable last week which i cant use because the size of the charging port has changed by a millimetre). Instead of disposable fag ends we have now developed tomorrow's pollution...plastic cased vapes. We will never stop oil production as long as we use plastic which uses oil to produce. These JSO bods are the kind who dont think things through. They would do better to just stop unnecessary plastic. (Obviously critical in health care ). Whatever the cause of climate change, we are facing climate difficulties. We should stop arguing why it is happening and start to deal with it together. Intrinsically agree but there are certain realities that have to be considered. Most companies going 'green' are not generally interested in whether or not they are actually green. They are selling their green credentials to the consumer to give themselves a competitive edge. The consumer in the main wants to feel good about saving the planet and so that act becomes important in his choices. Companies pander to that feel good factor and can market how weel they consider the planet even if all the factors are not accounted for in their calculations. If saving the planet is important then aiding the war in Ukraine is idiocy beyond compare as the resources being wasted are enormous and the greenhouse gases being generated are, if all else is to be believed, extremely damaging. However we blithely involve ourselves in massive wastage and we nod sagely as Bill Gates and others fly all over the place in private jets telling is how we must pull in our belts. We may have to do things to save the planet but in part we are being conned by too many people. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jun 30, 2023 10:38:02 GMT
We should make things to last, as before, and learn how to repair things. Stop developing tweaks in technology that require complete replacements... I agree, but that's the exact opposite of many so called "Green" agendas: Scrap your perfectly good car and buy an allegedly more eco friendly alternative (eg per ULEZ) which is a complete nonsense. Exactly - we have ended in a situation where the Net Zero Minister Grant Shapps is lauding his green credentials for being on his second Tesla while the poor schmuck with the 20 year old Fiesta is banned from driving in London.. Who has the bigger carbon footprint? |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jun 30, 2023 12:00:32 GMT
I agree, but that's the exact opposite of many so called "Green" agendas: Scrap your perfectly good car and buy an allegedly more eco friendly alternative (eg per ULEZ) which is a complete nonsense. Exactly - we have ended in a situation where the Net Zero Minister Grant Shapps is lauding his green credentials for being on his second Tesla while the poor schmuck with the 20 year old Fiesta is banned from driving in London.. Who has the bigger carbon footprint?
Well quite. I read years ago that the greatest environmental impact that a car makes is when it's made.
And I suspect that the manufacture of a single Tesla probably has a greater environmental impact than our notional Ford Fiesta had in its entire 20 year life, including all of the fuel that it's used.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 30, 2023 13:15:19 GMT
How about a link to the peer reviewed paper and the author. And let me decide instead of wattsupwithcrap. All the links you may wish and need are within the link I gave. wattsup is not making any decisions for you other than to provide the pathway for all that you may wish. They have done the hard work of collating all the info. I would remind you that this is the mind zone where derogatory comments such as wattsupwithcrap should realistically not be entertained. I don't want to wander through wattsupwithcrap again, trying to unravel the duplicitous information and cherry picked sentences I found last time I did this. Please can you link me climate scientists who are questioning the figures used by NASA the IPCC and the CMA. Cherry picking an ignored plus or minus 0.03degree variable is not proof the numbers are out. Plus or minus means just that. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 30, 2023 13:17:31 GMT
If I read the other article correctly they seem to take the pristine stations and the corrected stations and accept a level of comparison and use all the results Which seems to me would be missing the entire point of the hypothesis A bit like constructing a hypothesis that airports (specifically) are locally warmer and mixing in data from non airports to find that they aren't I wonder if these people do this sort of thing all the time - it would explain why all the future projections for climate are all so badly wrong in the same direction. But why would these errors always show a higher temperature. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jun 30, 2023 13:18:24 GMT
All the links you may wish and need are within the link I gave. wattsup is not making any decisions for you other than to provide the pathway for all that you may wish. They have done the hard work of collating all the info. I would remind you that this is the mind zone where derogatory comments such as wattsupwithcrap should realistically not be entertained. I don't want to wander through wattsupwithcrap again, trying to unravel the duplicitous information and cherry picked sentences I found last time I did this. Please can you link me climate scientists who are questioning the figures used by NASA the IPCC and the CMA. Cherry picking an ignored plus or minus 0.03degree variable is not proof the numbers are out. Plus or minus means just that. You have had them several times zany but you seem to suffer blindness when they are presented. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 30, 2023 13:22:10 GMT
I agree, but that's the exact opposite of many so called "Green" agendas: Scrap your perfectly good car and buy an allegedly more eco friendly alternative (eg per ULEZ) which is a complete nonsense. Exactly - we have ended in a situation where the Net Zero Minister Grant Shapps is lauding his green credentials for being on his second Tesla while the poor schmuck with the 20 year old Fiesta is banned from driving in London.. Who has the bigger carbon footprint? Seems about every 5 page I have to point out something that is nothing to do with climate change. This time its the ULEZ charge which has nothing to do with climate change but is all about local pollution and associated disease. So the Schmuck with a 20 year old fiesta IS the problem. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 30, 2023 13:23:25 GMT
We should make things to last, as before, and learn how to repair things. Stop developing tweaks in technology that require complete replacements... I agree, but that's the exact opposite of many so called "Green" agendas: Scrap your perfectly good car and buy an allegedly more eco friendly alternative (eg per ULEZ) which is a complete nonsense. Scrap your perfectly good boiler to buy a somewhat dubious heat pump. Stick solar panels everywhere, but what's the environmental impact of that? What about disposal? How long before there's a net benefit (if ever)? I'm not saying that we shouldn't embrace the new when we need to but scrapping perfectly usable stuff because it doesn't meet current standards is lunacy. The ULEZ charge is not about climate change. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jun 30, 2023 13:25:08 GMT
I agree, but that's the exact opposite of many so called "Green" agendas: Scrap your perfectly good car and buy an allegedly more eco friendly alternative (eg per ULEZ) which is a complete nonsense. Scrap your perfectly good boiler to buy a somewhat dubious heat pump. Stick solar panels everywhere, but what's the environmental impact of that? What about disposal? How long before there's a net benefit (if ever)? I'm not saying that we shouldn't embrace the new when we need to but scrapping perfectly usable stuff because it doesn't meet current standards is lunacy. Its about wanker khan and all the other ECO knobs feathering their own nests. |
|
