VincentRJ

Maybe this is due to 'climate change'. Oh no! Wait! Maybe it's due to: "Rapid urbanisation without a suitable development plan has left Phuket vulnerable to natural disasters. Moreover, roads that block waterways as well as clogged canals have aggravated the level of inundation. Phuket city's flood-draining infrastructure -- which has been used for decades without any substantial improvements -- has not kept pace with the rate of urbanisation." https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/2822743/dont-let-phuket-drown

"So while it may not yet or maybe ever be possible to predict how many thunderstorms will occur in a given locale over a period of time, it is entirely possible to predict the rise in global temperature. In fact, most of the models created in the 1960s and 1970 created very accurate algorithms to predict the rise in global temperatures for example." Sorry I haven't responded to your comment until now. I've been rather busy, and it's taken me some time to dig up some reliable scientific studies on this issue. However, I've found a few that may 'tickle your fancy'. Here's a recent article in Nature magazine, written by Gavin Schmidt who is a climatologist and director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City, so I guess you would consider him reliable. WORLD VIEW 19 March 2024 "Climate models can’t explain 2023’s huge heat anomaly — we could be in uncharted territory." "For the past nine months, mean land and sea surface temperatures have overshot previous records each month by up to 0.2 °C — a huge margin at the planetary scale. A general warming trend is expected because of rising greenhouse-gas emissions, but this sudden heat spike greatly exceeds predictions made by statistical climate models that rely on past observations. Many reasons for this discrepancy have been proposed but, as yet, no combination of them has been able to reconcile our theories with what has happened." https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00816-z Here's another article from an independant Climate Research publisher. "Given the host of uncertainties and unknowns in the difficult but important task of climate modeling, the unique attribution of observed current climate change to increased atmospheric CO2 concentration, including the relatively well-observed latest 20 yr, is not possible." https://www.int-res.com/abstracts/cr/v18/n3/p259-275/ And here's another from a Hydrological Sciences Journal. "Here we compare the output of various models to temperature and precipitation observations from eight stations with long (over 100 years) records from around the globe. The results show that models perform poorly, even at a climatic (30-year) scale. Thus local model projections cannot be credible, whereas a common argument that models can perform better at larger spatial scales is unsupported." https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1623/hysj.53.4.671 And here's another study which claims the evidence suggests that increases in CO2 levels are an effect of temperature rises rather than the cause. "All evidence resulting from the analyses suggests a unidirectional, potentially causal link with T as the cause and [CO2] as the effect. That link is not represented in climate models, whose outputs are also examined using the same framework, resulting in a link opposite the one found when the real measurements are used." https://www.mdpi.com/2413-4155/5/3/35 And yet other one. "The reliability of general circulation climate model (GCM) global air temperature projections is evaluated for the first time, by way of propagation of model calibration error. An extensive series of demonstrations show that GCM air temperature projections are just linear extrapolations of fractional greenhouse gas (GHG) forcing. Linear projections are subject to linear propagation of error. A directly relevant GCM calibration metric is the annual average ±12.1% error in global annual average cloud fraction produced within CMIP5 climate models. This error is strongly pair-wise correlated across models, implying a source in deficient theory." https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/earth-science/articles/10.3389/feart.2019.00223/full And here's another study addressing Sea Surface Temperatures (SST). "We estimate climate sensitivity from observations, using the deseasonalized fluctuations in sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the concurrent fluctuations in the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) outgoing radiation from the ERBE (1985–1999) and CERES (2000–2008) satellite instruments. Distinct periods of warming and cooling in the SSTs were used to evaluate feedbacks. The results imply that the models are exaggerating climate sensitivity." https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13143-011-0023-x

"That’s all I need to know. “Doing your own research” means reading articles on the internet that you like reading, that reinforce what you think you already believe. " That's a good point which merits addressing. It might mean that for some people, but not for me. I do research on any topic that interests me, in order to learn more about the subject. When the scare about anthropogenic global warming became prominent in the media in the late 1990's and eary 2000's, and after listening to interviews of climate experts on the media, such as James Hansen and James Lovelock, I assumed it was a serious threat. Why should I not? I'm sufficiently educated in Physics and Chemistry to understand that CO2 is a 'greenhouse gas' because it absorbs infrared radiation, and I understand that CO2 can dissolve in water to produce carbonic acid. I also understood that an ocean which is too acidic might not be good for sea life in general. However, at the time, I knew very little about past climate changes and the many processes that cause climate to change, and the information I gained from the media, mostly through interviews of scientists on the media, raised some perplexing questions in my mind. In order to find the answer to these questions, I began searching the internet, including Google Scholar, Wikipedia, NASA, NOAA, BOM, and The Working Group 1 part of the IPCC reports (which addresses the science rather than the politics), and what I discovered, surprised me. In order for this post not to be too long, I'll just give one example, but I have many. After hearing many reports of the alarming effects of ocean acidification, I began to wonder what is the normal pH of the oceans. Are the oceans slightly acidic, or slightly alkaline, or possibly neutral. I understood that 'acidification' meant 'becoming more acidic', which would suggest the oceans are normally either acidic or neutral. I also understood the pH system, which is important if you do gardening, because most plants thrive in slightly acidic to neutral soils, but some also thrive in slightly alkaline soils. If one adds too much lime to increase the calcium content of the soil, the soil can become too alkaline and the growth of certain plants will slow down. A pH of 7 is neutral. Less than 7 is acidic, and greater than 7 is alkaline. I was puzzled why the media never mentioned what the pH of the oceans are, and how much they have changed since industrialization. So I began to search for the answer on the internet. What my research revealed is that the average pH of the oceans' surface (up to a depth of 500 metres) is 8.1, which is significantly alkaline, and that most estimates claim that during the past 150 years or so, since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the average pH has fallen from 8.2 to 8.1. Wow! It's no wonder that the media never mentioned that. That's definitely not alarming. 🤣 Digging deeper into the issue, I also discovered research that shows the pH of the ocean's surface, at any particular location, can vary by more than 0.1 pH on a daily basis, and on a seasonal and regional basis it can vary between pH 7.9 and pH 8.3. Furthermore, coastal waters can routinely vary even more, between a pH of 7.5 and 8.5. Why should anyone be alarmed about a rather uncertain estimate of a 0.1 change in average pH over a 150 year period, in the top 500m of the sea, and a rather uncertain rise in average global temperatures of 1 degree C during a similar period? The best answer I could find is the following quote from Stephen Schneider who was a Professor of Environmental Biology and Global Change at Stanford University. "On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both." Sounds a bit like politics.

"Where do get your information....YouTube and Christmas crackers?" Don't be silly! I'm not a Christian, and YouTube videos are far too slow for my learning purposes. I prefer to read the transcripts and/or the pdf versions of actual scientific studies.

"The vast consensus among climate scientists with respect to the effects of human activity is incontrovertible" Where did you get that information from? The media? If you had an enquiring mind and did your own research, you'd find lots of controvertible evidence about the effects of CO2 on the climate. The problem is, the alarm about human CO2 emissions has become a type of religion, and as we know from history, questioning religious faith has had dire consequences. There are numerous scientific studies which provide controvertible evidence, but the results tend to be ignored in the media or dismissed, and the authors are often censored, which is the antithesis of the true 'methodology of science' where every bit of controvertible evidence should be fully examined. "Do I really need to point out that projecting the long-term effects of continued CO2 emissions is quite different from predicting whether or not it’s going to rain tomorrow?" No, you don't. The weather predictions for the next day are reasonably accurate. Usually greater than 50%. However, climate is defined as an average of weather events over a 30 year period. Accurate predictions of the 'average of weather events', 30 years, 60 years, 90 years, and so on, into the future, is not possible.

"What you seem to be “denying” is the human cause of climate change since the Industrial Revolution, greatly accelerated in our own time." I don't deny that human activities in total, including deforestation for agriculture, and the building of cities and roads, and the destruction of land to mine for minerals and fossil fuels, and so on, has had at least some effect on the climate. Everything is connected to some degree. A major issue for me is the unscientific certainty, promoted through the media using the 'claimed' 97% consensus, that our CO2 emissions will eventually cause a climate catastrophe, and if we achieve 'net-zero' CO2 emissions, the climate will stop changing, or change for the better, and become benign. This is in complete contrast to the IPCC statement that, "The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible." Surely everyone has experienced how inaccurate weather forecasts can be just a few days into the future. Why so many people seem to believe that scientists can predict the state of the climate, decades into the future, is bizarre.

A 'climate change denier' is a person who is so ignorant that he/she doesn't understand that climate is always changing and is never static. Over any chosen period, some parts of the world become slightly warmer, whilst other parts become slightly cooler. Some parts will become wetter, whilst other parts will become drier, and so on. A 'climate change denier' is also someone who doesn't understand that climate change is a chaotic, non-linear system with a multitude of contributing factors which cannot be accurately measured. Here's a relevant quote from Working Group 1 section of an IPCC report. "The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible." Can you show me actual evidence for the 'overwhelming consensus among actual climate scientists' that the current climate change is very much caused by human activity? Science is not based upon consensus, but on evidence and data. Most journalists and politicians don't even seem to understand the difference between climate and weather, and cause and effect. How often have you read or heard on the media that a particular extreme weather event was caused by climate change. Climate Change is an effect, as a result of numerous influences, not a cause.

Okay! I just checked the 'World Data info' for the history of extreme weather events in Thailand, and here are the results below. https://www.worlddata.info/asia/thailand/climate.php#:~:text=Temperature records of the last,°C was reported here 1. With 8.90 hours of sunshine per day in February 2024, there was more sunshine than in any February in the last 17 years (9.10 hours in 2007). 2. With just 5.25 liters of precipitation in 2023, August was drier than it had been for 72 years (4.59 l/m² in 1951). 3. With only 13.67 days of rain, it rained less in August 2023 than it has for 14 years (13.21 days in 2009). 4. At 29.39°C, July 2023 was the warmest July in 36 years (29.46°C in 1987). 5. At 30.86°C, May 2023 was the warmest May in 31 years (30.93°C in 1992). 6. With just 0.38 liters of precipitation in 2023, March was drier than it had been for 31 years (0.05 l/m² in 1992). The 'climate change alarmists' do not seem to understand that reports of an extreme weather event that is the worst in 20 years, or 50 years or 100 years, is not evidence of human-caused climate change. In fact, such reports would suggest that these temporary changes in weather patterns are mostly natural effects that occur without the effects of human activity.

I hope this type of mushroom has not been misidentified. Some types are poisonous. It is speculated that the Buddha died as a result of mushroom poisoning.

"Recently, the Ministry of Interior approved a significant initiative: a garbage-fuelled power plant capable of processing around 650 tonnes of waste daily. The project will separate recyclable and non-degradable trash uses. Recyclable waste will be turned into compost, while non-degradable trash will be burnt as fuel for the power plant. This new infrastructure aims not only to mitigate the odour and fly problem but also to provide a more sustainable waste management solution for the region's growing garbage woes." Good news! This process of disposing of garbage should be used everywhere and in every country. Not only will it solve the problem of foul odour and flies, but such 'garbage-fuelled' power plants will probably emit that wonderful, clear and odourless gas called CO2, which helps most plants thrive at increasing levels, and is essential for all life. What could be better.

I'd never heard of Temu before reading this news item. Out of interest, I did a Google search for Temu Australia on the internet, and found the Temu-Australian site with lots of different products at amazingly low prices, including free shipping. So I ordered a few items, less than A$100 in total, to check on their reliability.

"Say you wake up from an ordinary dream. In the dream you may or may not be conscious that you were dreaming, but once you wake up to our ordinary reality, you know you're awake. Nobody will be able to convince you otherwise. You just know the difference between the dream state you were in and the reality of being awake." The above part of your post reminds me of that ancient Chinese story about the philosopher Zhuang Zhou who once dreamed he was a butterfly, flitting and fluttering around, and so happy, and doing as he pleased. When he woke up, he wasn't sure if he was still a butterfly, now dreaming that he was a human called Zhuang Zhou. 🤣

There are two basic, but related, meanings of 'awakening. 1. An act of waking from sleep. 2. The act of starting to understand something, feel something, or become aware of something. There are obviously thousands of different types and degrees of 'awakenings', but I assume you are referring to a sudden, life-changing awakening, perhaps resulting from long periods of deep meditation, or perhaps being hit by a lightning strike which fails to kill you but alters your neuronal activities in a way that makes you see and view everything differently. The placebo effect might not appear to have any role in the lightning strike, but what if the person who is struck by lightning thinks that his survival is due to the intervention by God, and his religious faith is strengthened as a result. Do you think a 'placebo effect' is involved in this outcome?

Actually, I initially thought you were posting a quote from a Red Phoenix post, but never mind. The placebo effect is not fully understood and more research is required. Also, most of the research relates to the effectiveness of drugs administered to cure a disease or ailment. However, I found the following study of the "Placebo Effects in the Context of Religious Beliefs and Practices", which you might find interesting. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/behavioral-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnbeh.2021.653359/full "This study investigated placebo effects in the context of religious beliefs and practices. The participants received an inert substance (tap water) along with the verbal suggestion that the water would come from the sanctuary in Lourdes (a major Catholic pilgrimage site with reports of miracle cures). We investigated changes in resting-state functional connectivity (rsFC) in three brain networks (default-mode, salience, cognitive control) associated with the drinking of the placebo water." "Immediately after the session, the participants reported increased intensity of pleasant bodily sensations (e.g., feelings of warmth, tingling) and feelings (e.g., gratefulness) for the “Lourdes water” condition. Conclusions: The present findings provide the first evidence that placebos in the context of religious beliefs and practices can change the experience of emotional salience and cognitive control which is accompanied by connectivity changes in the associated brain networks."

The difference is that Trump was hoping that he would be competing with Biden at the next election, confident that he would win. As a result of the debate before the official nomination, Biden's poor performance, compared with Trump's, was a major factor in Biden stepping down. So Trump now has a new contender to deal with. If he were to agree to a debate with Kamala Harris before she was officially nominated, he would be faced with the quandry, 'If I defeat her in the debate and make her look like a fool, she will not be nominated as a presidential candidate, and I will later have to debate with another nominated candidate who might be more difficult to defeat'. On the other hand, 'If I'm nice to Kamala Harris during the debate, and don't make her look like a fool, so that she can achieve her official nomination, then my polling rating will go down and Kamala's will go up, at least temporarilly.' In such circumstances it might be wise to refuse a debate until Kalama is officially nominated, so he can go all out to make her look like a fool. No cowardice involved.

"Unfortunately, the real meaning and especially the efficacy of the original rituals have been watered down to a meaningless habit that transforms absolutely nothing. It's a waste of time, basically." I tend to agree, but we should not ignore the placebo effect. This is a major factor in all beliefs, even when one takes a medically prescribed drug to cure an ailment. Without a belief in the soundness of the medical system and the testing of drugs, the drug would be less effective.

"One mustn't get too involved in the myths that grow around such famous figures in history, virgin births, walking on water, resurrection etc. there are also many unbelievable myths surrounding the Buddha. In more recent times even the Delai Lama has had myths attached to his birth (the sounds of trumpets and bells in the sky during his birth for instance). A high level of conscious awareness doesn't turn one from a man of flesh and bone with human desires into a demi god." This is a very significant point which is difficult for 'believers' to address because doing so would tend to undermine their faith. Religions tend to be a part of the political system of 'control of the population'. The narratives tend to adapt to the cultural background of the people, and fanciful stories are created to impress the gullible and uneducated masses. One could argue that as long as this 'fanciful story-telling' maintains a peacful and harmonious society, the fictions are justified. However, the long history of religious conflicts, which continue in the present time, would tend to falsify this argument. As you mention in your post, Buddhism appears to be in a different category in the sense that the scriptures include the advice, claimed to be the actual words spoken by the Buddha, that one should not accept the views of any authority without questioning whether the views align with one's own experience and understanding. This teaching from the Buddha is known as the Kalama Sutta. The following article describes it in detail. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wheel008.html When I first read the Kalama sutta, I was very impressed that a religion could encourage any thoughtful questioning. As a result, I read more about Buddhism, but found there's a mixture of sensible advice and unbelievable nonsense. One should always try to separate the two.

"I don't believe EVs are the future" You should check the latest developments in China. I recently came across the following news. "At Auto China 2024, CATL unveiled Shenxing PLUS—the world's first LFP battery that achieves a range above 1,000 kilometers with 4C superfast charging. Within eight months after the launch of the Shenxing superfast charging battery in August 2023, CATL has once again pushed the boundaries of LFP battery technology, ushering in the era of superfast charging for the whole industry. The 1,000-km pure electric range comes from continuous technological breakthroughs. The cathode of Shenxing PLUS is made with a granular gradation technology, which places every nanometer particle in the optimal position to achieve ultra-high compact density." https://www.catl.com/en/news/6239.html From another source, it's claimed "it should be possible to charge the energy that would be necessary for a journey of 600 km within 10 minutes. This means that 1 km of range would be charged into the battery every second. A full charge for a range of 1,000 km can be purportedly achieved in 16.6 minutes." There is also the issue of 'spontaneous combustion' which needs to be addressed. These new LFP batteries, apparently, do not have this risk. From the following site: "Lithium phosphate cells are incombustible, which is an important feature in the event of mishandling during charging or discharging. They can also withstand harsh conditions, be it freezing cold, scorching heat or rough terrain." https://www.relionbattery.com/knowledge/how-are-lifepo4-batteries-safer-than-other-lithium-batteries#:~:text=Lithium phosphate cells are incombustible,scorching heat or rough terrain Whilst I don't believe that CO2 emissions present any risk of catastrophic climate change, I do believe in the power of technological development. Some of the claimed features of CATL's new battery technology might not be ready at the present moment, but most probably will be in the near future.

Since fossil fuels are a limited resource, it's sensible to experiment with alternative sources which are less limited, because a low-cost and reliable source of energy is essential for economic development and prosperity. However, even if we eventually succeed in developing reliable and cheap energy from nuclear fusion, and develop batteries that are cheaper, lighter, more durable, and safer than the current Lithium-Ion batteries, we will still need fossil fuels for essential products we use every day. The following article mentions some of these products. "Oil and natural gas are used in everyday products such as lipstick and deodorant and life-saving medical devices, such as MRI machines and pacemakers. Byproducts from oil refining is used to produce plastics, as well as lubricants, waxes, tars and even asphalt for our roads. Nylon, polyester, and many types of fabrics we use that allow us to camp, recreate, and enjoy the outdoors are all made possible by oil and natural gas. In fact, all forms of transportation including the manufacturing of planes, trains, cars, boats, bikes, scooters, skateboards, and even electric cars require oil and natural gas products and components." https://www.coga.org/factsheets/everyday-products-uses

This is wrong. They should be displaying modern electric vehicles, not these old-fashioned, noisy and polluting, gas-guzzling vehicles.

I agree. Dementia, Alzheimer's, and disorders in general, are caused by a combination of genetic conditions and a unhealthy life-style. We can't do much, or perhaps anything, to change our genetic condition, but we can change our lifestyle, if we have the self-control to do so. Regular physical exercise and a healthy diet are a major part of the solution, but also, meditation, mind control, and regular deep breathing exercises should remove the negative effects of anxiety and stress. The following article addresses these negative effects of mental stress. https://www.nib.com.au/the-checkup/effects-of-stress#:~:text=The physical effects of stress&text=They can include trouble concentrating,flare-ups at stressful times "On the surface, the signs of stress can include an increase in heart and breathing rates, dilated pupils and tensed muscles. Under the skin, the signs can take a little longer to notice, especially when your stress is chronic. They can include trouble concentrating for long periods of time, weight fluctuations, stomach upsets, mood changes, struggle with sleep or feeling constantly restless. Some people also notice skin breakouts or even eczema flare-ups at stressful times." "These reactions are all down to what’s going on in our body when we become stressed. Essentially, our body kicks off the same chain of events as when we are faced with danger. More specifically, the team at the Mayo Clinic explain that stress sets off an alarm in your brain which triggers a surge of hormones, including adrenaline and cortisol."

Hi Rocky, It's been a long time since there was any serious discussion on this forum. You pose some interesting questions. My interest in Buddhism tends to be mainly focused on the health benefits. Whilst I'm not particularly attracted towards sitting for long periods doing nothing, I do try to be very mindful, and avoid any stress and anxiety. I believe that a healthy diet and regular exercise will reduce the risk of dementia, but also certain practices of Buddhism and Yoga such as slow, deep breathing, where one slowly fills one's lungs with clean air whilst concentrating on one's breath, will also reduce the risk of dementia, according to a number of scientific studies. Here are just a couple of articles addressing the issue. "This study revealed that applying DSB (deep and slow breathing) can enhance the ability of elderly individuals to process new cognitive tasks and improve cognitive function. These findings suggest that deep and slow breathing training could serve as a simple yet effective method for developing cognitive training programs to prevent and manage dementia in older adults within the community." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10047962/#:~:text=These findings suggest that deep,older adults within the community "Controlled breathing can cause physiological changes that include: . lowered blood pressure and heart rate . reduced levels of stress hormones in the blood . reduced lactic acid build-up in muscle tissue . balanced levels of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the blood . improved immune system functioning . increased physical energy . increased feelings of calm and wellbeing." https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/healthyliving/breathing-to-reduce-stress

Did the Buddha always use a toilet?

We are currently in the Holocene Era, which is a warming period that began around 11,700 years ago, at the end of the last Ice Age (or more correctly, the last Glacial Maximum). It's interesting that the Holocene Optimum (or maximum warming) occurred around the time of the first human civilizations, when temperatures were around 2 degrees C warmer than today. Refer attached graph. It seems odd that so many people are worried about rising temperatures when we now have far better technology to protect ourselves, than the ancient people had. Yet those ancient people survived and progressed, and eventually discovered the marvelous benefits of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are not only necessary for energy supplies and fertilizers, but also for thousands of products we use every day. Refer attached article: https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/11/f68/Products Made From Oil and Natural Gas Infographic.pdf There are many studies which reveal that far more people die from unusual cold weather than hot weather, globally. This implies that a warmer climate is better than a colder climate. Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant. It's a clean and odourless gas which is essential for all life. All plants need it. Satellite information shows that our planet is greening as a result of increased CO2. Greenhouse farmers increase their productivity by injecting CO2 into the Greenhouse. I mention these facts because I have compassion for those who are so worried about their future because of the alarm created about CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.

The first truth about climate change one should learn, is that climate has always been changing throughout the history of our planet, due to a myriad of interconnected natural processes. Those natural processes do not suddenly stop as a result of human development. The effect of recent human activity on our climate represents the addition of yet another of the many, complex, contributing factors that continue to cause the climate to change. However, accurately measuring the significance of that human contribution to climate change is very challenging (if not impossible), due to the complexity of the issue. The satellite-based graph you have shown looks very scary because the Y axis represents a temperature change of just 1/10th of a degree for each full year that is represented on the X axis. One tenth of one degree is insignificant. We live in a world where the temperature changes by tens of degrees from day to night and from summer to winter. A change in temperature of 1/10th of a degree would be undetectable by any living creature. Imagine if that same graph had a Y axis where each step represented one whole degree. You would see an approximately straight horizontal line with just a few small wiggles. Another issue is the 'margin of error' when measuring temperature changes of 1/10th of a degree. Here's an interesting article from NASA addressing the issue. https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/faq/which-measurement-is-more-accurate-taking-earths-surface-temperature-from-the-ground-or-from-space/ "Satellites don't directly measure temperature or the surface where people live. Instead, they measure the brightness of Earth's atmosphere. Scientists then use computer models to convert this brightness data into temperature information. To make matters more challenging, scientists gather brightness data from more than 16 different satellites. Think of it like receiving a box of puzzle pieces without a picture to guide you on how to complete the puzzle."