We are living in the hottest period for 125,000 years

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

The Gravitational Constant (one of those very important number that most people know nothing about) was measured to within 1% accuracy 250 years ago, and that is a much more difficult measurement than temperature.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant

It is remarkable how denialists hold science in contempt. These pages are littered with denialists questioning the power of CO2  and the greenhouse effect even though this question was settled about 160 years ago by the eminent Irish physicist John Tindall. Somehow they believe that because CO2 is currently .041% of the atmosphere it can't possibly be responsible for global warming. And to their way of thinking, this kind of rhetoric qualifies as scientific reasoning.

[goatfarmer]

28 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Even if your characterization of how samples were obtained in the last 200 years was accurate, there is plenty of recent evidence to support the fact that the warming of the oceans is ongoing.

 

Another Record: Ocean Warming Continues through 2021 despite La Niña Conditions

The increased concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from human activities traps heat within the climate system and increases ocean heat content (OHC). Here, we provide the first analysis of recent OHC changes through 2021 from two international groups. The world ocean, in 2021, was the hottest ever recorded by humans, and the 2021 annual OHC value is even higher than last year’s record value by 14 ± 11 ZJ (1 zetta J = 10²¹ J) using the IAP/CAS dataset and by 16 ± 10 ZJ using NCE

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00376-022-1461-3I/NOAA dataset.

 

 

The Oceans Are Getting Warmer

Annual average temperatures of the oceans’ surfaces have been diverging from the 20th century (1900-1999) average more and more since the 1980s. In 2021, global ocean surface temperatures were 0.65 degrees Celsius higher than that century’s average, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

https://www.statista.com/chart/19418/divergence-of-ocean-temperatures-from-20th-century-average/

 

Sure. A bit of warming in the last few decades in some places. But this is an average of the globe, a dubious concept at best. It's not like a pot of water heating up on the stove, which is the way it's presented. 

[Chomper Higgot]

23 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I alway wondered why the temperature measurements recorded by amateur Victorian scientists are accurate to 0.05 of a degree? 

It’s not unreasonable to expect a ‘former scientist working for the British Government’ to be able to express the basis of what’s making you wonder in at least a semblance of scientific terms.

 

 

 

 

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, goatfarmer said:

Yes, but will increasing the dye by 30% make a substantial difference?

I just wrote my comment above and find that you've posted this. What don't you understand about the fact that the heat trapping properties of CO2 and other greenhouse gases aren't a matter for legitimate debate? That at this point it is finely calibrated. This is old and settled science, preceding the issue of global warming.

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, goatfarmer said:

Sure. A bit of warming in the last few decades in some places. But this is an average of the globe, a dubious concept at best. It's not like a pot of water heating up on the stove, which is the way it's presented. 

 

That is not how global warming is presented.

 

Even a cursory review of literature on the subject will reveal discussions and evidence of atmospheric temperature, ocean temperatures, permafrost temperatures, land and surface water temperatures, ice coverage at numerous locations across the globe, sea levels at numerous places across the globe, changes in precipitation, flooding, droughts and topically wild fires.

 

Away with you and your simplistic strawman arguments.

[BangkokHank]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

But do we deserve the nonsense you're pushing? Got some actual evidence from these globalists to share with us?

I posted some evidence, but since you couldn't argue with it, you reported it - and got it removed. Does that make you feel like you won the argument?

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, BangkokHank said:

I posted some evidence, but since you couldn't argue with it, you reported it - and got it removed. Does that make you feel like you won the argument?

I doubt you can claim fakery that is very rightly removed won you any arguments.

 

 

[goatfarmer]

27 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I alway wondered why the temperature measurements recorded by amateur Victorian scientists are accurate to 0.05 of a degree? 

I guess it's plausible if you have a big enough thermometer and it's properly calibrated. But we're not talking so much about the accuracy of thermometers. The issue is more one of accurately covering the globe and representing it to 0.1C, which is implausible, given the variability of temperature within short distances of a few meters. The lack of coverage in the 19th century and the 'merging' of various methods used to collect water samples back then, such as  leather bags tossed over board, makes the enterprise dubious.  

[BangkokHank]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I doubt you can claim fakery that is very rightly removed won you any arguments.

 

 

So, if I understand you correctly, you approve of the censorship of anything that you don't agree with? What are you afraid of?

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, goatfarmer said:

Sure. A bit of warming in the last few decades in some places. But this is an average of the globe, a dubious concept at best. It's not like a pot of water heating up on the stove, which is the way it's presented. 

Why is an average global temperature a dubious concept? 

And why is it that records for high temperatures are increasingly outpacing records for low temperatures?

[placeholder]

5 minutes ago, BangkokHank said:

I posted some evidence, but since you couldn't argue with it, you reported it - and got it removed. Does that make you feel like you won the argument?

No, I didn't report it. You have a genuine talent for making things up.

[goatfarmer]

13 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I just wrote my comment above and find that you've posted this. What don't you understand about the fact that the heat trapping properties of CO2 and other greenhouse gases aren't a matter for legitimate debate? That at this point it is finely calibrated. This is old and settled science, preceding the issue of global warming.

So that's a yes, or a no?

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, BangkokHank said:

So, if I understand you correctly, you approve of the censorship of anything that you don't agree with? What are you afraid of?

I’m not afraid of anything, and I don’t need to base arguments I make on misinformation sites.

 

If you want reliable and verifiable evidence you’ll find it in perfectly reliable and verifiable sources.

 

It’s not difficult.

 

 

[placeholder]

Just now, goatfarmer said:

So that's a yes, or a no?

That you have to ask that question shows how little regard you have for the science. The answer is yes, of course.

[goatfarmer]

10 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

That is not how global warming is presented.

 

 

Well, it did say something like 0.65C. If that's not 'a bit of warming' I don't know what is?

[placeholder]

Just now, goatfarmer said:

Well, it did say something like 0.65C. If that's not 'a bit of warming' I don't know what is?

More silly word games. And that rise in temperature has huge implications for precipitation and hurricane formation.

[Bkk Brian]

8 minutes ago, goatfarmer said:

I guess it's plausible if you have a big enough thermometer and it's properly calibrated. But we're not talking so much about the accuracy of thermometers. The issue is more one of accurately covering the globe and representing it to 0.1C, which is implausible, given the variability of temperature within short distances of a few meters. The lack of coverage in the 19th century and the 'merging' of various methods used to collect water samples back then, such as  leather bags tossed over board, makes the enterprise dubious.  

I know facts are painful sometimes

 

Formal weather stations, which before the mid-1800s were mostly in Europe and the US, became ubiquitous enough by 1880 to provide a robust picture of global temperature.

[bert bloggs]

On 7/20/2022 at 8:05 AM, CelticBhoy said:

Exactly the news you want when living in Scotland  . . . . ????

And n Ireland,no high temps there.

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, goatfarmer said:

Well, it did say something like 0.65C. If that's not 'a bit of warming' I don't know what is?

If the temperature of a 1 meter cube of water is raised by 0.65C this equates to 650,Kjules.

 

Which seems like a ‘bit of warming’.

 

A cubic Km subjected to the same temperature rise requires, 650,000,000,000Kjules.

 

And a cubic km is a tiny tiny drop on the oceans.

 

You can repeat the same calculation for atmospheric temperature rises, surface water, land surface.

 

It is the heat energy that drives climate change, and even small changes in temperature are evidence of gigantic changes in climatic heat energy,

 

Don’t you just love thermodynamics, so much more reliable than ‘ dodgy blogs’.

 

 

[placeholder]

10 minutes ago, goatfarmer said:

I guess it's plausible if you have a big enough thermometer and it's properly calibrated. But we're not talking so much about the accuracy of thermometers. The issue is more one of accurately covering the globe and representing it to 0.1C, which is implausible, given the variability of temperature within short distances of a few meters. The lack of coverage in the 19th century and the 'merging' of various methods used to collect water samples back then, such as  leather bags tossed over board, makes the enterprise dubious.  

Sometimes, when I see objections like this raised, I feel that I'm dealing with children who understandably enough, think that their questions are new to the world and haven't been addressed long since. It's endearing in kids. In adults, not so much. 

Do you really believe that the thousands upon thousands  of data points captured daily won't overcome the statistical noise of the factors you've cited.?

Objections similar to yours were posed by denialists not long ago. And an eminent physicist, Richard Muller, who had also questioned the accuracy of such measurements was hired by them to analyze these temperature reports. He assembled a team of some of the best scientists and statisticians out there analyze temperature reporting.

After Climate Research, Physicist Richard Muller Says "Call Me a Converted Skeptic"

Two years ago, Richard Muller, a star physicist at Berkeley, assembled a team of scientists who had not previously taken public positions on global warming essentially to start from scratch to find answers about climate change. They began a project called Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST). 

With skepticism still prevalent, the team set out to conduct its own research in a manner that would convince the public of its credibility. 

https://www.nas.org/blogs/article/after_climate_research_physicist_richard_muller_says_call_me_a_converted_sk

[goatfarmer]

6 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Why is an average global temperature a dubious concept? 

And why is it that records for high temperatures are increasingly outpacing records for low temperatures?

Good questions.

1. There is too much uncertainty to have an actionable number. There is no reliable set of data for the whole globe before the 1980s. Everything before that is patched from disparate sources. Patching introduces error. Errors compound. Even with the satellite record, the areas covered by each grid are something like 8x8sq km. Temperatures can change vastly over such distances, certainly more than 0.1C. If we want to make a global average temperature, fine, but not to 0.1C, as it currently is.

Secondly, the average applies to nowhere in particular. Regions have their own climates with their own temperatures. The idea of a global average suggests a global trend. Alarmists would have us think that there is a single trend based on the uniformity of CO2 spreading in the atmosphere, but that is reductionist thinking and, as always in the case of a complex system, implausible. 

 

2. I haven't seen any data, other than anecdotal. But the claim is plausible and easily explained by urban development.  25% of weather data collections are in cities. Urban development generates heat.  Cities have been growing steadily in the last few decades. Inevitably, they will generate higher highs.  

[placeholder]

Just now, goatfarmer said:

Good questions.

1. There is too much uncertainty to have an actionable number. There is no reliable set of data for the whole globe before the 1980s. Everything before that is patched from disparate sources. Patching introduces error. Errors compound. Even with the satellite record, the areas covered by each grid are something like 8x8sq km. Temperatures can change vastly over such distances, certainly more than 0.1C. If we want to make a global average temperature, fine, but not to 0.1C, as it currently is.

Secondly, the average applies to nowhere in particular. Regions have their own climates with their own temperatures. The idea of a global average suggests a global trend. Alarmists would have us think that there is a single trend based on the uniformity of CO2 spreading in the atmosphere, but that is reductionist thinking and, as always in the case of a complex system, implausible. 

 

2. I haven't seen any data, other than anecdotal. But the claim is plausible and easily explained by urban development.  25% of weather data collections are in cities. Urban development generates heat.  Cities have been growing steadily in the last few decades. Inevitably, they will generate higher highs.  

All these questions have been addressed by climatologists. And despite the fact that climatologists told Richard Mueller that these issues had been addressed, he went ahead anyway. And his research independently confirmed what they claimed.

What's sociologically and ideologically interesting, is that the same denialists who had enthulsiastically sponsored his research, dropped him like a hot potato once he revealed its results.

You've got nothing. The issues you raise have obviously been repeatedly addressed. The only way your objections could be valid is if there was a huge conspiracy of thousands of climatologists who ignored the obvious points you raised. You clearly have no knowledge of what scientists like Muller have done, and I daresay, absolutely no interest in learning about their research.

[goatfarmer]

8 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Sometimes, when I see objections like this raised, I feel that I'm dealing with children who understandably enough, think that their questions are new to the world and haven't been addressed long since. It's endearing in kids. In adults, not so much. 

 

Do you really believe that the thousands upon thousands  of data points captured daily won't overcome the statistical noise of the factors you've cited.?

 

Difficult to take seriously such patronising conceit. 

 

"Do you really believe that the thousands upon thousands  of data points captured daily won't overcome the statistical noise of the factors you've cited.?"

Yes, volume does not remedy methodological flaws.

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, goatfarmer said:

Good questions.

1. There is too much uncertainty to have an actionable number. There is no reliable set of data for the whole globe before the 1980s. Everything before that is patched from disparate sources. Patching introduces error. Errors compound. Even with the satellite record, the areas covered by each grid are something like 8x8sq km. Temperatures can change vastly over such distances, certainly more than 0.1C. If we want to make a global average temperature, fine, but not to 0.1C, as it currently is.

Secondly, the average applies to nowhere in particular. Regions have their own climates with their own temperatures. The idea of a global average suggests a global trend. Alarmists would have us think that there is a single trend based on the uniformity of CO2 spreading in the atmosphere, but that is reductionist thinking and, as always in the case of a complex system, implausible. 

 

2. I haven't seen any data, other than anecdotal. But the claim is plausible and easily explained by urban development.  25% of weather data collections are in cities. Urban development generates heat.  Cities have been growing steadily in the last few decades. Inevitably, they will generate higher highs.  

Your use of pejorative terms to describe things you clearly do not understand is the only takeaway from that whole missive.

 

There’s a reason why ‘Data Analysis’ is a mandatory subject for those engaged in scientific research.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

12 minutes ago, goatfarmer said:

Difficult to take seriously such patronising conceit. 

 

"Do you really believe that the thousands upon thousands  of data points captured daily won't overcome the statistical noise of the factors you've cited.?"

Yes, volume does not remedy methodological flaws.

Which methodological flaws?

 

There are tens of, if not not hundreds of, thousands of scientists around the world working for thousands of of different institutions on a wide range of climate science, each with its own focus, it’s own data and it’s own methodology.

 

 

Oh I get it.

 

It’s a coordinated conspiracy.

 

All these scientists, all these institutions, all these projects, all these data sets, all these methodologies, all these peer reviews.

 

They’re all in it together.

 

But we’re’ saved, you’ve found a blog that reveals ‘the truth’.

[Bkk Brian]

16 minutes ago, goatfarmer said:

2. I haven't seen any data, other than anecdotal. But the claim is plausible and easily explained by urban development.  25% of weather data collections are in cities. Urban development generates heat.  Cities have been growing steadily in the last few decades. Inevitably, they will generate higher highs.  

Then you just haven't been looking:

 

"Scientists use four major datasets to study global temperature. The UK Met Office Hadley Centre and the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit jointly produce HadCRUT4 . In the US, the GISTEMP series comes via the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Sciences (GISS), while the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) creates the MLOST record. The Japan Meteorological Agency ( JMA) produces a fourth dataset."

 

Nothing anecdotal in the links provided in the article to the data sets but only for those who can understand them and want to see facts.

 

https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-do-scientists-measure-global-temperature/

[placeholder]

23 minutes ago, goatfarmer said:

Difficult to take seriously such patronising conceit. 

 

"Do you really believe that the thousands upon thousands  of data points captured daily won't overcome the statistical noise of the factors you've cited.?"

Yes, volume does not remedy methodological flaws.

What don't you understand about the fact the Richard Muller assembled a team of high level scientists to examine the very issues you raise concerning methodology? What don't you understand about the fact that climatologists told Mueller that they had already accounted for these issues in their methodology? What don't you understand about the fact that Muller confirmed that climatologists had gotten it right after all? Have you examined the research of Mueller and others? And yet you think you know better than they do? And you accuse me of conceit? It is to laugh.

[SatEng]

2 hours ago, goatfarmer said:

Fair point. Even if the claim were true for the particular satellite, there was a major change from infrared to microwave sea surface temperature measurement which meant that data had to be 'merged', or in lay language, 'fixed'. 

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10872-005-5782-5

 

Similarly, Nasa explains how its data is
"... quality controlled, calibrated, remapped and merged to provide nearly Global coverage of equal-angle uniform observations."

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/metadata/landing-page/bin/iso?id=gov.noaa.ncdc:C00830

 

Sounds like a lot of 'fixing' of data.

You are wrong.

The data I am talking about from the European satellites were always microwave radiometers back from the launch of ERS-1 in 1991

ERS-1 - ATSR (Along Track Scanning Radiometer

ERS-2 - ATSR-2

Envisat - AATSR

The difference between the instruments was the accuracy of the measurement, not the temperatures measured themselves

No fixing

No conspiracy 

None of your B**sh*t

[metisdead]

Some troll posts and the replies have been removed.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, goatfarmer said:

Yes, but will increasing the dye by 30% make a substantial difference?

Yes, especially in the heat absorption/reflection characteristics.