Climate Basics

[baileyn45]

The adjustments to past ocean temperatures have made the past look much warmer, and thus made the current warming look much smaller. That's not debatable.

According to what? By all means, please enlighten us as to how adjustments to nonexistent data proves something. You don't have past data. What in God's green Earth are you adjusting? Dear Lord child, stop and attempt to think. You have no past data that can be compared to current data. Apples meet oranges. This is extremely basic stuff.

 

[baileyn45]

You can remove 90% of that network at random and the results won't change, your claim of "not enough coverage" is obviously wrong. You feeling strongly otherwise doesn't affect what the data says.

Utterly absurd. Why not put one thermometer in the center of the country and call it a day?

 

[mamooth]

Utterly absurd. Why not put one thermometer in the center of the country and call it a day?

I agree, that's an absurd proposal you just made. And it's your proposal alone, so you'll have to explain why you proposed it.

You don't seem to understand statistics at all. If I take a poll, I don't ask 1 person. I don't ask a billion people. There's a happy medium.

 

[mamooth]

The adjustments to past ocean temperatures have made the past look much warmer, and thus made the current warming look much smaller. That's not debatable.

According to what? By all means, please enlighten us as to how adjustments to nonexistent data proves something.

That's another one of your crazy stories, so don't ask me to explain it. You made it up, so you explain it.

You don't have past data.

Of course we do.

Wow. You're actually here claiming there's no historical ocean temperature data.

If you're this ignorant of the topic, you shouldn't be bothering the grownups. Back to the kiddie table with you, until you educate yourself.

 

[SSDD]

That's another one of your crazy stories, so don't ask me to explain it. You made it up, so you explain it.

Step on up hairball...on average, how much of the earth's surface does each temperature data station cover...you guys love averages...so lets hear it.

Of course we do.

You used to...at this point, it has been so heavily adjusted, modified, homogenized and infilled that you have nothing useful any longer...and how many climate centers have claimed to have lost the original data?

Lets see the raw, unfiltered, undiluted, unadjusted historical global temperature data. A link will do...Lets see it.

 

[mamooth]

Step on up hairball...on average, how much of the earth's surface does each temperature data station cover...you guys love averages...so lets hear it.

Since your central point is that the warming is natural, then screaming the warming is a fraud is self-contradicting, and that makes you look that much more like a cult liar.

If you had a single coherent argument, you could use it. You don't, so you desperately fling everything at the wall, as you try to deflect by scattering shit at massive levels.

 

[SSDD]

Step on up hairball...on average, how much of the earth's surface does each temperature data station cover...you guys love averages...so lets hear it.

Since your central point is that the warming is natural, then screaming the warming is a fraud is self-contradicting, and that makes you look that much more like a cult liar.

If you had a single coherent argument, you could use it. You don't, so you desperately fling everything at the wall, as you try to deflect by scattering shit at massive levels.

No answer...how completely unsurprising is that...further evidence that you just make shit up as you go...

 

[baileyn45]

Utterly absurd. Why not put one thermometer in the center of the country and call it a day?

I agree, that's an absurd proposal you just made. And it's your proposal alone, so you'll have to explain why you proposed it.

You don't seem to understand statistics at all. If I take a poll, I don't ask 1 person. I don't ask a billion people. There's a happy medium.

When dealing with physical data, coverage matters. One data point vs 10 data points vs 100 data points vs 1000 vs data points vs 10,000 data points, it matters.

As far as statistics, you do not have the data to compute anything. Even with statistics you need some basis of actual data, you do not have it.

 

[mamooth]

As far as statistics, you do not have the data to compute anything. Even with statistics you need some basis of actual data, you do not have it.

Because you say so?

Impressive. I'm sure all the statistical experts who disagree with you with instantly reverse themselves, given that you've given us such convincing data.

I've seen the statistics run. I've seen that as few as a 100 data points gets you a very good temperature average. I've seen that removing 90% of the data results in know change. Statistics-wise, the temperature network is quite adequate for the task.

 

[baileyn45]

The adjustments to past ocean temperatures have made the past look much warmer, and thus made the current warming look much smaller. That's not debatable.

According to what? By all means, please enlighten us as to how adjustments to nonexistent data proves something.

That's another one of your crazy stories, so don't ask me to explain it. You made it up, so you explain it.

You don't have past data.

Of course we do.

Wow. You're actually here claiming there's no historical ocean temperature data.

If you're this ignorant of the topic, you shouldn't be bothering the grownups. Back to the kiddie table with you, until you educate yourself.

Great, explain to me where past ocean temps come from. A guy hanging a bucket off of the side of a boat and sticking a thermometer in it? Or a thermometer next to the engine intake of a ship?. All within a small section of the oceans called the shipping lanes. To this day, the buoy system covers what 30 % of the ocean, that's today. Show me how me the data being collected today could possibly be compared to the past. The data today is a joke and you are convinced by comparing it to a guy with a bucket.

 

[mamooth]

All within a small section of the oceans called the shipping lanes.

Your contention is that only merchant ships took temps, and that all merchant ships stay in narrow shipping lanes? Really? Your contention is wrong, so your conspiracy theory crumbles.

Show me how me the data being collected today could possibly be compared to the past.

Oh dear. You are out of touch. Agtain, if you're this ignorant of the basics, you shouldn't be bothering the adults.

 

[baileyn45]

As far as statistics, you do not have the data to compute anything. Even with statistics you need some basis of actual data, you do not have it.

Because you say so?

Impressive. I'm sure all the statistical experts who disagree with you with instantly reverse themselves, given that you've given us such convincing data.

I've seen the statistics run. I've seen that as few as a 100 data points gets you a very good temperature average. I've seen that removing 90% of the data results in know change. Statistics-wise, the temperature network is quite adequate for the task.

It depends on what data you begin with. If you start with garbage data all the statistics, modelling, algorithms are worthless. You do not have the data to begin with. The statistical analyses of garbage data will give you garbage.

As far as average temp, for what? That was my earlier point. Give me the temp in 100 cities in the US, it's meaningless. A statistical analyse of that data is meaningless. Are those 100 temp readings from within urban heat islands? Are they representative of the surrounding areas? Are those readings over representative of specific areas? Do those readings offer a solid representation for a larger area? Statistics are useful but only where you have useful data to begin with.

 

[baileyn45]

All within a small section of the oceans called the shipping lanes.

Your contention is that only merchant ships took temps, and that all merchant ships stay in narrow shipping lanes? Really? Your contention is wrong, so your conspiracy theory crumbles.

Show me how me the data being collected today could possibly be compared to the past.

Oh dear. You are out of touch. Agtain, if you're this ignorant of the basics, you shouldn't be bothering the adults.

And the past data that you are comparing this to?

 

[mamooth]

[

As far as average temp, for what? That was my earlier point. Give me the temp in 100 cities in the US, it's meaningless.[/QUOTE]

No, that would give a very accurate temperature map of the USA, provided the history was long enough. 100 is more than necessary for an area as small as the lower 48.

A statistical analyse of that data is meaningless. Are those 100 temp readings from within urban heat islands? Are they representative of the surrounding areas? Are those readings over representative of specific areas? Do those readings offer a solid representation for a larger area?

And all those questions are addressed and answered for each station, hence the statistical analysis is very good.

And the past data that you are comparing this to?

The buoy and ship data, which is quite good. Your disbelief has no effect on that.

 

[baileyn45]

No, that would give a very accurate temperature map of the USA, provided the history was long enough. 100 is more than necessary for an area as small as the lower 48.

That's idiocy. So if the 100 cities were in Alabama and Mississippi you would consider this sufficiently representative of the continental US? What if they were in Montana and North Dakota? Still representative of The continental US? Idiocy.

The buoy and ship data, which is quite good. Your disbelief has no effect on that.

And you compare this to what from 1922? We'll have to disagree on the quality of TODAY'S data, you have nothing to compare it to. Nothing. A guy with a bucket.

 

[mamooth]

That's idiocy. So if the 100 cities were in Alabama and Mississippi you would consider this sufficiently representative of the continental US?

No, but you didn't say that. You made it sound like they were random cities.

What if they were in Montana and North Dakota? Still representative of The continental US? Idiocy.

And as it's purely your idiocy, don't ask me to justify it.

And you compare this to what from 1922? We'll have to disagree on the quality of TODAY'S data, you have nothing to compare it to. Nothing. A guy with a bucket.

You are free to believe whatever nonsense makes you feel good. Just don't expect anyone else to pay attention.

 

[gfm7175]

Can anyone explain to me how the average temperature of planet Earth is derived? And I don't want the opinion of this scientist or that scientist. I want the systems, networks and data points. I ask because as of this point I'm appalled by that what is commonly referred to. I'm particularly interested in how current data is compared to past data.

By some supposedly "authoritative source" inputting random numbers into a computer that merely spits out more random numbers which get put onto a pretty looking "authoritative" chart/graph supposedly making reference to some "anomaly", but never is it described what exactly is being measured in an "anomaly"...

In other words, these twits are completely full of shit. The average temperature of Earth has never been accurately derived in any way/shape/form. We simply do not have enough thermometers to do so.

Even IF all thermometers were uniformly spaced and simultaneously read by the same observer (they aren't, but for argument's sake, let's say they are), Earth has some 197 million sq miles of surface area. NASA only makes use of some 7,500 thermometers. That equates to ONE thermometer for every 26,266 sq miles of surface area, or an area about the size of the entire State of West Virginia. Do you think that one single thermometer can accurately measure the temperature for the whole State of West Virginia?? I've personally observed temperature variances as high as 20degF per MILE in my State of Wisconsin... So yeah, not nearly enough thermometers... The margin of error is far too great.

We would need 200 million thermometers to even BEGIN such a statistical analysis...

 

[gfm7175]

There's two wildly different data gathering methods.. Actually three if you count devining data from 10,000 yr old trees, ice cores and mud bug shells...

Not a measurement of absolute temperature.

But for MODERN temp. records you have the satellite record and landbased thermometers..

Neither give any accurate reading of absolute temperature of Earth.

The satellite record has been around since 1979... There are 2 independent "data processors" for the satellite fleet Univ Alabama at Huntsville and RSS... They use entirely different algorithms for data prep but have always agreed extraordinarly well.. The satellite record can't really be messed with.. Like trying to correct land-based measurements from the 1930s every month of the current year.. They are VERY precisely obtained on the satellite paths every time at the exact same times of day.. And they measure MORE of the atmospheric "lower troposphere" than a thermometer on an 8 ft pole..

Satellites do NOT measure absolute temperatures. They measure light. In order to convert those light readings into temperature readings, the emissivity of Earth MUST be known. We do not know the emissivity of Earth, therefore this cannot be done. Satellites are great for looking at relative temperatures, but not for absolute temperatures of anything other than the satellite itself.

The land based recordings are from about 15,000 thermometers and sea buoys.. NOAA attempts to merge these with balloon data, sea captain reports (seriously an 18th century method) and other available assets.. There's very spotty coverage STILL on the entire African continent, tundra country and the extreme lattitudes and the seas.....

Land based thermometers do not work, either. We simply do not have enough of them. These thermometers are NOT uniformly spaced nor simultaneously read by the same observer, which are math errors, but for sake of argument I will assume that they are uniformly spaced and simultaneously read. The Earth has some 197 million sq miles of surface area. To your benefit, I will even use the 15,000 number instead of the 7,500 number that I typically use in my example. 197 million sq miles divided by 15,000 thermometers equates to ONE thermometer for every 13,133 sq miles, or an area about the size of the entire State of Maryland. Do you think that one thermometer can accurately measure the entire State of Maryland, especially given that temperatures can vary by as much as 20degF/mile?? (I have personally observed this in my State of Wisconsin)... There simply aren't enough thermometers; the margin of error is far too great.

There are probably a dozen govts that are lead data processors of this info... And the land based records USED TO AGREE brilliantly with the satellite record until about 1998 and the 2000s when GW "took a nap"... for about a decade.. This led to a LOT of hanky panky in how the land based data is massaged and manipulated.. And as I said, these agencies have NO problem with cooling the 30s and warming the 2000s every day of the year... There's a stash of historical temperature charts from GISS and NOAA (the US agencies) showing how the data has changed over the years.. And in reality, prior to 1920 or so there just wasn't even FAIR coverage of the globe or accuracy to measure the entire planet to the 1/100th of degree required..

There still isn't.

Coverage got a bit better since then, but there's a lack of faith in the newer tools to "REANALYZE" the simple ass thermometers using modeling that ignore the raw data and PROJECT what model thinks the temperature is in sparse coverage areas....

More if ya want it.... LOL....

Statistical Mathematics REQUIRES that raw data be used in any statistical summary.

 

[gfm7175]

[

Can anyone explain to me how the average temperature of planet Earth is derived? And I don't want the opinion of this scientist or that scientist. I want the systems, networks and data points. I ask because as of this point I'm appalled by that what is commonly referred to. I'm particularly interested in how current data is compared to past data.

There's two wildly different data gathering methods.. Actually three if you count devining data from 10,000 yr old trees, ice cores and mud bug shells...

But for MODERN temp. records you have the satellite record and landbased thermometers..

The satellite record has been around since 1979... There are 2 independent "data processors" for the satellite fleet Univ Alabama at Huntsville and RSS... They use entirely different algorithms for data prep but have always agreed extraordinarly well.. The satellite record can't really be messed with.. Like trying to correct land-based measurements from the 1930s every month of the current year.. They are VERY precisely obtained on the satellite paths every time at the exact same times of day.. And they measure MORE of the atmospheric "lower troposphere" than a thermometer on an 8 ft pole..

The land based recordings are from about 15,000 thermometers and sea buoys.. NOAA attempts to merge these with balloon data, sea captain reports (seriously an 18th century method) and other available assets.. There's very spotty coverage STILL on the entire African continent, tundra country anThe satellite d the extreme lattitudes and the seas.....

There are probably a dozen govts that are lead data processors of this info... And the land based records USED TO AGREE brilliantly with the satellite record until about 1998 and the 2000s when GW "took a nap"... for about a decade.. This led to a LOT of hanky panky in how the land based data is massaged and manipulated.. And as I said, these agencies have NO problem with cooling the 30s and warming the 2000s every day of the year... There's a stash of historical temperature charts from GISS and NOAA (the US agencies) showing how the data has changed over the years.. And in reality, prior to 1920 or so there just wasn't even FAIR coverage of the globe or accuracy to measure the entire planet to the 1/100th of degree required.. Coverage got a bit better since then, but there's a lack of faith in the newer tools to "REANALYZE" the simple ass thermometers using modeling that ignore the raw data and PROJECT what model thinks the temperature is in sparse coverage areas....

More if ya want it.... LOL....

It's the surface temps I consider suspect. The current network is a joke, the past network is unknown. The satellite data has it' s'own issues, it's also useless historically.

My issue is that, as of 2019, no one can tell me the average temp of planet Earth, no one. To claim otherwise is asinine. There is not one human being that could possibly tell me the average temp of my home state of Ohio, the average temp of the continental US, the average temp of the northern hemisphere. No one has even close to the data to make such claims.

Precisely!!! People who think they can do so are outright denying Statistical Mathematics (and science, if making reference to satellites).

 

[gfm7175]

Actually, the satellite method is pretty elegant and much simpler than the 15,000 thermometer version... Because the surface coverage is uniform and fully populated by the 12 Weather sats in different orbits.. I personally believe that it could be an accurate reading of the entire surface to much better than 0.1 DegC.

Much more accurate than trying to measure the "yearly oil output"...

This satellite fleet covers your state of Ohio at least twice a day with about a 45 Km (28 mi) resolution.. It also does a uniform job on urban/rural, valleys vs mountains, ect... And it's not affected by placing a temperature station next to an air conditioning unit or asphalt parking lot...

The CLAIM is each reading is accurate to 0.03 DegC.. But that's not the accuracy once you average the entire globe. And the same is true for the land based systems...

I see no reason to doubt the satellite versions myself...

Satellites do not measure absolute temperature. They only measure light. In order to convert those readings into temperature readings, the emissivity of Earth MUST be known. Earth's emissivity is unknown, so we can't figure out Earth's temperature that way. Satellites simply do not work for that purpose. Satellites are not magick. They work great for relative temperatures though!!