Remember me
▼ Content

Many factors for climate variation


Many factors for climate variation26-11-2016 06:14
Thunderbomb1982
☆☆☆☆☆
(3)
Here is what I think and feel free to comment because I want to hear your thoughts. I will tell everyone that I do not believe man-made increase carbon results in global warming. What about all the fires before 1900 that used to burn millions of acres and cities? What about the volcanoes? These produce more carbon dioxide and junk in the atmosphere than any city ever could. Just my belief.


From the research I've studied, my theory is the sun's fluctuations have the biggest play in our climate. They say sea ice is so low now but I've heard and read (I don't have the sources unfortunately) about ships being able to nearly get to the north pole back in the late 1950's (years of more heat and drought". I can't remember the magazine a I read but I do recall reading. I've also heard many stories from my grandparents and other relatives saying how the 1950's were very hot and dry with just a few colder winters hear and there during that decade. They lived in Kansas and Missouri at the time. Also, what about the summer of 1980? Didn't St. Helen's blow in May of 80' big time that clouded many cities? We would think that would of cooled us off for a little with all the extra ash. It makes me wonder how hot it would have gotten without the volcano. They say the ice was so much more widespread in the N Pole in 1980 but yet many areas had such a heat blasted summer in the lower 48. The winter wasn't that cold in 1980-1981 either. Several ski areas were barely able to open that year from locales I've talked to where I currently live in Colorado. They say that satellite has been able to measure sea ice since 1979. Yet all global warming activists prove that there was much more ice, even in the 1930's and 1950's when there was no satellite. So the US and Canada has the money and equipment to fly all around the north pole, Greenland, Alaska, 3-4 times every month and prove there was more ice during these times? I bet during the great depression there was loads of money to buy monitoring equipment and to hire people to monitor the entire ice field constantly.. To me that is a contradiction. We did not have satellite date until 1979 but yet the ENTIRE arctic circle and north pole region had more ice pre 1979 NEARLY EVERY year before this with very little fluctuations??? I don't get it. We also had tons of available opportunity to send people and talk to natives of the arctic to monitor ice in every area each year??? And during the dark of the winter and too!! I'm sure if I wanted to believe in global warming I could come up with maps that looked 1930's and people would believe there was more ice. I could probably get paid a lot too and just say I lost the original 1930's maps and scanned them on the computer and edited them a bit to make them look nice.
Are we kind of in these 10-20 year cycles were it gets colder then warmer? I kind of think so. Remember just 2-3 years ago we had some pretty intense winters.

Sun cycles with the mini ice age/climatic medieval period reference could show us how temperatures can change. Maybe our suns fluctuates a little more than it did during the during the warm period/mini ice age times. Many readings describe absence of sun spots 1400-pre-1900 during long intervals. Could it be that our sun can be every so slightly intense or a bit dimmer to cause fluctuations? My theory is when we get big heat waves like 1980, 1998/1999, the very warm fall we've had this year may be due to brief increase solar energy. Could the very cold December of 1983, winter 2013/2014 result be due to the sun's energy turned down a little? It just is so interesting to me how things can change from just a couple of years.


I think we are in between of what was called the mini ice age/medieval warm period. I would have thought by reading articles in the early 1990's that we wouldn't have winter anymore by 2010.


To me, it's kind of like people in the 1960's saying that we would all be riding in cars that fly by 2000. I didn't happen just like we didn't loose our winters.

All in all, I respect our climatologists but I think they could be better of use of studying how and when tornadoes will form, hailstorms, rather than tell the US that we won't have ice 20 years from now. Even if we do not have ice 20 years from now, how can we stop that?? How could we stop a climatic change that could happen to cause the Bering Straight to freeze again? It's not in our power. We need to use the funds and resources to study more short term weather events to help save lives.
Edited on 26-11-2016 07:12
26-11-2016 12:34
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Hello, I respect your view, but some of your statements do not agree with what is in the published scientific literature, so I am wondering if you might not be getting your information from the best place?

For example, humans emit ~100 times more CO2 than volcanoes. CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is rising at a rate of 2-3 ppm/year. We know that this rise is due to fossil fuel burning from measurements of atmospheric O2, which is decreasing. Volcanoes do not cause atmospheric O2 to decrease, because there is no O2 consumption during a volcanic CO2 release. But when we burn CO2, we do consume O2. There are also other measurements that prove that the CO2 increase in the atmosphere is from fossil fuels and not from volcanoes, such as isotopic measurements of CO2 (12C/13C ratios, and 14C content).

Also, it is not really appropriate to take hearsay stories from friends or relatives, or even to take real temperature data from only one region, and state that it is not possible that there has been any climate change, simply because the climate in Kansas, or Colorado has not changed. When we refer to climate change, we are talking about very large regions, and for global climate change we are talking about the whole planet (oceans as well as atmosphere).

Likewise, it is inappropriate to refer to specific years in specific places that were particularly hot or cold. When we refer to climate change, we are talking about the long-term average (i.e. the trend over ~3 decades or more). The climate is very variable, and so one can only determine climate trends by looking at changes over the long-term.

Solar variability does not correlate to the changes in temperature that we have been observing.

Do you admit that air pollution in cities is a big problem? Most air pollutants are emitted in concentrations in parts per billion. CO2 emissions are on the order of parts per million (i.e. 1000 times more than air pollutants). If humans are capable of emitting pollutants that are harmful to human health, then we are definitely capable of perturbing the planet's atmosphere with our CO2 emissions. We are not the only species to do so in fact. Any geologist would tell you that many other species have caused drastic changes to the earth's climate in the past. For example, when photosynthesising algae evolved in the coastal oceans ~3.5 billion years ago, there was a huge drawdown in atmospheric CO2 levels, and a huge increase in atmospheric O2 levels.

Also, just for the record - climate scientists are not well paid and do not have very good job security. Considering that I have a PhD and have spent ~8 years in higher education, I could earn a lot more money working for a bank or an oil company. But I like the research that I do, and this is more important to me. Most climate scientists are not trying to 'prove' climate change. We are mostly working on things that are much more specific than this. For example, at the moment, I am working on a project where we are making measurements of CO2 and O2 in a forest, to try and separate terrestrial respiration and photosynthesis fluxes, in order to quantify them properly. Our work is therefore relevant to climate change, because our results will help modellers to more accurately represent these processes in global climate models, but our research outcome is not pre-determined by the scientific consensus on climate change. If the models using our results show that forests will take up more CO2 as global temperatures warm then that is okay. If they show that forests will take up less CO2 as global temperatures warm that that is also okay. We are not obligated to get a specific result. Perhaps there will be no change, and that too is okay. We are researchers, and we strive to do the best research and get the most robust results that we can. We need to be able to defend the results that we get and show that they are reliable.

If I were able to prove that climate change was not happening, or that humans were not causing it, then I would become famous overnight and win a Nobel prize. My salary would rocket and my job security issues would disappear. But it is not going to happen, because there is no way that millions of independent measurements made all over the world on the land, in the ocean, in the atmosphere, and from space, over many decades by thousands of scientists from pretty much ever country in the world could all be wrong. Also, there is no way that climate scientists could be organised enough to plan, implement and sustain a global conspiracy on climate change! The concept is actually pretty funny to anyone who works in academia, and is comparable to saying that cats are conspiring to take over the world! I'd like to see a bunch of cats conspire to catch a mouse, let alone take over the world
26-11-2016 18:26
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Thanks for that, climate scientist! That was an interesting read and rings very true. You and your colleagues are doing an essential job; hopefully the fulfilment you gain from your work remains sufficient to compensate for the modest salary!

I also gained a PhD in the physical sciences (plasma physics in my case) and would have loved to continue working in the field. However, the low salary and poor job security, together with the sheer level of dedication required, conspired to put me off an academic career. In the end, I was unable to resist the temptation of a cushy, well-paying career as a software developer, though I still retain a close interest in the world of science (and I still have my subscription to New Scientist).
26-11-2016 21:08
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7980)
climate scientist wrote:
For example, humans emit ~100 times more CO2 than volcanoes.

You have no data except manufactured data to show this.
climate scientist wrote:
CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is rising at a rate of 2-3 ppm/year.

IF you believe a hundred or so is representative of the entire globe. It isn't, you know.
climate scientist wrote:
We know that this rise is due to fossil fuel burning from measurements of atmospheric O2, which is decreasing.

We don't. O2 measurements are even spottier than CO2 measurements. Also, O2 can have any number of reasons for a decrease, not just because it all becomes CO2.
climate scientist wrote:
Volcanoes do not cause atmospheric O2 to decrease, because there is no O2 consumption during a volcanic CO2 release. But when we burn CO2, we do consume O2.

We burn CO2? Carbon dioxide doesn't burn!

A properly running engine burning gasoline produces carbon dioxide and WATER. Oh...that's right...water contains oxygen! So do the oceans!

climate scientist wrote:
There are also other measurements that prove that the CO2 increase in the atmosphere is from fossil fuels and not from volcanoes, such as isotopic measurements of CO2 (12C/13C ratios, and 14C content).

A circular argument. You don't know where C14 comes from. It could be simple decomposition too.
climate scientist wrote:
Also, it is not really appropriate to take hearsay stories from friends or relatives, or even to take real temperature data from only one region, and state that it is not possible that there has been any climate change, simply because the climate in Kansas, or Colorado has not changed.

Nah. Nothing like an actual observation or anything.
climate scientist wrote:
When we refer to climate change, we are talking about very large regions, and for global climate change we are talking about the whole planet (oceans as well as atmosphere).

Rather calculate a number from an insufficient number of observations and manufactured data to come up with a fake result. Then use statistics to try to predict the future (it can't).
climate scientist wrote:
Likewise, it is inappropriate to refer to specific years in specific places that were particularly hot or cold.

Nothing like any observations...oh no.
climate scientist wrote:
When we refer to climate change, we are talking about the long-term average (i.e. the trend over ~3 decades or more). The climate is very variable, and so one can only determine climate trends by looking at changes over the long-term.

Rather use vague numbers, many of which are manufactured ones.
climate scientist wrote:
Solar variability does not correlate to the changes in temperature that we have been observing.

Solar variability is easily measured. Changes in global temperature are not possible to measure.
climate scientist wrote:
Do you admit that air pollution in cities is a big problem?

Nowhere near what it used to be. That's why people like me do for a living, is clean that stuff up. I work in industry instead of isolating myself in some academic cell that rarely even looks out the windows.
climate scientist wrote:
Most air pollutants are emitted in concentrations in parts per billion. CO2 emissions are on the order of parts per million (i.e. 1000 times more than air pollutants).

False equivalence. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.
climate scientist wrote:
If humans are capable of emitting pollutants that are harmful to human health, then we are definitely capable of perturbing the planet's atmosphere with our CO2 emissions.

You don't know how much carbon dioxide we are emitting. Government estimates are guesses. Measuring carbon-14 is not good enough. You are also making the circular argument that carbon dioxide is even capable of warming the surface more than any other gas.
climate scientist wrote:
Also, just for the record - climate scientists are not well paid and do not have very good job security. Considering that I have a PhD and have spent ~8 years in higher education, I could earn a lot more money working for a bank or an oil company. But I like the research that I do, and this is more important to me.

Maybe you should get out in actual industry more. You'll learn a ton more than hanging around academia.
climate scientist wrote:
Most climate scientists are not trying to 'prove' climate change.

Bull. You're trying to 'prove' it right now.
climate scientist wrote:
We are not obligated to get a specific result.

For your funding? Not a specific result, sure. Just one that doesn't upset the government agenda, which is paying for your research.
climate scientist wrote:
If I were able to prove that climate change was not happening, or that humans were not causing it, then I would become famous overnight and win a Nobel prize.

No, you would LOSE your grant money, get kicked to the curb as an Outsider of the Religion, and you and your research would be insulted, denigraded, and cast aside as wacko (believe me...I know).
climate scientist wrote:
The concept is actually pretty funny to anyone who works in academia, and is comparable to saying that cats are conspiring to take over the world! I'd like to see a bunch of cats conspire to catch a mouse, let alone take over the world


You should learn about cats, particularly lions. They DO conspire to catch their prey.

No matter. You and your kind will not take over the world. The Church of Global Warming is a dying religion already.


The Parrot Killer
26-11-2016 21:10
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7980)
Surface Detail wrote:
Thanks for that, climate scientist! That was an interesting read and rings very true. You and your colleagues are doing an essential job; hopefully the fulfilment you gain from your work remains sufficient to compensate for the modest salary!

I also gained a PhD in the physical sciences (plasma physics in my case) and would have loved to continue working in the field. However, the low salary and poor job security, together with the sheer level of dedication required, conspired to put me off an academic career. In the end, I was unable to resist the temptation of a cushy, well-paying career as a software developer, though I still retain a close interest in the world of science (and I still have my subscription to New Scientist).


If you cannot figure out how to make money with a PhD, you've learned nothing.

Just another software grunt.


The Parrot Killer
26-11-2016 21:18
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Thanks for that, climate scientist! That was an interesting read and rings very true. You and your colleagues are doing an essential job; hopefully the fulfilment you gain from your work remains sufficient to compensate for the modest salary!

I also gained a PhD in the physical sciences (plasma physics in my case) and would have loved to continue working in the field. However, the low salary and poor job security, together with the sheer level of dedication required, conspired to put me off an academic career. In the end, I was unable to resist the temptation of a cushy, well-paying career as a software developer, though I still retain a close interest in the world of science (and I still have my subscription to New Scientist).


If you cannot figure out how to make money with a PhD, you've learned nothing.

Just another software grunt.

Reading comprehension is really not your thing, is it?
27-11-2016 09:20
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3689)
Thunderbomb1982 wrote: From the research I've studied, my theory is the sun's fluctuations have the biggest play in our climate.

1. The sun's output is the only factor. Science (in the form of the 1st LoT, Stefan-Boltzmann and Planck's law) tells us that atmospheric composition is not a factor in average temperature.

2. There is no "the climate." The earth has millions of climates which are simply local conditions. It is a contradiction to refer to global local conditions. Hence the correct wording is that the sun is the one and only determinant for the earth's average global temperature.

3. "greenhouse effect" cannot be falsifiably expressed without violating physics.

4. There is no Global Warming. As far as anyone knows the earth could be cooling right now.


Thunderbomb1982 wrote:They say sea ice is so low now but I've heard and read (I don't have the sources unfortunately) about ships being able to nearly get to the north pole back in the late 1950's (years of more heat and drought".

The amount of sea ice at either pole is a product of the weather, which is random. It will vary every year. There are no trends in random events.

Thunderbomb1982 wrote:All in all, I respect our climatologists...

Why? There is no such thing as "climate science." There is no such thing as "climate" defined anywhere in science. There are no "climate scientists." You've been scammed.


Thunderbomb1982 wrote: ...but I think they could be better of use of studying how and when tornadoes will form, hailstorms, rather than tell the US that we won't have ice 20 years from now.

You're thinkung of meteorologists. They exist. They study science of weather. Nothing to do with any "the climate" and they don't predict anything more than roughly two weeks out.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
27-11-2016 12:49
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
You have no data except manufactured data to show this.


I am afraid that this is not true. I make such measurements for a living, so I am very sure that they are not manufactured in anyway. It takes weeks and months to build and test the instrumentation, and then many hours to maintain the measurements.

Here is the World Data Centre's database of CO2 measurements.

http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/wdcgg/cgi-bin/wdcgg/catalogue.cgi

There are over 200 records, and they all clearly show that CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing at a rate of ~2 ppm/yr. The measurements are made by many different scientists of different nationalities using different funding streams. In fact, many of these measurements are kept running for many years after the funding ceases, because scientists recognise the value of these data.

IF you believe a hundred or so is representative of the entire globe. It isn't, you know.


200 is very representative of the globe, considering that CO2 is relatively well mixed in the atmosphere and has a long lifetime. Also, the trend in CO2 is much more significant than the trend in global temperature.

We don't. O2 measurements are even spottier than CO2 measurements.


Do you mean that there are fewer O2 measurements than CO2. This is true, because atmospheric O2 is much harder to measure precisely, therefore atmospheric O2 measurement capability is lagging that of CO2 by about 30 years. Nevertheless, the trend in atmospheric O2 is robust, and can be easily observed all over the globe.

Here is the scripps O2 website, which shows some of the key long-term atmospheric O2 records, all of which show that O2 is decreasing significantly.

http://scrippso2.ucsd.edu/plots

Again, I know that these data are not manufactured, because I make such measurements myself, and I have been to the Scripps Lab to see the instrumentation there.

Also, O2 can have any number of reasons for a decrease, not just because it all becomes CO2.


Can you explain what these reasons are please?

We burn CO2? Carbon dioxide doesn't burn!


Apologies, that was a mistake. I meant to say that we burn carbon and produce CO2.

A properly running engine burning gasoline produces carbon dioxide and WATER. Oh...that's right...water contains oxygen! So do the oceans!


How does this relate to the long-term decrease in atmospheric O2?

A circular argument. You don't know where C14 comes from. It could be simple decomposition too.


Actually, the sources of radiocarbon are very well known. The only natural source of 14C is from the stratosphere/high troposphere. It is also produced in some nuclear power plants. In the 1950s, there was a huge increase in 14C in the atmosphere from nuclear bomb testing. This 14C has been declining, partly owing to radioactive decay (it has a half-life of about 5700 years), partly owing to uptake by the ocean, and partly owing to fossil fuel combustion. CO2 from fossil fuel burning has no 14C in it, because fossil fuel are millions of years old, and all the 14C has radioactively decayed. So when we emit CO2 into the atmosphere from fossil fuels, the 14C content of the atmosphere decreases, because ffCO2 has no 14C in it.

Solar variability is easily measured. Changes in global temperature are not possible to measure.


Since you claim that it is not possible to measure atmospheric temperature or CO2 of the whole globe accurately, please can you explain how it is possible to measure how much radiation is given out by the entire surface of the sun (we have far more measurements on earth than we do of the sun).

You don't know how much carbon dioxide we are emitting. Government estimates are guesses. Measuring carbon-14 is not good enough. You are also making the circular argument that carbon dioxide is even capable of warming the surface more than any other gas.


Actually, I do know how much is being emitted, because I measure it! As do many other people. The government estimates are not guesses. Total annual CO2 emissions in the UK are known to within +/- 2% uncertainty. The US is similar. Only the greenhouse gas emissions in places such as Africa, Asia, and South America are not well known, and even then, the uncertainty is on the order of 20-30%.

Here is a video that shows how we use atmospheric measurements to determine fossil fuel emissions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=km0rgQfnNvs

Bull. You're trying to 'prove' it right now.


I am writing on this site in my free time. It is not part of my job.

For your funding? Not a specific result, sure. Just one that doesn't upset the government agenda, which is paying for your research.


My current research project is not funded by the government. In fact, atmospheric scientists in my country receive more funding for studying air pollution than greenhouse gases.

No, you would LOSE your grant money, get kicked to the curb as an Outsider of the Religion, and you and your research would be insulted, denigraded, and cast aside as wacko (believe me...I know).


Haha, no this is not true. This would only possibly happen if I had no evidence, in which case it would be justified, because I would not be a good scientist. But if I had evidence to prove that climate change was not happening, then I would not lose funding. In fact, I would probably receive a lot more.

No matter. You and your kind will not take over the world. The Church of Global Warming is a dying religion already.


Well, it depends where you live. In most countries, the majority of people agree with climate change. Even in the US, there are more people who agree than disagree.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/climate/2015-paris-climate-talks/where-in-the-world-is-climate-denial-most-prevalent
27-11-2016 13:07
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
You're thinkung of meteorologists. They exist. They study science of weather. Nothing to do with any "the climate" and they don't predict anything more than roughly two weeks out.


Actually, most research project include people with a range of disciplines, including meteorologists, oceanographers, ecologists, etc. And many meteorologists have contributed to the IPCC reports. Many of them are studying how weather patterns might change with climate.

You do not have to predict future climate change to be a climate scientist. Many climate scientists study past climate changes. I suppose technically, I am not a climate scientist, I am somewhere between an atmospheric chemist and a biogeochemist.
27-11-2016 18:02
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3689)
climate scientist wrote:
You're thinkung of meteorologists. They exist. They study science of weather. Nothing to do with any "the climate" and they don't predict anything more than roughly two weeks out.


Actually, most research project include people with a range of disciplines, including meteorologists, oceanographers, ecologists, etc.

Exactly my point. Science disciplines. "Climate" is a religious deity not researched by science. Weather is studied by science. "Climate" is not weather. Weather is not "Climate."

climate scientist wrote: And many meteorologists have contributed to the IPCC reports. Many of them are studying how weather patterns might change with climate.

Not at all. Scientists can be religious too. Religious scientists can always step away from the research and do work for their church, whether it's helping a Christian church spread the "Word of God" or helping the IPCC spread "The Science." All religions try to expand their churches.

climate scientist wrote:You do not have to predict future climate change to be a climate scientist.

You have to predict nature to be a scientist. "Climate Scientists" don't predict nature. They aren't scientists.

climate scientist wrote:Many climate scientists study past climate changes. I suppose technically, I am not a climate scientist, I am somewhere between an atmospheric chemist and a biogeochemist.

The word is "researcher." You/they perform research. Any other wording is superfluous glorification.

"Researcher." It's a noble line of work. You shouldn't be ashamed by it.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
27-11-2016 18:08
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3689)
climate scientist wrote: I am afraid that this is not true. I make such measurements for a living, so I am very sure that they are not manufactured in anyway. It takes weeks and months to build and test the instrumentation, and then many hours to maintain the measurements.

CO2 is not "Climate." You measure CO2 levels. That is falsifiable (i.e. measurable/testable). At no point do you measure/study the unfalsifiable "Climate."


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
27-11-2016 18:32
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7980)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Thanks for that, climate scientist! That was an interesting read and rings very true. You and your colleagues are doing an essential job; hopefully the fulfilment you gain from your work remains sufficient to compensate for the modest salary!

I also gained a PhD in the physical sciences (plasma physics in my case) and would have loved to continue working in the field. However, the low salary and poor job security, together with the sheer level of dedication required, conspired to put me off an academic career. In the end, I was unable to resist the temptation of a cushy, well-paying career as a software developer, though I still retain a close interest in the world of science (and I still have my subscription to New Scientist).


If you cannot figure out how to make money with a PhD, you've learned nothing.

Just another software grunt.

Reading comprehension is really not your thing, is it?


So...your PhD is in computer science?


The Parrot Killer
27-11-2016 20:51
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7980)
climate scientist wrote:
You have no data except manufactured data to show this.


I am afraid that this is not true. I make such measurements for a living, so I am very sure that they are not manufactured in anyway. It takes weeks and months to build and test the instrumentation, and then many hours to maintain the measurements.

Here is the World Data Centre's database of CO2 measurements.

http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/wdcgg/cgi-bin/wdcgg/catalogue.cgi

There are over 200 records, and they all clearly show that CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing at a rate of ~2 ppm/yr. The measurements are made by many different scientists of different nationalities using different funding streams. In fact, many of these measurements are kept running for many years after the funding ceases, because scientists recognise the value of these data.

IF you believe a hundred or so is representative of the entire globe. It isn't, you know.


200 is very representative of the globe, considering that CO2 is relatively well mixed in the atmosphere and has a long lifetime. Also, the trend in CO2 is much more significant than the trend in global temperature.

1) It is NOT representative of the globe.
2) Carbon dioxide has no ability to warm anything.
3) Carbon dioxide has mass, the same as the rest of the atmosphere. It takes time to heat it and cool it, the same as the rest of the atmosphere.
4) You are basing your entire argument that carbon dioxide has some magick properties about it that give the ability to violate the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

climate scientist wrote:
We don't. O2 measurements are even spottier than CO2 measurements.


Do you mean that there are fewer O2 measurements than CO2. This is true, because atmospheric O2 is much harder to measure precisely, therefore atmospheric O2 measurement capability is lagging that of CO2 by about 30 years. Nevertheless, the trend in atmospheric O2 is robust, and can be easily observed all over the globe.

Here is the scripps O2 website, which shows some of the key long-term atmospheric O2 records, all of which show that O2 is decreasing significantly.

http://scrippso2.ucsd.edu/plots

Again, I know that these data are not manufactured, because I make such measurements myself, and I have been to the Scripps Lab to see the instrumentation there.

I know how the instrumentation works. Big hairy deal.

climate scientist wrote:
Also, O2 can have any number of reasons for a decrease, not just because it all becomes CO2.


Can you explain what these reasons are please?

Maybe you should study chemistry sometime. You'd be surprise where oxygen winds up in.

climate scientist wrote:
We burn CO2? Carbon dioxide doesn't burn!


Apologies, that was a mistake. I meant to say that we burn carbon and produce CO2.

So? What's wrong with CO2?

climate scientist wrote:
A properly running engine burning gasoline produces carbon dioxide and WATER. Oh...that's right...water contains oxygen! So do the oceans!


How does this relate to the long-term decrease in atmospheric O2?

You really should study chemistry. There you will learn that water contains oxygen.

climate scientist wrote:
A circular argument. You don't know where C14 comes from. It could be simple decomposition too.


Actually, the sources of radiocarbon are very well known. The only natural source of 14C is from the stratosphere/high troposphere. It is also produced in some nuclear power plants. In the 1950s, there was a huge increase in 14C in the atmosphere from nuclear bomb testing. This 14C has been declining, partly owing to radioactive decay (it has a half-life of about 5700 years), partly owing to uptake by the ocean, and partly owing to fossil fuel combustion. CO2 from fossil fuel burning has no 14C in it, because fossil fuel are millions of years old, and all the 14C has radioactively decayed. So when we emit CO2 into the atmosphere from fossil fuels, the 14C content of the atmosphere decreases, because ffCO2 has no 14C in it.

You are not measuring the air. You are measuring an organic substance. Oil is not millions of years old. Oil is a renewable resource. Conditions underground are compatible with the synthesis of oil from carbon dioxide and hydrogen. This process is not exposed to the air. Good thing, too. Air would muck it up.

climate scientist wrote:
Solar variability is easily measured. Changes in global temperature are not possible to measure.


Since you claim that it is not possible to measure atmospheric temperature or CO2 of the whole globe accurately, please can you explain how it is possible to measure how much radiation is given out by the entire surface of the sun (we have far more measurements on earth than we do of the sun).

We are NOT measuring the entire surface of the sun. We are measuring that part that happens to be pointing to us. Any lone phototransistor can measure this output, even tuned to specific wavelengths of light.


climate scientist wrote:
You don't know how much carbon dioxide we are emitting. Government estimates are guesses. Measuring carbon-14 is not good enough. You are also making the circular argument that carbon dioxide is even capable of warming the surface more than any other gas.


Actually, I do know how much is being emitted, because I measure it!

Wrong. You measure total carbon dioxide. You do NOT measure how much is produced by man.

climate scientist wrote:
As do many other people. The government estimates are not guesses.
Yes they are. They build estimates using the number of industries in the country. They do not know how much each plant is sending up the stack on a particular day. They know how many cars are licensed, but they do not know how many of them are driving around at any particular time or how well their engines are performing. Once a year a car in a city is tested, but those are just a pass/fail test, and are looking for a minimum amount of carbon dioxide, not a maximum.

[tquote]climate scientist wrote:
Total annual CO2 emissions in the UK are known to within +/- 2% uncertainty. The US is similar. Only the greenhouse gas emissions in places such as Africa, Asia, and South America are not well known, and even then, the uncertainty is on the order of 20-30%.

Bull. No government knows. This uncertainty figure is based on number of industries and cars, not what they are putting out.

climate scientist wrote:
Here is a video that shows how we use atmospheric measurements to determine fossil fuel emissions.

...deleted irrelevant video...

Yes, you are proud of your job. We know that.

climate scientist wrote:
Bull. You're trying to 'prove' it right now.


I am writing on this site in my free time. It is not part of my job.

Irrelevant. You are trying to 'prove' it right now.

climate scientist wrote:
For your funding? Not a specific result, sure. Just one that doesn't upset the government agenda, which is paying for your research.


My current research project is not funded by the government. In fact, atmospheric scientists in my country receive more funding for studying air pollution than greenhouse gases.

Then what is the source of your funding?

climate scientist wrote:
No, you would LOSE your grant money, get kicked to the curb as an Outsider of the Religion, and you and your research would be insulted, denigraded, and cast aside as wacko (believe me...I know).


Haha, no this is not true. This would only possibly happen if I had no evidence, in which case it would be justified, because I would not be a good scientist. But if I had evidence to prove that climate change was not happening, then I would not lose funding. In fact, I would probably receive a lot more.

It is true. You of the Faithful deny what would happen should you leave the Church of Global Warming and become an Outsider.

climate scientist wrote:
No matter. You and your kind will not take over the world. The Church of Global Warming is a dying religion already.


Well, it depends where you live. In most countries, the majority of people agree with climate change. Even in the US, there are more people who agree than disagree.

...deleted propaganda article...

No, it's dying off. The New York Times is basically the equivalent to Pravda for much of its 'news'.

Something you should be aware of. Consensus is not part of science.


You seem to think that I am trying to deny your measurements of carbon dioxide. You are mistaken. I am saying the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (from whatever source) is not doing anything to warm the planet. To give this magick Holy Gas this ability would violate the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.


The Parrot Killer
27-11-2016 22:43
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
You are not measuring the air. You are measuring an organic substance. Oil is not millions of years old. Oil is a renewable resource. Conditions underground are compatible with the synthesis of oil from carbon dioxide and hydrogen. This process is not exposed to the air. Good thing, too. Air would muck it up.

My favourite bit. Complete loony tunes.
28-11-2016 01:27
spot
★★★★☆
(1019)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You are not measuring the air. You are measuring an organic substance. Oil is not millions of years old. Oil is a renewable resource. Conditions underground are compatible with the synthesis of oil from carbon dioxide and hydrogen. This process is not exposed to the air. Good thing, too. Air would muck it up.

My favourite bit. Complete loony tunes.


Stop making fun of him he makes the thing that makes missles and spacecraft work, he won't tell us what it is but NASA and the airforce depend on him, according to him.

I bet he's Jason Bourn in his spare time too.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
28-11-2016 01:47
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3689)
spot wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You are not measuring the air. You are measuring an organic substance. Oil is not millions of years old. Oil is a renewable resource. Conditions underground are compatible with the synthesis of oil from carbon dioxide and hydrogen. This process is not exposed to the air. Good thing, too. Air would muck it up.

My favourite bit. Complete loony tunes.


Stop making fun of him he makes the thing that makes missles and spacecraft work, he won't tell us what it is but NASA and the airforce depend on him, according to him.

I bet he's Jason Bourn in his spare time too.

I just want to reflect on your need to adhere to personalities so you can strictly avoid any and all science content.

Allow me to gaze in wonder.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-11-2016 10:00
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You are not measuring the air. You are measuring an organic substance. Oil is not millions of years old. Oil is a renewable resource. Conditions underground are compatible with the synthesis of oil from carbon dioxide and hydrogen. This process is not exposed to the air. Good thing, too. Air would muck it up.

My favourite bit. Complete loony tunes.

I already pegged him as a Creationist. (He uses the word 'evolutionists')
Possibly a young earther too?
Edited on 28-11-2016 10:01
28-11-2016 10:02
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
spot wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You are not measuring the air. You are measuring an organic substance. Oil is not millions of years old. Oil is a renewable resource. Conditions underground are compatible with the synthesis of oil from carbon dioxide and hydrogen. This process is not exposed to the air. Good thing, too. Air would muck it up.

My favourite bit. Complete loony tunes.


Stop making fun of him he makes the thing that makes missles and spacecraft work, he won't tell us what it is but NASA and the airforce depend on him, according to him.

I bet he's Jason Bourn in his spare time too.


Maybe he makes his own tinfoil hats? And that's why IBdaMann teams up with him- to make sure he has a steady supply.
Edited on 28-11-2016 10:04
28-11-2016 12:49
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
I know how the instrumentation works. Big hairy deal.


It makes me sad to see you lie so blatantly. There are perhaps only ~50 people in the world who know how to make atmospheric O2 measurements to ppm level precision, and I seriously doubt that you are one of them. However, I am willing to be proven wrong, if you are able to state the 7 analytical techniques that are currently used to measure atmospheric O2 to <5 ppm, including which scientists/institutions/manufacturers developed these techniques, and what the key advantages/disadvantages of each is. Perhaps you can also explain why atmospheric O2 measurements are reported as O2/N2 ratios, and what the unit 'per meg' refers to?

You are not measuring the air. You are measuring an organic substance. Oil is not millions of years old. Oil is a renewable resource. Conditions underground are compatible with the synthesis of oil from carbon dioxide and hydrogen. This process is not exposed to the air. Good thing, too. Air would muck it up.


Oil, coal and natural gas are formed from the compression of dead organic matter over millions of years. This is why they are referred to as fossil fuels. Oil from the ground is not a renewable resource. Only Bio-oil (e.g. from rape seed) is renewable. When we burn fossil fuels in power plants, the carbon is oxidised to CO2. We are then able to measure the 14C in CO2 above cities to see how much 14C depletion there is from the addition of fossil fuel CO2, which does not contain any 14C because it is so old.

We are NOT measuring the entire surface of the sun. We are measuring that part that happens to be pointing to us. Any lone phototransistor can measure this output, even tuned to specific wavelengths of light.


So you claim that people are capable of measuring the entire upper part of the stratosphere using simple phototransistors, but we are unable to measure temperature in the troposphere or the oceans using simple thermometers?

Wrong. You measure total carbon dioxide. You do NOT measure how much is produced by man.


No, this again is not true. We do not just measure total atmospheric CO2. We also measure other chemical species that are co-emitted with CO2, such as CO, and we measure chemical species that are effected by the combustion of fossil fuel CO2 and its emission to the atmosphere, such as O2, 14C in CO2, 13C in CO2, the O2 triple isotope, and clumped isotopes of CO2. All of these independent tracers can be used to determined the proportion of total CO2 that is from fossil fuel burning. Because we are using many independent methods, we can have strong confidence in the values that we obtain when all these methods agree with each other.

Irrelevant. You are trying to 'prove' it right now.


Hardly! One cannot prove anything on a discussion forum! Discussion forums are for discussing, and nothing more. One needs data to prove/disprove the various aspects of climate change. There is no need to prove climate change any more than there is to prove that triangles have 3 sides, or that gravity exists. The real questions relating to climate change are: how warm will it get, what will be the consequences, and what should we do about it?

Then what is the source of your funding?


Horizon 2020.

You still did not explain by what mechanisms/processes that oxygen exchanging between the oceans and the atmosphere can cause a long-term declining trend in atmospheric O2.
28-11-2016 14:29
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3689)
Ceist wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You are not measuring the air. You are measuring an organic substance. Oil is not millions of years old. Oil is a renewable resource. Conditions underground are compatible with the synthesis of oil from carbon dioxide and hydrogen. This process is not exposed to the air. Good thing, too. Air would muck it up.

My favourite bit. Complete loony tunes.

I already pegged him as a Creationist. (He uses the word 'evolutionists')
Possibly a young earther too?

I already pegged you as a science denier. Are we done?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-11-2016 14:34
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3689)
Ceist wrote:Maybe he makes his own tinfoil hats?

Maybe he dabbles in lots of crafts. Are you envious?

Perhaps if you would put down your Pringles, get out of your mother's basement and interact with actual humans, you might find inspiration to maybe even contribute to society.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-11-2016 14:37
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Perhaps if you would put down your Pringles, get out of your mother's basement and interact with actual humans, you might find inspiration to maybe even contribute to society.


Um, IBdaMann, you do realise that you have >5 times the number of posts on this forum as Ceist, right?
28-11-2016 15:21
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3689)
climate scientist wrote:Um, IBdaMann, you do realise that you have >5 times the number of posts on this forum as Ceist, right?

I suppose that if your English reading comprehension were something other than nonexistent then you would probably not have written that non sequitur.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist

Edited on 28-11-2016 15:22
28-11-2016 15:29
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
It just seems to me that Ceist is not the person who should get out of his/her "mother's basement and interact with actual humans", considering that your post-rate IBdaMann is >3 per day and has been for quite some time.
28-11-2016 21:38
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7980)
climate scientist wrote:
Oil, coal and natural gas are formed from the compression of dead organic matter over millions of years. This is why they are referred to as fossil fuels. Oil from the ground is not a renewable resource. Only Bio-oil (e.g. from rape seed) is renewable. When we burn fossil fuels in power plants, the carbon is oxidised to CO2. We are then able to measure the 14C in CO2 above cities to see how much 14C depletion there is from the addition of fossil fuel CO2, which does not contain any 14C because it is so old.


Oil is not made from compression of dead organic matter. over millions of years. Neither is natural gas.

We can synthesize oil ourselves from carbon dioxide and hydrogen (we do it on an industrial scale). We don't need millions of years to do it, or even need to start with anything more than these two gases. These same conditions to do this trick occur naturally underground.

Natural gas is even easier. We don't bother to make it ourselves, because it appears in any swamp, garbage disposal site, compost heap, and in many other places. The hard part of natural gas isn't finding it, it's piping it. We could make it synthetically if we want to, we just don't bother. It's cheaper to tap it.
climate scientist wrote:
We are NOT measuring the entire surface of the sun. We are measuring that part that happens to be pointing to us. Any lone phototransistor can measure this output, even tuned to specific wavelengths of light.


So you claim that people are capable of measuring the entire upper part of the stratosphere using simple phototransistors, but we are unable to measure temperature in the troposphere or the oceans using simple thermometers?

We are NOT measuring the upper part of the stratosphere with phototransistors. We are measuring solar output. The Sun is not in the upper stratosphere.

We are able to measure temperatures in the stratosphere, the troposphere, the ocean, or wherever we want to stick a thermometer. The problem is one of statistics, fulfilling both the demands of random selection and the required population to generate anything like a usable result.

climate scientist wrote:
Wrong. You measure total carbon dioxide. You do NOT measure how much is produced by man.


No, this again is not true. We do not just measure total atmospheric CO2. We also measure other chemical species that are co-emitted with CO2, such as CO, and we measure chemical species that are effected by the combustion of fossil fuel CO2 and its emission to the atmosphere, such as O2, 14C in CO2, 13C in CO2, the O2 triple isotope, and clumped isotopes of CO2. All of these independent tracers can be used to determined the proportion of total CO2 that is from fossil fuel burning. Because we are using many independent methods, we can have strong confidence in the values that we obtain when all these methods agree with each other.


So, you measure total carbon dioxide and various other total amounts. You do NOT measure how much is produced by man.

climate scientist wrote:
Irrelevant. You are trying to 'prove' it right now.


Hardly! One cannot prove anything on a discussion forum! Discussion forums are for discussing, and nothing more. One needs data to prove/disprove the various aspects of climate change.

The term 'climate change' is a nonsensical term. There is no such thing. Climate is not a thing that can 'change', even though there are different climates. There is no unit to describe 'change' by.

You cannot prove Global Warming. The arguments for its mechanism, however, are easily disproved by applying the laws of thermodynamics to them.

climate scientist wrote:
There is no need to prove climate change any more than there is to prove that triangles have 3 sides, or that gravity exists.

You do not need to prove triangles have three sides, because that is simply true by definition.

You do not need to prove gravity exists. It is not a theory. It is an observation.

climate scientist wrote:
The real questions relating to climate change are: how warm will it get, what will be the consequences, and what should we do about it?

The real question relating to 'climate change' is what the hell language are you speaking?

The real question relating to Global Warming is how do you test for it when it is not possible to measure the global temperature? The null hypothesis of the theory is not available. That alone makes the theory unfalsifiable, and therefore it remains a circular argument (the way all theories start).

Other good questions might be: What is the magick property of carbon dioxide that allows this to happen? It can't be infrared absorption, since carbon dioxide is the same temperature as any other gas in the atmosphere near it.

climate scientist wrote:

Then what is the source of your funding?


Horizon 2020.

Ah. Government funding then.

climate scientist wrote:
You still did not explain by what mechanisms/processes that oxygen exchanging between the oceans and the atmosphere can cause a long-term declining trend in atmospheric O2.


Go learn chemistry.


The Parrot Killer
28-11-2016 21:40
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3689)
climate scientist wrote: It just seems to me that Ceist is not the person who should get out of his/her "mother's basement and interact with actual humans", considering that your post-rate IBdaMann is >3 per day and has been for quite some time.

It's good that all somehow makes sense to you.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-11-2016 21:58
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3689)
Into the Night wrote: We are able to measure temperatures in the stratosphere, the troposphere, the ocean, or wherever we want to stick a thermometer. The problem is one of statistics, fulfilling both the demands of random selection and the required population to generate anything like a usable result.

I hope you don't mind but I want to emphasize and embellish on this point.

Thermometers measure temperature at a single point. Warmizombies like to dispense with this fact and speak in terms of thermometers being able to measure the temperature of large areas, even geographical regions. My good buddy litesong likes to speak of the temperature over millions of square kilometers in the Arctic. Essentially this is just another way warmizombies dispense with inconvenient "error" and "margin of error" so they can just pretend they have divinely-bestown error-free knowledge. They like to think that a few thousand thermometers scattered around the globe can somehow render sufficient data to provide a usably accurate average global temperature.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
29-11-2016 01:38
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7980)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote: We are able to measure temperatures in the stratosphere, the troposphere, the ocean, or wherever we want to stick a thermometer. The problem is one of statistics, fulfilling both the demands of random selection and the required population to generate anything like a usable result.

I hope you don't mind but I want to emphasize and embellish on this point.

Thermometers measure temperature at a single point. Warmizombies like to dispense with this fact and speak in terms of thermometers being able to measure the temperature of large areas, even geographical regions. My good buddy litesong likes to speak of the temperature over millions of square kilometers in the Arctic. Essentially this is just another way warmizombies dispense with inconvenient "error" and "margin of error" so they can just pretend they have divinely-bestown error-free knowledge. They like to think that a few thousand thermometers scattered around the globe can somehow render sufficient data to provide a usably accurate average global temperature.


.

Don't mind at all.


The Parrot Killer
29-11-2016 02:01
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote: We are able to measure temperatures in the stratosphere, the troposphere, the ocean, or wherever we want to stick a thermometer. The problem is one of statistics, fulfilling both the demands of random selection and the required population to generate anything like a usable result.

I hope you don't mind but I want to emphasize and embellish on this point.

Thermometers measure temperature at a single point. Warmizombies like to dispense with this fact and speak in terms of thermometers being able to measure the temperature of large areas, even geographical regions. My good buddy litesong likes to speak of the temperature over millions of square kilometers in the Arctic. Essentially this is just another way warmizombies dispense with inconvenient "error" and "margin of error" so they can just pretend they have divinely-bestown error-free knowledge. They like to think that a few thousand thermometers scattered around the globe can somehow render sufficient data to provide a usably accurate average global temperature.

Don't mind at all.

Every scientific paper I have ever studied on the topic of AGW has included estimates of the error associated with the results. Maybe you guys should try actually reading one or two?

Perhaps one of you could also explain how it is impossible to measure global temperature changes with a few thousand thermometers, but is apparently easy to determine the rate of change of the Greenland ice mass balance from the burial depth of a single aircraft.
29-11-2016 02:20
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7980)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote: We are able to measure temperatures in the stratosphere, the troposphere, the ocean, or wherever we want to stick a thermometer. The problem is one of statistics, fulfilling both the demands of random selection and the required population to generate anything like a usable result.

I hope you don't mind but I want to emphasize and embellish on this point.

Thermometers measure temperature at a single point. Warmizombies like to dispense with this fact and speak in terms of thermometers being able to measure the temperature of large areas, even geographical regions. My good buddy litesong likes to speak of the temperature over millions of square kilometers in the Arctic. Essentially this is just another way warmizombies dispense with inconvenient "error" and "margin of error" so they can just pretend they have divinely-bestown error-free knowledge. They like to think that a few thousand thermometers scattered around the globe can somehow render sufficient data to provide a usably accurate average global temperature.

Don't mind at all.

Every scientific paper I have ever studied on the topic of AGW has included estimates of the error associated with the results. Maybe you guys should try actually reading one or two?

Perhaps one of you could also explain how it is impossible to measure global temperature changes with a few thousand thermometers, but is apparently easy to determine the rate of change of the Greenland ice mass balance from the burial depth of a single aircraft.


I for one do not address Greenland, although personally I don't think the ice is going anywhere. I don't know if the Greenland ice is receding, expanding, or just staying the same. There is nothing that indicates to me it is receding.

It is impossible to measure global temperature because there only a few thousand thermometers in the world, and hundreds of millions of square miles on the surface of the earth. The possible temperature gradient for each square mile can be as high as 20 deg F. That forms the population with which to compare your sample source from.

Furthermore, it is not possible to take random samples with so few thermometers, generally located where there are people.

Weighting data is biasing it, producing a biased (and useless) result.

Interpolating data is manufacturing it, producing a manufactured (and useless) result.

GISS does both, producing a manufactured AND biased result.

IF you had thermometers each square mile of Earth, equally spaced, and read them all at the same time, then and only then could you build a sampling source that would reduce the error down to +-14 deg F.

The greater the number of samples taken from such a population source, of course, the greater the confidence that the summary produces a number accurate to +- 14 deg F.

Using three times the number of thermometers (approx 1 billion of them, uniformly spaced) would get your error down to approx +-5 deg F.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 29-11-2016 02:25
29-11-2016 02:46
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote: We are able to measure temperatures in the stratosphere, the troposphere, the ocean, or wherever we want to stick a thermometer. The problem is one of statistics, fulfilling both the demands of random selection and the required population to generate anything like a usable result.

I hope you don't mind but I want to emphasize and embellish on this point.

Thermometers measure temperature at a single point. Warmizombies like to dispense with this fact and speak in terms of thermometers being able to measure the temperature of large areas, even geographical regions. My good buddy litesong likes to speak of the temperature over millions of square kilometers in the Arctic. Essentially this is just another way warmizombies dispense with inconvenient "error" and "margin of error" so they can just pretend they have divinely-bestown error-free knowledge. They like to think that a few thousand thermometers scattered around the globe can somehow render sufficient data to provide a usably accurate average global temperature.

Don't mind at all.

Every scientific paper I have ever studied on the topic of AGW has included estimates of the error associated with the results. Maybe you guys should try actually reading one or two?

Perhaps one of you could also explain how it is impossible to measure global temperature changes with a few thousand thermometers, but is apparently easy to determine the rate of change of the Greenland ice mass balance from the burial depth of a single aircraft.


I for one do not address Greenland, although personally I don't think the ice is going anywhere. I don't know if the Greenland ice is receding, expanding, or just staying the same. There is nothing that indicates to me it is receding.

It is impossible to measure global temperature because there only a few thousand thermometers in the world, and hundreds of millions of square miles on the surface of the earth. The possible temperature gradient for each square mile can be as high as 20 deg F. That forms the population with which to compare your sample source from.

Furthermore, it is not possible to take random samples with so few thermometers, generally located where there are people.

Weighting data is biasing it, producing a biased (and useless) result.

Interpolating data is manufacturing it, producing a manufactured (and useless) result.

GISS does both, producing a manufactured AND biased result.

IF you had thermometers each square mile of Earth, equally spaced, and read them all at the same time, then and only then could you build a sampling source that would reduce the error down to +-14 deg F.

The greater the number of samples taken from such a population source, of course, the greater the confidence that the summary produces a number accurate to +- 14 deg F.

Using three times the number of thermometers (approx 1 billion of them, uniformly spaced) would get your error down to approx +-5 deg F.

The concept of the representative sample is clearly alien to you. You don't, for example, have to measure the height of every single person in the US to get a good idea of the average height of a US citizen. A representative sample of few thousand will suffice to get an accurate result. Likewise with temperature data.

You can then determine the accuracy of your result by comparing the averages of random sub-samples to see how they compare. And guess what: this is exactly what climatologists do in order to quantify their error. Spoiler: it turns out that you don't need billions, or even millions of thermometers to measure changes of the order of a tenth of a degree per decade. A few thousand will do nicely.
29-11-2016 13:23
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3689)
Surface Detail wrote:The concept of the representative sample is clearly alien to you.

The concept of mathematics is clearly unacceptable to you, but you have been consistent in this regard.

Surface Detail wrote: You don't, for example, have to measure the height of every single person in the US to get a good idea of the average height of a US citizen.

Correct. You only need to measure one person's height to get an "idea." You can Google one picture of one blue whale to "get an idea" of many things about blue whales.

You absolutely must measure the height of every single human if you want to know the accurate average height of humanity.

Everything depends on what you want to know. No estimate equates to knowing the true value. No "general idea" equates to a solid estimate.

Surface Detail wrote:A representative sample of few thousand will suffice to get an accurate result. Likewise with temperature data.

Not even close. What is it about math that repulses you so?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
29-11-2016 21:12
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7980)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote: We are able to measure temperatures in the stratosphere, the troposphere, the ocean, or wherever we want to stick a thermometer. The problem is one of statistics, fulfilling both the demands of random selection and the required population to generate anything like a usable result.

I hope you don't mind but I want to emphasize and embellish on this point.

Thermometers measure temperature at a single point. Warmizombies like to dispense with this fact and speak in terms of thermometers being able to measure the temperature of large areas, even geographical regions. My good buddy litesong likes to speak of the temperature over millions of square kilometers in the Arctic. Essentially this is just another way warmizombies dispense with inconvenient "error" and "margin of error" so they can just pretend they have divinely-bestown error-free knowledge. They like to think that a few thousand thermometers scattered around the globe can somehow render sufficient data to provide a usably accurate average global temperature.

Don't mind at all.

Every scientific paper I have ever studied on the topic of AGW has included estimates of the error associated with the results. Maybe you guys should try actually reading one or two?

Perhaps one of you could also explain how it is impossible to measure global temperature changes with a few thousand thermometers, but is apparently easy to determine the rate of change of the Greenland ice mass balance from the burial depth of a single aircraft.


I for one do not address Greenland, although personally I don't think the ice is going anywhere. I don't know if the Greenland ice is receding, expanding, or just staying the same. There is nothing that indicates to me it is receding.

It is impossible to measure global temperature because there only a few thousand thermometers in the world, and hundreds of millions of square miles on the surface of the earth. The possible temperature gradient for each square mile can be as high as 20 deg F. That forms the population with which to compare your sample source from.

Furthermore, it is not possible to take random samples with so few thermometers, generally located where there are people.

Weighting data is biasing it, producing a biased (and useless) result.

Interpolating data is manufacturing it, producing a manufactured (and useless) result.

GISS does both, producing a manufactured AND biased result.

IF you had thermometers each square mile of Earth, equally spaced, and read them all at the same time, then and only then could you build a sampling source that would reduce the error down to +-14 deg F.

The greater the number of samples taken from such a population source, of course, the greater the confidence that the summary produces a number accurate to +- 14 deg F.

Using three times the number of thermometers (approx 1 billion of them, uniformly spaced) would get your error down to approx +-5 deg F.

The concept of the representative sample is clearly alien to you. You don't, for example, have to measure the height of every single person in the US to get a good idea of the average height of a US citizen. A representative sample of few thousand will suffice to get an accurate result. Likewise with temperature data.

Ah...you failed to read the post again.

I am not suggesting we read every point. Height of U.S. citizens use the population as the population. The population of temperature data is not the thermometers we have. It is the possible locations of temperature across the globe.

Without population, the samples and summary is useless.

Surface Detail wrote:
You can then determine the accuracy of your result by comparing the averages of random sub-samples to see how they compare. And guess what: this is exactly what climatologists do in order to quantify their error. Spoiler: it turns out that you don't need billions, or even millions of thermometers to measure changes of the order of a tenth of a degree per decade. A few thousand will do nicely.


No, they won't. Following that logic, a single thermometer can measure the temperature of the globe. Ridiculous.


The Parrot Killer
30-11-2016 04:49
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3689)
Into the Night wrote: No, they won't. Following that logic, a single thermometer can measure the temperature of the globe. Ridiculous.

Everybody knows you really only need one thermometer to measure Global Warming.



... or just build a single special thermometer for the task...



You only need one thermometer... as long as you have a sufficiently motivated warmizombie to weild it.




.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
30-11-2016 12:09
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Since you two clowns are clearly having trouble grasping the concept of a representative sample, let me explain again using the height analogy.

If you wished to know the exact average height of the US population, you would indeed have to measure the height of every inhabitant precisely. This clearly cannot be done since it is impracticable to measure everyone, and perfect measuring accuracy is impossible.

However, perfect accuracy isn't generally required. Car manufacturers, for example, need only know the average height of their customers to within an inch or so. Now pay attention here: by taking a representative sample of the US population, you can determine the average height of its inhabitants to a certain accuracy. The bigger the sample, the greater the accuracy. How do you know accurate your result is? You take several different random samples and determine the spread of the results. Job done.

Now, the change in the Earth's average temperature can be found in the same way. We don't need to know the change in temperature at every single point. A representative sample is sufficient, with more samples giving greater accuracy. And, in the same way, you determine the accuracy of your result by comparing the results obtained from different sub-samples. This has shown that the current number and distribution of temperature readings is perfectly sufficient to give a result that is accurate to a tenth of a degree or so.

I hope that helped.
30-11-2016 13:30
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3689)
Surface Detail wrote:
Since you two clowns are clearly having trouble grasping the concept of a representative sample, let me explain again using the height analogy.

You are clueless.

Let's run through a much more interesting example: average global temperature.

Everything depends on what you want to know. For average global temperature, what accuracy do you consider to be useful? What is the minimum accuracy you will accept?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
30-11-2016 20:35
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7980)
Surface Detail wrote:
A representative sample is sufficient, with more samples giving greater accuracy.


IF and ONLY IF the population is properly established to sample from. The population is not the thermometers themselves.


The Parrot Killer




Join the debate Many factors for climate variation:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Natural Climate Variation1113-03-2019 01:08
Temperature variation may be the key3627-09-2017 02:20
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact