Percentages

JackFou wrote: The CO2 readings there are going to be much higher than the average atmospheric CO2 levels, perhaps several times as high.

JackFou wrote: Any changes of more than a fraction of a ppm from one hour to the next is a clear sign of something being off.

JackFou wrote: Nearby vegetation will also affect your readings if you try to measure atmospheric CO2.

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote: Follow along here ITN.

Follow along here, riddles ...

You say that the street lights installed by the city had NO effect on the city's elephant infestation.

IBdaMann wrote:

DRKTS wrote:
Current level = 416 ppm

...why should any rational person believe the numbers you posted?

Into the Night wrote:
....I have already presented the data from Mauna Loa. This is the form and support I would expect of any data. Use that as a 'form guide' if you wish, remembering the rules I set up.

Into the Night wrote:
Not everyone reacted as stupidly as governors in the United States.

gfm7175 wrote:
Random number. How do you figure 0.04%? Remember, you are speaking of the WHOLE atmosphere.

Into the Night wrote:The Venusian atmosphere is almost all CO2.

IBdaMann wrote:

JackFou wrote:

IBdaMann wrote: The CO2 readings there are going to be much higher than the average atmospheric CO2 levels, perhaps several times as high.

Only if you're downwind from the volcano.

... which is a guarantee for everyone if wind direction changes ... which it does.

IBdaMann wrote:

JackFou wrote: Any changes of more than a fraction of a ppm from one hour to the next is a clear sign of something being off.

I'll let you in on a little secret. Fudged numbers and cooked books are clear signs of something being off.

IBdaMann wrote:

JackFou wrote: Nearby vegetation will also affect your readings if you try to measure atmospheric CO2.

@ Into the Night, is CO2 measuring equipment affected by nearby vegetation?

IBdaMann wrote:

JackFou wrote: The CO2 readings there are going to be much higher than the average atmospheric CO2 levels, perhaps several times as high.

Only if you're downwind from the volcano.

JackFou wrote: Any changes of more than a fraction of a ppm from one hour to the next is a clear sign of something being off.

JackFou wrote: Nearby vegetation will also affect your readings if you try to measure atmospheric CO2.

tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 30...30...1...7...4c...30...4a...TDS...20h..25g...30...29...29...4d...17...

JackFou wrote:
...deleted Mantras 25g...25c..25d...25e...29...29...
Correcting for known biases in the data isn't fudging numbers.
...deleted Mantras 25j...25e...25c...25d...25f...20h...20o...

Into the Night wrote:...You can only use raw data.....

ITN posted this in the Data Mine 4 years ago, excerpts below.

Into the Night wrote:
Data collection began in 1958....

IBD accepted the data as useful/valid/legit as it was presented.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
I have already presented the data from Mauna Loa. This is the form and support I would expect of any data....

...I was wondering if you had any suggestion on acquiring global humidity and atmospheric water vapor data...

ITN you go on to use the data in your arguments and conclusions:

Into the Night wrote:

trafn wrote:...2. To you, how does this data impact questions concerning GHG's...

I also posted another set of data (...does not allow me to post the actual plots...) concerning the temperature ...near Seattle...I see no correlation with the temperatures in Seattle to the increase of carbon dioxide. I have examined charts...As far as I have been able to determine, there is no effective correlation between the two at all.

Into the Night wrote:

climate scientist wrote:...Just because you do not see a correlation ...does not mean that they are not linked.

Actually, yes it does. It exactly means they are not linked.

IBD posted some data and you certainly sound as though you are referring back to your own Moana Loa data as "reliable and verifiable data"..

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
For example:...data...
10/21/2300Z 82.926°N 85.428°W -24.1°C 1001.7mb...
10/21/2200Z 82.926°N 85.428°W -23.7°C 1001.6mb

....Thank you for providing another source of reliable and verifiable data.

You indicate that the government has collected "reilable data":.

Into the Night wrote:Reliable data goes back to 1944 when we first started flying aircraft into hurricanes.

You use this data you consider reliable to make arguments again:

Into the Night wrote:As you can see, by any measure, hurricane activity seems to have NO correlation with either CO2 concentration, temperature...

You make a claim very similar to my own here, in insisting that data is available so let's proceed with a debate:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
What is the source of your data?

IBdaMann wrote:
My source is terrible. If you don't accept it, I'll understand. I grabbed the first datums I encountered.

Surface Detail wrote:
Just provide a link to the source of your data, please.

You have the data in both Atlantic and Pacific basins. You no longer have an excuse to evade the conversation. Stop calling people names and proceed with your discussion.....You have been EVADING a sensible conversation by ...demanding data to be formatted in a particular way...Start having a discussion about the meaning of the data you have!

At no point do you seem to lose confidence in the Moana Loa chart, saying toward the end of the thread:

Into the Night wrote:
You might also note that a lot of data that conformed to the rules has been presented other than the individual station data. The Mauna Loa data, for example, has been presented in a form that completely follows the rules set up for the data mine.

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:[quote]IBdaMann wrote:
Post the raw data.

That chart ... is a chart! It's not data.

tmiddles wrote: You are frauds.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:...You can only use raw data.....

Care to provide an example?

tmiddles wrote:
This is the game you play:
1- You claim that those how have done the analysis are incompetent or frauds

tmiddles wrote:
2- You ask for the "raw data" they used knowing there is no reason to publish it online an it's not available

tmiddles wrote:
It's simply a technique designed to end debate and claim that nothing can be know.

tmiddles wrote:
YOU, yes YOU, ITN presented the Mauna Loa data:

tmiddles wrote:
And you both pretend that this is not raw data from the Russians:

Into the Night wrote:

JackFou wrote:
...deleted Mantras 25g...25c..25d...25e...29...29...
Correcting for known biases in the data isn't fudging numbers.
...deleted Mantras 25j...25e...25c...25d...25f...20h...20o...

Yes it is. You cannot use cooked numbers in a statistical analysis. The analysis hasn't been run yet. You can only use raw data. Biasing influences must be removed from the method of collecting the raw data, and the method and time of collection must be known and published.

Into the Night wrote:
Cooking the data (or 'adjusting' the data) is just turning it into random numbers of type randU. Useless.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:...You can only use raw data.....

Care to provide an example?

This is the game you play:
1- You claim that those how have done the analysis are incompetent or frauds
2- You ask for the "raw data" they used knowing there is no reason to publish it online an it's not available

It's simply a technique designed to end debate and claim that nothing can be know.

Into the Night wrote:
It is also not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2 content. There are not enough stations.

JackFou wrote: Isn't that convenient. It just so happens that *all* of the quantities like atmospheric CO2 concentration and average global temperature that are relevant for determining changes in climate on a global scale are unknowable.

JackFou wrote:...deleted Mantras...29...29...29...29...29...25e...

IBdaMann wrote:...We depend on valid datasets....

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:Here is the raw data, method of determination, for emissivity of skin measurements from 40 subjects here:link
Subject Emissivity
1 0.996 ...40 0.995
That's 40 subjects with emissivity all over 0.95

Meh. RandU. How was it measured?

... I provided a link....a SATIR infrared camera, model S280 ...To check the range of skin temperatures of the participants, a Fluke 52II thermometer...

But it's basically 4 screens full of the methodology layed out with photos so it's easier for you to just look:
https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/journal-of-biomedical-optics/volume-14/issue-02/024006/Novel-approach-to-assess-the-emissivity-of-the-human-skin/10.1117/1.3086612.full?SSO=1

That method doesn't work...

Into the Night wrote:
1) The human skin is not one single temperature.
2) The room temperature makes a big difference.
3) The mood of a person can make a big difference.

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:You claim the temperature can change so rapidly in THIS EXPERIMENT so as to make the data unusable.

1) The human skin is not one single temperature....

They are testing one spot consistently so that doesn't matter.

Yes it does.

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
Have you done emissivity testing professionally?

On occasion.

IBdaMann wrote:....why are you such a moron...total dumbass,...pout like a baby...you are a loser...
Really. Truly. Honestly. I'm still laughing...

JackFou wrote:
Just for the record, in the case of Mauna Loa both the raw data, including flags which indicate likely problems with the quality for each data point when relevant, and the method of collection as well as the methodology for flagging the data for quality control are all publicly available.

JackFou wrote:
He's in fact trying to claim that the data must be perfectly usable and 100% free of errors at the instance of measurement.

JackFou wrote:
Even a single faulty data point invalidates the whole dataset, apparently (because otherwise the remaining data would still be usable after removal of faulty data points).

JackFou wrote:
I would really like to see him try and work as an actual scientist or measurement engineer for a couple of weeks.

JackFou wrote:
I'm sure his supervisor

JackFou wrote:
will be delighted when he comes in, day after day, to inform his supervisor that again, he had to toss out all data collected that day because someone near him sneezed during the measurement or something.

JackFou wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
It is also not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2 content. There are not enough stations.

Isn't that convenient. It just so happens that *all* of the quantities like atmospheric CO2 concentration and average global temperature that are relevant for determining changes in climate on a global scale are unknowable.

JackFou wrote:
That way you can just dismiss any claim you wish by asserting that the measurements done to gather data to back up that claim aren't just *quite* perfect and therefore you'll just dismiss them outright.

JackFou wrote:
Really, just *terribly* convenient for you.

IBdaMann wrote:

JackFou wrote: Isn't that convenient. It just so happens that *all* of the quantities like atmospheric CO2 concentration and average global temperature that are relevant for determining changes in climate on a global scale are unknowable.

Well isn't that convenient ... you are just as omniscient as tmiddles! It must be nice knowing everything. You have to forgive those of us who happen to be mere mortals; the exact answers don't just come to us. We depend on valid datasets and other observations in order to know things.

But there is one thing that confuses me. If you just know absolutely everything, why are you such a moron in all other aspects? Why is it you don't know even the basic fundamentals of science? Why don't you understand the mathematical requirements for the data about which you keep asking? Why weren't you aware that you weren't going to fool anyone into thinking you were a "scientist"?

Also, why is it you haven't been able to put forward a single reason a rational person should believe your WACKY cult dogma? I was right, wasn't I? You don't really believe it yourself, do you? How could anybody possibly believe in so many physics violations all rolled into one nice, neat, incomprehensibe package? You'd have to be total dumbass, wouldn't you?

So, are you playing a joke on everyone? Why are you pretending to believe in Climate Almighty anyway? Why the need to make us think you know things that only an omniscient god would know? Why the need to pout like a baby at the mere recognition that you are a loser? Has that method worked for you in the past? Was there some indication that it would work for you here?

... so while we're on the subject, would you like to amend your statement and freely admit that you dropped out of highschool and that bending over for tmiddles is about the best "position" you can expect to get at this point?

I really need to talk to Into the Night about getting another fallacy listed: Omniscience Delusion, i.e. the simply inexplicable belief that the unknowable is precisely "what we know" and that the reason for believing that "we know" is because knowledge apparently "just pops into my mind." How many rational people do you honestly believe are going to buy that? ... I mean besides me, of course; you know that I'm on your side in all this. Of course you know absolutely everything, .. because we have the internet and it's ON THERE!

I'll tell you what, let me pull Into the Night aside and explain to him that his obsession with statistical validity crosses the line and that we're just not going to tolerate it here. I mean, after all, we have a planet to save for Christ's sake. He can't be standing in the way of humanity's "first responders." If he's not going to get out of the Justice League's way then he's going to get bowled over, let me tell you.

Let me talk to him and you can bet he'll be singing a different tune come nightfall.

Really. Truly. Honestly.

I'm still laughing about how you must have been exerting effort to keep a straight face when you posted that you were a highly paid "research scientist." You did catch me off guard when I read that. That was a good one.


.

tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 25g...30...25g...30...25f...25g...20b1...20w6...20w2...20w3...29...25d...30...29...25d...25c...4c...17...39j...39c...39g...

Into the Night wrote:
I am both. That's my living. I build instrumentation systems for industrial, aerospace, and medical uses. My instruments are sold worldwide.

JackFou wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

JackFou wrote:

IBdaMann wrote: The CO2 readings there are going to be much higher than the average atmospheric CO2 levels, perhaps several times as high.

Only if you're downwind from the volcano.

... which is a guarantee for everyone if wind direction changes ... which it does.

So they can't use the raw data because the nearby volcano might mess up the values if the wind blows the wrong way but they also cannot correct for the falsifying influence of the volcano when the wind blows the wrong way because of... some reason...
Where *should* they put their measurement station(s), according to you, to avoid all unwanted influences from the environment such that the "raw data" is *directly* useful for determining atmospheric CO2 concentrations? I'm sure the people running the measurements would be over the moon to learn which location is just *so perfect* that no one could possibly question the readings from that location.
Or is the atmospheric CO2 concentration just another of those quantities like average global temperature that we're unfortunately doomed to never know because no real-world measurement will ever be adequate?

IBdaMann wrote:

JackFou wrote: Any changes of more than a fraction of a ppm from one hour to the next is a clear sign of something being off.

I'll let you in on a little secret. Fudged numbers and cooked books are clear signs of something being off.

Correcting for known biases in the data isn't fudging numbers. Are you one of those guys who just blindly trusts any reading off of a measurement device? The people aboard the Star Dust want a word with you... oh wait... they're dead because of an instrument error.

IBdaMann wrote:

JackFou wrote: Nearby vegetation will also affect your readings if you try to measure atmospheric CO2.

@ Into the Night, is CO2 measuring equipment affected by nearby vegetation?

What?
The equipment doesn't care. Vegetation just affects the CO2 concentrations locally. Have you heard of photosynthesis?

IBdaMann wrote:
Well isn't that convenient ... you are just as omniscient as tmiddles! It must be nice knowing everything. You have to forgive those of us who happen to be mere mortals; the exact answers don't just come to us. We depend on valid datasets and other observations in order to know things.

IBdaMann wrote:
I'm still laughing about how you must have been exerting effort to keep a straight face when you posted that you were a highly paid "research scientist." You did catch me off guard when I read that. That was a good one.

Into the Night wrote:
I am both. That's my living. I build instrumentation systems for industrial, aerospace, and medical uses. My instruments are sold worldwide.

DRKTS wrote:
What vegetation? Go look at images of the observatory there

JackFou wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
It is also not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2 content. There are not enough stations.

Isn't that convenient. It just so happens that *all* of the quantities like atmospheric CO2 concentration and average global temperature that are relevant for determining changes in climate on a global scale are unknowable.
That way you can just dismiss any claim you wish by asserting that the measurements done to gather data to back up that claim aren't just *quite* perfect and therefore you'll just dismiss them outright.
Really, just *terribly* convenient for you.

JackFou wrote:

DRKTS wrote:
What vegetation? Go look at images of the observatory there

There is little to none. That's the point.
IBD and ITN want to dismiss the measurements from Mauna Loa because it's near a volcano, despite the fact that you could simply ignore the measurements from moments when the measurement station is downwind from the volcano.

But they cannot seem to come up with any suggestions for suitable measurement locations that are so good that they would find the results of the measurements taken at those locations acceptable.

As tmiddles pointed out several times, it's a pretty simple and wholly transparent attempt at dodging any discussion by simply claiming that no real-world measurement is ever good enough.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
I am both. That's my living. I build instrumentation systems for industrial, aerospace, and medical uses. My instruments are sold worldwide.

Has anyone ever successfully employed one of your instruments to compose a "valid data set"? If so would you please share one.

tmiddles wrote:
It's like Chupacabra or the Lock Ness monster at this point with you guys.

tmiddles wrote:
The Mauna Loa Chart you presented as a model isn't valid data, the Venera Probe that is so similar isn't. Such a mystery what would pass muster!

DRKTS wrote:

JackFou wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

JackFou wrote:

IBdaMann wrote: The CO2 readings there are going to be much higher than the average atmospheric CO2 levels, perhaps several times as high.

Only if you're downwind from the volcano.

... which is a guarantee for everyone if wind direction changes ... which it does.

So they can't use the raw data because the nearby volcano might mess up the values if the wind blows the wrong way but they also cannot correct for the falsifying influence of the volcano when the wind blows the wrong way because of... some reason...
Where *should* they put their measurement station(s), according to you, to avoid all unwanted influences from the environment such that the "raw data" is *directly* useful for determining atmospheric CO2 concentrations? I'm sure the people running the measurements would be over the moon to learn which location is just *so perfect* that no one could possibly question the readings from that location.
Or is the atmospheric CO2 concentration just another of those quantities like average global temperature that we're unfortunately doomed to never know because no real-world measurement will ever be adequate?

IBdaMann wrote:

JackFou wrote: Any changes of more than a fraction of a ppm from one hour to the next is a clear sign of something being off.

I'll let you in on a little secret. Fudged numbers and cooked books are clear signs of something being off.

Correcting for known biases in the data isn't fudging numbers. Are you one of those guys who just blindly trusts any reading off of a measurement device? The people aboard the Star Dust want a word with you... oh wait... they're dead because of an instrument error.

IBdaMann wrote:

JackFou wrote: Nearby vegetation will also affect your readings if you try to measure atmospheric CO2.

@ Into the Night, is CO2 measuring equipment affected by nearby vegetation?

What?
The equipment doesn't care. Vegetation just affects the CO2 concentrations locally. Have you heard of photosynthesis?

What vegetation? Go look at images of the observatory there

JackFou wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Well isn't that convenient ... you are just as omniscient as tmiddles! It must be nice knowing everything. You have to forgive those of us who happen to be mere mortals; the exact answers don't just come to us. We depend on valid datasets and other observations in order to know things.

And we're back to your favourite dichotomy: There exists only utter ignorance or omniscience. Nothing in between.
We can only know values with absolute precision or not at all.

JackFou wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
I'm still laughing about how you must have been exerting effort to keep a straight face when you posted that you were a highly paid "research scientist." You did catch me off guard when I read that. That was a good one.

Some people always search for the problem everywhere but in themselves.

JackFou wrote:
If pretty much the entire scientific community disagrees with you,

JackFou wrote:
maybe it's not all of them who are full of shit but you.

JackFou wrote:
Maybe it's not everyone else who got the physics wrong but you.

JackFou wrote:
Fact is, I am working as a research scientist.

JackFou wrote:
My understanding of physics and chemistry is apparently sufficiently good

JackFou wrote:
that I can gather data, develop measurement methodologies and design chemical production processes that actually work and produce reliable real-world results according to expectations.

JackFou wrote:
You may think I don't understand physics or science but the daily reality of my work is that my understanding applied to the real world does yield reproducible results that match up with the expectations.

JackFou wrote:
If I didn't understand chemistry an physics, I shouldn't be able to correctly predict the outcome of a chemical reaction or design molecules such that they will have the desired properties and yet, it works.

JackFou wrote:
My understanding of physics may not line up with yours but it sure seems to line up with reality.

JackFou wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
I am both. That's my living. I build instrumentation systems for industrial, aerospace, and medical uses. My instruments are sold worldwide.

So you're an engineer.

JackFou wrote:
That does explain why your understanding of physics doesn't go deeper than "temperature is a measure of average thermal energy".

JackFou wrote:
That is a pretty "engineer" answer to what temperature is.

JackFou wrote:

DRKTS wrote:
What vegetation? Go look at images of the observatory there

There is little to none. That's the point.

JackFou wrote:
IBD and ITN want to dismiss the measurements from Mauna Loa because it's near a volcano, despite the fact that you could simply ignore the measurements from moments when the measurement station is downwind from the volcano.

JackFou wrote:
But they cannot seem to come up with any suggestions for suitable measurement locations that are so good that they would find the results of the measurements taken at those locations acceptable.

JackFou wrote:
As tmiddles pointed out several times, it's a pretty simple and wholly transparent attempt at dodging any discussion by simply claiming that no real-world measurement is ever good enough.

DRKTS wrote:

JackFou wrote:

DRKTS wrote:
What vegetation? Go look at images of the observatory there

There is little to none. That's the point.
IBD and ITN want to dismiss the measurements from Mauna Loa because it's near a volcano, despite the fact that you could simply ignore the measurements from moments when the measurement station is downwind from the volcano.

But they cannot seem to come up with any suggestions for suitable measurement locations that are so good that they would find the results of the measurements taken at those locations acceptable.

As tmiddles pointed out several times, it's a pretty simple and wholly transparent attempt at dodging any discussion by simply claiming that no real-world measurement is ever good enough.

You think that the scientist dont know its on a volcano and allow for it.

Please show me large jumps in their data when the mountain erupts.

DRKTS wrote:
Nor does that explain why every other CO2 monitoring station gets the same trend.

duncan61 wrote:
This is how it is however.I did the temp measuring in the room and the variables that came back are astounding.Its not convenient its true.Demonstrate how you can know the average temperature of every ocean

DRKTS wrote:

JackFou wrote:

DRKTS wrote:
What vegetation? Go look at images of the observatory there

There is little to none. That's the point.
IBD and ITN want to dismiss the measurements from Mauna Loa because it's near a volcano, despite the fact that you could simply ignore the measurements from moments when the measurement station is downwind from the volcano.

But they cannot seem to come up with any suggestions for suitable measurement locations that are so good that they would find the results of the measurements taken at those locations acceptable.

As tmiddles pointed out several times, it's a pretty simple and wholly transparent attempt at dodging any discussion by simply claiming that no real-world measurement is ever good enough.

You think that the scientist dont know its on a volcano and allow for it.

Please show me large jumps in their data when the mountain erupts.

Nor does that explain why every other CO2 monitoring station gets the same trend.

Into the Night wrote:
I don't believe you.

Into the Night wrote:
You deny both physics and chemistry.

Into the Night wrote:
I don't believe you. You deny chemistry.

Into the Night wrote:
You already said this. I still don't believe you.

Into the Night wrote:
You already said this. I still don't believe you.

Into the Night wrote:
Define 'reality'. You deny physics.

JackFou wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
I don't believe you.

Into the Night wrote:
You deny both physics and chemistry.

Into the Night wrote:
I don't believe you. You deny chemistry.

Into the Night wrote:
You already said this. I still don't believe you.

Into the Night wrote:
You already said this. I still don't believe you.

Into the Night wrote:
Define 'reality'. You deny physics.

Your profile picture is pretty fitting after all. Although I *have* met parrots with a more complex vocabulary.

Of course you don't believe me. Believing me would force you to accept that maybe your understanding of physics and chemistry is bullshit after all and your mind is clearly not capable of self-doubt.

JackFou wrote:I understand perfectly well that the data is usable.

IBdaMann wrote:

JackFou wrote:I understand perfectly well that the data is usable.

Too funny! You don't understand anything about data.

.

JackFou wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
This is how it is however.I did the temp measuring in the room and the variables that came back are astounding.Its not convenient its true.Demonstrate how you can know the average temperature of every ocean

Every real-world measurement will only ever be an approximation of some kind of "true" value.

JackFou wrote:
The "true" value of any measurement is pretty much by definition unknowable.

JackFou wrote:
You could get lucky and end up with a measurement that is by chance exactly right but you can never know for sure that you have found the "true" value.

JackFou wrote:
Let's say you want to find out how many sodium ions there are in a package of table salt.

JackFou wrote:
I hope you'll agree with me that the answer to that question is a very large but finite number.
Can we ever know the *exact* number? Of course not.

JackFou wrote:
But we can approximate it to an arbitrary precision by making more and more precise measurements of weight, atomic mass, isotope distribution and so on.

JackFou wrote:
With those values we can take the total weight of the amount of sodium chloride and divide that by the sum of the (average) atomic masses of sodium and chloride.

JackFou wrote:
Would a single buoy with a thermometer give you enough information to determine the average surface water temperature of a large body of water?

JackFou wrote:
Depends on what accuracy you want.

JackFou wrote:
If you want to know whether our oceans are closer to 100°C or closer to 0°C, a single buoy is probably gonna get you quite far.

JackFou wrote:
For determining how much additional heat the oceans are absorbing due to the atmospheric greenhouse effect, you'd need a bit more information.

JackFou wrote:
You could stick a thermometer into every square centimetre of ocean surface and you still wouldn't know the "true" average but I think it would get you close enough for all intents and purposes.

JackFou wrote:
Sticking a thermometer on every square centimetre of ocean surface isn't practical though.

JackFou wrote:
So somewhere in between a single buoy and covering every square centimeter with thermometers must be an optimal tradeoff between practicality and accuracy.
Where that optimum is, I don't know. I'm not an oceanographer.

JackFou wrote:

DRKTS wrote:

JackFou wrote:

DRKTS wrote:
What vegetation? Go look at images of the observatory there

There is little to none. That's the point.
IBD and ITN want to dismiss the measurements from Mauna Loa because it's near a volcano, despite the fact that you could simply ignore the measurements from moments when the measurement station is downwind from the volcano.

But they cannot seem to come up with any suggestions for suitable measurement locations that are so good that they would find the results of the measurements taken at those locations acceptable.

As tmiddles pointed out several times, it's a pretty simple and wholly transparent attempt at dodging any discussion by simply claiming that no real-world measurement is ever good enough.

You think that the scientist dont know its on a volcano and allow for it.

Please show me large jumps in their data when the mountain erupts.

Nor does that explain why every other CO2 monitoring station gets the same trend.

Mate I'm on your side on this one.
I understand perfectly well that the data is usable. I'm trying to point out ITNs nonsense.