Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 7)

[hairykrishna]

kerplunk said:

Here you go

Thanks. I doubt it will stop Diderot banging on about it but that's a nice plot to see.

[Diderot]

kerplunk said:

Diderot said:

Even in the 1850-1900 period, there were only 58 weather stations recording temperatures around the world, with 45 of them in Europe.. You couldn't make it up, but it's actuality!

I don't think that's accurate. In the year 1850 perhaps (but I don't know)

It's clearly not the case 1880 to 1900

You can look at the coverage for that period here

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/

Coverage improves over time. Here's 1900 with 250km smoothing:

Take it up with the BBC, they are the purveyors and arbiters of truth aren’t they?

BTW, the last time you posted that graphic, it had 1000km smoothing which obviously looks marginally less tragi-comic than your current 250km smoothing does.

Once again, here’s the global distribution of stations in 1880:

[mike9009]

Diderot said:

kerplunk said:

Diderot said:

Even in the 1850-1900 period, there were only 58 weather stations recording temperatures around the world, with 45 of them in Europe.. You couldn't make it up, but it's actuality!

I don't think that's accurate. In the year 1850 perhaps (but I don't know)

It's clearly not the case 1880 to 1900

You can look at the coverage for that period here

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/

Coverage improves over time. Here's 1900 with 250km smoothing:

Take it up with the BBC, they are the purveyors and arbiters of truth aren’t they?

BTW, the last time you posted that graphic, it had 1000km smoothing which obviously looks marginally less tragi-comic than your current 250km smoothing does.

Once again, here’s the global distribution of stations in 1880:

You could take it up with NASA?

[kerplunk]

Diderot said:

Take it up with the BBC, they are the purveyors and arbiters of truth aren’t they?

BTW, the last time you posted that graphic, it had 1000km smoothing which obviously looks marginally less tragi-comic than your current 250km smoothing does.

Once again, here’s the global distribution of stations in 1880:

yeah so clearly inaccurate for 1880 too like I said.

[Diderot]

mike9009 said:

Diderot said:

kerplunk said:

Diderot said:

Even in the 1850-1900 period, there were only 58 weather stations recording temperatures around the world, with 45 of them in Europe.. You couldn't make it up, but it's actuality!

I don't think that's accurate. In the year 1850 perhaps (but I don't know)

It's clearly not the case 1880 to 1900

You can look at the coverage for that period here

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/

Coverage improves over time. Here's 1900 with 250km smoothing:

Take it up with the BBC, they are the purveyors and arbiters of truth aren’t they?

BTW, the last time you posted that graphic, it had 1000km smoothing which obviously looks marginally less tragi-comic than your current 250km smoothing does.

Once again, here’s the global distribution of stations in 1880:

You could take it up with NASA?

Or you could take it up with Nature since the arsetickle the BBC is getting a huge boner about appeared in that venerable journal. Maybe engage the BBC’s disinformation correspondent and their zealous fact checking bods to elicit ‘the truth’? If you have ever studied philosophy or epistemology, then you will understand that the concept of ‘truth’ is vaguely problematic.

The reality is, there’s feck all coverage across the vast majority of the global land surface area, and so to suggest, with a straight face, that there is credible data available to postulate, to two decimal places, even after sophistic statistical gymnastics and endless smoke and mirrors, that 2023 was xx.xx degrees warmer than any time since 1850 is pure, unadulterated, fiction. KP talks endlessly about error bars, You cannot determine margins of error if there is no data available. You can merely guess.

[mike9009]

Diderot said:

mike9009 said:

Diderot said:

kerplunk said:

Diderot said:

Even in the 1850-1900 period, there were only 58 weather stations recording temperatures around the world, with 45 of them in Europe.. You couldn't make it up, but it's actuality!

I don't think that's accurate. In the year 1850 perhaps (but I don't know)

It's clearly not the case 1880 to 1900

You can look at the coverage for that period here

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/

Coverage improves over time. Here's 1900 with 250km smoothing:

Take it up with the BBC, they are the purveyors and arbiters of truth aren’t they?

BTW, the last time you posted that graphic, it had 1000km smoothing which obviously looks marginally less tragi-comic than your current 250km smoothing does.

Once again, here’s the global distribution of stations in 1880:

You could take it up with NASA?

Or you could take it up with Nature since the arsetickle the BBC is getting a huge boner about appeared in that venerable journal. Maybe engage the BBC’s disinformation correspondent and their zealous fact checking bods to elicit ‘the truth’? If you have ever studied philosophy or epistemology, then you will understand that the concept of ‘truth’ is vaguely problematic.

The reality is, there’s feck all coverage across the vast majority of the global land surface area, and so to suggest, with a straight face, that there is credible data available to postulate, to two decimal places, even after sophistic statistical gymnastics and endless smoke and mirrors, that 2023 was xx.xx degrees warmer than any time since 1850 is pure, unadulterated, fiction. KP talks endlessly about error bars, You cannot determine margins of error if there is no data available. You can merely guess.

But I don't have a problem with the scientific consensus. Maybe you should report it to someone?

Edited by mike9009 on Sunday 16th June 20:50

[Diderot]

mike9009 said:

Diderot said:

mike9009 said:

Diderot said:

kerplunk said:

Diderot said:

Even in the 1850-1900 period, there were only 58 weather stations recording temperatures around the world, with 45 of them in Europe.. You couldn't make it up, but it's actuality!

I don't think that's accurate. In the year 1850 perhaps (but I don't know)

It's clearly not the case 1880 to 1900

You can look at the coverage for that period here

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/

Coverage improves over time. Here's 1900 with 250km smoothing:

Take it up with the BBC, they are the purveyors and arbiters of truth aren’t they?

BTW, the last time you posted that graphic, it had 1000km smoothing which obviously looks marginally less tragi-comic than your current 250km smoothing does.

Once again, here’s the global distribution of stations in 1880:

You could take it up with NASA?

Or you could take it up with Nature since the arsetickle the BBC is getting a huge boner about appeared in that venerable journal. Maybe engage the BBC’s disinformation correspondent and their zealous fact checking bods to elicit ‘the truth’? If you have ever studied philosophy or epistemology, then you will understand that the concept of ‘truth’ is vaguely problematic.

The reality is, there’s feck all coverage across the vast majority of the global land surface area, and so to suggest, with a straight face, that there is credible data available to postulate, to two decimal places, even after sophistic statistical gymnastics and endless smoke and mirrors, that 2023 was xx.xx degrees warmer than any time since 1850 is pure, unadulterated, fiction. KP talks endlessly about error bars, You cannot determine margins of error if there is no data available. You can merely guess.

But I don't have a problem with the science? Maybe you should report it to someone?

I think you need to give yourself a good, stern, talking to Mike. Maybe slap yourself around the chops with a fresh Mackerel (but make sure you eat it raw lest you use fossil fuels to cook it) . The ‘science’ that you seem to have unshakable, and unquestioning, faith in, seemingly can’t make up its mind up about how many weather stations were or were not available in 1850-1900. Can you not see that?

In any case, it doesn’t make any difference, since any extrapolation (or unsubstantiated guess made on the basis of such an abject lack of global data, especially to two decimal places), is utter balderdash either way your fillet it.

[xx99xx]

Even if there was only 1 weather station on each continent, that's still useful data if each station has been recording consistently over a long time.

Satellites do most of the work these days anyway so what's the problem. There's enough satellite data to show changing climates over a long term. Sorry, this is science and realise this is apparently the political debate!

[mike9009]

Diderot said:

I think you need to give yourself a good, stern, talking to Mike. Maybe slap yourself around the chops with a fresh Mackerel (but make sure you eat it raw lest you use fossil fuels to cook it) . The ‘science’ that you seem to have unshakable, and unquestioning, faith in, seemingly can’t make up its mind up about how many weather stations were or were not available in 1850-1900. Can you not see that?

In any case, it doesn’t make any difference, since any extrapolation (or unsubstantiated guess made on the basis of such an abject lack of global data, especially to two decimal places), is utter balderdash either way your fillet it.

Do you 'believe' or trust any scientific studies or breakthroughs? Are two decimal places calculated disturbing you??

[kerplunk]

Diderot said:

Or you could take it up with Nature since the arsetickle the BBC is getting a huge boner about appeared in that venerable journal. Maybe engage the BBC’s disinformation correspondent and their zealous fact checking bods to elicit ‘the truth’? If you have ever studied philosophy or epistemology, then you will understand that the concept of ‘truth’ is vaguely problematic.

The reality is, there’s feck all coverage across the vast majority of the global land surface area, and so to suggest, with a straight face, that there is credible data available to postulate, to two decimal places, even after sophistic statistical gymnastics and endless smoke and mirrors, that 2023 was xx.xx degrees warmer than any time since 1850 is pure, unadulterated, fiction. KP talks endlessly about error bars, You cannot determine margins of error if there is no data available. You can merely guess.

I've also said I cba to care about it much and this is a distraction from the developments at the other of the record. Use 1900-1930 as the baseline or whatever. It doesn't change the warming rate of the last 50 years. The lions share of the warming is in the latter part of the record and that's the period when the lions share of the radiative forcing from increasing GHGs has occured.

[Tom8]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c133r4gyx1no

Wow. This is quite staggering and demonstrates more than before how much the indoctrination flows. This guys is almost written of as a criminal for having a point of view. Next up, courts will be formed and gulags for dissenters. High Priest Rollat will be the judge and jury.

[dickymint]

mike9009 said:

Diderot said:

I think you need to give yourself a good, stern, talking to Mike. Maybe slap yourself around the chops with a fresh Mackerel (but make sure you eat it raw lest you use fossil fuels to cook it) . The ‘science’ that you seem to have unshakable, and unquestioning, faith in, seemingly can’t make up its mind up about how many weather stations were or were not available in 1850-1900. Can you not see that?

In any case, it doesn’t make any difference, since any extrapolation (or unsubstantiated guess made on the basis of such an abject lack of global data, especially to two decimal places), is utter balderdash either way your fillet it.

Do you 'believe' or trust any scientific studies or breakthroughs? Are two decimal places calculated disturbing you??

If you understand calibration and measurement of uncertainty you'll realise that outside of a lab with a strictly controlled temperature and humidity then you'll understand that 'two decimal places' is make believe in the real world.

[mike9009]

dickymint said:

mike9009 said:

Diderot said:

I think you need to give yourself a good, stern, talking to Mike. Maybe slap yourself around the chops with a fresh Mackerel (but make sure you eat it raw lest you use fossil fuels to cook it) . The ‘science’ that you seem to have unshakable, and unquestioning, faith in, seemingly can’t make up its mind up about how many weather stations were or were not available in 1850-1900. Can you not see that?

In any case, it doesn’t make any difference, since any extrapolation (or unsubstantiated guess made on the basis of such an abject lack of global data, especially to two decimal places), is utter balderdash either way your fillet it.

Do you 'believe' or trust any scientific studies or breakthroughs? Are two decimal places calculated disturbing you??

If you understand calibration and measurement of uncertainty you'll realise that outside of a lab with a strictly controlled temperature and humidity then you'll understand that 'two decimal places' is make believe in the real world.

If you take temperature measurements over three consecutive days at noon.

Day one is 33C, day two is 33C and day three is 34C. What is the average of the three days??

You can report ithe result to however many decimals places you think is appropriate.

[Mr Penguin]

xx99xx said:

Even if there was only 1 weather station on each continent, that's still useful data if each station has been recording consistently over a long time.

Satellites do most of the work these days anyway so what's the problem. There's enough satellite data to show changing climates over a long term. Sorry, this is science and realise this is apparently the political debate!

And it is possible to estimate previous temperatures and climates from tree rings and ice cores.

[kerplunk]

dickymint said:

mike9009 said:

Diderot said:

I think you need to give yourself a good, stern, talking to Mike. Maybe slap yourself around the chops with a fresh Mackerel (but make sure you eat it raw lest you use fossil fuels to cook it) . The ‘science’ that you seem to have unshakable, and unquestioning, faith in, seemingly can’t make up its mind up about how many weather stations were or were not available in 1850-1900. Can you not see that?

In any case, it doesn’t make any difference, since any extrapolation (or unsubstantiated guess made on the basis of such an abject lack of global data, especially to two decimal places), is utter balderdash either way your fillet it.

Do you 'believe' or trust any scientific studies or breakthroughs? Are two decimal places calculated disturbing you??

If you understand calibration and measurement of uncertainty you'll realise that outside of a lab with a strictly controlled temperature and humidity then you'll understand that 'two decimal places' is make believe in the real world.

Yes it's make believe. In the real world there's +/- uncertainty bars. But it doesn't always get stated so that could fool a stupid person - see the UAH monthly satellite obs for instance

[Diderot]

mike9009 said:

dickymint said:

mike9009 said:

Diderot said:

I think you need to give yourself a good, stern, talking to Mike. Maybe slap yourself around the chops with a fresh Mackerel (but make sure you eat it raw lest you use fossil fuels to cook it) . The ‘science’ that you seem to have unshakable, and unquestioning, faith in, seemingly can’t make up its mind up about how many weather stations were or were not available in 1850-1900. Can you not see that?

In any case, it doesn’t make any difference, since any extrapolation (or unsubstantiated guess made on the basis of such an abject lack of global data, especially to two decimal places), is utter balderdash either way your fillet it.

Do you 'believe' or trust any scientific studies or breakthroughs? Are two decimal places calculated disturbing you??

If you understand calibration and measurement of uncertainty you'll realise that outside of a lab with a strictly controlled temperature and humidity then you'll understand that 'two decimal places' is make believe in the real world.

If you take temperature measurements over three consecutive days at noon.

Day one is 33C, day two is 33C and day three is 34C. What is the average of the three days??

You can report ithe result to however many decimals places you think is appropriate.

Only if there are weather stations to measure and report from obvs (doh). Please do yourself a favour and consider the issue here: There were no weather stations on the vast majority of the global land mass 1850 - post WW2 (that’s being charitable and overly generous). There is no data available therefore. Unless you’re a denier of data?

[mike9009]

Diderot said:

mike9009 said:

dickymint said:

mike9009 said:

Diderot said:

I think you need to give yourself a good, stern, talking to Mike. Maybe slap yourself around the chops with a fresh Mackerel (but make sure you eat it raw lest you use fossil fuels to cook it) . The ‘science’ that you seem to have unshakable, and unquestioning, faith in, seemingly can’t make up its mind up about how many weather stations were or were not available in 1850-1900. Can you not see that?

In any case, it doesn’t make any difference, since any extrapolation (or unsubstantiated guess made on the basis of such an abject lack of global data, especially to two decimal places), is utter balderdash either way your fillet it.

Do you 'believe' or trust any scientific studies or breakthroughs? Are two decimal places calculated disturbing you??

If you understand calibration and measurement of uncertainty you'll realise that outside of a lab with a strictly controlled temperature and humidity then you'll understand that 'two decimal places' is make believe in the real world.

If you take temperature measurements over three consecutive days at noon.

Day one is 33C, day two is 33C and day three is 34C. What is the average of the three days??

You can report ithe result to however many decimals places you think is appropriate.

Only if there are weather stations to measure and report from obvs (doh). Please do yourself a favour and consider the issue here: There were no weather stations on the vast majority of the global land mass 1850 - post WW2 (that’s being charitable and overly generous). There is no data available therefore. Unless you’re a denier of data?

I explained this on the last page, as have many other posters. Not sure why this is relevant or helpful?

It is similar to most scientific theory. There is no precise 'data' on the mass of the moon. (7.34767309 × 10^22 kilograms) However through the application of scientific theory, somehow we have managed to extrapolate the mass. (To quite a few decimal places too, but that is an irrelevance.) Now that is irrelevant, but demonstrates a point. You do not necessarily need to measure something directly to know an estimation (recognised scientifically) of its behaviour or characteristics. It is quite useful for keeping stuff in orbit....

So, I do not understand the denier of data comment?

[hairykrishna]

Diderot - any comment on the temperature trend graph using the 'have existed since 1850' subset of stations, posted by kerplunk?

[kerplunk]

hairykrishna said:

Diderot - any comment on the temperature trend graph using the 'have existed since 1850' subset of stations, posted by kerplunk?

Doubtful - he had none when I posted it on the science thread on the last go round.

[Diderot]

kerplunk said:

hairykrishna said:

Diderot - any comment on the temperature trend graph using the 'have existed since 1850' subset of stations, posted by kerplunk?

Doubtful - he had none when I posted it on the science thread on the last go round.

You couldn’t ever understand the epistemological issues KP, and seemingly you can’t now. Keep on dreaming of data that simply doesn’t exist. Keep posting your smoothed to 250km or 1000km graphics; both serve to demonstrate there is no data available.

Science you say HK? Be honest this doesn’t resemble anything scientific that you are involved in does it? And subsets of what exactly? What bonafide science is there in most of the global land mass having no data points to either determine actual data or margins of error? Yet, you two imagine it’s scientifically permissible to suggest that 2023 is precisely xx.xx degrees warmer than any time since 1850. You two are Little and Large, Laurel and Hardy, Morecambe and Wise etc. You are at least entertaining, I’ll give you that.