Is climate change risk an invention of self interested and stupid?

Precisely! Nailed it.

 

you continue to prove you know nothing.

 

Weak that ^^^^. Folks are attempting to provide knowledge to no avail. Sad.

 

You continue to prove with every post that you know absolutely NOTHING!

There are several methods available for the measurement of the upper air.

• Radiosondes (commonly called weather balloons).These are small instruments lifted aloft by helium-filled balloons. Measurements made by temperature, pressure, and humidity sensors are radioed back to the surface.
  
  • Advantages
    • Direct measurement of temperature
    • High vertical resolution
  • Disadvantages
    • Limited spatial sampling
    • Calibration problems with changing instruments and methods
      
• Microwave Sounders. These are satellite-borne instruments that measure the radiance of Earth at microwave frequencies, which allows scientists to deduce the temperature of thick atmospheric layers.
  • Advantages
    • Global coverage at a high samplng rate
  • Disadvantages
    • Coarse vertical resolution
      
• Infrared Sounders. These are satellite-borne instruments that measure the radiance of Earth at infrared frequencies, which allows scientists to retrieve the temperature of thick atmospheric layers using inversion algorithms.
  • Advantages
    • Global coverage at a high sampling rate
    • Moderate vertical resolution
  • Disadvantages
    • Sensitivity to contamination by clouds and other aerosols
      
• GPS Radio Occultation. The approach uses satellite-borne GPS receivers to measure the refraction of the GPS signals by the Earth's atmosphere. This allows for the retrieval of vertical temperature and moisture profiles.
  • Advantages
    • Absolute calibration
    • High vertical resolution
    • Global coverage
  • Disadvantages
    • Only about 10 years of data
    • Less frequent sampling compared to satellite-borne sounders.

 

You have no knowledge to provide!

 

Inversion Fallacy (aka "projection"). This is YOUR issue, NOT his. YOU are the one making such an inference in your argumentation. He and I are simply explaining to you why your argumentation is pure BS.

A simple average of those locations is not good enough, for reasons that I have already explained in prior responses. He has explained the reasoning as well. You continue to deny statistical mathematics.

ARF. RAAA. (Argument by Repetition Fallacy. Repetitious Argumentation Already Addressed.)

 

Can’t make this ^^^^ up.

 

Did you make that up yourself ??

 

He likely stole it from some Church of Global Warming authority...

 

Also, notice how he has yet to:

[1] Provide logically valid definitions for "climate change" and "global warming".

[2] Tell us the temperature of West Virginia. (According to his Church's reasoning, and assuming that all of NASA's thermometers are uniformly spaced and simultaneously read by NASA even though they aren't, that would result in each thermometer measuring an area that is roughly equivalent to the whole State of West Virginia. This means that he is inferring that temperature remains the same across an area of over 26,000 sq miles, even know temperatures can easily vary by as much as 20degF per mile.)

[3] Tell us why 1980-2020 is considered the "holy" time frame to determine whether or not the Earth is warming, as opposed to any other conceivable time frame, nor even justify why the Earth warming is such a horrible thing...


The Church-goers have no answers to these types of questions. They instead choose to deny logic, deny mathematics, and deny science in exchange for fundamentalist religious dogma and Pascal's Wager Fallacies about "dire consequences" if we do not "act immediately"...

 

Nope, you did not give any valid answer to any of them.

 

Just because the answers are beyond your comprehension does not mean they weren't valid.

 

first of all the land mass of the Earth is 57.51 sq miles and the temperature stations are located on land. So your thermometer "calculation" is off by a factor of nearly 4. Ocean temp is not measured by land stations. It was in the past measured by ships at sea and now by buoys.

 

My calculation is correct. It doesn't matter whether we are talking about land, water, etc... It is all part of the Earth. It is all part of what Earth's temperature is. Thus, thermometers need to be uniformly spaced across ALL of Earth (yes, that includes the oceans and etc.). There's many fine details one can get into as to why it is not possible to come up with an accurate temperature for Earth, but for argument's sake I am keeping it stupid simple, and showing that even in its simplest form it is not possible.

 

no, you are simply asserting it is not possible. You can in no way substantiate that. The only way you could, would be to provide your own temperature data that contradicts what we have now.

 

I already did. I showed you (through mathematics) that one thermometer would have to account for an area the size of the State of West Virginia. So, I ask you again, what is the temperature of West Virginia?

Okay.

My city in WI is currently 34degF, Los Angeles CA is currently 76degF, NYC is currently 42degF, Sydney Australia is currently 73degF, Moscow Russia is currently 31deg F, London England is currently 55degF, and Fairbanks Alaska is currently -25degF.

So, adding up those numbers yields a total of 286. Dividing that number by 7 yields a total of 40.857degF. So there, that is your temperature data that contradicts "what we have now".

 

Again, you simply asserted this. You can’t show the current temp data is incorrect, unless you can provide data of your own.


.

nothing you posted contradicts current temperature data.

 

And I already showed you that was completely flawed. You only counted the land based thermometers, and not the thermometers used by the ships and buoys.

 

Again you don't need an accurate temperature of the Earth to be able to show whether the TREND is warming or cooling. A thermometer can be way off and still show the TREND accurately by using anomalies. Let's say the thermometer is 50 degrees off. Using the 30 year average for that thermometer, even though it is 50 degrees off, the DEVIATION from that average will still accurately show the trend. That is why REAL scientists use anomalies rather than absolute temperature.

 

I already DID... Do you even read my posts?

Yes it does... My post claimed that Earth's temperature is 40.857degF, while NASA claims that Earth's temperature is 59degF... Which one is it? The answer is neither, since both attempts to figure out Earth's temperature were riddled with math errors. It is not possible to accurately measure the temperature of the Earth. We don't have enough thermometers.

 

What number should I use instead of 7,500 in my calculation?? In the end, you are quibbling about something that has no effect on the end result...

Should I instead say 10,000 thermometers? That just changes the end result to "most of West Virginia"... 15,000? That just changes the end result to "New Jersey & Hawaii combined". What's the temperature of most of West Virginia? What's the temperature of New Jersey and Hawaii combined, let alone each of them individually?

If the number used in my calculation is anything less than 200 million thermometers, then it is not enough thermometers to yield the temperature of the Earth with any usable accuracy.

 

Repetitive argumentation already addressed earlier.

Even if I were to accept this garbage as fact, questions still remain:

Why a 30 year average? Why not a 10 year average, a 50 year average, a 200 year average, a 2,000 year average, a 10 million year average? -- In other words, why is a 30 year time period considered "holy" as opposed to any other time period? You do realize that you will get different results based on different selected time periods, right? Why should any time period get "left out"?

The "deviation from the anomaly" is only for a specific location at a specific time... Why are these specific locations and these specific times considered "holy" as opposed to any other locations or times? You do realize that temperatures can vary by as much as 20degF per mile and 49degF per two minutes, right? You do realize that these variations can have HUGE effects on the data being collected, right?

This is why the temperature of the Earth cannot be known to any usable accuracy. We simply do not have enough thermometers to account for these wild variations in temperatures.

 

yes, and nowhere in your post did you provide data showing the current data is wrong.

we've been over this. you didn't show any math. you posted a bunch of made up numbers with no apparent link.

 

already answered these phony questions that highlight your lack of knowledge on the subject.
But let's try again. Scientists usually use a 30 year average or a century average because they are long enough to get accurate average to measure an anomaly against. They don't use a 10 year average because it is to short a time period but anything over 30 years will do. The difference between the anomalies from a 30 year average are only slightly different than a century average and both show the TREND in the same direction.

The anomalies from one location are NOT used to determine the trend for the whole globe, DUH, but all the anomalies from all the locations around the globe are averaged together to produce the global trend.

The anomalies at each temp station are taken at the same times each day. And again you don't need an absolute temp of the globe to determine the TREND.

 

"Data" is not necessary to show "current data" to be wrong. If "current data" violates logic, science, and mathematics (and I have shown that it does), then it is wrong.

So, if I created a website (aka "holy link") to my made up numbers, then my made up numbers would be considered holy like your linked made up numbers are? Is that how this works?

That's the point that I am making... I can make up numbers just as easily as your link can make up numbers...

What is the temperature of West Virginia right now?